My disdain for the poor.

[loosecannon]

you are so full of yourself.....you grew up rich didn't you.....never had a job in your life....and you pretend to lecture me

Your response is so bizzarre on it's face and so out of context to my discussion that I will let you try it again.

And no I grew up in a military family, worked my ass off for the from the time I was 8 until I was about 40 and have been slowing down since then.

How about you?

[GW in Ohio]

You said it yourself...BAD FRICKIN' CHOICES! It's called personal responsibility. If your choices (and yes, choosing to sleep around and get pregnant is a CHOICE) lead you to a bad situation, tough cookies. I'll help you out, but only if you show enough responsibility to make something of that help.

We are not that far apart. I am for helping people who will take the responsibility for their lives at that point....who will recognize that they're being given a helping hand, a second chance......and apply their own efforts to better themselves.

If at that point, they continue the behavior that landed them in poverty....if they continue to pop out children like you pop toast out of the toaster....if they continue to do drugs, or gamble, or whatever......then I'm for cutting them loose and leaving them to their own devices.

But I know that we've all made mistakes in our lives...made some bad choices.....some of us suffer more than others for the same bad choices.

I believe in second chances. I believe in lending a helping hand through (may my tongue fall out of my mouth for saying it) government programs.

I guess that's why I'm a liberal.

[manu1959]

Your response is so bizzarre on it's face and so out of context to my discussion that I will let you try it again.

And no I grew up in a military family, worked my ass off for the from the time I was 8 until I was about 40 and have been slowing down since then.

How about you?

my response was spot on....if you are going to project opinions onto me about what i do or do not know then turn about is fair play.....growing up military...gee what a burden....how did you every survive the poverty....as for working your ass off....as you pointed out ...Congrats for your successes. But the system is designed to reward you while effectively punishing others who may actually work considerably harder than you do for each dollar they they earn...

[loosecannon]

my response was spot on....if you are going to project opinions onto me about what i do or do not know then turn about is fair play.....growing up military...gee what a burden....how did you every survive the poverty....as for working your ass off....as you pointed out ...Congrats for your successes. But the system is designed to reward you while effectively punishing others who may actually work considerably harder than you do for each dollar they they earn...


first off manu the quote you reponded to wasn't addressed to you, it was addressed to Hobbit, read the thread.

Second I am not the person spouting "disdain for the poor". I am pointing out that disdain for the rich is at least as valid as disdain for the poor.

[manu1959]

first off manu the quote you reponded to wasn't addressed to you, it was addressed to Hobbit, read the thread.

Second I am not the person spouting "disdain for the poor". I am pointing out that disdain for the rich is at least as valid as disdain for the poor.

first off ... it is a message board and i will post what i like....

second ... in the context of the thread which is the disdain for the poor who choose to be poor and make poor choices and cause their own misery .... to say that disdain for the rich is equally valid ... is disingenuous

[loosecannon]

again I didn't say anything to you to which
first off ... it is a message board and i will post what i like.... seems to be a relevent response.


second ... in the context of the thread which is the disdain for the poor who choose to be poor and make poor choices and cause their own misery .... to say that disdain for the rich is equally valid ... is disingenuous

Oh the poor who

choose to be poor
make poor choices
cause their own misery

is the actual topic. How obvious. Sorry I missed that nuance.

So disdain for the rich who

choose to be rich
make bad choices
cause their own misery

is therefore out of bounds, as in "it is a message board and i will post what i like" doesn't apply.

[loosecannon]

apparently you misunderstood again.

When you said
my response was spot on....if you are going to project opinions onto me about what i do or do not know then turn about is fair play

well see you were wrong, I wasn't even talking about anything you said.

I was responding to Hobbit.

See how that works?

[manu1959]

again I didn't say anything to you to which seems to be a relevent response.



Oh the poor who

choose to be poor
make poor choices
cause their own misery

is the actual topic. How obvious. Sorry I missed that nuance.

So disdain for the rich who

choose to be rich
make bad choices
cause their own misery

is therefore out of bounds, as in "it is a message board and i will post what i like" doesn't apply.

so you agree then that the poor are poor by choice and the rich are rich by choice.....i was wondering when the light would come on...:clap:

[Hobbit]

We are not that far apart. I am for helping people who will take the responsibility for their lives at that point....who will recognize that they're being given a helping hand, a second chance......and apply their own efforts to better themselves.

If at that point, they continue the behavior that landed them in poverty....if they continue to pop out children like you pop toast out of the toaster....if they continue to do drugs, or gamble, or whatever......then I'm for cutting them loose and leaving them to their own devices.

But I know that we've all made mistakes in our lives...made some bad choices.....some of us suffer more than others for the same bad choices.

I believe in second chances. I believe in lending a helping hand through (may my tongue fall out of my mouth for saying it) government programs.

I guess that's why I'm a liberal.

And I believe in lending a helping hand through improved commerce and private donations, which is why I'm conservative. IMO, the best way to help those who help themselves is to give them a booming economy with lots of jobs, with private charities to pick up the slack. Because of the buraucratic nature of government programs, it is my belief that they will ultimately lead to a lazy lower class that is completely dependant on them.

[GW in Ohio]

And I believe in lending a helping hand through improved commerce and private donations, which is why I'm conservative. IMO, the best way to help those who help themselves is to give them a booming economy with lots of jobs, with private charities to pick up the slack. Because of the buraucratic nature of government programs, it is my belief that they will ultimately lead to a lazy lower class that is completely dependant on them.

I agree with you that a booming economy with lots of jobs is the best way to give people a hand up.

And I'm fine with private charities, also.

[avatar4321]

And I believe in lending a helping hand through improved commerce and private donations, which is why I'm conservative. IMO, the best way to help those who help themselves is to give them a booming economy with lots of jobs, with private charities to pick up the slack. Because of the buraucratic nature of government programs, it is my belief that they will ultimately lead to a lazy lower class that is completely dependant on them.

You don't have to believe it. We have plenty of proof in society.

I think its interesting that this thread was resurrected. It's a passionate topic.

I stand by my position. increasing the minimum wage will not benefit the woman in the article. Quite the opposite. It will perpetuate the problem. There are atleast a dozen things the woman and her family could change without much effort that would put them in a better position. How is it compassionate to increase minimum wage which doesn't fix the problem, patting ourselves on the back, and yet ignoring the major problems that can be fixed and that are so blatantly obvious?

This is why I am a conservative. Because liberal programs don't really benefit people. Its just a way for liberals to feel like they are doing something (usually with other peoples money) so they can praise how compassionate they are without really fixing the problem.

[5stringJeff]

There is no need to caricature or lampoon you guys as "fuck you" Republicans. You do it all yourselves.

95% of the poor are poor by choice? Oh, Jesus, some of you people are really something.

Now, there's no question that a percentage of the people who are poor are poor because they're too lazy or too addicted to better themselves.

But the vast majority of the poor are poor because of bad breaks, bad choices (like having too many children....you hold that against them, don't you?), or bad health. Are you going to say to them, "Tough shit.....you fucked up your life."

Okay, so some of you worked your way out of poverty. Good for you. A lot of people haven't, or can't for one reason or another, work their way out. You going to say to all of them, "You're out of luck; If I can do it, so can you"?

While I don't want to create permanent wards of the state, and I supported welfare reform, I don't want us as a society to turn our backs on the poor. For many of them, all they need is a hand up, to get back on their feet. I say we as a society should give these people a second chance.

We're not advocating turning our back on the poor. We're suggesting that many, if not most, poor people have made life choices that put them in their predicament, and that until they make the choice to get their lives back on track, we shouldn't be subsidizing their bad choices.

And BTW, public welfare isn't the only way to help out the poor. There are hundreds upon hundreds of private and/or religious charities that do more than throw money at poor people - they teach them how to make their lives better.

[loosecannon]

so you agree then that the poor are poor by choice and the rich are rich by choice.....i was wondering when the light would come on...:clap:

no, you are deflecting, poorly

[loosecannon]

increasing the minimum wage will not benefit the woman in the article. Quite the opposite. It will perpetuate the problem.

Yeah feeding the poor or more accurately allowing them to earn enough to eat definitely perpetuates the problem.

The problem of "those damned poor people".

Starving them is the solution as you suggest. And lawrd knows that makes the conservatives feel like they are compassionate. (if not imune to their own idiocy)

[loosecannon]

We're not advocating turning our back on the poor. We're suggesting that many, if not most, poor people have made life choices that put them in their predicament, and that until they make the choice to get their lives back on track, we shouldn't be subsidizing their bad choices.



But subsidizing the rich and the BA's bad choices is the standard of the neocons and Bushbots.

[5stringJeff]

Yeah feeding the poor or more accurately allowing them to earn enough to eat definitely perpetuates the problem.

The problem of "those damned poor people".

Starving them is the solution as you suggest. And lawrd knows that makes the conservatives feel like they are compassionate. (if not imune to their own idiocy)

Raising the minimum wage decreases the amount of people that an employer can pay, creating layoffs and increasing unemployment, which is generally bad for anyone, but especially poor people.

[loosecannon]

Raising the minimum wage decreases the amount of people that an employer can pay, creating layoffs and increasing unemployment, which is generally bad for anyone, but especially poor people.

No not according to Keynes theories about aggregate demand.

Accord to Keynes sound ideas raising the miniomum wage is the most effective way of stimulating the growth of the overall economy.

The poor will spend every penny within a week and all of that money will feed more business growth and end up creating MORE minimum wage jobs.

[manu1959]

no, you are deflecting, poorly

no ... i was repeating what you wrote....you, my dear friend, are now on a river in egypt

[OCA]

I'm into Darwin's survival of the fittest, if you are poor by no other circumstances then those which you created yourself then fuck you, i'm perfectly able to step around or over you on the street and pefectly able to call the meat wagon when you die from your own hand.

Now people who are poor or unaqble to support theirselves because of medical reasons such as physical or mental handicaps should be helped out but douchebags who become junkies, are lazy or are just too fucking ignorant to be of any benefit to theirselves or society should be evaluated to see if they are siphoning off of society more than they are putting in. Society's herd needs to be thinned out.

Think i'm over the top? Many people think like me, many people are sick of seeing the money they work hard for robbed from them by the government to hand out to deadbeat fucks who are perfectly able to earn for theirselves but too damn lazy to do so.

Circumstances such as those that happen to people who are involved in natural disasters? A time limit should be placed on government handouts to these people, I think six months is an ample amount of time to get your shit together, can't get it together in six months? Tough shit, pound sand. Strict controls should be placed on these handouts too lest you get douchebags like the idiots in chocolate city buying Rolex watches and dildos with their government issued debit cards.

Fuck any type of welfare including WIC, it should be abolished, once the siphoners die off America will flourish.

[OCA]

No not according to Keynes theories about aggregate demand.

Accord to Keynes sound ideas raising the miniomum wage is the most effective way of stimulating the growth of the overall economy.

The poor will spend every penny within a week and all of that money will feed more business growth and end up creating MORE minimum wage jobs.

Yeah, exactly what America needs, more minimum wage jobs.:laugh2:

[manu1959]

No not according to Keynes theories about aggregate demand.

Accord to Keynes sound ideas raising the miniomum wage is the most effective way of stimulating the growth of the overall economy.

The poor will spend every penny within a week and all of that money will feed more business growth and end up creating MORE minimum wage jobs.

not possible.....unless your finite resources and money therory is bogus

[loosecannon]

Think i'm over the top? Many people think like me, many people are sick of seeing the money they work hard for robbed from them by the government to hand out to deadbeat fucks who are perfectly able to earn for theirselves but too damn lazy to do so.

please clarify, are you refering to Exxon Mobile, Haliburton, Enron, Boeing or Blackwater?



Fuck any type of welfare including WIC, it should be abolished, once the siphoners die off America will flourish.

Thank god you resolved that post with a reasonable conclusion. That is gonna eliminate a lot of fortune 500 corps, but like you say, "fuck em"!

[OCA]

please clarify, are you refering to Exxon Mobile, Haliburton, Enron, Boeing or Blackwater?




Thank god you resolved that post with a reasonable conclusion. That is gonna eliminate a lot of fortune 500 corps, but like you say, "fuck em"!

Corporations create jobs, they should be exalted.

When was the last time any deadbeat welfare fuck created anything except a burden?

[OCA]

LC, why do you hate the things that has made America great? Are you unable to compete in the marketplace because of some iq deficiency and wish to villify the achievers? Is this jealousy squawking?

[loosecannon]

not possible.....unless your finite resources and money therory is bogus

The biggest difference between this example and the one you are refering to is sector growth.

raising minimum wage creates wealth at the bottom of the demographic chain first and in neighborhoods and community services second.

The growth is concentrated near the spots wherein it most advantages the poorest people.

There is a trade off. Fewer resources would necesarily be spared the useless applications toward weaponry, expensive luxuries etc.

And there is always aggregate growth but it is not unlimited, and must someday reverse. The economy simply can not grow exponentially forever. But it can be realocated to benefit the poor which was the question I was addressing.

[Mr. P]

No not according to Keynes theories about aggregate demand.

Accord to Keynes sound ideas raising the miniomum wage is the most effective way of stimulating the growth of the overall economy.

The poor will spend every penny within a week and all of that money will feed more business growth and end up creating MORE minimum wage jobs.
And so they will remain poor, raising the wage has zero positive effect on their success. It's a mindset with many (spend what you have) as you point out. A recipe for staying poor.

[loosecannon]

LC, why do you hate the things that has made America great? Are you unable to compete in the marketplace because of some iq deficiency and wish to villify the achievers? Is this jealousy squawking?

OCA, my IQ is probably 20 points higher than yours, maybe 40.

Please list the things that you believe made this country great so I can laugh at them and then set you straight.

I will lend you a hand, if you are referring to our wealth I would begin with

>a continent full of untapped resources to exploit
> the benefits gleaned from a century of slave labor
>exploiting the world by virtue of our reserve currency status of fiat US dollars and petro dollars
>US imperialism and wars of corporate plunder
>sheer luck
>rare and unique ideas about democracy, individual liberty and independence that resulted in an unusually creative, adaptive culture
>assimilation of millions of immigrants
>we stole some of the most productive land on the planet

[OCA]

The biggest difference between this example and the one you are refering to is sector growth.

raising minimum wage creates wealth at the bottom of the demographic chain first and in neighborhoods and community services second.

The growth is concentrated near the spots wherein it most advantages the poorest people.

There is a trade off. Fewer resources would necesarily be spared the useless applications toward weaponry, expensive luxuries etc.

And there is always aggregate growth but it is not unlimited, and must someday reverse. The economy simply can not grow exponentially forever. But it can be realocated to benefit the poor which was the question I was addressing.

So LC let me ask you this, are you for redistribution of wealth? In other words to you want to move some wealth from the people who earned it to the people who didn't earn it making everybody even?

Also your theory on the poor and minimum wage benefiting the poor and community services and resources not being wasted on luxuries is absurd. Ever drive through the most poorset of sections in the inner cities? You will drive by houses so dilapidated that you wouldn't believe they have running water let alone stay standing in a 15 mph wind but out fron of that hiuse will be a 700 class BMW and in fron of that house will be the occupants wearing 200 dollar sneakers and sporting Gucci clothes, they do not invest in their infrastructure but instead in their own luxury.

[loosecannon]

And so they will remain poor, raising the wage has zero positive effect on their success. It's a mindset with many (spend what you have) as you point out. A recipe for staying poor.

Not as poor, they got a raise remember?

[OCA]

OCA, my IQ is probably 20 points higher than yours, maybe 40.

Please list the things that you believe made this country great so I can laugh at them and then set you straight.

I will lend you a hand, if you are referring to our wealth I would begin with

>a continent full of untapped resources to exploit
> the benefits gleaned from a century of slave labor
>exploiting the world by virtue of our reserve currency status of fiat US dollars and petro dollars
>US imperialism and wars of corporate plunder
>sheer luck
>rare and unique ideas about democracy, individual liberty and independence that resulted in an unusually creative, adaptive culture
>assimilation of millions of immigrants
>we stole some of the most productive land on the planet

LMFAO!

The entreprenurial spirit and (once upon a time) minimal government interference in the affairs of business America made this country great.

Thanks for the laundry list of leftist theories though, got a kick out of them.

Its obvious with your viewpoints that IQ is not something you should be discussing.

[5stringJeff]

Not as poor, they got a raise remember?

The ones who kept their jobs, that is. The unfortunate few that didn't are now on welfare.

[loosecannon]

So LC let me ask you this, are you for redistribution of wealth?

Generally, or now? Generally No.


In other words to you want to move some wealth from the people who earned it to the people who didn't earn it making everybody even?

I am entirely opposed to taxing the rich to give to the poor. In my own personal definition of socialism that is what defines socialism and I oppose it.

But I also oppose redistribution of wealth upward which has been the general trend thru all of history save the period between 1870 and 1970.


Also your theory on the poor and minimum wage benefiting the poor and community services and resources not being wasted on luxuries is absurd.

OCA you simply believe that the poor can not manage money, which is true, they aren't used to having much and they don't hoard nearly as well as wealthy poeple.

But the theory i expressed is still rock solid. The poor would benefit quite a bit by eating better, getting a better education and being healthier generally. They absolutely MUST have a way to earn a decent living or they will never raise themselves as a whole.

