Amnesty Bill for illegal immigrants defeated in Senate. by AURaptor

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I can't tell you how perverse it feels to side with GW against RP

All that means is that you follow your logic to conclusion.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 12:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BTW Fletch2, now that I have your attention- weren't you the one who said (in another thread) that the counterfeit products in Hong Kong are as good as the 'real" stuff? Have you seen the problems with counterfeit toothpaste (contains poison), counterfeit cough syrup (contains poison), farmed fish (cotains poison) and wheat gluten (contains poison) in the past three months? Not exactly a good track record, is it?

Finn- You've said at one time or another in this thread that starving people are lazy, that rich people create jobs, that the minimum wage causes unemployment and poverty.

Quote:
Never said starving people are lazy – that’s a figment of your imagination (or a figment of rue’s imagination that you’re regurgitating). Rich people do create jobs and the minimum wage does cause unemployment.

What you said exactly was "entitled" and "expecting some handout" What's the difference? I would say that you have not looked too closely at the lives of the poor.

And rich people do not create jobs- at least not as much as the middle class does- because rich people do not spend all of their income, and demand creates jobs. Let me put it to this this way Finn, imagine that you're a rich capitalist. You've bought three mansions, a yacht, a Rolls made of silver and a private jet. You have 200 servants. 10 favorite prostitutes in each country that you visit, and you still have money leftover. Now what?

You COULD invest in building a new factory and "create jobs" but unless you see a demand for your product you're not likely to. So you either move your factory where wages are cheaper or you invest in automation, which either leaves the number of jobs static or reduces them. Or you speculate in gold, or diamonds, or fine art or comic books, none of which create jobs.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 3:14 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

No matter how you try to spin it Finn, you revealed your basic premise that poor people on the edge of survival are to blame for their situation. You think capitalism is a given and that people who can't 'make it' under capitalism are unfit and unnatural and should starve.

Originally posted by rue:
You'd think that with all that time to kill they'd build themselves homes, grow their own food, 'work' to sustain themselves even without a 'job'. Why doesn't that happen?

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I suspect that it probably does happen. If it doesn’t happen, it’s perhaps because they are expecting some handout from the government or some other entity.

Originally posted by rue:
Finn, if you think that people all over the globe are too damned lazy to get off their asses so as not to starve --- if you think they're waiting for government handouts when there are no government programs - you've got reality issues.

Finn, what I find weird (and frankly repulsive) is that you would rather assume a half a billion or so people around the globe are poor b/c they're too lazy and too entitled to work.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Never said starving people are lazy – that’s a figment of your imagination (or a figment of rue’s imagination that you’re regurgitating)

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 4:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I can't tell you how perverse it feels to side with GW against RP
All that means is that you follow your logic to conclusion.

I considered a disclaimer, complete with suspicions as to Bush's intent. But I supposed it's fair enough to admit that, on this issue, I think he's right. That's what's so confusing about the man. Unlike most politicians, I think he really does choose his positions on perceived virtue. It's his confusion of 'resolve' with a pig-headed, inability to admit error that sinks his ship. He once decided that the neo-cons had it right and can't bring himself to admit he was horribly wrong.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 7:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sarge, I have another problem with uncontrolled immigration. It goes like this: Even assuming that our government has the best intentions and plans for assimilating immigrants: language and general education, familiarity with basic laws (You'd be surprised how many Muslim immigrant wives don't know that getting beaten is against the law), health screening and treatment for third-world diseases like TB and Chagas and bilharzia), increasing school and hospital services etc etc... that program can only absorb so many people at a time. And in the end, the labor market in the USA can only absorb so many people.

It's not like we can tell these folks to grab forty acres and a mule. We're beyond that point.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 7:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

Every time I bring up a reason to raise the minimum wage you cite your economic model (competition for jobs) as to why it won't work. Then I project your model's future to it's endpoint, which is starvation and economic collapse, and challenge you to find a reason within your own framework why it won't get there and suddenly your model is discarded because of "social and political considerations". What I think you're saying NOW is that political considerations will- and should- affect economic policy. Correct? If that's the case, isn't a minimum wage a valid political reaction to an economic policy?

Here's the problem. In "projecting the model" you actually take it outside of reasonable bounds to a point far beyond what is a reasonable expectation. Also if you go back and read what I wrote in context (and not snipping just the sections you want to use as a straw man) then you will see that I have said that there will be cases where either the employer soaks the increase to ensure stability of his business OR can pass the increase along to his customers.

The problem you refuse to see is that there will be situations where that will not be possible and in those situations there will be job losses. You look at Adidas sneakers, imagine a 1000% markup on manufacture and apply this to everything. In fact there are all kinds of jobs like burger flipping where the pay rate for the job is determined by the low cost of the product. If other market concerns stop the price from rising then there isnt a 1000% markup to absorb the wage increase. In that case jobs will be lost. Refusing to accept that doesnt make it less true.

Of course if you keep your job then things are better for you. If you've lost your job ...... not so much.

And by the way you are absolutely right minimum wage increases are a political concern not an economic one. Of course you see this as power to the people. I see it as one group of our political master's throwing a bone to folks in the hope of getting votes next time..... think bread and circuses.

Quote:

WHAT?? This is plainly false. People starve every day and in many cases it's because of economic policy, not a disaster like crop failure or genocide.

