Booming Corporate Economy Brings Layoffs
milton brewster
I thought The US was supposed to be experiencing an economic recovery.
* * * * * *
Here in Silicon Valley, the Economy is going so good that four of
the top eight companies have announced layoffs of around eleven
thousand people in the last five weeks. Eleven thousand!
This morning, Digital Equipment company just announced a layoff
of 15,000 (!!).
The Labor Department just announced that April layoffs hit 48,000,
which is DOUBLE the March figure.
Are you next? All you heavy-hung Libertarian posters out here
probably don't think so. I got news for you: You are. Think
it through again.
Well, you probably don't see anything wrong with this picture,
anyway.
* * * * * *
Let me explain: When a big company lays off thousands of workers,
those workers stop buying things. The people they buy things
from also stop buying things. Pretty soon everyone in town
(even those who weren't laid off) have stopped buying things.
Because so many people are laid off all at once, it becomes very
hard for these workers to find new jobs. When they find new
jobs, they tend to be at lesser wages because the glut of good
labor depresses the labor market.
The so-called "free" market winds up undervaluing Labor.
While new employers don't care; this doesn't solve a major
problem for the communities involved: Making less money,
these newly hired workers continue to-- you guessed it-- not
buy things.
If I were Walmarts, Sears, Century 21, General Motors, or a
thousand other firms trying to SELL things to people; I'd be
pretty pissed off at these other companies, who are making Labor
pay for their needless downsizing.
By the way, why aren't UNIONS speaking out on all this???
* * * * * *
It is absurd for hugely profitable corporations to lay off
tens of thousands of good workers and claim that we are in
a state of Economic Recovery.
milton weasel brewster
Irish
Not many have heard of these layoffs...Can you site a newspaper artical to
back your ascertion. Also be it known that silicon valley jobs are usually
non-union since the production lines can disappear with the wind. Non-union
jobs hence no union protests.
milton brewster wrote in message ...
Phil Ronzone
In article <MPG.fbb7c1fd...@nntp.best.com> scri...@bestspam.com (milton brewster) writes:
>Here in Silicon Valley, the Economy is going so good that
>four of the top eight companies have announced layoffs of
>around eleven thousand people in the last five weeks. Eleven
>thousand!
>
>This morning, Digital Equipment company just announced a
>layoff of 15,000 (!!).
Compared to need for 80,000+ new technical types needed every year,
this might solve thge people shortage -- for a couple of months
at least.
Of course, we COULD do the socialist/communist/fascist "thing" and pass
laws prohibiting compqnies from firing. The we could have the massive
unemployment of Germany, AND, watch our bloated state-coerced companies
go bankrupt, and then nobody has a job.
CAPITALISM - Creates wealth, spreads it around.
SOCIALISM - Creates misery, spreads it around.
--
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me, and you can't prove it!" - B. Simpson
These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Richard Clark
Is there an undeclared war against parents? And has it been going on
for three decades? That's the contention of Harvard professor Cornel
West. He and his co-author, Ann Hewlett present overwhelming evidence
that parents in America have been systematically undermined and
demoralized in a whole variety of ways. Check out the current article
in Tikkun magazine (May/June '98). Or take a look at the book that
these two have written. It's called The War Against Parents.
How has this systematic sabotage taken place? Government policy is the
key.
How has government participated? By making it ever more difficult for
parents to obtain family oriented housing, by allowing the median wage
and the quality of K-12 education to steadily erode, and by encouraging
a market-oriented approach to health care, as embodied in the "managed
care" system.
West says the growing power of capital over labor has something to do
with it, too. As the Federal Reserve forces wages and prices down, the
debtor class is slowly being sacrificed to the creditor class. All who
issue credit (i.e. who loan or invest money) will be paid back in
dollars that are more valuable than the ones they lent). The median wage
continues to fall, even as per capita income and GNP grows. The top
fifth of income receivers are doing fine, while the bottom four fifths
steadily lose ground. Bill Wolman, senior editor at Business Week, says
the same thing in his new book, The Judas Economy: The Triumph of
Capital and the Betrayal of Work.
The results of this betrayal of the American worker? Since most people
are required to spend an ever larger part of their day at work to pay
the basic costs of living, the time that parents have, to spend with
their children, is diminished. The average worker now spends _163
hours_ more each year at work, than he or she used to, just a few
decades ago. Earning power for most people has gone down, so working
longer hours has become a necessity. Average income for parents has
dropped 3% since 1989. Wages for non-supervisory male production
workers has dropped 25% since 1973. Nearly a _third_ of men working
full time can no longer keep a family of four out of poverty. So women
have been forced to neglect their children, to work ever longer hours.
And growing numbers of parents now hold two jobs instead of one. It is
on the backs of these workers that most millionaires are able to double
their incomes each year.
Result: there are now 7 million American kids, between the ages of 7
and 10, who are forced to spend ever more hours home alone, neglected.
And growing numbers of them are becoming either predators or victims as
a result. Even the parents who earn enough to pay for childcare are
neglecting their kids because most of these parents are just too tired
after work to give kids the attention they need.
This is not just a tragedy for the child. It's also a tragedy for the
nation. Why? Because children who aren't adequately cared-for seldom
learn how to care for others. They learn to live only for themselves.
In their world, other people exist only to be manipulated and used.
As a result of this continuing war on parents and children, the
integrity of the American family (for growing numbers of people)
continues to spiral downward.
JC Cooper
milton brewster wrote in message ...
>
>
>I thought The US was supposed to be experiencing an economic recovery.
>
>* * * * * *
>
>Here in Silicon Valley, the Economy is going so good that four of
>the top eight companies have announced layoffs of around eleven
>thousand people in the last five weeks. Eleven thousand!
>
>This morning, Digital Equipment company just announced a layoff
>of 15,000 (!!).
>
You might understand politics but you miss a few points on business there my
friend.
The feds raise the minimum wage. Instead of paying that extra $1.50 an hour
times say 15,000 employees (that's $22,500.00 more per hour) I can take the
manufacturing part of the company to Mexico where they will practically give
me the land, plant and equipment and get the manufacturing done about $2.00
per hour less than the minimum wage was even before it was raised. So there
you have about a $52,500.00 per hour turn. I bring the parts in-country,
assemble and sell. Now if you think the minimum wage has not given me an
economic boom, you are simply wrong. If you think this magnificient increase
in profits (taxable) is not also a boon to the government you are simply
wrong. If you think the average American is too ignorant to understand what
is happening to them, you are simply correct.
But what's wrong with this. Nothing at all, if you are a stockholder. But
when the bubble bursts, who's gonna buy the goods?
How do you correct it? Start by reading "The Great Betrayal".
If I did not have kids just getting out of college, I would not give a
tinkers darn about the future of this country, because I am one of those
that believes that you get what you pay for, interpreted as you get what you
vote for and accept. So the younger generations are making their own bed and
they will have to sleep in 'em, not me.
When all else fails, play DEAD!
(Deflect, Evade, Attack, Divert)
JC Cooper
Mayor
Gnat Flats, Texas
kim overstreet
Phil Ronzone <ph...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<philEsL...@netcom.com>...
> In article <MPG.fbb7c1fd...@nntp.best.com>
scri...@bestspam.com (milton brewster) writes:
> Compared to need for 80,000+ new technical types needed every year,
> this might solve thge people shortage -- for a couple of months
> at least.
>
> Of course, we COULD do the socialist/communist/fascist "thing" and pass
> laws prohibiting compqnies from firing. The we could have the massive
> unemployment of Germany, AND, watch our bloated state-coerced companies
> go bankrupt, and then nobody has a job.
>
> CAPITALISM - Creates FEAR,HATE, nad IGNORANCE, spreads it around.
>
> SOCIALISM - Creates misery, spreads it around.
>
>
>
> --
> "I didn't do it, nobody saw me, and you can't prove it!" - B. Simpson
>
> These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap
..)
>
Park, Beum-Yong
여봐 김씨, 벙어린가(Hey. Mr Kim. Are you dumb?)
kim overstreet 이(가) <6iu2kq$7...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> 메시지에서
작성하였습니다...
Victor Levis
Richard Clark <ca...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<6itbnq$s...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
> Is there an undeclared war against parents?..... Since most people
> are required to spend an ever larger part of their day at work to pay
> the basic costs of living, the time that parents have, to spend with
> their children, is diminished. The average worker now spends _163
> hours_ more each year at work, than he or she used to, just a few
> decades ago. Earning power for most people has gone down, so working
> longer hours has become a necessity. Average income for parents has
> dropped 3% since 1989. Wages for non-supervisory male production
> workers has dropped 25% since 1973. Nearly a _third_ of men working
> full time can no longer keep a family of four out of poverty. So women
> have been forced to neglect their children, to work ever longer hours.
> And growing numbers of parents now hold two jobs instead of one. It is
> on the backs of these workers that most millionaires are able to double
> their incomes each year.
I deny the proposition that 'most millionaires are able to double their
incomes every year'.
Such gross exaggerations and generalizations do not serve your
cause. Instead, you appear to be propaganidizing without regard
to facts.
I'd be prepared to discuss the trends in purchasing power that concern
you, but you'll need to commit to factual posting first.
--
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
LQuest
Thank you Victor. Geesh -- the whine is getting more shrill each day
from the dependent class. They are literally drowning in good solid
advice on how to escape the dependent class, but for inexplicable
reasons, many of them would rather complain about how "unfair" life
is. Given the FACT that "fair" is an objectively undefinable emotional
concept, I have to wonder if we shouldn't put addiction to "fairness"
on the growing list of controlled substances.
--Mike
Phil Ronzone
In article <6iu2kq$7...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> "kim overstreet" <oooh...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Phil Ronzone <ph...@netcom.com> wrote in article
><philEsL...@netcom.com>...
>>In article <MPG.fbb7c1fd...@nntp.best.com>
>scri...@bestspam.com (milton brewster) writes:
>
>>Compared to need for 80,000+ new technical types needed every
>>year, this might solve thge people shortage -- for a couple
>>of months at least.
>>
>>Of course, we COULD do the socialist/communist/fascist
>>"thing" and pass laws prohibiting compqnies from firing. The
>>we could have the massive unemployment of Germany, AND, watch
>>our bloated state-coerced companies go bankrupt, and then
>>nobody has a job.
>>
>>CAPITALISM - Creates FEAR,HATE, nad IGNORANCE, spreads it
------------------------
------------------------
>>around.
>>
>>
>>SOCIALISM - Creates misery, spreads it around.
It is customary in these discussions to quote somebody WITHOUT
changing words.
Your childish actions are, well, those of a child.
Obviously, you are upset and being able to rebut anything. Well, get
used to it.
In the meantime, just HOW do you manage to wrap your anus around
your neck like that? (No, i don't want fries with that).
--
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me, and you can't prove it!" - B. Simpson
These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Michael Ejercito
In article <6iu2kq$7...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "kim overstreet"
<oooh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Phil Ronzone <ph...@netcom.com> wrote in article
> <philEsL...@netcom.com>...
> > In article <MPG.fbb7c1fd...@nntp.best.com>
> scri...@bestspam.com (milton brewster) writes:
>
> > Compared to need for 80,000+ new technical types needed every year,
> > this might solve thge people shortage -- for a couple of months
> > at least.
> >
> > Of course, we COULD do the socialist/communist/fascist "thing" and pass
> > laws prohibiting compqnies from firing. The we could have the massive
> > unemployment of Germany, AND, watch our bloated state-coerced companies
> > go bankrupt, and then nobody has a job.
> >
> > CAPITALISM - Creates FEAR,HATE, nad IGNORANCE, spreads it around.
> >
>
Once again a leftist loon misquotes people. Fear,hate,and ignorance has
nothing to do with capitalism kimmy;in fact,socialism has more of it.
Michael
milton brewster
In article <aHo41.2388$8f1.9...@nnrp2.ptd.net>, mwm...@ptd.net says...
> Not many have heard of these layoffs...Can you site a newspaper artical to
> back your ascertion. Also be it known that silicon valley jobs are usually
> non-union since the production lines can disappear with the wind. Non-union
> jobs hence no union protests.
> milton brewster wrote in message ...
First; Cites on newgroups don't prove anything.
Second; I provided a cite: The US Labor departnment.
Third; If you really, really want to read more about it, go to the
San Jose Mercury News homepage and poke around using their
Search Facility. Apparently, you will be surprised.
milton weasel brewster
PS: Why in Hell hasn't Organized Labor spoken out on these things?
Is there any social institution in worse touch with the working
men and women of America, than America's organized Unions?
*****************************
milton brewster
In article <6itgg5$imr$4...@news1.iamerica.net>, gnatjc...@wcnet.net
says...
>
> milton brewster wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> friend.
>
[ Anti-NAFTA explanation, snipped. ]
... hardly. I just happen to see things differently from you. Your
rigid adherance to a narrow quasi-moralistic economic point of view,
leaves you pretty much blind to the problem.
The problem is, that we are having huge layoffs in an economy that
is supposed to be booming. Silicon Vally isn't shipping jobs
off-shore-- that happened a dozen years ago. Minimum Wage has really
noooo effect on Silicon Valley wages, anyway, because the layoff
jobs are skilled jobs.
Today's economic mechanisms can't handle the labor factor in the
'free market' equation. The fact is,that nobody needs to be laid
off here. Profitable Silicon Valley companies won't increase their
profits with these layoffs. The economic damage done (because the
layoffs are great) is itself great enough to affect the health of
many other companies doing business in this area.
Take your MBA degree and wrap it around some new reality.
* * * * * * *
Where in Hell is the Union movement on this Labor issue? Why
aren't they issuing press releases and lobbying Congress for
new Legislation? How expensive is it to at least put some stuff
out on the internet?
milton weasel brewster
KMF
milton brewster wrote:
> ...............
> Where in Hell is the Union movement on this Labor issue? Why
> aren't they issuing press releases and lobbying Congress for
> new Legislation? How expensive is it to at least put some stuff
> out on the internet?
>
> milton weasel brewster
Where's the unions? The unions are broken shells of what they once were. They
say a few things from time to time, but nobody listens and it rarely makes the
news. Half of the time they seem to be keeping their heads down to avoid being
noticed and hurt worse.
milton brewster
In article <355491EC...@erols.com>, km...@erols.com says...
This really gets me. If I were Sweeney (the guy who pretends to
manage AFL-CIO Activities-- at least he's better than that vedgetable
Kirkland was), I'd order my staff to produce a King-Hell of a great
web site, full of information and analysis of the Economy from Labor's
perspective.
I'd make sure that the stuff I post is profoundly interesting to
people who take paychecks for a living, to small business (often
closer to Labor problems than to business problems, but they don't
know it because Unions are moribund).
I'd have at least two or three really provocative weekly columns-- where
excellent columnists go out of their way to be quotable and reasonably
provocative. I'd make sure these guys/gals said stuff every week
that people **had** to know.
... and I'd promote the tar out of my website. I wouldn't rest until
it was one of the top ten most visited sites on the web. The site
should be so damned good, that every person in Congress would have
to start his/her day by logging in to find out what Labor has to
say today.
None of this would cost much: Unions can't argue that they don't
have enough money to publicize their points of view, when they can
publcicize it for free on the internet. I can't believe
how goddamned stupid the Organized Labor Movement is managed. It
couldn't be worse, if the American Manufacturers' Association took
over Union management themselves.
milton weasel brewster
LQuest
Your lament is understandable. Have you considered that unions are
where they are today, with rare and noble exceptions, because of the
essentially fallible and corruptible nature of the human animal? I
wonder how many union bosses over the years have been bought off in
what amounts to a sacrifice of principle to un-enlightened
self-interest? Perhaps the sum total of all that corruption has
finally coalesced into the outcome we see today for unions.
--Mike
Zepp Weasel
On Sat, 09 May 1998 19:35:16 GMT, lib...@DELTHIS.airmail.net (LQuest)
wrote:
Betcha Elfie can't bring himself to admit that employers are corrupt,
though.
>
>--Mike
>
----------------------------------------------------
Not dead, in jail, or a slave?
Thank a liberal.
-----------------------------------------------------
Be good, servile little citizen-employees:
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
When in doubt, call a stoat!
-----------------------------------------------------
mco...@halcyon.com
In article <7A276270E078BCEA.8F0897C38DA6FEDF.482A759525C8785F@library-
proxy.airnews.net>,
>
>
To what extent is it illegal for labor unions to become involved in
politics? Is it illegal for organized labor to have a web site that
discusses the pro's and con's of replacing wage taxes with land and asset
taxes so as to increase the value of labor in relation to the value of
capital? Tax methods have *everything* to do with how much "labor" or
"capital" benefits from increased productivity. If wages are taxed and
employees/employers must pay these taxes, then any decision about the number
of employees as versus the number of machines becomes pretty much a no-
brainer. The machines are gonna get the nod every time, and the employees
are going to get the ax. But what if assets were taxed instead of wages, and
what if the unions changed their focus to attempt to get the kind of benefits
they currently lobby buisiness for directly from government? e.g. What if
labor insisted on National Health Insurance instead of insisting that
employers provide better health insurance? If the union leaders are in bed
with company management then the best thing to do is cut them both out of the
deal altogther.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Rev. Matthew A. Carey
On Sat, 9 May 1998 12:13:45 -0700, milt.b...@liberals.com (milton
brewster) wrote:
> I can't believe
>how goddamned stupid the Organized Labor Movement is managed.