[OCA]

The ones who kept their jobs, that is. The unfortunate few that didn't are now on welfare.


Unfortunate few? Forced wage requirements always result in a net job loss such as is the case now.

[loosecannon]

The ones who kept their jobs, that is. The unfortunate few that didn't are now on welfare.

No we are talking about hypothetical raises in minumum wage that have not happened yet.

And Clinton all but eliminated welfare.

[OCA]

They absolutely MUST have a way to earn a decent living or they will never raise themselves as a whole.

Yes but they must find this way on their own, through their own gumption or it will mean nothing.

[5stringJeff]

Unfortunate few? Forced wage requirements always result in a net job loss such as is the case now.

That's what I meant. I don't know what the stats are, but a minority of minimum wage workers will lose their jobs after a minimum wage hike. That's the "unfortunate few" I mentioned.

[loosecannon]

Unfortunate few? Forced wage requirements always result in a net job loss such as is the case now.


No sorry, bogus post alert***

Our current loss of jobs is the result of 11 million illegal aliens inside the US and the outsourcing of 3 million manufacturing jobs and 2 million white collar jobs since 2000.

[OCA]

And Clinton all but eliminated welfare.


Only when he was forced to by the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. If Repubs hadn't swept in then I guarantee you he would have never even thought of addressing welfare because the Demos buy votes by keeping huge blocs of people dependent upon the handouts the espouse, its part of their basic philosophy.

[loosecannon]

LMFAO!

The entreprenurial spirit and (once upon a time) minimal government interference in the affairs of business America made this country great.



well that one was in my list, next time i will use one syllable words so you can follow what i am saying.

[OCA]

No sorry, bogus post alert***

Our current loss of jobs is the result of 11 million illegal aliens inside the US and the outsourcing of 3 million manufacturing jobs and 2 million white collar jobs since 2000.

No sorry, false info alert***

No illegals here doing jobs Americans won't do and those jobs go undone. Think i'm wrong? Try finding me just 1, just 1 native born American who is waiting in line to pick vegetables this summer in central California from sunup to sundown in the 100+ daily heat. Get back to me when you find him/her, i'll be waiting when hell freezes over.

Anyway such is the price of progress on the outsourcing deal, overcome and adapt I say.

[Mr. P]

Not as poor, they got a raise remember?

And spent it all..soon the economics around them will again exceed theirs by the same margarine as before any increase and they remain poor. That hasn't changed with any wage increase to date. Poor is a mindset, a way of life, for many IMO. Minimum wages will never change that.

If you could collect all the money and divide it equally to everyone, I'll guarantee you that in 5 years the folks that are rich now would be then and the poor now would be poor then.

[Kathianne]

And spent it all..soon the economics around them will again exceed theirs by the same margarine as before any increase and they remain poor. That hasn't changed with any wage increase to date. Poor is a mindset, a way of life, for many IMO. Minimum wages will never change that.

If you could collect all the money and divide it equally to everyone, I'll guarantee you that in 5 years the folks that are rich now would be then and the poor now would be poor then.

Agreed. Would have rep'd, but couldn't.

[OCA]

And spent it all..soon the economics around them will again exceed theirs by the same margarine as before any increase and they remain poor. That hasn't changed with any wage increase to date. Poor is a mindset, a way of life, for many IMO. Minimum wages will never change that.

If you could collect all the money and divide it equally to everyone, I'll guarantee you that in 5 years the folks that are rich now would be then and the poor now would be poor then.

They sure would. You see its natural to have winners and losers, achievers and non-achievers. With that said non-achievers should have the opportunity to become achievers but continued performance as a non-achiever should be looked at with disdain.

[5stringJeff]

No we are talking about hypothetical raises in minumum wage that have not happened yet.

And Clinton all but eliminated welfare.

Well, let me tell you about a real minimum wage change that did happen. In 1994, WA's minimum wage rose from $4.15 to $4.90. My employer (a national pizza chain) got rid of two employees immediately and 5-6 more over the next few months through attrition (i.e. not hiring people to replace workers who left). Effectively, our labor force shrunk, and our total hours worked went down, because our owners couldn't afford to maintain the same number of hours per employee as they did before.

[OCA]

well that one was in my list, next time i will use one syllable words so you can follow what i am saying.

Yes, but with a hint of disdain. Tell the truth, you have a thing against achievers, don't ya?

[avatar4321]

We're not advocating turning our back on the poor. We're suggesting that many, if not most, poor people have made life choices that put them in their predicament, and that until they make the choice to get their lives back on track, we shouldn't be subsidizing their bad choices.

And BTW, public welfare isn't the only way to help out the poor. There are hundreds upon hundreds of private and/or religious charities that do more than throw money at poor people - they teach them how to make their lives better.

You have to understand, the left doesn't want to actually want to fix the problem. They just want to grow government and make the poor dependent on them so they can scare them into voting for them.

If the people were taught correct principles and learned to empower themselves, then the left might actually have to run on character and deal with other pressing issues such as national security. And they know they can't handle that.

[avatar4321]

Yeah feeding the poor or more accurately allowing them to earn enough to eat definitely perpetuates the problem.

The problem of "those damned poor people".

Starving them is the solution as you suggest. And lawrd knows that makes the conservatives feel like they are compassionate. (if not imune to their own idiocy)

Increasing the minimum wage doesnt allow them to earn enough to feed themselves. Quite the opposite. Raising the minimum wage artificially increases the wages across the board making products, especially food, far more expensive then previously was because now producers have to pay more out to non-skilled employees for doing menial tasks.

So like I said, it doesnt at all even attempt to fix the problem. It's just an easy way for liberal politicians to look like they are fixing the problem to ease their guilt and keep the poverty issue going while appearing to fix the problem.

If liberals want to fix poverty, they should be focusing on empowering the individual, not making them dependent. For example, if that reporter actually cared about the woman and her family whom she was writing about, she wouldnt be advocating a raise in the mininum wage which will only perpetuate her condition. She would be offering suggestions to help the woman out. Like I said, there are atleast a dozen suggestions I could come up with by looking at that article that would put the woman and her family in a far better position then Congress telling businesses they have to pay more in wages and destroying the economy.

Government isn't the solution to poverty. Individual freedom is. But I think you already know that or you wouldnt have responded so sarcasticly

[avatar4321]

But subsidizing the rich and the BA's bad choices is the standard of the neocons and Bushbots.

No one is subsidizing the rich. We just aren't stealing from them.

[avatar4321]

I'm into Darwin's survival of the fittest, if you are poor by no other circumstances then those which you created yourself then fuck you, i'm perfectly able to step around or over you on the street and pefectly able to call the meat wagon when you die from your own hand.

Now people who are poor or unaqble to support theirselves because of medical reasons such as physical or mental handicaps should be helped out but douchebags who become junkies, are lazy or are just too fucking ignorant to be of any benefit to theirselves or society should be evaluated to see if they are siphoning off of society more than they are putting in. Society's herd needs to be thinned out.

Think i'm over the top? Many people think like me, many people are sick of seeing the money they work hard for robbed from them by the government to hand out to deadbeat fucks who are perfectly able to earn for theirselves but too damn lazy to do so.

Circumstances such as those that happen to people who are involved in natural disasters? A time limit should be placed on government handouts to these people, I think six months is an ample amount of time to get your shit together, can't get it together in six months? Tough shit, pound sand. Strict controls should be placed on these handouts too lest you get douchebags like the idiots in chocolate city buying Rolex watches and dildos with their government issued debit cards.

Fuck any type of welfare including WIC, it should be abolished, once the siphoners die off America will flourish.

People who are unable to support themselves should be taken care of by the rest of their family, and private donations before government should intervene.

But that doesn't fit the left's social agenda which ends in destroying the family. It is the destruction of the family that creates poverty more than any other factor. If the left really cared about ending poverty, they wouldnt be breaking up the traditional family and encouraging unmarried men and women to engage in sexual activity.

[avatar4321]

please clarify, are you refering to Exxon Mobile, Haliburton, Enron, Boeing or Blackwater?




Thank god you resolved that post with a reasonable conclusion. That is gonna eliminate a lot of fortune 500 corps, but like you say, "fuck em"!

If a corporation is being subsidized by taxpayer money, it should be killed.

[avatar4321]

No we are talking about hypothetical raises in minumum wage that have not happened yet.

And Clinton all but eliminated welfare.

wow... if thats not revisionist history I dont know what is.

Welfare has hardly been all but eliminated

And Clinton had little to do with it. Clinton got pulled to it kicking and screaming by a Republican mandate in Congress.

[loosecannon]

No sorry, false info alert***

No illegals here doing jobs Americans won't do and those jobs go undone. Think i'm wrong? Try finding me just 1, just 1 native born American who is waiting in line to pick vegetables this summer in central California from sunup to sundown in the 100+ daily heat. Get back to me when you find him/her, i'll be waiting when hell freezes over.

Anyway such is the price of progress on the outsourcing deal, overcome and adapt I say.

Then keep raising the minimum wage until Americans will do all of those jobs.

Are you seriously in favor of illegal immigrants?

[loosecannon]

Poor is a mindset, a way of life, for many IMO.

nobody pays you for your opinion do they.

Poor is lack of resources, money and means. Look it up in a dictionary.

[shattered]

Then keep raising the minimum wage until Americans will do all of those jobs.

Are you seriously in favor of illegal immigrants?

Americans won't do those jobs because they've become lazy, and now expect things to be handed to them on a silver platter at someone elses cost..

Exactly what do you think lack of skills, and lack of education is worth per hour?

[loosecannon]

Yes, but with a hint of disdain. Tell the truth, you have a thing against achievers, don't ya?

No, but I might have a thing against people who acheive off the backs of harder working poor people and think earned it all themselves.

You remind me of that saying "born on third base and thinks he hit a triple".

[loosecannon]

The Bush admin
just wants to grow government which is why the federal government has bloated up like a pig under Bush and a GOP Congress.

[loosecannon]

No one is subsidizing the rich. We just aren't stealing from them.

Nope absolutely a pipe dream.

Corporations get many times more welfare than poor folks in the USA. Even the record setting profiteers from Exxon are getting hundreds of millions in welfare checks from the fed this year.

[loosecannon]

If a corporation is being subsidized by taxpayer money, it should be killed.


A-Fucking-Men

[loosecannon]

wow... if thats not revisionist history I dont know what is.

Welfare has hardly been all but eliminated

And Clinton had little to do with it. Clinton got pulled to it kicking and screaming by a Republican mandate in Congress.


OK, have it your way, you don't know what is.

[loosecannon]

Americans won't do those jobs because they've become lazy, and now expect things to be handed to them on a silver platter at someone elses cost..

Exactly what do you think lack of skills, and lack of education is worth per hour?

about $10 for an adult, less for teens.

Americans will do those jobs in a heart beat for $10 hour because it beats starving. Or freezing, or being homeless.

[shattered]

about $10 for an adult, less for teens.

Americans will do those jobs in a heart beat for $10 hour because it beats starving. Or freezing, or being homeless.

Good lord! What do you think dumping a burger and a Coke on a tray ought to pay for an adult? For a teen? Hell, my first office job didn't even pay that, and I practically RAN it, which is a hell of a lot more exhausting than picking a fucking vegetable and throwing it in a basket.

[Mr. P]

nobody pays you for your opinion do they.

Poor is lack of resources, money and means. Look it up in a dictionary.

Sure, I’ve been paid many times for my opinion. I've known many folks you would consider 'poor' that are perfectly happy with their life too.

[MtnBiker]

about $10 for an adult, less for teens.



Age is a qualification for a pay increase?

[shattered]

Age is a qualification for a pay increase?

Well, sure.. Adults need more to live, so by default, they should make more money than teens, even if the two are doing exactly the same work, and have exactly the same education, and job skills.

Thus, Americans have become lazy, and expect everything to be handed to them.

[MtnBiker]

I do not expect anything to be handed to me.

[shattered]

I do not expect anything to be handed to me.

I didn't say you.. Most of that post was tongue in cheek, since it's utterly ridiculous to pay someone $10 an hour as a minimum wage just because they're an adult..

[jackass]

Congratulation.

Not every person can graduate from college with a degree. The purpose of college is to sort out a class of more capable, conformed citizens from the bulk of less intelligent, less capable and then to reward both groups with different sets of opportunities.



This is the BIGGEST load of hoeseshit I have ever read! That is not what college is for. College is for all people to better themselves IF they choose! Dumbass!

[MtnBiker]

Roopull the thread author isn't around much lately, but I believe the intent of the thread was to speak of poor people in this country (USA). There have been some post contained in this thread that speak of poor the world over. Since all countries do not conform to the same economic policies speaking of the poor in other countries is not on subject.

[MtnBiker]

Some questions.

Is the USA a more weathly nation now than it was 50 years ago, 100 years ago?

Is wealth a finite condition or is it an expanding condition?

[avatar4321]

I do not expect anything to be handed to me.

That's because unlike too many Americans nowadays. You are actually a man and take responsibility for your actions. Too many act like spoiled little children.

[avatar4321]

I didn't say you.. Most of that post was tongue in cheek, since it's utterly ridiculous to pay someone $10 an hour as a minimum wage just because they're an adult..

its utterly ridiculous to pay anyone 10 an hour as for a minimum wage period.

[shattered]

its utterly ridiculous to pay anyone 10 an hour as for a minimum wage period.

Agreed, but I figure that should go without saying, since the minimum wage still ISN'T $10/hr..

[OCA]

Then keep raising the minimum wage until Americans will do all of those jobs.

Are you seriously in favor of illegal immigrants?

What are you gonna do when amnesty passes? And its not an if now its a when.

Yes i'm in favor of amnesty for all NON-FELONY COMMITTING illegals. The fact they are illegal will have to be forgiven, hence the amnesty. They are much too vital to the health of our economy, thats undisputeable.

[OCA]

No, but I might have a thing against people who acheive off the backs of harder working poor people and think earned it all themselves.

You remind me of that saying "born on third base and thinks he hit a triple".

So all achievers achieved their place in life through someone else's sweat? Are you serious with this shit?

Ever hear of Paul Allen or Bill Gates? Shit how about Alex Spanos? Man you really have an obvious jealous disdain for achievers.

[OCA]

Nope absolutely a pipe dream.

Corporations get many times more welfare than poor folks in the USA. Even the record setting profiteers from Exxon are getting hundreds of millions in welfare checks from the fed this year.

Link? Backup? Verifiable fact?

[OCA]

about $10 for an adult, less for teens.

Americans will do those jobs in a heart beat for $10 hour because it beats starving. Or freezing, or being homeless.

No...lol....they won't. Obviously you haven't been out and about for oh lets say the last 30 years. This is a satisfaction now society, college graduates want the 60g a yr job straight out of college, nobody wants to work their way up much less do manual labor no matter the pay.

[OCA]

Age is a qualification for a pay increase?

Lol Biker thinking the same thing.

[loosecannon]

Age is a qualification for a pay increase?


when distinguishing between teens and adults yes, has been for decades in most states.

[loosecannon]

Good lord! What do you think dumping a burger and a Coke on a tray ought to pay for an adult? For a teen? Hell, my first office job didn't even pay that, and I practically RAN it, which is a hell of a lot more exhausting than picking a fucking vegetable and throwing it in a basket.

Shattered, the dollar loses half it's value every 13 years. That is the average since 1913 based on the governments inflation data.

In terms of relative purchasing power (the new standard adopted by the CIA in the CIA worldfactbook) the dollar has lost almost half it's value since 2000.

How much has the price of gas, gold, oil, realestate, copper, silver aluminum risen since 2000 (almost 100%).

The minimum wage today would need to be $8.15/hr to be relatively equal to the minimum wage in 1980.

$10 ain't much money for a working adult.

[loosecannon]

I do not expect anything to be handed to me.


Here is your ass

[MtnBiker]

Here is your ass

There is no reason to speak to me like that.

[loosecannon]

This is the BIGGEST load of hoeseshit I have ever read! That is not what college is for. College is for all people to better themselves IF they choose! Dumbass!

Well Dumbass, Colleges set standards and quotas for ADMISSIONS that prevent just ANYBODY from attending.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to attend because colleges are A too small to accomidate that volume of hungry minds and B) a filter to select out the less capable and less indoctrinated people.

Then there are grades. They are DESIGNED to select only those who PASS the test.

LOTS of people would love to be able to AFFORD college and can't

get ACCEPTED and aren't

And PASS but don't

You sure are one dumb ass

[shattered]

Shattered, the dollar loses half it's value every 13 years. That is the average since 1913 based on the governments inflation data.

In terms of relative purchasing power (the new standard adopted by the CIA in the CIA worldfactbook) the dollar has lost almost half it's value since 2000.

How much has the price of gas, gold, oil, realestate, copper, silver aluminum risen since 2000 (almost 100%).

The minimum wage today would need to be $8.15/hr to be relatively equal to the minimum wage in 1980.

$10 ain't much money for a working adult.

Well, here you go.. Pick a profession, and get your ass to school. Can't afford it because you're poor? Get a grant, or a student loan.

Employers shouldn't be expected to pay more money just because you feel you should make more at the same job than Timmy who's working through high school for gas money.

[loosecannon]

Some questions.

Is the USA a more weathly nation now than it was 50 years ago, 100 years ago?

