quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine

re you implying the we are not in a recession because there is economics growth? 70% of the GDP is spending. Just because our government is borrowing and spending trillions of dollars from the rest of the world and our GDP is rising because of it does not mean that we have economic growth. Our short term nominal growth, as expressed in the GDP, is the result of a irresponsible spending binges that will hurt us in the future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine

. If they lose, then they bear the loses; if they win, society benefits. For example, do you think that Apple is bad for the system? Steve Jobs is more talented than you and I and he revolutionizes the way the world works; he deserves a lot of money. It doesn't bother me that CEO's get paid a lot of money. Most of the examples of the evil capitalists benefit directly from government subsidies or protectionism (oil companies like BP, defense contractors like Halliburton). That's the stuff that needs to be flushed out of the system.

I agree that our economic foundation is deeply flawed; we have too much government intervention in the economy for the last several decades, which distorts the market and causes capitalism to be blamed for the problems of government intervention.

quote:

This thread is a little bit like "water is wet"....

quote:

Let me explain something for you. Unions drive up the cost of goods and services to an abnormally high amount. This is why for the past 50 years, people couldn't afford to buy a car, and Detroit almost completely self destructed, and would have if it were not for taxpayer bailouts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
When the military had to be rebuilt or supplemented with private sector support all that was left was one company that could actually complete any particular kind of job. Sole source contracts for Haliburton and Blackwater, the two poster children for "evil capitalists" have been renewed by the Obama administration..they had no where else to go. So really that issue just circles back to your main point...government intervention is the cause of the problems not the solution. (And thats without even bringing in the Barney Frank/Fannie/Freddie debacle).

quote:

suppose treason is just a matter of dates.

Wrongo, trotsky....

The driving competition out ----

Brown and Root, VietNam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KBR_(company)

OH, and there was this guy, Ike....little before your time, trotsky:

quote:

Sole source contracts for Haliburton and Blackwater, the two poster children for "evil capitalists" have been renewed by the Obama administration..they had no where else to go.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
When the military had to be rebuilt or supplemented with private sector support all that was left was one company that could actually complete any particular kind of job. Sole source contracts for Haliburton and Blackwater, the two poster children for "evil capitalists" have been renewed by the Obama administration..they had no where else to go. So really that issue just circles back to your main point...government intervention is the cause of the problems not the solution. (And thats without even bringing in the Barney Frank/Fannie/Freddie debacle).

I seem to recall US History of the 19th century with the goverment taking a 'no hands on approach' to keeping companies honest and the health of their workers a primary consideration when profits were involved. How many 'company towns' turned out ugly and unhealthy for Americans, whose sole source of 'justice' was already bought off by the company. That if the town tried to resist the tyranny, the company would just threaten to leave and force the whole of them into ruin. Didn't learn about that part in school when you were younger? Figured you would have, given your closer to the 19th century and 'company towns' than myself!

You blame goverment intervention as the cause of problems, not the capitalist who cares not for those around him.

I recall back a few years ago, this staff sargeant in Iraq was stating how annoying it was that a bag of his laundry costed the taxpayer $99 dollars; where as he said it would cost him about $15 if he did it himself. So he decided to do just that....cus he didn't want the taxpayer, paying huge amounts of money by the greedy company (a sub-company of KBR). His CO ordered him to send his laundry to the company like everyone else after a while. What was the sargeant to do? Obey orders and cost the taxpayer more? Or disobey and save us money?

Without goverment oversight and regulation, I often find the unscruplous types will try....ANYTHING....to get a buck. Its like playing a game of Monopoly. You have played that game right? Assume you, two people and myself are playing the game....tournament rules (that means you get nothing for landing on Free Parking, as some house rules are). During the game, you and I are being pummeled, but not as much as one of the other two. That guy decides he's just going to take $5000 from the Bank.....just cause. Now, the guy winning the game isn't going to say anything, as he'll probably win the game either way (just one will take longer). I say, we should 'stick to the rules' and disallow that player from the money. So which would you do, willbeurdaddy? Throw the rules out, or disallow the player from the money?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
When the military had to be rebuilt or supplemented with private sector support all that was left was one company that could actually complete any particular kind of job. Sole source contracts for Haliburton and Blackwater, the two poster children for "evil capitalists" have been renewed by the Obama administration..they had no where else to go. So really that issue just circles back to your main point...government intervention is the cause of the problems not the solution. (And thats without even bringing in the Barney Frank/Fannie/Freddie debacle).

