New Orleans

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

Now it's BP's fault.

 

 

This is getting good.

So BP bears no blame? Well, just ask all the small fisherman along the gulf coast. Many haven't recovered.

 

The gulf fishing industry has very little if anything to do with inner city New Orleans.

 

Well, has less these days, since the industry has contracted since BP did its thing.

 

If inner city people in New orleans has EVER worked in the fishing industry in the gulf, that's been decades and decades ago. It has nothing or an extremely small amount of influence on what happens in New Orleans.

 

How familiar are you with the area? I have actually spent quite a bit of time there. You drive south of New Orleans as though you are going to Grand Isle and that is where the fishing industry is. You pass canals lined with shrimp boats...etc. Nobody is driving from inner city New Orleans to work on these boats.

[cornographic]

 

 

I would read it. Please post anything substantive that you found there.

 

And his policies are absolutely anti-immigrant. He just wouldn't build a physical wall.

 

FDR is mythologized but he was awful for the overall development of the economy and poor people outside of the special interests who were paid off by his policies.

You are free to research Bernie on your own.

 

He is not anti immigrant, that's ridiculous. He's about immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship(amnesty) for undocumented folks already living here.

 

Yeah, your take on FDR is bonkers, not really useful for me to respond. I guess you don't like social security, public schools, unions, etc etc. Like I said, you sound like a Libertarian.

I'm a classical liberal. I like the idea of helping share the proceeds of productivity, but I want to do that in the most efficient way possible while eliminating all barriers to competition. The problem I have with progressives is that they want to engineer an outcome that too often isn't realistic or isn't universal.

 

That's why I philosophically have a problem with unions, which I don't think get the best deals for their member, all while tamping down non-member opportunities.

 

So, you're saying that, say, professional athletes are WORSE off in modern times due to their unions than they were back in the pre union days? I guess thats why most of them are multimillionaires. How about the cops? They're union, one of the strongest. Nobody ever criticizes cops for being union.

 

Nope, across the board, workers are far better off unionized than nonunionized, it's not even close. Why do you think the capitalists hate unions so much?

[cornographic]

 

 

 

 

Now it's BP's fault.

 

 

This is getting good.

So BP bears no blame? Well, just ask all the small fisherman along the gulf coast. Many haven't recovered.

 

The gulf fishing industry has very little if anything to do with inner city New Orleans.

 

Well, has less these days, since the industry has contracted since BP did its thing.

 

If inner city people in New orleans has EVER worked in the fishing industry in the gulf, that's been decades and decades ago. It has nothing or an extremely small amount of influence on what happens in New Orleans.

 

How familiar are you with the area? I have actually spent quite a bit of time there. You drive south of New Orleans as though you are going to Grand Isle and that is where the fishing industry is. You pass canals lined with shrimp boats...etc. Nobody is driving from inner city New Orleans to work on these boats.

 

I'm saying the product of the fishing industry effects the economy--hence related jobs, e.g., service jobs--in NOLA.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

Now it's BP's fault.

 

 

This is getting good.

So BP bears no blame? Well, just ask all the small fisherman along the gulf coast. Many haven't recovered.

 

The gulf fishing industry has very little if anything to do with inner city New Orleans.

 

Well, has less these days, since the industry has contracted since BP did its thing.

 

If inner city people in New orleans has EVER worked in the fishing industry in the gulf, that's been decades and decades ago. It has nothing or an extremely small amount of influence on what happens in New Orleans.

 

How familiar are you with the area? I have actually spent quite a bit of time there. You drive south of New Orleans as though you are going to Grand Isle and that is where the fishing industry is. You pass canals lined with shrimp boats...etc. Nobody is driving from inner city New Orleans to work on these boats.

 

I'm saying the product of the fishing industry effects the economy--hence related jobs, e.g., service jobs--in NOLA.

 

Still....probably very little affect.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

I would read it. Please post anything substantive that you found there.

 

And his policies are absolutely anti-immigrant. He just wouldn't build a physical wall.

 

FDR is mythologized but he was awful for the overall development of the economy and poor people outside of the special interests who were paid off by his policies.

