same ol' left-wing drivel

Post #15,351 by tablizer 10/26/01 11:23:56 PM Reply	same ol' left-wing drivel Although I do agree that "spending plan" should be putting money in citizen's hands and let them spend it into corporations, instead of giving it directly to coorporations. However, it is true that most coorporate money goes to payroll and equipment purchases, and not to the pockets of owners. The profit margin is around only a few percent in most cases. Thus, the difference in approaches is small at best. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #15,353 by boxley 10/26/01 11:37:23 PM Reply	what the fsck? Left wing drivel? Huh? Lets see, how much corporate earnings have you seen in the last little bit. How come airlines want 15 billion dollars and lay off people who dont get shit? Let the Corps make money by all means but as a taxpayer I dont want to support both them and the unemployed. I dont mind feeding the poor, but some company that spends more in toilet paper than my salary over the last ten years doesnt need my tax dollar to keep operating. Let the rich people support their favorite corporations like I support my favorite charity. In 1979 if you had spent 1k dollars on budweiser or spent 1k dollars on lucent shares you still would have some beer left. thanx, bill tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
Post #15,370 by a6l6e6x 10/27/01 1:42:07 AM Reply	I'm with you on this one, Box. Billions of dollars to IBM and GM and such for Alternative Minimum Taxes they have paid in the past years is for the birds. These are the companiess that can't stand a loss for a quarter and are laying off people left and right. Bull! Fortunately the Senate will stop that shit. At least the money going to the unemployed will be spent and plowed back into the economy and not on a joint venture in Malaysia. Of course, this aspect of the piece I cited is a bit OT. Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Post #15,426 by ben_tilly 10/27/01 1:56:02 PM Reply	Very simple The airlines spent several years bleeding like crazy while fixated on the belief that which ever one of them survived with the biggest network would reap huge profits in the end. Then they lost 4 big expensive planes, saw insurance rates go through the roof, and saw the size of their market shrink drastically for the indefinite future while getting hit with needs for tightened security which will raise expenses. Lemme see, how does this work? You are already running at a loss. You take a direct hit to the pocket. You lose most of your business. You are going to have to run at more of a loss to encourage people to fly again. You aquire a ton of shiny new security-related expenses. Yes. The airlines have a pressing and immediate need for more money. A bunch are going to go under even with it. I don't think that the 15 billion just went to a few deep pockets. I don't see any dissonance between the request and the ongoing problems. I do think that it was given out stupidly though. Had I been in charge of the federal cash I would have paid for all 4 downed planes in full, told the insurance companies not to raise their rates, paid the airlines for shutting down service for 4 days, and offered the rest of the funds for offsetting newly required security measures. But I would have stopped the corporate welfare there. Sure, it would be nice if the government had the resources to bail out everyone who is in trouble. But it does not. (Loose fiscal policy in good times means you don't have it when you need it. Well, right now the US needs it, for instance to pay for a step-up in security and the military...) Of course had that happened you would all be complaining that the airlines got 5 billion or so and yet are closing their doors left, right, and center. But that is how capitalism works. It doesn't matter how noble your aspirations are, if you lose sight of the fact that it is your job to make a profit, you don't deserve to stay in business. And sometimes shit happens to the best of us. Cheers, Ben
Post #15,429 by bepatient 10/27/01 2:53:38 PM Reply	Distribution network For the 2 weeks following the disaster, travel agencies were operating at crisis levels with little or no revenue. That is a thin margin business to begin with. They need a share of that 15 billion. How >that< would get distributed is beyond me...there's so many of them. Most just want guaranteed short term loans to cover short term cash flow. I'll agree, though, there's alot of money going to places that it should not be going. Airlines needed the relief...but to think they were being well managed before the crisis is a mistake. They were spending alot of time and money bitching about airport capacity shortages..when they were running smaller planes more often on rotes that should have had bigger planes less frequently. Who in God's name needs 18 flights a day non stop Philly Chicago. All half full or less (except the rushhour morning and evening flights) I better stop before I get further into a rant about airline mismanagement. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #15,449 by boxley 10/27/01 8:45:36 PM Reply	The only problem with your distribution model is its reasonable. The govt picking up the costs of the planes and attendant lawsuits (they are inevitable) is a taxpayer function. Ground a taxi pay the day charter rates for all craft grounded, supply interest free loans to remodel the business plans. Repeal jetfuel taxes and gateage for 6 months. All of that makes too much sense. thanx, bill tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
