People Power

[BDunnell]

I'm not against the gap closing (I'm all for everyone having money/being secure/happy etc) but I am against people expecting things to be done for them to get it instead of doing it themselves.

But so do I. So do many of those protesting. The friends of mine who have taken part are far from being the sort of people you describe.

[BDunnell]

For me REAL success is raising my kids to be hard working men who respect their elders, respect that hard work, dedication and persistance is the key to success and to ensure my wife and I can retire happily later in life. Having money is just a bonus. You can't take money with you when you die, but you can keep your legacy when you are gone.

In that I wholeheartedly agree with you.

[ArrowsFA1]

I'm not against the gap closing.
:up:


I am against people expecting things to be done for them to get it instead of doing it themselves.
:up:


The fact is there are people out there that refuse to put in the hard work and effort to do things for themselves yet they expect these things as some sort of "right" of theirs, so they publicly protest and interupt the rest of our lives in the HOPE that they get what they want.
Yes, there are some people like that out there, but there are also many (more, I suspect) who want to improve themselves and their position but simply cannot do so for many different reasons (access to education, health etc). I believe they should be able to do so, and that everything should be done to remove barriers to them doing so because we all benefit in the long run. That doesn't mean handing things to them on a plate!

Assuming that the Occupy movement is only made up of "lazy" people makes it easy to dismiss it, but I think that would be an unfair characterisation of many of those taking part.

[Rollo]

I'm not against the gap closing (I'm all for everyone having money/being secure/happy etc) but I am against people expecting things to be done for them to get it instead of doing it themselves. The fact is there are people out there that refuse to put in the hard work and effort to do things for themselves yet they expect these things as some sort of "right" of theirs, so they publicly protest and interupt the rest of our lives in the HOPE that they get what they want. Poor form :down:

People need to start appreciating what they have and not what they don't have.

I don't suppose that you've been to Soweto have you? The people of Soweto earn on average just 17% of the wage as the people in the rest of Johannesburg; maybe the township of Kliptown means something to you?
Do you mean to suggest that the people of Soweto should expect that nothing should be done for them and they should do it themselves?
People born into places of poverty in many cases simply cannot afford things like education, electricity and whatnot and yet you expect them to merely fend for themselves?

[555-04Q2]

I don't suppose that you've been to Soweto have you? The people of Soweto earn on average just 17% of the wage as the people in the rest of Johannesburg; maybe the township of Kliptown means something to you?
Do you mean to suggest that the people of Soweto should expect that nothing should be done for them and they should do it themselves?
People born into places of poverty in many cases simply cannot afford things like education, electricity and whatnot and yet you expect them to merely fend for themselves?

They are all being given free houses, free medical care, free education, child grants etc etc which come from my taxes. If they can't improve their lives with those advantages, then what else do we do?

[555-04Q2]

:up:


:up:


Yes, there are some people like that out there, but there are also many (more, I suspect) who want to improve themselves and their position but simply cannot do so for many different reasons (access to education, health etc). I believe they should be able to do so, and that everything should be done to remove barriers to them doing so because we all benefit in the long run. That doesn't mean handing things to them on a plate!

Assuming that the Occupy movement is only made up of "lazy" people makes it easy to dismiss it, but I think that would be an unfair characterisation of many of those taking part.

:up: :)

[race aficionado]

I'm sure many of us in this forum can also talk about our professional/economical successes in life that have come to us by our hard work, responsibility, commitment, desire, etc.

Some of us are practicing our professions by having gone through the "higher education" route or by learning it "on the job".

Bottom line is that like many, many others out there that NOW want what we achieved and that are equally hard working, committed and responsible people, the fact is that for them, at this moment of time - there are LESS OPPORTUNITIES out there.

It's a fact.

Something that is constantly mentioned on this side of the pond is that parents of college bound children are told not to get rid of their children's rooms because there is a 80% possibility that their children would return to those rooms after graduating because of lack of work opportunities for many, many professionals out there - *sorry, no link - just what I heard on the telly - so it must be true ;)

It's tough out there and the economic climate does not look promising.

Oh, and add to that, those professional sons and daughters that are returning to their childhood rooms, also are carrying with them a large college debt.

Nice way to start climbing that proverbial ladder. :dozey:

Something is definitely wrong with this picture - ergo, there is a problem that has to be solved.

Oh, and something else, many of the occupy protesters are those students and graduates that are living this reality and do not want to take it any more. They know they have the power to create change.

Occupy Dammit!!! :)

:s mokin:

[Roamy]

Race - i hear your pain. But do you honestly think any of the people running for or currently in our government has the ability to make changes. Newt or Mitt ?? ha ha will just join the DC country club and line their pockets. Why is it that you must hit bottom before you can start back up. To put forth a good analogy is rebuilding this country with our government as it is would be more difficult that rebuilding the following

Daughter Crashes Dad's New Ferrari - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4xHeDpE3UA&feature=related)

[salarcon]

I hope this movement proves useful in creating positive results in respect to the economy.




______________________________
George Alarcon
[email:n1bqc2h0]georgesalarcon@yahoo.com[/email:n1bqc2h0]
http://www.cheapairfare.vg

[anthonyvop]

I don't suppose that you've been to Soweto have you? The people of Soweto earn on average just 17% of the wage as the people in the rest of Johannesburg; maybe the township of Kliptown means something to you?
Do you mean to suggest that the people of Soweto should expect that nothing should be done for them and they should do it themselves?
People born into places of poverty in many cases simply cannot afford things like education, electricity and whatnot and yet you expect them to merely fend for themselves?


Yep!

Many others have done it. Why can't they?

[BDunnell]

Yep!

Many others have done it. Why can't they?

Why not go there for yourself, ask them and find out? Or do you know the answer already from the comfort of your chair?

[ShiftingGears]

Absolutely. Watch the headlines today. "Rudy slams Bono for populism, insists on shutting him up."

I find it interesting, though, that these people went all the way to the upper steps of the social ladder and now criticise the modern day vices and problems standing on piles of money.

Does having money preclude people from commenting on social problems, or suddenly make them shiny happy people? I don't understand what point you are making. If everyone just sung about how rich they are as soon as they make it big their lyrics would be of no artistic merit.

[BDunnell]

I find it interesting, though, that these people went all the way to the upper steps of the social ladder and now criticise the modern day vices and problems standing on piles of money.

Having a lot of money does not automatically propel one 'to the upper steps of the social ladder'.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Having a lot of money does not automatically propel one 'to the upper steps of the social ladder'.

Your society is who you rub shoulders with. Check the pics from the Wiki article on Bono. Looks quite upscale to me.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Does having money preclude people from commenting on social problems, or suddenly make them shiny happy people?

I am talking about emotional connection, first of all. I believe an artist has to be able to emotionally relate to what he writes about, at least to a certain extent, to keep his integrity. Otherwise his art is just commercial crap with zero honesty. I don't quite see how somebody can live a posh life and still be on the same page emotionally with les miserables of this world.

[Roamy]

Having a lot of money does not automatically propel one 'to the upper steps of the social ladder'.

Yes you are correct Ben, if I were rich you could look up the word "Dirty old Man with many Latin Women" and you would see my picture. My yacht would be named "Cum Tank" Cohiba and Benziger Winery would deliver weekly.
I would finally play enough golf to shoot my age. And I would not have enough time to even piss on the social ladder.

[555-04Q2]

I'm sure many of us in this forum can also talk about our professional/economical successes in life that have come to us by our hard work, responsibility, commitment, desire, etc.

Some of us are practicing our professions by having gone through the "higher education" route or by learning it "on the job".

Bottom line is that like many, many others out there that NOW want what we achieved and that are equally hard working, committed and responsible people, the fact is that for them, at this moment of time - there are LESS OPPORTUNITIES out there.

It's a fact.

Something that is constantly mentioned on this side of the pond is that parents of college bound children are told not to get rid of their children's rooms because there is a 80% possibility that their children would return to those rooms after graduating because of lack of work opportunities for many, many professionals out there - *sorry, no link - just what I heard on the telly - so it must be true ;)

It's tough out there and the economic climate does not look promising.

Oh, and add to that, those professional sons and daughters that are returning to their childhood rooms, also are carrying with them a large college debt.

Nice way to start climbing that proverbial ladder. :dozey:

Something is definitely wrong with this picture - ergo, there is a problem that has to be solved.

Oh, and something else, many of the occupy protesters are those students and graduates that are living this reality and do not want to take it any more. They know they have the power to create change.

Occupy Dammit!!! :)

:s mokin:

Easy solution. People should stop having so many bloody kids!

[555-04Q2]

Why not go there for yourself, ask them and find out? Or do you know the answer already from the comfort of your chair?

See post #1010

[ioan]

So what do you do? Outlaw outsourcing of jobs? Then are you willing to pay $80-$100 for a pair of jeans?

Funny thing is that's exactly what I pay for a pair of jeans! That only means that no matter where and how cheap the jeans are produced, we will always pay the price for them, it's just the profits of the jeans producing companies that feel the difference.

[ioan]

Inequality (see thread for evidence it exists and the effects it has) in society as a whole is not a problem?

You know what's worst?
It's when someone from a poor family gets on top of the others and starts marching all over them just like it happened to him/her back in the day. :down:

[ioan]

Yes, because some of us got off our backsides and did something about it :)

Let us know what should those poor African kids do when they have nothing to eat, who have zero chances to go to school, because there is no school where they live.
Equal chance my arse.

[ioan]

Absolutely. Watch the headlines today. "Rudy slams Bono for populism, insists on shutting him up."

I find it interesting, though, that these people went all the way to the upper steps of the social ladder and now criticise the modern day vices and problems standing on piles of money.

So you are slamming them for standing up for a good cause? How dare they side with the poor?!
I wonder where do you get these ideas.

[Rollo]

Or do you take the personal responsibility for your own situation, and get the education you need to get a job that is not so easily outsourced? And if you don't currently have the education, do you also take the responsibility to work menial jobs (fast food and what-not) to make it through?

There are 31 million people currently unemployed and underemployed in the US. You'd think a nation would take responsibility for it's own people.
Of course that is what business people in the United States want though isn't it? A nation full of dolts who are barely smart enough to work in menial jobs and operate the wheels of industry but still stupid enough not to realise they're being screwed.


Or do you just protest?

When you have a pathetic government which either can not or will not help its own citizenry, and a private sector which point blank refuses to, what other options are open?

[anthonyvop]

Let us know what should those poor African kids do when they have nothing to eat, who have zero chances to go to school, because there is no school where they live.
Equal chance my arse.

You know as well as I do that equal chance can only apply in a free society that embraces the free market.