What do you mean? The movement is managed very very well!
...by the bosses.
___________________________________________________
Join the Vision Temple email discussion list!
sign up: http://www.humboldt1.com/~carey/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
heinz ewatch recall product mcdonald's lawsuit fraud ford sears
ibm microsoft general electric general motors poison proctor gamble
johnson & johnson mennen du pont motorola burke gurk heroin voodoo porn
LQuest
On Sun, 10 May 1998 23:22:00 GMT, mco...@halcyon.com wrote:
>In article <7A276270E078BCEA.8F0897C38DA6FEDF.482A759525C8785F@library-
>proxy.airnews.net>,
> lib...@DELTHIS.airmail.net (LQuest) wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 9 May 1998 12:13:45 -0700, milt.b...@liberals.com (milton
>> brewster) wrote:
>>
I'm not a lawyer (I have far more noble aspirations -- like selling
smut :-) ) so I really don't know if it's illegal at all. I doubt
that it is so long as the individual union members are not forced to
contribute to political activism.
>Is it illegal for organized labor to have a web site that
>discusses the pro's and con's of replacing wage taxes with land and asset
>taxes so as to increase the value of labor in relation to the value of
>capital? Tax methods have *everything* to do with how much "labor" or
>"capital" benefits from increased productivity. If wages are taxed and
>employees/employers must pay these taxes, then any decision about the number
>of employees as versus the number of machines becomes pretty much a no-
>brainer. The machines are gonna get the nod every time, and the employees
>are going to get the ax.
I agree with you that Income (and property too) is not a proper basis
for calculating taxes paid by ANY individual regardless of this/her
financial status. In fact doing so is the dumbest, most destructive
public policy ever inflicted upon the American people. It has cost us
literally TRILLIONS of dollars in wasted productivity since it was
enacted in 1913. And, as I understand them, asset taxes would be just
as bad since they would require government to know who owns what.
Such knowledge has always and always will empower corruption in the
application of taxes. It will STILL be a CLASSIST tax system since
assets are the manifestation of INDIVIDUAL human accomplishment in the
material world. Classism is morally equal to racism only MORE
destructive. But I digress.
The question of machines vs. humans in any commercial, productive
activity must be based on a lot more than just which one costs more in
the short term. Regardless of our tax policy, if a machine can do a
boring, repetitive and/or dangerous job that needs no creative human
attention, then, except for the short term displacement of unskilled
or semi-skilled workers, humanity is generally better off letting the
machines do the work. The cost of NOT doing so, is greater over time
than the value of NOT doing it simply because some un-skilled or
semi-skilled workers are displaced. Also, what about the engineers,
manufacturers, and maintenance technicians needed to keep the machines
running and up to date? I look forward to the day when technology
will eliminate the need for ANYONE to work JUST to earn the essentials
of life. And no, I'm not suggesting any kind of socialism here. I'm
suggesting the very likely possibility that technology will someday
render just about all of the socio-political "-isms" irrelevant. The
day WILL come when technology will free all of humanity from the
drudgery of working just to live. It won't come in my lifetime or my
kids' lifetimes but I am convinced it will happen IF humanity can
avoid self-immolation (a huge IF!).
>But what if assets were taxed instead of wages, and
>what if the unions changed their focus to attempt to get the kind of benefits
>they currently lobby buisiness for directly from government? e.g. What if
>labor insisted on National Health Insurance
Who would pay for such insurance? Would YOU have to pay for any part
of my medical treatment even if I live an irresponsible lifestyle and
screw up my body? If so, why?
>instead of insisting that
>employers provide better health insurance? If the union leaders are in bed
>with company management then the best thing to do is cut them both out of the
>deal altogther.
In favor of what -- government? What if government is and has been a
major player in corruption of the current labor unions?
Just curious.
--Mike
Zepp Weasel
>The feds raise the minimum wage. Instead of paying that extra $1.50 an hour
>times say 15,000 employees (that's $22,500.00 more per hour) I can take the
>manufacturing part of the company to Mexico where they will practically give
>me the land, plant and equipment and get the manufacturing done about $2.00
>per hour less than the minimum wage was even before it was raised. So there
>you have about a $52,500.00 per hour turn. I bring the parts in-country,
>assemble and sell. Now if you think the minimum wage has not given me an
>economic boom, you are simply wrong. If you think this magnificient increase
>in profits (taxable) is not also a boon to the government you are simply
>wrong. If you think the average American is too ignorant to understand what
>is happening to them, you are simply correct.
How much does it cost to move the plant to Mexico? Did you factor
that in? And what are the taxes?
Also, the American people have made it increasingly clear that they
aren't in the least bit interested in sending their kids off to die to
protect your sorry ass if the Mexican government decides you need
nationalizations, or the local folks that both the government and you
need to be burned to the ground. Have you factored that risk in?
>
>But what's wrong with this. Nothing at all, if you are a stockholder. But
>when the bubble bursts, who's gonna buy the goods?
Who buys them now, at $5.25 an hour?
>
>How do you correct it? Start by reading "The Great Betrayal".
Thanks but I'll just observe how the economy is doing, and decide that
both the right wing economists who told us that keeping the minimum
wage down was good and the Perotnoids who talked about "a giant
sucking sound" were both full of shit. Unemployment is 4.3%--the
lowest in 28 years--and inflation is about 1.5%--also the lowest in
many years.
>
>If I did not have kids just getting out of college, I would not give a
>tinkers darn about the future of this country, because I am one of those
>that believes that you get what you pay for, interpreted as you get what you
>vote for and accept. So the younger generations are making their own bed and
>they will have to sleep in 'em, not me.
>
>When all else fails, play DEAD!
>(Deflect, Evade, Attack, Divert)
>
>JC Cooper
> Mayor
>Gnat Flats, Texas
>
----------------------------------------------------
Ken
LQuest wrote:
The addiction Libertarians have to the concept of the free market solving
everything is so laughable that no decent economist takes it seriously.And the
contempt you (I am including Lquest and others of his type, like Zarlenga)
have for the working class only demonstrates how stupid you are, because
without them you would be forced to become actually self-sufficient, which you
wouldn't like at all.
===============================================
Andreas announces that global capitalism is a delusion. "There isn't
one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not
one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of
politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand
that this is a socialist country."
--Dwayne Andreas, head of Archer Daniels Midland
"Market values, ripped out of a broader context of socially shared
norms, declare that opportunism, cutting corners, taking advantage
are not only legitimate but virtuous, since squeezing out the maximum
possible price that the market will bear maximizes efficiency."
--Robert Kuttner, author of the book Everything for Sale.
LQuest
>everything is so laughable that no decent economist takes it seriously. And the
>contempt you (I am including Lquest and others of his type, like Zarlenga)
>have for the working class
Uhh... excuse me? I AM a member of the working class. It's more
accurately known as the independent class (you know, those folks who
are almost 100% responsible for the productivity that keeps the rest
of the world from starving to death. I just don't whine about it like
you adolescent little snots who never had to sign the FRONT of someone
else's paycheck. After living a half century on earth, partying my
way though college in the embarrassing Sixties I've discovered a few
things that actually work -- like integrity, self-dependence,
objective morality and honest perception of reality. All of these
things are antithetical to the core mentality running rampant through
the liberal left, much of the conservative right and ALL of the Logic
Free Zone.
>only demonstrates how stupid you are, because
>without them you would be forced to become actually self-sufficient, which you
>wouldn't like at all.
Tell ya what little boy, after your momma spanks your tiny pink bottom
for being an arrogant little ingrate, let's both go on up to the Wind
River Wilderness in Wyoming and just see which of us is
"self-sufficient" after a couple of months. OK? (BTW -- surviving
in the wilderness with no guns and NO modern conveniences is what I
call a vacation.)
>===============================================
>Andreas announces that global capitalism is a delusion. "There isn't
>one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not
>one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of
>politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand
>that this is a socialist country."
Unfortunately, this is a true statement. And people in the midwest
were among the FIRST to see that Socialism had infected America.
>--Dwayne Andreas, head of Archer Daniels Midland
>
>"Market values, ripped out of a broader context of socially shared
>norms, declare that opportunism, cutting corners, taking advantage
>are not only legitimate but virtuous, since squeezing out the maximum
>possible price that the market will bear maximizes efficiency."
>--Robert Kuttner, author of the book Everything for Sale.
Objectivist ethics, sincerely practiced is a cure for this modern day
evil.
--Mike
mco...@halcyon.com
In article <287086092FDB497F.D6044E1ED1D0DEA4.0EC8D29C6B236CEF@library-
proxy.airnews.net>,
So long as the proceeds of asset taxation (a tax on actual wealth as opposed
to a tax on income) is employed for the purposes of defense, law enforcement,
and asset enhancing infrastructure development, then such a tax is merely a
user fee for services rendered to those who claim to own personal assets
(includes land). If and only if such proceeds were spend on social endeavors
such as SS and welfare could such a tax be anything other than a fee for
service transaction.
> The question of machines vs. humans in any commercial, productive
> activity must be based on a lot more than just which one costs more in
> the short term. Regardless of our tax policy, if a machine can do a
> boring, repetitive and/or dangerous job that needs no creative human
> attention, then, except for the short term displacement of unskilled
> or semi-skilled workers, humanity is generally better off letting the
> machines do the work. The cost of NOT doing so, is greater over time
> than the value of NOT doing it simply because some un-skilled or
> semi-skilled workers are displaced. Also, what about the engineers,
> manufacturers, and maintenance technicians needed to keep the machines
> running and up to date? I look forward to the day when technology
> will eliminate the need for ANYONE to work JUST to earn the essentials
> of life. And no, I'm not suggesting any kind of socialism here. I'm
> suggesting the very likely possibility that technology will someday
> render just about all of the socio-political "-isms" irrelevant. The
> day WILL come when technology will free all of humanity from the
> drudgery of working just to live. It won't come in my lifetime or my
> kids' lifetimes but I am convinced it will happen IF humanity can
> avoid self-immolation (a huge IF!).
>
There are limits to how much production can be tollerated. If we were
instantly able to retrain all persons to be engineers and technicians and we
replace all persons doing any kind of labor with machines then the result
would still be massive unemployment because the population could not absorb
all the production that would result from full employment. If consumption
was forced or encoraged to the expent necessary to create full employment
then the result would be massive polution and the detruction of the
environment in one big blob of gluttony.
> >But what if assets were taxed instead of wages, and
> >what if the unions changed their focus to attempt to get the kind of
benefits
> >they currently lobby buisiness for directly from government? e.g. What if
> >labor insisted on National Health Insurance
>
> Who would pay for such insurance? Would YOU have to pay for any part
> of my medical treatment even if I live an irresponsible lifestyle and
> screw up my body? If so, why?
>
National Health Insurance, SS, Education, and all other social programs
should be funded with no exemptions, no exclusions, flat rate consumption tax
(e.g. a very big tax on transportation fuels would accomplish this quite
nicely). As there would be no income taxes, fica taxes, medicare taxes, or
any other withholding from any employee's check, then the net result of the
asset and consumption tax would be a very large positive for all working
people. Excise taxation (e.g. a tax on tobacco to offset any additional
costs of smoking related illness) is the proper mechanism for addressing the
costs to society which occur due to abberant life style choices. The purpose
of such taxes should be to educate the public as to the dangers, and to care
for those who are afflicted. These costs should eb borne by those who
participate in these practices, NOT THE REST OF US. As ye smoke so shall ye
pay.
> >instead of insisting that
> >employers provide better health insurance? If the union leaders are in bed
> >with company management then the best thing to do is cut them both out of
the
> >deal altogther.
>
> In favor of what -- government?
Yep!
What if government is and has been a
> major player in corruption of the current labor unions?
>
> Just curious.
>
> --Mike
>
Then FIX IT. Use the power of unions to address the problems that all
workers are having and quit messing around with individual employers or
particular kinds of workers. Inform the members about asset and consumption
taxation and they will vote accordingly. Do not vote for any person who
would continue the current rip off system of income taxation.
Patrick Devaney
milt.b...@liberals.com (milton brewster) wrote:
> This really gets me. If I were Sweeney (the guy who pretends to
> manage AFL-CIO Activities-- at least he's better than that vedgetable
> Kirkland was), I'd order my staff to produce a King-Hell of a great
> web site, full of information and analysis of the Economy from Labor's
> perspective.
They have (indirectly) done this. They are one of the funders of:
The Economic Policy Institute
Phone: 1-800-EPI-4844 [in Washington, D.C.: (202) 331-5510]
E-mail: e...@epinet.org
Mailing Address:
Economic Policy Institute
1660 L Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20036
This website posts a few well-written white papers per week, and
archives several years worth of them. But my favorite feature is
their deconstruction of the Orwellian doublespeak that passes
for economic reporting in the so-called "liberal" mainstream press.
That feature is named:
"Reading between the lines".
Selected corrections, clarifications, and amplifications to
economics coverage in the New York Times and Washington Post.
Updated weekly.
Happy reading,
Patrick Devaney
LQuest
Gee -- I think we agree! Of course my whole approach to social
justice begins at the individual level. Since the individual is the
final, irreducible element of any society. What's good for the
individual is generally good for the group that composed of
individuals.
--Mike
milton brewster
In article <6j5cqn$j4s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mco...@halcyon.com says...
> In article <7A276270E078BCEA.8F0897C38DA6FEDF.482A759525C8785F@library-
> proxy.airnews.net>,
> lib...@DELTHIS.airmail.net (LQuest) wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 9 May 1998 12:13:45 -0700, milt.b...@liberals.com (milton
> > brewster) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <355491EC...@erols.com>, km...@erols.com says...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> milton brewster wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > ...............
> > >> > Where in Hell is the Union movement on this Labor issue? Why
> > >> > aren't they issuing press releases and lobbying Congress for
> > >> > new Legislation? How expensive is it to at least put some stuff
> > >> > out on the internet?
> > >> >
> > >> > milton weasel brewster
> > >>
> > >> Where's the unions? The unions are broken shells of what they once
> were. They
> > >> say a few things from time to time, but nobody listens and it rarely
> makes the
> > >> news. Half of the time they seem to be keeping their heads down to avoid
> being
> > >> noticed and hurt worse.
> > >
> > >
> > >manage AFL-CIO Activities-- at least he's better than that vedgetable
> > >Kirkland was), I'd order my staff to produce a King-Hell of a great
> > >web site, full of information and analysis of the Economy from Labor's
> > >perspective.
> > >
> discusses the pro's and con's of replacing wage taxes with land and asset
> taxes so as to increase the value of labor in relation to the value of
> capital? Tax methods have *everything* to do with how much "labor" or
> "capital" benefits from increased productivity. If wages are taxed and
> employees/employers must pay these taxes, then any decision about the number
> of employees as versus the number of machines becomes pretty much a no-
> brainer. The machines are gonna get the nod every time, and the employees
> what if the unions changed their focus to attempt to get the kind of benefits
> they currently lobby buisiness for directly from government? e.g. What if
> employers provide better health insurance? If the union leaders are in bed
> with company management then the best thing to do is cut them both out of the
> deal altogther.
I suppose this approach is a bit abstract for some readers; but I like
it.
You're just saying that if I have a choice between buying a machine
and hiring another employee; and I know I'll have to pay higher taxes
if I hire another employee--- then I'll buy the machine.
I agree that this is a basic problem with the American Labor
Movement--and one which they will have to fix.
Also: I don't want my health insurance to depend upon my state of
employment!! Labor Unions and Businesses that insist on this
proviso are ignoring the social problem that exists--- that we
must insure EVERYBODY-- not just employed people.
I sometimes work as a "temporary" employee, and I am **not**
covered by health insurance. Employers designed this system to
save money (hire temps: They cost less because nobody insures
'em). This might have been an interesting strategy for Employers
to follow once--- but now almost 40% of all US Workers are Temps!!
What the fuck are we supposed to do!!??
That's 40 percent!!
Where does that leave Clinton's fucking health insurance plan,
that depends upon people being steadily employed before
they're insured!!??
* * * * * * * *
I note with dismay that this thread is crossposted to a labor union
newsgroup, and no one from that group has seen fit to present the
Union point of view. Jesus H Christ: Why would anyone join an
American Union when people in their own newsgroup won't even take
a god damned 20 minutes out to explain where they're at with
Health Care???? There are only 20,000 people reading this thread
right now....
This is one of the few times I'm embarrassed to be a Liberal.
milton weasel brewster
milton brewster
In article <355740...@research.panasonic.com>,
pat...@research.panasonic.com says...