Is wealth a finite condition or is it an expanding condition?

The real wealth gains in the US took off after WWII. The US exited the war with 60% of the worlds gold and as the worlds largest creditor nation. Meaning other nations owed us buttloads of money for the war provisions we sold the allies on credit.

The Bretton woods accord made the US dollar the worlds reserve currency and founded the bank of International settlements to handle new loans to developing nations.

As a result of the fact that the the dollar was the worlds reserve currency, and as a result of agreements with the OPEC cartel the world began selling oil in US dollars in the 70's.

Thus if a nation like Britain needed to import oil, they needed dollars, and probably lots of them. To get dollars they had to export goods to the US and sell them for dollars.

But after 1973 the dollar was unpegged from the gold standard, so the US could print money as fast as we chose.

Since other nations needed to sell goods to the US and the US could now print money as fast as we wanted the US has been able to buy imported goods that have real value from other nations that need our dollars which we print at will. Thus wqe can afford a trade deficit while other nations require a trade surplus with the US.

So in increments since WWII, and then again since 1973, the US has become fabulously wealthy.

Before WWII the US was in utter dispair, mired in a deep and intractable depression.

[loosecannon]

What are you gonna do when amnesty passes? And its not an if now its a when.

Yes i'm in favor of amnesty for all NON-FELONY COMMITTING illegals. The fact they are illegal will have to be forgiven, hence the amnesty. They are much too vital to the health of our economy, thats undisputeable.

I am not going to do anything except to refer to anybody who supports amnesty of illegals as a traitor a fool and a suicidalist.

[loosecannon]

So all achievers achieved their place in life through someone else's sweat? Are you serious with this shit?

Almost all Americans Yes, it is a fact.

85% of every dollar you ever earn came to you unearned by virtue of living in the worlds wealthiest nation.


Ever hear of Paul Allen or Bill Gates?

Shit how about Alex Spanos? Man you really have an obvious jealous disdain for achievers.

You obviously don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

But I assure with absolute certainty that both Allen and gates are perfectly aware that the bulk of their money was earned for them by other people.

[manu1959]

Almost all Americans Yes, it is a fact.
85% of every dollar you ever earn came to you unearned by virtue of living in the worlds wealthiest nation.
You obviously don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
But I assure with absolute certainty that both Allen and gates are perfectly aware that the bulk of their money was earned for them by other people.

depends how you measure wealth....per capita it is bremuda us isn't even top five

[loosecannon]

There is no reason to speak to me like that.

OK, I apologize. I will pay more attention to your posts and refrain from treating you like an asshole unless you begin acting like one.

Again, my apologies.

[loosecannon]

Well, here you go.. Pick a profession, and get your ass to school. Can't afford it because you're poor? Get a grant, or a student loan.

Employers shouldn't be expected to pay more money just because you feel you should make more at the same job than Timmy who's working through high school for gas money.


OK, I can tell you know next to nothing about much of anything.

That is nothing to be ashamed of.

The point is that minimum wage has been decreasing for decades while the salaries for useless CEO's has rocketed into the stratosphere, and those guys never work at all. They attend work environments.

The wealth of the worlds billionaires increased 25% last year even after discounting the new billionaires.

Did YOU get a 25% raise last year?

Minimum wage has decreased 40% since 1980 after adjustment for inflation.

Billionaires get a 25% raise in one year. minimum wage decreases 40% since 1980.

If you like that difference fine. I think it sucks ass.

[loosecannon]

depends how you measure wealth....per capita it is bremuda us isn't even top five

LOL, I am laughing my ass off.

Ever hear of off shore accounts?

Bermuda is a bankers safe haven where folks take up a residence so they can hide money legally in Bermuda's banks.

They don't ACTUALLY live there.

[manu1959]

LOL, I am laughing my ass off.

Ever hear of off shore accounts?

Bermuda is a bankers safe haven where folks take up a residence so they can hide money legally in Bermuda's banks.

They don't ACTUALLY live there.

and luxemborg and norway?

[Abbey Marie]

wow....you must be miserable to live with....looks like i should move to bremuda

http://www.mrdowling.com/800gdppercapita.html

That's always been my dream!

[Abbey Marie]

We're not advocating turning our back on the poor. We're suggesting that many, if not most, poor people have made life choices that put them in their predicament, and that until they make the choice to get their lives back on track, we shouldn't be subsidizing their bad choices.
And BTW, public welfare isn't the only way to help out the poor. There are hundreds upon hundreds of private and/or religious charities that do more than throw money at poor people - they teach them how to make their lives better.

That sums it up best, I think.

[loosecannon]

and luxemborg and norway?

are apparently both wealthier than the US on a percapita basis, meaning wealth divided by population.

The US is by far the wealthiest nation overall.

[Abbey Marie]

LOL, I am laughing my ass off.

Ever hear of off shore accounts?

Bermuda is a bankers safe haven where folks take up a residence so they can hide money legally in Bermuda's banks.

They don't ACTUALLY live there.

Manu is correct, so you can stop your condecension. Fifteen years ago, a cabbie we had in Bermuda told us ne earned $120,000 per year, and that that was not at all uncommon. It is a very high per capita income country, whether you want to believe it or not. Did I mention that the cabbie lived there? I also had a dear old friend who lived there for decades, and our discussions made it clear that Bermudians do quite well on the whole. He lived there too.

[loosecannon]

Manu is correct, so you can stop your condecension. Fifteen years ago, a cabbie we had in Bermuda told us ne earned $120,000 per year, and that that was not at all uncommon. It is a very high per capita income country, whether you want to believe it or not. Did I mention that the cabbie lived there? I also had a dear old friend who lived there for decades, and our discussions made it clear that Bermudians do quite well on the whole. He lived there too.

You cabbie friend made his money on tips from the tourism industry.

I wonder what the dishwashers make. Because Bermuda has two industries, a safe haven for money laundering and tourism.

I wonder what else that "cabbie" did to make ends meet.

(think before you post)

[SassyLady]

LC - I owned my own business and had no employees and did quite well and somehow managed to get myself in the wealthy bracket. Whose back do you think I stepped on to get where I am?

Somehow, from all these posts, I get the impression that you think YOU are the one being stepped on by the wealthy. Why?

[loosecannon]

LC - I owned my own business and had no employees and did quite well and somehow managed to get myself in the wealthy bracket. Whose back do you think I stepped on to get where I am?

Somehow, from all these posts, I get the impression that you think YOU are the one being stepped on by the wealthy. Why?

You get a false impression.

WE, including YOU are getting stepped on by the wealthy. YOU are not wealthy. You might be upper middle class earning $300,000/year but that is just upper middle.

You didn't have to step on anyone's back. You received 85% of your income by being a recipient of the worlds wealthiest nation.

Just like cab drivers in Bermuda are rumored to earn $120,000/year. As recipients of the money laundering/toursim economy of bermuda.

It is the ultra rich who get the really, really large welfare checks and ride the back of every American, and by extension the world's back.

[avatar4321]

You get a false impression.

WE, including YOU are getting stepped on by the wealthy. YOU are not wealthy. You might be upper middle class earning $300,000/year but that is just upper middle.

You didn't have to step on anyone's back. You received 85% of your income by being a recipient of the worlds wealthiest nation.

Just like cab drivers in Bermuda are rumored to earn $120,000/year. As recipients of the money laundering/toursim economy of bermuda.

It is the ultra rich who get the really, really large welfare checks and ride the back of every American, and by extension the world's back.

I can promise you that no one is stepping on me. if they did they would quickly fall off cause I'm not exactly sturdy..

[Gaffer]

You get a false impression.

WE, including YOU are getting stepped on by the wealthy. YOU are not wealthy. You might be upper middle class earning $300,000/year but that is just upper middle.

You didn't have to step on anyone's back. You received 85% of your income by being a recipient of the worlds wealthiest nation.

Just like cab drivers in Bermuda are rumored to earn $120,000/year. As recipients of the money laundering/toursim economy of bermuda.

It is the ultra rich who get the really, really large welfare checks and ride the back of every American, and by extension the world's back.

This is why I call him comrade.

[avatar4321]

Well Dumbass, Colleges set standards and quotas for ADMISSIONS that prevent just ANYBODY from attending.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to attend because colleges are A too small to accomidate that volume of hungry minds and B) a filter to select out the less capable and less indoctrinated people.

Then there are grades. They are DESIGNED to select only those who PASS the test.

LOTS of people would love to be able to AFFORD college and can't

get ACCEPTED and aren't

And PASS but don't

You sure are one dumb ass

Anyone can get into community college. Anyone with hard work can pass tests. Any idiot can walk into a financial aid office and get enough money to get through school.

The key ingedient to all of this is work. You have to work hard for what you want.

[Abbey Marie]

You cabbie friend made his money on tips from the tourism industry.

I wonder what the dishwashers make. Because Bermuda has two industries, a safe haven for money laundering and tourism.

I wonder what else that "cabbie" did to make ends meet.

(think before you post)

How lib-like (aka condescending) to assume that I don't think before I post.

Did you not read the part where I said that I had a very good friend who lived in Bermuda for decades? He is the source of much more information than one cabbie. As is Manu's quoted per-capita figure. As is my first-hand experience from visiting Bermuda many times, and seeing the entire Island, not just tourist spots. You should stick to debating those points where you have some superior knowledge.

(oh and: read before you post)

[Hagbard Celine]

How lib-like (aka condescending) to assume that I don't think before I post.

Did you not read the part where I said that I had a very good friend who lived in Bermuda for decades? He is the source of much more information than one cabbie. As is Manu's quoted per-capita figure. As is my first-hand experience from visiting Bermuda many times, and seeing the entire Island, not just tourist spots. You should stick to debating those points where you have some superior knowledge.

(oh and: read before you post)

And this post isn't condescending? "How conservative-like" :rolleyes: What a f*cking joke.

[Abbey Marie]

And this post isn't condescending? "How conservative-like" :rolleyes: What a f*cking joke.

It's called a responsive post. Is that a tough concept for you? The "joke" is you coming on the board out of nowhere, and trying to stir the pot wherever you go.:rolleyes:

[Gaffer]

It's called a responsive post. Is that a tough concept for you? The "joke" is you coming on the board out of nowhere, and trying to stir the pot wherever you go.:rolleyes:

what can you expect from a liberal troll?

[Mr. P]

what can you expect from a liberal troll?

And still a kid.

[jackass]

Well Dumbass, Colleges set standards and quotas for ADMISSIONS that prevent just ANYBODY from attending.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to attend because colleges are A too small to accomidate that volume of hungry minds and B) a filter to select out the less capable and less indoctrinated people.

Then there are grades. They are DESIGNED to select only those who PASS the test.

LOTS of people would love to be able to AFFORD college and can't

get ACCEPTED and aren't

And PASS but don't

You sure are one dumb ass

Ok..lets see what you posted the first time..
Not every person can graduate from college with a degree. .
Is that agreed on?

Every person that WANTS to can. You tell me who cant and I will find someone who was in a similar boat who did.

The purpose of college is to sort out a class of more capable, conformed citizens from the bulk of less intelligent, less capable and then to reward both groups with different sets of opportunities
That is the PURPOSE of a college? Are you sure about that?
This is the definition of a college:
col·lege /ˈkɒlɪdʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kol-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. an institution of higher learning, esp. one providing a general or liberal arts education rather than technical or professional training. Compare university.
2. a constituent unit of a university, furnishing courses of instruction in the liberal arts and sciences, usually leading to a bachelor's degree.
3. an institution for vocational, technical, or professional instruction, as in medicine, pharmacy, agriculture, or music, often a part of a university.
4. an endowed, self-governing association of scholars incorporated within a university, as at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge in England.
5. a similar corporation outside a university.
6. the building or buildings occupied by an institution of higher education.
7. the administrators, faculty, and students of a college.
8. (in Britain and Canada) a private secondary school.
9. an organized association of persons having certain powers and rights, and performing certain duties or engaged in a particular pursuit: The electoral college formally selects the president.
10. a company; assemblage.
11. Also called collegium. a body of clergy living together on a foundation for religious service or similar activity.
12. British Slang. a prison.

I dont see anywhere that is says it is to..ooh what did you say.... sort out a class of more capable, conformed citizens from the bulk of less intelligent, less capable and then to reward both groups with different sets of opportunities.
Hmmm...I sure is one dumb ass!! :fu:

[manu1959]

Well Dumbass, Colleges set standards and quotas for ADMISSIONS that prevent just ANYBODY from attending.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to attend because colleges are A too small to accomidate that volume of hungry minds and B) a filter to select out the less capable and less indoctrinated people.

Then there are grades. They are DESIGNED to select only those who PASS the test.

LOTS of people would love to be able to AFFORD college and can't

get ACCEPTED and aren't

And PASS but don't

You sure are one dumb ass

ok 1978 ... with a 3.8 and 4 ap classes...diff equations, physics, biology, english and 1200 sat and all league soccer (ended up with a scholarship for this )...comunity service coaching youth teams and i was dirt poor....tell me why uc berkeley said sorry...NO!

[loosecannon]

Anyone can get into community college. Anyone with hard work can pass tests. Any idiot can walk into a financial aid office and get enough money to get through school.

The key ingedient to all of this is work. You have to work hard for what you want.

Obviously not ANYONE can do that.

And if they could standards would be raised until only so many could jump thru the prescribed hoops.

The education system and colleges are designed to exclude most from the highest ranks of success, while rewarding the few who can graduate MIT and Yale and Harvard.

Everybody can not be succesful. It is mathematically and institutionally impossible.

[loosecannon]

This is why I call him comrade.

No you call me a commie because you are lazy and easily confused. You don't even know what a commie is and isn't and why you oppose commies in the first place.

You couldn't tell a Commie if they were elected president.

[loosecannon]

And this post isn't condescending? "How conservative-like" :rolleyes: What a f*cking joke.


Please don't waste your efforts trying to reflect the sour light of hypocrisy onto those who serve as it's beacons.

They are too self obsorbed to realize how myopic and self serving they really are.

Take this whole thread. The very title is "disdain for the poor".

Yet even tho they are that blatant in decrying their disdain for the poor, 4 of them have pretended that i disdain anybody who succeeds because I pointing out that disdain for the rich is at least as rational as disdain for the poor.

The irony is that you know the majority of them are relatively poor, and the rich ride their backs and steal the fruits of their labor everyday.

[loosecannon]

Ok..lets see what you posted the first time..
Not every person can graduate from college with a degree. .
Is that agreed on?

Every person that WANTS to can. You tell me who cant and I will find someone who was in a similar boat who did.

The purpose of college is to sort out a class of more capable, conformed citizens from the bulk of less intelligent, less capable and then to reward both groups with different sets of opportunities
That is the PURPOSE of a college? Are you sure about that?
This is the definition of a college:
col·lege /ˈkɒlɪdʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kol-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. an institution of higher learning, esp. one providing a general or liberal arts education rather than technical or professional training. Compare university.
2. a constituent unit of a university, furnishing courses of instruction in the liberal arts and sciences, usually leading to a bachelor's degree.
3. an institution for vocational, technical, or professional instruction, as in medicine, pharmacy, agriculture, or music, often a part of a university.
4. an endowed, self-governing association of scholars incorporated within a university, as at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge in England.
5. a similar corporation outside a university.
6. the building or buildings occupied by an institution of higher education.
7. the administrators, faculty, and students of a college.
8. (in Britain and Canada) a private secondary school.
9. an organized association of persons having certain powers and rights, and performing certain duties or engaged in a particular pursuit: The electoral college formally selects the president.
10. a company; assemblage.
11. Also called collegium. a body of clergy living together on a foundation for religious service or similar activity.
12. British Slang. a prison.

I dont see anywhere that is says it is to..ooh what did you say.... sort out a class of more capable, conformed citizens from the bulk of less intelligent, less capable and then to reward both groups with different sets of opportunities.
Hmmm...I sure is one dumb ass!! :fu:

Very, very stupid or naive post, you decide.

Pretending that a dictionary definition of a college describes the institutional intent of it's bias is like pretending that Giraffes are 4 inches tall because their encyclopedia picture is.

[loosecannon]

ok 1978 ... with a 3.8 and 4 ap classes...diff equations, physics, biology, english and 1200 sat and all league soccer (ended up with a scholarship for this )...comunity service coaching youth teams and i was dirt poor....tell me why uc berkeley said sorry...NO!

Because the best schools serve much moreso as bottlenecks to the paths of prosperity than as superhighways.

They require many to fall short for each who rises high. "Many are called but few are chosen"

[avatar4321]

Obviously not ANYONE can do that.

And if they could standards would be raised until only so many could jump thru the prescribed hoops.

The education system and colleges are designed to exclude most from the highest ranks of success, while rewarding the few who can graduate MIT and Yale and Harvard.

Everybody can not be succesful. It is mathematically and institutionally impossible.

they can if they actually try.

[5stringJeff]

"Many are called but few are chosen"

I highly doubt Jesus was talking about college educations when He uttered those words.

[avatar4321]

Please don't waste your efforts trying to reflect the sour light of hypocrisy onto those who serve as it's beacons.

They are too self obsorbed to realize how myopic and self serving they really are.

Take this whole thread. The very title is "disdain for the poor".

