((sorry, Safari does weird things when editing here))
Printable View
((sorry, Safari does weird things when editing here))
((See above!))
Meso - that is completely untrue. Direct Labor costs are only a small percentage of the total cost of of product. In some products such as discreet electronics, the labor costs are essentially zero.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mesotech
And one of the fundamental tenets of lean, and this is always in taught in the first five minutes of any lean course is that "lean is not intended to reduce the number of employees."
I have shown twice, at two major US businesses that the cost savings in direct labor costs by offshore scaling are negligible. The increased inventory costs incurred by the time and resources it takes to deliver to the shipping agent, containerize, load, ship, unload, de-container, redistribute and then distribute are higher than the savings in labor unless the volumes are significantly higher than most products encounter.
Proof positive of the above - Asian auto manufacturers have moved their production to the US to REDUCE their costs. You don't really believe they did it out of the goodness of their hearts now, do you?
The reason(s) offshore products are sometimes cheaper are
1) The foreign companies invested in modern manufacturing facilities and we didn't
2) Foreign government subsidize exports as a way to build their Commons.
3) Some foreign companies have labor practices that are considered illegal and violations of human rights.
And the cost of quality goes way up when you discover defective products in a supply chain that is measured in weeks instead of days. Shipping aircraft part manufacturing offshore for example, is just stupid. But yet it happens because the previous administration made deals for cheap loans to finance the deficit they created.
The current climate of offshore scaling in purely the result of Reaganomics which is not a means of creating new wealth, but redistributing existing wealth.
Let me explain. Wealth is created when raw materials are exploited. For example, oil in the ground is worthless, as is iron ore. Or gold. But pull it from the ground, add value to it by processing it and making objects of commerce and wealth is created. Or growing crops. We call that ( or at least use to ) "adding value".
In the "Services Economy" of Reaganites, No wealth is created. It is merely passed around. (Interestingly, the term Value Added was transferred from production workers to managers by Services Economy disciples!)
What happens next? The middle class moves from earning personal wealth by value adding jobs to living on credit.
OK - but think about it - since we are not actually creating wealth, where does the money they borrow actually come from?
And there is the devil in the details. To feed the beast, the previous administration de-regulated and de-regulated to allow the money suppliers to do things that were just plain...dumb.
For example - the secondary, or "derivatives market. It now exceeds the entire GDP for the planet and is based on ...drum roll please... absolutely nothing. That's right, nothing more than a house of cards. It used to be illegal, but thanks to the Reagan groupies, it's considered good business.
Or allowing home lending banks to become "financial institutions" which again was illegal not too long ago.
Actions such as these, and many more - I can go on but won't bore you - are what led to the financial meltdown. Add in trade policies that encourage offshore scaling of any new technologies and you have the makings of what is happening in California, New York, and soon coming to a state near you unless things change.
While we were legislating easier ways to redistribute the wealth by making "air deals" over here, China, Indonesia, India, ... were all investing in new, modern production facilities that were more efficient than decades old US plants. Instead of tax breaks for the rich, they put the money into the Commons. The Commons, now there's an antiquated concept.
What the Reaganites fail to realize is simple:
It is not government taxes that are killing the US economy, it is government policies that are. And these failed policies fall squarely on the shoulders of Republicans, with a little help from Clinton.
He he, we payed more taxes than any nation on earth. We were headed for the state bankrupcy. We had riots over EU referendums. We haven't any natural recourses worth speaking of (a bit oil in the North Sea and our precious heads). We are 'round 5 million people. We do the Afghan War with the highest casualty rate pr. capita of any nation (last time I heard of it) We have one of the most open economies on earth and have had that for a long time. We are EU members and our currency are effectively the Euro (constant fixed excange rate).
I see one major difference between DK and USA: We agree on things. Most likely because we are small enough to be pretty homogenous, but I'm not so sure why. Bottom line is: We do agree. There are generally consensus throughout all parties though we usually have coalition governments.
On my recent trip to the US we (a Dane and an Australian) discussed US traffic in cab. Since the Australian are used to left lane traffic we came up on discussing roundabouts, bout expressing less than love for this little thing. Then the cab driver came into the discussion with the statement of the holiday: "We hate them as well - it's the government that makes them".
That was one of two remarks that kept repeating throughout our holiday as a very in-joke. "It's the government, you know". (I won't say what the other remark was! NOPE!)
BTW, kudos to all fo keeping this fairly civil to this point. Speaks highly of our little community here.
What's the over/under post count for when we envoke Godwin's law?
