DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Kramer on June 04, 2010, 01:40:39 PM
-
What happened?
-
Greece happened.
It'll take a few more bumps on the road too, but fundamentally it has way more potential than the USD. I think they took in too many former Soviet bloc countries too soon, but there were political reasons for that. Economic pressure will straighten them out. Generally, for national currencies, I'm a believer that bigger is better. A bigger internal market and more potential for economic diversification too. Partially offset in the EU by nationalism which prevents more unified political control. I'd still bet long-term on the euro.
-
So you would be in favor of the amero?
-
In theory, sure, but in practice I see the USA today as a lot more self-destructive than Europe and a lot more torn by racial inequality. I'd say that both Mexico and the US are "sub-European" in that they are less confidence-inspiring than any of the Western European countries. Mexico because of sheer incompetence and criminality and the US because of its self-destructive ethos. And I don't know how long Canada would be able to keep its social safety net if it adopted a common currency with the US; with Mexico? Fuchgeddabaowdit.
-
So then bigger is not always better
-
The Euro made good sense, as there were over 20 countries in the area, each with its own currency. The Amero makes less sense. While Germany, Italy and France are all similar in size, there is a huge economic difference between the US, Canada and Mexico. It would be a disadvantage most of the time for the Canadians and the Mexicans because of this disparity, and politically, it would be very divisive in the US among various regions and factions.
-
The Euro made good sense, as there were over 20 countries in the area, each with its own currency. The Amero makes less sense. While Germany, Italy and France are all similar in size, there is a huge economic difference between the US, Canada and Mexico. It would be a disadvantage most of the time for the Canadians and the Mexicans because of this disparity, and politically, it would be very divisive in the US among various regions and factions.
Good argument against.
-
<<So then bigger is not always better>>
"Better" is the net result of a number of factors. "Bigger" is one of the factors, a very important one, but not important enough to decide the outcome in all cases.
-
Greece happened.
It'll take a few more bumps on the road too, but fundamentally it has way more potential than the USD. I think they took in too many former Soviet bloc countries too soon, but there were political reasons for that. Economic pressure will straighten them out. Generally, for national currencies, I'm a believer that bigger is better. A bigger internal market and more potential for economic diversification too. Partially offset in the EU by nationalism which prevents more unified political control. I'd still bet long-term on the euro.
So 1 country smaller than Calif is taking down the Euro?
-
It's more than Greece now, it's the precedent. The Germans don't want to be the go-to guy every time another EU member fucks up and needs a handout. And there are other EU member states nearing bail-out status too. Germans are not prepared to carry the whole load on their own backs.
But my bet is that Germany will bail out the Greeks this time and make it conditional on some general belt-tightening.
-
It's more than Greece now, it's the precedent. The Germans don't want to be the go-to guy every time another EU member fucks up and needs a handout. And there are other EU member states nearing bail-out status too. Germans are not prepared to carry the whole load on their own backs.
But my bet is that Germany will bail out the Greeks this time and make it conditional on some general belt-tightening.
My point a couple months back is socialism in Europe has ruined the Euro. Socialism in the US is ruining the USD too. Socialism is cancer.
-
<<My point a couple months back is socialism in Europe has ruined the Euro. >>
Two points: 1) The euro, far from being ruined, is still stronger than the USD; and 2) most of the EU countries are more socialistic than the USA, so according to your theory, it must be European socialism that keeps their currency (which started out equal to 2/3 of a US dollar) superior to your currency.
<<The Socialism in the US is ruining the USD too. >>
I would say that it was the cost of fascism, militarism and aggression that has ruined your dollar. Socialism barely exists in the USA.
<<Socialism is cancer.>>
If it is, then what your country needs is a huge case of cancer.
-
Kramer has a mind like a steel trap, doesn't he?
Rush tells him what to think, it would seem.
-
Kramer has a mind like a steel trap, doesn't he?
Rush tells him what to think, it would seem.
and XO has a mind like a sieve.
obama tells you what to think, it would seem.