Here is a list of the 50 poorest countries.
World's 50 Poorest Countries (http://www.digalist.com/list/204)

They are all either totalitarian and/or Socialist governments or are trying to escape from under the yoke of those very same systems.

[anthonyvop]

There are 31 million people currently unemployed and underemployed in the US. You'd think a nation would take responsibility for it's own people.

And what is the government suppose to do? It is not a government's job to provide jobs.


Of course that is what business people in the United States want though isn't it? A nation full of dolts who are barely smart enough to work in menial jobs and operate the wheels of industry but still stupid enough not to realise they're being screwed.

If you believe that is what business wants then it is painfully obvious you have no clue whatsoever.




When you have a pathetic government which either can not or will not help its own citizenry, and a private sector which point blank refuses to, what other options are open?

You can protest against a government you have a disagreement with but you have no right to protest a private enterprise unless it violates your right. Not giving you a job is not a violation of anyone's rights.

[555-04Q2]

Let us know what should those poor African kids do when they have nothing to eat, who have zero chances to go to school, because there is no school where they live.
Equal chance my arse.

:?: :(

[Rudy Tamasz]

Funny thing is that's exactly what I pay for a pair of jeans! That only means that no matter where and how cheap the jeans are produced, we will always pay the price for them, it's just the profits of the jeans producing companies that feel the difference.

American retail trade is a whole different universe from European trade with a different price scale. The difference is, Yanks make money off turnover. They prefer to have a smaller margin of profit but sell more items and do that fast. The U.S. is a consumer's paradise. At the same time Euros have high taxes and stuff and need to keep every item in stock till some poor guy comes and buys it at a ridiculous price.

Last time I was in the U.S. I paid $20 for a pair of simple but incredibly good looking Wranglers. I also paid close to $40 for a fancier Levi's. Last time I bought a fancy Levi's in Europe I paid $100 and that was a discount from $200. Go figure.

[ArrowsFA1]

You can protest against a government you have a disagreement with but you have no right to protest a private enterprise unless it violates your right.
Whatever happened to the idea of a free society :confused:

Here's a list of the most unequal countries:
The 39 Most Unequal Countries In The World (http://www.businessinsider.com/most-unequal-countries-in-the-world-2011-10#39-united-states-of-america-gini-450-1)


Lady Thatcher, like Ronald Reagan, believed that if the rich got richer, everybody would benefit. Now many economists believe that inequality hinders growth."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk-most-unequal-country-in-the-west-1329614.html

[BDunnell]

Yes you are correct Ben, if I were rich you could look up the word "Dirty old Man with many Latin Women" and you would see my picture. My yacht would be named "Cum Tank" Cohiba and Benziger Winery would deliver weekly.
I would finally play enough golf to shoot my age. And I would not have enough time to even piss on the social ladder.

Splendid.

[BDunnell]

You can protest against a government you have a disagreement with but you have no right to protest a private enterprise unless it violates your right. Not giving you a job is not a violation of anyone's rights.

You are in favour of freedom, as you never tire of telling us. Therefore, this statement renders you a hypocrite of extraordinary proportions.

[BDunnell]

You know as well as I do that equal chance can only apply in a free society that embraces the free market.

Yes, a free society — in which one has the right to protest against a private company. You know, that sort of free society, as opposed to the one with restrictions, which you have also advocated above. Still, you are someone who either committed an illegal act or lied about having done so, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised at such inconsistency.

[555-04Q2]

Splendid.

At least he is honest, which is more than 90% of people can say!

[555-04Q2]

You are in favour of freedom, as you never tire of telling us. Therefore, this statement renders you a hypocrite of extraordinary proportions.

I don't see how you get hypocrisy from Ant's post?

[555-04Q2]

Yes, a free society — in which one has the right to protest against a private company. You know, that sort of free society, as opposed to the one with restrictions, which you have also advocated above. Still, you are someone who either committed an illegal act or lied about having done so, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised at such inconsistency.

No one has the right to anything, ANYTHING AT ALL!

[BDunnell]

I don't see how you get hypocrisy from Ant's post?

I don't see how you could see anything other. He on the one hand advocates unfettered freedom, and on the other feels that protesting against private companies is unacceptable. The two standpoints are deeply, inherently contradictory.

[BDunnell]

No one has the right to anything, ANYTHING AT ALL!

A ridiculous statement. And why SHOUT? It hardly adds weight or articulacy to your point of view.

[555-04Q2]

I don't see how you could see anything other. He on the one hand advocates unfettered freedom, and on the other feels that protesting against private companies is unacceptable. The two standpoints are deeply, inherently contradictory.

Yes, but he did clearly stated that you could not protest unless they have violated you as a consumer in some way. Not everyone has been violated!

[555-04Q2]

A ridiculous statement. And why SHOUT? It hardly adds weight or articulacy to your point of view.

Everything is earned, there is no "right" to anything at all in this life.

As for "shouting", apologies if you are offended by capitol letters :p :

[Rollo]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- First Amendment to the US Constitution

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
- Article 19, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Anyone can protest on anything they feel like; that includes protesting against private enterprises. At law, anthonyvop and 555-04Q2's assertion is false.

[ArrowsFA1]

Yes, but he did clearly stated that you could not protest unless they have violated you as a consumer in some way. Not everyone has been violated!
Something doesn't have to affect you directly for you to recognise injustice, feel angered or be offended by it and so want to do something about it, including taking part in a protest.

The world would be a poorer place (and certainly not "free") if only those individuals who have been "violated" are permitted to protest against the "violation".

[chuck34]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- First Amendment to the US Constitution

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
- Article 19, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Anyone can protest on anything they feel like; that includes protesting against private enterprises. At law, anthonyvop and 555-04Q2's assertion is false.

Rollo, at least you are thinking ... a bit. Who exactly are these people protesting? Government, or private business?

That has been one of my points all along. I may actually agree with some of the things these protestors are talking about. But they are protesting the wrong people.

[chuck34]

I took a few days off to see where this would go. And to no great surprise, it's just gone in circles.

What do people want. Do you want someone (government, corporations, who?) to just give you a job? What exactly do you want? How do you realize a more "equal" society?

Also Arrows, how do you know what the cause and effect is in your more "equal" means more mobility? Couldn't it be the exact opposite? Couldn't it be that people have generally become more complacent with being "lower" on the social ladder, but those on the top keep striving for more?

Again, correlation does not equal causation.

[555-04Q2]

Anyone can protest on anything they feel like; that includes protesting against private enterprises. At law, anthonyvop and 555-04Q2's assertion is false.

You cannot protest against someone if they have done nothing wrong to you.

[555-04Q2]

Rollo, at least you are thinking ... a bit. Who exactly are these people protesting? Government, or private business?

That has been one of my points all along. I may actually agree with some of the things these protestors are talking about. But they are protesting the wrong people.

Like like like like like like like like

[ArrowsFA1]

Also Arrows, how do you know what the cause and effect is in your more "equal" means more mobility? Couldn't it be the exact opposite? Couldn't it be that people have generally become more complacent with being "lower" on the social ladder, but those on the top keep striving for more?
Firstly it's not my more equal means more mobility; it's evidence based research by The Equality Trust (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/) and One Society (http://www.onesociety.org.uk/) among others :) Their evidence is available for anyone to read.

Is there evidence available to support the idea that complacency is the reason for increasing inequality?

[chuck34]

Firstly it's not my more equal means more mobility; it's evidence based research by The Equality Trust (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/) and One Society (http://www.onesociety.org.uk/) among others :) Their evidence is available for anyone to read.

I have read those. Very early on I debunked your Equality Trust link as mostly recording reporting differences (ie people in the US are more likely to self report mental illness than many other nations). And your One Society link just has a bunch of statistics about how big the pay difference is (which no one is disputing), but no real analysis (that I can see, perhaps you can point me to it) as to WHY there is a pay difference. I will say that at least they have some propose solutions, that you quoted basically verbatum, and I tentatively agreed with you on earlier. But you have yet to go into detail on who would be responsible for the committees, what enforcement mechanisims will be put in place, etc.


Is there evidence available to support the idea that complacency is the reason for increasing inequality?

Just as much evidence that is abailable to support the idea that inequality is the reason for the lack of mobility.

Please explain how someone being many times richer than I am, stops me from becoming rich. Or how 50 years ago when someone was "only" 50x more wealthy it was "easier" for me to move up. That makes no sence, unless you believe that economics is a zero sum game.

Is that really the root of your beliefs, that in order for someone to earn a dollar more that he has to have somehow stolen that dollar from you?

[anthonyvop]

Yes, a free society — in which one has the right to protest against a private company. You know, that sort of free society, as opposed to the one with restrictions, which you have also advocated above. Still, you are someone who either committed an illegal act or lied about having done so, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised at such inconsistency.

I stand corrected.

I should have said you have a Legal Right to protest a private company but DO NOT have a moral right to protest a private entity unless it has violated your rights. And not giving you a job is not a violation of your rights.

[ArrowsFA1]

Just as much evidence that is abailable to support the idea that inequality is the reason for the lack of mobility.
Great. Where is it?

[chuck34]

Great. Where is it?

Exactly where your evidence is.

Correlation is not causation. Do you not understand that concept?

[race aficionado]

Exactly where your evidence is.

Correlation is not causation. Do you not understand that concept?

I'll play:

(though correlation is necessary for linear causation in the absence of any third and countervailing causative variable, and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation; in other words, correlation can be a hint)

[chuck34]

I'll play:

Exactly. So without further investigation (it may be in Arrows links, but I didn't find it) into the root causes of why social mobility is lower in certain countries/regions the assertion that wealth inequality prohibits social mobility is equally as valid as a lack of social mobility causes wealth inequality. Or an equally valid proposition could be that the two are not related at all, it could be just a coincidence that the two appear to be related.

[ArrowsFA1]

Correlation is not causation. Do you not understand that concept?
Yes thanks. The Equality Trust haven't claimed that they provide evidence which points the finger of blame. They're simply evidencing inequality where it exists and that greater equality is better for all. That, it would seem, is generally accepted.

What is your causation theory? WHY has inequality increased?

Is it:

a natural by-product of the free market (benefits will trickle down)[/*:m:38rmuqfi]
a product of lazy people at the bottom of the ladder expecting something for nothing[/*:m:38rmuqfi]
a product of those hard workers at the top of the ladder rewarding themselves[/*:m:38rmuqfi]
something else[/*:m:38rmuqfi]

[chuck34]

Yes thanks. The Equality Trust haven't claimed that they provide evidence which points the finger of blame. They're simply evidencing inequality where it exists and that greater equality is better for all. That, it would seem, is generally accepted.