Yet even tho they are that blatant in decrying their disdain for the poor, 4 of them have pretended that i disdain anybody who succeeds because I pointing out that disdain for the rich is at least as rational as disdain for the poor.

The irony is that you know the majority of them are relatively poor, and the rich ride their backs and steal the fruits of their labor everyday.

What exactly do you have against people who work hard and reap the benefits of their rewards? There has to be something or you wouldnt be this bitter.

[Hobbit]

What exactly do you have against people who work hard and reap the benefits of their rewards? There has to be something or you wouldnt be this bitter.

If I had to guess, which I'm not really qualified to, I'd say that loosecannon is either a poor person who is attempting to absolve himself by shifting the blame for his poverty to others or an heir on an eternal guilt trip for being rich.

[CockySOB]

Yet even tho they are that blatant in decrying their disdain for the poor, 4 of them have pretended that i disdain anybody who succeeds because I pointing out that disdain for the rich is at least as rational as disdain for the poor.

I have disdain for those who are too lazy to make something of their lives, be they economically well-off or not. And I hold a great deal of respect for those who choose to make a difference in their world, whether on the global scale, or in their own little part of it.

But that doesn't negate the truth that we have fostered a welfare society here in the USA - a society filled with individuals who believe they are entitled to something they never had to earn.

[jackass]

Very, very stupid or naive post, you decide.

Pretending that a dictionary definition of a college describes the institutional intent of it's bias is like pretending that Giraffes are 4 inches tall because their encyclopedia picture is.

Ok. So where is your proof? Ohh...thats right...because you say so. I may be niave or stupid but I dont blame others for my failures.

[grunt]

Actually, loosecannon is just being a realist here. And he's 100% right. Not everybody can achieve greatness or reach the pinnacle of whatever they strive at. Now, if you wanted to say that everybody (everybody in the US at least) can strive for this greatness, then you would be correct. You see, there is always going to be someone who is better at something than you. Now, will that person be applying at the same time at the same place for the same position you are? Maybe, maybe not. The point is , 350,000,000 people (Roughly the population of the US) can't become Doctors at the same time. .

[OCA]

Actually, loosecannon is just being a realist here. And he's 100% right. Not everybody can achieve greatness or reach the pinnacle of whatever they strive at. Now, if you wanted to say that everybody (everybody in the US at least) can strive for this greatness, then you would be correct. You see, there is always going to be someone who is better at something than you. Now, will that person be applying at the same time at the same place for the same position you are? Maybe, maybe not. The point is , 350,000,000 people (Roughly the population of the US) can't become Doctors at the same time. .

True, but its not because of the reasons that loose thinks, its because there are winners and there are losers in life, there are brilliant folks and there are dumbasses, there are those that can achieve the status of a CEO and those that can't move beyond flipping burgers because they are incapable. Its not society's responsibility to make everyone even, in effect dumbing down society.

[Abbey Marie]

True, but its not because of the reasons that loose thinks, its because there are winners and there are losers in life, there are brilliant folks and there are dumbasses, there are those that can achieve the status of a CEO and those that can't move beyond flipping burgers because they are incapable. Its not society's responsibility to make everyone even, in effect dumbing down society.

Well said. And as we all know, many can be very successful without being professionals. It really is about attitude and the willingness to work hard. Socialists posing as Dems might ask themselves why so many people want to immigrate here, if the deck is so stacked against so many.

[gabosaurus]

Manu, there must have been something about your character that Cal didn't like. I had a 3.0 GPA, 1540 on the SAT and the appropriate extracirricular activities. I was not only accepted to Berkeley, but I received a full four-year academic scholarship. I graduated with honors and am now a grad student.

Perhaps there is something you aren't telling us.

[CockySOB]

True, but its not because of the reasons that loose thinks, its because there are winners and there are losers in life, there are brilliant folks and there are dumbasses, there are those that can achieve the status of a CEO and those that can't move beyond flipping burgers because they are incapable. Its not society's responsibility to make everyone even, in effect dumbing down society.

There's also the reality that everyone has different talents, and those talents may not lie in the area that they wish. ie) A person may want to be a crackerjack programmer, but they can't even handle the simplest algebra. They have teh chance and if they have the drive to match, they *might* succeed, but it is highly unlikely.

[grunt]

True, but its not because of the reasons that loose thinks, its because there are winners and there are losers in life, there are brilliant folks and there are dumbasses, there are those that can achieve the status of a CEO and those that can't move beyond flipping burgers because they are incapable. Its not society's responsibility to make everyone even, in effect dumbing down society.


No it's not. It's because CEO type jobs are finite. For every Donald Trump, there are 100 more people just as smart, creative etc etc as him, but the world can only handle ONE Donald Trump. I'm sure luck and being in the right place at the right time as something to do with these things too, but not as much as simple economics. As I wrote before, anybody has the option of TRYING to become Donald Trump, but even those who work just as hard won't always get to Trump status.

[Gaffer]

No it's not. It's because CEO type jobs are finite. For every Donald Trump, there are 100 more people just as smart, creative etc etc as him, but the world can only handle ONE Donald Trump. I'm sure luck and being in the right place at the right time as something to do with these things too, but not as much as simple economics. As I wrote before, anybody has the option of TRYING to become Donald Trump, but even those who work just as hard won't always get to Trump status.

Luck and being in the right place have everything to do with it.

[loosecannon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html?th&emc=th/

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.


the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans

300,000 earning as much as the botton 150 million.

No how, no way did these top 300,000 earn, need, or deserve that much income at the direct expense of half the nation who are poorer as a result.

And remember the poorer half actually needs the money. The richest don't.

So lets show some disdain for the useless and indulgent greed of the top earners who waste income that half the nation really needs for basics.

[grunt]

Luck and being in the right place have everything to do with it.

Not everything, but definitely something.

[avatar4321]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html?th&emc=th/

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.



300,000 earning as much as the botton 150 million.

No how, no way did these top 300,000 earn, need, or deserve that much income at the direct expense of half the nation who are poorer as a result.

And remember the poorer half actually needs the money. The richest don't.

So lets show some disdain for the useless and indulgent greed of the top earners who waste income that half the nation really needs for basics.

You're argument doesnt follow the points you are making. how does the fact that people are working harder and making more money lead to the conclusion that their hard work has paid off at the expense of those who have been less fortunate financially?

The fact is the rich are not to blame for someone else not being wealthy. Why should I be angry at some hard working self made millionaire simply because I haven't made tons of money in my life yet? It's not their fault. It takes time and hard work to get into the position they are in. Hopefully someday Ill be in the same arena they are. But its not their fault I'm not. And it may not be my fault either, but I'm the only one who can change my own position. They can't do it. I wouldn't benefit in the least bit if they somehow woke up poor tomorrow or if they gave away all their money.

You're arguments are completely irrational and seem based on an argument of envy, greed, pride, jealousy, etc. And I think those vices are as bad as the ones you are so admittly fighting against. And they come as a result of having your heart set too much on the material things of the world. If you really think about it they aren't that important. They are nice of course. But one doesnt need money to be rich. In fact, being rich often makes people miserable.

[loosecannon]

You're argument doesnt follow the points you are making. how does the fact that people are working harder and making more money lead to the conclusion that their hard work has paid off at the expense of those who have been less fortunate financially?


First off, there is NO evidence that higher paid people work harder. The hardest working people/dollar are clearly the illegals who "do jobs Americans won't do". Capitalists don't even pretend to believe in the equation of work=rewards. The theories supporting capitalism rely on ideas that say that some people DESERVE to earn more for less work becayse their abilities and therefore their work is WORTH more. It is a survival of the fittest argument, not a meritocracy based on effort, time invested or the rigors of the actual work.

Second nobody could conceivably work hard enough to "earn" a million dollars a year. Much less $8 billion/year.

Third income distribution is a real phenomena because IF the balance of wealth is distributed incorrectly the economy slows for all. And as it moves toward imbalance the income of either extreme moves increasingly inversely to the movement of the other. Meaning in an economy where the wealth distribution is out of balance an increase in minimum wage automatically means that the top quintile will get a wage decrease and vice versa.

[Hobbit]

First off, there is NO evidence that higher paid people work harder. The hardest working people/dollar are clearly the illegals who "do jobs Americans won't do". Capitalists don't even pretend to believe in the equation of work=rewards. The theories supporting capitalism rely on ideas that say that some people DESERVE to earn more for less work becayse their abilities and therefore their work is WORTH more. It is a survival of the fittest argument, not a meritocracy based on effort, time invested or the rigors of the actual work.

Second nobody could conceivably work hard enough to "earn" a million dollars a year. Much less $8 billion/year.

Third income distribution is a real phenomena because IF the balance of wealth is distributed incorrectly the economy slows for all. And as it moves toward imbalance the income of either extreme moves increasingly inversely to the movement of the other. Meaning in an economy where the wealth distribution is out of balance an increase in minimum wage automatically means that the top quintile will get a wage decrease and vice versa.

So the guy who sacrifices 6+ years of his life to school in order to get an MBA, then spends 60+ hours a week working in an office, and an additional expenditure of time managing his money wisely and making sure it's properly invested, then works his way up the company ladder until his hard work finally pays off and his investments and savings net him 1 million/year for his retirement hasn't earned it just because he didn't get on his hands and kness to work the ground itself? What about the master carpenter who invests a large portion of his 6 figure pay into mutual funds? What about the entepreneur who risks everything he has to start a business. You're full of crap. Wealth is a direct result of good decisions, and little else.

[grunt]

First off, there is NO evidence that higher paid people work harder. The hardest working people/dollar are clearly the illegals who "do jobs Americans won't do". Capitalists don't even pretend to believe in the equation of work=rewards. The theories supporting capitalism rely on ideas that say that some people DESERVE to earn more for less work becayse their abilities and therefore their work is WORTH more. It is a survival of the fittest argument, not a meritocracy based on effort, time invested or the rigors of the actual work.

Second nobody could conceivably work hard enough to "earn" a million dollars a year. Much less $8 billion/year.

Third income distribution is a real phenomena because IF the balance of wealth is distributed incorrectly the economy slows for all. And as it moves toward imbalance the income of either extreme moves increasingly inversely to the movement of the other. Meaning in an economy where the wealth distribution is out of balance an increase in minimum wage automatically means that the top quintile will get a wage decrease and vice versa.

I disagree. It is quite possible for someone to work hard enough to earn a million dollars a year. It happens all the time. Now, there are also those who do little and earn that, but thats another thread. And there is evidence to prove that sometimes, higher paid people work harder. Just look around. There are hundreds of millionaires who work 100+ hrs per week. I'd even dare to say that some are either working or sleeping. Sure they go on vacation, but I can't tell you how many times I've been lounging around the pool in HI and have overheared some guy in the middle of a business transaction while he himself is on vacation. It's quite common. Also, who do you think is working harder? The ER Doc who works 80hrs/week or the landscaping guy who works 80hrs/week? Who do YOU think deserves more money? You also understand that the TIME and EFFORT put into becoming a doctor is much greater than the guy mowing the lawn. So not only do you pay "professionals" for the work they do, but the work they did in the past in order to get there.

[Mr. P]

First off, there is NO evidence that higher paid people work harder. The hardest working people/dollar are clearly the illegals who "do jobs Americans won't do". Capitalists don't even pretend to believe in the equation of work=rewards. The theories supporting capitalism rely on ideas that say that some people DESERVE to earn more for less work becayse their abilities and therefore their work is WORTH more. It is a survival of the fittest argument, not a meritocracy based on effort, time invested or the rigors of the actual work.

Second nobody could conceivably work hard enough to "earn" a million dollars a year. Much less $8 billion/year.

Third income distribution is a real phenomena because IF the balance of wealth is distributed incorrectly the economy slows for all. And as it moves toward imbalance the income of either extreme moves increasingly inversely to the movement of the other. Meaning in an economy where the wealth distribution is out of balance an increase in minimum wage automatically means that the top quintile will get a wage decrease and vice versa.
:laugh2: Define "work", in your opinion what is it?

[CockySOB]

First off, there is NO evidence that higher paid people work harder. The hardest working people/dollar are clearly the illegals who "do jobs Americans won't do". Capitalists don't even pretend to believe in the equation of work=rewards. The theories supporting capitalism rely on ideas that say that some people DESERVE to earn more for less work becayse their abilities and therefore their work is WORTH more. It is a survival of the fittest argument, not a meritocracy based on effort, time invested or the rigors of the actual work.

Second nobody could conceivably work hard enough to "earn" a million dollars a year. Much less $8 billion/year.

Third income distribution is a real phenomena because IF the balance of wealth is distributed incorrectly the economy slows for all. And as it moves toward imbalance the income of either extreme moves increasingly inversely to the movement of the other. Meaning in an economy where the wealth distribution is out of balance an increase in minimum wage automatically means that the top quintile will get a wage decrease and vice versa.

Addressing each of your "points" in turn....

1) You seem to claim that higher paid workers don't work as hard as illegals. What metric are you using to define "working hard?" And are you absolving illegals their crimes simply because you consider them to be "hard working?" Rather an uncivilized notion, that.

BTW, higher paid positions are generally skilled positions requiring additional education and training. This education and training is not a walk in the park, at least not if it is worth a crap. When you're learning the skills and techniques required for the skilled position, you're supposed to be working your ass off studying and practicing. Moreover, unless someone else is financing your education, you're working at an unskilled position to pay the basics WHILE you learn. The rewards of your education and training come AFTER you demonstrate proficiency by graduating or completing your course of study, when you enter the workplace as a skilled worker. But again, don't think that it's an easy road, because thinking for a living is very difficult. And those skilled positions? You are continually having to retrain and update your skill sets in order to keep your job.

Does this mean that skilled workers always earn their paychecks? Nope. But neither can you say that unskilled workers always earn their paychecks.

If anything, the skilled workers earn LESS than they should. Skilled workers perform MORE work than their unskilled counterparts. (I'm using the metric of results, as opposed to joules of exerted energy.)

2) Nothing like a little exaggeration, eh? Who makes US$8bn each year? Making millions of dollars a year, I can understand, especially if the individual has invested years or even decades mastering their craft.

3) The income distribution and the inequality you perceive comes from the difference in types of work. The skilled workers productivity is multiples of the productivity of a single unskilled worker, and that productivity differential is reflected in the disparity of income.

BTW, as we progress as a global society, what was once considered "skilled labor" becomes more common, and the income earnings are reduced to levels which approach the unskilled. Courses which used to be the province of graduate schools, become baccalaureate material. Courses which used to be the province of baccalaureate programs are now taught in high school.

[avatar4321]

First off, there is NO evidence that higher paid people work harder. The hardest working people/dollar are clearly the illegals who "do jobs Americans won't do". Capitalists don't even pretend to believe in the equation of work=rewards. The theories supporting capitalism rely on ideas that say that some people DESERVE to earn more for less work becayse their abilities and therefore their work is WORTH more. It is a survival of the fittest argument, not a meritocracy based on effort, time invested or the rigors of the actual work.

Second nobody could conceivably work hard enough to "earn" a million dollars a year. Much less $8 billion/year.

Third income distribution is a real phenomena because IF the balance of wealth is distributed incorrectly the economy slows for all. And as it moves toward imbalance the income of either extreme moves increasingly inversely to the movement of the other. Meaning in an economy where the wealth distribution is out of balance an increase in minimum wage automatically means that the top quintile will get a wage decrease and vice versa.

You are ignoring the point. Your claim is that people only get rich because they step on others. Such a conclusion does not follow your claims. Even if all of your statements here were accepted as true.

[MtnBiker]

Shaquille O'Neal ($31 million), Tiger Woods ($80 million), Oprah Winfrey ($210 million), Barry Bonds ($23 million), Mel Gibson ($210 million) and Lance Armstrong ($19 million) are at or near the top of their profession and their annual earnings show it. But is it fair? After all there are many other decent, hardworking basketball and baseball players, movie producers and bikers who don't earn anywhere near that kind of income. For example, Shaq is a professional basketball player and so is Jamal Sampson. What's just about Shaq being paid $31 million and Jamal $349,458? This is gross income inequality.

Why do some people earn higher income compared to others? Are they simply "winners in the lottery of life" as Congressman Richard Gephardt (D. MO) puts it? Nothing can be further from the truth. People are different. Among the ways we differ are: ambition, skills, aptitude, perseverance, intelligence, and physical strength. Some people pursue paths that are more rewarding than others. Then there's the sheer luck of having demanding parents, tenacious mentors and being in the right place at the right time. Then there's another explanation for income differences that people seldom take into account - vicious consumer discrimination. Shaquille plays basketball and so can I. So why don't I earn as much money? It's because millions of people like you will plunk down $80 to $500 to watch Shaquille play but how much will you plunk down to watch me play? You might even expect me to pay you.

In sports, at least, it's fairly easy to see that those who are more productive tend to earn the higher salaries. Their productivity might be measured by the points they score and/or their impact on gate revenues. Mel Gibson's and Oprah Winfrey's earnings are explained by productivity as well; they satisfy millions upon millions of people. Another, perhaps more useful way of explaining earnings differentials is that one's earnings depend on his ability to serve his fellow man plus the value his fellow man places upon that service.

