Occupy Wallstreet is still going on page 4

212 posts

Flag Post

Now, I generally try not to agree with Jhco&Pals; but… Is that demands list some sort of elaborate joke?

1. This hits me as exactly the sort of thing I’d put down when playing Devil’s Advocate. Only the tariff portion seems slightly reasonable (Though, according to wikipedia, we still have one on ~30% of imports?).

2. Take money directly from the people and give it to the doctors, sure… Cost (Thousands? Hundreds of thousands?) of jobs by banning private health insurance? Ehhhno.

3. Living Wage. (Trollface)

4. Reasonable. Degrees are already meaningless.

5. Sure. Hell, most private companies are already doing it; so I don’t think it’s too far out of sight.

6. We’re in debt several trillion already, lets hold off on this for now… It isn’t needed to this extreme.

7. See above. Plus, if someone is stupid enough to call for the shutdown of nuclear power plants, they should probably be put down for the good of society.

8. …15th? …19th? Am I missing something?

9. Open Borders Migration… Scary scary word. I’m not sure on this, and I don’t feel like looking it up but… Don’t we already have this between states? And if they mean for it to be between countries… …I can’t see any way for that to work that wouldn’t result in a terrible economic situation.

10. Is this really a “Paper > Technology” argument?

11. Two issues: A. The ‘I’ usage implies that this is, in fact, the rambling of an imbecile; as opposed to a real statement. B. Unless I’m missing something, this would also cause a major collapse; and possibly trade embargoes by the countries we owe so much to.

12. Again, this is silly. You’re eliminating a huge amount of jobs. (And, again unless I’m missing something) You don’t have anything to worry about with credit reports unless you’ve done something wrong previously.

13. Personally, I’m anti-union. I realize that in their time they were needed; but now, such organizations have become country-wide price-setting schemes; and one result of artificial price inflation.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by donseptico:

@Scoop

  1. The rankings on that page are based on 4 factors: ‘Size’ (20% Weighting… Number of pages recovered from four engines: Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Exalead), ‘Visibility’ (50% weighting… The total number of unique external links received (inlinks) by a site can be only confidently obtained from Yahoo Search, Live Search and Exalead). ‘Rich Files’ (15% Weighting) After evaluation of their relevance to academic and publication activities and considering the volume of the different file formats. These data were extracted using Google. ‘Scholar’ (15% Weighting… Google Scholar provides the number of papers and citations for each academic domain).

    Now, as I’ve stated previously I don’t dispute you have some excellent research facilities but this has little direct connection to the quality of care provided by your hospitals and I fail to see how the size of the facility’s website and the number of links it contains (70% of the weighted rankings) either directly or indirectly reflect the quality of the care provided.

  2. Looking at the table, I wouldn’t say ‘well ahead’… yes, you have more entries in the top 25, between just our two countries and certainly top the chart with Harvard but you’d expect your country, with its larger population, etc to feature in any such table more frequently. That said, it’s an incomplete comparison as, if we’re to compare universities in states with social care to the US system, we should include the rest of Europe, Canada, Australia, etc. Yes, Harvard would probably still be on top, yes the US would still be well represented but that one table doesn’t paint the whole picture.

  3. Don’t know about Canada, as I said I’m writing from the British/European perspective… I too can turn up for a checkup at my doctor’s office without an appointment, and I live in the ‘arse end of nowhere’ (small rural location), see the doctor and have a prescription within the hour (of course, it does depend somewhat on the number of people who turn up at the same time, etc but that’d be the same wherever you are… the doctor can only see one person at a time ;))

  4. No, you’re the one misunderstanding – I’ve certainly not mentioned or referred to ‘Obamacare’, not knowing anything specific about its proposals I’ve only discussed the general principles involved and differences between a private system, a completely social system (UK) and a hybrid of the two (Switzerland/Germany). The specifics of how one system or another might be implemented are a matter for your own legislature/citizenry. Socialised medicine should be the mandate, it is the private enhancements that should be the option.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying socialised medicine should cover absolutely everything for everyone, but it should guarantee a basic minimum standard of medical treatment for everyone (however that may be defined locally).

  5. I believe it’s exclamation marks to embed an image ! link ! (without the spaces)… the sign says exactly what I said (based on my googling)… ‘come in and get screened, (in an emergency) get stabilised and, if necessary, shipped off somewhere else that will accept medicare/whatever. Without any evidence to the contrary I shall have to assume the stick to the letter of the law… If the screening determines it’s not an emergency you’re ‘out of luck’ and out the door (ok they may direct you to an alternate venue)

  6. Scanned through, first thoughts were biased (but what isn’t on the net), out of date by a decade, not entirely relevant – I don’t have time or access to check the various footnoted documents.