You are free to research Bernie on your own.

 

He is not anti immigrant, that's ridiculous. He's about immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship(amnesty) for undocumented folks already living here.

 

Yeah, your take on FDR is bonkers, not really useful for me to respond. I guess you don't like social security, public schools, unions, etc etc. Like I said, you sound like a Libertarian.

I'm a classical liberal. I like the idea of helping share the proceeds of productivity, but I want to do that in the most efficient way possible while eliminating all barriers to competition. The problem I have with progressives is that they want to engineer an outcome that too often isn't realistic or isn't universal.

 

That's why I philosophically have a problem with unions, which I don't think get the best deals for their member, all while tamping down non-member opportunities.

 

So, you're saying that, say, professional athletes are WORSE off in modern times due to their unions than they were back in the pre union days? I guess thats why most of them are multimillionaires. How about the cops? They're union, one of the strongest. Nobody ever criticizes cops for being union.

 

Nope, across the board, workers are far better off unionized than nonunionized, it's not even close. Why do you think the capitalists hate unions so much?

 

Really?

 

I even know cops who complain about this.

[BigRedBuster]

Soooo.....bringing this full circle, Corn.....so, your solution would be to have all the potential workers in New Orleans join a union, increase the minimum wage and increase the taxes on any corporation that would move to New Orleans to pay for everything.

[cornographic]

Soooo.....bringing this full circle, Corn.....so, your solution would be to have all the potential workers in New Orleans join a union, increase the minimum wage and increase the taxes on any corporation that would move to New Orleans to pay for everything.

That would be the way of a prospering economy, yes. I don't particularly see the need for a billionaire class, or even a multi multi millionaire class, while most the population gets poorer.

 

Corp taxes dont pay for everything, obviously, just get back to paying what reflects as a fair tax contribution back into the locales in which they are located. I mean, if they are using the R&D subsidies, cheap land deals, infrastructure, utilities, necessary labor force, they have to pay their fair share, right? The way it's gone, they don't seem to want to pay anything, want to pay all their share holders, who put the $ in off shore tax havens, yada yada.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Globalization is a net win for everyone. Because it raises the dreaded bottom that people supposedly race for.

 

 

The millions of Trump followers disagree.

I know. I just said that. In the next post.

 

Trump and sanders followers are equally misguided on this point, but it's not surprising because both candidates are nothing more than populists.

Yeah, well globalist economics is not a "win" for the working class anywhere, FTMP. It is a race to the bottom, I'm not sure what world you're living in. I think it was Volkswagon that opened some plants in Alabama or something because of the cheaper US labor there relative to the highly unionized labor in Germany. When our labor is cheaper than, say, China, we have big time problems.

Why??! That's a great thing. It'd be great if all economies in the world developed to the level of the US's.

 

That would also put downward pressure on the 1% salaries too.

Look, the capitalists/globalists want the lowest taxes and cheapest labor they can find, so what will continue to happen is the US standard will be eroded more and more to match the 3rd world standard, not the other way around.

You're just not getting it. The capitalists are raising the 3rd world standard. In the long run, things will equalize and everyone will be better off. This is not just theory. We have real world evidence of this. And we have real evidence that government guided economies have the opposite effect.

 

If you seek cheaper gas, or groceries, or haircut, are you part of the problem too?

 

Or is it ok for you to seek a bargain but not companies?

I'm happy to pay more for quality products that last, and that is what I usually do. If my standard as a worker is greater, then I have the means to pay for well made products from fellow workers who also have a decent standard of living. Economic growth happens for the ground up, not trickle down. In short, I don't shop @ Wal Mart. I'd rather but Red Wing boots, that last a long time, than some cheapo crap. Too bad, Red Wing boots have moved some of their production to Mexico.

 

If the capitalists want to raise the standards so much, for the workers, which they don't and never have and that's why they fight unions so fiercely at every turn....but if they did, why does German co. move to Alabama for cheaper labor and the TPP want to open up the cheaper labor of, say, Viet Nam since the already cheap Chinese labor is getting "too costly"?