Example? Are there people starving to death in America now? Really? Where?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 7:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW Fletch2, now that I have your attention- weren't you the one who said (in another thread) that the counterfeit products in Hong Kong are as good as the 'real" stuff? Have you seen the problems with counterfeit toothpaste (contains poison), counterfeit cough syrup (contains poison), farmed fish (cotains poison) and wheat gluten (contains poison) in the past three months? Not exactly a good track record, is it?

Let's see I wrote

Quote:

No they are real. If you examine the goods you will find them to be of the same quality so if they are not the real deal then the counterfeit is equivalent. Like I said, at point of production they are all cheap trainers.

If they are poisonous then of course they are not of the same quality. You know if I were Rue and gave out idiotic pet names I think I'd call you Fauxboy because you obviously learned your methods of political discourse from watching Faux news. You lie, you exagerate, you quote people out of context, you attribute opinions to them they never actually expressed. You ignore the whole argument in favour of sound bites you can then demonise.... oh and you love to do the uninformed popularist talking head thing.

Bill O'Really has a rival.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 8:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Fletch2,

Quote:
The problem you refuse to see is that there will be situations where that will not be possible and in those situations there will be job losses.

The problem is that job losses don't have to occur and you fail to see it. I look at minimum wage as a form of collective bargaining through the government. Now what would happen if there were some form of collective bargaining worldwide, just as multinationals operate worldwide? So that tractor makers would not be able to play the USA against Japan against S Korea but would be facing a united labor force everywhere they went? That instead of some people losing jobs everyone had a reduced workweek for their previous pay? I suppose you would say that profits would have to be reduced- which is anathema in your thinking- or that prices would all go up and inflation would ensue.

What would happen if all governments mandated a maximum allowable profit? Or if corporate law was changed such that they suddenly did not have a huge tax advantage over individuals? Or if the United States government stopped interfering militarily in the economic processes within various nations? YOUR problem is that you constrain your model to individuals bargaining against corporations when it comes to the labor market but don't constrain profit-making. What gives?

Quote:
No they are real. If you examine the goods you will find them to be of the same quality so if they are not the real deal then the counterfeit is equivalent. Like I said, at point of production they are all cheap trainers.

I don't know Fletch, this sounds to me like a pretty blanket statement that counterfeits are the same quality as "the real deal". I recall a TV show which I can't link to (too old) that examined counterfeit goods on the Hong Kong market (purses, golf clubs, DVDs etc) and found substantive differences in quality. They did a big sgment on golf clubs: gave it to an expert player to try, tested how far a counterfeit golf club could drive a ball (with a golf-club swingin machine, if you can believe it) compared to the "real deal" (only about half as far) and took apart both clubs to examine the construction and material differences between them. I remember it in detail because I really don't like golf and I thought it an odd thing to focus on.

I referenced toothpaste and cough syrup simply because they're recent stories that are easily linked. So I examined the counterfeits (via the FDA) and found they were NOT of the same quality. Are you calling these "false" because I haven't linked them? Here they are:

From China to Panama, a Trail of Poisoned Medicine
www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/world/americas/06poison.html?ex=1183435200&
en=79c014aef4922338&ei=5070

Counterfeit Colgate toothpaste recalled
Antifreeze chemical found in tubes in 4 states; no injuries reported
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19214360/
900,000 tubes of toothpaste imported from China contaminated with chemical used in antifreeze were found in institutions for the mentally ill, hospitals, prisons, and juvenile detention centers in Georgia and North Carolina, according to The New York Times.
www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2007/06/28/hscout606035.
html

Cheap production is sometimes too cheap. That's why we find toxic residues is Chinese farmed fish and melamine in wheat gluten. I made a point of linking business-friendly sources so that you couldn't claim I was being an alarmist.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 9:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fletch2,
Quote:
The problem you refuse to see is that there will be situations where that will not be possible and in those situations there will be job losses.
The problem is that job losses don't have to occur and you fail to see it. I look at minimum wage as a form of collective bargaining through the government. Now what would happen if there were some form of collective bargaining worldwide, just as multinationals operate worldwide? So that tractor makers would not be able to play the USA against Japan against S Korea but would be facing a united labor force everywhere they went? That instead of some people losing jobs everyone had a reduced workweek for their previous pay? I suppose you would say that profits would have to be reduced- which is anathema in your thinking- or that prices would all go up and inflation would ensue.

After a while these diatribes just become noise. I'm sorry I really did try to read them at the beginning but after a while it just gets painfull. That's why I keep asking for specific instances and refusing to talk to you until I get them. I'm not really interested in your grand visions. I have to live in the world we have.

Most of the world's economic activity does not take place through huge Gibsonesque multinational Zaibatsu. Most activity still takes place at a local national level and that tends to be where it is unionised. If you think on it Unions actually face issues as they scale that would be complicated as they go international. In Europe as one car manufacturer decided to close plants there was active lobbying by governments and unions to keep the plants in THEIR nations open. Makes you wonder how say a French unionised workforce would feel if their British centered union agreed to closing a plant in France over one in England? Unions actually split into smaller ones if sufficient members think the central leadership no longer reflects their interest. Can a European union convince asian workers that they are negociating for their benefit and not that of their European members? Even if they were how hard would it be for management to promote that idea?