You have never been able to defend your liberal positions because they make no sense and aren't defensible.
-
I defend my positions quite well, It's just that your mind is incapable of logical reasoning.
-
I defend my positions quite well, It's just that your mind is incapable of logical reasoning.
explain to me what is logical about the religion of liberalism? Don't tell me it just takes a lot of faith to make it work.
-
<<explain to me what is logical about the religion of liberalism? Don't tell me it just takes a lot of faith to make it work.>>
Liberalism isn't a "religion" or even an overall political program. On an issue-by-issue basis, there is a liberal view and a conservative view. One person can be loosely considered "more liberal" than another, depending on how many different issues he or she would see from a liberal POV. Or depending on how far his liberalism goes when applied to any one issue.
I can't write a textbook on this, but on any one issue, I'd probably be able to define the liberal perspective and defend it. On some issues, like capital punishment, I'm actually opposed to the liberal view. But on most other issues, I'm probably a liberal. A lot of liberals start from Jeremy Bentham's criterion of supporting the solution that promises "the greatest good for the greatest number," which usually involves some form of redistribution of wealth, and conservatives start from the premise of preserving the status quo, which means leaving the wealth exactly where it happens to be right now, thank you very much. I basically believe in equality and I don't see why Peter should have more than Paul. A little bit more, OK, but a whole lot more? Fuck dat. I like a level playing field for everyone. I like to see everyone happy.
-
<<explain to me what is logical about the religion of liberalism? Don't tell me it just takes a lot of faith to make it work.>>
Liberalism isn't a "religion" or even an overall political program. On an issue-by-issue basis, there is a liberal view and a conservative view. One person can be loosely considered "more liberal" than another, depending on how many different issues he or she would see from a liberal POV. Or depending on how far his liberalism goes when applied to any one issue.
I can't write a textbook on this, but on any one issue, I'd probably be able to define the liberal perspective and defend it. On some issues, like capital punishment, I'm actually opposed to the liberal view. But on most other issues, I'm probably a liberal. A lot of liberals start from Jeremy Bentham's criterion of supporting the solution that promises "the greatest good for the greatest number," which usually involves some form of redistribution of wealth, and conservatives start from the premise of preserving the status quo, which means leaving the wealth exactly where it happens to be right now, thank you very much. I basically believe in equality and I don't see why Peter should have more than Paul. A little bit more, OK, but a whole lot more? Fuck dat. I like a level playing field for everyone. I like to see everyone happy.
well spoken
Except for the explanation of the conservative POV , which is that welth should go wherre it is welcome and well treated , earned in other words.
-
<<well spoken>>
Thank you.
<<Except for the explanation of the conservative POV , which is that welth should go wherre it is welcome and well treated , earned in other words.>>
I don't see that "welcome and well-treated" equates to "earned." I for one would certainly welcome wealth and treat it well, regardless of how it came to me, and whether I had earned it or not. Ask any lottery winner.
We were taught in high school that the root of "conservative" is the verb "conserve," to keep as it is, which would entail the preservation of the status quo and resisting any changes thereto. It was for that reason that our former Conservative Party changed its name to Progressive Conservative in order to avoid the impression that it was resistant to all change. It was under a PC government, for example, that the Canadian ban on Playboy Magazine was finally lifted in the late 1950s. Now THAT'S progress.
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6541DW20100605 (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6541DW20100605)
The euro zone is facing a period of zero growth if not recession, and the United States is heading for financial trouble, U.S. economist Nouriel Roubini was quoted as saying on Saturday.
There was a risk of renewed recession in Europe, Roubini said in an interview with Swiss daily Tages-Anzeiger.
"There is that risk, at least for the euro zone. Growth will fall toward zero. Even if that is perhaps not a real recession, it will feel like one. Greece was just the tip of the iceberg," he said.
"And the Americans too will run into the wall at some point if the carry on the way they are," he said in the interview published in German.
