110 replies to this topic

[me-wonders]

questionmark, on 18 November 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

Where your vision is just as shortsighted as provincial. The US got partially big by giving others stuff, that created jobs at home that otherwise nobody needed.

joc, on 18 November 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

Yeah, you're right...no one really needed cars.  I mean horse and buggies were the in thing, no one wanted or needed an 'automobile'.  Trains...pffft...who needed them?  Just another way to piss off the Native American Indians.
Planes?  Where were those two guys heads at?  Nobody needed to fly!  Electric Lights, Radio, Television?  Prepostorous...why would a person need such a thing?  Yeah, you're right...gotta hand it to you...it was giving people stuff that made America great!
Oh yeah, nobody needed 18 wheelers...we had trains after all (even though we didn't need them either).  And no one needed millions and millions of miles of  concrete highways on which to drive the 18 wheelers and automobiles that no one needed.  Violins have been around for centuries as well as the Celo...no one needed the Electric Guitar...obviously Les Paul thought they did but really, no one needed that...we already had guitars.
And computers?  No one needed computers...we got along fine without them for eons.  And cell phones?  Who needs to talk to people everywhere they go?  I guess I'm just dumb.

Thank you for the good laugh.  "Trains...pffft...who needed them?  Just another way to piss off the Native American Indians."  It is great when someone reminds me to laugh.

[joc]

me-wonders, on 18 November 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

Thank you for the good laugh.  "Trains...pffft...who needed them?  Just another way to piss off the Native American Indians."  It is great when someone reminds me to laugh.

My pleasure!

[DieChecker]

me-wonders, on 18 November 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

Rich man poor man- how about when we figure someone's income taxes, we take into consideration how many hours this person works?  

I think there may already be a Tax Credit of some kind like that. Anyway, most people who make less then 75,000 a year usually don't pay much Federal Tax. Personnally I paid like 2000 (After sending in my taxes and getting my Rebate last year) out of almost 60,000. I think I got like 4500 back. When I was making 40,000 a year, I would get back more then I paid in.

I don't have a problem with putting limits on some Credits and Deductions. I also don't have a problem with removing such limits on taxes like Social Security. But I really feel like we can't just Demonize people because they have been successful. It is the same exact mechanism in Racism, Sexism, Religious intolerance, and Obesisty intolerance. It is the same negative behavior, but is considered Acceptable because it is aimed at a Privilaged group.

Quote

We make a big deal out of the hard work high income people put into their jobs, but is their work as hard as being a migrant farm laborer?

I don't think that really matters. An architect does little physical work. An accountant does little physical work. A call center operator does little physical work. But, I think all would be offended if you suggested they somehow are lazy at their job, or otherwise not "really" working.

CEOs and corporate Presidents have high stress, high responsibility jobs that often run over 10 hours a day. Personnally I think it is a myth that the average CEO is only out spending money and playing golf all day.

Quote

People did not migrate to the cities to collect welfare and live in slums.  They came in to get good industrial jobs and give their children better lives than they could have in the rural areas they came from.

Quote

To passively ignore the hell of our inner city slums is inexcusable, because intellect human beings can do better.

The problem as I've always seen it is that the worst people in the inner city don't want to better themselves. They've been conditioned to wait on their Obama Phone to rain down on them. When the Northern black ghettos were first started, after the Great Migration, people had hope. Hell, just moving hundreds of miles for an opportunity made these people Great. But, today no one is going to migrate. They would rather sit and wait.

[DieChecker]

Jinxdom, on 18 November 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

That is anti-american in so many ways.

The USA is like 240 years old, and has been run by the Rich from day one. It only is that the rich in the past many times would try to keep their employees happy by not taking too much advantage, but if the government is going to cover those who are disadvantaged, then clearly the corporations can do as they please. I'd actually say that corporations today have more freedom to stomp on their employees due to government subsidies to the working class.

Quote

Seriously between the amount of taxes the rich pay and the people they employ can you say stranglehold?

So? What is wrong with a corporation, or an individual, using their money to influence legislation? Non-profits do it all the time also? Are we only going to allow "nice" corporations and individuals to buy political leverage? Should we ban all "leverage" at all? Then how will the Congressmen know what is best for industry? Data from the ignorant masses? No. Corporate lobbying has a real affect on moving this nation forward, in the direction that industry needs to go. If the government has shown anything in the long term, it is that government is a poor model to run a prosperous business.

Lobbying is Commercials for Congress. Sure the lobbists lie about stuff. But, isn't it up to the Congressman to research what they are supporting? Just as it is up to the Consumer at Home to research what they are seeing on TV ads. Blindly trusting in a commercial is the action of an idiot.