Then there's a supply side of the story. Shaquille earns many times more than the brightest neurosurgeon. Why? It isn't because basketball is more important to society than neurosurgery; it's because the supply of people with aptitudes to become bright neurosurgeons far exceeds those with skills to do what Shaquille does. However, if it were the other way around, thousands upon thousands with Shaquille skills and few with neurosurgeon skills, the earnings picture would be reversed.

People spend too much time worrying about income inequality. Listening to much of that discussion, one would think that it's a dealer of dollars who determines income. The reason why some people have more money than others is that the dollar-dealer is a racist, sexist or multi-nationalist. Hence justice requires a re-dealing or redistribution of the dollars.

Far better good could be done for our fellow man by focusing more of our attention on productive inequality rather than income inequality. Income inequality is a result and it's productive inequality that mostly explains that result rather than some insidious plot afoot. Whether it's individuals or countries, one seldom sees highly productive people poor or highly unproductive people rich unless there are government restrictions and subsidies at play. Making people more productive is the challenge; whining about income inequality is a copout.

Walter E. Williams

c40-04

September 20, 2004


http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/04/inequality.html

[loosecannon]

Wealth is a direct result of good decisions, and little else.

aside from being patentlky false and at odds with even the capitalists and capitalist apologist philosophy, it is also offtopic.

The point in question was whether wealth was a result of hard work.

I said it isn't, you said chickens can drive riding mowers.

[loosecannon]

It is quite possible for someone to work hard enough to earn a million dollars a year. There are hundreds of millionaires who work 100+ hrs per week.

OK, I said that even apologists for capitalism say that some people deserve to earn more.

BUT when you make an argument that hard work is what earns the rich their pay, you are discounting the argument that they are worth more.

You are saying that rich peoples labor is worth just as much as pea pickers in the valley, but rich folks just pick that many more peas.

So according to your example a guy making the minimum $320,000/year would have to work 164 hours/day, every day of the year to earn his money by hard work alone.

I hope that helps your logic block. If not lemme I know i will assist you however I can.

[loosecannon]

:laugh2: Define "work", in your opinion what is it?

That was a remarkably good question, I will buy you a beer for that.

I can't define work with one definition because work means different things in different contexts.

It can mean picking peas, or energy and time consumed inventing new methods, processes and machinery (that is what I do for a living), or it can mean the value of energy required to turn a shaft or heat a volume of water.

BUT in the equation of "does work equal pay": Work represents the amount of productivity contributed by a unit of labor that is INDEPENDENT from external productivity subsidy.

[loosecannon]

1) You seem to claim that higher paid workers don't work as hard as illegals. What metric are you using to define "working hard?" And are you absolving illegals their crimes simply because you consider them to be "hard working?"

I am opposed to illegals working inside the US and strongly so.

I define working hard as units of effort, or productivity or time/dollar of compensation.


BTW, higher paid positions are generally skilled positions requiring additional education and training. This education and training is not a walk in the park, at least not if it is worth a crap.

This is as true for truck drivers and pea pickers as it is for CEO's of major corporations. And the relative pay scale reflects it in both cases.







2) Nothing like a little exaggeration, eh? Who makes US$8bn each year? Making millions of dollars a year, I can understand, especially if the individual has invested years or even decades mastering their craft.

Not an exaggeration at all. The article was about the gulf between the richest 300.000 americans and the poorest 150 million. I listed two examples the second was the $8 billion figure.

Three people made $8 billion last year.

Enough to buy everyone in the US an ipod. Or to pay the electricity bill of every American for one month.

Or enough to fill up the tank of every auto in Canada, the US and Mexico.

It is very hard to imagine how that wealth came from their actual work, by any stretched perspective. (it didn't, of course)

[manu1959]

OK, I said that even apologists for capitalism say that some people deserve to earn more.

BUT when you make an argument that hard work is what earns the rich their pay, you are discounting the argument that they are worth more.

You are saying that rich peoples labor is worth just as much as pea pickers in the valley, but rich folks just pick that many more peas.

So according to your example a guy making the minimum $320,000/year would have to work 164 hours/day, every day of the year to earn his money by hard work alone.

I hope that helps your logic block. If not lemme I know i will assist you however I can.

i am worth what i can get you to pay me....at the moment that is $275 / hr minimum billing increment is 1 hr... so if i answer 8 questions from 8 differnet clients in 8 minutes my 8 hour day is paid for....

[loosecannon]

People spend too much time worrying about income inequality.

Yeah easy to say when you are a paid apologist for the two class society and legions of generationally poor.

The people who write that pablum don't care how many millions die of AIDS or starvation each year.

They only care about whwether they can squeeze their own fat petards into a Lexus.

btw, 25,000 people die of starvation every day.

That is 1,666 times greater a number of human deaths that the 15 brits in Iranian custody.

It is 8 times higher than the number of casualties on 9/11 or of American troops killed in the Iraq war and it happens every single day, 25,000 more humans dying of starvation so Bill Gates can have 100,000 times more wealth than anybody can conceivably need.

Get your friggin priorities in order.

[manu1959]

Yeah easy to say when you are a paid apologist for the two class society and legions of generationally poor.

The people who write that pablum don't care how many millions die of AIDS or starvation each year.

They only care about whwether they can squeeze their own fat petards into a Lexus.

btw, 25,000 people die of starvation every day.

That is 1,666 times greater a number of human deaths that the 15 brits in Iranian custody.

It is 8 times higher than the number of casualties on 9/11 or of American troops killed in the Iraq war and it happens every single day, 25,000 more humans dying of starvation so Bill Gates can have 100,000 times more wealth than anybody can conceivably need.

Get your friggin priorities in order.

you should post less and help the poor

[SassyLady]

Obviously not ANYONE can do that.

And if they could standards would be raised until only so many could jump thru the prescribed hoops.

The education system and colleges are designed to exclude most from the highest ranks of success, while rewarding the few who can graduate MIT and Yale and Harvard.

Everybody can not be succesful. It is mathematically and institutionally impossible.


Well, I would agree with you here........anyone who continues to think this way will certainly not be successful. It's the self-fulfilling prophecy.

[SassyLady]

Actually, loosecannon is just being a realist here. And he's 100% right. Not everybody can achieve greatness or reach the pinnacle of whatever they strive at. Now, if you wanted to say that everybody (everybody in the US at least) can strive for this greatness, then you would be correct. You see, there is always going to be someone who is better at something than you. Now, will that person be applying at the same time at the same place for the same position you are? Maybe, maybe not. The point is , 350,000,000 people (Roughly the population of the US) can't become Doctors at the same time. .

You are right Grunt.......but the point is that if everyone was striving to become a doctor they would be working to better themselves in some way. It's the principle of working to better oneself in the process --- not whether everyone will be at the top of the heap.

Unfortunately too many people listen to nay-sayers like loose and believe they can't be successful, therefore, why even try...........easier to turn to the government, and those that have succeeded, to be responsible for them.

[SassyLady]

True, but its not because of the reasons that loose thinks, its because there are winners and there are losers in life, there are brilliant folks and there are dumbasses, there are those that can achieve the status of a CEO and those that can't move beyond flipping burgers because they are incapable. Its not society's responsibility to make everyone even, in effect dumbing down society.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Must spread rep!!!!

[shattered]

Yeah easy to say when you are a paid apologist for the two class society and legions of generationally poor.

The people who write that pablum don't care how many millions die of AIDS or starvation each year.

They only care about whwether they can squeeze their own fat petards into a Lexus.

btw, 25,000 people die of starvation every day.

That is 1,666 times greater a number of human deaths that the 15 brits in Iranian custody.

It is 8 times higher than the number of casualties on 9/11 or of American troops killed in the Iraq war and it happens every single day, 25,000 more humans dying of starvation so Bill Gates can have 100,000 times more wealth than anybody can conceivably need.

Get your friggin priorities in order.


When are you going to realize that *everyone* in this world starts out cold, screaming, and naked? It's what you do with your life from that point that dictates where you end up in life.

Bill Gates came up with a product you, yourself, can't seem to live without. Why should hias income be limited to what you think is reasonable for one person?

[SassyLady]

Manu, there must have been something about your character that Cal didn't like. I had a 3.0 GPA, 1540 on the SAT and the appropriate extracirricular activities. I was not only accepted to Berkeley, but I received a full four-year academic scholarship. I graduated with honors and am now a grad student.

Perhaps there is something you aren't telling us.

Hey, you are so right gabby!!!

Compared to you, Manu has character and if you are the type Berkeley wants (minds that are easily corrupted and molded to left-wing extremism), then no wonder they turned him down.

[SassyLady]

No it's not. It's because CEO type jobs are finite. For every Donald Trump, there are 100 more people just as smart, creative etc etc as him, but the world can only handle ONE Donald Trump. I'm sure luck and being in the right place at the right time as something to do with these things too, but not as much as simple economics. As I wrote before, anybody has the option of TRYING to become Donald Trump, but even those who work just as hard won't always get to Trump status.

Very true Grunt.....but there is one thing we know without a doubt. Those that don't even try will definitely NOT get to Trump status.

Are you trying to say that everyone should just sit on their arses and look for handouts because the odds are that they might not reach the status of Trump.

Come on ........ what a defeatist attitude.

[manu1959]

Manu, there must have been something about your character that Cal didn't like. I had a 3.0 GPA, 1540 on the SAT and the appropriate extracirricular activities. I was not only accepted to Berkeley, but I received a full four-year academic scholarship. I graduated with honors and am now a grad student.

Perhaps there is something you aren't telling us.

i was white.....remember the bakke decision....http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/balbak.html

[SassyLady]

The point in question was whether wealth was a result of hard work.




LC - in differing contexts, your theory could be correct. Example: I experience daily a wealth of love that I did not work hard to get.........I'm just who I am and people love me. I don't work hard at it.

[Abbey Marie]

LC - in differing contexts, your theory could be correct. Example: I experience daily a wealth of love that I did not work hard to get.........I'm just who I am and people love me. I don't work hard at it.

I can attest to that. :)

[manu1959]

LC - in differing contexts, your theory could be correct. Example: I experience daily a wealth of love that I did not work hard to get.........I'm just who I am and people love me. I don't work hard at it.

it is possible that you do not see what you do as hard work but to another it appears as though you are engaged in a sisyphean toil

[SassyLady]

Three people made $8 billion last year.

Enough to buy everyone in the US an ipod. Or to pay the electricity bill of every American for one month.

Or enough to fill up the tank of every auto in Canada, the US and Mexico.

It is very hard to imagine how that wealth came from their actual work, by any stretched perspective. (it didn't, of course)

So what? Three people made $8 billion. Good for them. They must have done something right......whether it was for a brilliant idea, or for being charismatic, or for being born into a family with money for them to use to make more money, or whatever worked for them.........that's life.

The point of this thread is that there are millions of people who even when they have opportunity sit on their arses and listen to people like you tell them that they are being "used".

I feel that the chasm between the bottom and the top is largely due to the increased illegal immigration.......which is broadening the poor base of this country and skewing the statistics.

[SassyLady]

Yeah easy to say when you are a paid apologist for the two class society and legions of generationally poor.

The people who write that pablum don't care how many millions die of AIDS or starvation each year.

They only care about whwether they can squeeze their own fat petards into a Lexus.

btw, 25,000 people die of starvation every day.

That is 1,666 times greater a number of human deaths that the 15 brits in Iranian custody.

It is 8 times higher than the number of casualties on 9/11 or of American troops killed in the Iraq war and it happens every single day, 25,000 more humans dying of starvation so Bill Gates can have 100,000 times more wealth than anybody can conceivably need.

Get your friggin priorities in order.

Do you give the same percentage of your income to charities as Mr. Gates does?

[Abbey Marie]

...
Three people made $8 billion last year.

Enough to buy everyone in the US an ipod. Or to pay the electricity bill of every American for one month.

Or enough to fill up the tank of every auto in Canada, the US and Mexico.

It is very hard to imagine how that wealth came from their actual work, by any stretched perspective. (it didn't, of course)

How about people born beautiful, or born highly intelligent? They have all sorts of unfair advantages over the homely and the dumb, no? Should they be forced to ugly up, or get a lobotomy, respectively?

There are really no limits to where Socialist thinking will lead you. Most of us are able to come to terms with the fact that there will always be those who are richer, prettier, smarter than we are. We work hard to be the best we can be, and dont let envy embitter our souls.

[SassyLady]

How about people born beautiful, or born highly intelligent? They have all sorts of unfair advantages over the homely and the dumb, no? Should they be forced to ugly up, or get a lobotomy, respectively?

There are really no limits to where Socialist thinking will lead you. Most of us are able to come to terms with the fact that there will always be those who are richer, prettier, smarter than we are. We work hard to be the best we can be, and dont let envy embitter our souls.


:clap: :clap:

[CockySOB]

I define working hard as units of effort, or productivity or time/dollar of compensation. Sorry but those three metrics are not equivalent. Someone could struggle all month to try to write a simple database applications that I can churn out in less that two hours. Their "effort" isn't worth crap as far as productivity is concerned. Productivity requires results in a timely fashion, not mere "effort."


Three people made $8 billion last year. Who were they?


It is very hard to imagine how that wealth came from their actual work, by any stretched perspective. (it didn't, of course)And again you fall back on "of course." That is a lazy answer in the same vein as "obviously." If it is your opinion, simply say so, rather than stating it as a fact.

[grunt]

Yeah easy to say when you are a paid apologist for the two class society and legions of generationally poor.

The people who write that pablum don't care how many millions die of AIDS or starvation each year.

They only care about whwether they can squeeze their own fat petards into a Lexus.

btw, 25,000 people die of starvation every day.

That is 1,666 times greater a number of human deaths that the 15 brits in Iranian custody.

It is 8 times higher than the number of casualties on 9/11 or of American troops killed in the Iraq war and it happens every single day, 25,000 more humans dying of starvation so Bill Gates can have 100,000 times more wealth than anybody can conceivably need.

Get your friggin priorities in order.

When are you socilaists going to learn that just because somebody is rich doesn't mean they owe anybody anything?

[grunt]

Very true Grunt.....but there is one thing we know without a doubt. Those that don't even try will definitely NOT get to Trump status.

Are you trying to say that everyone should just sit on their arses and look for handouts because the odds are that they might not reach the status of Trump.

Come on ........ what a defeatist attitude.

Not at all. I'm not saying don't try. There is a good chance that if you try hard enough, you'll get what you desire. Although, I'm enough of a realist to understand that it's impossible for everybody to get what thye strive for. Even the hard working ones.

[avatar4321]

You are right Grunt.......but the point is that if everyone was striving to become a doctor they would be working to better themselves in some way. It's the principle of working to better oneself in the process --- not whether everyone will be at the top of the heap.

Unfortunately too many people listen to nay-sayers like loose and believe they can't be successful, therefore, why even try...........easier to turn to the government, and those that have succeeded, to be responsible for them.

I completely agree. alot of people dont bother trying to work to be better in any way. One doesn't have to be at the top of the heat to do their best in everything they do. They dont need it to work hard.

I think the character developed through hard work is worth infinitely more than material value. Don't get me wrong, Im all for getting money. but Im not going to pretend as though I'm somehow worthless if i work my butt off and its not my lot in life.

Problem is too many people never work. If they did they would generate wealth.

[avatar4321]

When are you going to realize that *everyone* in this world starts out cold, screaming, and naked? It's what you do with your life from that point that dictates where you end up in life.

Bill Gates came up with a product you, yourself, can't seem to live without. Why should hias income be limited to what you think is reasonable for one person?

More importantly why should we think that any government would be able to more effectively use Bill Gates wealth to better the world then he would? And more importantly why should we rob him of the right to help others?

[avatar4321]

How about people born beautiful, or born highly intelligent? They have all sorts of unfair advantages over the homely and the dumb, no? Should they be forced to ugly up, or get a lobotomy, respectively?

There are really no limits to where Socialist thinking will lead you. Most of us are able to come to terms with the fact that there will always be those who are richer, prettier, smarter than we are. We work hard to be the best we can be, and dont let envy embitter our souls.

No, the socialists wont suggest that. They have an easier way: Kill the ugly people.

[avatar4321]

When are you socilaists going to learn that just because somebody is rich doesn't mean they owe anybody anything?

He still hasn't provided any support for his claim that the rich are only rich by making others poor. I haven't been made poor by any rich person. I am poor because instead of monetary gains I have delayed working to obtain an education and develop skills that will get me more money down the line.

[loosecannon]

you should post less and help the poor


Amen

[loosecannon]

Well, I would agree with you here........anyone who continues to think this way will certainly not be successful. It's the self-fulfilling prophecy.

Wrong, the education process began as a way to define a class of educated elite and seperate them from a class of illiterates.

It hasn't changed a whole lot in it's purpose.

[loosecannon]

You are right Grunt....... It's the principle of working to better oneself in the process --- not whether everyone will be at the top of the heap.



No the point is that no matter how hard they work and strive to acheive and better themselves somebody is still gonna be poor and the same personalities are still gonna be claiming that those who remain poor do not deserve the same cost of living increases (increase in minimum wage) that everybody else gets.

There will still be a "Damn the poor thread" and folks will still be arguing that the poor are over paid.

[loosecannon]

When are you going to realize that *everyone* in this world starts out cold, screaming, and naked?

But some are also born admitted to Yale and guaranteed board positions even if they fail at every CEO position they take on.

The discussion is about minimum wage, digust of the poor and the fact that the rich simply suck up half the worlds wealth and income, literally leaving nothing for the remaining 5 billion people to strive for.