Quote:

What would happen if all governments mandated a maximum allowable profit? Or if corporate law was changed such that they suddenly did not have a huge tax advantage over individuals? Or if the United States government stopped interfering militarily in the economic processes within various nations?

taking them one at a time

1) "What would happen if all governments mandated a maximum allowable profit?" -- someone would break rank for economic advantage. Let me cite Usery laws. The US had them since colonial days, laws that outlawed or restricted lending of money for excessive interest. In the 1970's SOTUS decided that companies were bound by the regulations of their home states and Delaware, seeing the benefits, abolished their usery laws. This attracted banks and creditcard companies to Delaware because credit contracts they wrote in Delaware could then be enforced in states with tighter regulation. If all but one country decided to sign your pact then the one country that didn't would become the host of every multinational with the accompanying economic advantages. Any idiot (but you) could see that would happen which is why nowhere would try to enact it.

2) "Or if corporate law was changed such that they suddenly did not have a huge tax advantage over individuals?" --- They would move their headquarters off shore or to a country with better tax provisions. True story, back in the 1990's there was a Swedish multinational that bought and maintained an almost empty corporate headquarters building in London. It had a capacity for several 1000 workers and yet less than 200 used it. Why? Because in discussing corporate taxes with the Swedish government the company could point to this building and show that they could legally become a UK company within the financial year by transfering headquarters staff to London.

3) "Or if the United States government stopped interfering militarily in the economic processes within various nations?" -- Which US government? The one that was then in power and would be pilarised for failing to support "US interests" or the ones that would follow them once US industry started to suffer?

Here's the problem. Everyone in the world looks after their own interests. The American Government is elected by Americans, not by European or Asians and Americans want jobs and money and material goods. If the US stopped "playing the game" that doesnt mean that anyone else would. If the US didn't prop up the Saudi's China would and of course they would get the resulting oil. If the US doesnt support South Korean do you think they'll just shrug that off or do you think they will find new "friends." In the end "US Interests" means economic advantage to the US and jobs at home.

The US is playing a more advanced version of the old European Imperial game, they are using money, military might and aid to secure raw materials for their industry and markets for their finished goods. If they stop doing that kind of thing unilaterally then someone will step in to fill the void, just like the US stepped into former Imperial markets when the European Empires folded.

Quote:

YOUR problem is that you constrain your model to individuals bargaining against corporations when it comes to the labor market, but not when it comes to the profit-making end of things. What gives?

I havent expressed anything about this topic at all. Minimum pay LEGISLATION is not " individuals bargaining against corporations" and in fact most minimum pay jobs wont be corporate jobs anyway. This is your standard technique of attributing your opinion for what others have actually said.

Quote:
No they are real. If you examine the goods you will find them to be of the same quality so if they are not the real deal then the counterfeit is equivalent. Like I said, at point of production they are all cheap trainers.
I don't know Fletch, this sounds to me like a pretty blanket statement that counterfeits are the same quality as "the real deal".

This conversation is now over. I am fed up of you constantly playing Faux news. I dont watch them and I certainly dont have to talk to you. When you can actually hold a reasonable discussion without gross distortion we may talk. Otherwise I refuse to deal with any more attention whoring.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 9:37 AM

ANTIMASON

do we still have property rights in America? or was that forfeited along with our sovereignty? its so obvious that Mexico is colluding with certain traitors to aide this exodus and invasion from the third world, and eventual bastard union that will ruin America forever. the poverty and injustice in Mexico is not our responsibility, that falls on Mexico, and they will never have a revolution if we continue to enable and nurture these conditions.

who can legitimately argue that an illegal immigrant pays anything near the taxes that a citizen does, like the 7k plus for a childs education or the thousands in income taxes over the years? if we commit to getting rid of the entitlement system first, and secure our borders and enforce the laws already on the books, then maybe we can talk about free trade and travel. until then we do need to be tough. thats not intolerance, its simple obedience to the 'rule of law'.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 9:56 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Fletch2

People die by the tens of thousands in the US freezing to death, roasting to death, with untended illness, and yes, some even starve to death. That they do not outright starve to death in large numbers is due to massive federal and other programs. "35.1 million people (1 in 10) lived in households considered to be food insecure" (see below).

http://www.frac.org/html/hunger_in_the_us/hunger_index.html
35.1 million people (1 in 10) lived in households considered to be food insecure.
In the United States hunger manifests itself, generally, in a less severe form (than starvation). This is in part because established programs – like the federal nutrition programs. While starvation seldom (though sometimes) occurs in this country, children and adults do go hungry and chronic mild undernutrition does occur when financial resources are low.

ttp:// www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/28/sicko.fact.check/index.html
According to the Institute of Medicine, 18,000 people do die each year mainly because they are less likely to receive screening and preventive care for chronic diseases.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5529a2.htm
During 1999--2003, a total of 3,442 deaths resulting from exposure to extreme heat were reported (annual mean: 688).

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5407a4.htm
During 1979--2002 ... an average of 689 per year were attributed to exposure to excessive natural cold.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 10:00 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Fletch2- I'm talking worldwide. You should have gotten that from my post. The basic assumption of capitalism- and you should know this being such a capitalist

- is such that different actors in the various markets- labor, owners, government, consumers etc - face each other with equal power. Since corporations are multinational the other actors - government, consumers, labor- must also be international to be equal in power for true negotiations to occur. In addition, the negotiations must occur "without fear or force" (Adam Smith). So military has to be eliminated from the process. The question is how to get there forom here?

Let me give you an example: textile and clothing workers face stiff competition from South and Central America, the Marianas, and Haiti where the American dollar goes far. Can you imagine what would happen if the clothing manufacturer's unions donated money to strike funds in those nations? Oh yeah, that's right... you have to deal with the world as we have it and have no imagination for making things better. Bend over and enjoy seems to be your message.

