What are your thoughts on the NAFTA HWY

SLOCOOKN

rskarvan wrote: »

Our free market system is absolutely as broken a system as socialism.
I would take the socialist system in Paris over the free market system in Flint, MI every single day.

Who cares that we have near full employment? It does one no good to work if you can't earn a wage high enough to make ends meet. Better to be unemployed and have NOTHING than to be working your **** off for an employer and have NOTHING because of an oppressive economic system combined with a below poverty wage rate.

Personally, I believe there is more fairness and equity in the French system than there is in a free market system (where the labor rate is so low it is virtually free to the business owner).

I could care less whether America can compete on a global basis. What I care about is if the kid down the block can get a job that will supply his basic needs (housing, food, transportation, medicine, etc) for he, his wife and child(ren). Often times, our free market system fails to deliver the basics. This is why a little socialism (Labor unions) go a long way to balancing the economic scales.

Free Market = Sucks
Socialism = Sucks
Free Market + Socialism = Success.

I don't know that France would be the best bet?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,2074121,00.html

rskarvan

There are signs of hope. Many of Europe's biggest companies are French and they have highly productive workforces. Some labour market reforms carried out in the past couple of years appear to be bearing fruit. The Paris region, in particular, is becoming a magnet for global IT and services companies and is sucking in record amounts of inward investment.

So, rather than gloating at France's misfortunes, it is best to wish the country "bonne chance et bon courage" as it tries to make itself as attractive to its own people as it is to the rest of us.

TroyD

SLOCOOKN wrote: »

If an employer agrees to hire and pay me a set wage that we agree on, that is not entitlement. I am not sure why you all continue to use the word entitlement.
I agree unemployment is very low. So the argument that lazy entitlement seeking Americans just doesn't make a good argument. If most all Americans are working and there are "better" jobs available and not enough qualified people to fill them. We need access to better education!

http://www.bls.gov/oco/oco2003.htm

Most of the new jobs that will be created are jobs that are now low income earning jobs.

The dismemberment of our society is the break down of the family unit.
When it already takes 2 income earners to provide for them and most family's are putting in more that 40 hours a week anyway adding more stress and separation is not going to help!

I live in the Midwest. As you can see in the chart most of the declining jobs for my area are good paying jobs. These will be replaced with Service type jobs which are usually lower paying jobs. So access to better education becomes more difficult.

Our education, health care and social services are in shambles!

There are several problems that are going to be coming to a head and currently there are no real resolutions to any of them. It is nice to say, "work harder". As you can see most people are working harder. We have several things that are broken.

You know, the burger flipper job schtick has been a favorite tagline for a couple of generations now and it's a crock now as it was a crock then.

As far as families HAVING to work two jobs etc to make ends meet. Eh, I don't buy that so much either. There is a difference between NEEDS and WANTS. Believe it or not, there are families that make it on one income. They don't necessarily lead extravagant lifestyles.

Education, health and social services are in shambles. I'd agree with that. The three biggest gov't industries there are. CLASSIC examples of why the government shouldn't be trusted with things like that. Go ahead and do some research into how much of our budget goes into those particular areas. You'd be surprised. What we spend on defense is just a drop in the bucket.

I dunno, I just believe that if you think that the government should solve of our our ills, fine. I just don't happen to agree.

BDT

TroyD

France? Are you KIDDING ME? WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Oh that's PRICELESS!!

If I'm not mistaken, Chiriac just got thrown out on his ****.

Wanna know what would help American families out? Cut taxes on everyone. As it is, we have to work into May now just to pay the tax man. Put more money back into our pockets and see what happens.

Ron, I love ya man...but you are holding up FRANCE as what we should emulate?? Holy crap man, that's FUNNY. If we REALLY did that rather than worry about border security, maybe we should just surrender to Mexico.

BDT

SLOCOOKN

TroyD wrote: »

You know, the burger flipper job schtick has been a favorite tagline for a couple of generations now and it's a crock now as it was a crock then.

As far as families HAVING to work two jobs etc to make ends meet. Eh, I don't buy that so much either. There is a difference between NEEDS and WANTS. Believe it or not, there are families that make it on one income. They don't necessarily lead extravagant lifestyles.

I dunno, I just believe that if you think that the government should solve of our our ills, fine. I just don't happen to agree.

BDT

Your right we should all have a 200 Sq ft. house and wear shanty clothes have no health care. Then every thing would be better.

