I am bringing this over from another topic.  I felt this name was appropriate, because this is essentially what the arguement is about.  Guns (Military) or Butter (basic necessities & luxuries).


Sounds like a Republican advocating for a variant of Keansian economics - military (ie government) spending creats jobs so that must be good.  Actually, Lord Keans (he was British) aregued AGAINST military spending as the way to prime the pump, and said that spending on public works, schools, roads, hospitals, rec centers, parks etc, provided a much bigger employment bang than military spending.  Unfortunately, no one was listening.


That works for me also, to be honest.

We do not disagree at all in this area Don.  :)  The angle I was trying to make is that I would rather see the money spent making jobs, instead of going to welfare type programs.  Those only create and reinforce dependency on the Government.

Military, R&D, Highways, Power (Tennessee Valley Authority comes to mind here), forestry, these are all Government programs that make jobs.  Military and NASA R&D has probably made more jobs then anything else on this planet.  Putting the money into welfare only makes jobs for caseworkers.

I am not anti-welfare.  It is a needed item.  But making people dependent to it is a crime against the people who need the help.  As the old saying goes, "Give a man a fish and he is fed for a day.  Teach a man to fish, and he is fed every day."

Sounds to me like he means public works projects like we had under Roosevelt - like building the Hoover Dam, not just handing people welfare money.

I am bringing this over from another topic.  I felt this name was appropriate, because this is essentially what the arguement is about.  Guns (Military) or Butter (basic necessities & luxuries).



That works for me also, to be honest.

We do not disagree at all in this area Don.  :)  The angle I was trying to make is that I would rather see the money spent making jobs, instead of going to welfare type programs.  Those only create and reinforce dependency on the Government.

Military, R&D, Highways, Power (Tennessee Valley Authority comes to mind here), forestry, these are all Government programs that make jobs.  Military and NASA R&D has probably made more jobs then anything else on this planet.  Putting the money into welfare only makes jobs for caseworkers.

I am not anti-welfare.  It is a needed item.  But making people dependent to it is a crime against the people who need the help.  As the old saying goes, "Give a man a fish and he is fed for a day.  Teach a man to fish, and he is fed every day."


Thanks for segregating this discussion to a seperate thread.  And I'm glad we agree (although it might make the discussion a bit less interesting to readers  ;)).  As everyone is aware from my avitar, I am not a conservative, but on the issue of work, I can ALMOST agree with conservatives.  I'm sure you know the old socialist formula, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need".  I'm certain that you will agree that there are some unfortunates among us who, for what ever reason, can't meet their basic needs regardless of their ability, and in many (not all) cases, the reasons are WAAAAY beyond their control.  I'm not a Christian, but I don't need a religious reason to be compassionate, and so I do, in my small way, reach out to those in need through contributions to my local food shelf, which, by the way, CAT, another non-Christian, manages.

I agree with your "teach a man to fish" idea.  But given that, why is it that Republican admins, this 1 included, try to CUT job training programs?  And Child care programs (many welfare folks are single parants with young kids)?  I could go on.

I totally agree that everyone should pull his or her weight.  As a kid my Grandfather insisted that I pick blackberries so that grandma could make jam.  I protested - wanted to play baseball.  He said "if you don't work, you don't eat, its an old socialist tradition".  I picked Blackberries, and the jam was great, maybe enhanced by the labor I contributed!!  The question before us is, I think, how can we direct the disadvantaged to the blkackberry patch. 

So I support the sentiments that you express.  I can't support the policies of the party that you support as supportive of those sentiments. 

I am bringing this over from another topic.  I felt this name was appropriate, because this is essentially what the arguement is about.  Guns (Military) or Butter (basic necessities & luxuries).



That works for me also, to be honest.

We do not disagree at all in this area Don.  :)  The angle I was trying to make is that I would rather see the money spent making jobs, instead of going to welfare type programs.  Those only create and reinforce dependency on the Government.

Military, R&D, Highways, Power (Tennessee Valley Authority comes to mind here), forestry, these are all Government programs that make jobs.  Military and NASA R&D has probably made more jobs then anything else on this planet.  Putting the money into welfare only makes jobs for caseworkers.

I am not anti-welfare.  It is a needed item.  But making people dependent to it is a crime against the people who need the help.  As the old saying goes, "Give a man a fish and he is fed for a day.  Teach a man to fish, and he is fed every day."

Welfare was the best cover-up for the free market's failures.  Cash, food stamps, and housing subsidies were a low-cost way to keep social order.  You'll notice right-wingers are always screaming about how some one on welfare ought to "get a job"!  At the same time, right-wingers will scream about how the free market doesn't owe anybody a job.  The free market only needs certain people with certain skills.  The professional "economy" can run on only 20% of the available workforce.

Welfare programs let people live rather wretchedly without going hungry or homeless.  The corporations loved it because its cost was borne by tax paying citizens.  It defrayed the cost of subsidizing the people the private sector wouldn't employ from business to the folks.

Now welfare has been stripped and skeletonized.  Neither families nor individuals can survive on the subsidies now available.  Our safety net is becoming a trap door.  Human suffering is on the rise.  If it continues, there will be a raging revival of economic populism.  That's the last thing Mr. and Mrs. Big Business want.  They may come to rue "welfare reform."

Then there's the other kind of welfare.  The Pentagon is the biggest welfare distribution center in the country.  It offers direct subsidies to defense contractors in the form of bloated federal defense budgets calling for wild and weird weapons even the military says we don't need.  Joe Public has no say in defense contracting, as Noam Chomsky points out.  That's why the economic elite loves it so.  You don't have the pesky public clamoring for what to do with the money.

There are thousands of public works projects that would be beneficial to the infrastructure and the economy.  However, our governments, state and federal, have joined with the private sector in the contempt for employing Americans.  Here's a smack in the face.  The Massachusetts Dept. of Transitional Assistance (the Dickensian starvation company formerly known as the Welfare Dept.) has "outsourced" its call-in help center to India!  The same agency which admonishes shame-faced recipients with moralist lectures about the valuse of work is sending its entry level jobs to a foreign land and away from the preach-to public!

This is what you get when you hand control of the economy over to businessmen!

Guns or butter?  You can't eat guns, and guns don't keep you out of the rain!

I totally agree that everyone should pull his or her weight.  As a kid my Grandfather insisted that I pick blackberries so that grandma could make jam.  I protested - wanted to play baseball.  He said "if you don't work, you don't eat, its an old socialist tradition".  I picked Blackberries, and the jam was great, maybe enhanced by the labor I contributed!!  The question before us is, I think, how can we direct the disadvantaged to the blkackberry patch. 


Yes, and there are precious few people who DON'T WANT to do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.  Most everybody finds work rewarding, and wants the sense of belonging and usefulness that comes with a stable, meaningful job.  As Don describes, he went out and picked blackberries, and got rewarded with blackberry jam.
When the economy offers low-wage jobs that don't pay a living even when you string three together, it's no wonder folks would rather take welfare.  Wal-Mart and McDonald's for 14 hours with no benefits is NOT a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.
Now there's not more welfare as we knew it, and recepients are being forced to scrape gum off the sidewalk for sub-minimum wage if they want to feed their children.  This is what the right-wing calls progress.  I call it time for right-wing heads to roll!

I see people struggling every day-most of them are senior citizens. There are people who have worked all their lives and it should be a time of leisure in their "golden years". But, with the price of medical care skyrocking and social society benefits are almost nil. What are these people to do? They could TRY to get a job but who will want to hire in their 70s.

