Epsilon 5 Posted June 12, 2002 Report Posted June 12, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: [QB]I was 13 when I got my first job, I was an assistant manager at a Baskin Robbins Ice Cream parlor.Just as I thought. You did not depended on your paycheck to live (it would be suprising if you did) quote:Minimum wage jobs are about 5% of the total jobs in the market, and when you raise those minimum wages, you kill about 1/3 of those jobs in order to pay for the new pay for the other 2/3That's contradictory. 5% is mot much, but yet a 5-10% increase in the minium wage would affect a company's profits enough to lay off a third of those who work on the minimum wage? quote:When the market sets the rates, there is a good chance that it's gonna be higher.I'm not sure I understand. quote:Now they have to pay them ALL a minimum of 6.90 an hour, well, the good ones have now slacked off and the bad ones are even worse. Their production is now 75% of what it was, their profits are down, and so now they are talking about shutting down the plant because they cannot afford to do business in Washington because of its high minimum wage.Here the minimum wage is 7cnd an hour. Those that work "by the piece" will always get a minimum equivalent to the minimum wage, but better workers will always get more. I don't see the problem. And I'm not even talking about overtime. quote:Washington state in it's STUPIDITY had now forced a plant that employs over 1500 people year round and over 60,000 seasonly, to shut down. IT'S gonna be gone, all because the government decided what the true "living wage" should be.How do you know how much is enough?? quote:A minimum wage increase destroys, nothing more, it helps NO ONE in the long run.The government isn't stupid. If you are right, why do you think they "invented" the minimum wage then?
Guest Posted June 13, 2002 Report Posted June 13, 2002 Government is all about power, or have you not figured that out yet? The market should ALWAYS set the minimum wage, and if the wage is not high enough, they will not get workers. Pretty darn easy, and goodness gracious, it actually works. Government intervention destroys that which it is trying to help. Government is good at only one thing, and one thing only. Military defense, that is what a government is for. To protect it's citizens so that they can do what they do, and that is work and create an economy in a peaceful environment without being attacked from within or without. The governments job is to allow it's citizens the opportunity to succeed, not give success to them. quote: Just as I thought. You did not depended on your paycheck to live (it would be suprising if you did) Excuse me, I have depended on my paycheck to live far longer then you have been alive my young 18 year old kiddo. I began paying rent at the age of 18, I owned my own car at the age of 16, I payed my own insurance, I bought my own furniture, stereo equipment etc. I saved and I saved until I could buy with cash. I worked my butt off at minimum wage until I could get what I wanted. I have NEVER been on welfare, have NEVER received ANY government benefit, accept when I was in the military, and that was only because working for the government I deserved government benefits. quote: That's contradictory. 5% is mot much, but yet a 5-10% increase in the minium wage would affect a company's profits enough to lay off a third of those who work on the minimum wage? Nothing contradictory about it. Think, and you will get it. If I have 20 employees that I pay by the pound they pick, I will have 5 that will make far more then the other 15, the other 15 will make the minimum to get themselves by. Most will make LESS then the so-called minimum wage, BUT, if I have to pay them the minimum wage, I therefore must have less employees, because there is less money to go between 20 people. Get it yet? Let's go another way, I have to pick 300 lbs of food a day with 10 people, I pay them by the pound. 3 will pick the most, the other 7 will pick less. let's say the 300 pounds will net me $100 to pay my employees, so, of the 100 3 get over 50, the other 7 split the other 50. so, each day, the 3 get payed 16 a day, the other 7 get close to 7, now the government comes in and says that I have to pay them 10 each a day, PERIOD. Well, I only have $100 to split between them, what am I going to do? I am going to lay off 3 so that I can pay the 3 producers what they deserve, and then watch the other 4 loaf, I then lose money because now I am getting enough picked to make my 100. which escalates to a point where I can no longer afford to stay in business. quote: I'm not sure I understand When the market sets the rate, wages are normally higher then what they would be at minimum wage. Only those that are willing to work for minimum wage, GET minimum wage. If I had a choice between McDonalds at minimum wage, but I could work at Taco Bell for more, where would I work? THerefore McDonalds has to raise their wages in order to get employees. This is how the market sets the rates. quote: How do you know how much is enough?? How does the government know? hmmmm? quote: The government isn't stupid. If you are right, why do you think they "invented" the minimum wage then? Really? I rather doubt that they are very smart. EP5, you need to get out of the brainwashed masses and think.