What is your causation theory? WHY has inequality increased?

Is it:

a natural by-product of the free market (benefits will trickle down)[/*:m:1xich1ac]
a product of lazy people at the bottom of the ladder expecting something for nothing[/*:m:1xich1ac]
a product of those hard workers at the top of the ladder rewarding themselves[/*:m:1xich1ac]
something else[/*:m:1xich1ac]

I would say that it is a combination of all of those factors. I would also add another possibilty. That people on the "low" end of the scale have become complaicent. The poor people of today (at least in developed countires) are pretty well off. They have air conditioning, at least one car, cable/satalite TV, etc. So they do not see the need to work harder/longer just to get richer.


Now what is your causation theory? WHY does an increase in inequality mean there is less social mobilty?

[ArrowsFA1]

WHY does an increase in inequality mean there is less social mobilty?
Access to resources, whether that be money, health, education, employment. As those resources become concentrated in fewer hands then they become less accessible.

[chuck34]

Access to resources, whether that be money, health, education, employment. As those resources become concentrated in fewer hands then they become less accessible.

How's that? If 50 years ago a rich guy has 50x more than I do, and now he has 200x more than I do, why was it easier to "get ahead" 50 years ago than it is now?

[lata123]

Android is unlike any other mobile development platform or Java-based environment. *Triple Bottom Line’s Android webinar *will immerse students in the Android platform, leveraging their existing Java expertise, and allowing them to walk away from the class ready to build Android GUIs and related components.On the first class you will write your first Android Activities. Through the rest of the week you will be progressively introduced to more and more of what Android has to offer – services, multitouch, and system search services. You will apply this knowledge with working code every step of the way. Be ready to work hard and learn a lot in this intensive, hands-on, five day introduction to programming with the Android platform.

[chuck34]

Access to resources, whether that be money, health, education, employment. As those resources become concentrated in fewer hands then they become less accessible.

Let's be more specific on this.

Money ... As I asked before, do you believe economics to be a zero sum game? Do you believe that in order for someone to have $1 more that he/she must steal that dollar from someone else?

Health ... Is there more or less access to basic healthcare now than 50 years ago? How does someone having more money mean that someone else necessarily has less access to healthcare?

Education ... Are there more people going to college now than 50 years ago? Are there more people graduating high school now or then?

Employment ... Yes we are in a recession now so the numbers will be skewed a bit, but generally how does someone being x% wealthier than I am prevent me from obtaining a job?

[ioan]

No one has the right to anything, ANYTHING AT ALL!

Well well, I wonder who gave some of the posters around here the right to breath?

[ioan]

Rollo, at least you are thinking ... a bit. Who exactly are these people protesting? Government, or private business?

That has been one of my points all along. I may actually agree with some of the things these protestors are talking about. But they are protesting the wrong people.



I took a few days off to see where this would go. And to no great surprise, it's just gone in circles.

What do people want. Do you want someone (government, corporations, who?) to just give you a job? What exactly do you want? How do you realize a more "equal" society?

You should look at the big picture instead of trying to judged based on cherry picked details.

What if they are protesting both the government and the corporations?
What if they are protesting the system itself, a system built by the government and the corporations?
What if they are protesting the fact that the government, the lawmaker and the corporations are indistinguishable to the points where they have common interests that do not involve the well being of the masses?

I am just asking.

[chuck34]

What if they are protesting both the government and the corporations?

When is Occupy Capital Hill scheduled for?


What if they are protesting the system itself, a system built by the government and the corporations?

Who controls said system? Government has the power, the gun of the tax system.


What if they are protesting the fact that the government, the lawmaker and the corporations are indistinguishable to the points where they have common interests that do not involve the well being of the masses?

Again, who has the power? If the Congresscritters would stand up to these corporations, and tell them to go fly a kite, no one could stop them from doing so, and the voting public would be behind them 100% so they wouldn't have to worry about re-elections, and corporate money etc.


I am just asking.

I'm just saying the government (specifically, the people we put there) are the problem. Corporations are evil/greedy/SOB's no matter what the government does. So if the government allows them to peddle influence and get away with buying power, then they sure as heck will. The problem lies where the power is.

[ArrowsFA1]

Let's make it simple.

Do we believe that the concentration of wealth in fewer & fewer hands is a good thing for all of us?

Yes/No

[ioan]

No.

[race aficionado]

No

[chuck34]

Let's make it simple.

Do we believe that the concentration of wealth in fewer & fewer hands is a good thing for all of us?

Yes/No

Wow way to dodge the questions I asked you. Personally I would answer neither yes or no. There is no black and white. Concentration of wealth is not necessarily good for all of us, nor is it bad for all of us.

But let me ask my usual question in just a slightly different way. Let's agree for the sake of argument that concentration of wealth in a few hands is a bad thing, what do you propose be done about it? How does the concentration of wealth prevent you personally from "getting ahead" in life?

[chuck34]

No.

Why? How does it effect your life? What is preventing you from "getting ahead"?

[chuck34]

No

Why? How does it effect your life? What is preventing you from "getting ahead"?

[ArrowsFA1]

Wow way to dodge the questions I asked you.
Only because we're going over the same ground time and time again.

This thread began with the Occupy protests and they essentially come down to the question I've asked, which shouldn't be a hard one to answer.

[chuck34]

Only because we're going over the same ground time and time again.

This thread began with the Occupy protests and they essentially come down to the question I've asked, which shouldn't be a hard one to answer.

I thought we were actually starting to get somewhere. You specifically said:


Access to resources, whether that be money, health, education, employment. As those resources become concentrated in fewer hands then they become less accessible.

And I asked the follow-up:

Let's be more specific on this.

Money ... As I asked before, do you believe economics to be a zero sum game? Do you believe that in order for someone to have $1 more that he/she must steal that dollar from someone else?

Health ... Is there more or less access to basic healthcare now than 50 years ago? How does someone having more money mean that someone else necessarily has less access to healthcare?

Education ... Are there more people going to college now than 50 years ago? Are there more people graduating high school now or then?

Employment ... Yes we are in a recession now so the numbers will be skewed a bit, but generally how does someone being x% wealthier than I am prevent me from obtaining a job?

And instead of answering those specific questions, you come back with a red herring of a question. It has no answer other than "no, concentration of wealth is not good for ALL of us". But that is a dumb question that misses the real questions/issues facing the world. Wealth will always be concentrated in the hands of a statistical few, wether that be a few hundred or a few thousand really doesn't change anything in the grand scheme of things. There is no way to expand weath beyond a few single digit percentage points of the population in a human society. Pure communism/socialism will not work for a myriad of reasons.

So why don't we get back to the issues at hand. What is stopping someone who is poor from "getting ahead"? Let's try to identify those issues and discuss solutions to overcoming them.

[race aficionado]

Why? How does it effect your life? What is preventing you from "getting ahead"?

Even for me, a person that has, to use your term -"gotten ahead"- is suffering from the growing social/economic gap and the concentration of wealth in fewer & fewer hands.

Why you ask? Because I see many of my fellow human beings fighting a loosing battle - and I don't want to regurgitate what I have already reiterated a couple of times on this thread - but I believe that we are not alone in this planet, there is a growing human consciences around the globe that tells us that if we are to survive, we are to help each other in any way we can - and that does not necessarily mean handouts to those "lazy bums " out there - it is more serious than that and we should also take the streets, voice our discontent and make a political difference with our "people power" power.

You have chosen to live in what I think is an isolated world where you are very proud of what you have done with your life, and where you believe that if you have achieved it, everyone else that wants to do so will also succeed as you did - and I say to you: good for you. You are one of the "successful" ones.

:s mokin:

[chuck34]

Even for me, a person that has, to use your term -"gotten ahead"- is suffering from the growing social/economic gap and the concentration of wealth in fewer & fewer hands.

How specifically are you suffering?


Why you ask? Because I see many of my fellow human beings fighting a loosing battle - and I don't want to regurgitate what I have already reiterated a couple of times on this thread - but I believe that we are not alone in this planet, there is a growing human consciences around the globe that tells us that if we are to survive, we are to help each other in any way we can

So if you see all this human suffering among your fellow human beings, and you are one who has "gotten ahead", what are YOU doing to change the situation for those suffering? Are you lowering your wages, while raising that of your employees? Are you completely paying for your empolyee's healthcare? Do you pay for them to go to school? How are you lowering their suffering?

And the big question ... What right do you have to tell anyone else that those things are what they must do?


- and that does not necessarily mean handouts to those "lazy bums " out there - it is more serious than that and we should also take the streets, voice our discontent and make a political difference with our "people power" power.

So if it isn't handouts, what is it? What does voicing your discontent to those who have no power over you accomplish? What political difference do you hope to make by protesting those who are not political players?


You have chosen to live in what I think is an isolated world where you are very proud of what you have done with your life, and where you believe that if you have achieved it, everyone else that wants to do so will also succeed as you did - and I say to you: good for you. You are one of the successful ones.

It sounds to me that you are also one who has succeeded. So I ask you what makes us special? Why were we able to become successful, but others are not? What barriers are in their way? How do we remove those barriers?

[ArrowsFA1]

And instead of answering those specific questions, you come back with a red herring of a question.
It's no red herring. It's a very simple yet specific question which, in my view gets to the core of what Occupy is about. It doesn't relate to the concentration of wealth generally, but the increasing concentration of wealth in fewer hands. It relates to concern for the individual but more so the bigger picture. The world does not have unlimited resources. What there is is owned by fewer & fewer people.

Look at it like this: Was the increasing concentration of land, wealth and resources in the hands of the British Empire good for everyone as it grew, or did people begin to question why one nation should exert such power and influence?

[anthonyvop]

Let's make it simple.

Do we believe that the concentration of wealth in fewer & fewer hands is a good thing for all of us?

Yes/No

It isn't a matter of good or bad but Right and Wrong.

In a society that embraces the free market and renounces crony-capitalism then it is GOOD because it is what the Free Market decided.

In a Fascist/Socialist Society then, of course, it is bad.

[chuck34]

It's no red herring. It's a very simple yet specific question which, in my view gets to the core of what Occupy is about.

Then we're back again. What are they specifically protesting to change? How do they propose changing it?


It doesn't relate to the concentration of wealth generally, but the increasing concentration of wealth in fewer hands.

You keep saying this, but it is meaningless. In the real world the top x percent is always going to own a vast amount of wealth. By changing that from 1 to 2 percent let's say (a few hundered to a few thousand people), how will the materially effect anyone's lives?


It relates to concern for the individual but more so the bigger picture. The world does not have unlimited resources. What there is is owned by fewer & fewer people.