What about people who do work a 40 hour job-sometimes two. At minimium wage, with no benefits, it probably doesn't cover rent, utilities, and food. And if that person has kids, that something else. Personally, I would love to see a liviable wage mandate. I don't think that a person should have to spend all their time working and still not be able to make ends meet. 

As to the military, I would love to see the government REALLY support the troops instead of cutting benefits. I should know. As a disable vet, what I make from my disability pay puts me below proverty level. It is only because I share my expenses with my husband that I can live as well as I do. But, when I was on my own, it was really rough.

I also know this woman who is on SSDI. She doesn't want to be-she wants to get back to work but her doctor thinks that it is really too soon. If she goes back to work now, she may reverse the progress she has made in her healing.

Yes, I think the government should help out. I don't look at these situations as "handouts". I see a few of them as intitlements and helping out in rough situations.


BTW, Mushroom, the saying is "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will sit in a boat a drink beer all day."  ;)



Cat

The socioeconomic situation in the United States of America is so depraved, so screwed up, so inequitable..

That people from all over the world are beating down the doors to get here, legally or illegally.

We can't build fences high enough, or put out enough security forces to keep them out.

Yes, our country must really be fouled up... a land of little opportunity...  so much so that our country is the envy of people around the world who brave all sorts of dangers to get here to make a life.

The socioeconomic situation in the United States of America is so depraved, so screwed up, so inequitable..

That people from all over the world are beating down the doors to get here, legally or illegally.

We can't build fences high enough, or put out enough security forces to keep them out.

Yes, our country must really be fouled up... a land of little opportunity...  so much so that our country is the envy of people around the world who brave all sorts of dangers to get here to make a life.


The starving jetsam from imperial hinterlands have always fought their way through the gates of the city of gold.  Hundreds of years of European/American colonialism has destroyed self-sufficient indigenous cultures, created artificial states, and ghettoized people the world over.  The indigenous cultures--not always kind or just, mind you--developed organically and adapted to certain ecological rhythms.  They bred, but did not overpopulate, they fought, but did not exterminate, and when they could settle the farmed, when they couldn't, they traveled nomadically.
These cultures were far from utopian, of course.  They had their own problems.  But these systems of human culture worked for thousands of years.
Colonialism changed all that.  We are still seeing the results of life thrown out of balance by European colonialism from 15th through the 20th centuries.  At the same time, we are seeing the results of the economic exploitation wrought by global capitalism and the failure of autocratic states.

It is folly to conclude that because millions fight to enter America, that America is a City on a Hill and a shining example to all.  They asked John Dillinger why he robbed banks.  He replied, "because that's where the money is."  The same principle applies to migration to America.

Hundreds of years of European/American colonialism has destroyed self-sufficient indigenous cultures, created artificial states, and ghettoized people the world over.

I love the fact that you used the word "Ghetto" in your arguement.  Are you aware of what the word "Ghetto" actually means?

In the middle ages, one of the largest concentration of Jews in the world was in Germany.  They wanted to live in Germany, but not have to follow the rules of the local community.

Now remember, at this time the Sabbath (Sunday) was enforced by law, and there were many other laws that were not in keeping with the Jewish faith.  And many things that were legal were against the tennants of that faith.  They obtained special royal permission to form closed communities, where Jewish law applied rather then the local secular laws.

This was the origin of the "Ghetto".  The word itself comes from the 1500's in italy, but for centuries the concept was the same.  It was only in the last 100 years that the term came to mean what it does now.

Thanks for segregating this discussion to a seperate thread.  And I'm glad we agree (although it might make the discussion a bit less interesting to readers  ;)).  As everyone is aware from my avitar, I am not a conservative, but on the issue of work, I can ALMOST agree with conservatives.  I'm sure you know the old socialist formula, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need".


I do think that many Socialist ideas are good.  Roosevelt took many good ones and helped turn this nation around.  But Johnson then took them farther then even Roosevelt envisioned, and that has caused decades of misery.

I agree with helping people when they need help.  I do not believe in turning people out on the street.  But I also believe in personal responsibility.  Overall, we are responsible for our own destiny.  Good or bad, most of the time we had input on the events, and it was our choice that makes things turn out as they do.

When I saw my income shrink and jobs dry up in LA, I choose to leave.  When I had to leave the military because of an injury, I floated from job to job.  Security guard, sales, pawn broker, used car salesman, administration, apartment cleaning, even DJ.  I finally was able to get back into computers, and with a few exceptions have been doing that for the last 10 years.

Both parties have different ideas how to use the job training programs.  Republicans tend to cancel a lot of ones that do not work.  A big one I was part of was one that got unskilled people MCSE certification.  After spending $6,000 per student for 24 students, my class only had 2 people get jobs in the industry (both of us already had prior computer experience - those with no proir experience did not get jobs).  That is over $130,000 wasted, because nobody thought to see what the demand was for unskilled but certified network engineers.

Training can only get a person so far.  I started working in computers with no formal training at all.  I am largely self-taught, and basically apprenticed myself for the last 2 years I was in the service, preparing myself for a job after I left the service.  For 2 years I worked part-time for free, trading work for experience.  But sadly, a lot of people want "something for nothing", wanting a good cushy job, but not working to get themselves there.

Each party has it's own idea of getting people the training.  In many areas (like California), there are community colleges closing because of lack of students.  You can get all kinds of computer training in California for less then $100.  But almost nobody takes advantage of it.  I see the problem both as lack of government support, and also lack of incentive from people.  Is a sad state of affairs.

I love the fact that you used the word "Ghetto" in your arguement.  Are you aware of what the word "Ghetto" actually means?

In the middle ages, one of the largest concentration of Jews in the world was in Germany.  They wanted to live in Germany, but not have to follow the rules of the local community.

Now remember, at this time the Sabbath (Sunday) was enforced by law, and there were many other laws that were not in keeping with the Jewish faith.  And many things that were legal were against the tennants of that faith.  They obtained special royal permission to form closed communities, where Jewish law applied rather then the local secular laws.

This was the origin of the "Ghetto".  The word itself comes from the 1500's in italy, but for centuries the concept was the same.  It was only in the last 100 years that the term came to mean what it does now.

Subterfuge Theatre for this evening is brought to you by Mushroom brand Mushrooms!

Mushroom wrote: Each party has it's own idea of getting people the training.  In many areas (like California), there are community colleges closing because of lack of students.  You can get all kinds of computer training in California for less then $100.  But almost nobody takes advantage of it.  I see the problem both as lack of government support, and also lack of incentive from people.  Is a sad state of affairs.
I agree, job "training" is not enough.  I also think we've lost a sense of work ethic as a nation.  However, it's not enough to call people lazy.  One has to look deeper than that in order to address the problem.
There's no sense that "we're all in this together."  The message given to young people is "it's a super-competitive world, those of you smart enough and motivated and enough to make the RIGHT CHOICES will be rewarded, the rest of you will be left in the dust like the losers you are."
We see the emergence of an elite professional class, and masses of totally insecure and expendable workers.  Many millions everywhere feel like surfeit population, they feel used, and they're right.
As long a "maximum efficiency for maximum profits for fat cats" is the holy commandment of the economy, the problems we are discussing will go unresolved.

Welfare was the best cover-up for the free market's failures.  Cash, food stamps, and housing subsidies were a low-cost way to keep social order.  


OK, so what is your solution?  Free market is failiing according to you (never mind that most of the population of the US thrives under it).  Communism has failed, that has lergely peen proven.  So what is your answer?   DO not take this as an attack, but I see you complain a lot, but never giving a workable solution.