Roubini, known as Dr. Doom and best known for predicting the U.S. housing crisis, said there was a risk of a second financial crisis, with countries becoming insolvent and being forced out of the euro, and banks collapsing.
Countries such as Spain and Greece were now under pressure to cut spending and raise taxes to retain access to the capital markets, even though they had no growth to speak of.
If governments implement austerity measures too soon they risk snuffing out demand and recovery, but delays could provoke a catastrophe with high interest burdens and inflation.
"You're damned if you save and you're damned if you don't," he said.
Roubini said it was "possible to square this circle" if governments committed to a credible medium-term plan to restore their budgets.
But such policies, which carry the risk of a deflationary recession, must be compensated for with a loose pan-European monetary policy to stimulate demand.
Any resulting further decline in the euro would make European exports more competitive and allow Germany to raise wages and purchasing power at home to stimulate exports from other euro zone countries, he said.
Roubini said that a Japanese-style period of deflation, stagnation and high unemployment was a much greater risk to Europe for the next two or three years than inflation.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2010/06/05/Russia-says-euro-must-be-stabilized/UPI-47431275767862/ (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2010/06/05/Russia-says-euro-must-be-stabilized/UPI-47431275767862/)
MESEBERG, Germany, June 5 (UPI) -- Russia's president says Europe needs to stabilize the euro or face the possibility of a financial crisis
worse than the 2008 recession.
Dmitry Medvedev made the remarks in Meseberg, Germany, RIA Novosti reported Saturday.
"This is important for the European zone," Medvedev said, "and for its partners, such as Russia, and for the world financial system because if one pulls out leg in a form of euro from the global financial system, I am afraid consequences will be worse than the crisis in 2008."
The euro has sunk to its lowest rate against the dollar in four years amid fears a European debt crisis could slow economic growth in the region, RIA Novosti said.
"We really have very serious trade relations with the EU (and) many of our people keep their savings in euro," Medvedev said. "We are not indifferent to the European invention's destiny."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/budget/7806064/Euro-will-be-dead-in-five-years.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/budget/7806064/Euro-will-be-dead-in-five-years.html)
Euro 'will be dead in five years'
The euro will have broken up before the end of this Parliamentary term, according to the bulk of economists (people much smarter than XO) taking part in a wide-ranging economic survey for The Sunday Telegraph.
The single currency is in its death throes and may not survive in its current membership for a week, let alone the next five years, according to a selection of responses to the survey – the first major wide-ranging litmus test of economic opinion in the City since the election. The findings underline suspicions that the new Chancellor, George Osborne, will have to firefight a full-blown crisis in Britain's biggest trading partner in his first years in office.
Of the 25 leading City economists who took part in the Telegraph survey, 12 predicted that the euro would not survive in its current form this Parliamentary term, compared with eight who suspected it would. Five declared themselves undecided. The finding is only one of a number of remarkable conclusions, including that:
• The economy will grow by well over a percentage point less next year than the Budget predicted in March.
• The Government will borrow almost £10bn less next year than the Treasury previously forecast, despite this weaker growth.
• Just as many economists think the Bank of England will not raise rates until 2012 or later as think it will lift borrowing costs this year.
But the conclusion on the euro is perhaps the most remarkable finding. A year ago or less, few within the City would have confidently predicted the currency's demise. But the travails of Greece, Spain and Portugal in recent weeks, plus German Chancellor Angela Merkel's acknowledgement that the currency is facing an "existential crisis", have radically shifted opinion.
Two of the eight experts who predicted that the currency would survive said it would do so only at the cost of seeing at least one of its members default on its sovereign debt. Andrew Lilico, chief economist at think tank Policy Exchange, said there was "nearly zero chance" of the euro surviving with its current membership, adding: "Greece will certainly default on its debts, and it is an open question whether Greece will experience some form of revolution or coup – I'd put the likelihood of that over the next five years as around one in four."