1. I don’t understand what you’re trying to get across here.
2. You can lay this out however you want. The numbers are there. And we won.
3. I have no way of disproving/proving this. And thus, I don’t know if I can take your word for it.
4. Yeah…you don’t seem to understand. There’s only ONE COUNTRY I care about right now. And that’s the US. And the shit Obama wants to do over here is make healthcare a mandate. Not an option.
5. Look at the picture again. Does not mention exclusively emergencies.
6. Fair enough. But here’s another.
http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff.html

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Captain_Catface:

Now, I generally try not to agree with Jhco&Pals; but… Is that demands list some sort of elaborate joke?

1. This hits me as exactly the sort of thing I’d put down when playing Devil’s Advocate. Only the tariff portion seems slightly reasonable (Though, according to wikipedia, we still have one on ~30% of imports?).

2. Take money directly from the people and give it to the doctors, sure… Cost (Thousands? Hundreds of thousands?) of jobs by banning private health insurance? Ehhhno.

3. Living Wage. (Trollface)

4. Reasonable. Degrees are already meaningless.

5. Sure. Hell, most private companies are already doing it; so I don’t think it’s too far out of sight.

6. We’re in debt several trillion already, lets hold off on this for now… It isn’t needed to this extreme.

7. See above. Plus, if someone is stupid enough to call for the shutdown of nuclear power plants, they should probably be put down for the good of society.

8. …15th? …19th? Am I missing something?

9. Open Borders Migration… Scary scary word. I’m not sure on this, and I don’t feel like looking it up but… Don’t we already have this between states? And if they mean for it to be between countries… …I can’t see any way for that to work that wouldn’t result in a terrible economic situation.

10. Is this really a “Paper > Technology” argument?

11. Two issues: A. The ‘I’ usage implies that this is, in fact, the rambling of an imbecile; as opposed to a real statement. B. Unless I’m missing something, this would also cause a major collapse; and possibly trade embargoes by the countries we owe so much to.

12. Again, this is silly. You’re eliminating a huge amount of jobs. (And, again unless I’m missing something) You don’t have anything to worry about with credit reports unless you’ve done something wrong previously.

13. Personally, I’m anti-union. I realize that in their time they were needed; but now, such organizations have become country-wide price-setting schemes; and one result of artificial price inflation.

It is not a joke. lol Didn’t you just love my satire?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Captain_Catface:


6. We’re in debt several trillion already, lets hold off on this for now… It isn’t needed to this extreme.

I agree that we should probably slow way down and try to reassess/reallocate our resources before we start anything new. And I really don’t understand how we can afford foreign aid when our own domestic resources are so badly hurting.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by Captain_Catface:


6. We’re in debt several trillion already, lets hold off on this for now… It isn’t needed to this extreme.

I agree that we should probably slow way down and try to reassess/reallocate our resources before we start anything new. And I really don’t understand how we can afford foreign aid when our own domestic resources are so badly hurting.

Twilight, one of the reasons//excuses I've come up w/ regarding these "foreign aid" programs is that they are nothing more than pure BRIBARY.

Maybe a form of bribary in order to have a military base in their country....we have lots of them.

Maybe some fom bribary in order to extract some resorce. We did//do this in countries that had//have huge natural, raw materials. Give the "aid"(bribe) to the nation--basically propping up a puppet regeime and protecting it w/ American military,,,, or "hardware" supplied by us--that ensured//still ensures big business are able to ROB that nation of its resources.

Much resistence to this outright theft by the "revolutionist" was demonstrated by the slogan "Yankee Go Home":http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie-synopsis/the-20th-century-with-mike-wallace-the-us-in-latin-america-yankee-go-home/

_This documentary, part of the 20th Century With Mike Wallace series from CBS News and the History Channel, examines the state of America's past and present relations with Latin America. Narrated by series host and CBS News correspondent Mike Wallace, this episode gives the background of some of the most prominent U.S. involvements in Latin America, including the construction of the Panama Canal in 1914. Since this time, the U.S. has continued to involve itself in the politics of Latin American countries, under the claim that American interests are at jeopardy and need to be preserved. Some of the more recent examples of U.S. involvement in Latin America have come under fire for being less a protection of American interests and rather more an act of a powerful, forceful nation. 20th Century With Mike Wallace features interviews with Dr. Robert A. Pastor of the Carter Center in Atlanta, who has helped in negotiations with Latin American leaders in the past._

And we "wonder" why the U.S. isn't looked upon very favorably by other nations....tsk, tsk, tsk. If we think of ourselves as being the "policeman" of the world....then we are a "dirty cop". And, sadly...this force is used to do nothing more than make even more money for the already wealthy....who have the money & clout to "convince" Congress that it is in the best interests of America if they "play ball" w/ this extortion of a nations wealth.

It is wealth-transfer at its "finest" and ugliest.

 
Flag Post
Twilight, one of the reasons//excuses I’ve come up w/ regarding these “foreign aid” programs is that they are nothing more than pure BRIBARY.

Maybe a form of bribary in order to have a military base in their country….we have lots of them.