So somehow you are saying that even though the individual has the ability to effect his lot in life, the "bigger picture" can not? And there you go again thinking that economics is a zero sum game. It is not. Yes resorces may have a finite limit to them, but that does not mean that in economics that there is a limit to wealth. And even if I would buy into your argument, there are laws on the books at least here in the US (Sherman anti-trust act) that prevents anyone from having a monopoly. I would not advocate for getting rid of that law.


Look at it like this: Was the increasing concentration of land, wealth and resources in the hands of the British Empire good for everyone as it grew, or did people begin to question why one nation should exert such power and influence?

The fact that the British Empire was increasing it's concentration of land and wealth was not good or bad in and of itself. The fact that it was stealing said land and wealth, and depriving inhabitants of their rights was what was bad. Are corporations stealing anything from you? Are they depriving you of any rights?

[race aficionado]

. . . . . Are corporations stealing anything from you?

Are you sure you want to go there? I'm sure we can find many corporations out there that are getting away with "murder" - pardon the expression.

[chuck34]

Are you sure you want to go there? I'm sure we can find many corporations out there that are getting away with "murder" - pardon the expression.

Sure, I can too. Is that what is being protested? How is the "wealth gap" generally stealing? If the CEO of company X has stolen from you, why go to the streets and protest? Why wouldn't you sue?

[Rollo]

Correlation is not causation. Do you not understand that concept?

Correct, Correlation is not causation. So then, how about a look at the causes?
This four page abstract is a good starting place on the subject:
http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/InequalityMobility.pdf

If you just look at wages, the ability to command higher wages largely comes about through higher education. If you move further down the wage ladder you reach a point where people can not afford to go to university or tertiary education. People who start their working career having completed a tertiary education are able to command higher wages for a longer period of time; multiply that effect over 30 years until the next generation and the ability to send your children to a tertiary institute should increase if you yourself already went and that's just one feedback loop.

If you move from the bottom of the wage ladder to the top, the marginal utility of money decreases and the marginal propensity to save increases. People earning a subsistence wage or not much better than it, do not experience the same abilities to invest or save if indeed at all.
The thing is with the income derived from savings and investment, it still has to be generated by the production of goods and services. This means that people who do derive incomes from savings and investment are being rewarded for other people's labour.
Also, the actual aggregate supply curve for labour kinks to the left at some point. There is either a point where people can not physically provide any more labour by working longer hours and/or the other reason is that generally the aggregate supply curve for labour bends back on itself and we reach a point where higher wages are demanded for less work.

There is also the issue of market power when it comes to wages. Workers and Business Owners never have the same power when it comes to the negotiation of wages. Once upon a time when workers collectively bargained they did hold more power but government policies in a lot of Western countries have actively cut union's power and membership of unions have been generally falling for the past 30 years anwyay.
In most industries, wage earners are price takers whereas business owners are price makers.


Just as much evidence that is abailable to support the idea that inequality is the reason for the lack of mobility.

The thing is though, if you do "fall behind" as everyone else moves on at a faster rate, then the chances of you or your children having the ability to catch up decrease.


Please explain how someone being many times richer than I am, stops me from becoming rich. Or how 50 years ago when someone was "only" 50x more wealthy it was "easier" for me to move up. That makes no sence, unless you believe that economics is a zero sum game.


Several questions need to be adressed: Has a university education become more expensive relative to wages? Are people who have wealth in a position to change legislation to ensure they keep it? Have wage earners gained or lost market power over the past 50 years?



And in answer to your question:

Money ... As I asked before, do you believe economics to be a zero sum game? Do you believe that in order for someone to have $1 more that he/she must steal that dollar from someone else?


A zero-sum game is one in which one participant's gain (or loss) of utility is exactly balanced by the losses (or gains) of the utility of other participant(s). Since accounting for losses, gains, profits and expenses is always balanced (credit and debits are always equal), the net result at any given time is ALWAYS zero.

Philiposhically over the long run? I'm sure I don't know the answer.
Economics might be a zero sum game. In a broad sense, externalities are never accounted for and maybe one day when the world has been buggered up environmentally, then maybe it is.
At some point the Baby-Boomers will start wanting pensions as well; there's about 80 million of them in the US and they sure as heck didn't pay for it.
Maybe our great-grandchildren will be paying a hideous price for the debt accumulated and the environmental destruction of the planet. Who knows?

[BDunnell]

It sounds to me that you are also one who has succeeded. So I ask you what makes us special? Why were we able to become successful, but others are not? What barriers are in their way? How do we remove those barriers?

Why does this matter to you? I really can't understand this problem you, clearly (unlike some who share your views) not an unintelligent person, have with the notion of someone successful and hard-working holding a different view from yours on the operation of the world economy. This question you have thus far failed to answer, making your protestations about others allegedly doing so rather hollow.

[BDunnell]

What if they are protesting both the government and the corporations?
What if they are protesting the system itself, a system built by the government and the corporations?
What if they are protesting the fact that the government, the lawmaker and the corporations are indistinguishable to the points where they have common interests that do not involve the well being of the masses?

I am just asking.

What, equally, if some don't actually know anything about any of the protesters and are automatically assuming, given either their own viewpoints or the contents of their chosen media, that it's all against the public sector?

As I have stated repeatedly, I know some people who have been involved. I know what they are like as people, what they are protesting.

[Roamy]

Well consider this: This sh!t ain't gonna last much longer and the next wave of protesters are going to get higher up the rung. GE needs a good asskicking for this

As if we need any more evidence that Obama is the most anti-American President our country has ever seen, we see this…



Keep your eye on Waukesha, Wisconsin......Their biggest employer just moved out.General Electric is planning to move its 115-year-old X-ray division from Waukesha, WI to Beijing.In addition to moving the headquarters,the company will invest $2 billion in China and train more than 65 engineers and create six research centers. This is the same GE that made $5.1 billion in the United States last year. but paid no taxes-the same company that employs more people overseas than it does in the united States.So let me get this straight. President Obama appointed GE Chairman Jeff Immelt to head his commission on job creation (job czar). Immelt is supposed to help create jobs. I guess the President forgot to tell him in which country he was supposed to be creating those jobs.Thanks Jeff, you're a "real" American....give Barrack our Best !!If this doesn't show you the total lack of leadership of this President, I don't know what does. Please pass this information to others and think about it before you buy a GE product.For Snopes verification of this information, go to:snopes.com: General Electric China Move (http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/ge.asp)

[Rollo]

Keep your eye on Waukesha, Wisconsin......Their biggest employer just moved out.General Electric is planning to move its 115-year-old X-ray division from Waukesha, WI to Beijing.In addition to moving the headquarters,the company will invest $2 billion in China and train more than 65 engineers and create six research centers.

Screw those people. They were demanding too high a wage:


And you have just described the free market system my friend. The market will pay what the value of an employee is. If a boss fires a high value employee simply for asking for a raise, then they deserve the quality of employee they get. Which will be lower, if you hadn't figured that out.


Or do you take the personal responsibility for your own situation, and get the education you need to get a job that is not so easily outsourced? And if you don't currently have the education, do you also take the responsibility to work menial jobs (fast food and what-not) to make it through? Or do you just protest?

The Free Market decided that the people of Waukesha were too expensive and so it ditched them like the scum they are. Maybe they should take the personal responsibility for their own situation and get the education they need to get a job that is not so easily outsourced.

Chuck34 told me so. I believe him.

[Bob Riebe]

Screw those people. They were demanding too high a wage:




The Free Market decided that the people of Waukesha were too expensive and so it ditched them like the scum they are. Maybe they should take the personal responsibility for their own situation and get the education they need to get a job that is not so easily outsourced.

Chuck34 told me so. I believe him.

They had dthe chance but elected Obama anyway; their chickens have come home to roost.

[555-04Q2]

Sure, I can too. Is that what is being protested? How is the "wealth gap" generally stealing? If the CEO of company X has stolen from you, why go to the streets and protest? Why wouldn't you sue?

Good point :up:

[555-04Q2]

If you just look at wages, the ability to command higher wages largely comes about through higher education. If you move further down the wage ladder you reach a point where people can not afford to go to university or tertiary education. People who start their working career having completed a tertiary education are able to command higher wages for a longer period of time; multiply that effect over 30 years until the next generation and the ability to send your children to a tertiary institute should increase if you yourself already went and that's just one feedback loop.

You can work menial jobs and do correspondance and night classes to get your degree just like millions of people have done. It's hard yes, but not as hard as you may think and not that expensive either.

[555-04Q2]

Why does this matter to you? I really can't understand this problem you, clearly (unlike some who share your views) not an unintelligent person, have with the notion of someone successful and hard-working holding a different view from yours on the operation of the world economy. This question you have thus far failed to answer, making your protestations about others allegedly doing so rather hollow.

Well chuck34 has a point. We are yet to get any definitive answers on why people today are less likely to succeed than people from a generation ago. What are these so called problems/barriers in place that prevents them from moving up the ladder(s) in life. The answer is: there is none! People are hoping that by protesting they will magically get what they want, as if there is a room in the sky that just needs to be unlocked and then all their problems will go away. The sad fact is nothing is going to change unless individuals sort things out for themselves (ie: get down to work lazy ass).

Guaranteed if you put these Occupy protesters into a locked stadium, dropped 1 billion dollars onto the field and said share it out equally amongst yourselves, there would be chaos!

[Rollo]

You can work menial jobs and do correspondance and night classes to get your degree just like millions of people have done. It's hard yes, but not as hard as you may think and not that expensive either.

It; might have escaped you attention but in the UK for instance, the maximum tuition fee is now £9,000/yr. Unlike when I wen through, a student could be up for as much as £36,000 fora four year course. Perhaps you'd like that in perspective, a brand new 5-series estate will set you back for less than that.

In the US you're looking at US$19,000 per student on average.

FEH and PAH!
State Education Subsidies Shift Students to Public Universities (http://www.nber.org/digest/dec03/w9720.html)


not that expensive either.

For someone further down the economic ladder, £36,000 is a lot of money. I'm sorry but you don't appear to live in that world and I'm afraid you appear quite callous as a result.

[555-04Q2]

It; might have escaped you attention but in the UK for instance, the maximum tuition fee is now £9,000/yr. Unlike when I wen through, a student could be up for as much as £36,000 fora four year course. Perhaps you'd like that in perspective, a brand new 5-series estate will set you back for less than that.

In the US you're looking at US$19,000 per student on average.

FEH and PAH!
State Education Subsidies Shift Students to Public Universities (http://www.nber.org/digest/dec03/w9720.html)



For someone further down the economic ladder, £36,000 is a lot of money. I'm sorry but you don't appear to live in that world and I'm afraid you appear quite callous as a result.