Our nation works with both Free Market so people with incentive and drive can make something of themselves, and Socialism to help support those with eith bad luck, bad situation, or no incentive to improve themselves.  We seem to have a pretty good ballance overall.  And if the Free Market is failing, why do I keep seeing so many new businesses open up?


You'll notice right-wingers are always screaming about how some one on welfare ought to "get a job"!  At the same time, right-wingers will scream about how the free market doesn't owe anybody a job.  The free market only needs certain people with certain skills.  The professional "economy" can run on only 20% of the available workforce.


Well, people have to have a job that is needed at the time.  Being a blacksmith is of no use when there are 20 blacksmiths in a town, and somebody is needed to harvest the crops.

When I started to train myself in computers, there was a huge demand for that field.  But 2 years later when I left the service, it was the middle of the recession and I was in California.  So guess what, there was no need for computer people.  I ended up getting another job until the economy turned around, and people and businesses could afford to buy computers again.  I held many other jobs during that time, and I got by without help from the Government.  I did not live as well as I used to, but I got by.


Welfare programs let people live rather wretchedly without going hungry or homeless.


That is the idea of welfare I thought.  Help people get by until things changed, and they got back to work.  We are the only nation in the world where people on welfare have cars, running water, electricity, TVs, and video games.

I am not saying that people on welfare should suffer, but I do not think they should live as good as people who work for a living.  Part of the idea is to give the less motivated ones a reason to get a job.  For those simply down on their luck, it will keep them going till they get back to work.


Then there's the other kind of welfare.  The Pentagon is the biggest welfare distribution center in the country.  It offers direct subsidies to defense contractors in the form of bloated federal defense budgets calling for wild and weird weapons even the military says we don't need.  Joe Public has no say in defense contracting, as Noam Chomsky points out.  That's why the economic elite loves it so.  You don't have the pesky public clamoring for what to do with the money.


You keep talking like corporations are some black hole, that sucks in money and never gives it back out again.  Most taxes come from corporations.  Corporations provide a huge number of jobs.  They also fuel most research, which allows future jobs.  And a large percentage of profit is returned to shareholders.  A large chunk of shareholders are both employees of the corporation they work for, and things like 401k and mutual funds, which is the backbone of a comfortable retirement.  I have NEVER heard of a corporation which simply took money in, and never had to give it back out again.


Guns or butter?  You can't eat guns, and guns don't keep you out of the rain!


But at the same time, if you do not have any guns, your less friendly neighbors will steal all of your butter.  You need a ballance of the two, not all of one at the expense of the other.

Subterfuge Theatre for this evening is brought to you by Mushroom brand Mushrooms!


Not hardly!  I a just showing how the meaning of a word can change over the years, to mean something totally different then intended.


There's no sense that "we're all in this together."  The message given to young people is "it's a super-competitive world, those of you smart enough and motivated and enough to make the RIGHT CHOICES will be rewarded, the rest of you will be left in the dust like the losers you are."


We are not all in this together.  We are a world of over 5 billion individuals.  As a society we need to work together I feel, but as an individual, that will never happen.  And I did mention luck and circumstances also.

3 times in my life, I ended up living on the street.  2 times I got myself out of that situation on my own, the other time I got help from a privately owned non-profit corporation.  All 3 of those times, it was because of a bad bad BAD California economy that I ended up where I did.  That is one of the biggest reasons I left California and went elsewhere.  That is one thing that most people do not consider anymore.


We see the emergence of an elite professional class, and masses of totally insecure and expendable workers.  Many millions everywhere feel like surfeit population, they feel used, and they're right.
As long a "maximum efficiency for maximum profits for fat cats" is the holy commandment of the economy, the problems we are discussing will go unresolved.


And again, you avoided my biggest point.  You complain, but do not offer a realistic solution.  It is easy to look negative at things, just say no all your life.  It is much harder to step up and say yes.

Am I one of your "Elite Professional Class"?

Yes, I am a computer professional, with over 15 years experience.  I have 3 certifications, and am constantly training myself in new changes.  I probably spend close to $500 a year just in books to teach myself more.

In LA, I made $25 an hour, and was going broke.  I now live in Alabama.  I make less then HALF of what I did in LA, and live much better.  I can rent a house here for just a little more then my monthly car insurance bill in California was.

But I am basically "White Collar".  I am 1 of 3 employees in a privately held family corporation.  But when the owner retires next year, I will become the manager.  I am just an employee, but the owner knows I have also increased profit over 30% in just one year.  And I am assured that next year, my paycheck will be even larger, to reflect the increased profit I brought the company.  Living in a small town does bring me less money, but now I am a big fish in a small pond.  I am willing to take less now, in exchange for a larger payoff in the future.  And if something happens and it does not happen, I guessed wrong.  Life is a gamble, and nothing is assured but that we will all die in the end.

This is how "Free Market" is supposed to work.  Hard work most of the time pays off.  Lazyness gets you nothing.  And sometimes even hard work is not enough.  We have safeguards in place to help those with bad luck to get through them.  But I view them as safeguards only, not as a substitute for work and incentive.

What about people who do work a 40 hour job-sometimes two. At minimium wage, with no benefits, it probably doesn't cover rent, utilities, and food. And if that person has kids, that something else. Personally, I would love to see a liviable wage mandate. I don't think that a person should have to spend all their time working and still not be able to make ends meet. 


For me, this is a question that is always a problem.

In my opinion, somebody with a family should not have a minimum wage job.  When I left the service, all I knew was computers (which was of no use in the recession of the time), and 10 years of experience in Infantry.  Needless to say, my military experience was worthless unless somebody needed a hit man.  ;D

I got 5 jobs in a row, only one of which payed minimum wage.  I was a security guard, until it became obvious my knee would not let me to that.  I sold cars, but only got paid minimum wage, beause of the economy.  I then worked retail at 3 different places.  At none of those retail jobs did I make nimimum wage, in each of them I made from $6-$8 an hour, at a time when the California minimum was $5.15 an hour.

Now this is my opinion, but minimum wage should NEVER be the minimum.  To me, "Minimum Wage" should be for kids getting their first job, people first starting a job with the promise of a raise after a reasonable probationary period, wage during training, or as when I sold cars, enough to get by when you work for comission and sales are almost non-existant.

A good example to me was the grocery store strike in California last year.  20 years ago, there was no union for bagboys and shelf stockers.  Those were seen as jobs for kids in high school.  It was a job to do until you graduated, and then went to get a "real job".

Now, they are unionized, and keep at the same job for 15+ years, making as much money as I did at Boeing working on computers (NO JOKE!).  And what is the result of this?  High school kids can't get decent jobs, because adults in unions are keeping them locked up.

I am not totally anti-union.  But a union for grocery workers?  That is hardly a high skill or dangerous job.  I think I would commit suicide before I would spend 20+ years ringing groceries.  After 2-5 years, people in those jobs IMHO should move up to management, or move on to a better job.

As a good example of what I mean, look at fast food.  22 years ago, I started work in Fast Food.  3 months later, I was a shift leader.  I left this job when I entered the service.  6 months later, the guy promoted to replace me was an assistant manager, and 2 years later was manager of his own franchise location.  I eat lunch every day at a McDonalds.  A gal that started there as a employee 9 months ago is now an assistant manager.

(forgive me if this rambles a bit - I admit, I am a tad drunk)  :D

I think one of the best ideas I heard in years was one Regan proposed.  He called it "Workfare" if I remember right.  The gist of it was that what a person made when on welfare would be deducted from the cash welfare paid, minus something like 10%, as an incentive to work.  This would let them wean themselves off of the assistance, and still get the benefits needed.  But the plan was totally shot down.