Maybe some form bribery in order to extract some resource. We did//do this in countries that had//have huge natural, raw materials. Give the “aid”(bribe) to the nation—basically propping up a puppet regeime and protecting it w/ American military,,,, or “hardware” supplied by us—that ensured//still ensures big business are able to ROB that nation of its resources.

Karma, I don’t often agree with you, but I do here, except for the big business going in to rob/rape the country. I do think the money we give countries are bribes for one reason or another. Even when we supposedly send “humanitarian aid” it never gets to the people and stops at the dictator level. I agree that we are just slipping money to those dictators under a guise our people will accept.

 
Flag Post

@Scoop

Sorry for the delay, I actually got some sleep last night!

1. I don’t understand what you’re trying to get across here.
2. You can lay this out however you want. The numbers are there. And we won.
3. I have no way of disproving/proving this. And thus, I don’t know if I can take your word for it.
4. Yeah…you don’t seem to understand. There’s only ONE COUNTRY I care about right now. And that’s the US. And the shit Obama wants to do over here is make healthcare a mandate. Not an option.
5. Look at the picture again. Does not mention exclusively emergencies.
6. Fair enough. But here’s another.
http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff.html

  1. The point? You cite a link identifying the ‘best hospitals (from memory) in the world)’ How do the authors decide which are the best hospitals? By looking at the size of their website and the number of links they have (70% of the ranking criteria)! These things have absolutely nothing to do with how good a hospital is or isn’t… suitable criteria would be available facilities, staff to patient ratios, average wait times, staff expertise, patient satisfaction, post operative infection rates, etc.

    Their argument is akin to ‘Skoda have the biggest website with the most links’ therefore they make the world’s best car – i.e. it’s complete bull excrement.

  2. You currently have the world’s no.1 facility (undisputed). I don’t know how they derived their scores (mentioned as that’s all that seems to matter to you) but you’ll have noticed our tiny little island had 3 of the top 5 and the following 20, mostly American, were all on a par with each other… (side note: I suspect, if one were to include other states with social healthcare many of those American Universities would be pushed out).

    In other words, despite not having your lauded financial incentives we do more research and development per capita for less financial incentive than you do – we win.

  3. Yes, you will… Doctors/hospitals don’t tend to have their own websites from which I could pull any supporting evidence and they’d more than frown if I were to walk in and start photographing the notices plastered on the wall which state, in precis, For routine matters you can book an appointment up to three weeks in advance… emergencies (e.g. if you wake up ill and need to see the GP/nurse) can call in and see someone the same day (they have an open surgery in the AM and/or fit you in amongst existing appointments if you’re too late for the AM slots).

    Additionally we have a 24hr ‘emergency’ GP surgery facilities (for when it’s outside opening hours and urgent, but not so urgent that you’d go to the ER) who will see anybody and a 24hr medical advice line.

  4. We tend to read between the lines – e.g. you don’t tend to need stabilising if it’s not an emergency of some kind so all that sign indicates to me is that they do nothing but comply with the law… assess, treat to stabilise if required (e.g. an emergency), transfer if appropriate… Now, if they had a sign up that said something to the effect of ’don’t worry about it, we’ll treat anyone for anything’ it may be more compelling.

  5. Another interesting read… not that I know anything about Clinton’s exact proposals, against which the author was railing, it seems he raised some potentially valid points (depending on the accuracy of his assertions concerning the constitution) as well as several completely inaccurate generalisations…

Example:

The answers are obvious. The newfangled rights wipe out real rights — and turn the people who actually create the goods and services involved into servants of the state. The Russians tried this exact system for many decades. Unfortunately, we have not learned from their experience. Yet the meaning of socialism (this is the right name for Clinton’s medical plan) is clearly evident in any field at all — you don’t need to think of health care as a special case; it is just as apparent if the government were to proclaim a universal right to food, or to a vacation, or to a haircut. I mean: a right in the new sense: not that you are free to earn these things by your own effort and trade, but that you have a moral claim to be given these things free of charge, with no action on your part, simply as handouts from a benevolent government.

How would these alleged new rights be fulfilled? Take the simplest case: you are born with a moral right to hair care, let us say, provided by a loving government free of charge to all who want or need it. What would happen under such a moral theory?

From the top – Doctors/nurses (as that’s who we’re talking about) are not servants of the state, they are employees (with the same, if not better, employment rights as anyone else). Also they’re not confined to only work for the state. Simply having ‘universal healthcare’ does not preclude a private sector.

The claimant of the ‘free healthcare / haircut / vacation’ does not receive said service for free. Sure they don’t pay at the point of delivery they pay for it across their lifetime through the taxes they pay on their income and, warning: UK centric example, on the taxes raised on ‘sin products’ (tobacco, alchohol, etc), etc.

