|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#151
August 12th 04, 12:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
on Bush and his crashes
|
| Ads |
|
#152
August 12th 04, 12:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
on Bush and his crashes
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 07:35:55 +1000, Nora Lenderby
wrote: "Mark Hickey" writes: Wanna tell us all what the tax rates are in Scandanavia and Benelux? Stop the presses. This just in: social justice requires taxation. Whatever the hell is "social justice?" All justice is social - it is the only kind that is possible. So why do you talk about "social justice" instead of just "justice?" And justice does not require high tax rates. It must be something other than "justice" that you are advocating for. I'll settle for justice. If you want something less, or other than justice, then please find a name for it that doesn't abuse that noble word. Ron
|
|
#153
August 12th 04, 12:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
on Bush and his crashes
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 19:30:21 -0500, Tom Sherman wrote:
gwhite wrote: Tom Sherman wrote: With all the above education, work and personal sacrifice, I can pay off my student loans in 6 or 7 years instead of 10. What are you whining about? I am objecting to being constantly told (not personally, of course) by "conservative" politicians, media pundits, policy institute researchers, etc. how wonderful the system in the US and how everyone's life could be made better by eliminating the few remaining government restraints on capital, when that is simply not the case. Well, I'll happily tell you that personally if it'll make you feel better. How much faster would your loans get paid off if we cut your taxes? Is that worth while? How much less would your education have cost if the student loan market weren't so heavily flooded and funded? How about that. There are some very legitimate restraints on some commercial activities - the rest just make life tougher on the rest of us. Ron
|
|
#154
August 12th 04, 12:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
on Bush and his crashes
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 19:48:37 -0500, Tom Sherman wrote:
RonSonic wrote: On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 21:05:46 -0500, Tom Sherman wrote: Eagle Jackson wrote: Tom Sherman wrote in message ... It's a lot easier to blame a "conspiracy of the upper classes" and "being brainwashed by the media" for one's own circumstances than to accept the personal responsibility for failing to have the sense and discipline to get a good education, work hard, make personal sacrifice in order to invest for the future. In America, the opportunity is there for the taking. Millions of immigrants come here every year to grab their own slice of the American dream. (And millions more if we'd let them g) It may not be easy but for those willing to work hard for it, they can achieve it. If you don't like your circumstances and are looking for someone to blame, look in the mirror. Let's see: I have an MS from a top ranked school, I put in over 50 hours a week of work on the average, and I work harder than most of my co-workers. As for spending, I almost never go out to eat or spend money on any other entertainment, I drive a 10+ year old car; I have not purchased any expensive consumer electronics except for one computer during the last 10 years, and rent a small, one-bedroom apartment, etc. The only "optional" spending I have done since graduation is for one trike that was about 4 months worth of student loan payments. With all the above education, work and personal sacrifice, I can pay off my student loans in 6 or 7 years instead of 10. By which time you'll be what, 30? It's a good age. You'll know a lot more, little things like don't borrow so damn much money, and you'll have serious surplus cash from several promotions/job changes along with the debt being gone. You are just starting out in life and it always sucks. Deal with it. I wish I was that young. I had to withdraw from school for medical reasons, and spent several years working 75+ hours a week with no vacations to pay off the uninsured medical bills so I could go back to school. If I had been in any other developed country, I would have been covered by single-payer health insurance, and would not have been forced to waste several years working at dead end jobs. So please don't tell me about hard work, working while sick or injured personal sacrifice, etc. I have been there and done that. And I do not begrudge the good fortune of others – only that they will not acknowledge how lucky they have been, and how much of their good fortune is owed to others and not their own achievement. Fair enough. Some people do not know how lucky they are, and that is cause for resentment. I'll argue that things like resentment are not good grounds for making public policy. These security/liberty issues always boil down to risk/opportunity questions. I won't trade away my right to get lucky for an assurance that I won't become unlucky. Now those who have been unlucky already might have a different opinion. That's what elections and public debate are about, to decide where as a society we want to make that trade off. Ron
|
|
#156
August 12th 04, 01:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
on Bush and his crashes
in article , gwhite at