> milt.b...@liberals.com (milton brewster) wrote:
>
> > This really gets me. If I were Sweeney (the guy who pretends to
> > manage AFL-CIO Activities-- at least he's better than that vedgetable
> > Kirkland was), I'd order my staff to produce a King-Hell of a great
> > web site, full of information and analysis of the Economy from Labor's
> > perspective.
>
>
> The Economic Policy Institute
>
> http://www.epinet.org
>
> Phone: 1-800-EPI-4844 [in Washington, D.C.: (202) 331-5510]
> E-mail: e...@epinet.org
> Mailing Address:
> Economic Policy Institute
> 1660 L Street, NW, Suite 1200
> Washington DC 20036
>
> This website posts a few well-written white papers per week, and
> archives several years worth of them. But my favorite feature is
> their deconstruction of the Orwellian doublespeak that passes
> for economic reporting in the so-called "liberal" mainstream press.
> That feature is named:
>
> "Reading between the lines".
> Selected corrections, clarifications, and amplifications to
> economics coverage in the New York Times and Washington Post.
> Updated weekly.
>
> Happy reading,
>
> Patrick Devaney
---
Thanks for the tip-- It's a great site and it does do part of the job.
In the meantime, I think Unions STILL have a big job to do. Where are
their daily press releases on CBS News? Why aren't they speaking out
on current political events that are important to working people? Why
aren't they making news? ... everybody else does. Hell, even guerillas
in Chiapas (sp) Mexico manage the task.
Look-- in the midst of this huge boom that everyone is selling us
(and I'm doing fine, thank you); there is also a huge bust going on.
Right here in Silicon Valley, we've had 14,000 highly paid workers
laid off from four of the largest 8 or 9 companies here. This is
strange.
The American Union Movement should be SAYING something.
After they get through talking; they should DO something. Things aren't
right.
* * * * * *
And where IS that great AFL-CIO website, anyway?
milton weasel brewster
>
Zepp Weasel
On Mon, 11 May 1998 14:58:37 GMT, lib...@DELTHIS.airmail.net (LQuest)
wrote:
>On Mon, 11 May 1998 03:29:01 -0400, Ken <ken...@datatone.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>LQuest wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 May 1998 13:41:34 GMT, "Victor Levis" <vicl...@ican.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Richard Clark <ca...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
>>> ><6itbnq$s...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>>> >
>>> >> Is there an undeclared war against parents?..... Since most people
>>> >> are required to spend an ever larger part of their day at work to pay
>>> >> the basic costs of living, the time that parents have, to spend with
>>> >> their children, is diminished. The average worker now spends _163
>>> >> hours_ more each year at work, than he or she used to, just a few
>>> >> decades ago. Earning power for most people has gone down, so working
>>> >> longer hours has become a necessity. Average income for parents has
>>> >> dropped 3% since 1989. Wages for non-supervisory male production
>>> >> workers has dropped 25% since 1973. Nearly a _third_ of men working
>>> >> full time can no longer keep a family of four out of poverty. So women
>>> >> have been forced to neglect their children, to work ever longer hours.
>>> >> And growing numbers of parents now hold two jobs instead of one. It is
>>> >> on the backs of these workers that most millionaires are able to double
>>> >> their incomes each year.
>>> >
>>> >I deny the proposition that 'most millionaires are able to double their
>>> >incomes every year'.
>>> >
>>> >Such gross exaggerations and generalizations do not serve your
>>> >cause. Instead, you appear to be propaganidizing without regard
>>> >to facts.
During the 80's, for the "bottom" 80% of the population (what Jones
sneers at as "the dependent class", wages declined 20%. For the top
20%, they increased by 28% per year (source: BEA). For the top 1%,
income of all kinds increased by 120% per year.
During the ninties, the trends have changed fractionally. The "lower
80" now see gains of about 3% per year. Give them a few more years,
and they'll be back to where they were in 1978.
If anything, the problem has been understated. The growing disparity
between rich and poor has become a national disgrace.
Yes, yes, we know. You can dam a Niagra falls with one hand while
fucking a grizzley bear. We're all very, very impressed, Elfie. But
are you of any real use to society?
>
>>===============================================
>>Andreas announces that global capitalism is a delusion. "There isn't
>>one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not
>>one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of
>>politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand
>>that this is a socialist country."
>
>Unfortunately, this is a true statement. And people in the midwest
>were among the FIRST to see that Socialism had infected America.
>
>>--Dwayne Andreas, head of Archer Daniels Midland
>>
>>"Market values, ripped out of a broader context of socially shared
>>norms, declare that opportunism, cutting corners, taking advantage
>>are not only legitimate but virtuous, since squeezing out the maximum
>>possible price that the market will bear maximizes efficiency."
>>--Robert Kuttner, author of the book Everything for Sale.
>
>Objectivist ethics, sincerely practiced is a cure for this modern day
>evil.
>
>--Mike
----------------------------------------------------
Victor Levis
Zepp Weasel <zepphol...@snowcrest.net> wrote in article
<3557a0fe...@news.snowcrest.net>...
> During the 80's, for the "bottom" 80% of the population (what Jones
> sneers at as "the dependent class", wages declined 20%. For the top
> 20%, they increased by 28% per year (source: BEA). For the top 1%,
> income of all kinds increased by 120% per year.
Let's see if this whopper makes sense.
1980 $ 200,000 (assumed)
1981 $ 440,000
1982 $ 968,000
1983 $ 2,129,600
1984 $ 4,685,120
1985 $ 10,307,264
1986 $ 22,675,981
1987 $ 49,887,158
1988 $109,751,750
1989 $241,453,850
Sure. If in 1980 about 1 million income earners made $200,000 a year, by
1989 they would have made $241 million per year. NOT!
Now, you can change the 1980 assumed figure and the absurd result does not
change. For example, there are NOT as many people making $121 million per
year today as there were making $100,000 in 1980. Nor, if 1% made $500,000
in 1980, are there 1% making $483 million per year today. Fact is, 120% per
year means 1,200 times more over 9 years. Not bloody likely.
FU
It's called creative destruction. It's a mechanism the market uses to make
sure that resources are continually put to better use. If a given company
can't use resources effectively, they are recycled in the marketplace to
companies who can. Digital Equipment Corporation is a failure because their
founder Ken Olson didn't take the PC revolution seriously 15 years ago. Now
that Compaq has purchased Digital, I expect to see the remaining Digital
resources be put to good use, after a few more layoffs.
>In article <6itgg5$imr$4...@news1.iamerica.net>, gnatjc...@wcnet.net
>says...
>>
>> milton brewster wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >
>> >I thought The US was supposed to be experiencing an economic recovery.
>> >
>> >* * * * * *
>> >
>> >Here in Silicon Valley, the Economy is going so good that four of
>> >the top eight companies have announced layoffs of around eleven
>> >thousand people in the last five weeks. Eleven thousand!
>> >
>> >This morning, Digital Equipment company just announced a layoff
>> >of 15,000 (!!).
>> >
>> >The Labor Department just announced that April layoffs hit 48,000,
>> >which is DOUBLE the March figure.
>> >
>> >Are you next? All you heavy-hung Libertarian posters out here
>> >probably don't think so. I got news for you: You are. Think
>> >it through again.
>> >
>> >Well, you probably don't see anything wrong with this picture,
>> >anyway.
>> >
>> >* * * * * *
>> >
>> >Let me explain: When a big company lays off thousands of workers,
>> >those workers stop buying things. The people they buy things
>> >from also stop buying things. Pretty soon everyone in town
>> >(even those who weren't laid off) have stopped buying things.
>> >
>> >Because so many people are laid off all at once, it becomes very
>> >hard for these workers to find new jobs. When they find new
>> >jobs, they tend to be at lesser wages because the glut of good
>> >labor depresses the labor market.
>> >
>> >The so-called "free" market winds up undervaluing Labor.
>> >While new employers don't care; this doesn't solve a major
>> >problem for the communities involved: Making less money,
>> >these newly hired workers continue to-- you guessed it-- not
>> >buy things.
>> >
>> >If I were Walmarts, Sears, Century 21, General Motors, or a
>> >thousand other firms trying to SELL things to people; I'd be
>> >pretty pissed off at these other companies, who are making Labor
>> >pay for their needless downsizing.
>> >
>> >By the way, why aren't UNIONS speaking out on all this???
>> >
>> >* * * * * *
>> >
James A. donald
--
On Thu, 7 May 1998 09:07:35 -0700, scri...@bestspam.com (milton
brewster) wrote:
> Here in Silicon Valley, the Economy is going so good that
> four of the top eight companies have announced layoffs of
> around eleven thousand people in the last five weeks.
> Eleven thousand!
Since unemployment is falling radically, and demand for labor is
rising ever higher, this of course implies that the trend is for big
companies to be replaced by many smaller companies.
> Are you next? All you heavy-hung Libertarian posters out
> here probably don't think so. I got news for you: You
> are. Think it through again.
Been laid off many times. Each time my phone began ringing with
people representing new and rapidly expanding companies, looking for
workers.
> Let me explain: When a big company lays off thousands of
> workers, those workers stop buying things. The people they
> buy things from also stop buying things. Pretty soon
> everyone in town (even those who weren't laid off) have
> stopped buying things.
Yet strange to report, we observe the economy continually getting
higher levels of employement, production, consumption, more people
becoming middle class, and so on and so forth.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
tezwAAUENZF6loYGmk2UzIlAoDtaDDkEvh+mFoyU
4n9IrL2pzhWrv/cz59CqoMs+SKbdUJNEbbxbmgn3N
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
Zepp Weasel
On 12 May 1998 02:48:53 GMT, "Victor Levis" <vicl...@ican.net> wrote:
>Zepp Weasel <zepphol...@snowcrest.net> wrote in article
><3557a0fe...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>
>
>> During the 80's, for the "bottom" 80% of the population (what Jones
>> sneers at as "the dependent class", wages declined 20%. For the top
>> 20%, they increased by 28% per year (source: BEA). For the top 1%,
>> income of all kinds increased by 120% per year.
>
>
>Let's see if this whopper makes sense.
>
>1980 $ 200,000 (assumed)
>1981 $ 440,000
>1982 $ 968,000
>1983 $ 2,129,600
>1984 $ 4,685,120
>1985 $ 10,307,264
>1986 $ 22,675,981
>1987 $ 49,887,158
>1988 $109,751,750
>1989 $241,453,850
>
>Sure. If in 1980 about 1 million income earners made $200,000 a year, by
>1989 they would have made $241 million per year. NOT!
Actually, that's about right, Vic. Come out of your igloo and take a
look at what's been happening down here.
>
>Now, you can change the 1980 assumed figure and the absurd result does not
>change. For example, there are NOT as many people making $121 million per
>year today as there were making $100,000 in 1980. Nor, if 1% made $500,000
>in 1980, are there 1% making $483 million per year today. Fact is, 120% per
>year means 1,200 times more over 9 years. Not bloody likely.
Welcome to the wonderful world of the great Reagan Rape of America,
where vast amounts of our national wealth have been stolen.
>--
Victor Levis
> On 12 May 1998 02:48:53 GMT, "Victor Levis" <vicl...@ican.net> wrote:
>
> >Zepp Weasel <zepphol...@snowcrest.net> wrote in article
> ><3557a0fe...@news.snowcrest.net>...
> >
> >
> >> During the 80's, for the "bottom" 80% of the population (what Jones
> >> sneers at as "the dependent class", wages declined 20%. For the top
> >> 20%, they increased by 28% per year (source: BEA). For the top 1%,
> >> income of all kinds increased by 120% per year.
> >
> >Let's see if this whopper makes sense.
[Victor makes a table]
1980 $ 200,000 (assumed)
1981 $ 440,000
1982 $ 968,000
1983 $ 2,129,600
1984 $ 4,685,120
1985 $ 10,307,264
1986 $ 22,675,981
1987 $ 49,887,158
1988 $109,751,750
1989 $241,453,850
> >Sure. If in 1980 about 1 million income earners made $200,000 a year, by
> >1989 they would have made $241 million per year. NOT!
>
> Actually, that's about right, Vic. Come out of your igloo and take a
> look at what's been happening down here.
Let's see. 1 million people averaging $241 million per year comes to
$241 trillion dollars. I believe USA GNP is about $8 trillion or so. You
want to try again?
How about if you just concede when you make factual misstatements.
> >Now, you can change the 1980 assumed figure
> >and the absurd result does not
> >change. For example, there are NOT as many
> >people making $121 million per year today as there were
> >making $100,000 in 1980. Nor, if 1% made $500,000 in 1980,
> >are there 1% making $483 million per year today. Fact is, 120%
> >per year means 1,200 times more over 9 years. Not bloody likely.
>
> Welcome to the wonderful world of the great Reagan Rape of America,
> where vast amounts of our national wealth have been stolen.
I can accept you not liking Ronald Reagan.
But, PLEASE, PLEASE do some number-checking when you make claims
that are challenged.
When you are so wildly OFF, you just give fodder to the right-wingers
and their name calling. Why give them the ammo?
LQuest
I don't know or care. Should I be? If so why? Of what use are YOU
to "society", whatever the hell that is? (Questions I predict you
won't answer) As long as I cause no harm, and pose no objectively
demonstrable threat to anyone, live entirely at my own expense, what
fucking difference does it make weasle spawn?
--Mike
Pistol
On Thu, 07 May 1998 15:18:31 -0500, Richard Clark
<ca...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snips]
>The results of this betrayal of the American worker?
I'll let that hyperbole go for now, for other points are muchb more
interesting.
>Since most people
>are required to spend an ever larger part of their day at work to pay
>the basic costs of living, the time that parents have, to spend with
>their children, is diminished.
The solution to all this is obvious, but it is so dramtically
different from anythinbg our society has ever thought about that
people won't even give it a thought - fewer people need to be having
kids.
>The average worker now spends _163
>hours_ more each year at work, than he or she used to, just a few
>decades ago.
And a lot of them do it to afford the second Porsche. You need a lot
more detail for a stat like this to mean much.
>Earning power for most people has gone down, so working
>longer hours has become a necessity.
That's a load of crap. People work longer hours because their idea of
what constituts a "necessity of life" has become totally warped.
>Average income for parents has
>dropped 3% since 1989.
So stop having kids you can't afford to raise properly.
>Wages for non-supervisory male production
>workers has dropped 25% since 1973.
And it should - they are doing work that can often times be better
done by machines. We are entering the information age. Now, the
willingness to sweat is not enough. you have to be able to manipulate
ideas.
>Nearly a _third_ of men working
>full time can no longer keep a family of four out of poverty.
So don't have such a family!
>So women
>have been forced to neglect their children, to work ever longer hours.
A lot of women are convinced they hav eot work when in fact they get
very little, sometimes negative, return on their efforts when taxes
and the cost of day care is taken into account.
>And growing numbers of parents now hold two jobs instead of one. It is
>on the backs of these workers that most millionaires are able to double
>their incomes each year.
Had society developed without such personalities as these
"millionaires", and instead be led by these "workers", we'd all still
be living in caves wondering if rocks were edible.
>Result: there are now 7 million American kids, between the ages of 7
>and 10, who are forced to spend ever more hours home alone, neglected.
>And growing numbers of them are becoming either predators or victims as
>a result. Even the parents who earn enough to pay for childcare are
>neglecting their kids because most of these parents are just too tired
>after work to give kids the attention they need.
>
>This is not just a tragedy for the child. It's also a tragedy for the
>nation. Why? Because children who aren't adequately cared-for seldom
>learn how to care for others. They learn to live only for themselves.
>In their world, other people exist only to be manipulated and used.
>
>As a result of this continuing war on parents and children, the
>integrity of the American family (for growing numbers of people)
>continues to spiral downward.
The answer is simple guy - change this ridiculous presumption that
everyone should have kids.
Pistol
On Mon, 11 May 1998 03:29:01 -0400, Ken <ken...@datatone.com> wrote:
[snips]
>And the
>contempt you (I am including Lquest and others of his type, like Zarlenga)
>have for the working class only demonstrates how stupid you are, because
>without them you would be forced to become actually self-sufficient, which you
>wouldn't like at all.
I don't have contempt for my blue collar neighbors. I do, however,
have contempt for Neanderthals who think that you are not a worker
unless you have to wash your hands at the end of the work day.
I also have contempt for anyone who can't do my job, but demands a
piece of my paycheck because their job doesn't pay what they'd like it
to.
LQuest
Hereinafter looms Pistol -- scourge of the whining left, inflictor of
unvarnished, politically incorrect truth. Go Pistol! Keep up the
great work dude. :-)
--Mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mco...@halcyon.com
In article <3558931b...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
Well, I never thought that I would see the ady that I agreed with anything
that "pistol" had to say. But, alas, it has happened... There are
differences in what we would do to address the problem, but we are in accord
on what the problem is: The right to bring children into the world must
change to face the reality of the globe we inhabit. There was a time when
"go forth, mutiply, and populate the world" was the right thing to do. That
time has past. We must *EARN* the right to bring children into the world and
it is wrong to steal this right from our neighbors by virtue of left wing
social crap. Unlike old age and illness, child bearing is a choice and it is
something which can be avoided until such time as it is appropriate. To
expect our fellows to finance our *choices* is wrong.