Haircuts are free, like the air we breathe, so some people show up every day for an expensive new styling, the government pays out more and more, barbers revel in their huge new incomes, and the profession starts to grow ravenously, bald men start to come in droves for free hair implantations, a school of fancy, specialized eyebrow pluckers develops — it’s all free, the government pays

Umm, no, just no… People visit the doctor/hospital (barber? weird choice for an analogy but hey) when they need to. They are only prescribed medication or further treatment when they need it (not when they want it). As an employee, the doctor (barber) is paid a salary (rather than charging per patient): New income likely to be lower, per patient seen, rather than higher. Cost to the government therefore remains relatively ‘constant’ in per capita terms. Additionally, in a state funded system, central buying allows for greater negotiation with suppliers: if, for example, one hospital can buy a saline drip for $1 per unit and a consortium of hospitals could buy the same for $0.90 a unit (bigger order) how much could be saved on a county/state/national level with ever increasing order sizes? (obviously made up numbers just to illustrate the point).

Elective procedures, ‘hair transplantation’ (nose jobs, breast enhancements, etc), are not usually covered by universal healthcare provisions and so this part of his argument is completely disingenuous. Such procedures form the backbone of the private sector.

‘School for fancy eyebrow plucking techniques’ (umm, medical school + specialisation?) develops… umm, you don’t already have large medical schools? Teaching hospitals? Doctors can’t choose to specialise in one field or another? Or simply to go into research? They can here!

Additionally in what way are more, good, medical schools are a bad thing? Sticking with your current system for a moment… more schools means more competition which lowers training costs for the prospective doctor. More doctors means more competition which means lower costs for patients and hospitals. Lower costs for hospitals means lower insurance costs, which should mean lower premiums to the benefit of all.

 
Flag Post
@Donseptico 1. Ah, ok. Now I see what you're getting at. Fair enough. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26794291/#.T3syxevjZRg I was unable to find a credible site that would accurately measure the rankings of the world's hospitals. However, I would like you to read that. I thought it was very interesting, as it showed the problems with your system and my system as well. 2. Actually no... http://www.psoriasis-cure-now.org/medical-research-funding-level-by-country-world-psoriasis-day-challenge/ We do a hell of a lot more research and development. 3. Then show me the websites. I don't live in the UK. You do. 4. Read the sign again. It says you can receive an appropriate medical examination as well as other forms of treatment. It is not narrowed down to just emergencies. 5. Yeah, well here's another: http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2012/04/03/memo-to-the-supreme-court-health-care-is-not-a-right/ EDIT: Fuck textile.
 
Flag Post

Use tinyurl scoop. (or another url shortener of your choice)
Too many hyphens breaks textiles.

I know from the few guides, and miscellaneous things I have posted on here with lots of links; there is a very low threshold of hyphen quantity until the textiles will break.

 
Flag Post

Yeah, textile is a pain ;)

1. Was an interesting read… I’m glad I’ve never claimed the NHS was perfect, supporting only the principle… in fact I think I suggested a better model may be the German/Swiss ‘Hybrid’ (if I didn’t, I meant to) ;) I think the most pertinent part of the entire article was “Complaints about health care straddle both sides of the Atlantic, of course.” You do hear in the press, from time to time, a ‘horror story’ of someone’s experience in hospital, a worldwide phenomenon… obviously, given the circumstances (hey you’re only there because something is seriously wrong to start with) once things go wrong, they can go catastrophically wrong.

2. Dunno where they got their figures from… according to our own government central funding for medical and biomedical was circa £2.6 Billion ( don’t read the whole thing, it’s boring as hell ), with further funds in excess of £1 Billion ( link ) donated to research funds by charities/individuals… with a population of around 60Million, that’s £60 per head… $95 at today’s exchange rate. Given the vagaries of exchange rates we’re probably both right (assuming the US average is still $100 you, presently, spend slightly more per capita, at other times we spend slightly more than you).

3. Didn’t I say our doctors / hospitals don’t tend to have websites? Unfortunately this means there aren’t any I could provide you with. Unless… he says thinking a moment, there are any news stories around regarding the opening of the new out of hours service thing… lemme go check into that (it was several years ago, so may no longer be available)… can’t photograph… would probably have the police called on me :/

5. Will be interesting to see what the Court says in a few months time. An aside, do you not find the language used (by both sides of the argument) to be completely inflammatory… or is the considered the norm over there? Nobody seems to want to find a middle ground and I can’t help but wonder why that is… Why, for argument’s sake, can’t they just act like adults, evaluate the evidence, have their debates, reach a decision and act accordingly? (aside from the fact that they’re politicians).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Twilight, one of the reasons//excuses I’ve come up w/ regarding these “foreign aid” programs is that they are nothing more than pure BRIBARY.

Maybe a form of bribery in order to have a military base in their country….we have lots of them.

Maybe some form bribery in order to extract some resource. We did//do this in countries that had//have huge natural, raw materials. Give the “aid”(bribe) to the nation—basically propping up a puppet regime and protecting it w/ American military,,,, or “hardware” supplied by us—that ensured//still ensures big business are able to ROB that nation of its resources.

