Obama the Post Turtle

[toad]

Have to disagree, those areas are profiting from making cheap commodity goods. Vietnam is a good example. The US exports it's manufacturing to China because it is a cheaper labor market. Recently manufacturing is moving to Vietnam because the labor cost in China have increased exponentially. They have the technical know how for repetitive tasks but usually lack the creativity needed for product innovation. I just don't see their culture embracing creative thinking anytime soon. Which leads me to believe they will be the worlds manufacturing area for some time to come. India is a different situation. They have a cheap skilled labor market but also lack innovation for the moment. From a business prospective I have had nothing but problems with people from India. Non-payment, haggling pre&post contract, and general business underhandedness. Don't get me wrong I have meet some nice people from India but the majority of business people I have meet are sleazy.

Every revolution, be it trains, cars, flight, or technology has created a wealth shift. On the flip side, one of the richest person I know started out hauling trash.

[WD-40]

Toad, it was a comparative statement. COMPARATIVE. COMPARATIVE. COMPARATIVE. COMPARATIVE. And obviously exaggerated. Christ, it's like this is the literal readers club.

And WD, it was a statement in COMPARISON. COMPARISON GUYS. COMPARATIVE. COMPARISON. COMPARATIVE. COMPARISON. Get it? It's a comparison of opportunity. The little indian boy has a greater chance of having a high ROI than the average American. This is their 1890s. Is there opportunity in America? Yes. Is there a chance for social mobility within the US? Yes. But my point was, is that the Indians/Chinese are in the boom faze of industrialization. I was in the PRC a few years ago as a student ambassador and they're building entire cities like it's going out of fashion, mostly along the coast though. This is the time when their Carnegies and Rockafellers are emerging.

And it wasn't so much a personal "woe is me", it was a [m'kay] example. Christ! An example to show how college costs are a bottleneck of social mobility within this country. Can you succeed without a college degree? Yes, but your odds are very low. And WD, they might very well pay what amounts to 70% of tax revenues, but that would still be mis-proportionate seeing as how the top 20% holds roughly 80-85% of the overall net worth within the country and 90% of financial wealth. I thought you'd like a source since I'm spewing numbers so here it is!

Money they 'earned' or 'inherited'...But to just 'take' it from them just because they 'have' it, is 'socialism'...(i.e.) Spread the wealth, level the playing field. Bad idea. Like I said, if you screw them and punish them for being wealthy, then there is no incentive for them to grow their business or hire people, nor for the average Joe or Jane to aspire to make more money or start a business in the hopes of being wealthy.

There has to be a fine line carefully drawn by congress in how much to tax versus giving the 'employers' reasons to keep growing and hiring. Congress lost sight of that a long time ago. These career politicians have to go!

[[m'kay]]

These career politicians have to go!

Well, that's one thing we definitely agree on, at least.

[toad]

These career politicians have to go!

Well, that's one thing we definitely agree on, at least.

Since the US has a fairly nasty estate tax, we don't have a big problem with our wealth being concentrated to a few families. So the notion of taxing the wealthy because they where born with it doesn't fit the majority of the wealthy people in our country.

[Mandalore]

sigh, I had typed up a big long thing explaining my more moderate position than the one I took up in this thread but then I hit that rascally x button on the tab..

In short, I support a very limited form of welfare to act as a cushion for those who fall off the economic ladder. I would also like to see social security be privatized. I think Medicaid is a good idea, and that I'm not sure about Medicare. I do however support a larger subsidy of college costs for lower income families to aid in social mobility.

Also, on globalization, I'm a global-federalist so I think that makes me an even more extreme proponent of that concept than I let on. Idealistically, as the playing fields are leveled, the high level economies won't slide too far down the scales as the developing nations markets open up. After all, not every country can do everything the best.

I also would like to apologize for my rabble rousing activity, it appears I wasn't the only one having a very bad day yesterday.

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

bump

[Matt-Chicago]

It's amusing but ultimately sad reading the immature and discredited objectivist nonsense which has been denounced and renounced by all but the most ideologically idealistic and foolish. Most young subscribers to Ayn Rand's reprehensible nonsense get over it by the time they graduate college - as they should.

For those here who don't know about objectivism - it's basically a philosophy which glorifies individualism, selfishness, greed, and abhors altruism or basically trying to do or plan anything for the benefit of others or society as a whole.

Even Alan Greenspan had to renounce it after the financial collapse saying he had to change his entire world view. The completely unregulated derivatives market, which is today over $500 trillion was left to nothing but "the market" and it imploded and had to be bailed out, and the worst is probably yet to come.
We'd have had a housing slump due to bad mortgages, but nowhere near the $12 trillion hole shot into our economy because of the bundling, selling, insuring, swapping, etc - of these mortgages. The fact that so many mortgages defaulted is only one piece of many as to why the collapse happened and continues.

The fact that we allow multinational corporations to play all the peoples of the world against each other for who will work for the lowest wage, under the worst conditions, with the least rules and regulations to protect workers, consumers, and the environment - is not some natural law or written on some great tablets handed down from above. It's man made and completely within our ability to change it and I think we should.

When you think about the last 500 years of history - objectivist fantasy seems to fly out the window.
Did the market create the slave abolitionists? How about the eight hour word day? Sick pay? Weekends? Workplace safety? Consumer protections? Did the market get rid of Jim Crow legalized discrimination? Did the market clean up our air and water? Did the market provide for a secure retirement for seniors? Or did the powers who control market fight every single one of these every step of the way?

The US used to be a third world country without all of those things I listed above. How did it change? How did we get a middle class instead of just a small group of wealthy and powerful and masses of basically feudal slaves? We got those things not through the market, but through people willing to work for the benefit of society and others, through collective action, and *gasp* through government. Don't get me wrong, capitalism is great at creating wealth and spurring innovation and I don't want to see that go away but it is very lousy at providing any measure of security or stability. The issue is that you can still have a government and society which guarantees some standard of living for its citizens regardless of wealth, power, ability, or other personal circumstances and still leave plenty for the market. Guaranteeing that everyone has access to health care will not hurt entrepreneurism, nor will a guaranteed paltry retirement like social security, nor will assistance to poor families, nor will regulations to protect workers, consumers, and the environment. This is what generations of Americans have struggled for and what is currently being taken away and for what? So the people with all the wealth and power can get even more wealth and power. Because five vacation houses are better than four even if it means the elderly eating cat food and corpses rotting in the streets.

Being for rules of the road does not make you anti automobile. Being for seat belts does not mean you hate people driving.

[WD-40]

It all started during the administrations of Teddy Roosevelt followed by Woodrow Wilson...both strong (and the 1st) Progressive Presidents. They started sticking governments nose into business and banking. It's been downhill ever since. Used to be the poor went to middle class and the middle class got wealthier. I'm not gonna waste time here explaining it. Believe what you want.

[Mandalore]

Gotta agree with WD-40 on this one, the gilded age was a lot of fun.

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

@ MC

http://www.gametracker.com/player/Dagny ... .226:3658/