I hear what you are saying, but doing it via correspondance (ie: at home in your spare time) costs virtually nothing at all. The prices you quote are for attending varsity full time I presume?

[chuck34]

Correct, Correlation is not causation. So then, how about a look at the causes?
This four page abstract is a good starting place on the subject:
http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/InequalityMobility.pdf

If you just look at wages, the ability to command higher wages largely comes about through higher education. If you move further down the wage ladder you reach a point where people can not afford to go to university or tertiary education. People who start their working career having completed a tertiary education are able to command higher wages for a longer period of time; multiply that effect over 30 years until the next generation and the ability to send your children to a tertiary institute should increase if you yourself already went and that's just one feedback loop.

Perhaps you are unaware of the student loans that you can get here in the US. Basically you can get a loan for pretty much nothing (no colateral, very low interest, etc). And you don't even have to start to pay down this debt until after you are done with school. So if you have very little money now, but see that with an education you can make quite a bit, and improve your life, what is stopping you? This falicy that it takes money to get an education in the US is just simply not true. There are an over abundance of loans, grants, scholarships, etc that render this argument moot.


If you move from the bottom of the wage ladder to the top, the marginal utility of money decreases and the marginal propensity to save increases. People earning a subsistence wage or not much better than it, do not experience the same abilities to invest or save if indeed at all.
The thing is with the income derived from savings and investment, it still has to be generated by the production of goods and services. This means that people who do derive incomes from savings and investment are being rewarded for other people's labour.

So those savings and investments are of no use to anyone? Have you ever heard of this new concept of "Capital"? It takes capital (or money people invest) to start a business, to expand a business, to conduct research into new processes/products, etc. Do you think that when people buy stock in a company that all of that money just goes directly into the pockets of the CEO's? Without capital, without investment, no one has a job.


Also, the actual aggregate supply curve for labour kinks to the left at some point. There is either a point where people can not physically provide any more labour by working longer hours and/or the other reason is that generally the aggregate supply curve for labour bends back on itself and we reach a point where higher wages are demanded for less work.

For a static position you are correct. But to think that no one ever advances within a company, or makes advancement by changing companies is foolish.


There is also the issue of market power when it comes to wages. Workers and Business Owners never have the same power when it comes to the negotiation of wages. Once upon a time when workers collectively bargained they did hold more power but government policies in a lot of Western countries have actively cut union's power and membership of unions have been generally falling for the past 30 years anwyay.

Another reason that union membership has fallen is that people got wise to their scam. Why should I be a member of a union when all they do is take money out of my pocket with nothing to show for it.


In most industries, wage earners are price takers whereas business owners are price makers.

So who is FORCING someone to work for less than they desire?


The thing is though, if you do "fall behind" as everyone else moves on at a faster rate, then the chances of you or your children having the ability to catch up decrease.

So we are somehow supposed to stop someone from falling behind? How do you propose we do that? If I take the inititive to get ahead, and do, and someone else doesn't take responsibility for themselves, and they fall behind, who's fault is that? Am I to be punished for someone else's lack of motivation?


Several questions need to be adressed: Has a university education become more expensive relative to wages?

It is more expensive. However, there is plenty of financial aid out there (loans, grants, scholarships, etc.). So that should not be an excuse for not getting a useful education. That is one of the problems today, too many people with art history, liberal arts, and other "non-productive" degrees. Realistically how can you justify a $50-80,000 or more education for a degree where you can only realisically hope to earn about $30,000 on the high end? Common sence when getting an education is something that too many people done exercise.


Are people who have wealth in a position to change legislation to ensure they keep it?

Wealthy people have the money, sure. But aren't we being told that there are 99% of people that think the way of the occupiers? That's a voting majority is it not?


Have wage earners gained or lost market power over the past 50 years?

Depends on your prospective. If you told the poorest of the poor in the US 75-80 years ago that the poorest of the poor today would have at least one car, a house, flat screen TVs, air conditioning, X-Box, cable/satilite TV, etc., that they would thing that we have a pretty darn good society.


A zero-sum game is one in which one participant's gain (or loss) of utility is exactly balanced by the losses (or gains) of the utility of other participant(s). Since accounting for losses, gains, profits and expenses is always balanced (credit and debits are always equal), the net result at any given time is ALWAYS zero.

Apparently you do not know what profit is. Profit is the money left over after you account of your expenses, overhead, wages, etc. So if your company is running a profit the net result is NOT zero.


Philiposhically over the long run? I'm sure I don't know the answer.
Economics might be a zero sum game. In a broad sense, externalities are never accounted for and maybe one day when the world has been buggered up environmentally, then maybe it is.

Please point me to the economics text book that says it is a zero sum game.


At some point the Baby-Boomers will start wanting pensions as well; there's about 80 million of them in the US and they sure as heck didn't pay for it.
Maybe our great-grandchildren will be paying a hideous price for the debt accumulated and the environmental destruction of the planet. Who knows?

Ah, welcome to the T.E.A. Party my friend. You just described one of the main "pillars" of that movement, that government keeps promising things that they can not possibly pay for except on the backs of our great-grandchildren. So let's get real about this and stop spending beyond our means.

[chuck34]

Why does this matter to you? I really can't understand this problem you, clearly (unlike some who share your views) not an unintelligent person, have with the notion of someone successful and hard-working holding a different view from yours on the operation of the world economy. This question you have thus far failed to answer, making your protestations about others allegedly doing so rather hollow.

I am not sure I understand what you are asking me here. I was responding to Race, who is apparently successful, why he could do it but others can not. I'm asking him what barriers have been errected that stop someone from moving up. I'd ask you the same question.

And you seem to be implying that I am not answering questions. Which ones have I not answered? I will answer them now. I do try to answer direct questions with direct answers, but perhaps I have missed some?

[chuck34]

Screw those people. They were demanding too high a wage:

The Free Market decided that the people of Waukesha were too expensive and so it ditched them like the scum they are. Maybe they should take the personal responsibility for their own situation and get the education they need to get a job that is not so easily outsourced.

Chuck34 told me so. I believe him.

And Rollo's solution to this is to somehow FORCE GE to stay in Waukesha? That will do one of two things.

1) Drive up the cost of products produced there (X-Ray equipment). Which drives up the cost of healthcare, something that is already a huge issue. Which drives up the cost of health insurance. Which drives down the net income for many people, particularly on the low end of the wage scale. Which will widen the "wealth gap" even further. I thought you were against the "wealth gap"?

2) GE will take a loss. Sure they have the market cap. to wether that for a while, but if you start adding up a little here and a little there, over time they may start opperating at a loss company wide. No company can do that for long. So in the long run GE could go bankrupt, putting even more people out of work.

[chuck34]

It; might have escaped you attention but in the UK for instance, the maximum tuition fee is now £9,000/yr. Unlike when I wen through, a student could be up for as much as £36,000 fora four year course. Perhaps you'd like that in perspective, a brand new 5-series estate will set you back for less than that.

So you went through school. Now it is less expensive to go through school in the UK. And this is a problem how? What made you special, why could you do it at a high cost, but people can not do it now at a lower cost? Your logic is escaping me.


For someone further down the economic ladder, £36,000 is a lot of money. I'm sorry but you don't appear to live in that world and I'm afraid you appear quite callous as a result.

As 555 said those numbers are for "top" schools, there are plenty of other options out there, corresondance schools, on-line schools, vocational institutions, etc. My wife is going to start on her masters the first of the year. When she is completely done she will have paid a total of $10,800. And her earnings potential will basically double from $45k to $80k~ish starting. Sounds like a d@mn good investment to me. And luckily we are in a position that we can just pay the tuition, but if we needed to we could take out student loans at a very low interest, and not have to start paying it back until she is done. What the hell is the excuse for someone "further down the economic ladder" for not getting an education?

[555-04Q2]

What the hell is the excuse for someone "further down the economic ladder" for not getting an education?

Exactly :up: There is no excuse if there is a will to do it.

[Roamy]

The point here is that GE chose to spend 2 billion supporting chinese interests while there CEO serves as the job czar. On top of that GE pays no taxes. So you can call those people scum and so on but in the end when the middle class in America stands up the world will know!

[ioan]

Why? How does it effect your life? What is preventing you from "getting ahead"?

Why does it have to be about my life? Maybe I am not egocentric.

[ioan]

Well consider this: This sh!t ain't gonna last much longer and the next wave of protesters are going to get higher up the rung. GE needs a good asskicking for this

As if we need any more evidence that Obama is the most anti-American President our country has ever seen, we see this…



Keep your eye on Waukesha, Wisconsin......Their biggest employer just moved out.General Electric is planning to move its 115-year-old X-ray division from Waukesha, WI to Beijing.In addition to moving the headquarters,the company will invest $2 billion in China and train more than 65 engineers and create six research centers. This is the same GE that made $5.1 billion in the United States last year. but paid no taxes-the same company that employs more people overseas than it does in the united States.So let me get this straight. President Obama appointed GE Chairman Jeff Immelt to head his commission on job creation (job czar). Immelt is supposed to help create jobs. I guess the President forgot to tell him in which country he was supposed to be creating those jobs.Thanks Jeff, you're a "real" American....give Barrack our Best !!If this doesn't show you the total lack of leadership of this President, I don't know what does. Please pass this information to others and think about it before you buy a GE product.For Snopes verification of this information, go to:snopes.com: General Electric China Move (http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/ge.asp)

Excellent example.

[ioan]

I hear what you are saying, but doing it via correspondance (ie: at home in your spare time) costs virtually nothing at all. The prices you quote are for attending varsity full time I presume?

I don't think there is any chance to get a serious engineering, for example, degree via correspondence.

[ioan]

And Rollo's solution to this is to somehow FORCE GE to stay in Waukesha? That will do one of two things.

1) Drive up the cost of products produced there (X-Ray equipment). Which drives up the cost of healthcare, something that is already a huge issue. Which drives up the cost of health insurance. Which drives down the net income for many people, particularly on the low end of the wage scale. Which will widen the "wealth gap" even further. I thought you were against the "wealth gap"?

2) GE will take a loss. Sure they have the market cap. to wether that for a while, but if you start adding up a little here and a little there, over time they may start opperating at a loss company wide. No company can do that for long. So in the long run GE could go bankrupt, putting even more people out of work.

You failed to see the big picture once more.
Who will pay for the GE equipment produced in China if people in the US lose their jobs.
Is it so bloody difficult to think more than one step in advance?

[ioan]

I bloody love this forum!! :laugh: :up:

Sure you do, as many others who've been around this forum forever.