As far as "SSDI", I think there should be no such thing to be honest.  I am not talking about the assistance, but in the placement of it under "Social Security".  One of the things "bankrupting" Social Security is all of the money taken out for other reasons.  And Social Security was intended as basically intended as a supplement for retirement savings, or for those who did not save for retirement for one reason or another.  It was never intended as a replacement for all other retirement plans.  Otherwise, we would not have paid into it when we were in the military.

I am off to try and sleep this off, writing posts with a buzz on may not be a good idea  ;D  But at least my migrane is gone.  (am not sure, either it is gone, or I no longer care about it)

OK, so what is your solution?  Free market is failiing according to you (never mind that most of the population of the US thrives under it).  Communism has failed, that has lergely peen proven.  So what is your answer?   DO not take this as an attack, but I see you complain a lot, but never giving a workable solution.
Oh, I don't see it as an attack.  If I had a workable solution--something elegent, fresh, and new to release mankind from the bonds of his own folly--I wouldn't be sitting here dawdling on this message board, believe me!  The problem is we had a few ideas that were sold as just that, among them, Marxism and Reaganomics.  The former a complex philosophy sold as simplistic ideology, the latter a simplistic ideology sold as magic jelly beans.  
I'm not pretending I have "an" answer.  Some ideas will work better than others, of course, but we need to get the reigning right-wing propaganda out of the mix.  I have discussed ideas I believe in, and I've never said there was an easy solution.

Our nation works with both Free Market so people with incentive and drive can make something of themselves, and Socialism to help support those with eith bad luck, bad situation, or no incentive to improve themselves.  We seem to have a pretty good ballance overall.  And if the Free Market is failing, why do I keep seeing so many new businesses open up?
The Free Market isn't failing in toto, but it has failures within it.  A lot of the big shots who sing the praises of the "free market" don't really believe in it.  I see great care taken by the Bush Administration to protect crony capital and government subsidized mega-corporations.  Did you know Wal-Mart gets subsidies from the federal government for market research?  Yet, once a Wal-Mart opens, the entrepeneurial retail gets priced out of business.
The small businessman under got crucified in the Reagan years as corporate mergers swallowed up market shares everywhere, not to mention the decimation of the family farm by aggressive agri-business.  I'm usually glad to see new businesses opening up, but not necessarily when they're Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Staples, and Applebee's.

Well, people have to have a job that is needed at the time.  Being a blacksmith is of no use when there are 20 blacksmiths in a town, and somebody is needed to harvest the crops.I agree, but I also think it's important to beware of the machinations of Big Business to manipulate the market.  They can decide to automate the factory and put fifty skilled machinists out of work.  Our market orthodoxy calls that efficiency and no economics student dare call it anything else, but I say again, such efficiency for profit isn't always the best thing for human beings.  The bosses can decide whether a job will be done in Cleveland or Calcutta, which is another factor.  It is true that the "computer" thing got way overblown, but who couldn't see that coming?  From 1980 onwards, all a school kid heard was "computers, computers, computers, the fuutre is computers."  It was, but not the whole future!

That is the idea of welfare I thought.  Help people get by until things changed, and they got back to work.  We are the only nation in the world where people on welfare have cars, running water, electricity, TVs, and video games.

I am not saying that people on welfare should suffer, but I do not think they should live as good as people who work for a living.  Part of the idea is to give the less motivated ones a reason to get a job.  For those simply down on their luck, it will keep them going till they get back to work.
My point is that the private sector doesn't need to and doesn't want to employ everybody who wants to work for a living (I mean a living, not minimum wage, no benefits), so the endless welfare state was better for the private sector bosses than Tommy Thompson's welfare-to-work ideas.  Welfare-to-work implies the private sector will be willing to do what it has no intention of doing.



You keep talking like corporations are some black hole, that sucks in money and never gives it back out again.  Most taxes come from corporations.  Corporations provide a huge number of jobs.  They also fuel most research, which allows future jobs.  And a large percentage of profit is returned to shareholders.  A large chunk of shareholders are both employees of the corporation they work for, and things like 401k and mutual funds, which is the backbone of a comfortable retirement.
I understand how corporations are supposed to work.  Corporations do provide a lot of jobs.  They also cause untold environmental devastation they can't even begin to clean up, and pump a lot of useless cr*p onto the consumer market, most of which will end up in landfills within a few years.  Defense contracting via the myth of useless gadgets like B1 Bombers and Stars Wars missile shields are nothing better than corporate welfare.  If you think it saved us from the Russkies in the '80s, I've got a Stealth Bridge to sell ya!  All the money the government p*sses away into the Pentagon could do a lot for a physical infrastructure and healthcare system.  I can't remember the number of billions of dollars the Pentagon can't account for.  I mean, they just don't know where it went.  It was a bit of a scandal, then it died.  Now, Bill and Hillary losing a hundred grand in real estate, now there was a scandal worth eight years of press!  I mean the Pentagon gets away with highway robbery, mayhem and murder, and anyone who says boo about is called a liberal nut.  Sheesh!

 I have NEVER heard of a corporation which simply took money in, and never had to give it back out again.
Didja ever hear of a little operation down in Texas called "Enron"?  They finally got around to indicting Kenny Boy Lay.  Steal a six pack and they'll throw you in the slammer tonight, steal six billion, and they might catch up with you in three years!
;D


But at the same time, if you do not have any guns, your less friendly neighbors will steal all of your butter.  You need a ballance of the two, not all of one at the expense of the other.

I agree.  I didn't mean NO guns and ALL butter, I mean for Pete's sake!

Did you know Wal-Mart gets subsidies from the federal government for market research?  Yet, once a Wal-Mart opens, the entrepeneurial retail gets priced out of business.


Just a quick comment, then I am off to bed.

Did you know that until just a few years ago, the Corporation For Public Broadcasting got huge Federal subsidies?  (they may still be getting some - I am unclear of that).

Never mind the amount of items they sold over the years.  Sesamie Street has heavily marketed since it first came out.  Add to that all the other kids programs with the books, records, movies, toys, stuffed animals, board games, et all, and you get the idea.

Here was a company making MILLIONS, and STILL getting huge Government grants.  And how many people did this employ?  I am sure that the Wal-Marts in one state employed more then the entire "Corporation For Public Broadcasting".

And as for local businsesses closing because of Wal-Mart, yes and no.

I do not go to Wal-Mart as a REPLACEMENT for local business.  When I want books, I go to a book store.  When I want a suit, I go to a clothing store.  When I want a movie, I go to a video store.  When I wand veggies or meat, I go to a grocery store.  When I want computer parts, I go to a computer store (preferably whe one I work at).  :)

But when I want a pair of jeans, a t-shirt, and a case of soda, I go to Wal-Mart.  I go to Wal-Mart when quality and selection is not important.  If I want odds and ends, that is where I go.  But the vast majority of my purchases are made at local stores, NOT at Wal-Mart.

But there is one thing Wal-Mart does that nobody else does.  If I need something at 1 am, I can normally get something there.  How many local stores are open 24 hours?

I live in a community of over 100,000...  and two 24 hour Wal-Mart "Super Centers".  I work in one of three local Computer Stores.  There is enough business in the area for all of us.  Sure, when the second Wal-Mart opened, 2 computer stores closed.  But was that because of Wal-Mart, or because they were already failing, and that just speed up the process?

Myself, I can't see enough people leaving a GOOD local business to go to Wal-Mart to justify it closing.  Sure, I am sure that we would sell more computers if Wal-Mart was not in town.  But guess what, we also work on a lot of those computers when they break down, because the owner does not want to send them to Timbuktu to get them serviced.  This is because Wal-Mart does not do repair.