I seem to recall US History of the 19th century with the goverment taking a 'no hands on approach' to keeping companies honest and the health of their workers a primary consideration when profits were involved. How many 'company towns' turned out ugly and unhealthy for Americans, whose sole source of 'justice' was already bought off by the company. That if the town tried to resist the tyranny, the company would just threaten to leave and force the whole of them into ruin. Didn't learn about that part in school when you were younger? Figured you would have, given your closer to the 19th century and 'company towns' than myself!

You blame goverment intervention as the cause of problems, not the capitalist who cares not for those around him.

I recall back a few years ago, this staff sargeant in Iraq was stating how annoying it was that a bag of his laundry costed the taxpayer $99 dollars; where as he said it would cost him about $15 if he did it himself. So he decided to do just that....cus he didn't want the taxpayer, paying huge amounts of money by the greedy company (a sub-company of KBR). His CO ordered him to send his laundry to the company like everyone else after a while. What was the sargeant to do? Obey orders and cost the taxpayer more? Or disobey and save us money?

Without goverment oversight and regulation, I often find the unscruplous types will try....ANYTHING....to get a buck. Its like playing a game of Monopoly. You have played that game right? Assume you, two people and myself are playing the game....tournament rules (that means you get nothing for landing on Free Parking, as some house rules are). During the game, you and I are being pummeled, but not as much as one of the other two. That guy decides he's just going to take $5000 from the Bank.....just cause. Now, the guy winning the game isn't going to say anything, as he'll probably win the game either way (just one will take longer). I say, we should 'stick to the rules' and disallow that player from the money. So which would you do, willbeurdaddy? Throw the rules out, or disallow the player from the money?

Key to your post: 19th Century. It isnt anymore, not even close.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Another Key to my post: You want to go BACK to it.....AGAIN. But only this time, to limit the Unions in every way, shape, and form possible. In fact, make it hard for Americans to form a group/organzational structure like that of a Union.

quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetin

quote:

tweakabelle
I actually wrote the US system fails "to provide for the health needs of all Americans". By which I was clearly referring to its failure to cover tens of millions of Americans who remain uninsured. To me, this is a basic failing of the US system in exactly the same way as a food distribution system that fails to provide food for all the citizens of a country is a failed system. The cost of individual elective cosmetic surgeries is as relevant to this as the price of an individual vegetable is to the success/failure of a food distribution system.

The reason that tons of Americans are uninsured is because that health care is too expensive. Health Care is too expensive because of decades of government intervention in the health care sector.

quote:

quote:



I also note your silence on the issue of pollution that I highlighted. Should I interpret this silence as agreement with my points? If not, please outline your reasons.

I purposely left that one out because it's rather complicated and because you basically interjected into my previous arguments to address this. I can only tackle so many issues at once.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetin

quote:

tweakabelle
I actually wrote the US system fails "to provide for the health needs of all Americans". By which I was clearly referring to its failure to cover tens of millions of Americans who remain uninsured. To me, this is a basic failing of the US system in exactly the same way as a food distribution system that fails to provide food for all the citizens of a country is a failed system. The cost of individual elective cosmetic surgeries is as relevant to this as the price of an individual vegetable is to the success/failure of a food distribution system.

The reason that tons of Americans are uninsured is because that health care is too expensive. Health Care is too expensive because of decades of government intervention in the health care sector.

The reason tens of millions of Americans lack health insurance is that the system isn't designed to provide universal coverage. Simple.

Most comparable Western countries have systems designed to provide universal coverage and manage to provide that for a lot less than the US system. (usually about half the US cost measured by % of GDP). In healthcare Govt organised systems have been consistently shown to be in fact both cheaper and more efficient than the private US system.

This blows a huge hole in one of your recurring mantras - that Govt intervention drives up costs. My position is that this mantra of yours is unproven and (as demonstrated above) fails when scrutinised in many instances.

quote:

quote:



I also note your silence on the issue of pollution that I highlighted. Should I interpret this silence as agreement with my points? If not, please outline your reasons.