Ken
milton brewster wrote:
> In article <6itgg5$imr$4...@news1.iamerica.net>, gnatjc...@wcnet.net
> says...
> >
> > milton brewster wrote in message ...
> > >
> > >
> > >I thought The US was supposed to be experiencing an economic recovery.
> > >
> > >* * * * * *
> > >
> > >Here in Silicon Valley, the Economy is going so good that four of
> > >the top eight companies have announced layoffs of around eleven
> > >thousand people in the last five weeks. Eleven thousand!
> > >
> > >This morning, Digital Equipment company just announced a layoff
> > >of 15,000 (!!).
> > >
> > >The Labor Department just announced that April layoffs hit 48,000,
> > >which is DOUBLE the March figure.
> > >
> > >Are you next? All you heavy-hung Libertarian posters out here
> > >probably don't think so. I got news for you: You are. Think
> > >it through again.
> > >
> > >Well, you probably don't see anything wrong with this picture,
> > >anyway.
> > >
> > >* * * * * *
> > >
> > >Let me explain: When a big company lays off thousands of workers,
> > >those workers stop buying things. The people they buy things
> > >from also stop buying things. Pretty soon everyone in town
> > >(even those who weren't laid off) have stopped buying things.
> > >
> > >Because so many people are laid off all at once, it becomes very
> > >hard for these workers to find new jobs. When they find new
> > >jobs, they tend to be at lesser wages because the glut of good
> > >labor depresses the labor market.
> > >
> > >The so-called "free" market winds up undervaluing Labor.
> > >While new employers don't care; this doesn't solve a major
> > >problem for the communities involved: Making less money,
> > >these newly hired workers continue to-- you guessed it-- not
> > >buy things.
> > >
> > >If I were Walmarts, Sears, Century 21, General Motors, or a
> > >thousand other firms trying to SELL things to people; I'd be
> > >pretty pissed off at these other companies, who are making Labor
> > >pay for their needless downsizing.
> > >
> > >By the way, why aren't UNIONS speaking out on all this???
> > >
> > >* * * * * *
> > >
> > >It is absurd for hugely profitable corporations to lay off
> > >tens of thousands of good workers and claim that we are in
> > >a state of Economic Recovery.
> > >
> > >
> > >milton weasel brewster
> >
> >
> > You might understand politics but you miss a few points on business there my
> > friend.
> >
>
> [ Anti-NAFTA explanation, snipped. ]
>
> ... hardly. I just happen to see things differently from you. Your
> rigid adherance to a narrow quasi-moralistic economic point of view,
> leaves you pretty much blind to the problem.
>
> The problem is, that we are having huge layoffs in an economy that
> is supposed to be booming. Silicon Vally isn't shipping jobs
> off-shore-- that happened a dozen years ago. Minimum Wage has really
> noooo effect on Silicon Valley wages, anyway, because the layoff
> jobs are skilled jobs.
>
> Today's economic mechanisms can't handle the labor factor in the
> 'free market' equation. The fact is,that nobody needs to be laid
> off here. Profitable Silicon Valley companies won't increase their
> profits with these layoffs. The economic damage done (because the
> layoffs are great) is itself great enough to affect the health of
> many other companies doing business in this area.
>
> Take your MBA degree and wrap it around some new reality.
>
> * * * * * * *
>
> Where in Hell is the Union movement on this Labor issue? Why
> aren't they issuing press releases and lobbying Congress for
> new Legislation? How expensive is it to at least put some stuff
> out on the internet?
The unions *are* issuing press releases. The "liberal" media doesn't print
them.For example, Mayor Giuliani of NY is unhappy that AFSCME has attacked him for
laying off city workers and replacing them with workfare people.
And despite lobbying of congress, and a lot of campaign contributions, congress,
both democrats and republicans, is attacking the unions. Especially the unions
that are at all effective. For example, the Teamsters. The government decided to
get rid of Ron Carey, after he lead the successful strike against UPS, and try to
get Hoffa in instead. What does this tell you?
>
>
> milton weasel brewster
Ken
James A. donald wrote:
> --
> On Thu, 7 May 1998 09:07:35 -0700, scri...@bestspam.com (milton
> brewster) wrote:
> > Here in Silicon Valley, the Economy is going so good that
> > four of the top eight companies have announced layoffs of
> > around eleven thousand people in the last five weeks.
> > Eleven thousand!
>
> Since unemployment is falling radically, and demand for labor is
> rising ever higher, this of course implies that the trend is for big
> companies to be replaced by many smaller companies.
>
> > Are you next? All you heavy-hung Libertarian posters out
> > here probably don't think so. I got news for you: You
> > are. Think it through again.
>
> Been laid off many times. Each time my phone began ringing with
> people representing new and rapidly expanding companies, looking for
> workers.
>
> > Let me explain: When a big company lays off thousands of
> > workers, those workers stop buying things. The people they
> > buy things from also stop buying things. Pretty soon
> > everyone in town (even those who weren't laid off) have
> > stopped buying things.
>
> Yet strange to report, we observe the economy continually getting
> higher levels of employement, production, consumption, more people
> becoming middle class, and so on and so forth.
Employment is going up. But the standard of living for many people is
going down. For example, take the hospital workers laid off in NYC and
replaced by workfare workers. Still the same number of people working.
Matter of fact, they may have more working, since the workfare jobs tend
to be less hours than a regular full-time job. And make no mistake,
workfare is near slave-labor conditions. Workfare workers are fired if
they get sick and miss a couple of days, or even if the subway breaks
down and they are late to work. Their wages are miniscule. They get no
benefits. Forget vacations, sick pay, retirement, or anything else
besides the money.
The number of part-time and tempory workers in the economy has increased
tremendously since Reagan started the attack on unions. The number of
people working two or more jobs just to support their families has gone
up. Job security is a thing of the past. Workers in any category that
has more problems getting work are in bad shape if they get downsized.
Young, fit, white males with good skills are doing ok--for the moment.
Older workers, the disabled, non-whites, women, and the unskilled are
not doing well.
=====================================
"Market values, ripped out of a broader context of socially shared
norms, declare that opportunism, cutting corners, taking advantage
are not only legitimate but virtuous, since squeezing out the maximum
possible price that the market will bear maximizes efficiency."
--Robert Kuttner, author of the book Everything for Sale.
"It was not by gold or by silver, but by labor, that all the
wealth of the world was originally purchased."
-Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations"
In The Wealth of Nations, Smith wrote with realism about
manufacturers and merchants. He described them as "men whose
interest is never exactly the same with that of the public,
who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress
the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions,
both deceived and oppressed it."
JC Cooper
Ken wrote in message <355928E9...@datatone.com>...
>
>
>milton brewster wrote:
>
>> In article <6itgg5$imr$4...@news1.iamerica.net>, gnatjc...@wcnet.net
>> says...
>> >
>> > milton brewster wrote in message ...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >I thought The US was supposed to be experiencing an economic recovery.
>> > >
>> > >* * * * * *
>> > >
>> > >Here in Silicon Valley, the Economy is going so good that four of
>> > >the top eight companies have announced layoffs of around eleven
>> > >thousand people in the last five weeks. Eleven thousand!
>> > >
>> > >This morning, Digital Equipment company just announced a layoff
>> > >of 15,000 (!!).
>> > >
>> > >The Labor Department just announced that April layoffs hit 48,000,
>> > >which is DOUBLE the March figure.
>> > >
>> > >Are you next? All you heavy-hung Libertarian posters out here
>> > >probably don't think so. I got news for you: You are. Think
>> > >it through again.
>> > >
>> > >Well, you probably don't see anything wrong with this picture,
>> > >anyway.
>> > >
>> > >* * * * * *
>> > >
>> > >Let me explain: When a big company lays off thousands of workers,
>> > >those workers stop buying things. The people they buy things
>> > >from also stop buying things. Pretty soon everyone in town
>> > >(even those who weren't laid off) have stopped buying things.
>> > >
If you would like to learn the fallacy of your argument, go out and by a
domestic television. This is where the computer industry will probably be in
about 10 years. And if you think that profitable Silicon Valley companies
won't increase their profits by laying people off, I would like to have you
as an investor in my company.
Ken
mco...@halcyon.com wrote:
Why is it that noone ever suggests lowering the work week to deal with
overproduction, instead of encouraging more and more production of expensive toys
for the rich, which they can only afford by exploiting the poor? Fifty years ago,
in science fiction, writers were predicting that production would grow at such a
rate that people would only need to work a few hours a week to privide plenty of
everything. And productivity HAS increased dramatically in many fields. So why is
the average work week still so high? Why is the 40 hour week still the standard,
with huge numbers of people working more than that?
============================
"Market values, ripped out of a broader context of socially shared
norms, declare that opportunism, cutting corners, taking advantage
are not only legitimate but virtuous, since squeezing out the maximum
possible price that the market will bear maximizes efficiency."
--Robert Kuttner, author of the book Everything for Sale.
"Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health
care is the most shocking and inhumane." Martin Luther King.
Ken
LQuest wrote:
> Gee -- I think we agree! Of course my whole approach to social
> justice begins at the individual level. Since the individual is the
> final, irreducible element of any society. What's good for the
> individual is generally good for the group that composed of
> individuals.
>
> --Mike
The usual libertarian revision of Adam Smith.For a discussion of the misquote of
Adam Smith that inspired this point of view, see an article about :
Today's Most Mischievous
Misquotation, by Jonathan Schlefer
(1998)
Adam Smith's blind faith in the "invisible hand"
of the market wasn't really Adam Smith's faith
at all -- and today Smith is invoked in behalf of
causes he did not support.
http://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/issues/98mar/misquote.htm
===============================
"Those exertions of the natural liberty of a few
individuals, which might endanger the security of the
whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the
laws of all governments."
--Adam Smith
Ken
milton brewster wrote:
> In article <6j5cqn$j4s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mco...@halcyon.com says...
> > In article <7A276270E078BCEA.8F0897C38DA6FEDF.482A759525C8785F@library-
> > proxy.airnews.net>,
> > lib...@DELTHIS.airmail.net (LQuest) wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 9 May 1998 12:13:45 -0700, milt.b...@liberals.com (milton
> > > brewster) wrote:
> > >
> > > >In article <355491EC...@erols.com>, km...@erols.com says...
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> milton brewster wrote:
> > > >>
> <snip>
Milton, not every unionist always identifies himself as such in every post. I am a
union member, and I have frequently held forth for a national healthcare plan, to
be paid for by taxes.I doubt if many unions would oppose a national healthcare
plan. But meanwhile, until such a plan exists, unions have a responsibility to get
coverage for their members in whatever way they can.
If you research the history of the mine workers, you will find that the union was
responsible for building many of the hospitals and clinics in the minefields of
rural Appalachia. It was the only way they could get proper medical care for their
members.
=============================
Ken
milton brewster wrote:
> * * * * * *
>
> And where IS that great AFL-CIO website, anyway?
>
> milton weasel brewster
>
> >
Go to http://members.tripod.com/~kenfran/union.htm to see some of the union
resources on the web.
Gary Forbis
Ken wrote:
> I am a
> union member, and I have frequently held forth for a national healthcare plan, to
> be paid for by taxes.I doubt if many unions would oppose a national healthcare
> plan. But meanwhile, until such a plan exists, unions have a responsibility to get
> coverage for their members in whatever way they can.
> If you research the history of the mine workers, you will find that the union was
> responsible for building many of the hospitals and clinics in the minefields of
> rural Appalachia. It was the only way they could get proper medical care for their
> members.
I think unions should help set industry minimum wages and practices but health care
should be universal. By allowing non wage benefits and associated tax breaks the
government pushes back the likelihood there will be a consensus for national health
care.
While I don't think wages are the right thing to tax, it seems worse to me to tax some
benefits but not others. The issue to push for higher wages or more benefits should
be neutral with respect to health care. Other benefits such as vacation and sick
leave
are in fact paid benefits so are already tax neutral (the alternative is higher wage
without
paid vacation or sick leave.)
--
--gary
for...@accessone.com
http://www.accessone.com/~forbis
Jim Rogers
JC Cooper wrote:
>
> milton brewster wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> >I thought The US was supposed to be experiencing an economic recovery.
> >
> >
> >the top eight companies have announced layoffs of around eleven
> >thousand people in the last five weeks. Eleven thousand!
> >
> >This morning, Digital Equipment company just announced a layoff
> >of 15,000 (!!).
> >
> >
> >It is absurd for hugely profitable corporations to lay off
> >tens of thousands of good workers and claim that we are in
> >a state of Economic Recovery.
> >
> >
> >milton weasel brewster
>
> You might understand politics but you miss a few points on business there my
> friend.
>
> The feds raise the minimum wage. Instead of paying that extra $1.50 an hour
> times say 15,000 employees (that's $22,500.00 more per hour) I can take the
> manufacturing part of the company to Mexico where they will practically give
> me the land, plant and equipment and get the manufacturing done about $2.00
> per hour less than the minimum wage was even before it was raised. So there
> you have about a $52,500.00 per hour turn. I bring the parts in-country,
> assemble and sell. Now if you think the minimum wage has not given me an
> economic boom, you are simply wrong. If you think this magnificient increase
> in profits (taxable) is not also a boon to the government you are simply
> wrong. If you think the average American is too ignorant to understand what
> is happening to them, you are simply correct.
>
> But what's wrong with this. Nothing at all, if you are a stockholder. But
> when the bubble bursts, who's gonna buy the goods?
>
> How do you correct it? Start by reading "The Great Betrayal".
>
> If I did not have kids just getting out of college, I would not give a
> tinkers darn about the future of this country, because I am one of those
> that believes that you get what you pay for, interpreted as you get what you
> vote for and accept. So the younger generations are making their own bed and
> they will have to sleep in 'em, not me.
>
> When all else fails, play DEAD!
> (Deflect, Evade, Attack, Divert)
>
> JC Cooper
> Mayor
> Gnat Flats, Texas
I think that if the layoffs were at Mac Donalds where they pay minimum
wage or close to it the minimum wage might be part of the reason. When
you can pay 2.50 an hour in Mexico the 12.00 to 20.00 they pay in
silicon valley is a lot. I doubt that the minimum wage increase did
anything to digital.
Jim
Ken
LQuest wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 1998 03:29:01 -0400, Ken <ken...@datatone.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >LQuest wrote:
> >
> >> On 8 May 1998 13:41:34 GMT, "Victor Levis" <vicl...@ican.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Richard Clark <ca...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
> >> ><6itbnq$s...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
> >> >
> >> >> Is there an undeclared war against parents?..... Since most people
> >> >> are required to spend an ever larger part of their day at work to pay
> >> >> the basic costs of living, the time that parents have, to spend with
> >> >> their children, is diminished. The average worker now spends _163
> >> >> hours_ more each year at work, than he or she used to, just a few
> >> >> decades ago. Earning power for most people has gone down, so working
> >> >> longer hours has become a necessity. Average income for parents has
> >> >> dropped 3% since 1989. Wages for non-supervisory male production
> >> >> workers has dropped 25% since 1973. Nearly a _third_ of men working
> >> >> full time can no longer keep a family of four out of poverty. So women
> >> >> have been forced to neglect their children, to work ever longer hours.
> >> >> And growing numbers of parents now hold two jobs instead of one. It is
> >> >> on the backs of these workers that most millionaires are able to double
> >> >> their incomes each year.
> >> >
> >> >I deny the proposition that 'most millionaires are able to double their
> >> >incomes every year'.
> >> >
> >> >Such gross exaggerations and generalizations do not serve your
> >> >cause. Instead, you appear to be propaganidizing without regard
> >> >to facts.
> >> >
> >> >I'd be prepared to discuss the trends in purchasing power that concern
> >> >you, but you'll need to commit to factual posting first.
> >>
> >> Thank you Victor. Geesh -- the whine is getting more shrill each day
> >> from the dependent class. They are literally drowning in good solid
> >> advice on how to escape the dependent class, but for inexplicable
> >> reasons, many of them would rather complain about how "unfair" life
> >> is. Given the FACT that "fair" is an objectively undefinable emotional
> >> concept, I have to wonder if we shouldn't put addiction to "fairness"
> >> on the growing list of controlled substances.
> >>
> >> --Mike
> >
> >The addiction Libertarians have to the concept of the free market solving
> >everything is so laughable that no decent economist takes it seriously. And the
> >contempt you (I am including Lquest and others of his type, like Zarlenga)
> >have for the working class
>
> Uhh... excuse me? I AM a member of the working class. It's more
> accurately known as the independent class (you know, those folks who
> are almost 100% responsible for the productivity that keeps the rest
> of the world from starving to death.
And just what do you do for a living? I have worked for a living for more than 30
years, since I was 17, so I call it, more accurately, the working class.