For all the vilification of Wal-Mart, people do not buy there because somebody put a gun to their heads.  People buy there because...


Products are usually lower/lowest price
"Super Wal" stores offer convenience of buying food and "stuff" in one visit, saving people time
Convenience of the in-store hair styling, etc... for some people.  Again a time saver.


Wal-Mart does not put local merchants out of business.  Its CUSTOMERS do, because they find a better value for their dollar at Wal-Mart.  That means that Wal-mart's customers can buy more stuff for the same amount of money.

When prices are the "same", I will always shop at the local store out of loyalty.  And as far as groceries go, Wal-Mart has TERRIBLE selection and I rarely go there (but lots of people do not mind the cruddy Wal-Mart food fare).

Now mind you I am not a "Wal-Mart" cheerleader, and I think that Wal-Marts are soulless places with lots of negative energy (I will not go into that at this time it is a post/thread in itself).  But I am a cheerleader for the open marketplace, so if LOCAL customers want to patronize Wal-Mart, then let the marketplace decide!

The people who complain about Wal-Mart are probably also buying imported cars and do not see any problem buying other imported goods that "displace local workers and businesses".

The people who complain about Wal-Mart are probably also buying imported cars and do not see any problem buying other imported goods that "displace local workers and businesses".


That in and of itself is an interesting question.  What is an Import, and what is Domestic?

The biggest selling motorcycle is the Honda Goldwing.  It is made by Honda USA, an American subsidiary of Honda Japan.  It is made entirely in the USA.  In fact, every Goldwing in the world is made in the USA, including those exported to Japan.  All the bikes are made by hand by Americans.

Then look at the Geo label.  Those are all imports, just tagged with a new name.  The Geo Metro is the same as the Chevy Sprint.  And BOTH cars are made by Suzuki, which also sells it as the Suzuki Swift.

Yet, people consider the Goldwing a "Japanese" bike, and the Geo am "American" car.

Just a quick comment, then I am off to bed.

Did you know that until just a few years ago, the Corporation For Public Broadcasting got huge Federal subsidies?  (they may still be getting some - I am unclear of that).

Never mind the amount of items they sold over the years.  Sesamie Street has heavily marketed since it first came out.  Add to that all the other kids programs with the books, records, movies, toys, stuffed animals, board games, et all, and you get the idea.

Here was a company making MILLIONS, and STILL getting huge Government grants.  And how many people did this employ?  I am sure that the Wal-Marts in one state employed more then the entire "Corporation For Public Broadcasting".
Apples and oranges.  CPBs foundation by an act of Congress in 1967 called for both private and public funding.  As for Sesame Street products and so forth, I believe CPB merely licenses to other companies and doesn't directly profit.  I could be wrong though.  Yes, Wal-Mart employs a heck of a lot more people than CPB, but they're two ENTIRELY different kinds of companies.

Now mind you I am not a "Wal-Mart" cheerleader, and I think that Wal-Marts are soulless places with lots of negative energy (I will not go into that at this time it is a post/thread in itself).  But I am a cheerleader for the open marketplace, so if LOCAL customers want to patronize Wal-Mart, then let the marketplace decide!
I agree about the atmosphere of Wal-Mart.  I'm not one of those liberal Wal-Mart boycotters either,  I buy some stuff there.  If I was going out to buy a TV today, I'd probably got Wal-Mart, or Best Buy.  It just makes economic sense.  Wal-Mart's selecion of books, CDs, and DVDs, on the other hand, is horrendous.  I don't even browse.
There are other culprits.  The big banes on mom & pop book shops, for instance, are Barnes & Noble, Borders, and Amazon.com.  Second-hand book stores still do well in college towns, like where I live, as do book stores with a specialty niche, "New Age/spiritual," say.
I don't begrudge people for shopping at Wal-Marts.  If you have a tight family budget to make, that's what you're going to do.
Though prices are low at the Big Box stores, they ultimately do discourage competition and entrepeneurship, two things lionized by the Right.

The socioeconomic situation in the United States of America is so depraved, so screwed up, so inequitable..

That people from all over the world are beating down the doors to get here, legally or illegally.

We can't build fences high enough, or put out enough security forces to keep them out.

Yes, our country must really be fouled up... a land of little opportunity...  so much so that our country is the envy of people around the world who brave all sorts of dangers to get here to make a life.



And that just demonstrates that as bad as things are here, our corporate rulers have made them MUCH worse elswhere.  Cheeze, if I lived in hell I'd give anything to get to purgatory.  I'd think of it as God's gravey train!

That in and of itself is an interesting question.  What is an Import, and what is Domestic?

The biggest selling motorcycle is the Honda Goldwing.  It is made by Honda USA, an American subsidiary of Honda Japan.  It is made entirely in the USA.  In fact, every Goldwing in the world is made in the USA, including those exported to Japan.  All the bikes are made by hand by Americans.

Then look at the Geo label.  Those are all imports, just tagged with a new name.  The Geo Metro is the same as the Chevy Sprint.  And BOTH cars are made by Suzuki, which also sells it as the Suzuki Swift.

Yet, people consider the Goldwing a "Japanese" bike, and the Geo am "American" car.


My "japanese" Honda was built in Tennesse.  Of course one must ask where the profits went, and where they were reinvested (if they were).

I think that before anby of the techical issues or foreign investment, profit repatriation, and so many others, the basic question has to be answered.  Is the purpose of human productivity to advance the profits and wealth of a few big shots (they all have so much already that enhancing their life style is not an issue), or should human productivity be employed to improve the lives the mass of humanity?  Are we masses to be re-enslaved to serve the whims of a hand full of slave masters or are we entitles to a reasonable share of the wealth we help to create?  That's the question.  One answer leads to the current "neo-liberalism", the other leads to some form of democratic controls on how the economy works.  Should the economy reflect "the rule of the jungle - neo Social Darwinism" or shoiuld it reflect human and humane (family?) values?  I'm sure you all know my answer.

And that just demonstrates that as bad as things are here, our corporate rulers have made them MUCH worse elswhere.  Cheeze, if I lived in hell I'd give anything to get to purgatory.  I'd think of it as God's gravey train!


Absolutely.  I am certain that the Mexican people who are working at the American-owned automotive plants (I think they are called maquiladora plants?) were VASTLY better off when they were unemployed and were selling chewing gum on the streets to make a living.

The typical protectionist, union-boilerplate propaganda that people try to sell in the USA is that American companies are oppressing both American workers and Foreign workers when they put manufacturing plants offshore.  I'd like to see the results of a poll that asked the workers at those foreign plants "Would you rather the job had not been created in your town?".

Of course this poll will never be taken, because the workers (who previously were unemployed in the foreign country) will RESOUNDINGLY say "We like our jobs".

But that does not make for good socialist propaganda.

My "japanese" Honda was built in Tennesse.  Of course one must ask where the profits went, and where they were reinvested (if they were).


In order to prevent the huge tax hit when they try and move the profits offshore, the major corporations like Toyota and Honda reinvest the money here in the US.  While Toyota USA, Honda USA and Nissan USA share the same name and parent company as their Japanese namesakes, they all reinvest the profits back into their US companies.  In much the same way that the Ford plant in Mexico reinvests the profit it makes selling cars in Mexico back into the Mexican company.

Plus investing in the US just makes sense for them.  In the 1970's, they were not doing that, and it lead both to a backlash from American consumers, as well as a loss of profit when the Yen dropped in value compared to the Dollar.  It made many models to expensive to import and make a profit.  This lead to a rush in the 1980's of Japanese companies investing in the US.  It helped prop up our Dollar, and make it profitable for them to export to us again.