Karma, I don’t often agree with you, but I do here, except for the big business going in to rob/rape the country. I do think the money we give countries are bribes for one reason or another. Even when we supposedly send “humanitarian aid” it never gets to the people and stops at the dictator level. I agree that we are just slipping money to those dictators under a guise our people will accept.

LOL….do ya NOT "believe that a business “community” that will send American jobs overseas wouldn’t take a “second world” country rich in raw materials and “make deals” w/ those in power—or create regimes (by helping defeat one not “friendly” to American business)—that would give them said riches for a penny on the dollar (in world trade prices)?

Once a business has propped up a puppet dictator and is heavily entrenched w/ equipment, etc. in that country…AND, has America “needing” the products those raw materials have provided….THEN, should them damn “peasants” NOT appreciate their very inheritance being robbed from them and take up arms & become revolutionaries trying to defeat said dictator….THAT IS WHEN those American businesses “appeal” to the U.S.Govt. to “intervene” and save that dictator…..all so the flow of resources isn’t interrupted.

In other words: a bully-business goes into a country, begins making deals to get its “goods”, worms its way into having//establishing political power, uses the American Govt. to be their “enforcer”…..all so they can become filthy RICH.

THAT sounds like a damn fine business plan to me.

 
Flag Post

I’m not going to say some businesses don’t take advantage of other countries because some of them do. However, those countries sometimes get tired of those businesses and throw them out. The oil companies in Russia come to mind. Walmart is fearsly against unions, but China told them they would go union or they could get out…they went union. Businesses can only bully so far and the country will expedite their exit from the country.

 
Flag Post

Occupy Update: http://occupywallst.org/

They are occupying a vacant church building and are refusing to be evicted.

An argument from George Reisman, the author of the book Capitalism A Treatise on Economics, said that if occupiers are allowed to use a premise without the consent of the owner, they would violate freedom in general.

I agree with him, if occupiers want to send a message and created change they must maintain themselves in order. If they support anarchy I would believe that their agendas are not genuine.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Sleepallnight:

Occupy Update: http://occupywallst.org/

They are occupying a vacant church building and are refusing to be evicted.

An argument from George Reisman, the author of the book Capitalism A Treatise on Economics, said that if occupiers are allowed to use a premise without the consent of the owner, they would violate freedom in general.

I agree with him, if occupiers want to send a message and created change they must maintain themselves in order. If they support anarchy I would believe that their agendas are not genuine.

You know what goes really well with illegal occupations? Riot shields. Riots shields and tear gas. Effective on 99% (yes, pun intended) of protesters.

 
Flag Post

Now that was funny scoop.

 
Flag Post

NO,,,what is funny is how a particularly ill informed segment of the “conservative mind” is so imbued w/ such shallow understanding of American social-economic politics that they TRULY DO SUPPORT THAT WHICH IS NOT IN THEIR OWN BEST INTERESTS.

This is NOT “funny” in a ha-ha sense….it is simply a pathetically SAD ironic “funny”. I deeply luv to watch this faction of the"conservatives" so merrily follow the pied pipers who do the bindings of the 1% by failing to observe the obvious.

This link cites some rather obvious previous manifestations where taxes on the “rich” were used to REBUILD AMERICA. In fact, America’s very birth was a result of some extremely strong PROTESTING (even though Tories//Loyalists fought them….ya know, the ones that benefited by being lackeys of Great Britain) that had the backing of many of American wealthy. Not only did many of the forefathers give generously of their time, they contributed great amounts of $$$$.

President Eisenhower, upon seeing just how effective good roads were in Germany during WWII, set America to building our interstate highway system. Previous to this, highway transportation was handled by the states….with the “poorer” states having extreeemly pathetic roads. It sure as fuck wasn’t capitalism that built the roads in order for the investors to reap the $$$$ benefits. Today, this system of highways is HUUUuuuuGLY ESSENTIAL to trucking that brings up products at cheap prices.

I always say: FOLLOW THE MONEY if ya want to know the reasons for economic woes….basically a disastrous disparity of incomes
It certainly isn’t really all that hard to see where it is going at this time….the “information age”. The “rich” don’t give a fuck about America….they already have homes elsewhere. When America is finally “sold off” to China, et al….these guys will simply “move on” to countries that are “pleasant”.

Yeah….THAT sure is “funny”.

 
Flag Post

Some of that is partly true (if often distorted), but it would take some serious naivete if you think rich liberals (and their firms) are radically different from rich conservatives. Goldman Sachs is the epitome of politically-connected super rich corporations, who always get bailed out at taxpayer expense when they get in trouble, and guess who was the biggest donor to Obama’s campaign?

