« First « Previous Comments 28 - 67 of 72 Next » Last » Search these comments
Education is a right, not a privilege. It should be completely free all the way to PhD.
You're free to watch all the History/Science/A&E/BBCA channel shows you want.
That's not education. It's sleeping on the sofa.
No, that's what the NASA channel is for!
Seriously, try it sometime. Its better than CSPAN!
Education is a right, not a privilege. It should be completely free all the way to PhD.
You're free to watch all the History/Science/A&E/BBCA channel shows you want.
That's not education. It's sleeping on the sofa.
No, that's what the NASA channel is for!
Seriously, try it sometime. Its better than CSPAN!
I never watch CSPAN. I find politics really boring. I love the science geography channels. Which is the best science channel?
Strategist says
Capitalism
yes
Communism
yes
Socialism
No. Socialism is a tactic not an economic system.
Dictatorship
No. Dictatorship describes political power, not an economic system.
Royalty
No, for same reason.
Religious
No, religious is not an economic system.
democracy
No, democracy is a political system in which people vote on laws and policies, not an economic system.
Combinations are just that, and not economic systems. Don't overcount.
You managed to mention two economic systems. That puts you on par with about 90% of Americans. That's pretty pathetic given how uneducated Americans are. Hell, the only reason you're able to name those two is because of all the propaganda from the Cold War.
The upper 10% of Americans might be able to name one more economic system: feudalism. And that's it.
Dumb ass economists will refer to four types: central, market, traditional, and hybrid. But these economists are dumb, which is why economics has yet to become a science. Central and market are general approaches to economics, not economic systems. The economists use the word traditional to indicate small, constricted market based economies. The word hybrid is just what you call combinations, not actual systems.
So, in all of human history, we've tried three actual economic systems: capitalism, feudalism, and communism in that order. That's out of an infinite number of possible economic systems. Isn't it a bit premature to call off the search for better economic systems?
And why the hell would anyone be satisfied using a failed Bronze Age technology, capitalism, in the Information Age. Would you use an abacus instead of a smart phone? Being satisfied with Bronze Age inventions is just being damn lazy like a welfare queen.
So, in all of human history, we've tried three actual economic systems: capitalism, feudalism, and communism in that order. That's out of an infinite number of possible economic systems. Isn't it a bit premature to call off the search for better economic systems?
And why the hell would anyone be satisfied using a failed Bronze Age technology, capitalism, in the Information Age. Would you use an abacus instead of a smart phone? Being satisfied with Bronze Age inventions is just being damn lazy like a welfare queen.
What you call "central" is a Centrally Planned Economy, which is just communism. It failed miserably. Nothing but a disaster.
Our economy is a Market Based Economy, in other words capitalism. It's an incredible success. Everything you use in the modern world was invented in capitalist societies. The communists contributed nada.
The traditional economies probably refer to the old fashioned royalty and dictatorships and religious wackos. We don't need them.
By the way only capitalistic countries that are democracies will evolve into a better system based on the needs and values of it's citizens.
Education is a right, not a privilege. It should be completely free all the way to PhD.
You're free to watch all the History/Science/A&E/BBCA channel shows you want.
That's not education. It's sleeping on the sofa.
No, that's what the NASA channel is for!
Seriously, try it sometime. Its better than CSPAN!
I never watch CSPAN. I find politics really boring. I love the science geography channels. Which is the best science channel?
Depends what you're looking for.
If you want to be in a deep sleep within 10 minutes its the NASA channel.
Otherwise it may be Netflix and Youtube with older NatGeo, Science, Learning etc channel content, before they decided to compete for the lowest common denominator viewers. Otherwise I dunno, I cut the cord years ago and haven't missed it a bit.
Alien autopsies indeed!
Full employment in the Arab world would rid you a great bogeyman.
Lifting the 6th century morality would go a long way too.
I would happily trade the risk in our current situation for that of "full employment". Why wouldn't you, if you're concerned with violence and unrest?
Full employment has a nice tone to it, but is just not possible. There are always people quitting jobs, getting fired, looking for the right job while unemployed.