Absolutely.  I am certain that the Mexican people who are working at the American-owned automotive plants (I think they are called maquiladora plants?) were VASTLY better off when they were unemployed and were selling chewing gum on the streets to make a living.

The typical protectionist, union-boilerplate propaganda that people try to sell in the USA is that American companies are oppressing both American workers and Foreign workers when they put manufacturing plants offshore.  I'd like to see the results of a poll that asked the workers at those foreign plants "Would you rather the job had not been created in your town?".

Of course this poll will never be taken, because the workers (who previously were unemployed in the foreign country) will RESOUNDINGLY say "We like our jobs".

But that does not make for good socialist propaganda.


Maquiladora is correct, but the rest of what you say is not.  There have been may interviews with these workers, not only in Mexico, but throughout the 3rd world, and they have complained of near-slavery conditions, sexual harrasment, intimidation.  But none of this would convince you, so let me issue you a challange.  Take 2 weeks vacation, go down to Mexico, and get a job in one of these establishments.  Then report back to us on the conditions of labor our brothers and sisters across the boarder are forced to endure.  Oh, and try to live on the wage you get from that employment, and think about trying to support a family on it.  I look forward to your findings.

Actually, there was just an article in People about workers for a US telecom company in India.  One woman said her wages for 1 month (I think=I'm too lazy to go get it and check for sure) were equal to what she had made in the previous year in her former job. 

There's a difference between outsourcing of manufacture to the Third World and outsourcing of telecom jobs to India. 
The Indians getting the telecom jobs are upper class Indians who get a full education.  Not all 900 million Indians get to learn to read, write, and speak in English.  You're dealing with an urbane and sophisticated minority over there.  Granted most educated Indians are still terribly poor by American standards.  It's a deal made in heaven for the corporate bosses!

Mushroom wrote:
Absolutely.  I am certain that the Mexican people who are working at the American-owned automotive plants (I think they are called maquiladora plants?) were VASTLY better off when they were unemployed and were selling chewing gum on the streets to make a living.
The point Don Carlos just made about the Maquiladoras is astute, but I'd go a step further in causality.  I would go back and look at the history of colonialism and the destruction of the balance and self-sufficiency maintained by indigenous cultures.
Whether it's Ukranian peasants starving on Stalin's* collective farms or Vietnamese girls getting flogged in Nike's sneaker factories, oppression from afar is never good for people.

*colonialism, or communism for that matter.

Yes, and there are precious few people who DON'T WANT to do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.  Most everybody finds work rewarding, and wants the sense of belonging and usefulness that comes with a stable, meaningful job.  As Don describes, he went out and picked blackberries, and got rewarded with blackberry jam.
When the economy offers low-wage jobs that don't pay a living even when you string three together, it's no wonder folks would rather take welfare.  Wal-Mart and McDonald's for 14 hours with no benefits is NOT a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.
Now there's not more welfare as we knew it, and recepients are being forced to scrape gum off the sidewalk for sub-minimum wage if they want to feed their children.  This is what the right-wing calls progress.  I call it time for right-wing heads to roll!
Due to my illness I cannot work right now...but I miss it...I do NOT intend to collect SSDI for the rest of my life.....it's not enough to live a truly full life!

How about this,folks....our Government most likely spends more $$$$$ on THE MILITARY aka DEATH and DESTRUCTION than on research to find cures for diseases such as AIDS...Multiple Sclerosis...lupus....muscular dystrophy...and the list goes on and on. Why....is MILITARY MIGHT more important than HUMAN LIVES here in the good old US of A? It sure seems that way to me!

How about this,folks....our Government most likely spends more $$$$$ on THE MILITARY aka DEATH and DESTRUCTION than on research to find cures for diseases such as AIDS...Multiple Sclerosis...lupus....muscular dystrophy...and the list goes on and on. Why....is MILITARY MIGHT more important than HUMAN LIVES here in the good old US of A? It sure seems that way to me!


Oh God that is exactly what that old cartoon character ''Captain Planet'' says.  Except instead of cures for diseases he wants us to clean up. 

How about this,folks....our Government most likely spends more $$$$$ on THE MILITARY aka DEATH and DESTRUCTION than on research to find cures for diseases such as AIDS...Multiple Sclerosis...lupus....muscular dystrophy...and the list goes on and on. Why....is MILITARY MIGHT more important than HUMAN LIVES here in the good old US of A?
Yes...but corporate profits are most important of all.  As the Pentagon budget shows, corporate profit is often sold to the public as military might.

GWBush
Oh God that is exactly what that old cartoon character ''Captain Planet'' says.  Except instead of cures for diseases he wants us to clean up. 
Captain Planet?  I haven't heard a thing about him since 1994!  Has he been waging an environmental whacko crypto-commie stealth campaign on our children's minds for the past ten years?
:o

Yes...but corporate profits are most important of all.  As the Pentagon budget shows, corporate profit is often sold to the public as military might.


OK, I am going to make the same challenge yet again to you Maxwell.

You claim Corporations are all evil, and are going to destroy the world.  What is your solution then?

WHo is going to make the next generation of wonderdrugs?  Who is going to make your car?  Provide you with power and telephone service?  Who is going to drill for oil, refine it to gasoline, and distribute it to your neighborhood?  Who is going to distribute the food you eat?  Who is going to provide you with movies, television, or radio?

People like me complain that "Liberals are negative", exactly because this is what we see all the time.  People complain, complain, and complain, but offer no realistic solution to the problem.  I myself, I prefer to worry about things I *CAN* do something about.  Or at least I offer either an alternative or a compromise.

That in and of itself is an interesting question.  What is an Import, and what is Domestic?

The biggest selling motorcycle is the Honda Goldwing.  It is made by Honda USA, an American subsidiary of Honda Japan.  It is made entirely in the USA.  In fact, every Goldwing in the world is made in the USA, including those exported to Japan.  All the bikes are made by hand by Americans.

Then look at the Geo label.  Those are all imports, just tagged with a new name.  The Geo Metro is the same as the Chevy Sprint.  And BOTH cars are made by Suzuki, which also sells it as the Suzuki Swift.

Yet, people consider the Goldwing a "Japanese" bike, and the Geo am "American" car.


My approach to this tough question is to look at the "domestic content label".

So by that test, the "Geo" usually is an import.  (But I think that there is one "Geo" model that is made in California at the NUMMI plant.)

And by that test, a Toyota Camry (made in Kentucky) or Toyota Tundra (made in Indiana) count as "American" cars since they are made here and most of the stuff that goes into them is made here too.

Also by my "personal" standard, a car made in Canada or Mexico I count as an import.

Now... By choice I buy American-made cars out of "loyalty", but then, I can afford to.  For someone making minimum wage, if the best value for them is a Geo made in Korea, have at it.  They gotta stretch their dollars as far as they can.

Maquiladora is correct, but the rest of what you say is not.  There have been may interviews with these workers, not only in Mexico, but throughout the 3rd world, and they have complained of near-slavery conditions, sexual harrasment, intimidation.  But none of this would convince you, so let me issue you a challange.  Take 2 weeks vacation, go down to Mexico, and get a job in one of these establishments.  Then report back to us on the conditions of labor our brothers and sisters across the boarder are forced to endure.  Oh, and try to live on the wage you get from that employment, and think about trying to support a family on it.  I look forward to your findings.


You did not address the "poll question" that I proposed.  My poll question was "Would you rather the job had not been created in your town?".

If the working conditions at the maquiladora plants are so oppressive and so bad, then the workers there can simply return to the work that they were doing elsewhere.