My apologies for being preachy at 3 a.m. Actually tbh Ive been a bit tentative about even reading the thread because the stuff I wrote wasnt particularly well thought out or lucid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Offshore Angler
However, I still do dismay about the heartlessness I perceive in these discussions that tries to remove the human element to make it a fiscal discussion (not even necessarily an economic one). I do appreciate the humor in your folk law, though.
As for your second one, I can't agree with that one at all. Money isn't a good judge of how much you know about economics. The super, super rich people in the beginning were made up largely of a. those rich from nepotism and b. engineers and now it's business people.
I went to school with business people for 4 years. They don't know shit about economics. Frankly I feel like I dont know shit and that's what I actually studied. But still, I can find you a person with millions in the bank that they themselves earned who couldnt tell you the difference between John Maynard Keynes and Bertil Ohlin.
BTW if I may make a point, I would never suggest that individual economic behavior should be regulated in the way that fundamentalists believe the government should regulate behavior. I think that people should, within rules preserving transparency and limiting the ability of people to outright screw each other, do whatever the hell they like. I would never tell a person what to do with their life, instead I would leave that discussion for what to do when tax funds are collected.
In short, the only thing I really disagree with is the attitude that some people are less deserving of help because they are perceived to be "lazy" or "stupid" or "criminals" which permeates some discussions that usually end in one person suggesting that such people "get a job".
It has been shown that the longer unemployment benefits exist, the longer it takes people to find work. I'm sure the same holds true for other types of assistance. Makes perfect sense to me, but I don't have a degree in anything.
A correlation exists between longer unemployment benefits and the amount of time it takes for the average individual on unemployment to find work. This is true.
There is no implied causation behind this, and it is entirely inaccurate to speculate that one causes the other. I don't have a degree in math but this is basic statistics.
I can think of about 5 reasons why this would be caused OTHER than abusing the windfall, which seems to be what you're implying. None of my 5 reasons are any more supported by the evidence than yours is, though.
CS, I have had guys come by my shop inquiring about a job, telling my they would be availlable on a certain date, because that's when unemployment runs out.
Also had guys I worked with at the mine, and were laid off, asked them for some temporary help. Said OK, but needed cash so as not to interfere with unemployment.
Not statistics, just experience.
Well, the correlation is statistically defined. I was agreeing with you there.
The scientific method exists for a reason, and if you choose to employ statistics in the course of an argument, then you must acknowledge how and for what purpose those statistics were gathered. Anecdotal evidence has no bearing on population-wide policy.
In fact, I'd argue that politics, and its operators, the politicos, use anecdotal evidence precisely so that they DON'T have to defend their decisions. It would be good practice to hold them to task for this habit, but using the same methods in trying to define a new paradigm is nothing short of lazy. Unfortunately, you and I both know that a majority of the political punditry and statistics gathering out there is motivated by this same desire to erase real measurable information.
The problem with polls and anecdotal evidence is that -- while both sides secretly understand they're malleable and unreliable as proof of anything -- neither side wants to quit using them, because their malleability also makes them extremely convenient and useful when you want to *appear* to prove a point. So Side A is never going to refute Side B's poll or anecdotal evidence by acknowledging that polls and anecdotal evidence are often useless as representations of the big picture...because Side A wants to reserve the right to point to its own poll or anecdotal evidence somewhere down the road.
(Not too far down the road, usually, since a whole industry has risen up to meet the market for polls designed, not for anything approaching scientific accuracy, but to elicit specific answers that support specific ideologies.)
I can prove statistically that the more miles I drive the more my tires wear out. Statistics are great if you understand thinks like CpK and Standard Deviations, Medians and Means.
Unfortunately, Correlations ARE NOT statistics.
So when people on talk radio pull correlations out of their butts and present them as statistics, they only demonstrate
1) how uneducated they think their audience is and,
2) how willing they are to manipulate the truth to play to people's emotions in order to get Arbitron shares.
Sadly,more people today can sing the Oscar Meyer Wiener song than tell you their senators and congressmen are.
You gotta love righties - how they hold the lead in such erudite strongholds of intelligence including Missouri, Texas, Arkansas...
Now, look at the other guys, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, California... dare I say places where the per-capita educational level and might be just a tad higher than the former's.
Well that just proves my old bosses point about "educated" folks, and common sense.
Did you remember after the Bush/Kerry election, we find out that the "rube" from Texas made better grades in college than the highbrow senator from Mass.
Yeah, whatever Dubya's grades were, he was an absolutely horrible President. Absolute disaster.
That's the key point to remember about Dubya: disaster as President. Don't need to know a thing more about him, really.
I've known so many, many people who got excellent grades and were utterly lacking in common sense or even intellectual curiosity.