wrote on 8/11/04 10:11 AM: I think Hayek covered "Our Poisoned Language" and "The Weasel Word 'Social'" quite well in _The Fatal Conceit_. I think that this is not really Salma Hayek's area of expertise, but go ahead. By quoting obscure texts, you make yourself appear well-read, if not intelligent. Yet, there is nothing else of any substance in your posts. Do you understand any of your references? Can you show how they apply to the discussion at hand? Todd Kuzma Heron Bicycles Tullio's Big Dog Cyclery LaSalle, IL http://www.heronbicycles.com/ http://www.tullios.com/
|
|
#157
August 12th 04, 01:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
on Bush and his crashes
in article , gwhite at
wrote on 8/11/04 10:19 AM: Not to the socialists -- the only costs they care about are the ones they can escape by imposing those costs on others. Those crooks just put a gun to your head. Like the rap song goes: "Gimme your money or I'll kick your ass." Well, that pretty much describes any state that taxes its citizens, socialist, communist, democratic, or otherwise. Todd Kuzma Heron Bicycles Tullio's Big Dog Cyclery LaSalle, IL http://www.heronbicycles.com/ http://www.tullios.com/
|
|
#158
August 12th 04, 01:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
on Bush and his crashes
Tom Sherman wrote: Mark Hickey wrote: ... I'm saying that everything comes at a cost. To me, there is very little dignity involved in living off the state's largesse - you become a virtual slave to the state, dependent upon them for your daily bread. Personally I'd prefer to live in a society where *I* set my own limits (which is precisely why I live in the US).... What dignity is there in working for an employer where one has no job security,... "Job security" is a hokum idea at the root. It's like saying I can be forced to eat -- and pay for -- egg salad sandwiches everyday at Joe's Sandwich Shop because Joe has a *right* to job security. If the firm's products are no longer desired by consumers, then you need to find a job producing something someone wants. The firm can either make what people want or shut down. What incentive does Joe have to make me a good sandwich when I am coerced into paying him no matter how good or bad it is or how much I desire it over a substitute from someone else? ...and being faced with the choice of caving in to unreasonable demands or not being able to survive economically? There are "other jobs." And if not, there is unemployment insurance (which should be largely privatized, by the way.) Yes, one can always change jobs, but often the opportunities are limited, and there is no guarantee the new job will be any better. It might not be better, but a shifting work force costs firms money. The thing to do is quit even if the new job is no better, otherwise you don't send the message to purchasers of labor that "acting like an asshole costs money." Transmit the price message! They won't know the message if you don't send it. (It also becomes hard to find new employment if one changes jobs too often). Not so true anymore. Employers can't whine when they'll downsize you at any time. Downsize them *whenever* you get a deal that looks better for *you*. Then there are the additional costs in time and money for relocating, not to mention the disruption to other members of the household (if any). Yes, you have to look at the costs. What is your pride worth? It is much less disruptive to a company (in most cases) to replace an employee that quits than it is for an individual to find a new job after employment is terminated. This is not generally true and there are vicissitudes in an "employers market" or "workers market." Companies *do* have trouble replacing skilled workers. And for the non-skilled, it is a two-way street. A non-skilled worker has more choices due to actual fact that little skill is required to do the work and low skill jobs exist almost everywhere. The low wage makes him/her is attractive to firms for that very reason. Abolishment of the minimum wage can only help low skill workers. Unemployment would nearly disappear. Without government intervention, capital holds almost all the advantages over labor. If you don't consider your skills as your own capital, then maybe you should not make any money. As for self-employment, the opportunities are limited (and most new businesses fail), so that option is only available to a few.... So what if businesses fail? They tried -- life isn't perfect and only a dope is unaware that ventures hold risk. What doesn't hold risk of some measure? "Opportunities are limited" is a fact of life. Bread and jam are limited too. It is a statement about scarcity, which is what economizing is all about. You want to trade security for freedom. Unfortunately, you'll end up losing both. Security (excessive insulation from economic welfare fluctuations) is The Big Lie. We have insurance to mitigate risk. It works great and it is available on the market. Many business sectors are not open unless one has an immense amount of capital to start with; as established companies can afford to temporarily operate at a loss to drive new competitors out of business. I don't agree with this. These days some sectors have such high technical sophistication that it takes an army of highly trained personal and advanced machinery just to get started. For example, the multibillion dollar cost of a new semiconductor foundry. Sure established foundries have the advantage, but it is not so much a matter of being able to operate at a loss as the pure high capital cost of turning on the lights on the first day. I see technical sophistication as the bigger barrier to entry for this example. If one examines