> I just don't whine about it like
> you adolescent little snots who never had to sign the FRONT of someone
> else's paycheck.
Your posts are full of whines about how the nasty old government wants to take some
of the social production that you have appropriated. The best definition of n
adolescent is teh libertarian who constantly whines, "mine! mine! mine!" And I have
in the past owned a business. You make a lot of unwarranted assumptions. Contrary to
Benny Hill, when you do so you make an ass of yourself only.
> After living a half century on earth, partying my
> way though college in the embarrassing Sixties I've discovered a few
> things that actually work -- like integrity, self-dependence,
> objective morality and honest perception of reality. All of these
> things are antithetical to the core mentality running rampant through
> the liberal left, much of the conservative right and ALL of the Logic
> Free Zone.
>
> >only demonstrates how stupid you are, because
> >without them you would be forced to become actually self-sufficient, which you
> >wouldn't like at all.
>
> Tell ya what little boy, after your momma spanks your tiny pink bottom
> for being an arrogant little ingrate, let's both go on up to the Wind
> River Wilderness in Wyoming and just see which of us is
> "self-sufficient" after a couple of months. OK? (BTW -- surviving
> in the wilderness with no guns and NO modern conveniences is what I
> call a vacation.)
Meaning that being self-sufficient is a deviation from your normal lifestyle?I used
to go backpacking in West Virginia before I became too disabled to walk more than a
block or so. So? You idiots who think that you can live at more than subsistence
level if you are truely self-sufficient, are the stock-in-trade of the libertarians.
>
>
> >===============================================
> >Andreas announces that global capitalism is a delusion. "There isn't
> >one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not
> >one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of
> >politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand
> >that this is a socialist country."
>
> Unfortunately, this is a true statement. And people in the midwest
> were among the FIRST to see that Socialism had infected America.
>
> >--Dwayne Andreas, head of Archer Daniels Midland
> >
> >"Market values, ripped out of a broader context of socially shared
> >norms, declare that opportunism, cutting corners, taking advantage
> >are not only legitimate but virtuous, since squeezing out the maximum
> >possible price that the market will bear maximizes efficiency."
> >--Robert Kuttner, author of the book Everything for Sale.
>
> Objectivist ethics, sincerely practiced is a cure for this modern day
> evil.
>
> --Mike
http://www.plantagenet.com/~stpeter/writ/why.html
Reconciling Objectivism and Libertarianism has traditionally been a
difficult task, at least as far back as Ayn Rand's denunciation of
libertarians as "hippies of the right" in the final issue of The
Objectivist (September, 1971) and again in her article "What Can One
Do?" (The Ayn Rand Letter, January, 1972).
LQuest
[Adolescent whining flushed]
>> After living a half century on earth, partying my
>> way though college in the embarrassing Sixties I've discovered a few
>> things that actually work -- like integrity, self-dependence,
>> objective morality and honest perception of reality. All of these
>> things are antithetical to the core mentality running rampant through
>> the liberal left, much of the conservative right and ALL of the Logic
>> Free Zone.
>>
>> >only demonstrates how stupid you are, because
>> >without them you would be forced to become actually self-sufficient, which you
>> >wouldn't like at all.
>>
>> Tell ya what little boy, after your momma spanks your tiny pink bottom
>> for being an arrogant little ingrate, let's both go on up to the Wind
>> River Wilderness in Wyoming and just see which of us is
>> "self-sufficient" after a couple of months. OK? (BTW -- surviving
>> in the wilderness with no guns and NO modern conveniences is what I
>> call a vacation.)
>
>Meaning that being self-sufficient is a deviation from your normal lifestyle?I used
>to go backpacking in West Virginia before I became too disabled to walk more than a
>block or so. So? You idiots who think that you can live at more than subsistence
>level if you are truely self-sufficient, are the stock-in-trade of the libertarians.
Please forgive me for being so hard on you. If what you say here is
true, then I just received an insight to what's really going on here.
Please accept my sincere sympathy for your plight. I CAN understand
the source of your perspective on reality. Be happy. We won't talk
of these things again.
--Mike
EandorY
Ken wrote:
> mco...@halcyon.com wrote:
>
> > In article <287086092FDB497F.D6044E1ED1D0DEA4.0EC8D29C6B236CEF@library-
> > proxy.airnews.net>,
> > lib...@DELETETHIS.airmail.net (LQuest) wrote:
> > >
>
> Why is it that noone ever suggests lowering the work week to deal with
> overproduction, instead of encouraging more and more production of expensive toys
> for the rich, which they can only afford by exploiting the poor?
Jeremey Rifkin and Molly Ivins (two brilliant thinkers!) have suggested this.
Theythink that modern America is somehow parallel to America of the late 19th
century,
when government spending was lower than 3% of GDP, and when income growth
ran to 7%.
> Fifty years ago,
> in science fiction, writers were predicting that production would grow at such a
> rate that people would only need to work a few hours a week to privide plenty of
> everything.
Ah, but the SF writers never foresaw the rate of growth of the state (well, exceptfor
a few). Half of everything made is confiscated by the government to provide
nothing. They are making sure we have penty of nothing.
> And productivity HAS increased dramatically in many fields.
Really? How has that happened? Are people simply working harder?(think....)
> So why is
> the average work week still so high?
Because you have to work twice as hard to make the same real take-homepay as you did
before the 1960's.
> Why is the 40 hour week still the standard,
> with huge numbers of people working more than that?
Because people want to get ahead; they want better lives for themselvesand their
children. Unfortunately, the government punishes people trying
to get ahead, so they find themselves on an accelerating treadmill.
Eric
mco...@halcyon.com
The "reply" button on my news reader did not work, so I'll do this the hard
way. I will not let the insinuation by "EandorY" go unchallenged:
Subject: Re: The Death of Organized Labor in the United States
From: EandorY <ehu...@zianet.com>
Date: 1998/05/15
Message-ID: <355C68E3...@zianet.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.society.liberalism,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.po
litics.socialism
[More Headers]
[Subscribe to alt.society.liberalism]
Ken wrote:
Eric
Tis not the government who is punishing except for the current tax
mechanism. Income taxation and wage taxation as the sole support for
government insures that current asset owners will remain in thier stations
while working people are forever playing catch up. This is most especially
true in vieu of fica taxes and capital gains taxes which tip the balance even
more towards the current wealthy. We will also observe that if National
Health Insurance was a reality and SS was waht is supposed to be, then
employers would not even be in the loop in regard to health care and
retirement and that employers would have much less excuse for not hiring more
individuals at less hours per person therby decreasing the work week. Your
assertion that government is the problem is only valid insofar as government
is controlled by and for the wealthy.
Your solution is to eliminate the government. The better solution is to fix
it.
Ken
EandorY wrote:
> Ken wrote:
>
> > mco...@halcyon.com wrote:
> >
> > > In article <287086092FDB497F.D6044E1ED1D0DEA4.0EC8D29C6B236CEF@library-
> > > proxy.airnews.net>,
> > > lib...@DELETETHIS.airmail.net (LQuest) wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > Why is it that noone ever suggests lowering the work week to deal with
> > overproduction, instead of encouraging more and more production of expensive toys
> > for the rich, which they can only afford by exploiting the poor?
>
> Jeremey Rifkin and Molly Ivins (two brilliant thinkers!) have suggested this.
> Theythink that modern America is somehow parallel to America of the late 19th
> century,
> when government spending was lower than 3% of GDP, and when income growth
> ran to 7%.
Pretty much irrelevant that government spending is more. Eliminate all those corporate
subsidies, and quit arming the military with weaponry and force levels that are designed
for conducting offensives rather than defense, and have the government go into the
weapons business rather than paying private contractors ten times what things are worth,
and government spending would drop drastically. A lot of other government expenditures
are items that people formerly paid out of their own pockets, so those don't mean that
actual spending is higher.
>
>
> > Fifty years ago,
> > in science fiction, writers were predicting that production would grow at such a
> > rate that people would only need to work a few hours a week to privide plenty of
> > everything.
>
> Ah, but the SF writers never foresaw the rate of growth of the state (well, exceptfor
> a few). Half of everything made is confiscated by the government to provide
> nothing. They are making sure we have penty of nothing.
Eliminate the corporate subsidies, and we lower government spending. You also forget that
marginal rates for income taxes and also capital gains taxes were MUCH higher 50 years
ago, so the rich were paying more of their share than now.But think about this:
productivity is much more than twice 50 years ago, so even if the government took half
and threw it down a rathole (or gave it to the military, pretty much the same) there
should still be room to decrease the workweek with a substantial raise in standard of
living to go with it.
>
>
> > And productivity HAS increased dramatically in many fields.
>
> Really? How has that happened? Are people simply working harder?(think....)
Although it is true that people are in many cases working harder, the main reason is of
course more productive machinery. But the gains in productivity have all been
appropriated by the rich, leaving workers with a declining standard of living in many
periods, such as the Reagan years. And the productive machinery and techniques are being
sent abroad to foreign factories set up by the mulinationals to lower wages even more.
>
>
> > So why is
> > the average work week still so high?
>
> Because you have to work twice as hard to make the same real take-homepay as you did
> before the 1960's.
You still haven't said WHY.
>
>
> > Why is the 40 hour week still the standard,
> > with huge numbers of people working more than that?
>
> Because people want to get ahead; they want better lives for themselvesand their
> children. Unfortunately, the government punishes people trying
> to get ahead, so they find themselves on an accelerating treadmill.
The government is merely the middleman, and only in part of the cases, of a wholesale
transfer of wealth to the rich.
>
>
> Eric
--
Ron Jones
> > >Dan Clore wrote:
> > > How fascinating: government "protected our rights", even though a right
> > > like that to freedom of speech was not upheld (despite the clarity of
> > > the First Amendment to the Constitution) by the Supreme Court until the
> > > 1960s.
>
[RJ]
> > Why did it have to be upheld? Wasn’t the constitution enough?
> > How many people were persecuted for free expression prior to 1960?
> > In totalitarian countries millions lost their lives or were imprisoned
> > only
> > because they opposed the current regime. Nothing similar happened
> > in America.
>
[DC]
> It had to be upheld because otherwise people went to jail for crimes
> like spreading information on birth control (which violated obscenity
> laws), for being political dissidents, and things like that. The
> Constitution is just a piece of paper, and does no good if the cops
> don't obey it.
[RJ]
Yes, the Constitution is just a piece of paper; pieces of paper are only
as good as the determination of people to uphold the ideals contained
therein.
People went to jail for spreading information on birth control and
political crimes in the United States; they were executed for similar
crimes in the Soviet Union and other totalitarian countries. In the
Soviet Union, they also went to jail for simply trying to earn a
living. For example, Ayn Rand’s parents were jailed only because her
father had owned a business. Ayn Rand was expelled from the university
because her father was a businessman.
The Soviet Union also had a Constitution with a bill of rights; they
completely ignored it. So have other countries ignored their own law.
The Constitution is being ignored in the U.S. as well, but to a
considerable
less extent.
I uphold laissez faire capitalism as an ideal of economic freedom. I
uphold capitalism as it is practiced in the U.S. only in that it is
RELATIVELY better for liberty than the totalitarianism practiced in
other
countries.
Some of the violations of individual rights in the U.S. have been
rolled back; people no longer go to prison for dissemination of
birth control information for instance. Today the only political
prisoners jailed in the U.S. are drug offenders.
[RJ]
> > > Third: benevolence: this includes help from others when we cannot help
> > > ourselves. Family, friends, church, charitable institutions, and poor
> > > houses formed a VOLUNTARY safety net to protect us from those
> > > things that happen that we cannot control.
>
> > > Well guess what? the second tier has run amok. It has damaged the first
> > > [free enterprise] tier
>
> [DC]
> > > I love to tell you this, but the first tier {free enterprise begs to
> > > differ: business has
> > > consistently supported the sort of Keynesian spending on the "defense"
> > > and high-tech industries of the last half-century, the government
> > > "opening markets" in other countries, etc , etc , etc. Obviously they
> > > think
> > > the government is doing a damn good job *helping them*. This is covered
> > > by Newspeak about "free markets" -- what things like NAFTA really do is
> > > not create free markets, but give additional power to corporations
> > > through the agency of giant bureaucracies, market-interference like the
> > > extension of "intellectual property", and so on. I suggest you look into
> > > these things. (Also note that the existence of corporations and
> > > intellectual property is a state intervention in the market in the first
> > > place.)
>
> > [RJ]
> > There is nothing in the above paragraph that I disagree with.
> > Libertarians are NOT right-wing. They advocate laissez faire
> > capitalism. The capitalism that is practiced in the U.S. is NOT
> > what libertarians advocate.
> >
> [DC]
> I know: and it isn't, because businessmen won't back that kind of thing
> (although they're happy to back measures that invoke free-market ideals
> as Newspeak). They get too much benefit from the State to back real
> laissez-faire reforms.
[RJ]
I think you should rephrase what you said above to SOME businessmen
won’t
back laissez faire capitalism; many smaller and medium sized businessmen
do.
There is a kind of prisoner’s dilemma operative here; due to the
philosophy
of Altruism that pervades Western culture, the hatred of profit
(self-interest)
is high; the I.R.S. steals so much of businessmen’s profit that
the businessman feels he is justified in lobbying Congress for favors so
that at least some of what is stolen from him is returned.
Libertarians prefer a political climate in which the power of government
is
reduced to only defending individual rights as defined by the Bill of
Rights.
Then businesses will be regulated by the only fair and equitable system
of regulation there is: competitive markets.
> >[RJ]
> > You call what we have State Capitalism.
> >
> [DC]
> Actually, no I don't. When I use the term State Capitalism, I mean what
> Lenin meant by it when he coined it. There are others, however, who
> refer to our system as State Capitalism, so that's okay by me.
[RJ]
What did Lenin mean by "State Capitalism"?
Okay, don't call it "State Capitalism". What do you think we should
call it? Watered down Fascism, maybe?
At any rate, in spite of the interference of government in rights
of individuals to create wealth, we have become incredibly prosperous.
If government meddling were eliminated, we would be even more
prosperous, and
the inequities caused by lack of economic freedom would not exist.
The creation of wealth in a complex, modern economy requires the efforts
of
an enormous diversity of individuals. Workers, technicians, managers,
administrators, investors (capitalists) are all required. The incentive
of large profits are required to encourage individuals to take the large
risks
necessary to build a prosperous economy. People must be free to
peacefully
join with others in that effort, each to the limit of his or her own
talents
and ambition.
> > >[DC]
> > > Do you have any hard data to show that there is a significant number of
> > > these? (I'll agree on principle that there's probably *some*.)
>
> >[RJ]
> > I subscribe to about a dozen periodicals that give hundreds of examples
> > a year.
>
> > Check out Liberty and Reason Magazines. They are the best.
>
> > I read some of your anarcho-socialist websites, now turnabout is only
> > fair.
>
> [DC]
> I've read many issues of Reason, Liberty, and Cato Institute
> publications already. What I asked for was evidence that there is a
> significant number of people on welfare who are deliberately having
> children simply to get more welfare. I stipulate that there are going to
> be *some*; what I want is evidence that they are significant proportion
> of welfare recipients.
>
[RJ]
You bet I do. My own personal experience.
I was a kid during the Fifties. I had a sister who, was, well to put it
mildly, boy crazy. She really wanted to grow up fast, to get out from
underneath my father’s thumb and get her own apartment.
Fortunately, my strict father forbade her from staying out late at
night.
She caught hell if her grades did not stay up. She knew that if she got
pregnant she would have the baby and it would be adopted or go to a
foster
home; she would not get her own apartment and be able to quit school.
My
father would not support her and her baby. There was a special school
where pregnant girls went to have their babies, and then they gave them
up for
adoption.
My sister did get pregnant, but not until she was married to a good man
who made good money.
Boy, has it changed now. Her daughter, now eighteen, is pregnant for
the
second time and living in her own apartment and getting a welfare check.
She had her first baby at fifteen; she quit school and stayed home while
my taxes paid for her foolisness. The social stigma of being an
unwed mother has been weakened by welfare. My niece knew that if she
got
pregnant, she could grow up fast, get her own apartment, and be free to
see
all her boyfriends all the time she wants, courtesy of the government.
Plus
she would have the baby give her unconditional love.
If anyone criticised her, she would say, "Oh, its OK, I can always get
welfare".
> > [RJ]
> > But it is true! [ that charitable institutions have practically
> > been nationalized by government.]
> > Years ago I frequently contributed to charitable
> > organizations.
> > But recently I found out that most charitable organizations get
> > government
> > funds! You and I are being FORCED to contribute to organizations that
> > bureaucrats choose for us to contribute to.
>
> This is not the same thing as nationalizing the charities, the claim I
> was responding to.
[RJ]
I said "practically" nationalizing them.
Anytime an enterprise is made dependent on government handouts, it
has, in my opinion, been practically nationalized.
> > > [DC]
> > > So then these people *aren't* helping the poor through their taxes.