George W. Bush is as Texan as I am; which is to say only slightly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
Reality is he's another (really, really) rich kid from New York who managed to get into grad school with a laughable 2.75 gpa. Let's just say that if I applied to economics masters programs with that GPA I'd be laughed at. Luckily I dont snort coke and party all day which makes up for my grandfather not being a senator.
And common sense is no substitute for education. I would think that of all things, that would be common sense.
As far as unemployment benefits and job seeking go, this article neatly sums up recent research on the matter and is quite readable:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...ing-austerity/
At this moment and time the republican economic platform is the same as the one from the Reagan white house and that is literally not based in economic study. Similar to their view on abstinence, 25 years later they still want to just lie to people and hope it turns out ok. And if you look at their bank accounts, it sure has.
How many times will it take before the average person wakes up and realizes that Keynes was right?; you can either do nothing and let it work itself over a very long, very painful period of time, or you can attempt to mitigate the situation with spending.
Here is what you need to know: consumption is the only thing that drives the economy. Everything else comes from consumption. Investment, saving, borrowing; if people dont buy, other people dont make. Very simple.
Even though these people are unemployed, they still need to buy food and housing. Beyond that, they still need to buy food and housing or theyll die.
What happened nationally with unemployment benefits was truly terrible. A purely political move that demonstrates clearer than ever that the people we elect will leave us out to die for a little bit of money.
8 years of Republicratic rule got our nation where it is now not our current leadership. What do some of you folks need for proof that big spending GWB and companies policies almost destroyed our economy?
Thank God they didn't have another year?!
Look, I'm not affiliated with any one party, I'm a free-thinker and I sure don't need to check with the right-wing radio talk show host of the week for my talking points....but it is what it is and the right-wingers had control just long enough to all but ruin our nation. From an independent objective observer, the facts speak for themselves.
And Sarah Palin...........really ?
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...sion-5409.aspx
This has been out for quite a while, maybe the more "educated" among us can decipher its meaning. Unfortuneately, it's not from one of those "conservative" colleges, or it could be dismissed outright.
http://www.salon.com/technology/how_...ew_deal_workedQuote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
Unemployment was greatly overstate by the people who did that study (they didnt count any of the people hired by government works programs which was several million persons) and I might add that any similar rise in prices and wages would have little to no effect on real wages (real wage = wages adjusted by price level).
No effect on real wages = no effect to either side of the economy
no effect = number of workers hired does not change
Also, that article has a lot of speculation. They claim that if there hadn't been a new deal, then maybe unemployment would have rebounded faster. That is not supported by facts, nor is it disproved.
Ultimately, running budget deficits will stimulate the economy when it is under performing, all else being equal, without fail. Yes there are consequences but it's frankly good policy when there is a crisis.
When it's not a good idea is when you have a budget surplus and the economy is working fine. What's an even worse idea is doing it for 8 straight years when prices can adjust in about 6 months.
tl;dr article is explained away by counting people employed by government projects as employed.
p.s. many economists, even at hippy schools, are pretty conservative. that includes harvard, yale, princeton and cornell as well as berkley, standford and the like.
That article is actually pretty funny.
It states that low prices were the cause of the Depression.
Not even close. It was caused by deregulation of stock market trading which led to a collapse of our financial system. Sound familiar?
Talk about revisionist history! See, faith in bullshit articles clearly written with a political bent show how the right uses pure lies to stoke the emotions of people who are shall we say, not well enough informed to process the data and make a conclusion regarding its validity.
Fuck - even Stephen Hawking was wrong about black holes. And people with some smarts processed his papers, applied critical thinking and challenged him. But if some fat-ass drug addict, draft dodging right wing talk show jackwacker says something, people won't question it, they put it on a bumper sticker and treat it as political dogma.
The way out of the depression was via public spending, but not by giving away money to banks like GWB did. The way we were brought out was by public works projects that took the government money and invested it into the Commons. The alphabet agencies were the beginning of the infrastructure that laid the groundwork for the expansion of our economy in the 50's and 60's.
The Great Depression is the single most studied and well understood financial even ever. For these two dudes to come along 80 years after the fact and put forth unsubstantiated opinion is just silly.
I've know a lot of guys on the Dean's list that had both spades too. Sorry elicross, but that argument always comes across as sour grapes.Quote:
Originally Posted by elicross
I've also met a lot of uneducated people who can't pour piss out of a boot. So what?
Sad, but true. It is amazing how many folk "tune in" to these clowns to get their political direction??? :wah: Their lies, misdirection and propaganda has no bounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Offshore Angler
Well, this Glenn Beck thing may be a tipping point.Quote:
Originally Posted by muddy
He is advertising his rally "At the steps of the Lincoln Memorial."
Uh, no. The National Parks Service has no plans to grant him a permit for that. The only permit the organizers have applied for is across the street, and last I heard, that was not approved.