[loosecannon]

How about people born beautiful, or born highly intelligent? They have all sorts of unfair advantages over the homely and the dumb, no? Should they be forced to ugly up, or get a lobotomy, respectively?



Being born ugly is not the same as being born rich or poor.

The wealth of the world is not determined by nature or God, it is divided by mens conventions and laws.

The wealth and money of the world literally belong to everybody equally. They are part of the public domain.

The dollars are owned by the issuing government and the government can recall them.

[loosecannon]

Sorry but those three metrics are not equivalent.

which is is why I said "or...or"


Who were they?

Warren buffet, Bill Gates and some guy from Mexico who earned $17 billion in one year.

CSOB, it is a fact that by ANY reasonable metric no person can "earn" $8 billion in one year.

That is one million times the income of the average human.

Now let me say this one final time because ya'll have now confused the issue at least 4 times:

Even capitalists do not pretend that the wealthy "earn" their share. They advance the idea that some people "deserve" more than others.

My point is that nobody either earns or deserves a million times more than the average person who does work as hard or harder/dollar, probably hundreds or thousands of times harder/dollar than the top 1%, or the top 20% of income earners.

[loosecannon]

When are you socilaists going to learn that just because somebody is rich doesn't mean they owe anybody anything?

Shouldn't you address this question to a socialist?

[loosecannon]

I think the character developed through hard work is worth infinitely more than material value.

IOW "Let them eat character"

[loosecannon]

He still hasn't provided any support for his claim that the rich are only rich by making others poor. I haven't been made poor by any rich person.

There is finite wealth at any given moment. Today that finite wealth amounts to about $10,000/person.

Every person who earns more than $10,000 is by default creating somebody who will make less than $10,000/year.

Wage equality is not the point of this discussion.

The point of this discussion is that many are arguing that $5.15/hour is all some peoples hard work is worth. While Bill Gates surely must earned $8billion last year.

That is insanity.

Raise the minimuum wage and stop pretending that the poor are poor because they choose to be or because they don't try.

Bill Gates created abject poverty for 800,000 people last year simply by sucking up so much money that there was NONE left for 800,000 people to live at a median level.

[grunt]

There is finite wealth at any given moment. Today that finite wealth amounts to about $10,000/person.

Every person who earns more than $10,000 is by default creating somebody who will make less than $10,000/year.

Wage equality is not the point of this discussion.

The point of this discussion is that many are arguing that $5.15/hour is all some peoples hard work is worth. While Bill Gates surely must earned $8billion last year.

That is insanity.

Raise the minimuum wage and stop pretending that the poor are poor because they choose to be or because they don't try.

Bill Gates created abject poverty for 800,000 people last year simply by sucking up so much money that there was NONE left for 800,000 people to live at a median level.

I agree 99%. Raising the minimum wage really is not an answer though. Raising the minimum wage only allows business to increase their prices, thus causing inflation, thus causing those who make minimum wage seem like they never got a wage increase in the first place. There are always going to be poor people. Period. That can not be helped. Communist/Socialist societies have tried and have always failed. I'm more with you than against you on your arguments here. One question though, I'm getting the feeling that your position is to take from the rich and give to the poor? Am I right?

[CockySOB]

which is is why I said "or...or"
So you admit to using shifting and disparate definitions of "hard work?" That's the point I was getting at.


Warren buffet, Bill Gates and some guy from Mexico who earned $17 billion in one year.
OK, so why shouldn't they benefit from their decades of thinking for a living?


CSOB, it is a fact that by ANY reasonable metric no person can "earn" $8 billion in one year.
Why? I know of no such "fact." Again, this is you voicing your opinion and trying to pass it off as "fact." Just admit it and go on. And for the record, my opinion is that profits like that are probably excessive, but as long as there is a demand for their products/services, more power to them.


That is one million times the income of the average human.
While I am of the opinion that such is excessive, as long as there is a demand for their products/services, more power to them.


Now let me say this one final time because ya'll have now confused the issue at least 4 times:

Even capitalists do not pretend that the wealthy "earn" their share. They advance the idea that some people "deserve" more than others.
Get specific, which capitalists are you talking about? Again you use vague reference and call it "fact." This is the act of someone who is either ignorant, lazy, or intellectually dishonest.


My point is that nobody either earns or deserves a million times more than the average person who does work as hard or harder/dollar, probably hundreds or thousands of times harder/dollar than the top 1%, or the top 20% of income earners.
While I am of the opinion that such is excessive, as long as there is a demand for their products/services, more power to them. (yeah, it's a copy-and-paste, but your various statements suffer the same flaw)

[MtnBiker]

btw, 25,000 people die of starvation every day.

That is 1,666 times greater a number of human deaths that the 15 brits in Iranian custody.



Your comparison is meaningless.

[CockySOB]

There is finite wealth at any given moment. Today that finite wealth amounts to about $10,000/person.

Every person who earns more than $10,000 is by default creating somebody who will make less than $10,000/year.

Wage equality is not the point of this discussion.

The point of this discussion is that many are arguing that $5.15/hour is all some peoples hard work is worth. While Bill Gates surely must earned $8billion last year.

That is insanity.

Raise the minimuum wage and stop pretending that the poor are poor because they choose to be or because they don't try.

Bill Gates created abject poverty for 800,000 people last year simply by sucking up so much money that there was NONE left for 800,000 people to live at a median level.

This is without a doubt, one of the stupidest (and I loathe the use of the word as a matter of course, but here it fits) statements I have ever heard.

Here's a challenge for you, loosecanon. Find me ONE minimum wage earner who could do what Bill Gates has done in building the Microsoft corporate empire. When you give up on that task, find me a group of 1,000 individual minimum wage earners who could do it. And when you give up on that, find me 1,000,000 minimum wage earners who could build a Microsoft-type corporation. Simply put, you can't do it.

And as to the statement about finite wealth.... Of course "at any given moment" there will be finite wealth! The reason? Because at the point in time when that "wealth" is measured, it MUST necessarily be finite in order to be measured. However, that figure grows over time as new wealth is created via invention, etc.

[OCA]

Shouldn't you address this question to a socialist?

Loose at best you are a socialist, at worse you are a person using some imagined victim status to deflect from his shortcomings. Don't argue because its all over your posts.

Either way its sick.

[OCA]

There is finite wealth at any given moment. Today that finite wealth amounts to about $10,000/person.

Every person who earns more than $10,000 is by default creating somebody who will make less than $10,000/year.

Wage equality is not the point of this discussion.

The point of this discussion is that many are arguing that $5.15/hour is all some peoples hard work is worth. While Bill Gates surely must earned $8billion last year.

That is insanity.

Raise the minimuum wage and stop pretending that the poor are poor because they choose to be or because they don't try.

Bill Gates created abject poverty for 800,000 people last year simply by sucking up so much money that there was NONE left for 800,000 people to live at a median level.

Absolutely ludicrous.

Just admit you are jealous of achievers and be done with it.

[manu1959]

Raise the minimuum wage and stop pretending that the poor are poor because they choose to be or because they don't try.


are there poor people that choose to be poor?

[avatar4321]

I agree 99%. Raising the minimum wage really is not an answer though. Raising the minimum wage only allows business to increase their prices, thus causing inflation, thus causing those who make minimum wage seem like they never got a wage increase in the first place. There are always going to be poor people. Period. That can not be helped. Communist/Socialist societies have tried and have always failed. I'm more with you than against you on your arguments here. One question though, I'm getting the feeling that your position is to take from the rich and give to the poor? Am I right?

I think you are wasting your time. He understands this perfectly, he just doesn't care as long as he can claim he is looking out for the poor and ease his guilt.

There is as much wealth in the world as we create. That is the dirty secret. we create wealth through work.

[Roomy]

A lot of you are morally bankrupt.:cool: You know who you are.

[avatar4321]

A lot of you are morally bankrupt.:cool: You know who you are.

Yeah they are. but the socialists wont admit it.

[Roomy]

Yeah they are. but the socialists wont admit it.


Will the others though?

[OCA]

A lot of you are morally bankrupt.:cool: You know who you are.


Wow, and from such a credible source. Go fuck yourself you pikey salad tosser.

[Roomy]

Wow, and from such a credible source. Go fuck yourself you pikey salad tosser.


Michael, I thought you were ignoring me? Glad to see you back to your old mincing self.:cheers2:

[OCA]

Pikey. those idiots you have up in that video sig are a pefect example of junkies and losers and are exactly why society's herd needs thinning.

They fucked up and are the reason they are on the streets, not us achievers.

[OCA]

Michael, I thought you were ignoring me? Glad to see you back to your old mincing self.:cheers2:

Well 99.9% of your posts aren't worth a response but "Nancy" every once in awhile even I feel the need to beat up on a fucking retard like you, makes me feel good.

[Roomy]

Well 99.9% of your posts aren't worth a response but "Nancy" every once in awhile even I feel the need to beat up on a fucking retard like you, makes me feel good.

I am ready when you are Michael, take your best shot, remember to remove the marigolds first.:laugh2:

[OCA]

I am ready when you are Michael, take your best shot, remember to remove the marigolds first.:laugh2:

When you get some smelling salts and get back up off the canvas let me know. Actually when you can compose a literate thought.

[Roomy]

When you get some smelling salts and get back up off the canvas let me know. Actually when you can compose a literate thought.

WHOOSH...........that one missed.:laugh2:

[OCA]

WHOOSH...........that one missed.:laugh2:

Nah it connected Gertrude.

Leave the AMERICAN politics to Americans, your just making yourself look like a complete fucking joke.

[Roomy]

Nah it connected Gertrude.

Leave the AMERICAN politics to Americans, your just making yourself look like a complete fucking joke.

You must be a glutton for punishment Michael, mixing it up with anyone and you are out of your depth, but mixing it up with me........WHOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo.... ......unless of course it is because we are both bored and the board is quiet?:laugh2:

[OCA]

You must be a glutton for punishment Michael, mixing it up with anyone and you are out of your depth, but mixing it up with me........WHOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo.... ......unless of course it is because we are both bored and the board is quiet?:laugh2:


You are strictly a sparring partner for the big matches, in fact you are worth about 10 bucks a day.

You are nothing and have never been anything but a road bump on these boards, just a joke, not a worthy source of serious conversation.

[CockySOB]

OCA, Roomy? Please take it to another thread. This is the "Take loosecanon to school" thread, and for loose's benefit, we should try to avoid thread hijacking, m'kay? Thanks!

:finger3:

[OCA]

OCA, Roomy? Please take it to another thread. This is the "Take loosecanon to school" thread, and for loose's benefit, we should try to avoid thread hijacking, m'kay? Thanks!

:finger3:

Not hijacking my friend, just responding to Roomy's trolling by using the term "morally bankrupt" when referring to many of us.

Its Roomy you need to be addressing.

[Roomy]

Not hijacking my friend, just responding to Roomy's trolling by using the term "morally bankrupt" when referring to many of us.

Its Roomy you need to be addressing.


If the bonnet fits Michael, wear it with pride.

[OCA]

If the bonnet fits Michael, wear it with pride.

Yeah I guess meaningless one-liners are your "political' debate style lol.

Stay away from my end of the field, you don't have what it takes, you are proven to be unable to do the heavy lifting required down here.

[shattered]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/mmlnt/meow.gif

[CockySOB]

Yeah I guess meaningless one-liners are your "political' debate style lol.

Stay away from my end of the field, you don't have what it takes, you are proven to be unable to do the heavy lifting required down here.

One-liners are all Roomy seems to have, and those soundbites are fairly worthless in the context of debate. Wouldn't it be grand if Roomy would actually expound on his claim that some here are "morally bankrupt" as pertains to the topic at hand? Wishful thinking, I know, but hope does spring eternal.

So how about Roomy? Care to clarify your claim that many here are "morally bankrupt?" Or are you falling back on a stand-by of the mental midgets and grade-school bullies who hurl insults and run away?

[Roomy]

Yeah I guess meaningless one-liners are your "political' debate style lol.

Stay away from my end of the field, you don't have what it takes, you are proven to be unable to do the heavy lifting required down here.


OH dear me, I like you, really, I do.You make me laugh out loud.:clap: :laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

Being born ugly is not the same as being born rich or poor.

The wealth of the world is not determined by nature or God, it is divided by mens conventions and laws.

The wealth and money of the world literally belong to everybody equally. They are part of the public domain.

The dollars are owned by the issuing government and the government can recall them.

Some people are born wealthy, too. They are "naturally wealthy". So there actually is overlap betwen wealth and beauty.

And some countries are wealthy because they happen to have been 'born' with abundant desirable natural resources. That is 'natural' wealth. Damn those wealthy countries! They don't deserve it. :rolleyes:

[grunt]

Here's a concept: the more that the cost of something is increased, the less people buy it. Obviously, if the price of cars suddenly is increased by 10x, less people would buy cars, in most cases simply because they wouldn't be able to afford it. This works the same with wages. The more that wages are artificially bid up, the higher the cost of labor becomes. The higher the cost of labor becomes, the less people are employed or able to be employed. Consequentially, rising wages above the market level causes unemployment.

The reverse scenario is possible as well: the more that the cost of something is decreased, the more capable people are of buying it. Obviously, if the price of top-notch cars suddenly dropped to less than 5,000 dollars per car, it would be much easier for people to buy top-notch cars. This works the same with wages. The more that wages are artificially bid downwards, the more employment oppurtunites there may be - however, these employment oppurtunities are at wages lower than the productivity of the work, and therefore unjust.

I reject bidding wages both above and below the market level. The proper determiner of wages is the marginal productivity of labor, not arbitrary governmental decrees or the mere generosity of the employer. The employer is free, of course, to bid up their workers wages on the basis of good performance, overtime and like, but if they do so exessively they would be leading themselves into a loss situation. Wages cannot be whisked into existance artificially. They must result from the productivity of labor.

The wage and price controls that were imposed under the Nixon administration was a unique case - wages and prices were not increased or decreased, rather, they were entirely frozen in place! This inherently implies a cap on wages and a "floor" for prices. Bad idea, as your "price" floor blocks any price decreases, and your wage cap blocks any wage increases. It is impossible for such a situation to last. It inevitably must crumble by its own accord due to the factor of change over time. Real prices and wages are not completely static, as they are a product of uncertainty in a fluid, changing atmosphere.

Similarly, schemes such as "rent control" are abysmal failures. What most rent control schemes did in the past is, not raise or lower rents, but freeze them in place. Once again, the market is being distorted. Once again, a situation is being created in which change in the future forces a failure. If the actual market level for rents rises during this freeze, then this leads to a scenario in which losses are being imposed on the person or people renting it out. As a result, the availability (supply) of property rental will diminish, and the incentive for landlords to supply such rentals will be eroded. Consequentially, low-cost housing will be harder to find for people, as the rent control has eroded the capital structure of the housing market.

On the other hand, if the actual market level for rents lowers during this freeze, then the rent control constitutes a special privilege to the landlords. The market would be flooded with over-priced housing. What's known as "2nd generation rent control" tried to fix this problem by adding more interventions into the mix - "public housing" when the rent control causes a diminished supply. Of course, this did nothing to fix the original problem, and further eroded the incentive for landlords to rent property out.

The reason why prices and wages are inevitably not static is that there are factors that change over time. Technology changes, capital goods improve, consumer preferances change, demand changes, supply changes, productivity changes, etc. If people buy less of something then before, or buy more of something then before, this will inevitably change its price. If people consume something at an increased rate, diminishing supply, this will tend towards an increase in prices, as the availability of the good has been diminished by the consumption spree. If people consume something at a decreased rate, this will tend towards a decrease in prices, as this is a way of providing an incentive for more buyers.

It logically follows that if we want to increase our economic prosperity, we have to moderate and therefore limit our rate of consumption. This is the only path to "saving". It also logically follows that an abundant supply of goods generally tends to make them more available to the multitude, while a limited supply of goods inherently have rather higher prices. This is demonstratef by much of our technology. When many products first come out, they are at what would appear to be very high prices.

This is not because of "greed" per se, it is because the supply is still quite limited. It has not become abundant enough for the price to be lowered to the extent of appeasing the multitude of consumers. Overtime, these seemingly high prices lower as the supply increases. If the buisiness fails to adequately bid the price down in this way, it will go out of buisiness, as in conjunction with the initial conception of this post, less people are able or willing to buy it.

If the government were to impose price controls below or above the market level, a similar scenario occurs as does with rent control. If prices are bid above the market level, this inevitably necesitates a decrease in the availability of the good or service to the multitude, and a special privilege to the provider of that good or service. If prices are bid below the market level, this inevitably necessitates a decrease in the incentive for providing that good or service, as it forces losses on the provider. Inevitably, focus will be shifted away from providing that service and into areas with higher incentives; hence, a "shortage".

As a consequence of the above, prices are a fluid thing. To artificially manipulate prices and wages through governmental intervention only distorts the market, setting up scenarios that are unsustainable as they are unable to adjust to change and people's time-preferances. All of these negative consequences are considered "market failures" by most, but in reality they are the failures, the negative consequences, of the economic interventions in question. They are distortions of the market created by government intervention.