The German road system was largely built by the Nazis. Eisenhower thought such a project would be useful for military purposes. Most people think it’s extremely useful, but it comes at severe cost and caused many side effects. It did contribute to the growth of chain stores and restaurants, and helped them against smaller local competitors. Whenever government undertakes projects like this, it gives unfair advantages to some at the expense of others – usually helping large firms. You appear to have an inkling of this, yet I get the impression that somehow you’re advocating more government interventions.

 
Flag Post

Karma, I try to be patient with you and your naive ranting, but sometimes it is mentally tiring. You constantly rant about conservatives this and conservatives that as if we are a completely different race of people. Well we aren’t. Just as Aaron pointed out, liberals own just as many businesses as conservatives and there are just as many wealthy liberals as conservatives. You seem to overlook this when you are ranting.

Most, all if I recall, of our forefathers were actually broke when we finished our war with England. Some even gave their lives for our independence. I don’t think you will find many who have a lot of bad things to say about them. They accomplished an amazing feat.

We have followed the money in evaluating our economic woes. It led straight to Wall Street and the banks. Now you are suggesting all of those bankers and traders are conservatives, just because they are rich? I would suggest there are just as many liberals on Wall Street as there are conservatives. Could it possibly be many of them were made rich by Obama’s giveaway? Were the bailouts actually a payoff for their support of Obama’s election? It is sure funny that he gave the trillion dollars to the wealthy bankers while letting the rest of America go to hell in a hand basket.

I think we all know where you come from politically. You are as far left as you claim we conservatives are right. I recall a post where you admitted to being a socialist. This is fine for you, but it just doesn’t wash with the masses old fella. We are a Republic and I’m pretty sure all of these people are not really ready for another Germany of WW2 fame.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by AaronB:

Some of that is partly true (if often distorted), but it would take some serious naivete if you think rich liberals (and their firms) are radically different from rich conservatives.

Show me where I’ve said the 1% doesn’t include “liberals”. YOU have “distorted” my point that it is the “conservative” MOSTLY that will vote again their own best interests. The greed that creates & perpetuates the 1% really isn’t exclusive to any party…other than that of GREED itself.

Goldman Sachs is the epitome of politically-connected super rich corporations, who always get bailed out at taxpayer expense when they get in trouble, and guess who was the biggest donor to Obama’s campaign?

What major factor of business wouldn’t do as much as possible to “buy” as much “good will” as is possible under the circumstances….even if they aren’t the most “favorable”?

The German road system was largely built by the Nazis. Eisenhower thought such a project would be useful for military purposes. Most people think it’s extremely useful, but it comes at severe cost and caused many side effects.

Yes, Ike saw the military usefulness. BUT, I imagine he wasn’t considering we would need it for that purpose. He LIKELY did see it as a solution to the very problem I pointed out.

As far as the “side effects” syndrome…tell me what new technology is any different. The auto severely lessened the “horse-&-buggy” industry. In turn, robots building cars put auto workers out of jobs. Air transportation of passengers severely limited train & ocean liner industry. This really isn’t what new technology develops….it IS, however, about who owns//controls it and where THAT money (profit) goes.

Obviously, the biggest “squeaky wheel” (huge corporations) will get the grease. To do otherwise is to court economic disaster…Too Big to FAIL. Too powerful to control in order to prevent such economic “needs” for those huge “money pits”.

It did contribute to the growth of chain stores and restaurants, and helped them against smaller local competitors.

And this is new? I’ve already pointed out how,,regardless of who//how such “growths” happen…there will always be “casualties”. AND, when there are no regulatory oversight….those very mega-businesses most certainly will do everything in there power to eliminate the competition. One in particular.

The saga of Standard Oil ranks as one of the most dramatic episodes in the history of the U.S. economy. It occurred at a time when the country was undergoing its rapid transformation from a mainly agricultural society to the greatest industrial powerhouse the world has ever known. The effects of Standard Oil on the U.S., as well as on much of the rest of the world, were immense, and the lessons that can be learned from this amazing story are possibly as relevant today as they were a century ago.

Standard Oil Company was founded by John D. Rockefeller in Cleveland, Ohio in 1870, and, in just a little over a decade, it had attained control of nearly all the oil refineries in the U.S. This dominance of oil, together with its tentacles entwined deep into the railroads, other industries and even various levels of government, persisted and intensified, despite a growing public outcry and repeated attempts to break it up, until the U.S. Supreme Court was finally able to act decisively in 1911.

The same thing has happened to the family farm. They are pretty much gone now…corporate farming is the norm now. I’ve watched 6-generation farms being liquidated because the current farm generation//owner just couldn’t compete….new technology was too expensive for a typical small farm. Ever increasing technology most certainly will have some very negative influences on someone. THAT is the simple: action//reaction effect. I desire to see that such transformations are accomplished in ways that aren’t so financially devestating to ppl.

Whenever government undertakes projects like this, it gives unfair advantages to some at the expense of others – usually helping large firms.