Fletch What I'm trying to get you to consider is an endpoint in which automation creates leisure time, not unemployment and starvation. Productivity should be a tool for improved living standards not a whip in the hands of corporations. Your problem is that you simply cannot envision a world in which corporations don't hold the whip hand.

-------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 10:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch2

People die by the tens of thousands in the US due to cold, heat, and lack of medical care. That they do not outright starve to death in large numbers (though some do) is due to federal and other programs.

http://www.frac.org/html/hunger_in_the_us/hunger_index.html
35.1 million people (1 in 10) lived in households considered to be food insecure.
In the United States hunger manifests itself, generally, in a less severe form (than starvation). This is in part because established programs – like the federal nutrition programs. While starvation seldom occurs in this country, children and adults do go hungry and chronic mild undernutrition does occur when financial resources are low.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5529a2.htm

I don't want to sound flipant here because it's a serious matter, but people are not starving to death like he claimed. I'm sorry but if he gets to be a pain in the ass I expect similar rights.

Moving on here

Quote:

During 1999--2003, a total of 3,442 deaths resulting from exposure to extreme heat were reported (annual mean: 688).

Is that all? in just 2003 there were almost that many deaths through heat in France alone. You know France? Well known center of robber capitalism?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3160021.stm

Also, I suspect the Marine that got lost in teh forest last month will be included in this years figures. How many of these deaths are poverty and how many lifestyle/stupidity?

Quote:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5407a4.htm
During 1979--2002 ... an average of 689 per year were attributed to exposure to excessive natural cold.

You might find this interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5372296.stm

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/28/sicko.fact.check/index.html
According to the Institute of Medicine, 18,000 people do die each year mainly because they are less likely to receive screening and preventive care for chronic diseases.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Why dont you fix it then? Who elects your government? Don't look at me I can't vote.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 10:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And in the end, the labor market in the USA can only absorb so many people.

This sounds like the old argument that "they'll take all our jobs" and that never made any sense to me. Work isn't some limited commodity that can be hoarded or needs to be rationed. There can be as many jobs as there are people to do them.

I'm not necessarily calling for uncontrolled immigration. We have a reasonable interest in keeping out dangerous people. But that's not the situation with the Mexicans. They're already here, working their asses of for substandard wages and living as second-class (non)citizens.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 10:15 AM

LEADB

Rue;
Less than 700 deaths attributed to 'natural cold'; looking at your link

Quote:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5407a4.htm
During 1979--2002 ... an average of 689 per year were attributed to exposure to excessive natural cold.

I'd have to say 'acceptable losses'. If you look at the case items they report, folks wandering off in dementia, drunk, or marijuana haze is sad and all, but I'm not sure there's a lot of reduction here to be had. I'd have to say we probably have as about of much of a safety net as is practical here.

Likewise on the heat deaths... Again under 700 per year. "The state with the highest average annual hyperthermia-related death rate during 1999--2003 was Arizona (1.7 deaths per 100,000 population), followed by Nevada (0.8) and Missouri (0.6)." Perhaps some public awareness and additional 'heat shelters' in these three states might be appropriate, but again, there will always be sad exceptions.

On the flip side, the hunger and health care issues (which might incidentally help on the cold/heat death problem as you will note at both URL's there's significant 'health related' contributers on both) do seem to merit some additional attention.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
... invasion from the third world, and eventual bastard union that will ruin America forever.

Anti, this is exactly the kind of xenophobic bigotry that creeped me out at the Ron Paul rally I went to. I didn't hear it directly in anything he said. And in reality very few of the people there represented this perspective. But the few who did seemed to me to be the ugliest of Americans.

Here's something to think about. The US was born and raised a 'bastard union'. It's one of the biggest sources of our strength. We've benefited enormously from a constant flow of people looking for a better life. Why would you want to cut that off?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 10:25 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I'd have to say 'acceptable losses'. If you look at the case items they report, folks wandering off in dementia, drunk, or marijuana haze is sad and all, but I'm not sure there's a lot of reduction here to be had."
There is a background accidental average, but from my work in the NE in a large county hospital, I can safely say many who freeze to death (and they genuinely freeze) are 1) homeless or 2) unable to afford heat.

"on the heat deaths... Again under 700 per year"
Until you have heat waves like a few years ago in which many elderly died in their homes in Chicago. When it comes to heat deaths while there may be some accidental background average, most often they are elderly and unable to install or run the AC (and afford their food and medicine at the same time). They think they can 'weather' the heat and save their money for some other necessity, but it becomes a fatal trap.

People also die quite often due to lack of medical care, and even of starvation.

Fletch2 was trying to make a point that people in the US don't die from lack of necessities. I was trying to point out that indeed, they do.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 10:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Work isn't some limited commodity that can be hoarded or needs to be rationed.

Tell that to the millions of people in the world who have neither food, houses, nor jobs. Have you ever tried to find a job facing 20% unemployment? I have. It's tough. I couldn't even get a job in a pickle factory or drycleaners. I have been trying- valiantly I might add- to get our resident capitalists

to acknowledge that this is so and to understand WHY this is so but apparently there are no flaws in our system and everything is just fine.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 10:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fletch2- I'm talking worldwide.

I refer the honorable gentlemen to my previous answer....