Lotharr Posted June 13, 2002 Author Report Posted June 13, 2002 Produce....consume....produce....consume.... *switches of the TV* *shakes fog out of head* ...hello world....what a strange place... heh heh...your brain washing or mine.....
Guest Posted June 13, 2002 Report Posted June 13, 2002 quote: Produce....consume....produce....consume.... At least in this country I have a choice of what I wish to produce, and I have the choice of what I will consume. It's all about free choice and freedom. A republican form of government and a free enterprise capitalist system, it's all about freedom of choice, gotta love it!!
Menchise Posted June 15, 2002 Report Posted June 15, 2002 Ahh, another debate about reformism. quote:At what point do economies of scale overrule moralistic principles?Economies of scale...haven't read that term in a long time. Anyway, the reason why I call this food thing a reformist issue is because its ultimate end is to improve social conditions without affecting the economic institutions that produce the negative conditions in the first place (i.e. the market and private ownership). Officially declaring food as a human right does nothing to solve the issue of world hunger, because the institutions that cause world hunger remain unchanged. To answer your question, moral principles are important because they point in the general direction of what is wrong and what needs to be changed. If the current economic system cannot function in accordance with the moral principles of humanity, then it is the economic system that needs to be changed, not the principles. quote:The existing farmers have been in the business for a long, long time, and probably had a hand in developing the marketplace and how it functions.Exactly. They developed the marketplace and how it functions, thus the marketplace functions to serve their interests above all others. It's like inventing a game that everyone must play, but the rules are always in one's favour. Pardon me for not respecting that. quote:Who can tell the farmer that being a farmer in an already saturated global market makes no sense? Even if farming is all that the particular farmer has to depend on, it doesn't justify changing the marketplace just to satisfy the demands of someone who chooses to be a farmer. Perhaps the farmer should choose another field of endeavor (like tourism, for instance).It's not that simple. If a country loses its farmers then it becomes dependent on other countries for food. The food imports would be more expensive because of the lack of domestic competition. The higher cost of food in that country would increase the costs of production in every other sector of the domestic economy, hence other fields of endeavor would also be disadvantaged. quote:If a Cuban farmer feels that he can help the plight of other Cubans by farming, that is great and more power to him. But why should a Cuban farmer try to sell his produce on the global market when he surely has a market at home that would eagerly consume his produce?They're already selling the product nationally; now they are trying to sell internationally to expand the consumer base. A larger consumer base enables the producer to expand operations. If a product's consumer base is purely national then multinational producers, which are capable of selling products at a lower price, can move in and undercut the national product, thus eliminating domestic competition. That is one threat that the developing countries are facing; the other is the usage of export subsidies (when government gives funds or concessions to exporting producers in an effort to reduce prices to more competitive levels), which is what they're complaining about. [ 06-15-2002, 03:44: Message edited by: Menchise ]
Epsilon 5 Posted June 15, 2002 Report Posted June 15, 2002 quote:EP5, you need to get out of the brainwashed masses and think.I was never brainwashed. I read articles, not necessarily related to socialism/leberalism/conservatism/whatever itself. I read on how it works there and there. And I made my own idea on what's best.
