Yes. We can keep "our" money.

Post #347,923 by mmoffitt 9/21/11 8:25:59 AM Reply	Yes. We can keep "our" money. And since our capitalist system does such an outstanding job of equitably distributing wealth, this "keep our money" thing works for all of us, doesn't it? Now, whom do I go to about "my money" that was extorted from me from insurance companies? How about oil companies? Wall Street? How do I get that money back?
Post #347,927 by beepster 9/21/11 8:52:52 AM Reply	Now you get to the point did the oil companies extort it from you? Why did you choose a car over a motorcycle or scooter, or even non gas burning. Why do you drive so much? You don't need to buy insurance either. You haven't been forced to do that until Obamacare. Got any other wonderful examples of your freedom of choice leading you to complain about something? How about keeping the money away from the government that fines companies for hiring, that prices manufacturing out of existence through non-competitive legislation? That can't even get a "new deal" right anymore by spending money on the creation of actual physical things? The gov shares as much of the blame for the polarization of wealth as the system..after all, they are the ones that set (and change) the rules. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #347,937 by folkert 9/21/11 10:45:34 AM Reply	Re: Now you get to the point after all, they are the ones that set (and change) the rules based on what the rich people "contribute" and dictate for. There fixed it for you.
Post #347,939 by beepster 9/21/11 10:48:33 AM Reply	Forgetting It's rich people we, the people, keep electing Thanks for the help. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #347,953 by mmoffitt 9/21/11 1:47:33 PM Reply	We've no choice. In 2008 I didn't vote for any of the usual suspects. I went the extra distance required by Indiana to vote for an "Official Write-In Candidate" so that my vote would be counted (you have to spell the candidate and his running mate's name exactly as it appears on the official write-in candidate list published by the state, but not distributed to polling places or they disregard you ballot in its entirety). The result? The Indiana State Board of Elections *told me they would not count my vote because it wouldn't change the outcome anyway.* The local board of elections did count the write-in's in my county as a personal, non-official favor and let me know that 9 people who voted as I did in my district for the office of president had been officially disenfranchised. So, the choices [SIC] are clear: vote for one of the corporate owned candidates or vote your conscience and have it not count.
Post #347,954 by mmoffitt 9/21/11 2:01:08 PM Reply	You must buy insurance. State law. My choice would be public transit - but it doesn't exist. I drive very little (outside of to/from work and to/from airport) and never when there is another option. Regrettably, the weather does not permit flying the 10 minutes to work very often up here. The only reason there is a tax advantage (if such exists) for the exportation of jobs in this country is because that is exactly what multi-nationals want. Countries don't matter anymore. One of the really cool things about globalization is that companies who used to open up factories in the South because of widespread anti-Union sentiment in order to decrease labor costs and increase the already abundant wealth of the CIEFO's and shareholders is that now those corporations can look the entire world over for the cheapest labor, making themselves even more obscenely wealthy than they already are. Perhaps you're in the millionaire club and are just squealing trying to hold on to the tremendous gains you've made since Reagan, I don't know. Our basic difference is this: If you had to choose between corporations handling your money or the government handling your money, you'd choose corporations. I'd choose government. My reasoning you'll no doubt argue with, but the truth of the matter is the government (prior to Ronnie Reagan and his successors) is answerable to the people, regardless of their wealth. The real crime here is that this is no longer true of our government.
Post #347,980 by beepster 9/22/11 7:59:37 AM Reply	Actually at this point corporations are likely more answerable to the people than government (not a 100% blanket statement as some corps have reached gov status)...and this is true EVERYWHERE now (as you've so noted that our gov has gotten there). The real difference is the profit motive...simply put, a corp wants to spend as little money as possible to get a job done...a government is incented to spend much more than needed to get the job done (fundamental to gov budget process...you must spend everything you get in order to get it again). The only way the people get a say any more is evidenced in north africa at the moment. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #347,991 by mmoffitt 9/22/11 12:20:10 PM Reply	How much is too much is a matter of perspective. The middle class was built by the unions (I don't think that's arguable). From one point of view (one expressed by a good friend of mine decades ago), unions made the production of automobiles in this country "too expensive." My friends exact words were, "You can't pay people $25/hour to build something that you are going to sell to people making $6/hour and expect it to last." But, from another point of view, those Michigan unions raised wages and the standard of living across the state - even in non-union shops. And guess what the $25/hour union employees did with their money? They spent it. That generated demand and a hell of a lot of successful businesses in and around Michigan. The collapse of Michigan's economy is directly related to the collapse of union power. In this light, then, it was not "too expensive" to build cars in Michigan; instead, paying $25/hour to some one to build a car raised the economic activity of an entire region of the country - so it was a good thing that we paid those wages. An analogous argument can be made against your government/private sector spending. What is the goal? Efficiency? If so, what price should the masses pay for that efficiency? If the benefits of cost containment are enjoyed exclusively (or nearly exclusively) by the few, is cost containment always what benefits society most? I'd say clearly not. I expect you to differ. ;0)
Post #347,993 by beepster 9/22/11 12:36:56 PM Reply	Understanding of value to consumers 1) is it unions or government that you like more? Your first story about this and their impact on wages actually makes me think you should lean more in my direction..as thats a perfect example of the people exerting control over corporations...unions cannot take action against govt in the same fashion and are in a much weaker position. 2) If in 1990 I paid $10 for a widget (pc, desk, whatever) and in 2010 I still pay $10 (in constant >or< real dollar terms)...don't I perceive I get the same value? Say, in that time, that the company has been able to change its cost from $8 to 5$ and make more profit...end result, I get the same perceived value and their profit motive has made them more efficient. This is NOT the gov model. The government MUST spend all 10 to make that widget. If they do not, they will not get their $10 the following year. They are >penalized< for efficiency. Even I didn't understand this completely until going to work for a contractor. This behavior is baked into the system. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #347,995 by mmoffitt 9/22/11 1:37:55 PM Reply	If the workers Unite, there is no government. ;0) What I'm saying is that if you are spending the "extra" money on production on "employees and/or their benefits" then spending more is not necessarily bad. Take your example, your $3.00 extra profit per widget goes to the capitalist class who does what with it? Hides it. Tax shelters it or even more likely invests it in another country where labor is cheap, environmental and labor laws non-existent. What happens in the extreme cases? I give everyone an equal amount of money - this is arguably not good, I'll admit that. But your way, one person has all the money. That's worse. Sure, there'd still be an economy, but how much can that one person spend? And how many starve as a consequence? All I'm saying is that the "excess" spent on production is good or bad depending on where that "excess" is spent.