An important question: Why do we have jobs in the first place? Why do we have prices in the first place? The answer is scarcity. There is no such thing as infinite labor, infinite production, infinite resources. As a consequence, things must be produced using the available resources of the earth, which are scarce. Man uses these resources to create tools (capital goods) by which to produce various goods and services (consumer goods). The price of all of this is ultimately determined by scarcity, including the scarcity of human labor itself.

The only way in which we could have no jobs is if anything can be produced by simply waving our magic wands. This is not reality though. Nothing is free, and our resources and capability to extract them is limited, not infinite. Everything must be produced - it does not just rain on us from the sky as mana. Therefore, it impossible to have "free everything for everyone".

[loosecannon]

One question though, I'm getting the feeling that your position is to take from the rich and give to the poor? Am I right?

NO! I define socialism and oppose it with that very phrase. Socialism taxes the rich to give to the poor.

I am advocating a raise in the minimum wage and an awareness that the rich are at least as worthy of disdain as the poor.

It is of course true that increasing Min wage will incur some inflation, but not enough to ofset the wage increase. And wage increases at the top do nothing to spur economic growth, whereas wage increases at the bottom stimulate the whole economy.

[loosecannon]

So you admit to using shifting and disparate definitions of "hard work?" That's the point I was getting at.

No I admit to the fact that there are multiple ways in which the hardness of work could be measured. You missed that point.





And for the record, my opinion is that profits like that are probably excessive

See you agree with at least half of what I have been saying for 10 pages and yet you still argue.

[loosecannon]

This is without a doubt, one of the stupidest (and I loathe the use of the word as a matter of course, but here it fits) statements I have ever heard.

Here's a challenge for you, loosecanon. Find me ONE minimum wage earner who could do what Bill Gates has done in building the Microsoft corporate empire. When you give up on that task, find me a group of 1,000 individual minimum wage earners who could do it. And when you give up on that, find me 1,000,000 minimum wage earners who could build a Microsoft-type corporation. Simply put, you can't do it.

And as to the statement about finite wealth.... Of course "at any given moment" there will be finite wealth! The reason? Because at the point in time when that "wealth" is measured, it MUST necessarily be finite in order to be measured. However, that figure grows over time as new wealth is created via invention, etc.

I am not gonna waste much time on this post for a simple reason:

Bill Gates bought an existing operating system with borrowed money and simply resold rights to use it. IBM ceated it.

Microsoft also has made crappy computer software since day one.

The difference between BG/Microsoft and the smarter more computer savvy folks at Apple, and Linus and several other firms is that MS and Bill Gates were better businessmen who employed cut throat tactics to establish a monopoly.

There is nothing about that success that merits the term exceptionalism.

Bill Gates essentially contributed NOTHING but harnessed the ideas of others to become a domineering monopolist himself.

[loosecannon]

Loose at best you are a socialist, at worse you are a person using some imagined victim status to deflect from his shortcomings. Don't argue because its all over your posts.

Either way its sick.

OCA, you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

But you hate poor people.

I am neither a socialist,

or a victim,

and whatever shortcomings I do have rival your strengths.

You really aren't a thinking person are you OCA?

[loosecannon]

Absolutely ludicrous.

Just admit you are jealous of achievers and be done with it.


But I am certainly more succesful than you. And I don't even want more than I have.

Why do you hate poor people OCA?

[loosecannon]

he is looking out for the poor and ease his guilt.

No you are talking about OCA


we create wealth through work.

Exactly, WE the LABOR majority create wealth via hardwork. Minimum wage earners included.

But half of all the worlds wealth ends up in the pockets of guys who don't work.

They let their capital work for them. Or they let priviledge work so that they don't have to.

That is capitalism in a nutshell. The poor work, and half of all the wealth ends up in the pockets of the elite oligarchs.

Exactly the same result as feudalism

But don't dare allow minimum wage earners the same standard of living increases that everybody else gets......

[loosecannon]

OCA, Roomy? Please take it to another thread. This is the "Take loosecanon to school" thread, and for loose's benefit, we should try to avoid thread hijacking, m'kay? Thanks!

:finger3:

Thanks CSB, but watching OCA get downsized is worth the distractions.

Cocky, you can try to school me but seriously I have dealt with much, much bigger brains than anybody on this board and prevailed.

I am just here to point out the asswackboardsness of disdaining the poor while worshiping the rich.

Specifcally minimum wage earners deserve a wage increase more than anybody in the nation.

It is mindboggling that anybody could argue the merits of a person making $ 8 billion/year while denying a cost of living increase for folks who can't afford enough food, any medical care or a new car.

[loosecannon]

And some countries are wealthy because they happen to have been 'born' with abundant desirable natural resources.

Well to be fair, the US stole those abundant resources along with the "country". Killed the old owners and made hay. With the labor of slaves, and neopheasants who are paid minimum wage or less for doing jobs that Americans won't do.

Remember?

[loosecannon]

The more that wages are artificially bid up

Yeah sure. Everybody from social security recipients to CEO's and congressmen gets cost of living increases.

But everytime minimum wage earners are due for their cost of living increase moonbat idiots begin to spout belicose gibberish about how THAT cost of living increase is an artificial manipulation.

This is where the phrase "morally bankrupt" is made only in your size. Wear the shoe, you were born for it.

[CockySOB]

No I admit to the fact that there are multiple ways in which the hardness of work could be measured. You missed that point.No, you failed to make a coherent statement. Getting you to define "hard work" is like nailing Jell-o to a wall. Sheesh!


See you agree with at least half of what I have been saying for 10 pages and yet you still argue.I agree with your opinion, but not with your assertion of fact (which you consistently fail to support). What I am hoping you can do is provide citations and references which support your argument which will make your opinion a stronger argument. So far, I've been disappointed.

[CockySOB]

Thanks CSB, but watching OCA get downsized is worth the distractions.Whatever.


Cocky, you can try to school me but seriously I have dealt with much, much bigger brains than anybody on this board and prevailed.Don't bet on it. From what I've seen, you're only slightly higher on the evolutionary chain that our dear Psycho or gabby....


I am just here to point out the asswackboardsness of disdaining the poor while worshiping the rich.Then do that. While we agree on that point, you sure as hell need to learn how to create solid focus, and implement a coherent argument. So far all I've seen you do is rail against those who earn more than minimum wage, and claim that they don't work as hard as minimum wage earners (or illegals, if I remember your posts correctly).


Specifcally minimum wage earners deserve a wage increase more than anybody in the nation.Why? You assert this as fact, yet you haven't shown a single piece of reference material which supports your position. Perhaps you are a divine creature gifted with omniscience in your own little world, but around here you're just another poster who fails to support his argument.


It is mindboggling that anybody could argue the merits of a person making $ 8 billion/year while denying a cost of living increase for folks who can't afford enough food, any medical care or a new car.If you want to discuss the merits and pitfalls of our minimum wage system here in the USA, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you. But trying to tie it to the hysterics you've demonstrated so far is nothing short of ludicrous.

[CockySOB]

Yeah sure. Everybody from social security recipients to CEO's and congressmen gets cost of living increases.

But everytime minimum wage earners are due for their cost of living increase moonbat idiots begin to spout belicose gibberish about how THAT cost of living increase is an artificial manipulation.

This is where the phrase "morally bankrupt" is made only in your size. Wear the shoe, you were born for it.

Don't even get me started on those sacks of shit in Congress who continue to receive annual pay raises without even having to bring it up for a vote. Pisses me off to no end! The SOB's should issue a ten-year moratorium on Congressional salaries, and revoke some of their Congressional privileges to which they have become so comfortable with. Make 'em responsible for results just like every other working stiff. Of course, public accountability seems to be a thing of the past in American politics.

[Abbey Marie]

Well to be fair, the US stole those abundant resources along with the "country". Killed the old owners and made hay. With the labor of slaves, and neopheasants who are paid minimum wage or less for doing jobs that Americans won't do.

Remember?

No, I don't remember; I'm not hundreds of years old.

Anyway, whether or not you are of the opinion that the country was 'stolen', in no way contradicts my point that some countries are born wealthy due to natural resources. It's irrelevant to the point.

Btw, if you go back far enough, just about every country was 'stolen' at one time or another. So what? Is there no end to your crying victim status for third parties?

[manu1959]

Well to be fair, the US stole those abundant resources along with the "country". Killed the old owners and made hay. With the labor of slaves, and neopheasants who are paid minimum wage or less for doing jobs that Americans won't do.

Remember?

every country was stolen.....and if don't give those little birds a raise PETA is going to get you

[5stringJeff]

Thanks CSB, but watching OCA get downsized is worth the distractions.

Cocky, you can try to school me but seriously I have dealt with much, much bigger brains than anybody on this board and prevailed.

I am just here to point out the asswackboardsness of disdaining the poor while worshiping the rich.

Specifcally minimum wage earners deserve a wage increase more than anybody in the nation.

It is mindboggling that anybody could argue the merits of a person making $ 8 billion/year while denying a cost of living increase for folks who can't afford enough food, any medical care or a new car.

I know this post was addressed to Cocky, but please allow me to jump in:

The merits of allowing people to earn $8B/yr if they can do so is that we live in America, where people are allowed to rise and fall on their merits. This country, and its economic system, allow people to move between socio-economic classes with relative ease; if people want to work hard enough to make it to "the top," they have that opportunity. In America, people have the liberty to succeed; that is what makes our system superior.

And, as far as dealing with "bigger brains," Id be interested to see your qualifications for that label.

[Abbey Marie]

I know this post was addressed to Cocky, but please allow me to jump in:

The merits of allowing people to earn $8B/yr if they can do so is that we live in America, where people are allowed to rise and fall on their merits. This country, and its economic system, allow people to move between socio-economic classes with relative ease; if people want to work hard enough to make it to "the top," they have that opportunity. In America, people have the liberty to succeed; that is what makes our system superior.

And, as far as dealing with "bigger brains," Id be interested to see your qualifications for that label.

Well, as Manu pointed out, he does know a term I don't know: "neopheasants"

[loosecannon]

No, you failed to make a coherent statement. Getting you to define "hard work" is like nailing Jell-o to a wall. Sheesh!

There are several valid ways to define work or hard work which is why a good dictionary might list 12 definitions for work and 30 pages to define "set".


I agree with your opinion, but not with your assertion of fact (which you consistently fail to support). What I am hoping you can do is provide citations and references which support your argument which will make your opinion a stronger argument. So far, I've been disappointed.

The thread topic is "disdain for (fuck) the poor". And I stepped up against criticisms of minimum wage.

I asserted that the rich are at least as disdainful as the poor.

That is all opinion. Documenting it would be silly.

[CockySOB]

There are several valid ways to define work or hard work which is why a good dictionary might list 12 definitions for work and 30 pages to define "set".



The thread topic is "disdain for (fuck) the poor". And I stepped up against criticisms of minimum wage.

I asserted that the rich are at least as disdainful as the poor.

That is all opinion. Documenting it would be silly.

Finally! Sheesh, took you long enough to stop talking in absolutes....

And I was serious about discussing the merits and downfalls of minimum wage.

[loosecannon]

Whatever.

Don't bet on it. From what I've seen, you're only slightly higher on the evolutionary chain that our dear Psycho or gabby....

OK, granted I haven'y had any reason to dig in and actually provide even one single link. Would OCA or half the halfwits here care? I mean sure I can present documrentation to support what I have said, but would it make a diff? And what kind of documentation supports the "disdain for the poor" POV?

I have wasted far too much time posting and then reposting info that resistant strains will not read or remember to begin with that tack.



If you want to discuss the merits and pitfalls of our minimum wage system here in the USA, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you. But trying to tie it to the hysterics you've demonstrated so far is nothing short of ludicrous.

Sure if you actually want an intelligent discussion pick your starting point.

I have been focusing on reversing the disdain for the poor ignoranbabble. It reeks of folks who do not know how to vote in their own self interest.

[loosecannon]

I know this post was addressed to Cocky, but please allow me to jump in:

The merits of allowing people to earn $8B/yr if they can do so is that we live in America, where people are allowed to rise and fall on their merits. This country, and its economic system, allow people to move between socio-economic classes with relative ease; if people want to work hard enough to make it to "the top," they have that opportunity. In America, people have the liberty to succeed; that is what makes our system superior.

And, as far as dealing with "bigger brains," Id be interested to see your qualifications for that label.

Upward mobility is declining in the US, has been since the 70's. I suggest you read a multi segment piece from the NYT a few years back titled "the decline of the middle class".

Nowhere in codified law is it expressly illegal to earn $8 billion/year. And liberty is a balance between the liberty of one and the liberty of another.

Those who make $8 billion a year steal liberty, food and basic survival necessities from those who weren't so lucky.

Again the "liberty" to earn huge fortunes is not bound by our law.

[loosecannon]

No, I don't remember; I'm not hundreds of years old.

Anyway, whether or not you are of the opinion that the country was 'stolen', in no way contradicts my point that some countries are born wealthy due to natural resources. It's irrelevant to the point.

Btw, if you go back far enough, just about every country was 'stolen' at one time or another. So what? Is there no end to your crying victim status for third parties?


Thank you, you make this easy....

Is their no end to you pretending that stolen wealth is identical to inherited wealth? BINGO!!!!!

Think hard Cain, you just supported every point I made in surplus abundance.

[CockySOB]

So loosecanon, are you saying that my requests for clarification, etc. haven't been reason enough to "dig in?" It still sounds like a cop-out to me.

[loosecannon]

Don't even get me started on those sacks of shit in Congress who continue to receive annual pay raises without even having to bring it up for a vote. Pisses me off to no end! The SOB's should issue a ten-year moratorium on Congressional salaries, and revoke some of their Congressional privileges to which they have become so comfortable with. Make 'em responsible for results just like every other working stiff. Of course, public accountability seems to be a thing of the past in American politics.

Yes it is. We have an admin in the oval office that always has the resources to politicize, whether by oting plame, or arranging a statue tumble or a mission accomplished moment, or a coverup of Tillaman's death, they are on it.

But when it comes to governance, the rwal responsibilities of the job, or when it comes to responsibility they are AWOL.

And Congress has been almost as bad for 6 years. In some ways worse. Call them thge rubber stamp/porkbarrel sessions.

I have no idea if the dems will be any better. But they couldn't possibly be worse.

[loosecannon]

So loosecanon, are you saying that my requests for clarification, etc. haven't been reason enough to "dig in?" It still sounds like a cop-out to me.


No I asked you to pick your starting point for a minimum wage discussion.

[Abbey Marie]

Thank you, you make this easy....

Is their no end to you pretending that stolen wealth is identical to inherited wealth? BINGO!!!!!

Think hard Cain, you just supported every point I made in surplus abundance.

Are you having trouble grasping logical comparisons?

And what about those natural resources?

[loosecannon]

Are you having trouble grasping logical comparisons?

No I just do not take your comments at all seriously. You are interjecting commentary about how some nations steal/inherit natural resource wealth as if that equates to the differences between folks who are earning minimum wage and don't get cost of living increases for years or decades and folks who earn billions/year and get cost of living increases continually.

But just to please you; I think that wealth (natural resouce theft and endowments) is also unearned, duh. See how your argument supports mine?

If it comes to nations and billionaires without having to earn it, well what is all this crap then about how the poor deserve disdain for not earning as much money as the rich?

See how that supports my argument that the rich deserve disdain at least as much as the poor do?

[5stringJeff]

Upward mobility is declining in the US, has been since the 70's. I suggest you read a multi segment piece from the NYT a few years back titled "the decline of the middle class".

Nowhere in codified law is it expressly illegal to earn $8 billion/year. And liberty is a balance between the liberty of one and the liberty of another.

Those who make $8 billion a year steal liberty, food and basic survival necessities from those who weren't so lucky.

Again the "liberty" to earn huge fortunes is not bound by our law.

Upward mobility may be declining, but it is no less available to those who want to work at it. Just because it isn't as easy to accomplish doesn't mean it's not possible.

And your statements that a) "liberty is a balance between the liberty of one and the liberty of another," and b) the rich "steal liberty" from the poor, are 100% false. Bill Gates has been making billions for years, but I am no less free to make choices to make myself rich than I was before. Liberty is not a zero-sum commodity. The outcomes of what we do with our liberty may be different, but that doesn't make us any more or less free than we were before.

[avatar4321]

Upward mobility may be declining, but it is no less available to those who want to work at it. Just because it isn't as easy to accomplish doesn't mean it's not possible.

And your statements that a) "liberty is a balance between the liberty of one and the liberty of another," and b) the rich "steal liberty" from the poor, are 100% false. Bill Gates has been making billions for years, but I am no less free to make choices to make myself rich than I was before. Liberty is not a zero-sum commodity. The outcomes of what we do with our liberty may be different, but that doesn't make us any more or less free than we were before.

I think the claim that upward mobility is declining is simply because we have so many poor illegally entering the country that its skewing the numbers.

It doesnt matter though. Freedom should be our call.

[loosecannon]

Upward mobility may be declining, but it is no less available to those who want to work at it.

You should read this:
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/09/recovery_bypass.html

and this

http://money.guardian.co.uk/news_/story/0,,1965033,00.html

and browse this

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=+%22decline+of+the+middle+class%22





Bill Gates has been making billions for years, but I am no less free to make choices to make myself rich than I was before

unless you want to make yourself rich selling your own proprietary software, in which case Bill Gates will squash you like a bug as he has done virtually everybody else who tried.