[ioan]

As 555 said those numbers are for "top" schools, there are plenty of other options out there, corresondance schools, on-line schools, vocational institutions, etc.

And you think that if one goes for one of the 'not top schools' will they have an equal chance to get to the top with those who go to a 'top' school?
It doesn't look to me that this is the much claimed equality you and 555 are in love with.
In reality you just admitted to the fact that there is no such thing as equal chances, maybe only in theory.

[chuck34]

Why does it have to be about my life? Maybe I am not egocentric.

I use "you" as an example just as many use "people". The argument goes something like "people just can't get ahead". One way to break that down is to personalize it. If "you" can get ahead, why can't "people"? Why is one person's situation any different than another's?

[chuck34]

I don't think there is any chance to get a serious engineering, for example, degree via correspondence.

Start out with a vocational/tech school degree then go to a main campus to get an engineering degree. I know plenty of people who have done that.

[chuck34]

You failed to see the big picture once more.
Who will pay for the GE equipment produced in China if people in the US lose their jobs.
Is it so bloody difficult to think more than one step in advance?

People in China? People that lost a GE job, and got one at a different company? People that bought the assets from the Waukesha plant and started their own manufacturing business?

Is it so bloody difficult to think globally in a free market?

[chuck34]

And you think that if one goes for one of the 'not top schools' will they have an equal chance to get to the top with those who go to a 'top' school?
It doesn't look to me that this is the much claimed equality you and 555 are in love with.
In reality you just admitted to the fact that there is no such thing as equal chances, maybe only in theory.

Yep, I know plenty of people in my same line of work that got their degrees from "not top schools" that are just as successful as I am, and many are more successful. And I know a few who went to the "top" schools who are pretty worthless in their field.

I do believe in equal chances, not equal results. Everyone has a chance to go to "top" schools. What is physically stopping an prospective engineering student from going to, let's say MIT?

[ioan]

I use "you" as an example just as many use "people". The argument goes something like "people just can't get ahead". One way to break that down is to personalize it. If "you" can get ahead, why can't "people"? Why is one person's situation any different than another's?

Ever heard about chance?

[ioan]

Yep, I know plenty of people in my same line of work that got their degrees from "not top schools" that are just as successful as I am, and many are more successful. And I know a few who went to the "top" schools who are pretty worthless in their field.

I do believe in equal chances, not equal results. Everyone has a chance to go to "top" schools. What is physically stopping an prospective engineering student from going to, let's say MIT?

How many newbies do they accept every year at the MIT? 100000000, or 100000, or maybe just a few hundred?

[chuck34]

Ever heard about chance?

Oh so now we have to somehow eliminate chance and bad luck from society? Come on, get serious.

[chuck34]

How many newbies do they accept every year at the MIT? 100000000, or 100000, or maybe just a few hundred?

So what is stopping you from being one who goes?

Better yet, do you need to go to MIT to be successful?

[ioan]

People in China? People that lost a GE job, and got one at a different company? People that bought the assets from the Waukesha plant and started their own manufacturing business?

Is it so bloody difficult to think globally in a free market?

Let's think globally then. People in China can't afford the same expensive instrumentation that the US can.
Same goes for people in India, Vietnam, Philipines, Thailand, Indonezia... and other countries where people get paid peanuts to produce diamonds to be sold in Japan, Oz, NA and the EU.

It will take over 10 years until the developing countries will be close to a level that allows them to buy serious amounts of the goods that the developed countries can absorb now.
And by that time GE might go under, and even if they survive they should be friends with the idea that in 10 years time the Chinese will also expect a much higher paycheck.

The kind of economic model that bases it's growth on a reduction of the HR expenses is a crap model that is bound to fail.
The funniest par is that those earning millions a year can only come up with such stupid models, yet some people think they deserve to earn more than those who are really creative.

[ioan]

Oh so now we have to somehow eliminate chance and bad luck from society? Come on, get serious.

We have to limit their influence on society.

[ioan]

So what is stopping you from being one who goes?

Better yet, do you need to go to MIT to be successful?

Who says I didn't go?
Just to be clear I'll repeat it, it's not about me, I am doing great, thank you.

But then what about you answer my questions instead of posting red herrings?
So can everyone go to the same top university which pretty much means they will get a well paid job afterwards? The answer is obvious, which is why you are dodging it.

[chuck34]

Let's think globally then. People in China can't afford the same expensive instrumentation that the US can.
Same goes for people in India, Vietnam, Philipines, Thailand, Indonezia... and other countries where people get paid peanuts to produce diamonds to be sold in Japan, Oz, NA and the EU.

It will take over 10 years until the developing countries will be close to a level that allows them to buy serious amounts of the goods that the developed countries can absorb now.
And by that time GE might go under, and even if they survive they should be friends with the idea that in 10 years time the Chinese will also expect a much higher paycheck.

The kind of economic model that bases it's growth on a reduction of the HR expenses is a crap model that is bound to fail.
The funniest par is that those earning millions a year can only come up with such stupid models, yet some people think they deserve to earn more than those who are really creative.

I'm not going to argue GE's business model with you. Personally I think it's flawed, but I don't know all the in's and out's of their business.

But lets take your example on out to it's logical conclusion. GE moves to China, no one can afford their products now because they don't have jobs, GE sells less product, GE goes under, there is still a demand for appliances etc., other companies spring up to meet said demand. The business cycle in a free market system is actually fairly efficient. Static analysis, which you seem to want to employ, misses many factors such as the fact that GE is not the only company in the world that makes what they make.

[chuck34]

Who says I didn't go?
Just to be clear I'll repeat it, it's not about me, I am doing great, thank you.

Ok so let's say you did go. What is stopping Joe Blow from Kokomo from going too? Is it simply school size? If so what is your solution to that, FORCE MIT to accept anyone who applies?

Speaking of dodging questions you dodged mine. "Do you (or one so as we don't personalize it to ioan) need to go to MIT to be successful?"


But then what about you answer my questions instead of posting red herrings?
So can everyone go to the same top university which pretty much means they will get a well paid job afterwards? The answer is obvious, which is why you are dodging it.

Show me the law that says you must go to MIT to be a success. From personal experience I know plenty of people who did not go to such a school that are very successful, and plenty of people who went to those schools who are worthless.

Besides who ever said that sucess was tied to going to a "top school"? I sure haven't argued that.

[Rollo]

You asked for a reason why inequality is the reason for the lack of mobility. In #1054


So those savings and investments are of no use to anyone?

In the context of an individual who has no savings, then yes.


Another reason that union membership has fallen is that people got wise to their scam. Why should I be a member of a union when all they do is take money out of my pocket with nothing to show for it.

Of course and I agree with you. 30-50 years ago it wasn't the case though. The unions did have more market power to negotiate on wages.


So who is FORCING someone to work for less than they desire?

The market price for labour.


So we are somehow supposed to stop someone from falling behind? How do you propose we do that? If I take the inititive to get ahead, and do, and someone else doesn't take responsibility for themselves, and they fall behind, who's fault is that? Am I to be punished for someone else's lack of motivation?

How about a governmental policy of free education. It will take a longish view but in the long run the quality of the labour force will be improved. It's mainly the reason why Germany produces so many more highly technical manufactured goods and why they tend to be of better quality.
German built cars are easily better than anything America produces, German technical instruments are better... heck in 2010 Germany exported more than the US did and were second only behind China. What does that say about the German people?

As for the question of motivation, it's not necessarily an individual thing. Clearly its far bigger than that and society itself helps to shape those motivations. If someone "fell behind" then their children will start from a far worse position, if you then multiply than by about 80 million times, then you describe US society pretty well.


Apparently you do not know what profit is. Profit is the money left over after you account of your expenses, overhead, wages, etc. So if your company is running a profit the net result is NOT zero.

One company is not THE ECONOMY. DUH.


Please point me to the economics text book that says it is a zero sum game.

How about YOU prove something for a change? I gave a pretty good definition of the concept and made an assertion, but you seem very timid to show your workings.


So let's get real about this and stop spending beyond our means.

Yay! Let old people die off because they can't eat! Soylent Green is your solution maybe?

[ioan]

Ok so let's say you did go. What is stopping Joe Blow from Kokomo from going too? Is it simply school size? If so what is your solution to that, FORCE MIT to accept anyone who applies?

It looks like school size might be one problem, that the free market, which some think is the holly grail of humanity, will take care of that and only those who can afford it will have a chance to get there.
Looks like not everyone has equal chances after all, isn't it?!



Speaking of dodging questions you dodged mine. "Do you (or one so as we don't personalize it to ioan) need to go to MIT to be successful?"

Depends what you define as successful.
Obviously people have been more or less successful without an MIT diploma, however the chances to be successful with such diploma are much higher then if you got a diploma from an unknown university.

It doesn't look like everyone can get the same education, in the same university and as such they won't have the same chances to be successful (definition pending), yet we are told that the chances are equal no matter if you are born rich or poor, or if you are born in Somalia or the US.
I wonder what percentage of people from Peru are successful compared to the percentage in Switzerland.





Show me the law that says you must go to MIT to be a success. From personal experience I know plenty of people who did not go to such a school that are very successful, and plenty of people who went to those schools who are worthless.

Let's not exaggerate, not sure how many people who studied at the MIT are worthless, but certainly not plenty, especially not from your personal experience.


Besides who ever said that sucess was tied to going to a "top school"? I sure haven't argued that.
Success has it's ways, majority of them goes through top quality education, some of it through hard work and chance.

If you mean that being successful with and without a TOP university diploma are equal then I am rather sure we are talking about different kinds of success.

[chuck34]

You asked for a reason why inequality is the reason for the lack of mobility. In #1054
In the context of an individual who has no savings, then yes.

You completly miss the point. Someone's savings/investments allow someone else to build/expand a business. Thus giving someone without savings a job. The basis of Capitalism is captial. Capital is the money that those evil rich people use to invest in business and pay people.


The market price for labour.

So you have a choice. Work or don't work. If enough people don't take the job at a low wage, the wage will increase. Why do you think that janitors, garbage men, and septic tank pumpers make more than minimum wage?


How about a governmental policy of free education. It will take a longish view but in the long run the quality of the labour force will be improved. It's mainly the reason why Germany produces so many more highly technical manufactured goods and why they tend to be of better quality.
German built cars are easily better than anything America produces, German technical instruments are better... heck in 2010 Germany exported more than the US did and were second only behind China. What does that say about the German people?

There are many issues that effect US exports, product quality, etc. than simply education.

And our government already borrows $0.40 of every $1 it spends, you suggest we up that by providing "free" education? And why would a "free" education change they dynamics in this country? You can already get an almost free education if you simply apply for loans, grants, and scholarships.