Quote:

This conversation is now over. I am fed up of you constantly playing Faux news. I dont watch them and I certainly dont have to talk to you. When you can actually hold a reasonable discussion without gross distortion we may talk. Otherwise I refuse to deal with any more attention whoring.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 10:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Fletch2 was trying to make a point that people in the US don't die from lack of necessities. I was trying to point out that indeed, they do.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Unfortunately people also die in places like France which has some of the highest welfare spending in the world. If you read the link I posted a significant part of the problem IS people not doing the right things and perishing as a result and that will happen even if you spend top dollar trying to prevent it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 10:39 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Fletch

"but people are not starving to death like he claimed" People ARE starving to death in the US. They may not be falling over in the streets in large numbers like in the seige of Leningrad but they are dying. (As a fact, while people are starving in LARGE numbers in India, you don't see them keeling over in the streets there either.)

You seem to think no one ever dies of want in the US. It happens many times a day.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 10:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, THAT'S churlish!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 10:41 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

He must not have had anything to offer.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 10:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, THAT'S churlish!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

I refer the honorable gentlemen to my previous answer....

Quote:

This conversation is now over. I am fed up of you constantly playing Faux news. I dont watch them and I certainly dont have to talk to you. When you can actually hold a reasonable discussion without gross distortion we may talk. Otherwise I refuse to deal with any more attention whoring.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 10:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Why would you want to cut that off?

Because we no longer have an "open" (ie depopulated) frontier to settle and immigrants or the people they displace no longer have an independent entre into the economy? The Founding Fathers were quite aware how the "west" solved many nascent economic and political problems. If I can, I will re-borrow a book I read recently that looks at EACH signer in detail and pull some relevant quotes for you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 10:50 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Let's see Fletch

You want to 'splain away people in the US NE freezing to death by reference to a unrelated link. And yet your reference said that people in Britain didn't die of hypothermia. And your reference said cold is a greater issue where people don't normally experience it. So, we have people in the US NE who are experienced with cold (happens every year, wouldn't 'cha know) dying of hypothermia, and you counter with something unrelated.

The same is true BTW of heat - people in areas who are inexperienced with heat are at greater fractional risk than in areas experienced with heat. That was the issue with France. OTOH you want to compare that with Chicago where every summer it gets over 100F and stays over 90F days on end, with Paris. Apple, meet orange,

So, you like to say 'give me facts!', but when someone comes up with facts you don't like, you deny them, distract the argument, and ignore the rest.

Bottom line: people die of want many times every day in the US.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 10:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Well, THAT'S churlish!= Signy

I refer the honorable gentlemen to my previous answer....=Fletch

Oh, I see he thinks I was talking to him. hahahaha!!!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 10:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch

"but people are not starving to death like he claimed" People ARE starving to death in the US. They may not be falling over in the streets in large numbers like in the seige of Leningrad but they are dying. (As a fact, while people are starving in LARGE numbers in India, you don't see them keeling over in the streets there either.)

You seem to think no one ever dies of want in the US. It happens many times a day.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

1) I said starving to death and I meant it. Because you could not support his possition you widened the discussion to include other factors. I am still waiting for the starvation figures. If you dont have those why dont you shut up because you obviously have "nothing to offer" to that part of the discussion.

2) as illistrated, even in nations with significant social spending there are still losses due to heat and cold every year. Therefore the suggestion that poverty is the only appreciable source of none lifestyle "accidental" deaths seems inaccurate. Even when resources are available there will be people who still die, you will probably never reach a zero point.

Why are you still here? Don't you have a health service to fight for? No wait, you're one of those types that would rather whine on the internet than do anything constructive. Write to your congressman demanding universal health care before you bother me again.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 10:57 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I said starving to death and I meant it."

People DO starve to death in the US. You must not have read my link. While it doesn't happen 'in great numbers' - it DOES happen.

And the fact that it doesn't happen more is not due to market forces or the wonders of capitalism - it's due to government anti-hunger programs. MASSIVE programs I might add, as 1 in 10 can't get enough food on their own.

"as illistrated, even in nations with significant social spending there are still losses due to heat and cold every year" But they are not due to homelessness and poverty.

"Why are you still here?" Well, and howdy dooody to you too ! I'm at work on my own time taking care of a few things. "Don't you have a health service to fight for?" Why are YOU still here? Don't you have someone to starve ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 11:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Let's see Fletch

You want to 'splain away people in the US NE freezing to death by reference to a unrelated link. And yet your reference said that people in Britain didn't die of hypothermia. And your reference said cold is a greater issue where people don't normally experience it. So, we have people in the US NE who are experienced with cold (happens every year, wouldn't 'cha know) dying of hypothermia, and you counter with something unrelated.

Except you narrowed the discussion to the NE after I made my initial point. You spoke about national losses, I answered about national losses. Once you realised that your argument was invalid you then chose to restrict the scope in an attempt to invalidate my rebuttal.

Quote:

The same is true BTW of heat - people in areas who are inexperienced with heat are at greater fractional risk than in areas experienced with heat. That was the issue with France. OTOH you want to compare that with Chicago where every summer it gets over 100F and stays over 90F days on end, with Paris. Apple, meet orange,

Not at all. Your argument seems to be that these folks nationwide all die of poverty. I would argue that nationwide a significant number die of what we would call "misadventure." I further point out that even in a resource rich environment you will still have losses. If you think I'm saying anything else look again.

Quote:

So, you like to say 'give me facts!', but when someone comes up with facts you don't like, you deny them, distract the argument, and ignore the rest.