That prior work was in most cases, by the way, either nothing, or sending their children out as chicleros to score spare change so the family can eat.

Nobody holds a gun to maquiladora plant workers to leave their non-factory jobs to work there.

I concede to your opinion that they "Do not like their jobs".

There's a difference between outsourcing of manufacture to the Third World and outsourcing of telecom jobs to India. 
The Indians getting the telecom jobs are upper class Indians who get a full education.  Not all 900 million Indians get to learn to read, write, and speak in English.  You're dealing with an urbane and sophisticated minority over there.  Granted most educated Indians are still terribly poor by American standards.  It's a deal made in heaven for the corporate bosses!



Very astute observations.  I was recently at a conference that discussed the Indian and Chinese economies and their prospects.

Indian IT/Telecom Outsourcing
Your observation is correct.  These jobs are going to well-educated, upper-crust workers, and there is actually a limit as to how much of this India can do, because they will run out of educated workers.

Indian Manufacturing Sector
Believe it or not, the average manufacturing wage in India is only half of that in China!  yet China's annual percentage growth in manufacturing far exceeds that of India.  Why?  Because the Indian state governments (apparently India is a federation) have employed laws that prevent large companies, foreign or domestic, from investing in manufacturing plants within India.  So it is far easier in indian law for me to build an umbrella plant in Malaysia and import those umbrellas into India, than it is to build the umbrella plant in India, with its cheaper labor.  Yet another example of how government meddling can screw up an economy.

The conclusion of the discussion panel (which included a Nobel Proze winning economist) was that India needs to focus LESS on its "outsourcing business" and MORE on its "Manufaturing business", because of the limited growth capability of the Outsorucing, and the HUGE untapped potential in the manufacturing sector.

Nobody holds a gun to maquiladora plant workers to leave their non-factory jobs to work there.

I concede to your opinion that they "Do not like their jobs".


I agree there.  With a few exceptions, there is no slavery in the world.  People are free to leave and go elsewhere (which is evident by how many enter THIS country).  And they can always go back to other lines of work.  They keep working there largely because they pay more then other jobs in the region.

ANd heck, I often hate my job.  I would much rather get more time off so I can do other things.  But I gotta have money so I can eat and have a home.  And I gotta work to get money.  Maybe I can marry a katchup heiress then never have to work again.  :D

The conclusion of the discussion panel (which included a Nobel Proze winning economist) was that India needs to focus LESS on its "outsourcing business" and MORE on its "Manufaturing business", because of the limited growth capability of the Outsorucing, and the HUGE untapped potential in the manufacturing sector.

Sounds like America shoud take some of this advice back home, too!

Mushroom wrote OK, I am going to make the same challenge yet again to you Maxwell.

You claim Corporations are all evil, and are going to destroy the world.  What is your solution then?

WHo is going to make the next generation of wonderdrugs?  Who is going to make your car?  Provide you with power and telephone service?  Who is going to drill for oil, refine it to gasoline, and distribute it to your neighborhood?  Who is going to distribute the food you eat?  Who is going to provide you with movies, television, or radio?
I never said they were "evil," though I can see why you'd infer that.  Empirical evidence shows an endless cycle of greed in the corprorate dynamic.  You could say it's evil, or you could say it's just the nature of the beast.  The ruling class have set up the discourse deliberately to exclude the possibility of reform.  Any proposal for environmental responsibility or labor justice in the corporate world is immediately shot down by "scholars" from "Institutes" such as Manhattan and American Enterprise.  These people support executives making hundreds of times more than workers.  They want to insure corporations will have the freedom to exploit the cheapest labor in the world.  They don't want corporations to be accountable for the environments they despoil at all.  Naturally, then, they are going to pound the message that the current way is the ONLY way.  Anything else is anti-capitalist, anti-free-market, socialist, protectionist, or what have you.
The American Middle Class fluorished when we were an industrial economy with heavy union representation, tight government regulations, and high taxes on the rich.  These things are anathema to the big bosses...they were back in the '40s and '50s too.
I volunteered for Jerry Brown's presidential campaign in 1992.  He had a whole range of practical proposals for cleaning up the environment and repairing the American infrastructure by private entrepeneurs for profit.  His ideas were not about government hand-outs for DuPont and Lockheed-Martin.  They weren't about maximizing profits next quarter for Wall Street bigshots, so Brown's ideas got written off as "kooky."
The fear-mongering stereotype that liberals want to abolish private property and set up worker soviets is silly.
We can, in fact, have more entrepeneurship without international corporate oligarchy standing in the way.  However, if we let right-wing mouthpieces like The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute define the debate, we'll get nowhere.

I agree there.  With a few exceptions, there is no slavery in the world.  People are free to leave and go elsewhere (which is evident by how many enter THIS country).  And they can always go back to other lines of work.  They keep working there largely because they pay more then other jobs in the region.
I'm sorry, I just don't think you are seeing the world on realistic terms here, but I don't have time to go off on a rant about it right now.

I never said they were "evil," though I can see why you'd infer that.  Empirical evidence shows an endless cycle of greed in the corprorate dynamic.  You could say it's evil, or you could say it's just the nature of the beast.  The ruling class have set up the discourse deliberately to exclude the possibility of reform.  Any proposal for environmental responsibility or labor justice in the corporate world is immediately shot down by "scholars" from "Institutes" such as Manhattan and American Enterprise. 

This is interesting.  I remember visiting the Jim Bridger power plant in Wyoming in the early 1970's.  Remember, this was BEFORE the Federal Government required such things as land reclamation and low sulfer emissions.  I got this special tour because my mom worked for Idaho Power at the time, a major owner of the plant.

We got to see the scrubbers, a new technology at the time.  These were the most sophisticated in the world at the time they were put in place, and far exceeded any requirements.  We also went to the open strip mine where they mined the coal.

After we saw the mine, we drove through a lot of what appeared to be pristine landscape.  We saw wild bison, antelope, and coyotes.  Then we found out that this land was recovered land, and had already been mined.

Remember, ALL of this was done in the early 1970's.  Most of the reclamation laws and emission laws were not enacted until the late 1970's.  This plant was also a major power provider to the Montana-Wyoming-Utah-Idaho region.

The difference is that in the West (ESPECIALLY in the Pacific North-West), companies have a large belief in "Stewardship" of the land.  They know that they have to take care of it, or it will be destroyed.  This is why companies like Boise-Cascade plant 4 times the amount of trees as they remove.  And why almost all companies participate in reclamation.

I know that not all companies behave like this.  But it makes me mad when I see people bashing ALL corporations as bad and exploitive.  Just like in people, corporations come in good, bad, and in-between.  And your rants just appear to me to be more discrimination.  Just replace "corporation" with the race of your choice, and you will see what I mean.

One other things should be mentioned in reguards to a Corporation.

In common US law, a corporation is entitled to the same rights and protections as a person.  It is in and of itself an entity.  Think of it as a child.  But instead of parents, it has a CEO and a Board of Directors.

And since most large corporations are publically owned (stockholders), think of them as extended family.  If a corporation is excessively greedy, then why don't those shareholders step in?  It has happened in the past.  Look at the lashing Michael Eisner got this year over his actions.  And Microsoft has had to make large changes in how it did business, because the shareholders started to tell them they needed to.

And just like people (and animals), Corporations try to live.  They want to grow, to get more and produce more.  Their raw material is cash from investments instead of food.  Their profit is money, as opposed to people and animals who's profit is children.  Larger corporations get a payoff of spinning off more corporations (Hughes did a lot of this).