> > > Ergo, their reasoning is false.
>
[RJ]
Actually, the middle class and the rich are coerced into harming
the poor in the long term. There is not much incentive to help
the poor when government is paying the poor to stay poor.
In the long term, they are not helping them. Unfortunately, government
with all its billions is very good at convincing people that welfare
helps the poor, when in fact, welfare builds dependency and failure in
the
long term. Fewer people are convinced today, though. The tide is
turning.
[RJ]
> > Some of the money confiscated from them in taxes go to government
> > welfare programs. So they are "helping" the poor through their taxes.
> > But the taxpayer doesn’t decide which programs he wants to help.
> > Government bureaucrats make that decision for them.
>
> But you argue that they are *not* helping the poor through welfare.
> Therefore their claim that they should not help because they already are
> (through welfare) is false.
[RJ]
Notice that I put quote marks around the word ("helping"). Generous
people have lost the freedom they once had to help the poor in a
rational
manner. Now government bureaucrats decide.
> > > I agree with this to some extent; I'd like (as long as the State still
> > > exists at all) to see the various entitlement programs replaced with
> > > Milton Friedman's negative income tax.
>
> > [RJ]
> > Milton Friedman does not really favor the negative income tax. He
> > just would rather see it rather than the current corrupt inefficient
> > system.
>
> I'm aware of all this; and I only support as a band-aid to cover some of
> the current system's problems, not as a final remedy.
[RJ]
In the long term, it is not even a band-aide;, it is poison.
The current system’s problems is not due to laissez faire capitalism; it
is the result of government meddling in the market and government
violation
of individual rights.
> > > [DC]
> > > This is simply false: I have never advocated a State, whether a
> > > "socialistic [a contradiction in terms] welfare state" or otherwise.
> > > I've been advocating anarchism.
> >
> >
>
> [RJ]
> Maybe not; but you argue for the destruction of laissez faire
> capitalism and economic freedom.
>
> No, I argue for the destruction of capitalism, plain and simple, and for
> economic freedom.
[RJ]
How are you going to destroy capitalism? You have said that you don’t
advocate a state. So how are you going to destroy your enemies? How are
you going to do it? State is institutionalized force. Governments
(unless there is civil war) have a legalized monopoly on force. You
are not going to use this wonderful tool (the state) to destroy people
who save?
Maybe anarcho-socialists plan on doing it themselves. After all, they
don’t need government to commit theft, mayhem and murder. They can
do it themselves. If enough people became anarcho-socialists, and they
each bombed a capitalist every week, … wait a minute! How would they
know they are killing a capitalist? Since there would be constant
violence, they could kill anybody they don’t like! They could say
they were justly killing capitalists, when they are killing a nosy
neighbor, or someone who was so annoying as to play his music too
loud before all this anarchy got kicked off!
Anyway, with say a million anarcho-socialists killing a capitalist every
week, in a year, 50,000,000 capitalists would be wasted! The country
would be turned into rubble. We know that the capitalists
would not resist; they would sell the anarcho-socialists the bullets, of
course.
Then the violence would stop. When would it stop? When all the
capitalists are dead! Automatically, all the workers would know
they are all dead, and would crawl out of their bomb shelters, like
ants or termites, and start
working for themselves, and build an anarcho-socialist paradise. No
capitalists, no state, no bosses, no investments, no stock market,
just everybody volunteering to work his butt off for the common good.
Everyone would know exactly what had to made, what had to be built.
After all, decision makers are not needed! Besides, since they don’t
get their hands dirty, they are not workers anyway, they are the enemy!
Markets are not needed! The workers could decide what people needed to
buy. If people didn’t like what the workers made, they could always be
killed.
Nobody would goof off, everyone would get the same pay. When someone
got hurt, or became too old to work, everyone else would pitch in and
give him everything he needed.
Sure.
So what’s it going to be? You have a totalitarian State murder
millions of Capitalists, or are individuals going to spontaneously
arise and slaughter the capitalists?
Maybe there is a third way! Marx said the State would just wither
away, leaving a worker’s paradise. Maybe Capitalism could wither
away, leaving an anarcho-socialist paradise! And any State could
wither before it ever got started!
Aint this fun! I know we will never agree, but it beats watching
the boob tube.
I think your idea of crediting the text with initials is good.
Helps keep our discussion coherent.
-Ron
James A. donald
--
On Wed, 13 May 1998 01:17:03 -0400, Ken <ken...@datatone.com> wrote:
> Employment is going up. But the standard of living for many
> people is going down.
Yet my standard of living has risen substantially, and a larger
proportion of people are buying their own homes than ever before We
recently exceeded two thirds home ownership, which means roughly two
thirds middle class, for the first time in history. And the homes are
larger than they used to be.
Furthermore look at the kind of things the workers are spending money
on.
It used to be that only rich idle women got their nails manicured, and
only affluent people went on ocean cruises. Now these forms of
consumption are primarily targeted at the working class. What used to
be conspicuous consumption by the rich, has now become passe and
unfashionable for both the rich and the middle class, because today
the poor can afford it. Stuff that used to be status symbols of the
idle rich is now mass marketed, and the rich will not touch it with a
ten foot pole.
> For example, take the hospital workers laid off in NYC and
> replaced by workfare workers. Still the same number of
> people working.
Nope: More people working, because the hospital workers went on to
better jobs.
> The number of part-time and tempory workers in the economy
> has increased tremendously since Reagan started the attack
> on unions.
You are speaking to someone who was recently one of them. At $55 per
hour, I reckon I could afford to work part time as a temporary worker.
As capital accumulates, workers living standards rise. As their
living standards rise, their support for capitalism increases, and
their hostility to unions, socialism, etc also increases.
The unions hate part time and temporary workers precislely because the
workers usually become pretty keen on capitalism.
Unions are not declining because of Ronald Reagan, who (in case you
did not notice) has been absent for some time.
Unions are declining because the richer a country becomes, the less
the workers have to do standardized mechanical repetitive work, and
the less they wish to be union members.
The west represents the future of the world, America represents the
future of the west, and California represents the future of America.
In the west, the unions are gravely ill, in America, the unions are
half dead, and in California, they are almost completely dead.
A few organizations called unions are being artificially kept alive by
lawyers or politicians in California,, but they have no real workplace
participation, and no real power in the workplace.
You imagine the workers are suffering from false consciousness: They
are not suffering from false consciousness, they are planning
vacations in Hawaii.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
eITNEVtzRkCryYOaTtzyeYHrsL6m7LYxnmtUEc6O
4tJiORFcI/qZnozNbb3Xqs0c1lbU87b2/YCt3U5jC
KMF
While I haven't yet decided how much I agree with Mr. Donald, I at
least appreciate the fact that he makes his points in a much more
reasonable way than many I am seeing recently.
LQuest
On Fri, 15 May 1998 21:39:59 -0500, Ron Jones <rjo...@mastnet.net>
wrote:
I agree with your balanced view overall. However, I think a strong,
objectively moral case can be made that otherwise harmless folks who
are in jail or have lost property for failure to cooperate (grab
ankles and assume the position of respect) with our classist, moronic
income and property tax system are ALSO political prisoners -- IOW
political prisoners. I assert this because ther is no immutable law
of physics that FORCES government to collect taxes in this manner. It
IS within our power to collect taxes in such a manner that the
individual taxpayer remains anonymous and consequently, need not be
punished for doing well in the struggle of life.
--Mike
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
It can only exist until the voters discover that they can
vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that
moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate
promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with
the result that a democracy always collapses over loose
fiscal policy and is always followed by dictatorship."
--from "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic",
by Alexander Fraser Tyler
Ron Jones
[RJ]
> >Some of the violations of individual rights in the U.S. have been
> >rolled back; people no longer go to prison for dissemination of
> >birth control information for instance. Today the only political
> >prisoners jailed in the U.S. are drug offenders.
>
> I agree with your balanced view overall. However, I think a strong,
> objectively moral case can be made that otherwise harmless folks who
> are in jail or have lost property for failure to cooperate (grab
> ankles and assume the position of respect) with our classist, moronic
> income and property tax system are ALSO political prisoners -- IOW
> political prisoners. I assert this because ther is no immutable law
> of physics that FORCES government to collect taxes in this manner. It
> IS within our power to collect taxes in such a manner that the
> individual taxpayer remains anonymous and consequently, need not be
> punished for doing well in the struggle of life.
You are absolutely correct. I did not mention IRS political prisoners
because they are relatively rare. The IRS has every incentive NOT
to imprison those who violate IRS "law" for the same reason that a
parasite must be careful not to injure its host too much. The IRS
is usually content to confiscate property from its victim, and, if
its victim is destitute, hound him to collect property as soon as he
acquires it.
There are a few political prisons for every victimless crime law
enforced by the 29 Federal police forces that go by initials: DEA,
FDA, EPA, IRS, FBI, CIA, etc, as well as Customs.
My point was that there are no (that I know of) political prisoners
whose offense was merely opposing government policy which happens
in totalitarian countries all the time.
>
> --Mike
> "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
> It can only exist until the voters discover that they can
> vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that
> moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate
> promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with
> the result that a democracy always collapses over loose
> fiscal policy and is always followed by dictatorship."
> --from "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic",
> by Alexander Fraser Tyler
A. F. Tyler was a smart man. I like this one: "Government is
not reason, government is not persuasion, government is force.
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master"
---George Washington
I think that goes for democratic government, too.
--Ron
dave semenske
In article <355CFC...@mastnet.net>, rjo...@mastnet.net says...
>
>> > >Dan Clore wrote:
>> > > How fascinating: government "protected our rights", even though
a right
>> > > like that to freedom of speech was not upheld (despite the
clarity of
>> > > the First Amendment to the Constitution) by the Supreme Court
until the
>> > > 1960s.
>>
>[RJ]
>> > Why did it have to be upheld? Wasn’t the constitution enough?
>> > How many people were persecuted for free expression prior to 1960?
>> > In totalitarian countries millions lost their lives or were
imprisoned
>> > only
>> > because they opposed the current regime. Nothing similar happened
>> > in America.
I beg to differ with you on this remember haymarket square where on may
first 1886 a number or workers were beaten to death by chicago police
trying to get them to go back to work. On may fourth someone unknown
hurled a bomb at police killing four officers. Even though they could
not prove anything the powers that be rounded up eight german
socialists who were immediatley tried and convicted to death. four were
hung, one died in an explosion, the other three went back to germany
after the german government protested the trials calling them a sham.
and remember in Milwaukee at the same time eight people lay dead and
many more were wounded at the bay view rolling mills after national
guard troops opened fire on demonstrators protesting the ten to sixteen
hour workday. This was a peaceful strike until that point. During this
period there were over sixteen hundred separate demonstrations going on
all over the united states as the workers were calling for the eight
hour day. check out my website
http://www.execpc.com/~blake/rollin~1.htm
These demonstrations led to the forming of the socialist labor party
later to be known as just socialist and was very influential in the
country from the late eighteen hundreds to the 1960's beleive it or
not. Victor Berger served in congress for twenty nine years before his
untimely end when a trolley hit him in Milwaukee.The socialists were
responible for the enactment of the social security system. They were
also responsible for unemployment compensation, and welfare. Since this
parties demise we have been going back to the late eighteen hundreds
with a propaganda machine telling us how rosy it is. The big problem we
face today is that media papers such as the voice of the worker
(arbeiten zietung, volksblatt and hundreds of others) no longer exist.
we have, in milwaukee, one paper owning the others and printing what it
wants and taking a very blatant and biased side because they have no
competition. I'll get off my bandwagon. Thank you
David Semsnke
James A. donald
--
On 17 May 1998 17:11:58 GMT, bl...@execpc.com (dave semenske) wrote:
> I beg to differ with you on this remember haymarket square
> where on may first 1886 a number or workers were beaten to
> death by chicago police trying to get them to go back to
> work.
I believe they were killed in the course of their efforts to forcibly
prevent other people from working.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
dwS28kjSv2UAugYgEZ8j8ijJL9OYsO+R2gR/6Q9
4ocqg32+/ILjzpUr/aIIQW6m7zWm4/RY8h3eRiWxC
JC Cooper
James A. donald wrote in message <355d183...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
Of course we should all ignore the fact the increase in bankruptcies is
nothing short of obscene and when the bubble bursts (traded the domestic
deficit for a trade deficit) and those layoffs start up again and those
bankruptcies triple once again, well, you'll see.
Okay, here's the deal. You have 3
choices. Either believe what I say,
research it for yourself and prove me
wrong, or for $187.50 per hour,
I'll do the research for you. All major
credit cards accepted.
James A. donald
--
> > consciousness: They are not suffering from false
> > consciousness, they are planning vacations in Hawaii.
On Sun, 17 May 1998 16:27:04 -0500, "JC Cooper"
<gnatjc...@wcnet.net> wrote:
> Of course we should all ignore the fact the increase in
> bankruptcies is nothing short of obscene and when the
> bubble bursts (traded the domestic deficit for a trade
> deficit) and those layoffs start up again and those
> bankruptcies triple once again, well, you'll see.
At the peak of every boom we get higher levels of home ownership, and
more people participating in the stock market than at the peak of the
previous boom.
During the busts, union membership and support for socialism does not
recover, it just stops falling for a little while.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
uxqmdAUMnucKb+Jnf0WM7mu3/rjRuI5e3HpBSUe1
49YoHV3IK1FyiFcn95qWDsk+whgVbNCtSMJ7LE84x
Gary Forbis
James A. donald wrote:
> --
> On 17 May 1998 17:11:58 GMT, bl...@execpc.com (dave semenske) wrote:
> > I beg to differ with you on this remember haymarket square
> > where on may first 1886 a number or workers were beaten to
> > death by chicago police trying to get them to go back to
> > work.
>
> I believe they were killed in the course of their efforts to forcibly
> prevent other people from working.
These are two very different views of reality. I wish I knew the truth of it.
I believe Reagan sent the head of the air traffic controller's union to jail
because
as federal employees the union didn't have the right to strike. It is one thing
to fire people who do not work but it is quit another to have them thrown in
jail. I can believe police would beat laborers who would not work unless there
was a ready supply of laborers to take their place. The government backs money.
Tom Asquith
On Sun, 17 May 1998 19:39:55 GMT, jam...@echeque.com (James A. donald) wrote:
> --
>On 17 May 1998 17:11:58 GMT, bl...@execpc.com (dave semenske) wrote:
>> I beg to differ with you on this remember haymarket square
>> where on may first 1886 a number or workers were beaten to
>> death by chicago police trying to get them to go back to
>> work.
>
>I believe they were killed in the course of their efforts to forcibly
>prevent other people from working.
Hi James,
Actually the strike was peaceful. Although I personally find pickets
questionable, it does appear they were perfectly within their democratic
rights at the time. Problems only appeared when one anarchist decided
to make a big statement (i.e., bomb--source: unknown but it does appear
there was foreign government involvement).
Cheers,
Tom Asquith
tasq...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
Harry
Ron Jones wrote:
> Libertarians prefer a political climate in which the power of >government is
> reduced to only defending individual rights as defined by the Bill of
> Rights.
> Then businesses will be regulated by the only fair and equitable system
> of regulation there is: competitive markets.
How tiresome -- the sorry apposition of "capitalism vs. socialism."
Organized human enterprise is so much richer. Indeed, the "only" fair
and equitable system of economic regulation is cooperation. Cooperative
business is neither capitalism nor socialism, but it does stand opposed
to the bankrupt notion of capitalist competition. And, please, if
you're going to spew forth with a lecture on cooperatives, make sure you
know what you're talking about.
O. Wenxunawel
Socialism is no disease. And if so, the cure is worst than the disease,
isn't it?
Libertarian PArty? It's a nonsense. Everybody who knows something about
social history knows that the word "libertarian" was first used by Sebastian
Faure, a well known anarchist and revolutionary. And the organization of the
anarchists in Argentina is called Argentinian Libertarian Federation, and
his periodical is called "The Libertarian" And they don't believe in no
fuckin' capitalist free market shit.
Some times, you guys at USA are so naive. What were (scuse the bad english)
what were the "libertarians" thinking when thye called their party that way?
That everybody was as ignorant as them? Uf!
I guess everybody can have an opinion, but don't call that capitalist
nonsense "libertarianism", please?
salud
an angry southamerican
Pistol
I suppose it never occurred to you that memebers of a political
movement are not bound by the ideals of whatever person in history
first coined the name they use.
Or should those who call themselves "Democrats" have to deal with the
fact that those first so called believed in slavery.
FU
>On Fri, 22 May 1998 00:02:15 -0400, "O. Wenxunawel"
><wenx...@entelchile.net> wrote:
>
>>Socialism is no disease. And if so, the cure is worst than the disease,
>>isn't it?