As for the question of motivation, it's not necessarily an individual thing. Clearly its far bigger than that and society itself helps to shape those motivations. If someone "fell behind" then their children will start from a far worse position, if you then multiply than by about 80 million times, then you describe US society pretty well.

Why do you have this obsession with lumping everyone together? Do you have no concept of personal responsibility?


One company is not THE ECONOMY. DUH.

So you are now suggesting that if one company makes profit that another must have a decreased profit?


How about YOU prove something for a change? I gave a pretty good definition of the concept and made an assertion, but you seem very timid to show your workings.

What would you like me to prove? I'm not the one running around claiming there are all these problems that need fixing. Sorry but the burden of proof is on you. I feel I've been pretty responsive in stating why many of your "solutions" will not work, but if you feel that I have not fully answered something let me know.


Yay! Let old people die off because they can't eat! Soylent Green is your solution maybe?

When did I say that? Quite the opposite in fact. The government in the US has been doing that for years and years. They have promised that there will be Social Security money for people when they retire, yet they raid the trust fund to pay for their own pet projects causing the system to be on the verge of bankruptcy. What do you suppose will happen when Social Security finally collapses, and all those that have been promised it will be there find that they no longer have any money for retirement?

[ArrowsFA1]

Why do you have this obsession with lumping everyone together? Do you have no concept of personal responsibility?
Can't answer for Rollo, but this highlights how these problems seem to be viewed differently:

There is no problem because an individual can progress[/*:m:rk4wt2c6]
There is a problem because in a global context inequality is increasing[/*:m:rk4wt2c6]

[chuck34]

Can't answer for Rollo, but this highlights how these problems seem to be viewed differently:

There is no problem because an individual can progress[/*:m:1yhwd1jx]
There is a problem because in a global context inequality is increasing[/*:m:1yhwd1jx]

Do you not believe an individual can progress? If not, what is stopping them? If you do believe that an individual can progress, why can't a "group"? After all what is a group other than a collection of individuals?

[ArrowsFA1]

After all what is a group other than a collection of individuals?
A group is a collection of individuals who work together to achieve a common set of goals. A politcal movement for example.

[chuck34]

A group is a collection of individuals who work together to achieve a common set of goals. A politcal movement for example.

Ok so you don't believe in individual responsibility then. Everyone must do things in a "group" or "movement". If you do not believe that an individual must do for himself first, that everything must be done in a group, then I don't think we have anything else to talk about. You can go on looking for your collective salvation, and I will continue to take care of myself first, then my friends and family, and those around me.

Have fun. :)

[ArrowsFA1]

Ok so you don't believe in individual responsibility then. Everyone must do things in a "group" or "movement".
You deduce that from what exactly :confused: (You're wrong)

[chuck34]

You deduce that from what exactly :confused: (You're wrong)

I deduced that from your cryptic non answer to my questions. You only want to talk about the group, never the individual because it sets your argument up to "win". So I'll ask again. If an individual can make progress, why can't another? Why can't the "group"?

Your original two choice "views" were typically too black and white. You want to make this about the "group" because if one does not do well, then you can claim that no one is doing well. That is a false choice. If one can do well, what is stopping others?

[ArrowsFA1]

After all what is a group other than a collection of individuals?

A group is a collection of individuals who work together to achieve a common set of goals. A politcal movement for example.

Ok so you don't believe in individual responsibility then. Everyone must do things in a "group" or "movement".
Quite how you deduce that from my answer to your question is beyond me I'm afraid. Nowhere do I say that I do not believe in individual responsibility, or the ability of individuals to progress.

Your original two choice "views" were typically too black and white. You want to make this about the "group" because if one does not do well, then you can claim that no one is doing well.
Again, not my point and I am not claiming that at all.

It was simply a way of condensing how I see the basic differences expressed in this thread.

Hey ho :dozey:

[Rollo]

Why do you have this obsession with lumping everyone together? Do you have no concept of personal responsibility?


I never at any point claimed I do not believe in personal responsibility. However, for many things in economics, not everything is efficient if the responsibility for solving problems is held on individuals.

Should society for instance pay for my motor car? No, that's a stupid proposition because the optimal sharing group two own a motor car is in most cases less than about 2. How about the roads which said motor car drives on? Admittedly you could have private firms build, own and operate them but the most efficient position is the collective ownership of roads by the state because the optimal sharing group of roads is the entire population.

The thing is though, the optimal sharing group to solve all sorts of problems is the community as a whole but you seem to "have this obsession with" not looking at any problems as though they should and can be solved by the community as a whole. Obviously there are a number of cases when individual simple do not have the individual power, capital or momentum to change things.

[airshifter]

Can't answer for Rollo, but this highlights how these problems seem to be viewed differently:

There is no problem because an individual can progress[/*:m:34i2ql24]
There is a problem because in a global context inequality is increasing[/*:m:34i2ql24]


I've asked this many pages back and didn't get any answers.

If global equality is a primary goal, who here is willing to create that equality when the average wage globally is less than $10,000? I suspect the reality for most is that they want more of what the wealthier people have in terms of equality, but they certain don't want more of what the less wealthy have in terms of equality.

So the reality of the situation is that the vast majority of us in devoloped western nations are in fact the people with the majority of the worlds wealth.

So who here is protesting how fortunate we all are?

[Rudy Tamasz]

So who here is protesting how fortunate we all are?

I believe very few people here care about the truly poor. It's a dispute between justhaves and havemores. Obviously, justhaves are not satisfied with their lot and think havemores are too fortunate.

[race aficionado]

1 in 2 Americans Are Poor or Low Income: U.S. Census

1 in 2 Americans Are Poor or Low Income: U.S. Census - International Business Times (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/267971/20111215/1-2-americans-poor-low-income-census.htm)

I know it's hard to find exact numbers during a national census but these figures if true, are mind boggling to say the least. :(

Houston, there is a problem!!!!! No s***t Sherlock!!!!! :mad:


Almost half of the U.S. population is either low-income or has fallen into poverty, according to The Associated Press, which reports new data from the U.S. Census Bureau depicts a dwindling middle class as the result of persistently high unemployment, rising living costs and unraveling social safety net programs.

[Rollo]

If global equality is a primary goal, who here is willing to create that equality when the average wage globally is less than $10,000?

Who is willing to? The American people!


1 in 2 Americans Are Poor or Low Income: U.S. Census
1 in 2 Americans Are Poor or Low Income: U.S. Census - International Business Times (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/267971/20111215/1-2-americans-poor-low-income-census.htm)



they certain don't want more of what the less wealthy have in terms of equality.

Yet that appears to be what they're getting isn't it?

Still that's fine I suppose, this thread has taught us that you can always keep on blaming it on laziness can't you? ;)

[Alexamateo]

1 in 2 Americans Are Poor or Low Income: U.S. Census

1 in 2 Americans Are Poor or Low Income: U.S. Census - International Business Times (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/267971/20111215/1-2-americans-poor-low-income-census.htm)

I know it's hard to find exact numbers during a national census but these figures if true, are mind boggling to say the least. :(

Houston, there is a problem!!!!! No s***t Sherlock!!!!! :mad:

One in two, low income? Look I live in Memphis TN, and the poverty level and low income level is high, but this doesn't pass the smell test. Heck median income is $50,000, and $48,445 (199% of poverty level for a family of four) is low income according to them. Their definitions are wrong, or it needs to be adjusted for geographic area.

[Alexamateo]

Census Bureau Clarifies Poverty Numbers | NBC Los Angeles (http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Census-Bureau-Clarifies-Poverty-Numbers-135751158.html)

I went looking and that number has been misinterpreted. To be certain there are still a lot of low income people, but not one in two. Wow, watch out what you report!


On Thursday, reports in multiple news outlets suggested that people making roughly twice the poverty level under the experimental program were “scraping by” and should be considered low-income.

The Census Bureau does not support that interpretation of the data, Short said.

“Below 200 percent of the poverty threshold is the lower end of the distribution," Short said. "But we would not call it low-income per se.”

[airshifter]

Who is willing to? The American people!


Yet that appears to be what they're getting isn't it?

Still that's fine I suppose, this thread has taught us that you can always keep on blaming it on laziness can't you? ;)

You would actually have to read and understand the article to take it into proper perspective. The Census figures report income only, and as stated above by Alexamateo hardly define "poor". Being based on income alone it also does not account for any assistance programs, tax breaks and credits, or any measure of the wealth of the family. Being our taxes are very forgiving to those with less income some of those people can be living almost as well as those out making more money.

But I suspect you could care less about the facts, as they still show that one of those "poor" US families could be making 6 to 7 times the global average income. And as I pointed out above, if one of the issue is more financial equality on a global level, someone in the US or Australia making median income is among the wealthiest in the world. Based on that we are the wealthy people not looking out for those less fortunate.

Based on global numbers, someone making 1/2 of what is considered poverty level for a family of four is still among the richest 13% of people in the world. So for all the people here wanting more equality, you better start seeking out charities.

[anthonyvop]

Should society for instance pay for my motor car? No,

So you were against the GM and Ford bailouts and against tax breaks for Hybrids and Alternative energy vehicles?

[anthonyvop]

One in two, low income? Look I live in Memphis TN, and the poverty level and low income level is high, but this doesn't pass the smell test. Heck median income is $50,000, and $48,445 (199% of poverty level for a family of four) is low income according to them. Their definitions are wrong, or it needs to be adjusted for geographic area.

In the USA the poor have Cell Phones and Cable TV.

[race aficionado]

In the USA the poor have Cell Phones and Cable TV.

Sorry I can't remember the name of this politician that once proudly said: "We have the fattest poor people in our country" - sure, when you eat the
"Super Sized" portions of McDonalds and the likes . . . . :dozey:

[ioan]

In the USA the poor have Cell Phones and Cable TV.

Does that make them happy with their lives?

There was an article on Yahoo the other day saying that 50% of the US population are poor by today's standards. Must be due to the great advantages of the free market.

[anthonyvop]

Does that make them happy with their lives?

Happy than being poor without Cell Phones and cable TV


There was an article on Yahoo the other day saying that 50% of the US population are poor by today's standards. Must be due to the great advantages of the free market.

What is you point? It wasn't the free market that caused the higher number of people in poverty. It was the Socialist/Entitlement mentality that put them there.

[Rollo]

There are two issues which I'll address in two parts:


So you were against the GM and Ford bailouts

This question doesn't follow from the full quote in context:

Should society for instance pay for my motor car? No, that's a stupid proposition because the optimal sharing group two own a motor car is in most cases less than about 2.