I know some people live "outside their needs" We buy things that is what has made our economy so strong. You take away good paying jobs replace them with low wage jobs and throw in several hundred thousand illegal immigrants and whaaaa....laaa. You have a **** hole to live in. We pay taxes and should expect the government to protect us as a society. Not encourage big business to exploit bad situations and make them worse.

Things are changing for the worse and will continue to change unless we examine ways to better our selves.

TroyD

oops.

TroyD

SLOCOOKN wrote: »

Your right we should all have a 200 Sq ft. house and wear shanty clothes have no health care. Then every thing would be better.

I know some people live "outside their needs" We buy things that is what has made our economy so strong. You take away good paying jobs replace them with low wage jobs and throw in several hundred thousand illegal immigrants and whaaaa....laaa. You have a **** hole to live in. We pay taxes and should expect the government to protect us as a society. Not encourage big business to exploit bad situations and make them worse.

Things are changing for the worse and will continue to change unless we examine ways to better our selves.

Where did I say that? I'm not saying we should live anywhere. What I AM saying is that your lifestyle SHOULD be commesurate with the effort you are willing to put forth. Why is that an evil concept?

If you ONLY aspire to menial labor, why should you be entitled to a standard of living that someone who is willing to work harder for? Leveling the playing field for all workers was the goal of the USSR. Everyone was equal. It was an utter and abject FAILURE. This is what some folks fail to grasp. Communism and Socialism have been tried and have FAILED. Case in point. ME. I make ~60K a year. Not a ton of money but I don't have too many worries. I have a decent house and so forth. I have a friend who is well into 6 figures. He's got a graduate degree and works his **** off. He SHOULD make more money than me. He's better educated and when all is said and done, earns his money.

I'm not saying take away the good paying jobs. I'm saying KEEP those. Export the low paying jobs. As much as it pisses me off to call one, call centers are a great example. Would we rather employ the engineer to design a certain item or the guy answering the phone to order it? Simple choice.

rskarvan

Ok... maybe France wasn't the best example. But, you do have to admit that replacing a manufacturing based economy with a service based economy is not a recipe for success. Even those silly Republicans should realize that saving the American manufacturing industry (at any cost) is a necessity if we are to be successful as a country.

Haven't we already surrendered to Mexico? It appears that they have invaded!

TroyD

Things are changing for the worse and will continue to change unless we examine ways to better our selves

And herein lies the question. What is require? Do we have to rise to meet the competive forces or should we use artificial (ie Gov't intervention) to insulate us from them?

BDT

TroyD

rskarvan wrote: »

Ok... maybe France wasn't the best example. But, you do have to admit that replacing a manufacturing based economy with a service based economy is not a recipe for success. Even those silly Republicans should realize that saving the American manufacturing industry (at any cost) is a necessity if we are to be successful as a country.

OK, gimmie another example of flourishing socialism. You CAN'T.

Me? It's not that I don't CARE about industrial capability. I do. However, do I place more value on the ability to create and design a better widget or just the capacity to produce it. I'll take the former over the later and anyone with an ounce of sense would agree.

BDT

TroyD

Also, no, I don't agree with it. Artificially propping up any industry is a fools errand. It's failed every time it's tried.

The New Deal, The Fair Deal, The Great Society....Farm Subsidies. Medicare....the list goes on. When the government gets it's hands in social engineering, it has FAILED every time.

Actually, much as I hate to admit it, Clinton's welfare reform was probably one of the best things to ever come along. It basically trimmed the welfare rolls of dead weight. Here in SC, man, DOOM and GLOOM. People were going to starve, families were going to go hungry....etc etc. Guess what, it didn't happen. People adapted to the new reality. Poverty didn't increase. We didn't have famine and pestilence. People are far more resilient that we want to believe.

BDT

rskarvan

Designing the next great widget does us no good if China ignores international patent laws. That is why manufacturing trumps novel engineering every time!

TroyD

International patent laws? Give me a break, Ron. Do you realize how backwards that sounds?

So, it makes no difference to you if we can't design the widget. Only that if someone gave us the design that we can produce it?

That is absurd beyond belief.

Consider this though, if China (or anyone else) has the technology to design a better widget wouldn't it follow that they have the leg up on designing more appropriate manufacturing capability? So, why would it matter what our industrial capability is?

BDT

RuSsMaN

Just a side note, on the patent issue.

Gary's battery tube preamp - I asked him if he was going to get a patent to protect it. He said hell no. He stated that all that getting a patent would do is show the Chinese the circuit so they could copy it. Instead of getting a patent, he searched for killer 'potting' material, and potted the entire circuit. Anyone tries to chip away at the potting material, the circuit will be destroyed in the process.