>>Libertarian PArty? It's a nonsense. Everybody who knows something about
>>social history knows that the word "libertarian" was first used by
Sebastian
>>Faure, a well known anarchist and revolutionary. And the organization of
the
>>anarchists in Argentina is called Argentinian Libertarian Federation, and
>>his periodical is called "The Libertarian" And they don't believe in no
>>fuckin' capitalist free market shit.
>>Some times, you guys at USA are so naive. What were (scuse the bad
english)
>>what were the "libertarians" thinking when thye called their party that
way?
>>That everybody was as ignorant as them? Uf!
>>I guess everybody can have an opinion, but don't call that capitalist
>>nonsense "libertarianism", please?
>>
Political terms in the U.S. are different largely because socialism has
never been term that most people here can stomach. The left call themselves
liberals in the U.S. Liberals have had to adopt another term.
LIBERAL
-------------
World definition: someone who believes in free markets, individual liberty,
and the rule of law.
U.S. definition: someone who believes in the welfare state, group rights,
and the arbitrary use of government power for the good of society.
LIBERTARIAN
---------------------
World definition: a left-anarchist / anarchist-communist.
U.S. definition: someone who believes in free markets, individual liberty,
and the rule of law -- a liberal.
James A. donald
--
On Fri, 22 May 1998 00:02:15 -0400, "O. Wenxunawel"
<wenx...@entelchile.net> wrote:
> Everybody who knows something about social history knows
> that the word "libertarian" was first used by Sebastian
> Faure, a well known anarchist and revolutionary
He was not the first person to use the world libertarian, and it is
far from evident that Sebastain Faure was a socialist. Rather he was
an individualist anarchist or a lifestyle anarchist.
Before the catastrophic failure of "anarcho socialism" in Catalonia,
anarchist individualists and "anarchist" collectivists were not so
bitterly divided as they are today. But even then Faure opposed a
class based conception of anarchism, and even then there was quite a
bit of dispute on the issue.
The word "libertarian" was used a couple of centuries earlier than
Sebastian Faure, primarily to describe those who opposed the
establishment of a particular religion.
Modern (post 1937) "anarcho" socialists do not much resemble classic
(pre 1936) anarcho socialists, whereas today's anarcho capitalists and
many modern libertarians bear an obvious resemblance to a large
minority strand within the pre 1936 anarchist movement, in particular
to the position of Spooner, see http://www.jim.com/jamesd/spooner.htm
In any case "libertarian socialism" died an abrupt and horrid death in
Catalonia in the period June 1936 to February 1937, when the
proponents of libertarian socialism suddenly discovered that they
needed a state to impose and maintain socialism. See my web pages
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/cat/blood.htm. Today there is no strand of
thought that much resembles the mainstream of pre 1936 anarchism, but
if anyone can claim to be the true descendants of those people, the
anarcho capitalists have a better claim than those who today call
themselves anarcho-socialists.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
2WRyGW4JHENGjvh1+ZhpQrx0v4ZveLiL5kajX8fZ
4gF+t8X3uhRJc+CDI7P0FqKzzMO3LNn8zwSBINbn0
Ron Jones
FU wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Political terms in the U.S. are different largely because socialism has
> never been term that most people here can stomach. The left call themselves
> liberals in the U.S. Liberals have had to adopt another term.
>
> LIBERAL
> -------------
> World definition: someone who believes in free markets, individual liberty,
> and the rule of law.
>
> U.S. definition: someone who believes in the welfare state, group rights,
> and the arbitrary use of government power for the good of society.
>
So what is is the label the world uses for someone who believes in the
welfare
state, group rights, and the arbitrary use of government power for the
good
of society? Does the world call them welfare statists? Old leftists?
> LIBERTARIAN
> ---------------------
> World definition: a left-anarchist / anarchist-communist.
>
> U.S. definition: someone who believes in free markets, individual liberty,
> and the rule of law -- a liberal.
And I would add: a libertarian (by the U.S. definition) is someone who
believes that the initiation of force, even to achieve desirable ends,
is wrong.
What else, other that "libertarian", could the champions of individual
liberty call themselves, now that welfare statists have stolen the word
"liberal" in the United States?
Ron Jones
Subject: Re: Socialism is a disease. Capitalism is the cure.
From: Harry <black...@net.net>
Date: 1998/05/21
Message-ID: <3563EE...@net.net>
Newsgroups:
> > Libertarians prefer a political climate in which the power of
> > government is
> > reduced to only defending individual rights as defined by the Bill of
> > Rights.
> > Then businesses will be regulated by the only fair and equitable system
> > of regulation there is: competitive markets.
>
The paragraph above says nothing about apposition of capitalism vs.
socialism; you must have snipped that part of my "lecture". So maybe
you are only avoiding a response to what I have said.
If my apposition of so "tiresome" and "sorry", why are you responding
to it?
If the purpose of these newsgroups that have "capitalism" and
"socialism"
in their names are not to explore the differences between capitalism and
socialism, then what are they for?
> Organized human enterprise is so much richer. Indeed, the "only" fair
> and equitable system of economic regulation is cooperation. Cooperative
> business is neither capitalism nor socialism, but it does stand opposed…
There is a great deal of cooperation in a capitalist economy. Such as
between businesses (when the government anti-trust dogs are sleeping),
supplier and manufacturer, consumer and retailer, philanthropist and
beneficiary, employees within a business and yes, (you won’t agree) even
between employer and employee, especially when the employee has
technical
knowledge the employer doesn’t.
> to the bankrupt notion of capitalist competition. And, please, if…
How can you justify the statement that capitalist competition is a
"bankrupt" notion, when capitalist competition has generated incredible
prosperity and socialism unbelievable poverty?
Could it be that you consider equality more important than prosperity?
> you're going to spew forth with a lecture on cooperatives, make sure you
> know what you're talking about.
Now, really, who is doing the "spewing"?
You don’t think I know anything about cooperatives? Maybe you’re right.
Suppose you educate me.
Intelligent debate is difficult. Ad hominem attacks is easy.
Danette & Murray Root
On Sat, 23 May 1998 18:29:00 -0500, Ron Jones <rjo...@mds1.mastnet.net> wrote
in talk.politics.libertarian:
=> FU wrote:
=> >
=> [snip]
=> >
=> > Political terms in the U.S. are different largely because socialism has
=> > never been term that most people here can stomach. The left call themselves
=> > liberals in the U.S. Liberals have had to adopt another term.
=> >
=> > LIBERAL
=> > -------------
=> > World definition: someone who believes in free markets, individual liberty,
=> > and the rule of law.
=> >
=> > U.S. definition: someone who believes in the welfare state, group rights,
=> > and the arbitrary use of government power for the good of society.
=> >
=>
=> So what is is the label the world uses for someone who believes in the
=> welfare
=> state, group rights, and the arbitrary use of government power for the
=> good
=> of society? Does the world call them welfare statists? Old leftists?
=>
'Stupid' seems appropriate.
<>{}[]()[]{}<>{}[]()[]{}<>{}[]()[]{}<>{}[]()[]{}<>{}[]()[]{}<>{}[]()[]{}<>
I have heard it asserted by some, that as America hath flourished under her
former connection with Great Britain, that the same connection is necessary
towards her future happiness, and will always have the same effect. Nothing
can be more fallacious than this kind of argument. We may as well assert,
that because a child has thrived upon milk, that it is never to have meat;
or that the first twenty years of our lives is to become a precedent for
the next twenty.
Common Sense - Thomas Paine
........
http://mroot.home.mindspring.com
James A. donald
--
On Sat, 23 May 1998 18:29:00 -0500, Ron Jones
<rjo...@mds1.mastnet.net> wrote:
> So what is is the label the world uses for someone who
> arbitrary use of government power for the good of society?
> Does the world call them welfare statists? Old leftists?
Generally such people are called "Social Democrats".
In America "liberals".
The "Old left", does not exist, and never did exist. It is merely a
rhetorical trick by totalitarians to disown their support of
yesterday's terror, mass murder, and brutal inequality, while
supporting today's terror, mass murder, and brutal inequality.
Observe for example Dan Clore who will deny that Pol Pot committed
major crimes until shortly before his war with Vietnam, and in the
same posting will also claim that Chomsky acknowledged from the first
that Pol Pot committed major crimes.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
LX9/eO25yyeUwVUycleo80pTi6stR2X77tUB7rsE
4XGMjJI3cqjXV+u270mE+hvffgf0AFKxPp8V7wjtO
Phil Ronzone
In article <3563EE...@net.net> Harry <black...@net.net> writes:
>Ron Jones wrote:
>>Libertarians prefer a political climate in which the power of
>>>government is reduced to only defending individual rights as
>>defined by the Bill of Rights. Then businesses will be
>>regulated by the only fair and equitable system of regulation
>>there is: competitive markets.
>>
>Indeed, the "only" fair and equitable system of economic
>regulation is cooperation. Cooperative business is neither
>bankrupt notion of capitalist competition. And, please, if
>make sure you know what you're talking about.
Sorry Harry. You wrong!
Show us ONE "Cooperative business" that has been a big success.
Like GM or MicroSoft or Intel or WalMart ...
Q; What WORLD important vaccine was in development by both a
profit-minded company AND a non-profit set of charities, all
at the same time?
Q: And who brought out the vaccine first?
Hmmm.
Partial answer: It WASN'T the non-profits ...
--
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me, and you can't prove it!" - B. Simpson
These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Phil Ronzone
In article <356c6242...@news.snowcrest.net> zepphol...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel) writes:
>On Tue, 26 May 1998 17:18:37 GMT, ph...@netcom.com (Phil
>Ronzone) wrote:
>
>>In article <3563EE...@net.net> Harry
>><black...@net.net> writes:
>>>Ron Jones wrote:
>>>>Libertarians prefer a political climate in which the power of
>>>>>government is reduced to only defending individual rights as
>>>>defined by the Bill of Rights. Then businesses will be
>>>>regulated by the only fair and equitable system of regulation
>>>>there is: competitive markets.
>>>>
>>>How tiresome -- the sorry apposition of "capitalism vs.
>>>socialism." Organized human enterprise is so much richer.
>>>Indeed, the "only" fair and equitable system of economic
>>>regulation is cooperation. Cooperative business is neither
>>>capitalism nor socialism, but it does stand opposed to the
>>>bankrupt notion of capitalist competition. And, please, if
>>>you're going to spew forth with a lecture on cooperatives,
>>>make sure you know what you're talking about.
>>>
>>Sorry Harry. You wrong!
>>
>>Show us ONE "Cooperative business" that has been a big
>>success.
>>
>>Like GM or MicroSoft or Intel or WalMart ...
>>
>earliest days of TV, keeping the network financially afloat,
>and in return became well-known nationwide. Or insurance
>companies and hospitals. Banks and land developers. You don't
>believe that businesses have to cooperate to exist?
You misunderstand thge usage of "cooperative" here. It means a socialistic
grouping where the "workers" own the means of production (the "coop").
Coops always fail. See the food coop story in SJMN on the Berkeley
food store coops.
Capitalism is driven by customer wants/needs.
Coops spend most of their time in political internal issues.
Ever hear of Mt. Xinu?
Coal
Ah! Democracy. I remember hearing about that at school, Never saw any
evidence though!
Pistol wrote in message <35658c12...@newshost.cyberramp.net>...
>On Fri, 22 May 1998 00:02:15 -0400, "O. Wenxunawel"
><wenx...@entelchile.net> wrote:
>
>>Socialism is no disease. And if so, the cure is worst than the disease,
>>isn't it?
>>Libertarian PArty? It's a nonsense. Everybody who knows something about
>>social history knows that the word "libertarian" was first used by
Sebastian
>>Faure, a well known anarchist and revolutionary. And the organization of
the
>>anarchists in Argentina is called Argentinian Libertarian Federation, and
>>his periodical is called "The Libertarian" And they don't believe in no
>>fuckin' capitalist free market shit.
>>Some times, you guys at USA are so naive. What were (scuse the bad
english)
>>what were the "libertarians" thinking when thye called their party that
way?
>>That everybody was as ignorant as them? Uf!
>>I guess everybody can have an opinion, but don't call that capitalist
>>nonsense "libertarianism", please?
>>
Coal
Coal
>How can you justify the statement that capitalist competition is a
>"bankrupt" notion, when capitalist competition has generated incredible
>prosperity and socialism unbelievable poverty?
>
Capitalism has created both prosperity and poverty. Prosperity in the local
areas where people see (a little further, but not much further, than the
ends of their noses) but did it at the expense of (for example) the third
world countries, you know, the ones you see on the news that encourage
philanthropy.
There has never been a socialist state that embraces the intended philosophy
behind the word "socialism". Just as the Christians used to rip the eyes and
tongues out of everybody in a town, in case some of them might be heretics,
does not disprove Christianity, a state in poverty calling itself socialist
(or state capitalist for to be far more accurate) does not disprove
socialist ideals!
>Could it be that you consider equality more important than prosperity?
Yes! Any system where some people get fat while others (often in their
millions) are starving is not a good system. It's ironic that those who do
the most work in this system get the least reward. The most hard working are
overseas, so we don't see them very much, but they are there. You would
notice if they weren't because life would not be anyway near as easy!
For my next trick I will question the need for a Japanese apology!
Jim Richardson
On Sat, 30 May 1998 01:21:56 +0100, Coal <no...@m.please> sayeth...:
>
>>How can you justify the statement that capitalist competition is a
>>"bankrupt" notion, when capitalist competition has generated incredible
>>prosperity and socialism unbelievable poverty?
>>
>Capitalism has created both prosperity and poverty. Prosperity in the local
>areas where people see (a little further, but not much further, than the
>ends of their noses) but did it at the expense of (for example) the third
>world countries, you know, the ones you see on the news that encourage
>philanthropy.
I am curious how one would create 'poverty'? Seems a little...
oxy-moronic to me.
--
Jim Richardson
http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
anarchist, pagan and proud of it.
'all hail eris'
Heracleitu
war...@eskimo.com (Jim Richardson) wrote:
>Coal ><no...@m.please> sayeth...:<BR>
>>Capitalism has created both prosperity and poverty. Prosperity
>>in the local
>>areas where people see (a little further, but not much further,
>>than the ends of their noses) but did it at the expense of (for
>>example) the third world countries, you know, the ones you
>>see on the news that encourage philanthropy.
>
>I am curious how one would create 'poverty'? Seems a little...
>oxy-moronic to me.
I know of two fairly common, basic (and mistaken) theories
about that. One confuses free markets with mercantilism,
specifically with the colonial system, in which colonies were
stripped of their natural resources without permission from
or compensation for their native owners (i.e., a clear violation
of libertarian property rights). Of course, forced labor -- whether
simple enslavement of the natives, or using the laws or other
criminal means to force people into working against their will,
or to give unfair advantages either to foreigners or the local
rulers and their cronies -- definitely is exploitation . . . and very
unlibertarian!
The other theory simply defines some arbitrary level forwages,
and defines anyone who pays any amount below that standard
as "creating poverty," even when the wages are fair, based on
productivity, and better than the laborers were earning as farmers.
>
>--
>Jim Richardson
> http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
> anarchist, pagan and proud of it.
>'all hail eris'
Hail Discordia. Kallisti!
--
John Fast
(temporarily posting from an AOL account. :-0 )
Hard-core Libertarian, Jewish, Christian, Taoist, Discordian, and Sub-Genius.
Lepore
> I am curious how one would create 'poverty'? Seems a little...
> oxy-moronic to me.
How about: people work all day, and then their boss
comes by with a wagon and takes away everything that
they had produced.
joshua geller
"Coal" <no...@m.please> writes:
> Ah! Democracy. I remember hearing about that at school, Never saw any
> evidence though!
it's basically like tyranny, except instead of having one master you
have a whole bunch of them.
best,
josh
beum...@my-dejanews.com
In article <ypvu367...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
Do you dilike rational democracy?
> best,
>
> josh
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
beum...@my-dejanews.com
In article <ypvu367...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
joshua geller <dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
>
> "Coal" <no...@m.please> writes:
>
> > Ah! Democracy. I remember hearing about that at school, Never saw any
> > evidence though!
>
> it's basically like tyranny, except instead of having one master you
> have a whole bunch of them.
>
Do you dislike rational democracy?
Heracleitu
Lepore wrote (about "creating poverty"):
>How about: people work all day, and then their boss
>comes by with a wagon and takes away everything that
>they had produced.
Without paying them for the value of the work they did?
Sounds pretty un-libertarian to me!
--
John Fast
jf...@fastindustries.com or cal...@gate.net
(borrowing an AOL account)
Danette & Murray Root
On Sun, 31 May 1998 01:51:20 GMT, beum...@my-dejanews.com wrote in
talk.politics.libertarian:
=> In article <ypvu367...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
=> joshua geller <dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
=> >
=> > "Coal" <no...@m.please> writes:
=> >
=> > > Ah! Democracy. I remember hearing about that at school, Never saw any
=> > > evidence though!
=> >
=> > it's basically like tyranny, except instead of having one master you
=> > have a whole bunch of them.
=> >
=>
=> Do you dislike rational democracy?
=>
Since it is not possible, who cares?