But oh, it gets better. Mr. Beck has asked everyone to donate to a foundation to care for the families of Special Ops soldiers via his website for the rally. Closer examination of the fine print shows that only excess proceeds after the cost of the rally will be donated. Using our warriors as bait and then keeping the money for promoting your personal agenda - disgusting.
Yes, by using the SOWF as bait he also makes your doanation a tax dodge. So he's finding a cute way to screw the very government he claims he cares about. These people sicken me. This is what "infotainment" has spawned. People who openly lie and misconstrue the facts for the almighty dollar.
From his website
"
This rally is compliant with IRS Rules and Regulations found in IRS publication 557 and IRS publication 4221-PC. For tax purposes a gift to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation is deductible in accordance with Internal Revenue Service's tax laws. No goods or services were provided in exchange for your contribution. The purchase of Restoring Honor Rally merchandise is not a donation to SOWF, but all net proceeds from the sale of Restoring Honor Rally merchandise is being donated to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation. All contributions made to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation (SOWF) will first be applied to the costs of the Restoring Honor Rally taking place on August 28, 2010. All contributions in excess of these costs will then be retained by the SOWF. Tax ID 52-1183585.
"
Thanks again Ronald Reagan, for getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine because the "Big Three" were bashing you.
I could show you my own transcripts and maybe convince you it's not a case of sour grapes...but that would be missing the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Offshore Angler
Bill brought up the old line about Dubya getting better grades in college than John Kerry; my only point was that grades are not a reliable measure of common sense, of intellectual curiosity -- or how someone will perform in the real world. As junior pointed out, George W. Bush's performance as president is actually a pretty good argument in support of that point.
It seems both you and red thought I was denigrating education. I can see how that might appear to be a valid interpretation, if you took my post out of the context of the thread -- or even if you simply missed the two posts that went immediately before it. But that wasn't my intention at all.
Oops, sorry then elicross.
Huh? I don't think I've actually addressed your posts at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by elicross
Bill made an exceptionally vague reference to something someone else said and I responded to that.
Honestly I do think there is some validity to statements amounting to you can't have everything. Honestly I'm pretty dense in some areas.
Sorry, red. I'd forgotten that Bill used the phrase "common sense" in his own post, so when you wrote that "common sense is no substitute for education," I thought you were referring to my post in that part of your message.Quote:
Originally Posted by redb
My bad!
Sorry for not getting back sooner, but we got busy at the shop.
You really don't have to argue among yourselves though.
Did you read where the new financial bill will require minority and women quotas in all aspects of implementation. I wonder what aspect of economic theory requires that sort of discrimination to "fix" our system.
Bill, give it a rest. You are looking sillier and sillier. Please give us the House number for that bill. What are the quotas in percentage of total? Is this a proposed law or a passed one?
Do you have those answers - or is this just propaganda and you are shilling it?
Let's get the facts straight before we start a debate. That's what thinking people do, correct?
Just for grins, where did you get your information?
Also, laws in this country are not passed purely on economic merit. There are social aspects as well. In fact, the societal aspects tend to take precedence over financial concerns. Some might even argue that they are written "In order to create a more perfect union." I take it then, that you are against any laws that give minorities a helping hand? Yes or no?
Let's have less unsubstantiated generalizations and more facts for your arguments. This ain't a Tea Party rally here, it's an open. thoughtful discussion amongst citizens.
And let's all be adults here. When people accuse Obama of being a "socialist" we all know what that is code for. It's ugly and uncalled for.
The ones that state that women make .75 cents for every dollar a man makes for the same work and that the two primary factors in success in life are socioeconomic status and maternal education.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
Efficiency is a fine argument to make, but sometimes equality is a better one.
Look, I got rejected from a state school because of quotas in the Texas higher education system. I have felt it first hand. But honestly, I wasn't that mad then and I'm not mad at all now. It all works out in the end and some kid who really struggled instead of having Mommy and Daddy give them everything got a shot to go to a good school with lots of money for the first time in his life. I had that for 12 years excluding preschool.
That kid needed it more than me, which I think is demonstrated by the fact that I ended up in a really good graduate school regardless.
So honestly, I think it's fine.
OSA, you've gotta get more news than the Obama networks provide!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../2549091/posts
Redb, men and women who do the same jobs are paid the same. There is the market demand for lineman, that is different than the demand for secretaries, and there is a salary difference. I know of no place currently, where the same job pays differently. We have even lessened the physical requirements for some jobs so women can qualify. (Firefighters, law enforcement, etc.)
The fact that women as a group earn less is not because of unequal pay for the same work.