Steve Schacher Posted June 16, 2002 Report Posted June 16, 2002 Nick, You make it sound so simple. quote:They developed the marketplace and how it functions, thus the marketplace functions to serve their interests above all others. It's like inventing a game that everyone must play, but the rules are always in one's favour. Pardon me for not respecting that.They developed the marketplace, but not the market. You need consumers, as well as producers, to have a market. If people won't buy, sellers can't sell. Therefore, it is not a game that everyone must play. quote:If a country loses its farmers then it becomes dependent on other countries for food. The food imports would be more expensive because of the lack of domestic competition. The higher cost of food in that country would increase the costs of production in every other sector of the domestic economy, hence other fields of endeavor would also be disadvantaged.How would handle countries that can't support farming because the terrain is too frigid, or too mountainous, or too desert? For these countries, trading for food is the only option, which in your words, would make them dependent on other countries for food. I don't understand your connection between the cost of food and the cost of production of other goods. Production costs are based on the cost of material, overhead costs, labor costs, and profit margin. Unless you are referring to having to increase labor costs because laborers need more to pay for food that is imported instead of locally produced, I think you're overstating the impact of food costs on overall production costs across the board. quote:They're already selling the product nationally; now they are trying to sell internationally to expand the consumer base. A larger consumer base enables the producer to expand operations. But in order to compete internationally, they are demanding that the other producers somehow change their ways in order to force their way into an existing market. That is simply not the way that it's done. If you can't make it outright on your own, you don't belong in the market. quote:A larger consumer base enables the producer to expand operations. Operations can only expand up to the ability of the producer to produce. Small countries do not have the resources to compete on the global scale against already established producers. Wishing it to be so will not make it so. quote:If a product's consumer base is purely national then multinational producers, which are capable of selling products at a lower price, can move in and undercut the national product, thus eliminating domestic competition. That is one threat that the developing countries are facing; the other is the usage of export subsidies (when government gives funds or concessions to exporting producers in an effort to reduce prices to more competitive levels), which is what they're complaining about.The problem for developing countries is that they're developing too late. The Industrial Revolution occured 100 years ago. The time to strike was then. Some smaller countries are in the plight they're in because they are small countries that are in remote corners of the world, which either resulted in: 1) the world passing them by on the way to modernization, 2) them being too remote for cost-effective trading, 3) their own cultures not keeping up with the rest of the world (for various ethnic, religious, or political reasons), 4) lack of resources, education, etc.
Raven Posted June 16, 2002 Report Posted June 16, 2002 I cant believe this topic is still going. Oh well, here is my addition. quote: The European Union pushed for the summit to consider food a human right What a preposterous idea, food is as much an innate human right as money and power are. quote: The bottom line for a whole lot of people is the alleged free market is a nice way of sayin your gettin screwed... And socialism is just a nice way of saying a whole lot of people are getting screwed. Only its wealthy people who get screwed with socialism, and because they have more money you justify it. quote: To answer your question, moral principles are important because they point in the general direction of what is wrong and what needs to be changed. If the current economic system cannot function in accordance with the moral principles of humanity, then it is the economic system that needs to be changed, not the principles. I would argue that there must be a balance between morality and economy. Economy triumphing over morality tends to lead to irritate the mob a lot. Thats generally not good. On the other hand, morality triumphing over economy is preposterous. Morality exists to keep people in line and prevent horrible abuses of power (something which it doesnt, at least not usually) not to regulate the economy. The sufficient amount of morality has been innate in our economy for a good while, and because a little is good some people seem to think that a lot is better. quote: It's not that simple. If a country loses its farmers then it becomes dependent on other countries for food. The food imports would be more expensive because of the lack of domestic competition. The higher cost of food in that country would increase the costs of production in every other sector of the domestic economy, hence other fields of endeavor would also be disadvantaged. A country doesnt loose its farmers without some kind of ecological disaster. If a country has less farmers then it needs, this will generally raise food prices like you say, but rather then wreaking havoc on the local economy the increase in food prices will allow existing farms to expand and encourage new farmers to start up.
Lotharr Posted June 17, 2002 Author Report Posted June 17, 2002 quote: At least in this country I have a choice of what I wish to produce, and I have the choice of what I will consume. It's all about free choice and freedom. A republican form of government and a free enterprise capitalist system, it's all about freedom of choice, gotta love it!! I don't measure the amount of freedom and democracy my country has by the quantity of brand name toilet paper options available....that's current brainwashing... I would actually like to see something with more substance...
Guest Posted June 17, 2002 Report Posted June 17, 2002 You need to talk to someone who has actually lived in a socialist country my freind, because you are listening to a lot of scholars, but not to a lot of real life experience. I have been to a socialist country, and nothing opens your eyes like seeing the difference between the US and say Bulgaria in 1989, or the USSR in that same year. The downcast eyes of the people, the anger, the lack of goods in the stores, the lack of decent housing etc, etc, ad nauseum. You like to talk a lot about substance and morality and all that other great stuff. Well, capitalism has all that, but it also has greed, wealth, choices, and most of all freedom. When you have to have your papers and show them every other hour as you are walking down the street, then maybe you will appreciate what we have, instead of dreaming of some utopian dream that cannot and never will work the way you want it to.