I don't know if that applies here or not, but I found it interesting.

Cheers,
Russ

TroyD

No, it's very interesting and it basically supports my theory. It's better to master the technology than just have the means to produce.

The way I read Ron, owning the company is less desireable than the ability to grab the owner by the nuts and squeeze them as hard as you can for a better handout.

BDT

amulford

I wouldn't call it a handout.

Yes it is great to master the technology, but the technology is useless if it isn't produced for implementation. Trust me, if we lose that capacity to produce, we'll also lose the capacity to innovate. The production, and selling of the product, is what pays for the R&D.

Tight control of both is necessary.

TroyD

I don't disagree with that, however, if you don't control the technology...all the industrial capacity is useless. If you control the former, the later is much less of an issue.

BDT

rskarvan

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations. It is dedicated to developing a balanced and accessible international intellectual property (IP) system, which rewards creativity, stimulates innovation and contributes to economic development while safeguarding the public interest.

WIPO was established by the WIPO Convention in 1967 with a mandate from its Member States to promote the protection of IP throughout the world through cooperation among states and in collaboration with other international organizations. Its headquarters are in Geneva, Switzerland.

TroyD

The UN?

PFFFFFFFFFT. This just keeps getting better and better.

Those dickheads are so corrupt, they would make Jimmy Hoffa look like a choir boy.

What's next Ron? The paradise of Venezuala? The upside of Castro's dictatorship?

BDT

rskarvan

It is nearly impossible to control technology. The best you can hope for is to be able to enforce an international patent (regardless of how backwards that sounds). What you can control is your ability to manufacture and distribute technology. That is why AMERICAN MANUFACTURING is critically important to the USA.

As the USA loses its domestic manufacturing ability, all we will be left with is the ability to distribute farm goods, and flip burgers in the service industries.

rskarvan

"The way I read Ron, owning the company is less desireable than the ability to grab the owner by the nuts and squeeze them as hard as you can for a better handout."

While I do enjoy watching a greedy owner get his nuts squeezed, ultimately, the owner can fire his striking work-force and begin a-new. What the owner can't do is prevent his workers from joining together in a lawful nut-squeezing union.

TroyD

You know, people have been saying this for YEARS and the reality is nothing more than a few anecdotal incidents. We have been post-Industrial for a generation. Our economy is still growing. Wealth and productivity are growing. The great class of wretched poor and displaced has just not materialized.

You know, 30 years ago everyone had thier panties in a wad about Japan. Thier industrial might was going to sink the US and replace us as a world superpower. Never happened. One reason is that while they did/do have industrial might they could generally build a widget smaller and with better quality control...they weren't capable of inventing the widget.

As a side note, Japan is easing into a post-Industrial society as well. It's the natural progression of things.

BDT

rskarvan

There are an awful lot (perhaps a majority) of people that think that "things aren't getting better". That is why the Republicans got booted from Congress during the last election. That is why we'll probably have Hillary in the White House in the next election.

The people haven't been fooled. Regardless of how the economists portray life, its just not that rosy for the majority.

TroyD

rskarvan wrote: »

"The way I read Ron, owning the company is less desireable than the ability to grab the owner by the nuts and squeeze them as hard as you can for a better handout."

While I do enjoy watching a greedy owner get his nuts squeezed, ultimately, the owner can fire his striking work-force and begin a-new. What the owner can't do is prevent his workers from joining together in a lawful nut-squeezing union.

OK, Ron. Let me try it this way. I think we agree that we both should be free to work where we choose. Right? We should be free to accept or reject terms of employment as we see fit, right?

Ok, if I own a business, why should I be any less free to set the terms of employment? You are absolutely free to seek employment elsewhere no?? Why should I enjoy less freedom than you?

BDT

TroyD

rskarvan wrote: »

There are an awful lot (perhaps a majority) of people that think that "things aren't getting better". That is why the Republicans got booted from Congress during the last election. That is why we'll probably have Hillary in the White House in the next election.

The people haven't been fooled. Regardless of how the economists portray life, its just not that rosy for the majority.

I thought Iraq was the defining issue. Either way, it's a crock. You will ALWAYS find anecdotal incidents. Sad? Yes. Overall, has the economy grown? Yes. The facts are irrefutable. Unemployment is at/near all time lows. Accross the board wages have grown. Inflation is low, interest rates are low. This Great Depression is a myth, Ron. As much as some folks would like to disagree, the statistics aren't there. Are there pockets of economic misery? Sure, there ALWAYS are. It's unavoidable.