Douglas McWilliams of the Centre for Economics and Business Research said the single currency "may not even survive the next week", while David Blanchflower, professor at Dartmouth College and former Bank of England policymaker, added: "The political implications [of euro disintegration] are likely to be far-reaching – Germans are opposed to paying for others and may well quit."
Four of the economists said that despite the wider suspicion that Greece or some of the weaker economies may be forced out of the currency, the most likely country to leave would be Germany.
Peter Warburton of consultancy Economic Perspectives said: "Possibly Germany will leave. Possibly other central and eastern European countries – plus Denmark – will have joined. Possibly, there will be a multi-tier membership of the EU and a mechanism for entering and leaving the single currency. I think the project will survive, but not in its current form."
Tim Congdon of International Monetary Research said: "The eurozone will lose three or four members e_SEnDGreece, Portugal, maybe Ireland e_SEnD and could break up altogether because of the growing friction between France and Germany."
The recent worries about the euro's fate followed the creation last month of a $1 trillion (£691bn) bail-out fund to prevent future collapses. Although the fund boosted confidence initially, investors abandoned the euro after politicians showed reluctance to support it wholeheartedly.
-
Possibly the EU needs to consolidate, cut off the dead weight and build from its strengths. I see the core EU as the French-German-Benelux axis. I don't think they'll ever cut that far back - - can't see, for example, either Italy or Sweden booted out - - but I do think that they can concentrate more on shared core values and economies. There might have to be some sacrifice of flexibility, less tolerance of economic variation in basic measurable standards, but they're a highly sophisticated group and they should be able to work this out. Closer political and economic integration seems to be in the cards. I don't know how they'll work it out, but they've taken so many steps down the road (to One Europe) that it's inconceivable now that the core membership can back out.
-
We were taught in high school that the root of "conservative" is the verb "conserve," to keep as it is, which would entail the preservation of the status quo and resisting any changes thereto.
Perhaps you should go back to school - "to keep as is" is not the definition of conserve.
-
<<well spoken>>
Thank you.
<<Except for the explanation of the conservative POV , which is that welth should go wherre it is welcome and well treated , earned in other words.>>
I don't see that "welcome and well-treated" equates to "earned." I for one would certainly welcome wealth and treat it well, regardless of how it came to me, and whether I had earned it or not. Ask any lottery winner.
We were taught in high school that the root of "conservative" is the verb "conserve," to keep as it is, which would entail the preservation of the status quo and resisting any changes thereto. It was for that reason that our former Conservative Party changed its name to Progressive Conservative in order to avoid the impression that it was resistant to all change. It was under a PC government, for example, that the Canadian ban on Playboy Magazine was finally lifted in the late 1950s. Now THAT'S progress.
"Conservative: is not synonomous with "regressive" or "statist", I am not aware of any conservative impulse to avoid the movement of capital from one hand to another by earning or lending or intrest payment. That new people become welthy almost constantly is a very conservative concept.
-
<<"Conservative: is not synonomous with "regressive" or "statist", I am not aware of any conservative impulse to avoid the movement of capital from one hand to another by earning or lending or intrest payment. That new people become welthy almost constantly is a very conservative concept.>>
I don't think conservatives are necessarily regressive, because a regression is also inconsistent with the status quo. They are generally reactionary, in that they react against initiatives to change. However, in the battles over the New Deal, I think they are still fighting to roll it back, not out of a desire to regress 80 years but because to them the status quo is what it was when the New Deal (wrongly, in their opinion) altered it.
Statism hasn't entered into our discussion so far, but if we lived under a monarchy and there were proposals afoot to declare a republic, then conservatives by definition would uphold the monarchy and fight the republicans, because the status quo was monarchist. If the monarchy were statist, as most monarchies are (“L’état, c’est moi!”) then conservatives would support the statist monarch.
Conservatives who feel a market economy permitting the sudden acquisition of wealth was part of the status quo would not oppose new people getting rich, but would probably support policies that favour the lenders (rich) against the borrowers (poor) tending to uphold the folks who already have money versus the folks who want to borrow money to become rich.