I'm not saying that capitalist want to raise standards. I'm saying that's the net result.

 

If costs in China are going up relative to Vietnam, that's because sol and labor leverage has improved as China has liberalized their economy. That's a good thing. And eventually Vietnam wages and leverage will increase. And eventually, there will be more productive vibrant economies and less places to find "cheap" labor, and that's a good thing.

 

 

As to your Walmart example, that's great that you want to and can pay for higher grade products. The other day I was in whole foods and saw about a dozen variety of eggs, from free range to fertile to vegetarian fed and a whole variety of sizes and colors and bird types. That's an incredible testament to capitalism as a system. And it would go away if the socialist have their way.

 

If industry moves out of China to Viet Nam, then there's less industry in China, right? The only reason why labor pay has slightly improved in China is, as is usually the case, labor has had to protest, and strike, and try to unionize for some years now. Labor has to fight for improvements, the capitalists generally don't fight for improvements for labor. Their $ interests are contrary, obviously.

 

Food, France, heavier socialistic society, great variety of cuisine. Italy, same deal. Capitalism is just a way of profiteering. Production and distribution can be supplied under socialism. All your advanced industries are developed thru social redistribution of tax $: "corporate welfare". Socialize the costs and privatize the profits, thats the US system.

 

The US system has socialism running throughout it in many ways, which I have gone into extensively in the past on the board here. The military is economically socialistic, for e.g.

 

 

WRONG! In fact, there's more industry and people are freed up to pursue all sorts of other pursuits (that's why Americans on average work far fewer hours per dollar earned than ever before). This is another example of how socialists fundamentally don't understand economics. It's not a zero sum game. As Vietnamese workers gain more, they have more to spend, which usually means that they buy from advanced economies things that they can't use yet themselves.

 

Your rhetoric is disturbingly inaccurate, and by the tone, I know you want accept evidence that runs contrary. So, I'll just leave you with a recommendation that you look at the actual economic systems in France and Italy and their underlying economies.

 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/08/end-of-french-socialism-hollande-elections/

 

 

 

Historically, a tension has pulsated at the heart of French socialism in its attitude toward capitalism and the market economy. When in power, the Socialists have little choice but to accept, though grudgingly, the reality of the marketplace; when in the opposition, they are free, in the phrase of the political theorist Gérard Grunberg, to “redo their ideological virginity.” The problem now confronting the party is that these two tendencies exist simultaneously: While the Socialist government tacks with the current flowing from Brussels, the gusts of wind from the “left of the left” — the so-called frondeurs, or rebels within the party, as well as former allies like the Greens — push in the other direction. As Grunberg concludes, the presence of these countervailing currents “is suicidal.”

The military is socialistic in the sense that it, as a sole purchaser, does directly drive production and distribution, but it's not socialist overall. If you're referring to similar pay for any type of job of the same rank, under a tortured and misguided view that may be considered "socialist." But, if you've ever served, you know there's a lot of pushback in the ranks around whether a yeoman E-5 should receive the same base pay as an E-5 SEAL.

 

What's amusing to me is how the far left progressives rail against capitalism's ills that led to the great recession, but gloss right over socialism's responsibility for the Great Chinese Famine (a catastrophe only 50 years old that can't even be fathomed by western countries).

[cornographic]

 

 

 

 

I would read it. Please post anything substantive that you found there.

 

And his policies are absolutely anti-immigrant. He just wouldn't build a physical wall.

 

FDR is mythologized but he was awful for the overall development of the economy and poor people outside of the special interests who were paid off by his policies.

You are free to research Bernie on your own.

 

He is not anti immigrant, that's ridiculous. He's about immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship(amnesty) for undocumented folks already living here.

 

Yeah, your take on FDR is bonkers, not really useful for me to respond. I guess you don't like social security, public schools, unions, etc etc. Like I said, you sound like a Libertarian.

I'm a classical liberal. I like the idea of helping share the proceeds of productivity, but I want to do that in the most efficient way possible while eliminating all barriers to competition. The problem I have with progressives is that they want to engineer an outcome that too often isn't realistic or isn't universal.