Says the guy who gets his "news" from freerepublic.com!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
Sounds like a good plan to me.Quote:
The mission, it says, is to assure “to the maximum extent possible the fair inclusion” of women and minorities, individually and through businesses they own, in the activities of the agencies, including contracting.
I don't see how you could honestly say you don't support that.
Actually for nearly every position there are far more qualified individuals than positions. It's true, you might have problems trying to find people to run 15 million dollar machines that require special training and a professional degree, but this is an argument built on a bad assumption.Quote:
This latest attempt by Congress to dictate what “fair” employment means is likely to encourage administrators and managers, in government and in the private sector, to hire women and minorities for the sake of appearances, even if some new hires are less qualified than other applicants.
LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by elicross
You gotta love it.
Bill, the bill, which is not yet law, according to the unsubstantiated or foot noted article proposes (but fails to name it by House number LOL!) , and I quote:
"Section 342 sets up at least 20 Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion."
and then the article says, *GASP*:
"Each office would have its own director and staff to develop policies promoting equal employment opportunities and racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of not just the agency’s workforce, but also the workforces of its contractors and sub-contractors."
In other words, no mentions of quotas are given, no numbers of any type, and then the usual opinion-as-fact analysis of consequences.
Oh my God! Run for the hills! It's socialism!
Bill, I'm sorry, but for crying out loud, please READ and THINK about the right-wing propaganda you are spouting. It's nonsense plain and simple, directed at low-information voters who make emotional rather than intellectual decisions.
So, I ask you, in a public forum - are you against laws that give equal opportunities to all people, regardless of race and gender? I most definitely am not!
Fair inclusion would mean equality, not special treatment. Seems anything else is unconstitutional.
I don't favor one person over another because of or in spite of their genetic make up, and anyone who does is a racist!
Well, then you make no sense, since what you expound is exactly the language and intent of the bill as reported. WTF?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
I can tell you where he is coming from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Offshore Angler
Imagine a foot race at a track. A conservative or libertarian sees that the starting lines are tiered and thinks it's unfair because they, for whatever reason, cannot or will not understand that each runner runs the same distance.
In real life it's the sort of the opposite; they see programs which have no sort of "affirmative action" as being fair because to them that would be like each of the lines starting in the same place. They dont get that some people have to run a longer race.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15689761...-Overhaul-Bill
Look, you guys can find this stuff as easily as I can. Here is the proposed "compromise" bill, all 1100+ pages.
As for setting quotas for or against any other person is wrong. Equality means what is says everyone is equal, whether 4 legs, or 2.
Why are quotas necessarily wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
For that matter, why are socialism or taxes?
No really, if we look at population statistics and see that ethnicity A makes up 10% of the population, what is wrong with having a quota that says if you want government money at least 7% of the people working on the project must come from ethnicity A.
Again, no one is going to put quotas on space shuttle pilots or deep sea engineers where the talent pool is sufficiently small enough that doing so would be detrimental.
All quotas are bad? I think you fear the word more than you understand the concept.
“ Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Article 1, 14th amendment to the US Constitution. Could you point out the part that says we should deny anyone, and favor another.
I thought it was much more fun to let them argue amongst themselves.
Redb indicated I had no right to be in this discussion so I figured it was best to just let him and his ilk go happily along with their armchair Ivory Tower discussions.
Meanwhile we face ever increasing government intervention, fewer opportunities, more angst on the part of the real people who provide and benefit from those EVIL free markets.
Remember, Reagan was wrong, Bush 43 was a dolt.
That's all you need to know to join this crowd.
Ignore all that you see around you.
Obama is making everything better!
Pelosi holds the keys to your success!
Reid is the best of all, supporting stars like Dodd and Frank, who "go after" those
evil corpowations who don't like anyone!
<cough>
Bill, love you like a brother.
Best to leave "them" alone I guess.
At least we can agree on the gear that makes the music...for the most part.
If you protect the continuation of the economic oppression of nearly all peoples not white and male then while you have not done so according to the letter of the law you have done so by the spirit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
Alright, quotas are unconstitutional. That's not what I asked though. What is inherently wrong with using numbers when the talent pool significantly dwarfs the positions available?
Differences between resumes can be very, very small. But having the wrong name or living on the wrong side of the tracks can knock you out of the hunt for a job.
only in America do people scoff at intelligence and disparage training.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cygnus X1
dupont doesnt hire people with high school chemistry to make chemicals and we shouldnt "hire" people with 4 year degrees in journalism to be vice president or degrees from unaccredited law schools with overtly Christian doctrines to work in the Justice Department. I'm actually inclined to talk with some of you about economics because you happen to know more than most of our law makers (especially the republicans.