Lotharr Posted June 17, 2002 Author Report Posted June 17, 2002 Interesting....look at some of those points you made above....we may have come full circle...there is a portion of this country that lives that way. And there may be more to follow. Granted it is not as bad here as elsewhere in many respects.. however, having the luxuries that many others do not have does not mean this current mode of operation is inherently effective for promoting the general heath of a society. Further, as time moves forward, I believe we will see these problems manifest themselves more acutely. The world is starting to move into economic power blocs. Look at our immediate neighbors and how we have treated them. Tell me if you think they are going to make effective partners in the coming multinational economic scrambling to secure resources. We are creating a monster right now that may come back and bite us very hard. I firmly believe that alternatives can be reached that will allow people more democracy, more freedom. Give economy a high role but not the dominant one. Increase responsibility levels in all people and promote harmony. We can make these things happen. It is a challenge but laziness and the easy road were never personal choices I have made. I have talked to a lot of other people from many different countries. They all say this country is a scary place with crappy food....and I agree. Its not all negative but I cant really remember what the good parts were.. And I for one am tired of it. So am going to try to make a difference...and try to insure you have just as many toiletry options as before....
Raven Posted June 18, 2002 Report Posted June 18, 2002 quote: I firmly believe that alternatives can be reached that will allow people more democracy, more freedom. Freedom is great, but it worries me that you would think we are in need of even more democracy. Not to put it too bluntly, we already have too much democracy. The masses do not know whatÔÇÖs best for them and most of them are simply uninterested in spending the time necessary to make an educated choice. There have been a number of democratic reforms over the years (let us look at how senators are elected not as opposed to how they were originally selected) that have distributed too much power into uneducated hands.
Lotharr Posted June 18, 2002 Author Report Posted June 18, 2002 There are other places democracy can manifest itself. The next frontier I believe may be the work place. Yep politics is a full time job. quote: The masses do not know whatÔÇÖs best for them and most of them are simply uninterested in spending the time necessary to make an educated choice I would rather have them calling the shots via internet referendum then allow pockets of power to dwell in the hands of personnel with your mentality and beliefs. But politics is a full time job. quote: There have been a number of democratic reforms over the years (let us look at how senators are elected not as opposed to how they were originally selected) that have distributed too much power into uneducated hands. Let us think of how the existing system could be modified to promote a better society....and that is for all by the way. We must remember that even Senators are people and need to be insulated from overt pressures placed on them by sources that may not have the general interest of their constituency in mind. There is room for massive improvement.
Epsilon 5 Posted June 18, 2002 Report Posted June 18, 2002 Canadian social system cause Canadians to be overall healthier than Americans
Commander Elio Jason Posted June 18, 2002 Report Posted June 18, 2002 does that mean physically or mentally? whoever predicted 6 pages in thsi thread, congrats!
Guest Posted June 18, 2002 Report Posted June 18, 2002 EP5, those statistics are for those between 0-45, after that, you are no longer worth the energy or money to continue with real healthcare. So, if you are 60 and get cancer, it will take you 6-9 months to get your first appointment, and by that time your dead. What a great way to get rid of the burdens on the the healthcare system. I love socialized medicine!! NOT!! Ha and now we have gone to 7 PAGES!!! Are we going to break a record here? [ 06-18-2002, 11:34: Message edited by: Jaguar ]
Charles Lindsey Posted June 18, 2002 Report Posted June 18, 2002 Lotharr gets a bronze star. Maybe a silver.