 

That's why I philosophically have a problem with unions, which I don't think get the best deals for their member, all while tamping down non-member opportunities.

 

So, you're saying that, say, professional athletes are WORSE off in modern times due to their unions than they were back in the pre union days? I guess thats why most of them are multimillionaires. How about the cops? They're union, one of the strongest. Nobody ever criticizes cops for being union.

 

Nope, across the board, workers are far better off unionized than nonunionized, it's not even close. Why do you think the capitalists hate unions so much?

 

Really?

 

I even know cops who complain about this.

 

They don't complain when a brother goes off the rails and kills some unarmed guy and the union helps them cover the thing up and throw it out the window. Probably not many complain about their pensions, annuities, and health plans, either.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

I would read it. Please post anything substantive that you found there.

 

And his policies are absolutely anti-immigrant. He just wouldn't build a physical wall.

 

FDR is mythologized but he was awful for the overall development of the economy and poor people outside of the special interests who were paid off by his policies.

You are free to research Bernie on your own.

 

He is not anti immigrant, that's ridiculous. He's about immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship(amnesty) for undocumented folks already living here.

 

Yeah, your take on FDR is bonkers, not really useful for me to respond. I guess you don't like social security, public schools, unions, etc etc. Like I said, you sound like a Libertarian.

I'm a classical liberal. I like the idea of helping share the proceeds of productivity, but I want to do that in the most efficient way possible while eliminating all barriers to competition. The problem I have with progressives is that they want to engineer an outcome that too often isn't realistic or isn't universal.

 

That's why I philosophically have a problem with unions, which I don't think get the best deals for their member, all while tamping down non-member opportunities.

 

So, you're saying that, say, professional athletes are WORSE off in modern times due to their unions than they were back in the pre union days? I guess thats why most of them are multimillionaires. How about the cops? They're union, one of the strongest. Nobody ever criticizes cops for being union.

 

Nope, across the board, workers are far better off unionized than nonunionized, it's not even close. Why do you think the capitalists hate unions so much?

 

Really?

 

I even know cops who complain about this.

 

They don't complain when a brother goes off the rails and kills some unarmed guy and the union helps them cover the thing up and throw it out the window. Probably not many complain about their pensions, annuities, and health plans, either.

 

Thanks for proving my point on why I originally typed the word "really?"

 

You seriously are going to say that nobody complains about the cops union after the last 12 months we have had in the US?

 

I would maybe suggest rethinking that comment.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Soooo.....bringing this full circle, Corn.....so, your solution would be to have all the potential workers in New Orleans join a union, increase the minimum wage and increase the taxes on any corporation that would move to New Orleans to pay for everything.

That would be the way of a prospering economy, yes. I don't particularly see the need for a billionaire class, or even a multi multi millionaire class, while most the population gets poorer.

 

Corp taxes dont pay for everything, obviously, just get back to paying what reflects as a fair tax contribution back into the locales in which they are located. I mean, if they are using the R&D subsidies, cheap land deals, infrastructure, utilities, necessary labor force, they have to pay their fair share, right? The way it's gone, they don't seem to want to pay anything, want to pay all their share holders, who put the $ in off shore tax havens, yada yada.

 

OK......let's say I want to open a factory somewhere in the south central US. Why would I choose New Orleans?

[cm husker]

 

Soooo.....bringing this full circle, Corn.....so, your solution would be to have all the potential workers in New Orleans join a union, increase the minimum wage and increase the taxes on any corporation that would move to New Orleans to pay for everything.

That would be the way of a prospering economy, yes. I don't particularly see the need for a billionaire class, or even a multi multi millionaire class, while most the population gets poorer.

 

Corp taxes dont pay for everything, obviously, just get back to paying what reflects as a fair tax contribution back into the locales in which they are located. I mean, if they are using the R&D subsidies, cheap land deals, infrastructure, utilities, necessary labor force, they have to pay their fair share, right? The way it's gone, they don't seem to want to pay anything, want to pay all their share holders, who put the $ in off shore tax havens, yada yada.