-
I don't think conservatives are necessarily regressive, because a regression is also inconsistent with the status quo.
If you were to actually look up the definition of conserve, you'll find that it means "to use resources wisely" - hence conservatives try to use resources in a wise manner.
-
So in Cuba a conservative type is going to be in favor to preserveing the anchient and ongoing revolution.
-
So in Cuba a conservative type is going to be in favor to preserveing the anchient and ongoing revolution.
counter-revolution
-
<<If you were to actually look up the definition of conserve, you'll find that it means "to use resources wisely" - hence conservatives try to use resources in a wise manner.>>
That was the SECOND definition. The FIRST was, "to prevent injury, decay, waste, or loss of." The example given of this first definition was "Conserve your strength for the race."
My own example: Conserve our (the ruling class') money, wealth and power. That is really what conservatives are organized to conserve.
In the same dictionary, conservator: 1. a person who conserves or preserves; preserver, protector. Closer to my original idea.
More to the point, the word itself: conservative: 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc. THAT'S what I was talking about, preserving the status quo. Preserving the wealth of the wealthy and the poverty of the poor; preserving the throne for the absolute monarch and the torture chamber for his republican enemies.
-
<<If you were to actually look up the definition of conserve, you'll find that it means "to use resources wisely" - hence conservatives try to use resources in a wise manner.>>
That was the SECOND definition. The FIRST was, "to prevent injury, decay, waste, or loss of." The example given of this first definition was "Conserve your strength for the race."
My own example: Conserve our (the ruling class') money, wealth and power. That is really what conservatives are organized to conserve.
In the same dictionary, conservator: 1. a person who conserves or preserves; preserver, protector. Closer to my original idea.
More to the point, the word itself: conservative: 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc. THAT'S what I was talking about, preserving the status quo. Preserving the wealth of the wealthy and the poverty of the poor; preserving the throne for the absolute monarch and the torture chamber for his republican enemies.
That doesn't make sense for the less welthy conservative , who are many , and none for preserveing their own poverty.
-
<<That doesn't make sense for the less welthy conservative , who are many , and none for preserveing their own poverty.>>
Exactly. The conservatives in reality protect the wealth of the wealthiest. There are a lot of conservatives who have actually been suckered into voting against their own economic interests. In the 2004 Presidential elections a map of the "reddest" voting districts was prepared and in most cases they also coincided with the poorest districts in the country.
This is the phenomenon of the redneck moron - - the guys who are so fucking dumb they will vote for anyone who waves a flag hardest and plays the "patriotism" card loudest, even as they are getting fucked in the ass by him economically speaking. A little subtle racism thrown into the mix doesn't hurt either.
-
That was the SECOND definition. The FIRST was, "to prevent injury, decay, waste, or loss of." The example given of this first definition was "Conserve your strength for the race."
"Prevent waste" is also essentially "use wisely".
-
The Conservatives seemed to favor the slogan "drill, baby, drill", in keeping with the concept that BP and other Big Oil companies should make even more money from the nation's natural resources. What has been allowed to happen though conservative-advocated lax regulations is about as unconservative as one can imagine: millions of oil fouling the beaches, the oysterbeds, and the ocean, going totally to waste.
All is wasted, not just the one natural resource that was being exploited, but everything that surrounds it.
I like the clever ploy that BP uses to reimburse those fisherman: show us your tax returns.
Fishing and shrimping is largely a cash business. How many fisherman do you suppose declare even half their income?
Big oil does the same thing: there is a well, there is a pipeline: who really knows what is going through it? Just the guy who works for the company...
-
The Conservatives seemed to favor the slogan "drill, baby, drill", in keeping with the concept that BP and other Big Oil companies should make even more money from the nation's natural resources.
You seem to be equating the GOP with conservatives. I'd like to point out that the two are not the same sets, and in many cases there is minimal overlap between the two.