Oh and Reagan was wrong. The man cut taxes and spent like he was Wesley Snipes. Are you one of those people who thinks the Clinton economic boom was because of Reagan? That's laughable. I already said that prices change in about 6 months, I was trying to imply that long term in economics is shorter than what most people think it is. Clinton owes NOTHING to Reagan or Bush 1. I MIGHT buy that the 2001 recession was on his shoulders but honestly people on the "right" want to blame Clinton for the current one.
Supply side? LOL what a crock of shit. Those people took the money and kept it. It didnt trickle down. Look at a chart of income disparity for the proof. It would have been better to just take the money and give it to homeless people.They would have gone and bought food and booze and cigs and the money would at least have been in the economy. Rich people dont spend like normal people, though they spend more money in absolute terms but they spend less compared to what their income is. Reagan may not of known it, just ask Nixon what he thought about him. But his economists knew it was a lie. Arthur Laffer was a bold faced liar but boy it sounds good if you make a shit ton of money. Maybe it sounds good enough to believe it.
W/ever. You can't convince people that something is the truth if they aren't open to believing it.
Know that the "ivory tower" is trying desperately to save your home and job while "average Joe republican senator" just wants to drink a beer with you while lobbyists line his pockets.
Redb, I'm gonna have to look into charging you tuition, and you definately should get some money back from the school you attended, as they didn't do their job.
Every one I know, looks for the best possible, qualified help, as that will help their business grow. The idea that we have to hire someone brown, because last time we hired someone red is crazy.
The guy I apprenticed to almost 40 years ago is very brown and has a very thick accent. Many of our customers only spoke spanish, but he didn't think hiring a gringo would hurt his business, he needed someone who could fix things. As a matter of fact, many customers followed me when I left.
No amount of affirmative action will help folks who are unwilling to help themselves, they continually have their hand out, if someone keeps putting something in it. You should always apply the "teach a man to fish" rule, as it is what made this country great, and will again if folks will take responsibility for themselves.
Took it out before it was quoted.Quote:
Originally Posted by redb
You have no idea what my education is.
I should not waste my time on you.
The very attitude that you spread your pearls of institutional wisdom indicates you have no real experience to "teach" people who have lived the life, stuck their necks out, and extended a REAL hand of charity.
You bait and troll, bait and troll.
I shall simply wait for my own banning?
At some point I can't just sit back and watch.
Keep it up.
Talk to me after you get a life.
I see you've added an edit to your last post, I'll help you out with that also. I was trying to buy another house in the last of the Carter years, 1979. The best interest was 21% for a 20 year note, 18.5% for a 30. I went to work for the mines in 1980, in 1982 we were all sent home.
Reagan forced the congress to enact tax relief, but also wanted budget cuts. The democrat congress allowed the tax relief, but kept spending, this prolonged the Carter misery, but the tax cuts started business back up,(people investing their money, rather that giving it to the government), and the mine called me back in april 1983. I was already working for the power company, so I didn't go back.
In 1986, we had saved a little money, and decided to buy another house, now the interest rate was 12%, and when we closed the deal in early fall, we settled on 11.25%. I know, it fell much more after that through Reagan's, and Bush 41's policies, even though they were having to fight a democrat congress, but my wife and kids got the bigger house we needed.
History is our friend, when we are faced with the same delima we have something to guide us, whatever your politics, you have to recognize the facts. And don't think for a minute that Clinton wouldn't have acted just like Obama if he hadn't lost the congress. That's why they're trying to stuff all the left agenda through before fall!
Bill, the adjective form of "Democrat" is actually "Democratic."
Oh, and the word you want is "dilemma."
I won't charge you any tuition for the above. :D
well it's good that your personal experience contradicts every legitimate economic study conducted on the matter. whites get hired more, men get hired more, period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
no one is making you do anything. take government money, hire in a way that reflects demographics. you are free to not take the money and continue hiring your good old boys.
I dont care what education you have, your attitude is exactly as I have suggested.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cygnus X1
Ivory tower, intelligentsia, ivy league used as an adjective, all are the same; code words for the embrace of ignorance. Period. You know the first George Bush insulted the man he ran against by saying he was an ivy league elitist! Funny, because he went to Yale.
So far, every thing you (and Roger) said boils down to is you don't like what I'm saying, you don't agree, and your solution is to suggest that I just don't know.
What it is I don't know, I haven't exactly figure out. What I think it is is the anger of living a life of pain. Anger at other people, anger at myself, anger at the things around me for not working out quite the way I planned.
If so, there is nothing to be gained from those experiences. There is nothing to be gained from that so called "life". Having a shitty time doesnt make you smarter, it makes you colder.