Bottom line: people die of want many times every day in the US.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Still waiting on starvation figures. If Sigy is right there should be hundreds of thousands right? You were the one distracting the argument here ........

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 11:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
" Why are YOU still here? Don't you have someone to starve ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

I have a health service and I vote to maintain it. You can't blame me if you dont do likewise.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 11:16 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Except you narrowed the discussion to the NE after I made my initial point. You spoke about national losses, I answered about national losses. Once you realised that your argument was invalid you then chose to restrict the scope in an attempt to invalidate my rebuttal."

Blah blah blah ... And WHERE are those national losses ? That's right, in COLD areas LIKE the NE. Of genuine 100% hypothermia. Some accidental, many due to poverty.

"all die of poverty" All ??? ALL ??? Where did I say ALL ??? Please find me that quote. I thought I referenced background accidental numbers. HHHmmm ... you must have been reading someone else's post. Maybe you were smokin' somethin' ?

"I further point out that even in a resource rich environment you will still have losses." Now maybe you would have a point, if you had one. "Resource rich" doesn't mean "ready". To be "ready" you have to have experience and have installed the systems ahead of time. England being inexperienced with killer cold, and France with killer heat didn't have the resources in place. Now Buffalo and Chicago have the experience and they know what will happen 'cause it happens often.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 11:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

And the fact that it doesn't happen more is not due to market forces or the wonders of capitalism - it's due to government anti-hunger programs. MASSIVE programs I might add, as 1 in 10 can't get enough food on their own.

Are you sure? Have you ever thought about the saying "Society is only three meals away from revolution?" Think on that a moment. For most of the 19th century we had the most egregious forms of robber capitalism, women and children worked in mines, people really DID starve in massive numbers and almost nothing was done.

Yet we get to the mid 20th century where we have communist and fascist revolutions where starving people suddenly overthrew or voted out democracies for regimes that promised sability and bread. In the west the industrial elites where threatened for the first time, if it could happen in Germany and Italy why not Britain and the US? Then all of a sudden we actually had welfare programs, after 100 years of doing nothing there they were and the status quo was maintained.

A friend of mine, a socialist and a trade unionist once told me that at it's core welfare is anti revolution insurance. A way that the elites ensure the populous are never quite hungry enough to throw out their masters.

So are those people given food as a humanitarian gesture or is it so they dont cause trouble?

I'm genuinely interested in your answer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 11:24 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"If Sigy is right there should be hundreds of thousands right?"

SignyM was making a global argument. Many thousands DO starve to death in India (a nice capitalist example).
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/2002/1112starvation.htm
http://www.ambedkar.org/News/Starvrearsits.htm
Even though it has enough to feed everyone and there are enough warehoused stores of sacks of wheat to reach to the moon and back.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 11:45 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

DANG! we must have cross-posted !

"So are those people given food as a humanitarian gesture or is it so they dont cause trouble?

I'm genuinely interested in your answer."

In the US many generally social programs came about during The Great Depression so as to avoid revolution. (There was an active political threat at them time.) That broke the ice and paved the way for more inclusive programs. The US repubicans have been trying to undo it ever since.

Here are some links about the programs. What they don't say is that union activities and riots brought them about.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/rules/Legislation/history.htm
The First Food Stamp Program (FSP) - May 16, 1939-Spring 1943

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/AFDC/baseline/1history.pdf
In the face of widespread hardship and the exhaustion of public and private resources for the poor during the Depression, Congress passed the 1935 Social Security Act. What we know as Social Security today was only one of several programs that Congress included in the Act. The Act also included funds for the States to help destitute elderly, blind, and children.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 11:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"If Sigy is right there should be hundreds of thousands right?"

SignyM was making a global argument. Many thousands DO starve to death in India (a nice capitalist example).
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/2002/1112starvation.htm

Of course if you read the article you would see

1) one of the regions was subject to a famine

2) The government doesnt seem very good at issuing aid cards

3) They price aid food higher than the local market rate and then wonder why nobody buys it.

Quote:

Food policy experts say that the pricing of foodgrains for APL and BPL categories is far too high. They have pointed out that the price of grain is sometimes cheaper in mandis (local markets). Consequently, the PDS grains have few takers and state governments have been unwilling to lift the grains they are allocated. This means that foodgrains in government warehouses remain unutilized. Because of poor quality and inadequate storage facilities, millions of tons of foodgrains are eaten up by rats or simply rot.

According to Planning Commission statistics, a third of the surplus food stocks (31 percent of the rice, 36 percent of the wheat and 23 percent of the sugar) in the government warehouses that is meant for the PDS is siphoned away by a nexus of politicians, officials and traders into the black market. One study indicates that 64 percent of rice stocks in Bihar and Assam, and 44 percent and 100 percent of wheat stocks in Bihar and Nagaland respectively "disappear" from the PDS.

There are several government relief schemes for the rural poor. Reporting from Baran, Bhavdeep Kang writes in Outlook, "Given the large number of central and state food aid schemes, it is hard to understand why the Sahariyas [the tribe that has been worst hit by hunger and starvation in Rajasthan] are in the plight they’re in today. There are special provisions for the old, infirm, pregnant and lactating mothers, school-going children and infants. There are food-for-work programs run by the village panchayat [village-level government] to provide employment. Even the World Bank sponsors a poverty alleviation scheme in the district. On paper, no one needs to go hungry. Ground reality is starkly different."

Many of the central and state government aid programs are not being implemented, Kang points out, adding that no effort is made to monitor their implementation.