'Tyranny of the majority' is still tyranny.
Guru George
On 31 May 1998 05:46:31 GMT, herac...@aol.com (Heracleitu) wrote:
>Lepore wrote (about "creating poverty"):
>>How about: people work all day, and then their boss
>>comes by with a wagon and takes away everything that
>>they had produced.
>
>Without paying them for the value of the work they did?
>Sounds pretty un-libertarian to me!
It also sounds like he took it away without any prior agreement that
he could come and take it away - even more un-libertarian.
- Guru George
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
"Of course, any people always have the government they
deserve, or the God they deserve. It seems incredible
that people could believe that God would speak from a
high mountain only to tell them "no-nos". But many did,
and some still do.
Original sin, no.
Original stupidity, yes."
- Marcelo Ramos Motta,
from Class C commentary to Liber LXV
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Pistol
On 30 May 1998 05:03:13 GMT, herac...@aol.com (Heracleitu) wrote:
>war...@eskimo.com (Jim Richardson) wrote:
>>Coal ><no...@m.please> sayeth...:<BR>
>>>Capitalism has created both prosperity and poverty. Prosperity
>>>in the local
>>>areas where people see (a little further, but not much further,
>>>than the ends of their noses) but did it at the expense of (for
>>>example) the third world countries, you know, the ones you
>>>see on the news that encourage philanthropy.
>>
>>I am curious how one would create 'poverty'? Seems a little...
>>oxy-moronic to me.
>
>I know of two fairly common, basic (and mistaken) theories
>about that. [snips]
And one you left out - the implied "fixed pie" theory, referred to
above, where the wealth of the US is assumed to be taken from
somewhere, (ie third-world countries), instead of recognizing that it
is created.
Heracleitu
Pistol -- presumably not related to the character in _Henry V_ -- wrote:
>herac...@aol.com (Heracleitu) wrote (about "creating poverty"):<BR>
><BR>
.>>I know of two fairly
>>common, basic (and mistaken) theories about that.
>[snips]
>And one you left
>the US is assumed to be taken from somewhere, (ie third-world countries),
>instead of recognizing that it is created.
Yes, sometimes wealth is produced, and sometimes it's taken
from its producers. One of the benefits of property rights is that
they prevent people from helping themselves by hurting others.
In a free market, assuming everyone's rights are protected --
which is part of the definition of a true free market -- the only
way to be successful is to be productive (or at least lucky), and
not a parasite.
However, we need to make sure that everyone knows that we
realize that there are parasites and other criminals in this world,
and that we think that stealing someone else's resources or other
wealth is absolutely criminal, and that in a Libertarian society such
crimes will be prohibited, prevented, and (when necessary) punished --
and, of course, be willing to explain the details (at least to the
open-minded).
--
John Fast
jf...@fastindustries.com or cal...@gate.net
(using a borrowed AOL account)
"Raise consciousness, not taxes."
Zepp Weasel
On 30 May 1998 04:27:06 GMT, war...@eskimo.com (Jim Richardson)
wrote:
>On Sat, 30 May 1998 01:21:56 +0100, Coal <no...@m.please> sayeth...:
>>
>>>How can you justify the statement that capitalist competition is a
>>>"bankrupt" notion, when capitalist competition has generated incredible
>>>prosperity and socialism unbelievable poverty?
>>>
>>Capitalism has created both prosperity and poverty. Prosperity in the local
>>areas where people see (a little further, but not much further, than the
>>ends of their noses) but did it at the expense of (for example) the third
>>world countries, you know, the ones you see on the news that encourage
>>philanthropy.
>
>
>I am curious how one would create 'poverty'? Seems a little...
>oxy-moronic to me.
It creates winners and losers. And then tries to assure us that all
26 teams can win this year's super bowl because one will.
>
>--
>Jim Richardson
> http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
> anarchist, pagan and proud of it.
>'all hail eris'
----------------------------------------------------
Not dead, in jail, or a slave?
Thank a liberal.
-----------------------------------------------------
Be good, servile little citizen-employees:
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
When in doubt, call a stoat!
-----------------------------------------------------
irv
> > I am curious how one would create 'poverty'? Seems a little...
> > oxy-moronic to me.
>
> How about: people work all day, and then their boss
> comes by with a wagon and takes away everything that
> they had produced.
Or, a corporation cuts jobs in order to increase profits by minimizing
labor costs instead of expanding in order to create jobs. No work, no
money, poverty. Or a corporation demands and gets excessive tax breaks or
subsidies from governments. Higher taxes for everybody, especially those
without lawyers and accountants. Or a corporation uses public resources
without appropriate payment or demoralizes a community with threats of
removal. These are credits to the corporation, but they are negative
contributions to a community. Or internationalizing corporations force
work areas into restricting the rights of labor and demand the
restructuring of the economy to benefit investors and exports, forcing
workers into international wage slavery.
Capitalism is simply a means for accumulating capital. It has no virtue
other than that. Its natural tendency is to force those less able or
willing to compete into poverty, slavery, despair, and jail. Those are
it's real incentives. By appealing to greed and creating brutal
incentives, it dehumanizes those who oppose it or cannot live with it. And
it forces those who would succeed into lying and promoting a slave
ideology. For some, capitalism has become a nasty religion that defies the
attempt of human reason to make capitalism a useful tool. Its adherents
babble dogmatically about free markets and mysterious spirits that make
adjustments somewhere in the ether. Fact is, without reason and
intervention, unrestrained capitalism turns everything that it supports
into shit.
Heracleitu
Irv (i...@sirius.com) wrote (about "creating poverty"):
>Or, a corporation cuts jobs in order to increase profits by minimizing<BR>
>labor costs instead of expanding in order to create jobs. No work, no<BR>
>money, poverty.
Are you talking about a situation in which the business would
make *more* money by expanding, and instead chooses smaller
profits in order to lay off workers out of spite? (I find that highly
unlikely.) Or are you talking about a situation in which the business
would *lose* money by expanding, and so it doesn't?
If you're talking about the second situation, then it sounds like
you're demanding that the owners of the business lose money
in order to support (some of) their workers, and accusing them
of "causing poverty" if they don't comply with your standards.
But it also looks to me like those standards would also apply to
anyone who didn't help the poor in any other way. For example,
it's also "causing poverty" for someone to buy books or internet
access rather than donating that money to the poor; and similarly
it "causes ignorance" every time we spend money on welfare
instead of education and/or scientific research, and "causes
sickness" every time we spend money on poverty or education
instead of health care.
>Or a corporation demands and gets excessive tax breaks or<BR>
>subsidies from governments. Higher taxes for everybody, especially those<BR>
>without lawyers and accountants.
Well, as a Libertarian, I'm completely opposed to government
subsidies to anyone, *especially* big businesses and the wealthy.
So I completely agree with you here!
>Or a corporation uses public resources<BR>
>without appropriate payment or demoralizes a community with threats of<BR>
>removal. These are credits to the corporation, but they are negative<BR>
>contributions to a community.
Again, as a Libertarian, I believe that anyone and everyone who
chooses to use any resource (whether public or private) should
be required to pay fair compensation to the owner of the resource.
So, again, I agree with you on that. But I don't think that it should
be illegal for an individual or group to move where they think is
best for them. (Should it be illegal for a woman to "demoralize a
marriage with threats of divorce" when she's being badly treated?)
>Or internationalizing corporations force<BR>
>work areas into restricting the rights of labor and demand the<BR>
>restructuring of the economy to benefit investors and exports, forcing<BR>
>workers into international wage slavery. <BR>
Huh? I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about, here. I
want to make sure that the rights of *everyone* are protected,
and not violated by anyone, especially the State, to benefit one
individual or group at the expense of another.
--
John Fast
jf...@fastindustries.com or cal...@gate.net
(temporarily using an AOL account)
"Raise consciousness, not taxes."
Pistol
>On 30 May 1998 04:27:06 GMT, war...@eskimo.com (Jim Richardson)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 30 May 1998 01:21:56 +0100, Coal <no...@m.please> sayeth...:
>>>
>>>>How can you justify the statement that capitalist competition is a
>>>>"bankrupt" notion, when capitalist competition has generated incredible
>>>>prosperity and socialism unbelievable poverty?
>>>>
>>>Capitalism has created both prosperity and poverty. Prosperity in the local
>>>areas where people see (a little further, but not much further, than the
>>>ends of their noses) but did it at the expense of (for example) the third
>>>world countries, you know, the ones you see on the news that encourage
>>>philanthropy.
>>
>>I am curious how one would create 'poverty'? Seems a little...
>>oxy-moronic to me.
>
>It creates winners and losers.
How do you figure? When the starving sheep herder and the freezing
corn farmer swap corn for wool, where is the loser? They both look
like winners to me.
>And then tries to assure us that all
>26 teams can win this year's super bowl because one will.
No, quite the opposite - it assures us that every team has the
potential to win the super bowl, even though they can't all win in the
same year.
BTW, you are showing your age - the NFL hasn't had 26 teams since
around 1976. Still rooting for the Baltimore Colts too? :)
Heracleitu
Pistol -- possibly related to the character from _Henry V_ -- wrote:
>zepphol...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel) wrote:<BR>
>>war...@eskimo.com (Jim Richardson) wrote:<BR>
>>>I am curious how one would create 'poverty'? Seems a little...<BR>
>>>oxy-moronic to me.<BR>
>><BR>
>>It creates winners and losers.<BR>
><BR>
>How do you figure? When the starving sheep herder and the freezing<BR>
>corn farmer swap corn for wool, where is the loser? They both look<BR>
>like winners to me.<BR>
I suppose that some other corn farmer could be considered
"the loser," since the sheep herder turned down his offer because
it wasn't as good as the first farmer's. (Presumably he wasn't
as desperate as the first farmer, probably because he wasn't
freezing as badly.)
Alternatively, we can say that some people are better at
their chosen occupations than others in their field, and call
them "winners" and their competitors "losers." By this
standard, however, "winning" and "losing" are determined
by effort, skill, intelligence, and luck (i.e., external factors),
and this situation certainly isn't unique to capitalism!
><BR>
>>And then tries to assure us that all<BR>
>>26 teams can win this year's super bowl because one will. <BR>
><BR>
>No, quite the opposite - it assures us that every team has the<BR>
>potential to win the super bowl, even though they can't all win in the<BR>
>same year.<BR>
And not every team has the same potential. Similarly,
I'm not as good a surgeon as my friend Sophie, while she
isn't as good a writer as I am.
--
John Fast
jfastre...@fastindustries.com or calibanr...@gate.net
Zepp Weasel
On Mon, 01 Jun 1998 22:44:36 GMT, pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>On Mon, 01 Jun 1998 02:38:21 GMT, zepphol...@snowcrest.net (Zepp
>Weasel) wrote:
>
>>On 30 May 1998 04:27:06 GMT, war...@eskimo.com (Jim Richardson)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 30 May 1998 01:21:56 +0100, Coal <no...@m.please> sayeth...:
>>>>
>>>>>How can you justify the statement that capitalist competition is a
>>>>>"bankrupt" notion, when capitalist competition has generated incredible
>>>>>prosperity and socialism unbelievable poverty?
>>>>>
>>>>Capitalism has created both prosperity and poverty. Prosperity in the local
>>>>areas where people see (a little further, but not much further, than the
>>>>ends of their noses) but did it at the expense of (for example) the third
>>>>world countries, you know, the ones you see on the news that encourage
>>>>philanthropy.
>>>
>>>I am curious how one would create 'poverty'? Seems a little...
>>>oxy-moronic to me.
>>
>>It creates winners and losers.
>
>How do you figure? When the starving sheep herder and the freezing
>corn farmer swap corn for wool, where is the loser? They both look
>like winners to me.
And do you suppose that our eight trillion dollar economy is just like
a couple of old rancher buds, engaging in a little friendly barter?
It's one thing to say that a society that averages $31,000 in income a
year is a winner. But when one guy in a hundred is making over 21% of
the aggregate number, and the next nine percent another 20%, leaving
the remaining 90% to get by on <$19,000 (the bottom 20% make less than
$8K a year), then you definitely have a winners and losers situation.
It's a bit more complicated that your folksy little homilies about
Jethro and Zebediah might suggest.
>
>>And then tries to assure us that all
>>26 teams can win this year's super bowl because one will.
>
>No, quite the opposite - it assures us that every team has the
>potential to win the super bowl, even though they can't all win in the
>same year.
Really? I was given to understand that about a half dozen teams show
up in it, and the rest are pretty much locked out. In fact, after 30
some years, isn't it so that most of the teams have never won a super
bowl.
>
>BTW, you are showing your age - the NFL hasn't had 26 teams since
>around 1976. Still rooting for the Baltimore Colts too? :)
Actually, I'm showing my general disinterest in football.
irv
In article <35732e1e...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, pis...@cyberramp.net
(Pistol) wrote:
snip
> >It creates winners and losers.
>
> How do you figure? When the starving sheep herder and the freezing
> corn farmer swap corn for wool, where is the loser? They both look
> like winners to me.
>snip
That's barter, not capitalism. Besides, when did you last see a starving
sheep herder or a freezing corn farmer? If they exist anywhere, they are
probably wage slaves for some modern corporate zombie that owns all the
sheep and all the corn.
JAS Carter
On 01 Jun 1998 18:45:30 GMT, herac...@aol.com (Heracleitu) wrote:
>Irv (i...@sirius.com) wrote (about "creating poverty"):
>>Or, a corporation cuts jobs in order to increase profits by minimizing<BR>
>>labor costs instead of expanding in order to create jobs. No work, no<BR>
>>money, poverty.
>
>Are you talking about a situation in which the business would
>make *more* money by expanding, and instead chooses smaller
>profits in order to lay off workers out of spite? (I find that highly
>unlikely.) Or are you talking about a situation in which the business
>would *lose* money by expanding, and so it doesn't?
It seems that many people on USENET think that business owners are
simply searching for ways to hurt the most people.
Maybe they think they get a degree in sadism with their incorporation.
:)
>>Or a corporation demands and gets excessive tax breaks or<BR>
>>subsidies from governments. Higher taxes for everybody, especially those<BR>
>>without lawyers and accountants.
>
>Well, as a Libertarian, I'm completely opposed to government
>subsidies to anyone, *especially* big businesses and the wealthy.
>So I completely agree with you here!
Why "especially big businesses and the wealthy"? I don't feel any
particular especially, there. The anyone was sufficient. :)
>>Or a corporation uses public resources<BR>
>>without appropriate payment or demoralizes a community with threats of<BR>
>>removal. These are credits to the corporation, but they are negative<BR>
>>contributions to a community.
>
>Again, as a Libertarian, I believe that anyone and everyone who
>chooses to use any resource (whether public or private) should
>be required to pay fair compensation to the owner of the resource.
>So, again, I agree with you on that. But I don't think that it should
>be illegal for an individual or group to move where they think is
>best for them. (Should it be illegal for a woman to "demoralize a
>marriage with threats of divorce" when she's being badly treated?)
How about a parent demoralizing a child with threats of grounding,
etc?
>>Or internationalizing corporations force<BR>
>>work areas into restricting the rights of labor and demand the<BR>
>>restructuring of the economy to benefit investors and exports, forcing<BR>
>>workers into international wage slavery. <BR>
>
>Huh? I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about, here. I
>want to make sure that the rights of *everyone* are protected,
>and not violated by anyone, especially the State, to benefit one
>individual or group at the expense of another.
International wage slavery? How dramatic.
J A S Carter
jsgo...@zippynet.com
John VanSickle
Heracleitu wrote:
>
> Pistol -- possibly related to the character from _Henry V_ -- wrote:
> >zepphol...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel) wrote:
> >>>I am curious how one would create 'poverty'? Seems a little...
> >>>oxy-moronic to me.
> >>
> >
> >How do you figure? When the starving sheep herder and the freezing
> >corn farmer swap corn for wool, where is the loser? They both look
> >like winners to me.
>
> "the loser," since the sheep herder turned down his offer because
> it wasn't as good as the first farmer's.
Actually under socialism, the other farmer is regarded as the "loser"
because it provides an excuse for state intervention.
Regards,
John
Pistol
On 2 Jun 1998 15:08:12 GMT, i...@sirius.com (irv) wrote:
>In article <35732e1e...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, pis...@cyberramp.net
>(Pistol) wrote:
>
>snip
>> >It creates winners and losers.
>>
>> How do you figure? When the starving sheep herder and the freezing
>> corn farmer swap corn for wool, where is the loser? They both look
>> like winners to me.
>>snip
>
>That's barter, not capitalism.
Oh, excuse me - the farmer buys the wool, and then the herder buys the
corn. Happy?
>Besides, when did you last see a starving
>sheep herder or a freezing corn farmer? If they exist anywhere, they are
>probably wage slaves for some modern corporate zombie that owns all the
>sheep and all the corn.
Banter to avoid the point, I suppose.
Roger Mogert
It is still the basic message of capitalism though:
"We can all be members of the small group of winners."