Because what I see, is that the older people are, the angrier they tend to be. Not always, but often. The ones that aren't, tend to be pretty rich. And not the type of rich people who got there through hard work, but the ones who just sort of lived a nice, pleasant life.
For example, republicans tend to be pretty angry people, but the really rich ones really aren't. They are just voting for the people who serve their interests because that's the sort of person they are. Oh well, can't help that.
I think I'll pass.
I'm curious Cygnus, how exactly you think your attitude helps people who are unemployed?
Why don't you share with me your education in matters of economics and public finance? I'm curious to know. I won't respect you less, or anyone else, for your training in the field. After all, this site is so kind in the way it allows me to participate and learn from discussions about something I know much less than I would like about (i.e. guitar playing).
edited: wow what a bad place to have a typo lol
Eli, that is a recent development of the party, to try to isinuate something they are not. No one uses the term democratics, as you would republicans, both plural uses of the singular. The singular is democrat, so the plural has to be democrats. You can't have it both ways! Please go back to the party's beginnings and determine the proper spelling.
Sorry I didn't put enough "m's" in my word, but I only went to college at night for 4 years, so I only have a sophmore english education. But you need to do better than a missing "m" to get tuition payments. Maybe if you could work with my oldest public educated grand daughter on her spelling, (and writing), we could have a deal.
You're confusing your parts of speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
singular noun: a democrat
plural noun: many democrats
adjective: a democratic idea
adverb: a democratically elected man
Redb, let me tell you the facts, currently there are more white males in the population looking for work, this may change, depending on whether we get the border closed. This alone accounts for the majority of people looking for work getting the job. Nothing else matters! No conspiracy, no racism, just the majority finding employment.
Bill. No one uses the term "Democratics" because the noun is "Democrat." I'm not suggesting you should use "Democratics" as the plural noun form of the word. Read my post. If I had meant "noun," I wouldn't have said "adjective."Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
The adjective from of "Democrat" is and has always been "Democratic." The word "Democratic" isn't a recent invention of the Democrats, for God's sake. In fact, the word "democrat" comes from the word "democratic." It's what they call a back formation.
The fact is, the practice of calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party" and calling things from that party "Democrat" things instead of "Democratic" things is a relatively recent invention of the political Right, practiced mostly by partisan hacks like Glenn Beck. It's intended as an insult to the Democratic Party -- or maybe just a way for the Right to get around using the word "democratic" every time they refer to the party or anything related to the party.
It's every bit as childish as "Freedom Fries." But it's got longer legs because it's subtler. If using "Democrat" as the adjective instead of "Democratic" is an honest mistake on your part, it only reveals how little you've read or listened to political discourse outside of the fringe Right.
Well, the missing M wasn't the only thing wrong with your spelling of dilemma. But you're right, no tuition is due because I learned how to spell that word in public school. Same place I learned the difference between a noun and an adjective.Quote:
But you need to do better than a missing "m" to get tuition payments. Maybe if you could work with my oldest public educated grand daughter on her spelling, (and writing), we could have a deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
So to sum it up then, all Democrats (Carter, Clinton, Obama) suck and are evil and all Republicans are great?! :dude
This is the reason a can't stand discussing politics with completely partisan people. They ignore facts, revise history and simply regurgitate what ever nonsense their radio God tells them to. How can you have a debate with folk like that? :wah:
and again...Sarah Palin...really???
Eli, let me get this straight, should the singular form of republican be republic? I'm confused, as for 40 years, the voting machines said democrat, and republican, only in the last few years have we been told that they are democratics.
So politician X is a member of the democratic party, but he singular is a democrat. however politician Y is a member of the republican party, but he singular is not a republic? Doesn't make sense, I think politician X is a democratic, and politician Y is a republican. Or better yet politician X is a democrat, and his party are democrats.
All this is not to be confused with democracy, as the democrat(ic) party, in it's platform has a minimun number of minority quotas set aside for minority, gender based, delegates to it's conventions, so the idea of democracy, (one man, one vote) doesn't apply.
What if they changed their name to the affirmative action party? Truth in advertising!
Bill, please.
Democrat is a Greek word, and Republican is a latin word. You can't do what you're trying to do.
Is there a point to this? You are trying to argue the minutiae of something you dont fully understand.
Democratics is NOT a word. Look it up if you dont believe me.
If someone has told you that the Democrats now want to be called "the Democratics" in the past few years, please show me where. I've never seen it suggested by the Right or Left that the plural noun form of "Democrat" is supposed to be "Democratics" -- but maybe that's because I don't read freerepublic.com, where it appears you can pick up a whole alternate reality to the one most of the world lives in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
That's right. Not all words work the same way, Bill. I find it hard to believe you've never noticed this before, but hey -- welcome to the English language.Quote:
So politician X is a member of the democratic party, but he singular is a democrat. however politician Y is a member of the republican party, but he singular is not a republic?