While the failure of the PDS has often been attributed to corruption and poor implementation, P Sainath, author of the book Everybody loves a good drought writes that the PDS has "wilted under policies aimed at dismantling it. Part of the 'doing away with subsides' theme." He calls for examining the issue of hunger-related deaths against a larger canvas of the string of anti-poor steps taken by the government post 1990.

Sainath argues that while the government is cutting down on subsidies to the poor in the country and denying grains to them at prices they can afford, it is subsidizing the export of wheat by over 50 percent. "The export price of wheat is even less than the BPL rate of that item in many states. India is exporting lakhs [hundreds of thousands] of tons of rice at Rs 5.65 a kg. In Andhra, a government sells rice to people in drought-hit regions at Rs 6.40 a kg," he points out.

So why are you posting articles about poor government services again?

the second article is more on message.

Quote:

http://www.ambedkar.org/News/Starvrearsits.htm

Economists and policy makers agree that the recent deaths underscore a basic problem: Not the lack of grain but the poorest Indians' lack of purchasing power.

The government wants to transform agriculture, which accounts for more than a quarter of India's Gross Domestic Product and employs nearly two-thirds of the population.

More than a decade of good rains have resulted in surplus buffer stocks, and rice is now an important export. Hybrid seeds and modern farming techniques have brought spectacular gains in crops in some pockets of the country.

But the shift away from subsistence farming has also led to a concentration of larger farms, with landlords buying out small-time peasants and turning them into landless laborers. They earn little and are more vulnerable to food shortages.

This sounds like the starvation common in England during enclosure in the early 1700's. The movement from systems where everyone farms a tiny parcel of their own land to larger farms always has this effect. The difference in India is that at least the farmers owned their own lands, in England the land owners just threw them out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 11:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Why would you want to cut that off?
Because we no longer have an "open" (ie depopulated) frontier to settle and immigrants or the people they displace no longer have an independent entre into the economy?

I just flew back from Philadelphia and one of the things I noticed was just how much wilderness and open area still exist in this country. There's plenty of room for more people.

I think we're just going to forever disagree on the nature of a free market economy. You seem to think of 'jobs' as privileges, created and handed out by wealthy industrialists. A job is nothing more than what someone does to make a living. It can be virtually anything you can get someone to pay you to do. The idea that immigrants somehow 'displace' people makes no sense to me. How are you seeing this happening?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 11:54 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

It's what I've been saying all along - there is no scarcity per se, the distribution (which is by economic means) sucks big time.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 11:59 AM

LEADB

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I have a health service and I vote to maintain it. You can't blame me if you don't do likewise.]

You can vote to maintain your health service? Perhaps this was mentioned, what country are you in? (For the record, I tend to vote for candidates who support Universal Health care; just can't seem to get over the hump here on that one.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 12:00 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SergeatX

Don't want to confuse the discussion between you and me, and me and Fletch - but - I know at lot of people in my neighborhopod who are general and specific contractors (my immediate neighborhood has over half a dozen for some reason). They ALL hire illegals, where they used to hire kids looking for summer jobs as general labor and then union guys for electrical etc. When one does the rest follow suit for fear of being undercut. It's very common here in So Cal.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 12:04 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And now I'm finally getting away from work and gone for the week.

For all the US citizens here happy 4th, and for all the other Browncoats have a great time too (and for no particular reason).

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 12:30 PM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
Sargeantx-

Anti, this is exactly the kind of xenophobic bigotry that creeped me out at the Ron Paul rally I went to.

im not a xenophobe, i believe God created all people equally. but i also believe that every 'right' has a subsequent 'responsibility'. what 'right' does a Mexican citizen have to break our laws and use our entitlements? there is nothing racial in my heart or in my language.. they are negating their 'responsibility' to come here legally; so i dont grant them the 'right' to access our privileges

Quote:
I didn't hear it directly in anything he said. And in reality very few of the people there represented this perspective. But the few who did seemed to me to be the ugliest of Americans.

Ron Paul is very against amnesty and the North American Union. is respect for sovereignty radical to you Sargeant? im not racist, but im not blind to the culture differences and tensions that are being created from this. historically, our form of republic and culture is wayy different then Mexicos. their citizens have no constitution or bill of rights... so in my mind this equates to a literal invasion. have you been to one of THEIR rallies? personally i find the demands, and the pride and prominence of Mexican flags even more insulting; and these la raza and reconquista movements are more xenophobic(and much more violent) then us in the pro-minutemen crowd

Quote:
Here's something to think about. The US was born and raised a 'bastard union'.

i never disputed that, thats not even the debate. the Spanish werent native to the Americas either, so that land became there for the taking, and in the course of our country, Texas and the s. west legitimately became ours, both bought and fought for land we control. its our domain and under our political and cultural jurisdictions. whats happening should be seen literally as an invasion from Mexico

Quote:
It's one of the biggest sources of our strength. We've benefited enormously from a constant flow of people looking for a better life. Why would you want to cut that off?

no, but in sustainable numbers. why are these people fleeing their country for a better life anyways? maybe thats the issue that should be addressed, instead of compromising our own laws and national sovereignty. Mexico has enough recources to sustain itself, so before we secede our own wealth and security and services we payed for ourselves, to people who havent payed into the system, maybe we should force some responsibility on them for once. having just moved from s. california, i can tell you first hand that this will ruin America. i mean what are you asking? to accept anyone able to cross our borders as legal citizens and beneficiaries of our wealth? that sounds socialist IMO

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
...whats happening should be seen literally as an invasion from Mexico.