-
I was referring to the "drill, baby, drill", slogan and the movement to lift regulations on drilling and other business ventures, both quite vocally present at the GOP National Convention.
Before the fuck-up in the Gulf, I believe that it is safe to say that both Republicans AND "Conservatives" favored drilling deepwater wells in the Gulf. Some still do, but the smarter ones are like Bre'r Rabbit" "They lie low".
Conservatives are NOT generally noted for being conservationists, by the way.
-
The Conservatives seemed to favor the slogan "drill, baby, drill", in keeping with the concept that BP and other Big Oil companies should make even more money from the nation's natural resources.
I think the majority of people in favor of increased domestic oil exploration and extraction could give a flip about BP and the other big oil companies. Their focus is on energy independence, and a reduced dependence on foreign oil which seems to lead to military entanglements, which is why you will also find huge support within that demographic for the increased use of nuclear power and other means of alternative energy.
-
There is no movement among conservatives to disband or regulate Big Oil. There is no movement for the US to exploit its own resources, as opposed to selling leases to those who have always exploited them. I agree that everyone would LIKE "energy independence", but no desire to remove those who destroyed public transportation in the 1950's and play all sorts of exploitative games with us at every gas station in the country.
For 50 years we have been hearing about energy independence, and each year the dependence increases.
-
<<That doesn't make sense for the less welthy conservative , who are many , and none for preserveing their own poverty.>>
Exactly. The conservatives in reality protect the wealth of the wealthiest. There are a lot of conservatives who have actually been suckered into voting against their own economic interests. In the 2004 Presidential elections a map of the "reddest" voting districts was prepared and in most cases they also coincided with the poorest districts in the country.
This is the phenomenon of the redneck moron - - the guys who are so fucking dumb they will vote for anyone who waves a flag hardest and plays the "patriotism" card loudest, even as they are getting fucked in the ass by him economically speaking. A little subtle racism thrown into the mix doesn't hurt either.
That is your understanding and you are very persistant with it .
Even though the "Liberals" are just as eager to avoid taxation on themselves and preserve their own welth.
Congress was a millionaires club in 1980 , still in 1990 , still in 2000 , now with the liberals firmly in controll of congress in 2010 is it less of a millionaires club?
Tell me what you think of people who cling very persistantly to their illusions , I wonder about the view from the inside .
-
The sympathies of the liberals tends to lie a lot more with the average citizen than, say, the sympathies (or lack of same) of guys like Dick Cheney or Mitch McConnell. It is quite difficult to get elected to anything without a lot of money behind one. There was a major difference in attitudes between Ted Kennedy and Trent Lott, for example.
-
The sympathies of the liberals tends to lie a lot more with the average citizen than, say, the sympathies (or lack of same) of guys like Dick Cheney or Mitch McConnell. It is quite difficult to get elected to anything without a lot of money behind one. There was a major difference in attitudes between Ted Kennedy and Trent Lott, for example.
You think that Ted Kennedy had more of a common touch than Trent Lott?
I would exactly reverse that.
Not just for these two , but as a general rule , conservatives are more alike the common man and liberals are more apt to condesend.
-
<<Congress was a millionaires club in 1980 , still in 1990 , still in 2000 , now with the liberals firmly in controll of congress in 2010 is it less of a millionaires club?>>
I really think you've confused the liberal/conservative split with fictitious Republican/Democratic split. It's the Democrats, not the liberals, who are now "firmly in control of Congress," as you put it. Between a Republican-controlled body and a Democratic-controlled body, you will still have pretty much of a millionaires' club on the Hill. Why not? They're both paid off by the same special interests, after all.
<<Tell me what you think of people who cling very persistantly to their illusions , I wonder about the view from the inside .>>
First you'd have to determine that it's illusions that they're clinging to and not facts When I'm sure that they are clinging to illusion, I generally let it go. The illusions are powerful and there is nothing much that I can say to shake them.