Yes, most certainly…I think this fact is pretty much obvious….and, getting even more “obvious” because of protests like OWS. BUT, OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE here is who is behind “government”? Who today has the real influence on Congress? Who can afford PAC’s, etc.? The little guy out there certainly is ill-represented.

You appear to have an inkling of this, yet I get the impression that somehow you’re advocating more government interventions.


YES….but, only is said interventions are to correct the inequities established by laws that are beneficial to the rich….who are typically supported by “conservative factions”. I give a shit what name the rich go by….it is their penchant to take the lion’s share of what America produces. A govt. bought & paid for by them certainly isn’t going to be of much use to the 99%.


My “inkling” tells me that—in order for the U.S. economy to survive—we need a govt. elected that has enough COMMON SENSE to see this and do what is necessary to do some modern day trust-busting

Something contributing to my “inklings”. And this Big business (and the govt. they “own”) has become uncontrollable….GREED is their manifesto. Doing whatever is necessary to enhance the “bottom line” makes screwing the workers that make that money merely a “process” by which business is done.

Aaron, as ya can see from my links….our current soico-econ situtation really isn’t that much different from a century ago. It’s just bigger and faster now….AND, much more dangerous.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Karma, I try to be patient with you and your naive ranting, but sometimes it is mentally tiring.

AND, the ideology YOU promote isn’t "mind-boggling?

You constantly rant about conservatives this and conservatives that as if we are a completely different race of people. Well we aren’t. Just as Aaron pointed out, liberals own just as many businesses as conservatives and there are just as many wealthy liberals as conservatives. You seem to overlook this when you are ranting.

First, how about YOU dropping the “rant” thing? Insulting my positions in the ad homemin manner really is childish. Shall I come down to YOUR level and start calling everything YOU say is “ignorant spewing crap”? Attack what I say….don’t just insult it. IF you would read what I actually write instead of filtering it through your particular biases,,,,YOU might understand that what I said in response to Aaron is what I believe. The biggy being: I don’t care what one calls the 1%…I call them GREEDY. AND, when a HUGE greedy kid comes to a group of much smaller kids….guess who ends up w/ all of the “candy”?

AND, stop it w/ the exagerations (hyperbole). How in hell do YOU see what I’m saying as: ""conservative being a completely different race"? Such pap doesn’t really support your point…it does demonstrate a desparate need to “dress up” a weak arguement.

AND, I heartedly dispute your belief that: ""…there are just as many wealthy liberal as conservative".

Most, all if I recall, of our forefathers were actually broke when we finished our war with England. Some even gave their lives for our independence. I don’t think you will find many who have a lot of bad things to say about them. They accomplished an amazing feat.

It must be your penchant to “knee-jerk” oppose most of what I say to be something YOU “must” disagree with. I think my position on this is that the forefathers DID do such contributions.

We have followed the money in evaluating our economic woes. It led straight to Wall Street and the banks. Now you are suggesting all of those bankers and traders are conservatives, just because they are rich?
NO, I am DEFINITELY NOT saying that. BUT, as I said above….I well imagine such is what YOU understand me to have said.

I would suggest there are just as many liberals on Wall Street as there are conservatives.

Suggest away….PROOF would likely be a better point.

Could it possibly be many of them were made rich by Obama’s giveaway? Were the bailouts actually a payoff for their support of Obama’s election? It is sure funny that he gave the trillion dollars to the wealthy bankers while letting the rest of America go to hell in a hand basket.

THAT is merely YOUR “conservative” viewpoint. I think there are opposing ones that understand these machinations in a much different light.

I think we all know where you come from politically. You are as far left as you claim we conservatives are right.
YOU don’t really know that….no more than I know where the “WE” conservatives stand…..I don’t know all that much about YOU. AND, if YOU will carefully ready my posts, you’ll see they are delivered as a: If the shoe fits….

I recall a post where you admitted to being a socialist. This is fine for you, but it just doesn’t wash with the masses old fella.

AND, obviously YOU aren’t able to let your bias-filter remember that I said there are MANY forms of socialism

There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism.3 They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.4 I haven’t yet offered MY variation….so, don’t YOU be doing it for me….?

BUT, why should I be surprised by how YOU manage to twist, spin, manipulate what others say in order to support your opinion?

We are a Republic and I’m pretty sure all of these people are not really ready for another Germany of WW2 fame.

The only difference between a (German) dictatorship and a plutocracy is the SMALL number of ppl at the extremely elevated top. THAT is what the OWS is all about….exposing how our country has become a strong plutocracy.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by AaronB:


The German road system was largely built by the Nazis. Eisenhower thought such a project would be useful for military purposes. Most people think it’s extremely useful, but it comes at severe cost and caused many side effects.