Like people, some corporations are predatory.  Those may make money, but in the long term they are doomed to fail.  Some start off predatory and exploitive, but like a spoiled child, grow into maturity and change how they operate.

I agree there.  With a few exceptions, there is no slavery in the world.  People are free to leave and go elsewhere (which is evident by how many enter THIS country).  And they can always go back to other lines of work.  They keep working there largely because they pay more then other jobs in the region.

ANd heck, I often hate my job.  I would much rather get more time off so I can do other things.  But I gotta have money so I can eat and have a home.  And I gotta work to get money.  Maybe I can marry a katchup heiress then never have to work again.   :D


If only that were true!!!  Slavery is alive and well on every continent in the world.  Asian "sex tourism" is based on the slavery of thousands of women.  Slavery in some African nations is rampant.  Young children chained to machines producing Niki shoes and Wal-Mart tee shirts in sweat shops around the world could be considered at least near slaves.  Even in the US there have been reports of people held in what one major news magazine a time ago - I don't remember which, or when - called "slavery".

And I find your slam of Kerry to be gratuitous and not very funny, a cheap shot.  Maybe if you had rich Arab friends, like Mr Bush, who filled every dry hole you drilled looking for oil with $$$ you could become president.



In a previous post you claimed that liberals offer no solutions to the gripes we identify.  I beg to differ.  The specific solutions would take too long to discuss, but the general solution has to do with replacing our current system of crony capitalism with democratic capitalism.  That is to say, taking the government back from the corporate interests that now control it and putting it back in the hands of We the People.  W. Churchill said that "Democracy is the worst form of government, aside from all the others" because it requires consulting the will of the people, who for some strange reason expect government to represent them.  So Enron uses its political "influance" to get electric deregulation in California, and that state's citizens get ripped off for millions, or was it billion - by Enron.  British Petrolium and its Alaska consortium promise protection against oil spills and state of the art containment should one occure and yet we have the Exxon Valdez disaster - they are still cleaning up from that one becuase there was NO CONTAINMENT STUFF available.  Why?  Corporate raiders continue their gluttany at both the publice expense and the expense of stockholders and what do we get? A few showcase trials of the likes of Martha Stewart, the Riga family, and now Ken Lay. 

You will say that this indicates the system is working, but these highly visible cases are just the tip of the iceberg.

One other things should be mentioned in reguards to a Corporation.

In common US law, a corporation is entitled to the same rights and protections as a person.  It is in and of itself an entity.  Think of it as a child.  But instead of parents, it has a CEO and a Board of Directors.
Corporations have the same rights as individual people in order to protect investors from liability.  This protection started out as a good thing because it allowed investors to take risks and build their companies without the fear of having their lives ruined if something went wrong.  However, today corporations have it better than real people.  They have the same rights, but are not held accountable for their actions in the same way.  Until late in the 19th century, corporations were granted charters for a specific venture.  Investors understood the state could revoke the corporation's charter if they violated it.  Now we are seeing corporations growing so powerful the roles are almost reversed.  Under the WTO, a cabal of corporations can meet in Switzerland and decide the fate of a state based on their investment caprices.
It's time to get back to basics.  The people elect governments, governments grant corporate charters, and can bloody well revoke corporate charters for abuse of corporate power.  That's the wing things ought to be!
Your analogy of the corporation as a child works up to a point.  Corporations exercise childish greed, childish compuslion, childish short-sightedness, and childish insensitivity to the needs of others.  However, the CEO and the Board of Directors represent not the parents, but the brain and heart, they are the essence of the corporation-as-child.  The parents need to be, one,  the elected representatives of the people, and the jurists appointed by elected representatives.  The other parent would be the people as consumers and shareholders.

And since most large corporations are publically owned (stockholders), think of them as extended family.  If a corporation is excessively greedy, then why don't those shareholders step in?  It has happened in the past.  Look at the lashing Michael Eisner got this year over his actions.  And Microsoft has had to make large changes in how it did business, because the shareholders started to tell them they needed to.
Why didn't the shareholders step in when the corporation was being greedy?  You're joking, right?

And just like people (and animals), Corporations try to live.  They want to grow, to get more and produce more.  Their raw material is cash from investments instead of food.  Their profit is money, as opposed to people and animals who's profit is children.  Larger corporations get a payoff of spinning off more corporations (Hughes did a lot of this).

Like people, some corporations are predatory.  Those may make money, but in the long term they are doomed to fail.  Some start off predatory and exploitive, but like a spoiled child, grow into maturity and change how they operate.

Again, I think you have a rosy Ronald Reagan vision of corporate idealism that simply isn't reflected in reality.  But, alas, I am again out of time.  As for your analogy of my criticism of corporations to "racism," that's a lot of hogwash and holds no water whatsoever.  It's pure Sean Hannity-style emotional bluster.

Thanks, Max, for having the ambition and taking the time to write your last post.  Right on man. ;D ;D ;D

And I find your slam of Kerry to be gratuitous and not very funny, a cheap shot.  Maybe if you had rich Arab friends, like Mr Bush, who filled every dry hole you drilled looking for oil with $$$ you could become president.


*I will reply to the serious subject at a time when I am not at work - and can give such a serious subject the time it is worth - but it is sad that it is true*

Actually, it was - and was not intended as a cheap shot.  I simply was poking fun at ANYBODY who marries into money, then puts it down.  And that goes for anybody, reguardless of politics or anything else.  If Arnold had not already gotten rich through acting before he married into the Kennedy family, it might even apply to him.

Personally, I wish I *COULD* find some rich single heiress to marry.  It would be a much easier way to make a living.  TO bad, the only such offer I have ever had to become a "kept man" came from an old retired doctor, who happened to be a guy.  :P

*I will reply to the serious subject at a time when I am not at work - and can give such a serious subject the time it is worth - but it is sad that it is true*

Actually, it was - and was not intended as a cheap shot.  I simply was poking fun at ANYBODY who marries into money, then puts it down.  And that goes for anybody, reguardless of politics or anything else.  If Arnold had not already gotten rich through acting before he married into the Kennedy family, it might even apply to him.

Personally, I wish I *COULD* find some rich single heiress to marry.  It would be a much easier way to make a living.  TO bad, the only such offer I have ever had to become a "kept man" came from an old retired doctor, who happened to be a guy.  :P


Don't get me wrong.  I have no problem "poking fun" at the rich.  I'd like to poke a lot more than fun at them.  I also understand the attraction of marrying so rich b**ch and loafing for the rest of your life.  Personally, trhough, I don't think I could take it (even if she were totally undemanding, worshiped me, and had a libido equal to mine, was a knockout - uh wait a minute  ???).  As nice as these fantasies might seem, I wonder.  As a good socialist, I think that a life without productive work would be no life at all, even with servants serving mimosas in the morning. 

Oh God that is exactly what that old cartoon character ''Captain Planet'' says.  Except instead of cures for diseases he wants us to clean up. 
Let's see what you would do for America if you ever got elected President...oh yeah..tax breaks for the rich...you'd support the Christian Coalition probably...and gut the EPA even more than it already is..and outlawing Planned Parenthood(I remember your silly accusations)..

Don't get me wrong.  I have no problem "poking fun" at the rich.  I'd like to poke a lot more than fun at them.  I also understand the attraction of marrying so rich b**ch and loafing for the rest of your life.  Personally, trhough, I don't think I could take it (even if she were totally undemanding, worshiped me, and had a libido equal to mine, was a knockout - uh wait a minute  ???). 



UMM http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/aktion/action-smiley-



Cat

UMM http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/aktion/action-smiley-



Cat


NOt to worry, Cat  ;)  You come pretty darn close  ;D