Get a hold of yourself anti. 'literally as an invasion' huh? Great. Just what we need, another 'War on *****'. Seriously this is the same kind of fear mongering that drove the 'War on Terror', the Patriot Act, Homeland Insecurity and the Iraq war.

Quote:
..i can tell you first hand that this will ruin America.

If that's all it'll take to ruin America, then perhaps we should get it over with. We're a good bit more resilient than that, don't you think?

I'm reading rationalizations for walling off the borders (figuratively, if not literally) from all different angles. In all of them I sense this common thread of protection of privilege. We seem to think that the good fortune of being born in the US should protect us from competition. I don't buy it. I think the competition will be good for us and make our economy even stronger.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 3:24 PM

ANTIMASON

my concern is that this is part of a larger agenda to bring AMerica under a socialist global government. the issue isnt hypothetical free trade and competition, thats another subject . but lets be honost, the amnesty bill, Real ID card, nafta superhighway and proposed Amero currency are more indicative of this attempt for a north AMerican union, then your argument of free trade and travel. and we're still not addressing the entitlement system that they are allowed access to, despite any contribution. it seems to me that allowing any concessions on behalf of Mexico is only paving the way for their success in officially usurping our national sovereignty

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 3:41 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
No matter how you try to spin it Finn, you revealed your basic premise that poor people on the edge of survival are to blame for their situation. You think capitalism is a given and that people who can't 'make it' under capitalism are unfit and unnatural and should starve.

This is your imagination. As usual, you can’t face me on the issue, so you invent some ridiculous opinion and imagine that it is mine, and your own post demonstrates that. When you feel grown up enough to face MY opinion instead of inventing smears to attack me, then maybe we’ll talk. Until then I see no reason to defend some imaginary opinion, since it’s not mine to defend.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Originally posted by rue:
You'd think that with all that time to kill they'd build themselves homes, grow their own food, 'work' to sustain themselves even without a 'job'. Why doesn't that happen?

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I suspect that it probably does happen. If it doesn’t happen, it’s perhaps because they are expecting some handout from the government or some other entity.

Originally posted by rue:
Finn, if you think that people all over the globe are too damned lazy to get off their asses so as not to starve --- if you think they're waiting for government handouts when there are no government programs - you've got reality issues.

Thank You for proving that I never said “[[]a[]] half a(sic) billion or so people around the globe are poor b/c they're too lazy and too entitled to work.”

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 3:50 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What you said exactly was "entitled" and "expecting some handout" What's the difference? I would say that you have not looked too closely at the lives of the poor.

I refer you to rue’s post, which demonstrations otherwise. And I'm not interested in defending an imaginary argument.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And rich people do not create jobs- at least not as much as the middle class does- because rich people do not spend all of their income, and demand creates jobs. Let me put it to this this way Finn, imagine that you're a rich capitalist. You've bought three mansions, a yacht, a Rolls made of silver and a private jet. You have 200 servants. 10 favorite prostitutes in each country that you visit, and you still have money leftover. Now what?

You’ve already contradicted yourself. Obviously rich people do create jobs. And so what if they have money left over? Much of that leftover money goes into investments, which further fuels jobs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 4:14 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Much of that leftover money goes into investments, which further fuels jobs.

Finn, think of it this way. You have a bunch of leftover money... money which BTW would have been immediately spent on consumer goods had it gone to the middle class or lower... and you're looking for a place to invest. Where will you invest? How about a new chip fab? Nah... Intel and AMD are already duking it out and the market's saturated and commodified. Well what about a new auto manufacturing plant? Hmmm, well unless it offers significant production advantages it prolly won't create much profit against Honda and Toyota and the other majors.

In other words, I would have to see a viable market for the goods I want to produce. If I'm trying to enter an established market I'd have to undercut the competition significantly. So I'd either have to go with low wages or a lot of automation or both in order to lower my costs. The consequence of that is a general loss of jobs and/or wages and a softening of aggregate demand, and in the long run I've chipped away at the very market that I hope to sell to.

I dunno, maybe the problem is that I'm trying to explain in words what can be best explained by math. Would it help if I used equations?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 4:40 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I just flew back from Philadelphia and one of the things I noticed was just how much wilderness and open area still exist in this country. There's plenty of room for more people.

I think we're just going to forever disagree on the nature of a free market economy. You seem to think of 'jobs' as privileges, created and handed out by wealthy industrialists. A job is nothing more than what someone does to make a living. It can be virtually anything you can get someone to pay you to do. The idea that immigrants somehow 'displace' people makes no sense to me. How are you seeing this happening?

Some Founding Fathers knew and specifically said that as long as there was free land nobody would be any poorer than what they could wrest from the wilderness. But for all that open land that you see, it's all owned. So the first thing the poor have to do is pony up a considerable amount of money for the land. Assuming that a group of people can squat, lease, or purchase some land they get the privilege of essentially living outside the economic system: no medicine or any advacned products. In other words, the industrialized economy doesn't have room for them. You can see this happening in a lot of nations that have experienced a population flow from the country to the city, like Mexico and amny S American countries. After spending a near lifetime working menial, disposable jobs for next to nothing (banging out belt buckles from tins cans on a street corner, street juggling, prostitution) a number of people are actually leaving the city for a rrual area where they feel they can at least eat. (but then they run into land barons which is a whole nother story) In other words, a job market CAN be flooded.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 1, 2007 4:49 PM