 

 

The population is not getting poorer. That's silly talk. Our ability to buy and thrive at a unprecedented SOL is higher than ever.

 

But, even if I accepted that "we don't need billionaires," the left wing socialist solution of attacking corporations themselves is completely misguided.

 

I would removed all "corporate welfare" tomorrow, but in exchange, I'd want a significant reduction in regulations, especially because most of those regulations were created by established industry competitors as a means of keeping new competition out.

 

As to paying a "fair" share of taxes, if we could link taxation to consumption, I'm all for it. But your entire argument that "they don't want to pay anything" stands contrary to the reality of the system (and how few take advantages of overseas tax avoidance strategies).

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And this talk of putting teenagers to work as a fix to poverty, is ludicrous But it would maybe limit their energy to be out committing crimes. But so would school and school activities.

Nobody is putting kids to work that don't want to work or that their family doesn't want them to work. And, nobody is talking about forcing them to do labor that is dangerous or harmful to them.

 

The bolded part is true though. If the kid is at a job, he isn't out causing trouble. And, he is also learning a skill and how to work in a work environment. School activities only go so far in a poverty area. If the household needs food on the table and the adults in the family don't have jobs and have turned to selling drugs, guess what the kid is going to be doing? He isn't going to be going to the Chess club meeting. He is going to be working a street corner somewhere selling more meth.

 

Now...take that family and allow them to work in a legitimate job and also allow that kid to do the same (within appropriate parameters) and it could be a win win.

Industrial labor is generally dangerous, you know, that's why they have OSHA and is also why workers tend to want to form unions.

Sooo....it's dangerous for a 10 -12 year old to wash dishes, mop a floor, stuff envelopes, run a cash register, mow grass....

I thought you were talking about industrial jobs. Well, your 10-12 year olds are gonna have a helluva time competing with adult latinos for those restaurant kitchen jobs. Also hard for me to see 10-12 year olds doing menial office work, sorry, just me. Children of that age used to be reimbursed for various "chores" around the house, etc, allowance--that's when dad a a better paying job, I guess.

 

And cash register! Really, you're going to let a 10 year old run the cash register @ your business? Lol, c'mon!

If they can't compete, why do we need laws to keep them out?

 

Like OSHA, we are spending money on regulations to protect against horrors that the market has already extinguished.

Your "market" gives us pollution and sh#t working conditions. Your market gives us fracking, polluting the water table with carcinogens. The market gave us the near world economic collapse of '08. That's why they have the EPA and OSHA, USDA, and the like. If you don't have OSHA, well, they just basically work people to death, sorta like what is happening in Qatar and Saudi Arabian construction sites these days. The market delivers as many bads as it does goods.

 

I dunno, you sound like a Libertarian.

You can refer to another thread on this topic, but there is scant evidence that OSHA has provided a marginal increase in worker safety.

 

And that's despite billions pouring into compliance and enforcement over the years.

 

I worked as a union carpenter for years. I have first hand experience that OSHA is a good, invaluable org. Otherwise, we'd still be working with asbestos, crap scaffolding, all kinds of crazy long hours, etc. If corp.s are penalized for noncompliance, thats their fault. They probably save in terms of potential work related lawsuits, though.

 

 

I'm going to lose my mind. You do realize that asbestos still isn't illegal right? And that hours have been decreasing in the US long before OSHA came along?

 

The problem is there are these little kernels of truth in your posts, but they are so fundamentally wrong in their conclusions. OSHA has probably prevented some lawsuits, just like other legislation, by actually giving the industry players (who wrote the laws) a defense by saying "Hey, I was in compliance with regulations." Regulations that they actually wrote! See the problem?

 

to the extent an industry wants to streamline information sharing or prevent lawsuits by identifying best practices, I"m all for it, but we don't need the government doing so on their behalf.

[cornographic]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Globalization is a net win for everyone. Because it raises the dreaded bottom that people supposedly race for.

 

 

The millions of Trump followers disagree.

I know. I just said that. In the next post.