BDT

rskarvan

TroyD, you are right, as an employer, you have the right to set the wage for your employees under law. And, your employees have a right to strike and shut-your-**** down. PERIOD. Its a completely fair system. You can shut them down (fire them) and they can shut you down (strike). Being an employer does not give you the right to treat your employees as individuals if they choose to be represented collectively. And, all your employees need to do to be represented collectively is achieve a majority vote for representation. These are the facts.

Sure there are pockets of the economy in economic misery. That is always the case in a capitalist system. The appeal of socialism is that they promise to eliminate these pockets (even if they don't deliver on that promise). Capitalist systems end with no middle class. That is pretty close to where we are right now. Socialist systems eliminate both the upper and the lower class and have a huge middle. All these systems fail because people are people - its unavoidable. Personally, I think the USA is such a great place is because (for the moment) we have the military might to pretty much rule the world. That is unlikey to persist forever.

PolkWannabie

TroyD wrote: »

My employer, Uncle Sam ...

Unlike most businesses, Uncle Sam doesn't need to make a profit to continue to be in business ... They just tax more or print more ... Spending less doesn't ever appear to be an option ...

TroyD

rskarvan wrote: »

TroyD, you are right, as an employer, you have the right to set the wage for your employees under law. And, your employees have a right to strike and shut-your-**** down. PERIOD. Its a completely fair system. You can shut them down (fire them) and they can shut you down (strike). Being an employer does not give you the right to treat your employees as individuals if they choose to be represented collectively. And, all your employees need to do to be represented collectively is achieve a majority vote for representation. These are the facts.

Sure there are pockets of the economy in economic misery. That is always the case in a capitalist system. The appeal of socialism is that they promise to eliminate these pockets (even if they don't deliver on that promise). Capitalist systems end with no middle class. That is pretty close to where we are right now. Socialist systems eliminate both the upper and the lower class and have a huge middle. All these systems fail because people are people - its unavoidable. Personally, I think the USA is such a great place is because (for the moment) we have the military might to pretty much rule the world. That is unlikey to persist forever.

However, Ron, the mentality of SOME unions isn't that. The mentality of some unions is that a business exists for the benefit of the employee and THAT is a recipe for a disaster. Again, see the auto industry and the USSR. Also, don't hand me this drivel that the unions care about ALL workers. They only care about THIER workers. Don't believe me? Let's say for example that a guy is making 40 bucks an hour. That's roughly 80K a year and he is a union guy. Now, in theory (it doesn't QUITE work this way but the concept is sound) if you could hire TWO guys at 20 bucks an hour (40K a year which is above the poverty line) you would in effect create MORE decent jobs and increase production capability which could possibly have the effect of creating even MORE opportunities. THAT is what a free market CAN offer. Think the UAW would buy off on that sort of thing? No? Yeah, so pipe down with the 'we are for the American worker' schtick. I, ME, MINE (with no risk involved) is what the UAW is about.

If you look at what we in the US consider 'poor', the majority own more than one automobile for example. If you consider someone poor because they can't afford to go to Hawaii for two weeks every year, well, I disagree. The fact is this, MANY (not all, but MANY) of our 'poor' are where they are at because they have made bad choices. Sad? Yes. Tragic? Absolutely....however, it is statistically unavoidable. Also, I've asked several times for you to give me an example of a WORKING, VIABLE socialist utopia. You can't, can you? Why? because it doesn't exist and not for lack of effort. While far from perfect, a capitalist society has, IN HARD FACT, offered accross the board the highest standard of living in the world. UNDISPUTABLE.

You can argue theory with me all day long however, you can't argue the reality of the success of the capitalist system.

BDT

TroyD

PolkWannabie wrote: »

Unlike most businesses, Uncle Sam doesn't need to make a profit to continue to be in business ... ...

While that was completely not the point I was making.....your observation is the reason that gov't is the least capable of fixing the majority of the ills of our society.

BDT

rskarvan

Troy,

The truth is that executives are in it 100% for themselves. They don't care about the employee. They don't care about the customer. They don't care about the stock holder. And, they don't care about the USA.

That is the problem with the free market system. You blame unions. I blame executives. I have seen (too many times) absolutely huge bonus's being paid to executives while their company was losing market share, customers, and money. So, forgive me if I'm a little one-sided. But, at least the union autoworker puts together a car. The executives just destroy lives when they mis-manage a business. And, they make killer bonus's while they are doing it.

So, do companies have money to give the union a raise? Absolutely. Until the executives come WAY DOWN in pay, the productive workers deserve more. The stock holders deserve more. The loser executives (performance based) deserve to get fired without a golden parachute.