Quote

If I was the rich, I would make laws to protect my assets and my interests and screw other companies profits and make it harder to compete or even get started  and I'm not even a dick it's just survival. Like what is being done is exactly what I'd do if I was in their position.I'd want public schools bad to keep people ignorant, wanting high education to be based on money with education that will stagnant creative thinking skills, where you will always be forced to work for wages to have less time and resources to make it on your own, making sure people only are borrowing what is theirs which can be taken away at anytime. Even better I'd move the jobs to where people cannot compete with me at all. I'd even make rumors that the best way to get rich and that life you want is through hard work(when in reality it is just how much you can move money around while avoiding losses why we have what sells best instead of what works best) To protect myself against guys exactly like me who would be future competition. Sound familiar? It is what is happening now.

I think this part just shows you have no business training. What you suggest has never been used successfully, except by governments. It would require a nationwide Illuminati organization of untrained idiot corporate leaders, who somehow want to ruin this nation to keep themselves higher then everyone else. Which, even in this Post-Recession economy obviously is not the case. This is Conspiricy Theory at its best... causing fear while not helping the situation at all.

Quote

The rich would still be rich, the poor still the poor but we'd all have a say and have our basic needs(physical and technological survival) met.

I don't think anyone, even the Rich are against that. The problem is that a minority is being targeted for treatment that could easily be seen as descrimination. And because the masses have been fed propoganda that the Gypsys, Gays, Jews, Hispanics... Rich are behind all our nations ills, they are fully supporting this descrimination.

Jinxdom, on 18 November 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

That is anti-american in so many ways.

The USA is like 240 years old, and has been run by the Rich from day one. It only is that the rich in the past many times would try to keep their employees happy by not taking too much advantage, but if the government is going to cover those who are disadvantaged, then clearly the corporations can do as they please. I'd actually say that corporations today have more freedom to stomp on their employees due to government subsidies to the working class.

Quote

Seriously between the amount of taxes the rich pay and the people they employ can you say stranglehold?

So? What is wrong with a corporation, or an individual, using their money to influence legislation? Non-profits do it all the time also? Are we only going to allow "nice" corporations and individuals to buy political leverage? Should we ban all "leverage" at all? Then how will the Congressmen know what is best for industry? Data from the ignorant masses? No. Corporate lobbying has a real affect on moving this nation forward, in the direction that industry needs to go. If the government has shown anything in the long term, it is that government is a poor model to run a prosperous business.

Quote

If I was the rich, I would make laws to protect my assets and my interests and screw other companies profits and make it harder to compete or even get started  and I'm not even a dick it's just survival. Like what is being done is exactly what I'd do if I was in their position.I'd want public schools bad to keep people ignorant, wanting high education to be based on money with education that will stagnant creative thinking skills, where you will always be forced to work for wages to have less time and resources to make it on your own, making sure people only are borrowing what is theirs which can be taken away at anytime. Even better I'd move the jobs to where people cannot compete with me at all. I'd even make rumors that the best way to get rich and that life you want is through hard work(when in reality it is just how much you can move money around while avoiding losses why we have what sells best instead of what works best) To protect myself against guys exactly like me who would be future competition. Sound familiar? It is what is happening now.

I think this part just shows you have no business training. What you suggest has never been used successfully, except by governments. It would require a nationwide Illuminati organization of untrained idiot corporate leaders, who somehow want to ruin this nation to keep themselves higher then everyone else. Which, even in this Post-Recession economy obviously is not the case. This is Conspiricy Theory at its best... causing fear while not helping the situation at all.

Quote

The rich would still be rich, the poor still the poor but we'd all have a say and have our basic needs(physical and technological survival) met.

I don't think anyone, even the Rich are against that. The problem is that a minority is being targeted for treatment that could easily be seen as descrimination. And because the masses have been fed propoganda that the Gypsys, Gays, Jews, Hispanics... Rich are behind all our nations ills, they are fully supporting this descrimination.

Edited by DieChecker, 19 November 2012 - 10:23 PM.

[questionmark]

DieChecker, on 19 November 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

The USA is like 240 years old, and has been run by the Rich from day one. It only is that the rich in the past many times would try to keep their employees happy by not taking too much advantage, but if the government is going to cover those who are disadvantaged, then clearly the corporations can do as they please. I'd actually say that corporations today have more freedom to stomp on their employees due to government subsidies to the working class.

There used to be a difference, there were the rich who had factories, mansions, Rolls Royce and airplanes, now there are the rich who also have privileges. And privileges is what caused the revolution. So yes, I'd say it is pretty unamerican.