The Soviet Empire boasted of full employment, but it was just going to work and doing nothing. And their productivity was just horrendous. Workers would not show up, and instead go to the movies to watch lousy boring movies. They would have the police rounding them up, making them go to work. LOL. Some incentive.
But what of the current component labor? That population will suffer. Another virtue accrues to owners as their laborers become ever devalued commodities.
Labor is not devalued in this country. Just look at an average assembly line worker.....their standard of living has never been this good. In the old days they would slog 18 hours just to pay for basic necessities. Now it's 40 hours with lots of money for movies, vacations and Budweiser.
but it was just going to work and doing nothing
Which describes many American jobs as well.
They would have the police rounding them up, making them go to work.
I had a drunk of a roommate in college with that problem. Bastard still owes me rent!
Labor is not devalued in this country.
Which is why you are encouraging your children to go to trade/vocational school right?
Dan8267's two rebuttals of Strategist's comments above are the best comments on this thread. His understanding of the underlying causes of the socio-economic and political ills affecting the U.S. today is uncommonly astute.
Dan8267's two rebuttals of Strategist's comments above are the best comments on this thread.
Really? It would help if his subject and predicate were in the same zip code, don't you think?
I think yous are skipping over a big influence on this subject which is the type of law and it implementation.
Dan8267's two rebuttals of Strategist's comments above are the best comments on this thread. His understanding of the underlying causes of the socio-economic and political ills affecting the U.S. today is uncommonly astute.
I thought they were pathetic. Full of myths, bizarre opinions, misleading and lacked critical thinking.
I gave him a D- even though he deserved an F-
Your opinion of labor is clear: bad beer, a two hour distraction, and a tawdry trip to the slots is all it deserves for its 40 hours, and any system in which it accrues more is just communism.
Let me try again:
Look at the standard of living of an assembly line worker in the US during the Soviet era, and compare it to the assembly line worker of ANY communist country at that time. Our standard of living far exceeded theirs. If our economic system devalues labor, why is the standard of living of our laborers far better than that of the communists?
The answer is simple....Our economic system produces so much wealth, that it enables the poor to take a slice of that wealth. The communist may have paid everyone equally, but they just could not produce the wealth needed to even come close to our standard of living.
Bottom line....Capitalism is a success, communism is a failure.
I think yous are skipping over a big influence on this subject which is the type of law and it implementation.
I'm primarily referring to these quotes...
Making things crimes that shouldn't be is the single largest cause of crime.
The proper way to handle education is to completely virtualize it, reducing it's cost to damn near $0.00 per student. I'm talking about making education costless, not just "free" as in someone else pays for it.
The real moochers are assholes committing financial crimes like Goldman Sachs. Those moochers cost Americans literally trillions of dollars. Welfare queens are utterly insignificant in contrast.
I don't take drugs. However, unlike you, I have the intellectual capacity to understand that which drugs end up on the wrong side of the law is determined primarily by financial and political agendas, not by any justifiable criteria. Furthermore, prosecution of drugs is highly selective indicating that the drug war is not about battling any harm to society.
Why would any rational person blame the unemployed in an economic system that insists on creating large unemployment to be used as "lubricant for the economic engine"?
I agree with all those assertions.
As for the type of law, no legal system works for those that can not afford a legal defense. These are primarily the groups of people we are talking about. We fein legal assistance for the poor but we all know how well that works in the inner cities.
Thoreau said (paraphrase) :
"Laws never made this country a whit more just, and by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice."
lacked critical thinking.
Funny that is what he prides himself on...
I don't take drugs. However, unlike you, I have the intellectual capacity to understand that which drugs end up on the wrong side of the law
he he he he
Laws never made this country a whit more just, and by means of their respect for it
I don't agree, one of the cornerstones of a functioning economy is private property. The laws that are centered around private property make things much more just. Inflation steals private property, increased taxes to pay for TARP and QE are theft (wealth transfer), subsidies are stealing from the taxpayer to pay subsidies. The problem is that our legal system does not focus on private property.
Our standard of living far exceeded theirs. If our economic system devalues labor, why is the standard of living of our laborers far better than that of the communists?
The answer is simple....
Labor unions, plain and simple. Somewhat restricted immigration policy as well.