The GM and Ford bailouts weren't about bailing out a small privately owned entity but massive corporations which the optimal sharing group (ie the shareholders) was probably at least hundreds of thousands. I suppose this question asks "what was the alternative" and the truth is that the US has quite good bankruptcy laws. Assuming GM had gone into Chapter 11 bankruptcy by itself, it would have restructured anyway; that may have been a good thing. The question is how much pressure did GM bring to bear on politics?
GM probably should have been allowed to "fail" because the outcome might have been better for the company and more thn likely better for the taxpayer.


and against tax breaks for Hybrids and Alternative energy vehicles?
Again this is a separate issue to what the optimal sharing group is but more about changing consumer behavior and taxation is a good valve to do this with.
The tax breaks have probably helped to carve out a market for these sorts of cars and since the intent is to get the auto makers to at least try to develop something, then it's a good strategy.

[BDunnell]

In the USA the poor have Cell Phones and Cable TV.

So? And all the poor? Literally all of them?

[airshifter]

Does that make them happy with their lives?

There was an article on Yahoo the other day saying that 50% of the US population are poor by today's standards. Must be due to the great advantages of the free market.


You might want to scroll up. Some of the US "poor" could be making $48,000 a year. ;)

[anthonyvop]

The GM and Ford bailouts weren't about bailing out a small privately owned entity but massive corporations which the optimal sharing group (ie the shareholders) was probably at least hundreds of thousands.
I suppose this question asks "what was the alternative" and the truth is that the US has quite good bankruptcy laws. Assuming GM had gone into Chapter 11 bankruptcy by itself, it would have restructured anyway; that may have been a good thing. The question is how much pressure did GM bring to bear on politics?
GM probably should have been allowed to "fail" because the outcome might have been better for the company and more thn likely better for the taxpayer.


Ford did not get a bailout....It was Chrysler
Part of the bailout plan included bankruptcy. The Money was used to prop up to company and pay off the Unions for political support of Obama and the Dems. Stockholders were screwed as were the suppliers.


Again this is a separate issue to what the optimal sharing group is but more about changing consumer behavior and taxation is a good valve to do this with.
The tax breaks have probably helped to carve out a market for these sorts of cars and since the intent is to get the auto makers to at least try to develop something, then it's a good strategy.


So you approve of your government taking your money by force to give it to politically connected businesses?

[Rollo]

Ford did not get a bailout....It was Chrysler

Well sorry, I quoted YOU.

So you were against the GM and Ford bailouts and against tax breaks for Hybrids and Alternative energy vehicles?
Next time I'll know better. ;)


So you approve of your government taking your money by force to give it to politically connected businesses?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/original/000/001/384/Atrapitis.gif

Before we go on your journey of logic, where do you intend to take us to?

Corruption at all levels is wasteful. That's always bad news for the economy.

[BDunnell]

So you approve of your government taking your money by force to give it to politically connected businesses?

Not mine, necessarily. I quite like the idea of yours being taken by force, though. Gives me a warm glow, you know?

[race aficionado]

I find the current situation in Egypt fascinating - fascinating intellectually and never thrilled when people are dying in the process.

• You have the "People Power" of the citizens taking the streets wanting a democratic clean slate and this being a "gov't of the people/for the people" type of deal . . .

• You have the different Political Parties that are using this window of opportunity to get into the political system/ machinery . . .

• You have the Military saying: "Sure, okay, but you can do that all under our reign."

•*•*•*• and I'm sure many more layers.



On another note, there is also a radical difference between the protests and battle encounters with the police/law enforcement in the US and Europe as compared to those that happen in Egypt and Syria for example. No deaths on this end yet . . . and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

These are radical times.

Man! I've got to find my Christmas cheer!!! :disturb:

:s mokin:

[anthonyvop]

Not mine, necessarily. I quite like the idea of yours being taken by force, though. Gives me a warm glow, you know?

Fascists like you seem to like to do that.

[BDunnell]

Fascists like you seem to like to do that.

I'm not a fascist; merely someone who occasionally enjoys a bit of well-placed schadenfreude.

[Roamy]

I'm not a fascist; merely someone who occasionally enjoys a bit of well-placed schadenfreude.

Well actually Ben you are just showing you anti-americanism which is quite common from those who's country has a second rate offense and defense!

[Roamy]

Now here is a real shame. Finally a border crossing that makes all the sense in the world - but oh no we have to go and screw it up. - We could have just sent 16 pakis home in exchange.

MIAMI (AP) – The last member of a group accused of smuggling 16 Colombians disguised as cheerleaders into the U.S. has pleaded guilty to visa fraud in Miami.

Immigration officials say 28-year-old Duastin Salazar pleaded guilty Monday. He’s the final member of the group to either plead guilty or be convicted in the case. Salazar was sentenced to time served, two years of supervised release and a $100 special assessment. Nine others who weren’t criminally charged, including seven minors, were returned to Colombia.

[BDunnell]

Well actually Ben you are just showing you anti-americanism which is quite common from those who's country has a second rate offense and defense!

There is no anti-Americanism on my part at all. I am against the views of certain Americans, which is a very different thing — as, surely, you can appreciate.

[anthonyvop]

I'm not a fascist; merely someone who occasionally enjoys a bit of well-placed schadenfreude.


Isn't that what Fascism, Socialism and Communism premise based on?

[BDunnell]

Isn't that what Fascism, Socialism and Communism premise based on?

No.

[BDunnell]

Those in favour of the free market may wish to sign this:

Thatcher state funeral to be privatised - e-petitions (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/18914)

[airshifter]

The latest in the US on the Occupy movement. Violence and destruction. At this point most of the media is watching those that don't represent anything that amounts to good in the world.

May Day Protests: A few flashpoints, but most are peaceful | The Lookout - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/occupy-may-day-mostly-quiet-160849836.html)

The last I heard locally on anything was some nutcases protesting a politicians office about the Guantanamo Bay facilities or something of that nature. What that has to do with the Occupy movement I'm not sure, not did the protesters seem to know.

[ioan]

The latest in the US on the Occupy movement. Violence and destruction. At this point most of the media is watching those that don't represent anything that amounts to good in the world.

May Day Protests: A few flashpoints, but most are peaceful | The Lookout - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/occupy-may-day-mostly-quiet-160849836.html)

The last I heard locally on anything was some nutcases protesting a politicians office about the Guantanamo Bay facilities or something of that nature. What that has to do with the Occupy movement I'm not sure, not did the protesters seem to know.

Funny how the Police is busy beating up the peaceful protesters while the scumbags that take advantage of any major demonstration are left in peace to break and still at will. Typical police state reaction.

[Gregor-y]

Without violence and uncertainty how else can you justify surveillance and brutality?

[ioan]

Without violence and uncertainty how else can you justify surveillance and brutality?

What about this?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/college-student-claims-left-cell-five-days-without-153200359.html

You must try out these babies, worth every penny and should change your confidence Heel lifts (http://www.hammurabi.com.au/entry.php?3335-Shoe-Lifts-From-The-Womans-Thoughts-And-Opinions)

Gotta try these babies, worth every dime and will change your success with girls Shoe lifts (http://www.communalcity.info/entry.php?4870-Is-There-A-difference-Between-Mens-And-Womens-Shoe-Lifts)

Gotta see these babies, worth every penny and will improve your life Shoe lifts (http://norman.org.uk/blog/pg/blog/VaniaJone/read/37649/what-are-adjustable-shoe-lifts)

You have to see these babies, worth every dollar and change your success with the ladies Heel lifts (http://lifeupdates.net/entry.php/37-Shoe-Lifts-The-girl-s-Point-of-view)

Gotta look at these babies, worth every dime and will improve your life Heel lifts (http://theurbanroast.com/blogs/entry/The-Difference-Between-Mens-And-Womens-Shoe-Lifts)

In democracy people own the government.They are free to elect there representative by the power of there vote.This is my first reply on politics.Nice to share with all of you.

[ioan]

In democracy people own the government.

In theory yes, in practice it is just a theory!

[Mark]

Indeed some governments would do to remember this. History has a way of getting rid of those who don't.

[race aficionado]

When I first came to dis country (my latino accent) I remember a NYC cab drive with a Russian cab driver.

We started talking about democracy and he said something I will never forget.
He said:
"Here in America people do have democracy but not the one they think. You do have a choice, a variety of choices.
You can decide to eat in Burger King, at McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Wendy's . . . .

[Mark]

'twas it not always thus. Same problem in the UK that there's not much difference between the parties.

PS When you say 'dis country' I can't read that in anything other than a heavy Irish accent :D

[donKey jote]

PS When you say 'dis country' I can't read that in anything other than a heavy Irish accent :D
:tumbsup:
hey race, would you be after counting to tree for us now? :p

[SGWilko]

When I first came to dis country (my latino accent) I remember a NYC cab drive with a Russian cab driver.

We started talking about democracy and he said something I will never forget.
He said:
"Here in America people do have democracy but not the one they think. You do have a choice, a variety of choices.
You can decide to eat in Burger King, at McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Wendy's . . . .

My Wife met me in distress.....

......no, wait, it was dat dress.....

In real snese people own the government.They elect the there leaders.A good leadre has the good trust of its followers.

In democracy people own the government.They are free to elect there representative by the power of there vote.This is my first reply on politics.Nice to share with all of you.


investment visa australia (http://www.significantinvestorvisa.com.au/)

[555-04Q2]

Thought I'd drag up this old thread to talk about the recent incidents in Egypt.

Do people still think it's a good idea for people to protest and change the system? The situation in Egypt is a prime example of people thinking they know what they want and thinking they know how to do it when they actually don't know what they want or how to do it.

What a mess they have made...

[Garry Walker]

Thought I'd drag up this old thread to talk about the recent incidents in Egypt.

Do people still think it's a good idea for people to protest and change the system? The situation in Egypt is a prime example of people thinking they know what they want and thinking they know how to do it when they actually don't know what they want or how to do it.

What a mess they have made...

Yeah, Egypt and Libya are much better off now than they were with Mubarak and Gaddadi :laugh: . Of course I see the problem being fact that most of those protesters are muslim and violence and killing is the nature of that religion.

[TheFamousEccles]

IMO - the Egyptian problems stem from a democratically elected government basically ignoring everything they said at election time, and instead plunging headlong into establishing a theocracy, based on sharia law. Not what the majority of Egyptians hoped might happen. However, not at all surprising from my point of view, though.

[555-04Q2]

They believed the lies ( c'mon all politicians are liars, all of them would sell their mothers for a vote ), they elected them, they need to lie in the bed they made. Now, they've just screwed the whole country up :(

Long live people power lol.

[race aficionado]

Long live people power (for real!)
:)