Raven Posted June 19, 2002 Report Posted June 19, 2002 quote: There are other places democracy can manifest itself. The next frontier I believe may be the work place. Democratization of the work place eh? Why not democratize education while weÔÇÖre at it, or perhaps the police force and military. I mean hell; if it works for government then it should work for everything. Seriously though, I canÔÇÖt see how democratization could help businesses run better. quote: Yep politics is a full time job. So you have said a number of times, but you continue to support an excessive level of democracy, this doesnÔÇÖt make much sense. Either politics is a full time job, and our country should only receive minimal input from the mob, or else politics is not a full time job, and our country should be run as democratically as physically possible. Sure, there is a middle ground, but you seem to be making two opposed statements. You canÔÇÖt, as they say, have your pie and eat it too. quote: I would rather have them calling the shots via internet referendum then allow pockets of power to dwell in the hands of personnel with your mentality and beliefs. Gee, arenÔÇÖt I popular. I understand your sentiments, I wouldnÔÇÖt want to live in a country ruled by someone like me either, but allowing the mob to be a major power in politics is ridiculous. If anything it supports spin doctors, pork barrel politics, and similar nonsense that should have no role in how our country operates. If you want my opinion (which you probably donÔÇÖt) high government positions should be for life, or at least a very long time. There exists a need for the people to be able to exert influence on how our country is run if for no reason other then to protect themselves, but the mob is currently far too powerful. quote: We must remember that even Senators are people and need to be insulated from overt pressures placed on them by sources that may not have the general interest of their constituency in mind. Sure, so we insulate them by putting them under extra pressure from there constituencies as well, peachy. If anything, that results in even more pressure on congressmen to act in a manner opposed to the best interest of our country. While it could be argued that these pressures (that from there constituencies and from the ÔÇ£sourcesÔÇØ you mentioned) exist in a state of concordant opposition (or some facsimile thereof) to do so would be incorrect. quote: whoever predicted 6 pages in thsi thread, congrats! That was me, thank you, though you picked an ironic time to mention it
Epsilon 5 Posted June 19, 2002 Report Posted June 19, 2002 quote:EP5, those statistics are for those between 0-45, after that, you are no longer worth the energy or money to continue with real healthcare.Where does it says that? (the 0-45) quote:So, if you are 60 and get cancer, it will take you 6-9 months to get your first appointment, and by that time your dead. What a great way to get rid of the burdens on the the healthcare system.See above, and we're not talking about cancer, we are talking about minor sickenesses, but sicknesses anyway. quote:Ha and now we have gone to 7 PAGES!!! Are we going to break a record here?Sorry to burst your bubble quote:Misc tech support III was 18 pages.Tech support doesn't count. It's bound to be that big, especially since you can't post in any other topic (unless DS closes one to continue in another) [ 06-19-2002, 01:03: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ]
Lotharr Posted June 20, 2002 Author Report Posted June 20, 2002 quote: Democratization of the work place eh? Why not democratize education while were at it, or perhaps the police force and military. I mean hell; if it works for government then it should work for everything. Seriously though, I cant see how democratization could help businesses run better. I understand why you feel this way....maybe one day you will understand where I'm coming from. I have a great deal of respect for common sense shall we apply some here? I understand that you believe current systems are better than making changes. I think your afraid of change....very mob like. But you are entitled to your opinion....but I disagree. I think corporate systems while effective at getting the bottom line for a select few...does not hold a true interest of people in heart. In my opinion that is the wrong way to do business. Some things corporate systems do well...take out the good....leave the rest to rot. quote: So you have said a number of times, but you continue to support an excessive level of democracy, this doesnt make much sense. Either politics is a full time job, and our country should only receive minimal input from the mob, or else politics is not a full time job, and our country should be run as democratically as physically possible. Sure, there is a middle ground, but you seem to be making two opposed statements. You cant, as they say, have your pie and eat it too. Maybe....maybe not....unlike you I do not discuss my points and ideas from the bizarre position of having some divine insight that others do not. I do however observe serious problems in my country of a moral nature and I don't necessarily expect you to understand. Some issues could be resolved by referendum. Others not. Perhaps a vent for the politicians...some issues will burn them no matter what choice is made. So they can hand it off to the people