Plus the communist countries had the sh!t kicked out of them during the war. Russia and the eastern bloc countries took the brunt of the war damage. After the war America via the Marshall Plan helped rebuild West Germany, Russia took a pound of flesh out of east Germany.
Want an example of what REAL capitalism is like? Try the Belgian Congo.
Labor unions, plain and simple.
Plain and simple yup but also WRONG, with even a perfunctory understanding of economics you would know better than this.
Labor unions, plain and simple.
Plain and simple yup but also WRONG, with even a perfunctory understanding of economics you would know better than this.
I know I am correct.
I know I am correct.
Must be true then...
Unions have been on the decline for something like 100 years, if what you say is true why don't the wages correlate to that statistic?
Also they have increased since the public sector has adopted collective bargaining. Why have their wages increased to double what their private sector counterparts make at the fed level?
Must be true then...
It is.
Unions have been on the decline for something like 100 years, if what you say is true why don't the wages correlate to that statistic?
100 years? That's when unions in America were just getting started.
Lets see your statistics then, something NOT funded by the CATO institute
Lets see your statistics then, something NOT funded by the CATO institute
I had to peruse extensively and found this graph in 1 minute from Wikipedia.
You do see that salaries and union membership do not correlate?
BTW you know what does correlate? It is production, that's right increased or decreased production correlates to salary.
You can see that a worker who can use a tractor makes more money than a worker who can use a shovel?
Lets see your statistics then, something NOT funded by the CATO institute
I had to peruse extensively and found this graph in 1 minute from Wikipedia.
All your graph shows in that union membership took off during the great depression and started declining in the 1950-70s which was *only* 45 years ago, not the 100 as you stated.
Its also exactly the same time the standard of life for the working and middle classes improved dramatically (1930s-1950s), peaked (1950s-early 1960s) and started hitting the toilet (1970+) in this country.
Thanks for proving my point.
You do see that salaries and union membership do not correlate?
Not from your data.
Do you see unions were directly responsible for weekends, abolition of child labor, 40 hr workweeks (remember those?), paid overtime, safety regulations, pensions/retirement plans other than a swift kick in the ass?
BTW you know what does correlate? It is production, that's right increased or decreased production correlates to salary.
Which is ironic since real middle class wages in this country have remained stagnant while productivity has skyrocketed.
You can see that a worker who can use a tractor makes more money than a worker who can use a shovel?
Doesn't matter, both tractors and shovels are automated so both the tractor driver and ditch digger are comrades in the breadline.
Thanks for proving my point.
Bullshit, the graph show that the highest compensation would have been around 1945 declining slowly to around 1970 then auguring from there.
The wages do not correlate to that graph. Here is a graph showing annual income. Can you see that they do not correlate?
Which is ironic since real middle class wages in this country have remained stagnant while productivity has skyrocketed.
More recently yes, but that is a different subject.
Doesn't matter, both tractors and shovels are automated so both the tractor driver and ditch digger are comrades in the breadline.
That is irrelevant, do you see that the tractor driver makes more than the shovel operator?
Thanks for proving my point.
Bullshit, the graph show that the highest compensation would have been around 1945 declining slowly to around 1970 then auguring from there.
The wages do not correlate to that graph. Here is a graph showing annual income. Can you see that they do not correlate?
Yes its amazing what two incomes can do over one.
However when you look at income of one income earning households vs two the stagnation is clear:
Yes its amazing what two incomes can do over one.
However when you look at income of one income earning households vs two the stagnation is clear
If your assertion were true you should be able to turn one of the graphs upside down and they would parallel. IOW one should correlate to the other.
Bullshit, the graph show that the highest compensation would have been around 1945 declining slowly to around 1970 then auguring from there
Bullshit to your bullshit. Union's don't instantly increase wages and benefits. There is a big time lag. Percentage of union workers went from almost nothing to peak 1930 to 1940 then was pretty stable till 1970 then started dropping rapidly. Unions got wages increased all through the 50's and 60's when they were at the peak of membership. There is no reason at all wages should have decreased 1945 to 1970 when membership didn't. Throw in salaried workers the peak wasn't until 1955.
You also conveniently forget there was a wage freeze during WWII. How could wages have peaked when they weren't allowed to rise?