Post #347,999 by beepster 9/22/11 2:57:31 PM Reply	Knew you'd get there :-) if they invest in where labor is cheap, and reduce >critical< poverty, is this not a good thing?..even if it results in someone in the US becoming poor by our standards? (we are now talking holistic, yes?) And if the investment in labor in these areas results in them going through the industrialization that we did in the US last century (resulting in unions, rising wages and bolstering of the "proletariat") are we not even better off? In the US, we have invested in social and safety net programs for years..yet use rising "poverty" statistics as gotchas in election politics...thats what we get from investing in government. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,009 by crazy 9/22/11 5:33:01 PM Reply	Smooth Nicely played. Hey, I can appreciate the beauty of an argument without supporting the scary logical progression.
Post #348,012 by beepster 9/22/11 5:42:23 PM Reply	Re: Smooth almost as smooth as this backhanded compliment ;-) Thanks Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,039 by mmoffitt 9/23/11 9:12:59 AM Reply	That may be the best ... handwaving, glossily produced double-speak I've heard as a defense of the race to the bottom. Why, you make the race to the bottom sound like a good thing. I mean, I get it now. By making themselves ever more obscenely wealthy and pushing down wages and living standards globally, the Capitalist class is actually helping the proletariat. Soon, the working class worldwide will all have the same grovelling level of existence so that they can all equally contribute to the excesses of the Capitalist class. What a wonderful world that will be for everybody.
Post #348,043 by beepster 9/23/11 9:30:39 AM Reply	Now wait just a minute you made a huge deal of the power of the worker being able to better themselves in dealing against corporations, you've made no mention of anything that the government has done to make things better for humanity. Now you recant...by reframing my argument as a "race to the bottom" and saying that the heads of corps are getting even more wealthy, alluding to a position that workers are powerless to stop this (which you spend a great deal of time with exactly the opposite position in the post prior) So it would be better to leave those folks in India jobless and living off of less than $100 per year than to subject someone in this country to poverty defined as living off 90x that number? Which is it? Do you want to bring the >real< bottom up or just ensure that we make things better for the people who already have more than most of the civilized world? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,048 by mmoffitt 9/23/11 10:03:14 AM Reply	"Real bottom up." Nice try. That's not what is going on and you know it. What is going on is exactly what you alluded to in your post -> the American working class is having its standard of living lowered to that of your "poor Indian." If this really were about bringing things like the minimum wage, overtime wages, OSHA protections, 40 hour work weeks, safe, clean working conditions, paid vacation time, week-ends off and all the rest to India that would be one thing. But that isn't the goal. The goal is to have the American worker cooking over a dung pile in his cardboard house (just like the untouchables in India), laboring for the benefit of some one wearing an Armani and driving a BMW in Manhattan. We've had these sorts of people throughout our history (look up "Robber Barons" some time). But the government (prior to its leveraged buyout by Wall Street) and unions used to provide at least some protection from these gluttons.
Post #348,049 by boxley 9/23/11 10:12:12 AM Reply	well other than the fact I buy my dung in bags marketed by Kingston and royal oak but I live in a house built circa 1973 so it isnt cardboard like the new ones, we are not that far off Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #348,055 by beepster 9/23/11 11:00:13 AM Reply	Can't this is where your government comes in. There is no possibility of a US person dropping to that level unless our government collapses. So, since we can't get that bad, and they can only get better, your latest salvo still doesn't fit with your first start into this discussion. And your position is now extremely xenophobic. Who is to say that we should not aspire to the french model, with 6 wks pd vacation by law minimum, mandatory 34 hr workweek...and maybe the average idian worker is in clean working conditions (relatively speaking) compared to living conditions...and possibly working 12 hours a day 7 days a week to support his family is better than the alternative of no work and starvation...and with no work available, there is no chance that working conditions will ever improve. (naturally) Suddenly, the US way is the aspiration, even though out of the other side of your mouth it is a way that needs to be destroyed in favor of all power to government...or all power to workers. And >actually<, what I know is that the BRIC countries (where all of these low cost labor things are built) are now pricing themselves out of that position, because their wages are indeed increasing (just like happened here)...so the real world seems to favor my argument over yours...the US is in no danger of abject poverty as witnessed in other locations, and those other locations are improving because of the global mobility of manufacturing. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,061 by S1mon_Jester 9/23/11 12:16:05 PM Reply	Re: Can't --this is where your government comes in. There is no possibility of a US person dropping to that level unless our government collapses. You have more faith in the Federal Government than I do.
Post #348,099 by crazy 9/24/11 5:50:32 AM Reply	Note: He said "your" He was being sarcastic.
Post #348,098 by crazy 9/24/11 5:48:06 AM Reply	Beep won't be happy until everyone works in a Maquiladora http://www.google.co...+health+violation
Post #348,109 by boxley 9/24/11 9:54:39 AM Reply	only if he runs the Maquilador Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep

Welcome to IWETHEY!