No matter what you do, odds are better than 90% that there is somebody like Bill Gates monopolizing that field to prevent YOU from reaching their level of success.

[grunt]

You should read this:
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/09/recovery_bypass.html

and this

http://money.guardian.co.uk/news_/story/0,,1965033,00.html

and browse this

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=+%22decline+of+the+middle+class%22






unless you want to make yourself rich selling your own proprietary software, in which case Bill Gates will squash you like a bug as he has done virtually everybody else who tried.

No matter what you do, odds are better than 90% that there is somebody like Bill Gates monopolizing that field to prevent YOU from reaching their level of success.


If that's the case...what do you suggest be done?

[loosecannon]

If that's the case...what do you suggest be done?

We have antitrust legislation on the books. For a start begin enforcing them again. I don't know of a serious attempt to enforce those laws since the 80's.

here is a great example, and a timely one, about how antitrust leglislatiopn would change the business landscape:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Mobile#History

Both Exxon and Mobil were descendants of the John D. Rockefeller corporation, Standard Oil. The reputation of Standard Oil in the public eye suffered badly after publication of Ida M. Tarbell's classic exposé The History of the Standard Oil Company in 1904, leading to a growing outcry for the government to take action against the company.

By 1911, with public outcry at a climax, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Standard Oil must be dissolved and split into 34 companies. Two of these companies were Jersey Standard ("Standard Oil Company of New Jersey"), which eventually became Exxon, and Socony ("Standard Oil Company of New York"), which eventually became Mobil.

[grunt]

We have antitrust legislation on the books. For a start begin enforcing them again. I don't know of a serious attempt to enforce those laws since the 80's.

here is a great example, and a timely one, about how antitrust leglislatiopn would change the business landscape:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Mobile#History

Both Exxon and Mobil were descendants of the John D. Rockefeller corporation, Standard Oil. The reputation of Standard Oil in the public eye suffered badly after publication of Ida M. Tarbell's classic exposé The History of the Standard Oil Company in 1904, leading to a growing outcry for the government to take action against the company.

By 1911, with public outcry at a climax, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Standard Oil must be dissolved and split into 34 companies. Two of these companies were Jersey Standard ("Standard Oil Company of New Jersey"), which eventually became Exxon, and Socony ("Standard Oil Company of New York"), which eventually became Mobil.




I believe Gates has been to trial many times for allegedly breaking anti-trust laws. He was found guilty in some and not guilty in others. So, what do you suppose we do?

[loosecannon]

I believe Gates has been to trial many times for allegedly breaking anti-trust laws. He was found guilty in some and not guilty in others. So, what do you suppose we do?

Microsoft is without any question a monopoly and deserves to be split into 50 smaller companies.

But Gates donates heavily to both parties as do his corporate millionaires.

And the climate today is all about building monopolies not breaking them apart which is why WalMart, Exxon Mobile and MS are SO big.

There is far more corporate consolidation and merging than rightsizing.

We need an Attorney General who will follow the law and not political pleasures. We haven't had such an Attorney G since Ed Levi in the 70's.

here's a good summary:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/04/040704.asp

But to answer your question, we need to demand that antitrust legislation be enforced via the AG who serves at the direction of the president.

We need to hold their feet to the flames in the court of public debate and the MSM, in editorials, letters to congressmen and by communicating directly with candidates fundraising apparatus.

[manu1959]

Microsoft is without any question a monopoly and deserves to be split into 50 smaller companies.



love to see your computer system work then....not to mention how expensive software would be...

[loosecannon]

love to see your computer system work then....not to mention how expensive software would be...


bullpucky. Microsoft never has made the best software.

[grunt]

bullpucky. Microsoft never has made the best software.


You're correct. But it has made what the general public wants. Something that works (well enough...lol) without having to do much. I love Linux, Mozilla etc etc...most people won't learn how to use those or won't like the "difference". Microsoft, Wal-Mart , Exxon-Mobil etc..are huge conglomerates, but, according to the laws of the land, not monopolies.

Now, do I agree with the way these companies do business? No. They are corrupt, unethical and greedy, but not in the sense of breaking the law. (Not saying they have never broken the law and not got caught, but I know very small business owners who cheat on their taxes every year) But, being an asshole is not against the law. If you're good enough, as these companies are, to become as big as they are, then go for it. Try and out gun them. That's what a free, capitalist society is supposed to be about. Not government interference.

[grunt]

love to see your computer system work then....not to mention how expensive software would be...

Actually, I have a computer system that runs on nothing that is microsoft made and is pretty much cost free. All of my software that is.

[loosecannon]

Microsoft, Wal-Mart , Exxon-Mobil etc..are huge conglomerates, but, according to the laws of the land, not monopolies.

Sorry but they are definitely monopolies.

The antitrust laws comprise what the Supreme Court calls a "charter of freedom," designed to protect the core republican values regarding free enterprise in America. The main goal was never to protect consumers, but to prohibit the use of power to control the marketplace. Although "trust" had a technical legal meaning, the word was commonly used to denote big business, especially a large, growing manufacturing conglomerate of the sort that suddenly emerged in great numbers in the 1880s and 1890s. Republicanism required free competition and the opportunity for Americans to build their own businesses without being forced to sell out to an economic colossus

The Sherman Antitrust Act passed Congress almost unanimously in 1890 and remains the core of antitrust policy. The Act makes it illegal to try to restrain trade, or to form a monopoly. It gives the Justice Department the mandate to go to federal court for orders to stop illegal behavior or to impose remedies.

Business consolidation roared along in the 1890s and 1900s. As a result the Progressive Era put anti-trust high on the agenda. President Theodore Roosevelt sued 45 companies under the Sherman Act, while William Howard Taft sued 75. In 1902, Roosevelt stopped the formation of the Northern Securities Company which threatened to monopolize transportation in the northwest.

The most notorious of the trusts was the Standard Oil Company; John D. Rockefeller in the 1870s and 1880s had used economic threats against competitors and secret rebate deals with railroads to build what was called a monopoly in the oil business, although in fact he always had nominal competition. In 1911 the Supreme Court agreed that in recent years (1900-1904) Standard had violated the Sherman Act. It broke the monopoly into three dozen separate companies that competed with one another,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-trust_law#History_of_antitrust_in_the_United_State s

Sherman antitrust act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

The Sherman Act provides: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal".[2] The Act also provides: "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony [. . . ]"[3] The Act put responsibility upon government attorneys and district courts to pursue and investigate trusts, companies and organizations suspected of violating the Act.






That's what a free, capitalist society is supposed to be about. Not government interference.

NOPE. Name your authoritative source. I am prepared to quote Adam Smith disagreeing with you as well as as many sources as you need.

Capitalism can not exist with monopolies and Adam Smith definitely believed in regulations to prevent monopolies, as did our founding fathers. After all monopolies were illegal in the British legal system since the 1600's.

And our founders were all about escaping the elitist tyrannies of Britain. And they were all against recreating the same tyrannies here.

Name your authority and i will find hard evidence that you are wrong about monopolies being protected by the free market doctrines of capitalism.

[grunt]

Sorry but they are definitely monopolies.

The antitrust laws comprise what the Supreme Court calls a "charter of freedom," designed to protect the core republican values regarding free enterprise in America. The main goal was never to protect consumers, but to prohibit the use of power to control the marketplace. Although "trust" had a technical legal meaning, the word was commonly used to denote big business, especially a large, growing manufacturing conglomerate of the sort that suddenly emerged in great numbers in the 1880s and 1890s. Indeed, at this time hundreds of small short-line railroads were being bought up and consolidated into giant systems. (Separate laws and policies emerged regarding railroads and financial concerns such as banks and insurance companies.) Republicanism required free competition and the opportunity for Americans to build their own businesses without being forced to sell out to an economic colossus

The Sherman Antitrust Act passed Congress almost unanimously in 1890 and remains the core of antitrust policy. The Act makes it illegal to try to restrain trade, or to form a monopoly. It gives the Justice Department the mandate to go to federal court for orders to stop illegal behavior or to impose remedies.

Business consolidation roared along in the 1890s and 1900s. As a result the Progressive Era put anti-trust high on the agenda. President Theodore Roosevelt sued 45 companies under the Sherman Act, while William Howard Taft sued 75. In 1902, Roosevelt stopped the formation of the Northern Securities Company which threatened to monopolize transportation in the northwest.

The most notorious of the trusts was the Standard Oil Company; John D. Rockefeller in the 1870s and 1880s had used economic threats against competitors and secret rebate deals with railroads to build what was called a monopoly in the oil business, although in fact he always had nominal competition. In 1911 the Supreme Court agreed that in recent years (1900-1904) Standard had violated the Sherman Act. It broke the monopoly into three dozen separate companies that competed with one another,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-trust_law#History_of_antitrust_in_the_United_State s

Sherman antitrust act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

The Sherman Act provides: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal".[2] The Act also provides: "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony [. . . ]"[3] The Act put responsibility upon government attorneys and district courts to pursue and investigate trusts, companies and organizations suspected of violating the Act.







NOPE. Name your authoritative source. I am prepared to quote Adam Smith disagreeing with you as well as as many sources as you need.

Capitalism can not exist with monopolies and Adam Smith definitely believed in regulations to prevent monopolies, as did our founding fathers. After all monopolies were illegal in the British legal system since the 1600's.

And our founders were all about escaping the elitist tyrannies of Britain. And they were all against recreating the same tyrannies here.

Name your authority and i will find hard evidence that you are wrong about monopolies being protected by the free market doctrines of capitalism.

I guess I should have been a little more clear about my "That's what a free, capitalist society is supposed to be about. Not government interference." statement.

I do think the Government needs to step in when laws, including anti-trust laws, are broken. My point was, you have just as much right to try and create a product that will out sell Microsoft's products. Nothing is stopping you. The corporations we mentioned above, are not monopolies. Are they close? Yep. But close only matters in horse shoes and hand grenades. :laugh2:

[Mr. P]

I guess I should have been a little more clear about my "That's what a free, capitalist society is supposed to be about. Not government interference." statement.

I do think the Government needs to step in when laws, including anti-trust laws, are broken. My point was, you have just as much right to try and create a product that will out sell Microsoft's products. Nothing is stopping you. The corporations we mentioned above, are not monopolies. Are they close? Yep. But close only matters in horse shoes and hand grenades. :laugh2:

...and thermonuclear warfare.

As far as Wal-Mart, I don’t like their business practices but would not call them a monopoly.

[loosecannon]

My point was, you have just as much right to try and create a product that will out sell Microsoft's products. Nothing is stopping you. The corporations we mentioned above, are not monopolies.

Sure I have the right to try to compete with microsoft, and I have the right to enjoy sex with Britney Spears on the back of a llama scaling the winding switchbacks that lead to machu pichu. I also have the right to don a 15" penis.

But if I try to compete with Microsoft, or ma Bell or WalMart they will squash me like a bug.

Are you being obtuse or do you really not get that the Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to eliminate cartels and monopolies like The super small oil companies of the 1904 era when the US supreme court divided the largest of the day into not 3 or 5, but 34 right sized companies?

WalMart is probably 100 times larger than it would need to be to be a candidate for antitrust lawsuits according to the existing law.

Exxon Mobile, maybe 300 times larger than the law would allow, IF the law had been enforced since the 70's.

[manu1959]

Sure I have the right to try to compete with microsoft, and I have the right to enjoy sex with Britney Spears on the back of a llama scaling the winding switchbacks that lead to machu pichu. I also have the right to don a 15" penis.

But if I try to compete with Microsoft, or ma Bell or WalMart they will squash me like a bug.

Are you being obtuse or do you really not get that the Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to eliminate cartels and monopolies like The super small oil companies of the 1904 era when the US supreme court divided the largest of the day into not 3 or 5, but 34 right sized companies?

WalMart is probably 100 times larger than it would need to be to be a candidate for antitrust lawsuits according to the existing law.

Exxon Mobile, maybe 300 times larger than the law would allow, IF the law had been enforced since the 70's.


except there are options to microsoft as well as walmart....as well as exon

[loosecannon]

except there are options to microsoft as well as walmart....as well as exon


That doesn't mean that they are not monopolies.

Historical examples of alleged de facto monopolies:

>If a monopoly is not protected from competition by law , it may still be subject to competitive forces that pressure it to keep prices low in order to dissuade competition from arising. For an example see Microsoft.
>Carnegie Steel Company
>Standard Oil (Jones; Eliot. The Trust Problem in the United States 1922. Chapter 5)
>National Football League [2] [3]
>Major League Baseball [4] [5]
>DeBeers control of the world diamond markets.
>British East India Company
>Dutch East India Company
>Boeing United Aircraft and Transport Corporation: Control of aircraft, broken up in 1934
>AT&T Telecommunications giant broken up in 1982 to allow the formation of regional telephone companies but somewhat reconsolidated by 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Historical_examples_of_alleged_de_facto_m onopolies

[manu1959]

That doesn't mean that they are not monopolies.

Historical examples of alleged de facto monopolies:

>If a monopoly is not protected from competition by law , it may still be subject to competitive forces that pressure it to keep prices low in order to dissuade competition from arising. For an example see Microsoft.
>Carnegie Steel Company
>Standard Oil (Jones; Eliot. The Trust Problem in the United States 1922. Chapter 5)
>National Football League [2] [3]
>Major League Baseball [4] [5]
>DeBeers control of the world diamond markets.
>British East India Company
>Dutch East India Company
>Boeing United Aircraft and Transport Corporation: Control of aircraft, broken up in 1934
>AT&T Telecommunications giant broken up in 1982 to allow the formation of regional telephone companies but somewhat reconsolidated by 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Historical_examples_of_alleged_de_facto_m onopolies

kerry is an alleged war criminal

[grunt]

That doesn't mean that they are not monopolies.

Historical examples of alleged de facto monopolies:

>If a monopoly is not protected from competition by law , it may still be subject to competitive forces that pressure it to keep prices low in order to dissuade competition from arising. For an example see Microsoft.
>Carnegie Steel Company
>Standard Oil (Jones; Eliot. The Trust Problem in the United States 1922. Chapter 5)
>National Football League [2] [3]
>Major League Baseball [4] [5]
>DeBeers control of the world diamond markets.
>British East India Company
>Dutch East India Company
>Boeing United Aircraft and Transport Corporation: Control of aircraft, broken up in 1934
>AT&T Telecommunications giant broken up in 1982 to allow the formation of regional telephone companies but somewhat reconsolidated by 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Historical_examples_of_alleged_de_facto_m onopolies



Dude...I just got this off of wikipedia:


Notes and references
^ Blinder, Alan S; William J Baumol and Colton L Gale (June 2001). "11: Monopoly", Microeconomics: Principles and Policy (paperback) (in English), Thomson South-Western, 212. Retrieved on October 2006. “A pure monopoly is an industry in which there is only one supplier of a product for which there are no close substitutes and in which is very difficult or impossible for another firm to coexist”
^ Depken, Craig (23). "10", Microeconomics Demystified (in English). McGraw Hill, 170. ISBN 0071459111.
^ For a discussion on a monopolist who does not know the demand function, see [1] where a free software is available as well.
^ Hotelling's Law Economyprofessor.com
↑ Bloch, David: Economics of NaCl: Salt made the world go round.

Loosecannon has no idea what he's talking about....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Notes_and_references


Lesson, don't use wikipedia...crazy people can edit anything they want in there. :laugh2:

[loosecannon]

kerry is an alleged war criminal

The use of the word alleged does not mean that those are exceptions to the definition.

The Clayton Act prohibits:

>price discrimination between different purchasers if such discrimination substantially lessens competition or tends to create a monopoly in any line of commerce (Act Section 2, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 13);
>sales on the condition that (A) the buyer or leaser not deal with the competitors of the seller or lesser "exclusive dealings", or that the buyer also purchase another different product ("tying", also covered by the Sherman Act, Section 1), but only when these acts substantially lessen competition (Act Section 3, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 14);
>mergers and acquisitions where the effect may substantially lessen competition (Act Section 7, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18);
any person from being a director of two or more competing corporations (Act Section 8; codified at 15 U.S.C. § 19).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act

[grunt]

The use of the word alleged does not mean that those are exceptions to the definition.

The Clayton Act prohibits:

>price discrimination between different purchasers if such discrimination substantially lessens competition or tends to create a monopoly in any line of commerce (Act Section 2, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 13);
>sales on the condition that (A) the buyer or leaser not deal with the competitors of the seller or lesser "exclusive dealings", or that the buyer also purchase another different product ("tying", also covered by the Sherman Act, Section 1), but only when these acts substantially lessen competition (Act Section 3, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 14);
>mergers and acquisitions where the effect may substantially lessen competition (Act Section 7, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18);
any person from being a director of two or more competing corporations (Act Section 8; codified at 15 U.S.C. § 19).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, (October 15, 1914, ch. 323, 38 Stat. 730, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 12-27, 29 U.S.C. § 52-53), was enacted in the United States to remedy deficiencies in antitrust law created under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the first Federal law outlawing practices harmful to consumers (monopolies and anti-competitive agreements). Passed during the Wilson administration, the legislation was introduced by Alabama Democrat Henry De Lamar Clayton.

Microsoft is not a monopoly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Camus


everything written above the URL is on wikipedia...