-
<<Congress was a millionaires club in 1980 , still in 1990 , still in 2000 , now with the liberals firmly in controll of congress in 2010 is it less of a millionaires club?>>
I really think you've confused the liberal/conservative split with fictitious Republican/Democratic split. It's the Democrats, not the liberals, who are now "firmly in control of Congress," as you put it. Between a Republican-controlled body and a Democratic-controlled body, you will still have pretty much of a millionaires' club on the Hill. Why not? They're both paid off by the same special interests, after all.
<<Tell me what you think of people who cling very persistantly to their illusions , I wonder about the view from the inside .>>
First you'd have to determine that it's illusions that they're clinging to and not facts When I'm sure that they are clinging to illusion, I generally let it go. The illusions are powerful and there is nothing much that I can say to shake them.
Then count the liberal millionaires and get back to me on "class warfare".
-
Class warfare is the wealthy trying to glom an ever-larger share of everything by whatever means they can. They have been winning more than losing for the past 50 years. It is peripherally connected to politics, especially through banking regulations or lack of same.
The average guy does not run for public office, because he needs to work for a living, and many millions are needed just to run for office. That results in people who do not have to work for a living occupying a really large share of the positions in government.
-
Class warfare is the wealthy trying to glom an ever-larger share of everything by whatever means they can. They have been winning more than losing for the past 50 years. It is peripherally connected to politics, especially through banking regulations or lack of same.
The average guy does not run for public office, because he needs to work for a living, and many millions are needed just to run for office. That results in people who do not have to work for a living occupying a really large share of the positions in government.
Class warfare is fiction.
Liberals become millionaires after they acheive office or before , no less than conservatives.
-
Class warfare is one thing, politics is something else. They are only peripherally related.
Poor people and middle class people do not run for political office, as they have to work for a living. It costs money to run, plus one needs to have many contacts with bucks or perhaps a few with big bucks.
When someone says "we need to increase our productivity" that actually means, "you need to produce more for the same money, or produce the same amount for less money," or perhaps "you need to produce three times more for twice the money". That does not sound like class warfare, but that is what it is. The end result is that those who manage get more, and those who produce get a reduced share. This is the direction our economy has been heading in for a rather long time.
"We need to be more competitive, we must grow our business" these are generally what one hears when one is the target of class warfare.
Perhaps you, as a government employee, do not hear this so often.
The beginning of every faculty meeting always began with the usual "you did a GREAT JOB last year, but we will need to to an EVEN BETTER JOB this coming year." This was always the introductory topic, and was entirely unrelated to salary increases or all the times when we got a great new health insurance plan that always cost more and delivered less than the old one. They could complete a new building and move most of the faculty into new offices, provide new computers, all of which made a huge difference, but they would mention this AFTER the EVEN BETTER JOB speech.
It seemed to me that this speech was always given because the administration thought that they should be businesslike, and that this is what businesses did when they were being businesslike. I don't think that performance would have varied one whit had they never given the speech. I did the best I could every year anyway. But not because of the dumb speech.
-
As Civil servants , what we always get is tobe more bussnesslike.
We should study Demming , the Toyota method, 6S,Just in Time , etc....
The latest thing that "revolutionises" us every year is gennerally a reprise of the Demming method not so much rediscovered as rephrased.
-
<<Then count the liberal millionaires and get back to me on "class warfare".>>
Liberal millionaires are a real exception to the rule. My guess is that most of them, probably the vast majority, are Jews who never forget their origins, as slaves in the Bible if they still believe in it and in any case as the persecuted outcasts of Europe. They will always promote the interests of the little guy against the rich and the powerful for as long as they can, but IMHO, if push came to shove, like everyone else, they'd probably shrink from sacrificing the family fortune on the altar of what's good for mankind.