I purposely left that one out because it's rather complicated and because you basically interjected into my previous arguments to address this. I can only tackle so many issues at once.

So you claim. To me it seems far more likely that your reluctance to address this issue is due to the inability of neo-liberal economics to deal with issues such as pollution. Such issues expose far too many flaws in neo-liberal approaches.

The rest of your post boils down to further refusal to engage on issues that expose further flaws in your mantra that Govt. intervention is the big economic bogeyman. Many have argued that the GFC was a direct consequence of deregulation of the banking/financial services sector. You claim the opposite is true. No evidence or argument, other than repeating a universal mantra already demonstrated to be (at the very minimum) flawed in some applications was offered.

Free markets work well in many situations, but they are not a universal panacea. To demonstrate such faith in a single perspective, to rely 100% on any single ideology is charmingly naive but ultimately just another variety of fundamentalism. And as misguided as any of the more well-known fundamentalisms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

Let me explain something for you. Unions drive up the cost of goods and services to an abnormally high amount. This is why for the past 50 years, people couldn't afford to buy a car, and Detroit almost completely self destructed, and would have if it were not for taxpayer bailouts.

That's interesting.....I'm still trying to get my head around the how during the last 20 years where it is clear that the UAW not only decreased in size and influence in this big equation leading to the cost of a car, that it increased by dramatically larger percentages than any other time in history.
BTW what's with the picture of the republican governor and then attributing what they usually attribute to far left candidates?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

Let me explain something for you. Unions drive up the cost of goods and services to an abnormally high amount. This is why for the past 50 years, people couldn't afford to buy a car, and Detroit almost completely self destructed, and would have if it were not for taxpayer bailouts.

That's interesting.....I'm still trying to get my head around the how during the last 20 years where it is clear that the UAW not only decreased in size and influence in this big equation leading to the cost of a car, that it increased by dramatically larger percentages than any other time in history.
   BTW what's with the picture of the republican governor and then attributing what they usually attribute to far left candidates?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Key to your post: 19th Century. It isnt anymore, not even close.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Key to your post: 19th Century. It isnt anymore, not even close.

Oddly enough, it kinda is.  While we in the US are working along 20th Cetury lines (and Europe perhaps past that), the countries that are eating our lunch are acting like 19th Century places - child labor, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Is there any truth in the scurrilous rumour that one of the major causes to the crisis in the US car industry was that they were making big gas guzzling cars that no one wanted to buy when the price of fuel went through the roof?

some truth
Is it also the case that people who made these very poor design, production and marketing decisions to keep making big gas guzzling cars were Big 3 management not UAW members?

no. Because they were poor marketing decisions. In fact those "big gas guzzling cars" were and remain very popular and they had complementary products on the smaller end. The real problem on the manufacturing end was the quality sucked.


Is it also the case that the writing had been on the wall for big gas guzzlers for only a mere 20 or so years? same answer

Is it also the case that the European Japanese and Korean car companies who successfully competed against the US auto industry all concentrated on smaller more fuel efficient cars? You know the kind of cars that people were actually buying?

yes....except for very brief periods, the big gas guzzlers you are attempting to demonize

Is it true that Govt interference did not extend as far as designing producing and marketing cars that no one wanted to buy? That these were all internal Big 3 decisions?

no thats not true. There has been continual government interference in the profitability of all cars.


If the answers to these questions is yes, doesn't all that add up to management incompetence and poor decision making? Since they arent yes, your conclusion is irrelevant. Its also convenient that you neglect to mention the ability of the UAW to shut down the industry when they made exorbitant benefits demands.


Let me explain something for you. I wouldn't ask you these questions 'cept the other fellow doesn't appear to have any answers to my questions and won't play with me any more .....

Let me explain something for you, tweetybelle. Your anti-capitalist bias is as repulsive as your bigotry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I have to get to bed, I have a way early appointment with a lender tomorrow... (laughing at this).... but I do have several things to say in response to this, and be prepared... some of them sound fairly Marxist.. although I am not against private property...

Good night!

That's fine, I'd much rather debate theory than quote random empirics, but we should start another thread. It's getting too messy in here. It's difficult to debate multiple people that are all challenging me on several different topics. I've talked about every political issue it seems, except for trade unions, which is the subject of this thread.