 

Trump and sanders followers are equally misguided on this point, but it's not surprising because both candidates are nothing more than populists.

Yeah, well globalist economics is not a "win" for the working class anywhere, FTMP. It is a race to the bottom, I'm not sure what world you're living in. I think it was Volkswagon that opened some plants in Alabama or something because of the cheaper US labor there relative to the highly unionized labor in Germany. When our labor is cheaper than, say, China, we have big time problems.

Why??! That's a great thing. It'd be great if all economies in the world developed to the level of the US's.

 

That would also put downward pressure on the 1% salaries too.

Look, the capitalists/globalists want the lowest taxes and cheapest labor they can find, so what will continue to happen is the US standard will be eroded more and more to match the 3rd world standard, not the other way around.

You're just not getting it. The capitalists are raising the 3rd world standard. In the long run, things will equalize and everyone will be better off. This is not just theory. We have real world evidence of this. And we have real evidence that government guided economies have the opposite effect.

 

If you seek cheaper gas, or groceries, or haircut, are you part of the problem too?

 

Or is it ok for you to seek a bargain but not companies?

I'm happy to pay more for quality products that last, and that is what I usually do. If my standard as a worker is greater, then I have the means to pay for well made products from fellow workers who also have a decent standard of living. Economic growth happens for the ground up, not trickle down. In short, I don't shop @ Wal Mart. I'd rather but Red Wing boots, that last a long time, than some cheapo crap. Too bad, Red Wing boots have moved some of their production to Mexico.

 

If the capitalists want to raise the standards so much, for the workers, which they don't and never have and that's why they fight unions so fiercely at every turn....but if they did, why does German co. move to Alabama for cheaper labor and the TPP want to open up the cheaper labor of, say, Viet Nam since the already cheap Chinese labor is getting "too costly"?

I'm not saying that capitalist want to raise standards. I'm saying that's the net result.

 

If costs in China are going up relative to Vietnam, that's because sol and labor leverage has improved as China has liberalized their economy. That's a good thing. And eventually Vietnam wages and leverage will increase. And eventually, there will be more productive vibrant economies and less places to find "cheap" labor, and that's a good thing.

 

 

As to your Walmart example, that's great that you want to and can pay for higher grade products. The other day I was in whole foods and saw about a dozen variety of eggs, from free range to fertile to vegetarian fed and a whole variety of sizes and colors and bird types. That's an incredible testament to capitalism as a system. And it would go away if the socialist have their way.

 

If industry moves out of China to Viet Nam, then there's less industry in China, right? The only reason why labor pay has slightly improved in China is, as is usually the case, labor has had to protest, and strike, and try to unionize for some years now. Labor has to fight for improvements, the capitalists generally don't fight for improvements for labor. Their $ interests are contrary, obviously.

 

Food, France, heavier socialistic society, great variety of cuisine. Italy, same deal. Capitalism is just a way of profiteering. Production and distribution can be supplied under socialism. All your advanced industries are developed thru social redistribution of tax $: "corporate welfare". Socialize the costs and privatize the profits, thats the US system.

 

The US system has socialism running throughout it in many ways, which I have gone into extensively in the past on the board here. The military is economically socialistic, for e.g.

 

 

WRONG! In fact, there's more industry and people are freed up to pursue all sorts of other pursuits (that's why Americans on average work far fewer hours per dollar earned than ever before). This is another example of how socialists fundamentally don't understand economics. It's not a zero sum game. As Vietnamese workers gain more, they have more to spend, which usually means that they buy from advanced economies things that they can't use yet themselves.

 

Your rhetoric is disturbingly inaccurate, and by the tone, I know you want accept evidence that runs contrary. So, I'll just leave you with a recommendation that you look at the actual economic systems in France and Italy and their underlying economies.