for a decision. Other things are extremely complex and demand full time attention. But all choices should have the goal of serving the people. Not because they can't do it themselves but because people have lives to live and don't have the time. Perhaps if more focus we're put on people to think about issues you might not be so disappointed with their actions or lack of. Oh...and if their made to feel their voice has no meaning why would they be interested in the first place? quote: Gee, arent I popular. I understand your sentiments, I wouldnt want to live in a country ruled by someone like me either, but allowing the mob to be a major power in politics is ridiculous. If anything it supports spin doctors, pork barrel politics, and similar nonsense that should have no role in how our country operates. If you want my opinion (which you probably dont) high government positions should be for life, or at least a very long time. There exists a need for the people to be able to exert influence on how our country is run if for no reason other then to protect themselves, but the mob is currently far too powerful You are popular...just for me it's in a sick fascinated kinda way.... Or perhaps current systems need major overhauls now and again....like anything that feels the passage of time....but in a different way. Heh heh...they already get life terms....they just redraw voting lines..... I don't think representatives should get life positions. /rant on You get out what you put in. The systems today strongly influence people to be what they are. We came out of caves....we landed on the moon....we can love and we can love to hate....but we always move forward and we would not be here today if people did not care for others on some basic level....I believe that we can move forward in this as well...global consciousness is a new realm in human experience. If we do not allow those who have captured the power to ruin our potential I believe our future will be a bright one. Every day we make that choice for ourselves. Every day a small group of profiteers gets to force its' will over the rest with no clear path to accomplishing a positive goal...the warm smile contrasts hypnotic eyes.... we have the gift and curse to rationalize what is positive and what is not. I believe in happiness. I believe in challenge. I believe in a notion of "good" that is not manufactured for some ulterior motive. I believe others hold this in their hearts as well. I will not hide from the challenge of seeking a better future (for my children(that I dont have) or those of others) based on faulty logic that can be reinforced with historic reference that may or may not be accurate....my beliefs have historical foundations as well. In short I believe in people...as we search for answers all we seem to get are more questions but there is always that person that stands on our left and right sharing this our human condition. Wisdom, knowledge, a desire for truth... these our the tools I will reach for when asked to construct a future. This future does not have room for the destructive forces of the morally impoverished and the fundamentally narrow minded. This is my truth currently...always open to revision. /rant off quote: Sure, so we insulate them by putting them under extra pressure from there constituencies as well, peachy. If anything, that results in even more pressure on congressmen to act in a manner opposed to the best interest of our country. While it could be argued that these pressures (that from there constituencies and from the sources you mentioned) exist in a state of concordant opposition (or some facsimile thereof) to do so would be incorrect. Your best interests or mine or the people's? I think you are losing sight of why these positions exist in the first place... People are what its all about. Me thinks the two forces above werent in the current state of disarray ..or course economics as we know it today is radically different from the majority of history.I am surprised you dont agree with the above idea. Economics are a part of society and should reflect that society. Americans endorse a value system based in part on fair play.due process.liberty.. However we wage economic war and we call it free trade.it does have that noble ring eh? We also employ jacked up employment practices. Like I said earlier I dont think we will win this war. I think those that believe too strongly in any one thing can get stuck with tunnel vision and lose any practical perspective. I think we are blinded by our successa success that that comes at the expense of others..a success that takes from those it is supposed to encompass forces are moving to change that.I believe we should move with that change instead of trying to fight it.but I sure as hell dont want that power able to dictate policy over people. ~If I die in a GALCOM zone, box me up and ship me home...pin my medal's upon my chest, tell my mom I done my best~
Charles Lindsey Posted June 20, 2002 Report Posted June 20, 2002 quote:unlike you I do not discuss my points and ideas from the bizarre position of having some divine insight that others do not.The above is exactly the sort of name calling I was trying to prevent in my "clean up political threads" thread. Which everyone who actively participates seems to enjoy so I dropped the subject. But still.... Tell me if I'm wrong. I'll drop it again.