[Jinxdom]

DieChecker, on 19 November 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

What you suggest has never been used successfully, except by governments. It would require a nationwide Illuminati organization of untrained idiot corporate leaders, who somehow want to ruin this nation to keep themselves higher then everyone else. Which, even in this Post-Recession economy obviously is not the case. This is Conspiricy Theory at its best... causing fear while not helping the situation at all.

Conspiracy theory? Hardly it's just how economics works in the long run and just a by-product of that process doesn't change the fact it would be something I would of done if I was in their shoes.
If you can picture somebody like Dr. Claw sitting behind a desk stroking a cat fine(I can't) it is happening. What I see is people taking advantage of a broken system to line their pockets. I could site laws and regulations even events in history(the automobile industry and L.A. electrical transportation system back in the day comes to mind*)to prove this all day but I have better things to do. I suggest reading books like the The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

*ok bad example that was technically a conspiracy theory

DieChecker, on 19 November 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

Lobbying is Commercials for Congress. Sure the lobbists lie about stuff. But, isn't it up to the Congressman to research what they are supporting? Just as it is up to the Consumer at Home to research what they are seeing on TV ads. Blindly trusting in a commercial is the action of an idiot.

Nobody should be able to buy political leverage, it's wrong. What should be political leverage is good ideas that actually you know work to benefit this country besides the bottom-line for their company. Seriously fast food was trying to lobby in that food stamps be allowed to be used at their restaurants those are the guys you want controlling our laws?(I could site examples of businesses entering policies to help their bottom-line all day). Not to mention the crossover between business and politics in the first place. It changes the direction of government. Just because something is moving forward doesn't mean it is going forward in the right direction
Your on point with the people need to research things and blind trust though.

DieChecker, on 19 November 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

I think this part just shows you have no business training.

Don't know business hardly my business I make a decent amount of cash and I am only limited by government regulationsI run a business selling marijuana legally took that niche market and the opportunity when it was first available to my state and I am working the system to get out ahead. My product is actually based on my time and effort put in to it, while making sure it is the best possible product. I'll actually work with my customers to make sure it's affordable, that I make a profit and that I'll be able to keep up to the demand.. Beautiful thing is I also don't deal straight in cash and will provide barter as an option if they cannot afford to pay in cash upfront. Then again I see everything as currency including myself, my time, and my work. Which gives me a very powerful edge in these hard times as it expands my business.(It is a b**** from an accounting standpoint but it's worth the trade off since it gives me something that I can ship and sell out of state without federal charges and I can come on profit on a profit is nice.) I'd rather control property and hard goods then cash any day of the week because they will always have value to somebody. If I did what normal businesses would of done I would of fell flat on my face within the first six months because I was too rigid on cash. Yeah my growth is slower then it should be but it is stable built from customer loyalty instead of the bottom-line. I did this without outside investors and without banks on my own dime and sweat.

Would I survive on a global scale doing this possibly but it would be the biggest pain in the ass to do the same barter type style on a large scale and besides I like working with other people keeps me humble and in the process to know how the process actually works. (Why I like shows like undercover Boss).

I studied business and people and I've learned long ago not to stick with some textbook recipe for success. I keep in mind my past, what I had dealt with, what works and avoid advice from "experts" like the plague. Adaptation is the key.

DieChecker, on 19 November 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

Data from the ignorant masses

Ignorant masses hardly http://www.cracked.c...an-experts.html Start there and research(Yes I know it is a comedy site but use it as a guide start for your own research and again shows how awesome "experts" are). This is why majority rules is pretty much they way to go. Why would you take ideas from only a handful of people when you can get ideas from millions using all the data available to form the best possible solution?

[DieChecker]

questionmark, on 20 November 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

There used to be a difference, there were the rich who had factories, mansions, Rolls Royce and airplanes, now there are the rich who also have privileges. And privileges is what caused the revolution. So yes, I'd say it is pretty unamerican.

Are you saying that George Washington and the other Rich Founders of the USA had no extra Privileges? Maybe you mean the extent of that Privilege, becaue the rich have always been privilaged.

Maybe you mean Un-American as in Bill Maher's ideas of what is Politically Correct? Or maybe Un-American as in, the Progressives/Liberals do not agree, so it is Un-American?

[questionmark]

DieChecker, on 20 November 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Are you saying that George Washington and the other Rich Founders of the USA had no extra Privileges? Maybe you mean the extent of that Privilege, becaue the rich have always been privilaged.