Post #15,378 by pwhysall 10/27/01 2:57:39 AM Reply	Left wing? Like most Americans, you wouldn't know a political left wing if it jumped on the table, painted itself purple and starting singing "Political left wings are here again". Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #15,400 by boxley 10/27/01 8:02:48 AM Reply	I know it when I see it Skank in NY is a lefty tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
Post #15,408 by wharris2 10/27/01 8:28:29 AM Reply	Re: Left wing? Simple, anyone who likes Windows 2000 must be left wing. (grinning ducking rolling) (for the humor impaired, this is a wink nudge to Peter's constant pushing of Win2K.) "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #15,414 by marlowe 10/27/01 9:03:51 AM Reply	Political left wings are here again? [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|You're sure there's no K5 cabal?] [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #15,415 by tjsinclair 10/27/01 9:11:16 AM Reply	But remember...if you want something done right... kill Baldric before you start. Tom Sinclair Speaker-to-Suits
Post #15,418 by a6l6e6x 10/27/01 10:27:42 AM Reply	So right. :) No mention of any leftist idea in the opinion piece was identified by Bryce. Just a gratuitous insult. Friedman is knowledgeable about the issues and is not pushing some wing's political agenda. Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Post #15,427 by gtall 10/27/01 2:03:58 PM Reply	Friedman is not really left wing He wrote a book...errr...the Lexus and the Olive Tree. In it, he points out that he's a social liberal but very much believes in a free market hence is (and my abhorrance of welfare for the corporations). In his latest articles, he's been anything but a typical left-winger. He claims the "Arab Street" is something he's never seen although he has extensive ties to the mideast, meaning that people who claim the Arab Street is against us do not know how to define it. He also is pretty adamant about not stopping for Ramadan, and for killing bin Laden and the Taliban quickly as the only way the U.S. will get any respect in the Arab world. Those strike me as not being particularly left-wing of the Misty Eyed, One Worlders. My own take is that he's a throwback to a 1950's liberal, and he's very clear-headed and no-nonsense when it comes to American foreign policy. He's been one of the first media people (although I think of him as more of a political scientist) to express the notion that we should be exporting the American Revolution to Arab countries regardless of the short term consequences. I think he's right. The Arab countries that wish to live under Shar'ia Law deserve to (and I particularly wish it on the stupid Saudis, bin Laden putting the royals up against the wall wouldn't be all bad). The ones that do not, will do better economically. Incidently, Thursday's Wall Street Journal had an article on Bahrain. They are a majority Shi'ite pop. ruled by Sunnis. Iran has at various times claimed it. During the 1990's, they had a rebellion by Muslim radicals and put it down with some killing. In 1999, the Top Banana got called called home to Allah and one of his relatives took over. That fellow released all the political prisoners, and started giving the Shi'ites more political control. They have a way to go yet but the Shi'ites are now not so radical, they have a large American base on the Isle, and they have Eastern European waitresses in skimpy clothes. I think any Arab country that allows Eastern European waitresses in skimpy clothes is an Arab country on its way to True Enlightenment. So there is hope for the Arabs...at least the rich ones. How that would work in Egypt is anyone's guess. Gerard Allwein
Post #15,431 by a6l6e6x 10/27/01 3:16:57 PM Reply	Good comments, Gerard. "...he's very clear-headed and no-nonsense when it comes to American foreign policy." That was my take. He's not one of those instant experts. Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Post #15,448 by gtall 10/27/01 8:00:52 PM Reply	Yer right He's not an instant expert. He covers economic matters, but those invariably lead to political ones. His book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, is an examination of the tension between globalization (in economic terms) and local customs. Most nations want global markets and global trade. What they do not necessarily want is the foreign intrusion on local customs. But one cannot have one without the other. This (he considers) is the central tension between the West and the Emerging Economies (to be PC or not to be PC? What the hell have they done to my brain?). How a nation answers this central dilemma orients the nation with respect to the West which is hell bent on globalism. Gerard Allwein
Post #15,454 by a6l6e6x 10/27/01 9:06:14 PM Reply	Yep, he's been reporting on Middle East for decades. [link\|http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0201/friedman.asp\|About Friedman.] His reporting in the 1980s for The New York Times from Lebanon and Israel was widely cited and won him two Pulitzer Prizes. Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

Welcome to IWETHEY!