Steve Schacher Posted June 20, 2002 Report Posted June 20, 2002 quote:There are other places democracy can manifest itself. The next frontier I believe may be the work place. Corporate structure is based on the military concept of command and control -- one manager for about 16 people. It was developed during the industrial revolution when it was decided that it was more productive to have a dozen people each doing one thing well than one person doing a dozen things poorly. A democratized workplace would be more in line with cooperatives (commonly called co-ops), or even communes, where the workers or inhabitants share in the running, and/or upkeep of the organization. quote:I think corporate systems while effective at getting the bottom line for a select few...does not hold a true interest of people in heart.The corporate "systems" are only interested in one thing -- maximizing shareholder return. quote:Every day a small group of profiteers gets to force its' will over the rest with no clear path to accomplishing a positive goal...This is the second reference to the few who profit. Whom do you think makes up the NYSE, NASDAQ, Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Nikkei, et.al.? Companies buy the seats, but shareholders trade the stocks all over the world. Why do you think that there are only a few who profit? quote:However we wage economic war and we call it free trade...It is economic war when we embargo and sanction. However, I wouldn't consider NAFTA to be economic war -- that was supposed to be a boon to Mexico at the expense of American workers (remember Perot's complaints of a "giant sucking sound" coming from the south?). If you want to talk about trade wars, you can look at how the Japanese flooded the American market with below-cost computer chips in the 1980s, or how the Japanese restricted the sale of American autos in Japan, or even rice, while at the same time flooding the US market with cars. Now, I don't blame them for the cars since Detroit was putting out an inferior product and needed a kick in the behind, but when Detroit got its act together and tried to break into the Japanese market, they closed the door. That is economic warfare. The United States is the largest donor of economic aid around the world. I don't think one can sustain a charge of the US involved in economic warfare.
Epsilon 5 Posted June 20, 2002 Report Posted June 20, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Charles Lindsey: quote:unlike you I do not discuss my points and ideas from the bizarre position of having some divine insight that others do not.The above is exactly the sort of name calling I was trying to prevent in my "clean up political threads" thread. Which everyone who actively participates seems to enjoy so I dropped the subject. But still.... Tell me if I'm wrong. I'll drop it again.lol! you're trying to fight the nature of humanity itself (in debates). Speak, shout, diplomatically insult, then go name-calling (straigth-forward), and, if possible, use weapons (which here isn't possible thank god )
Lotharr Posted June 20, 2002 Author Report Posted June 20, 2002 quote: The corporate "systems" are only interested in one thing -- maximizing shareholder return. And that is a problem in my eyes. There is more to a person than a means to shareholder return. quote: This is the second reference to the few who profit. Whom do you think makes up the NYSE, NASDAQ, Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Nikkei, et.al.? Companies buy the seats, but shareholders trade the stocks all over the world. Why do you think that there are only a few who profit? A lot of extremely rich people. Some good some bad. Also the rich wanna be's....gamblers incognito....and those who have a nest egg and are seeking to expand it. Not the working poor or vast majority of other personnel who are economically cut off from ever even trying to be part. quote: It is economic war when we embargo and sanction. However, I wouldn't consider NAFTA to be economic war -- that was supposed to be a boon to Mexico at the expense of American workers (remember Perot's complaints of a "giant sucking sound" coming from the south?). If you want to talk about trade wars, you can look at how the Japanese flooded the American market with below-cost computer chips in the 1980s, or how the Japanese restricted the sale of American autos in Japan, or even rice, while at the same time flooding the US market with cars. Now, I don't blame them for the cars since Detroit was putting out an inferior product and needed a kick in the behind, but when Detroit got its act together and tried to break into the Japanese market, they closed the door. That is economic warfare. The United States is the largest donor of economic aid around the world. I don't think one can sustain a charge of the US involved in economic warfare. It seems the Japanese have more discipline as a culture. in good and bad ways. They study long term stratagem so don't count them out. Global stabilization is key in "economic prosperity". World aid is not a bad thing. However I am not qualified to really answer this question effectively....maybe I can turn something up....or maybe I'll get back to you. However we aid dictatorships and fundamentalist regimes as well...then we have to spend more money to break them up. American taxpayer dollars end up in the strangest places.... I do know one instance off hand that I can comment on. After we attacked Afghanistan we closed the Pakistani Afghan border. You may have seen some clips of food drops at various positions. But do you know how many people died trying to get out? I think the number is staggering but I'm not sure....I'll try to get some info if I get the chance. These were poor people trying to get away....sprinkled amongst them were terrorists go we made the hard choice some would say..... There is more to a story then what CNN puts out. Also, if I offended I apologize. I think I'll post on the other topic on why I do what I do...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now