Maybe you mean Un-American as in Bill Maher's ideas of what is Politically Correct? Or maybe Un-American as in, the Progressives/Liberals do not agree, so it is Un-American?

Unamerican because, at least since the Civil War the principle is that all are equal. A Egalitarian society does not allow for privileges... for nobody.

[DieChecker]

Jinxdom, on 20 November 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

Conspiracy theory? Hardly it's just how economics works in the long run and just a by-product of that process doesn't change the fact it would be something I would of done if I was in their shoes.

So... the best way to get Rich, and stay there is to... cripple the wages of the vast masses, so they can purchase only a little, and never get educated or opportunity enough to challenge you?? That seems to me to be the Opposite of what is Logical. Anyone that builds Anything will want a society of well paid workers, who are skilled and educated, so they will Buy Their Stuff!!

Your idea goes directly into North Korean style economics, not free market capitalism.

Quote

Nobody should be able to buy political leverage, it's wrong.

Why? Even if it saves millions of children? Or, if it reduces poverty by 5%? Or, if it prevents childhood Obesity? Or, if it improves overall education/graduation rates by 25%?

Should there then be Freedom of Speach, but only for those saying things everyone will appreciate?

You have to take the Bad with the Good, otherwise you are promoting a double standard and Elitism. And the "evil" corporations that lobby DC are not always wrong. That is where (As I said before), the government needs to do its homework before just agreeing with any lobbist.

Quote

What should be political leverage is good ideas that actually you know work to benefit this country besides the bottom-line for their company.

Who is going to sort out the "Good Ideas"? That is what the goverment representatives should be doing. If they are supporting corrupt people/corporations, then obvioiusly those representatives are making a mistake. The problem is not the Lobbying, but the corrupt politician, who is making a bad choice knowingly, or who is allowing himself to decide in ignorance.

Quote

It changes the direction of government. Just because something is moving forward doesn't mean it is going forward in the right direction
Your on point with the people need to research things and blind trust though.

It does change the direction of government. And if the People don't like where it is going, they can elect someone else, right? Congressmen only serve 2 years.

My arguement is that the direction of the government is thus decided (in part) by people who have succeeded economically, rather then people who might have ideas, but who have never succeeded in running anything or even held a job with responsibilities. Or worse yet, by the industrially/economically ignorant masses. The masses who still have control by way of elections. They elect Representatives, who then meet with Industry and determine were the country should head. If those Representatives are doing a bad job, it is not Industry, but the government who is at fault in steering the country.

Quote

Would I survive on a global scale doing this possibly but it would be the biggest pain in the ass to do the same barter type style on a large scale and besides I like working with other people keeps me humble and in the process to know how the process actually works. (Why I like shows like undercover Boss).

I studied business and people and I've learned long ago not to stick with some textbook recipe for success. I keep in mind my past, what I had dealt with, what works and avoid advice from "experts" like the plague. Adaptation is the key.

Well, I guess you are not ignorant, simply of a different mindset. What you do would not be possible for say... the electric company... to do. They can't accept radishes and chickens. And they have very tight controls on what they can and cannot do financially with the customer.

Quote

Ignorant masses hardly http://www.cracked.c...an-experts.html Start there and research(Yes I know it is a comedy site but use it as a guide start for your own research and again shows how awesome "experts" are). This is why majority rules is pretty much they way to go. Why would you take ideas from only a handful of people when you can get ideas from millions using all the data available to form the best possible solution?

Because going through millions of ideas, with only 1% of them being feasible is going to ruin anyone through time and effort involved. That is why there are experts. People with exact training and experience who know exactly what is going to happen when. When the experts are right, say, 50% of the time, and the Masses are right, say 1% of the time, I'll go with the experts.

[DieChecker]

questionmark, on 20 November 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

Unamerican because, at least since the Civil War the principle is that all are equal. A Egalitarian society does not allow for privileges... for nobody.

But everyone is equal. If you want to sell your house and cars and run commercials and lobby Wash DC you can do so. Everyone has the ability to do so. All it takes is money. This is why non-profits are formed and collect donations. So that the Non-Rich can put forward their ideas in the same manner as the rich.

[questionmark]

DieChecker, on 20 November 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

But everyone is equal. If you want to sell your house and cars and run commercials and lobby Wash DC you can do so. Everyone has the ability to do so. All it takes is money. This is why non-profits are formed and collect donations. So that the Non-Rich can put forward their ideas in the same manner as the rich.

And because not everybody has that it converts into a privilege.

[DieChecker]

questionmark, on 20 November 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

And because not everybody has that it converts into a privilege.