If your assertion were true you should be able to turn one of the graphs upside down and they would parallel. IOW one should correlate to the othe
That's just total nonsense even for you.
Bullshit to your bullshit. Union's don't instantly increase wages and benefits. There is a big time lag. Percentage of union workers went from almost nothing to peak 1930 to 1940 then was pretty stable till 1970 then started dropping rapidly.
Unions served a purpose when we had exploitation. Today, we have strong laws (too strong) preventing any sort of exploitation, so we don't need them. Infact they exploit the businesses by milking them like cash cows. Greedy union bosses deserve jail.
My main thinking on this is that unions create imbalances that will cause the company to suffer and the customer to pay more. The only way they can exist is though government intervention. GM was effectively BK because of being saddled with having to pay union benefits.
That's just total nonsense even for you.
Yup that is what you always say, why the fuck not?
BTW putting the graph that way supports the duck's theory.
. Today, we have strong laws (too strong) preventing any sort of exploitation, so we don't need them.
And how do you define worker exploitation?
That's just total nonsense even for you.
Yup that is what you always say, why the fuck not?
BTW putting the graph that way supports the duck's theory.
Only if the blood rushing to your head is making you woozy.
GM was effectively BK because of being saddled with having to pay union benefits.
That was a big part of their problems true, as were unmotivated union workers and pigheaded management.
A few years ago "This American Life" did a story on the Fremont NUMMI plant (now TESLA) GM set up with Toyota and how the worst GM plant in America became the best:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/transcript
What's interesting is how the exact same *bad* union workers in the worst GM plant responded to being asked to improve quality. The plant managers had been rewarded for cranking out cars, problems be damned, those can be fixed later. Reminded me of the stories I heard about Soviet factories. Workers were penalized for trying to stop the line to fix problems. Once a Toyota quality philosophy was adopted by both workers AND management quality went way, way up.
There's more to the story than just legacy costs.
Only if the blood rushing to your head is making you woozy.
Suit yourself you just have to look...
The NUMMI plant also did not have work rules in effect no union hierarchy. That was a remarkable story that shows how much of a liability the unions are.
I still contend the overriding factor is production. If the union does not have to answer to the market place then the situation gets FUBAR as with the public employees.
The reason for the current conundrum is that money is going to speculation instead of investment as this is what creates jobs.
Unions served a purpose when we had exploitation. Today, we have strong laws (too strong) preventing any sort of exploitation, so we don't need them. Infact they exploit the businesses by milking them like cash cows. Greedy union bosses deserve jail.
The 5% of workers that still belong to unions are milking businesses like cash cows? Do tell.
So if laws are preventing exploitation then why has productivity and profits gone through the roof while wages are stagnent?
Unions are only a problem for companies with incompetent management.
So if laws are preventing exploitation then why has productivity and profits gone through the roof while wages are stagnent?
Because of speculation from the Fed QE money, has nothing to do with actual business operations. Same thing happened in 29
bob2356 says
Unions are only a problem for companies with incompetent management.
Bullshit.
« First « Previous Comments 28 - 67 of 72 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/1-4-americans-25-54-not-working_806178.html
Here's a chart showing those in that age group currently employed (95.6 million) and those who aren't (28.9 million):
"There are 124.5 million Americans in their prime working years (ages 25–54). Nearly one-quarter of this group—28.9 million people, or 23.2 percent of the total—is not currently employed. They either became so discouraged that they left the labor force entirely, or they are in the labor force but unemployed. This group of non-employed individuals is more than 3.5 million larger than before the recession began in 2007," writes the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee.
"Those attempting to minimize the startling figures about America’s vanishing workforce—workplace participation overall is near a four-decade low—will say an aging population is to blame. But in fact, while the workforce overall has shrunk nearly 10 million since 2009, the cohort of workers in the labor force ages 55 to 64 has actually increased over that same period, with many delaying retirement due to poor economic conditions.
"In fact, over two-thirds of all labor force dropouts since that time have been under the age of 55. These statistics illustrate that the problems in the American economy are deep, profound, and pervasive, afflicting the sector of the labor force that should be among the most productive."
#politics