 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/08/end-of-french-socialism-hollande-elections/

 

 

 

Historically, a tension has pulsated at the heart of French socialism in its attitude toward capitalism and the market economy. When in power, the Socialists have little choice but to accept, though grudgingly, the reality of the marketplace; when in the opposition, they are free, in the phrase of the political theorist Gérard Grunberg, to “redo their ideological virginity.” The problem now confronting the party is that these two tendencies exist simultaneously: While the Socialist government tacks with the current flowing from Brussels, the gusts of wind from the “left of the left” — the so-called frondeurs, or rebels within the party, as well as former allies like the Greens — push in the other direction. As Grunberg concludes, the presence of these countervailing currents “is suicidal.”

The military is socialistic in the sense that it, as a sole purchaser, does directly drive production and distribution, but it's not socialist overall. If you're referring to similar pay for any type of job of the same rank, under a tortured and misguided view that may be considered "socialist." But, if you've ever served, you know there's a lot of pushback in the ranks around whether a yeoman E-5 should receive the same base pay as an E-5 SEAL.

 

What's amusing to me is how the far left progressives rail against capitalism's ills that led to the great recession, but gloss right over socialism's responsibility for the Great Chinese Famine (a catastrophe only 50 years old that can't even be fathomed by western countries).

 

The Chinese economy is contracting because they built up too much too fast and overproduce, and people in, say the US, dont have as much $ to buy all the stuff. Chinese Labor has fought for more of a slice, still tiny slice, and thats why they want the cheaper labor in Viet Nam. So maybe Apple moves to Viet Nam eventually, not back to Murca, as Trumpf says.

 

Unions gave the American worker all the benefits he/she has/had enjoyed for the 2-3 decades post FDR: 8 hr day, OT, weekends off, pensions, safe conditions, etc. In case you hadn't noticed, the big gripe these days is WORKER INSECURITY, lower wages, fewer hours, crazy schedules, etc etc.

 

As to the military, its paid for by the US tax $, hence "socialistic", like public schools, roads.

 

Again, I repeat, the US and Euro, SE Asian, economies are a mixture of capitalism and socialism, there is no such thing as pure capitalism, pure free markets.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

I would read it. Please post anything substantive that you found there.

 

And his policies are absolutely anti-immigrant. He just wouldn't build a physical wall.

 

FDR is mythologized but he was awful for the overall development of the economy and poor people outside of the special interests who were paid off by his policies.

You are free to research Bernie on your own.

 

He is not anti immigrant, that's ridiculous. He's about immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship(amnesty) for undocumented folks already living here.

 

Yeah, your take on FDR is bonkers, not really useful for me to respond. I guess you don't like social security, public schools, unions, etc etc. Like I said, you sound like a Libertarian.

I'm a classical liberal. I like the idea of helping share the proceeds of productivity, but I want to do that in the most efficient way possible while eliminating all barriers to competition. The problem I have with progressives is that they want to engineer an outcome that too often isn't realistic or isn't universal.

 

That's why I philosophically have a problem with unions, which I don't think get the best deals for their member, all while tamping down non-member opportunities.

 

So, you're saying that, say, professional athletes are WORSE off in modern times due to their unions than they were back in the pre union days? I guess thats why most of them are multimillionaires. How about the cops? They're union, one of the strongest. Nobody ever criticizes cops for being union.

 

Nope, across the board, workers are far better off unionized than nonunionized, it's not even close. Why do you think the capitalists hate unions so much?

 

 

Professional athletic unions are NOTORIOUS for protecting the interests of the established, big money players at the expense of other potential players. For example, you see teams firing older players all the time due to union mandated pay schedules; guys who would have otherwise been able to stay on a team at a lower price. Yes, they make some millionaires, but how many guys have they prevented from earning any pay?

 

I'm against police unions entirely; just like I'm against all public unions because their interests are not sufficiently aligned with the taxpayers' (unlike in a private union situation where ultimately they need their industry to remain profitable).

 

I hate unions so much because they keep out labor competition, which is bad for everyone, but especially the have nots. Take a look at how organized labor, which specifically deleted a prohibition on racial discrimination in the original labor legislation, has set back african american advancement historically. It's shocking and that same sort of things occurs today, even if it's not based on race.

 

They, like every other corporate special interest, are more about what makes their union managers rich than about what is best for society overall.

 

Eliminate all forms of corporate welfare, including union protectionism.