Not everyone has a Car. Not everyone has a Job. Not everyone has a 60 inch TV. Not eveyone has a Pet. Not everyone has Children. Not everyone is a Legal Resident. Not everyone is a Socialist.

[DieChecker]

questionmark, on 20 November 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

And because not everybody has that it converts into a privilege.

So? Those who are rich have privilege. And can influence just about anything more then anyone else. That is a state of being rich. What do you suggest? Getting rid of the Rich? That did not work in Mao's China, or Castro's Cuba, or Stalin's CCCP.

The rich can buy 10, 20, 50 cars. Can own 3, 6, 10 homes. Is that fair? Should we (The People) take those things from them? Should we make sure no one lives in more then one house and that the house cannot exceed 300,000 dollars in value?

The rich have always directed national affairs and always will. It is true regardless of Fairness and Niceness.

We should live in that Reality, rather then day dreaming about Absolute Fairness.

Edit: Also the US strives toward Social Egalitarianism, but we don't even try to pretend to be fiscally egalitarian. If we did, there would be no Rich. There would be no super mansions. There would be no Lambodini Diablos. There would be no Cruise Ships even. Quite possibly no one would own any property at all.

Edited by DieChecker, 20 November 2012 - 11:50 PM.

[me-wonders]

name='DieChecker' timestamp=
I don't think that really matters. An architect does little physical work. An accountant does little physical work. A call center operator does little physical work. But, I think all would be offended if you suggested they somehow are lazy at their job, or otherwise not "really" working.

Who is accusing anyone of these professionals of being lazy?   I am not saying bad things about people with money, but saying good things about poor people.

CEOs and corporate Presidents have high stress, high responsibility jobs that often run over 10 hours a day. Personally I think it is a myth that the average CEO is only out spending money and playing golf all day.

Being a Certified Nurses Assistant is also high stress, and pays around minimum wage with no benefits such as health insurance.  These people keep people alive or keep them comfortable when they are dying, and they don't earn enough to meet their own needs, let alone care for a family. Have you worked long with dying people?  How did you cope?   How about child care?  What is more important than giving a child a good start in life?  Even after college education child care providers are not paid well.  If we had national health insurance this would at least give these people a chance of having the health care they sometimes need.  Why are you defending CEO's, and going on like they are under attack, when it is said low income people need a better deal?

The problem as I've always seen it is that the worst people in the inner city don't want to better themselves. They've been conditioned to wait on their Obama Phone to rain down on them. When the Northern black ghettos were first started, after the Great Migration, people had hope. Hell, just moving hundreds of miles for an opportunity made these people Great. But, today no one is going to migrate. They would rather sit and wait.

Now you have shifted from defending to attacking, and I think your attack is based on a prejudice that you seem to believe is only directed at the wealthy.  I do not think you have the experience then means understanding.   Back in the day of industrial growth, people knew where to move.  Where would you have them move today?   It is not just a matter of moving to the new plant that is hiring, but having an education that is beyond some people's means, and the connections, and the knowledge that comes from being in the right circles.  If it were as simple as moving to the new factories, we would not be having this discussion. The people who worked at the closed shrimp picking plant and the closed canning factory, were not lazy people.  I don't believe there are lazy people, but there are lost jobs.

There are also mothers with children needing help.  This help could mean child care is added to the factory.  We have an industrial society that has ignored the needs of small children, and has devastated the family by forcing all to put their jobs above family, and that brings us to Black Friday coming a day early on Thanksgiving, another blow to families.  When will the blows to families stop?  

Edited by me-wonders, 21 November 2012 - 12:29 AM.

[me-wonders]

DieChecker, on 20 November 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

So? Those who are rich have privilege. And can influence just about anything more then anyone else. That is a state of being rich. What do you suggest? Getting rid of the Rich? That did not work in Mao's China, or Castro's Cuba, or Stalin's CCCP.

The rich can buy 10, 20, 50 cars. Can own 3, 6, 10 homes. Is that fair? Should we (The People) take those things from them? Should we make sure no one lives in more then one house and that the house cannot exceed 300,000 dollars in value?

The rich have always directed national affairs and always will. It is true regardless of Fairness and Niceness.

We should live in that Reality, rather then day dreaming about Absolute Fairness.

Edit: Also the US strives toward Social Egalitarianism, but we don't even try to pretend to be fiscally egalitarian. If we did, there would be no Rich. There would be no super mansions. There would be no Lambodini Diablos. There would be no Cruise Ships even. Quite possibly no one would own any property at all.

We dealt with this with unions.  It is unfortunate we are not understanding the importance of unions and why they are necessary.