The Nazis actually did not build that much roads. Not more than the governments immediately before them and actually significantly less than the boom phases before World War 1 and during the reconstruction and the German economic-wounder years after World War 1. Even today there is more roadwork being done.
What the Nazis did was effectively use the building as propaganda. By calling bigger Roads already being made since 1921 “Reichs Autobahnen” and planing to build a bigger Network connecting Berlin to everything(which was never finished, some unfinished parts can be found standing alone in German forests)

Also while the building of road-networks such as in Germany might profit some more than others. The advantage for all has generally been greater than any cost. (There are some exceptions but those usually have to do with building roads for the wrong reasons)

 
Flag Post

Like bridges to nowhere? LOL
AND, of course, there are hundreds of other examples of money given to a particular Congress person for spending in their state…..in “payment” for his/er support on other issues.

THAT is simply how our “system” works now.

 
Flag Post

karma – by railing against conservatives who do the bidding of the 1%, you’re implying that it’s conservatives and not liberals who are the problem; when really it’s bipartisan. I responded to the “against self-interest” argument on the last page. If you think Wall Street and the mega corporations are conservative; here’s the list of Obama’s top donors. The way this site calculated it, University of California (which is a whole system) surpassed Goldman Sachs; but JP Morgan, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Microsoft, and GE are right up there. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

There is a massive difference between new technology and government picking winners and losers. We can explain this as market entrepreneurs vs. political entrepreneurs. On the market, a firm must serve consumers. It must give them what they want at a better price than the other guy. Its competitors lose business if they don’t keep up; but that’s what keeps the market vibrant. The alternative to protect the less competitive firms would be to tax the public to support the firms whose products they don’t want, or to outlaw progress. It should be plain that this is absurd.

Political entrepreneurship, on the other hand, does not serve consumers. Special interest groups (particularly big firms) get government to help them out or harm their competitors. The market gets distorted, and public gets screwed. Politicians gain more power to the detriment of the little guys, and the benefit of the so-called 1%. Your faith that government will help the little guy against the big firms has little basis in logic.

Ah, the case of Standard Oil – misrepresented for 100 years. Standard Oil lowered the price of gas to consumers by about 90%; raising the living standards of the entire world. It gained a huge market share by outperforming its competitors; but it never drove them all out of the market – and by the time the court decision was handed down, it was already losing market share. The outcry to break up Standard Oil was largely coming from its competitors: this was a case of political entrepreneurship. This, like every other anti-trust case in US history, cannot be shown to have actually helped consumers. On the contrary, anti-trust is a handy way for politicians to “encourage” big firms to be generous political donors (Microsoft, for example, was largely staying out of politics until its case). It also allows inefficient firms, rather than shaping up and serving consumers better, to instead get politicians to hassle or break up their more efficient rivals.

Johnny – from what I’ve read, the governments before the Nazis had the idea for a massive road system, but didn’t actually finish that much. It was certainly used for propaganda purposes.

As to the advantage being greater than any cost, whether for Germany or the US, that’s actually quite hard to state with certainty. It requires considering what Bastiat called “that which is unseen.” What could have been done with all those funds if they had been used for other purposes? What kind of transportation system might a free market have designed? How would all the rest of the economy developed if the government road systems hadn’t given massive advantages to some people and firms (such as chains)?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Karma, I try to be patient with you and your naive ranting, but sometimes it is mentally tiring. You constantly rant about conservatives this and conservatives that as if we are a completely different race of people. Well we aren’t. Just as Aaron pointed out, liberals own just as many businesses as conservatives and there are just as many wealthy liberals as conservatives. You seem to overlook this when you are ranting.

Most, all if I recall, of our forefathers were actually broke when we finished our war with England. Some even gave their lives for our independence. I don’t think you will find many who have a lot of bad things to say about them. They accomplished an amazing feat.

We have followed the money in evaluating our economic woes. It led straight to Wall Street and the banks. Now you are suggesting all of those bankers and traders are conservatives, just because they are rich? I would suggest there are just as many liberals on Wall Street as there are conservatives. Could it possibly be many of them were made rich by Obama’s giveaway? Were the bailouts actually a payoff for their support of Obama’s election? It is sure funny that he gave the trillion dollars to the wealthy bankers while letting the rest of America go to hell in a hand basket.

I think we all know where you come from politically. You are as far left as you claim we conservatives are right. I recall a post where you admitted to being a socialist. This is fine for you, but it just doesn’t wash with the masses old fella. We are a Republic and I’m pretty sure all of these people are not really ready for another Germany of WW2 fame.

Actually, JHCO, if you want to know the truth…liberals have, on average, 6% more money than conservatives…so this idea that all conservatives are evil, rich, greedy assholes is, quite frankly, just plain stupid. But shhhhhh…Karma doesn’t want us to know that lol.

Oh and Karma…you’ve totally lost it with this last rant.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Like bridges to nowhere? LOL
AND, of course, there are hundreds of other examples of money given to a particular Congress person for spending in their state…..in “payment” for his/er support on other issues.

THAT is simply how our “system” works now.

Damn, you are screwing with my head. I agree with this too.