Muddy, you're not listening, I'm only giving facts as I know them. Unless you look at both sides, you are the partisan people. Don't we all remember how Bush 43 tried to be the compromise president, and let Ted Kennedy write the education bill, which all dems denounced. Many the republicans started acting like democrats, throwing money away like crazy!
The cure to our problems is to curb spending, and to take a pro business agenda, which will put folks back to work.
You guys have been bad mouthing the (conservative) ideas of the T.E.A. Party, but they are the future of this country. Not republican, nor democrat, but fiscal conservative. Her in my little town, the were ahead of the pflag float,(yeah in my little town) in the 4th of July parade. When people starting yelling, and throwing trash at the pflag float, the T.E.A Party marchers fell back to both sides of the other float, waving the flags. I guess that demonstrates the intolerance of the horrible T.E.A Party folks.
http://people.virginia.edu/~ted9t/CY...mmy-carter.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
I'm willing to accept that statement, if you are willing to admit you love Jimmy Carter and of every president we had in the 20th century he was the greatest economic genius amongst them.
This guy:
http://teacherweb.com/SC/SCGSAH/Godfrey/Reagan.gif
spent money like it was going out of style
So did this guy:
http://raisingrrl.files.wordpress.co...rge-w-bush.jpg
If you're unwilling to admit that Jimmy Carter is a genius, perhaps you would like to offer an economic explanation as to why we should cut government spending when demand is down.
Cutting government spending, by definition, reduces employment, all other things being equal (i.e. nothing else changing). Please reference the aggregate demand and supply curve. So I would like to hear your explanation as to why focusing on businesses would increase employment more than the loss from the cut in spending.
Will businesses hire more? Not if people aren't going to be buying things. Please demonstrate how people will be buying more stuff.
I personally believe (as do most economists, even many Austrians/Chicago schoolers) that the best course of action is to spend money employing middle class Americans on infrastructure projects to boost demand for consumer goods and slowly ease back into normalcy.
That normalcy would involve a raise in tax rates for the very wealthy in the future as well as some adjustment to spending. But if you do that NOW, effective demand goes down the shitter.
This thread is going nowhere.
Or maybe it is
All spelling and grammar issues aside, I'd like to address one question that was asked above and not answered.
What is wrong with socialism? Nothing, for a socialist nation. However, the United States is a Republic, and to change that would mean it would no longer be the United States in anything other than name. The United States is also not a Democracy, it is a Republic. I personally oppose any attempt of anyone to try to change that. If you want to be a socialist, then be one, in a socialist nation. If you want to live in a Democracy, then do so, in a nation that is a Democracy. If you desire to live in a Republic (and millions of people still do, even worldwide as evidenced by the sheer number of people attempting to gain entrance into this country) then adopt and abide by its principles. Simple stuff really.
I remember liking Carter when I was a kid and before he was actually elected. During the course of his term in office, I discovered just how bad a President he actually was. Reagan was in my experience the best President that I can remember. After him, I see only Progressives that have each attempted to change the nation into something it was never intended to be. Some were more progressive than others, with Bush 41 being the least of the bunch, yet he was still a progressive in many ways. Clinton would have been far worse if the nation had not realized what was happening and overturned Congress to help curtail his progressive agenda. I guess in that way, Clinton was probably one of the great presidents we have had in a long time because it took him less than 2 years to lose the Congress to Republicans that had been held by Democrats for several decades. President Obama looks to be performing just as well in that regard.
As for the Affirmative Action issues mentioned above, I am of the opinion that everyone starts life equally, and they either get better or worse from there. Perhaps there are some social issues that drive people in one direction or the other, but I do not see those issues as brick walls that they could not have avoided if they had wanted to do so. If someone is living "in the projects" and can't seem to get a break, it is because they choose to not leave "the projects". I have been through several economically depressed areas in this nation and don't remember seeing any armed guards or walls keeping anyone in, or keeping anyone out. Self determination seems to be the only thing they lack in order to make their lives better. You can blame education, but there are far too many self educated people that have been extremely sucessful, so I don't buy a poor education as an excuse. Neither do I see race and a valid excuse, for the same reasons, there are many people of ALL races that have self improved their lives without having to change the color of their skin (with the possible exception of Michael Jackson, whom I recall actually had some skin condition that attributed to his skin color change). It is my opinion that if people stopped treating people as being different, then they would stop being different (in the definition of being oppressed, economically deprived, or whatever "social deficit" that keeps getting tossed about as an excuse to brand them as "different").