the lives of successful people, in almost all cases it will be found that they had advantages beyond their own abilities and efforts that allowed them to succeed. The history of the USA is replete with rags-to-riches stories. The best story, however, is the increased standard of living of the poorest and average citizens. For whatever its imperfections, capitalism works. [1] One reason that the corporate class prefers to have significant unemployment is that it provides move leverage over their employees. "Marx was surely a profound thinker who won legions of supporters around the world. But his predictions have not withstood the test of time. Although capitalist markets have changed over the past 150 years, competition has not devolved into monopoly. Real wages have risen and profit rates have not declined. Nor has a reserve army of the unemployed developed. We do have bouts with the business cycle, but more and more economists believe that significant recessions and depressions may be more the unintended result of state intervention (through monetary policy carried out by central banks and government policies on taxation and spending) and less an inherent feature of markets as such. Socialist revolutions, to be sure, have occurred throughout the world, but never where Marx's theory predicted—in the most advanced capitalist countries. On the contrary, socialist revolts have occurred in poor, so-called Third World countries. Most troubling to present-day Marxism is the ongoing collapse of socialism. Revolutions in socialist countries today are against socialism and for free markets. In practice, socialism has failed to create the nonalienated, self-managed, and fully planned society. Real-world socialism in the twentieth century failed to emancipate the masses. In most cases it merely led to new forms of statism, domination, and abuse of power." http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Marxism.html
|
|
#159
August 12th 04, 01:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
on Bush and his crashes
Todd Kuzma wrote: in article , gwhite at wrote on 8/11/04 10:11 AM: I think Hayek covered "Our Poisoned Language" and "The Weasel Word 'Social'" quite well in _The Fatal Conceit_. I think that this is not really Salma Hayek's area of expertise, but go ahead. By quoting obscure texts,... Sure it's obsure. Sure Hayek is obscure. LMAO http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/1974/index.html
|
|
#160
August 12th 04, 01:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
on Bush and his crashes
Mark Hickey wrote:
... (It also becomes hard to find new employment if one changes jobs too often). Then there are the additional costs in time and money for relocating, not to mention the disruption to other members of the household (if any). It is much less disruptive to a company (in most cases) to replace an employee that quits than it is for an individual to find a new job after employment is terminated. Without government intervention, capital holds almost all the advantages over labor. You're working yourself into a frenzy not many of us can comprehend. Seriously. Most all of us have changed jobs, many times requiring relocation. As someone who moved nine times in twelve years in one "interesting stretch" I can tell you it's not fatal. In fact, I enjoyed it. However, if the majority of employers work on the same management principles, changing jobs will not improve anything. And with an unregulated business environment, the company that compensates its employees the least for their labor will be the most successful in the market, and therefore will employ the most workers. The free market system naturally progresses towards a win for capital and a lose for labor, unless there is government intervention to set minimum standards or labor organizes itself into a collective bargaining unit. [1] As for self-employment, the opportunities are limited (and most new businesses fail), so that option is only available to a few. Utter nonsense, sorry. So it would be possible for 200 million people in the US to go out and start their own businesses, and for most of them to be successful? Utterly ridiculous. Many business sectors are not open unless one has an immense amount of capital to start with; as established companies can afford to temporarily operate at a loss to drive new competitors out of business. Well as nice as it would be to start a new business with an "immense amount of capital", most new businesses don't require it. Yes, that precludes me from going head to head with Microsoft any time soon (another business started on a shoestring, BTW, and last time I checked Bill Gates was doing pretty well). Again, most startup businesses fail. This indicates that it is not a realistic option to provide employment for the majority of people in an industrialized society. Only a few people can be as lucky as Bill Gates was: IBM gave him control of the operating system (DOS) when they introduced the PC. If one examines the lives of successful people, in almost all cases it will be found that they had advantages beyond their own abilities and efforts that allowed them to succeed. Yes they did. Drive and ambition. Most people are notoriously bad at self-evaluation, and give themselves far too much credit for their successes. Ego gratification is not objective. [1] It is of course the goal of the corporate class to break or otherwise render labor unions ineffective for this very reason. -- Tom Sherman – Quad City Area
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