Usually when a guy is rich, he tries to hang on to all he can of it, and that means voting Republican, or, if he sees a Blue Dog Democrat, then Democrat. The labels don't mean as much as the conservative/liberal labels mean for someone with money. Wealth is concentrating in the US, the upper tiers are increasing their distance from the lower tiers with each passing year . Arguments like "liberal millionaires" are pretty stupid - - they're basically anecdotal and depend on the exception to the rule. As both parties claim to be trying to capture "the centre" they are really both trying to blur the appearance of class war but in reality are only blurring the distinction between themselves, and the reality that they really - - at least in the class war - - both represent only one side.
Fidel Castro of course is a very rare kind of "liberal millionaire" - - he sacrificed his fortune and the wealth of his entire family to the Revolution, incidentally earning the undying hatred of his sister for so doing. You won't find too many "liberal millionaires" of that stripe; Soros for all his liberalism still has the core of his fortune intact. No reason not to, IMHO. He's no fool - - the sacrifice of the whole bundle would still leave the US a crypto-fascist sham "democracy" still trying to subjugate the rest of the world and he'd be left with no influence at all in trying to slow it down and turn it around.
-
There are periods in which the "gap " between rich and poor shrinks.
WE call these periods < recessions>.
I think it tipical of Liberals to imagine that there is no social utility in the existance of fortunes , let alone admit the social benefit of there constantly being more of them.
-
Fidel Castro of course is a very rare kind of "liberal millionaire" - - he sacrificed his fortune and the wealth of his entire family to the Revolution,....
By what definition of wealthy is Fidel Castro otherwise?
-
<<By what definition of wealthy is Fidel Castro otherwise?>>
The Castro family's estate was confiscated by the Revolution. I am not aware of any of the indicia of wealth that Fidel possesses. He dresses simply in combat fatigues, is transported in Army vehicles rather than his own limousines, has no large estates, horses, islands, private planes, etc. that are the usual signs of wealth. Moreover, he's a dedicated communist, so I would assume the pursuit of great wealth would not be an activity that he could justify in any way.
I remember very well the confiscation of the Castro lands by the Revolution. It was an unprecedented event. Latin America had seen many revolutions, but up to that time it was generally understood that one side did not attack the family property of the other side even after a "revolution." Castro's action was truly "revolutionary" and ultimately led to the desertion of his sister Juana to Miami, and her undying hatred for her brother and his Revolution.
It doesn't seem very likely to me that Castro would allow the Revolution to nationalize the family estate and at the same time privately enrich himself. He's a genuine hero to the whole world, so why would he risk any blemish on his historical legacy by grabbing a little wealth on the side? What need would he have for it anyway, when the Revolution provides for all his earthly needs?
-
<<By what definition of wealthy is Fidel Castro otherwise?>>
.............when the Revolution provides for all his earthly needs?
Exactly Fidels wealth is hidden in plain sight , he owns Cuba.
-
<<Exactly Fidels wealth is hidden in plain sight , he owns Cuba.>>
The problem with that theory is that it just is not true. He does not own Cuba. If he did own Cuba, every Cuban would have to ask Fidel's permission to use the public beaches, they would all have to pay rent to Fidel for the homes they live in, he would be personally responsible for the salaries of all employed Cubans, every cigar produced by Cuba's cigar factories would be his, every bottle of Cuban rum, etc.
You're just talking nonsense. Fidel owns nothing and doesn't want to own anything. He's a real Communist, all the way. He'll die without a cent to his name.
-
Incidentally, plane, the idea of Fidel owning Cuba reminds me of a joke about a businessman who was just as naive and gullible as you seem to be.
A businessman in Vegas for a conference is out walking one morning and sees a hooker coming towards him on the sidewalk. Although he has never messed around with hookers in his entire lifetime, this one is so gorgeous and sexy that he can't help himself. As they draw abreast of one another, their eyes lock and the guy just blurts out, "How much?"
"Well, the hooker says, a hand-job costs $500." The businessman is kind of taken aback. "Five hundred bucks for a hand job? You're beautiful and I mean no disrespect, but . . . "
"Look," the hooker says, "you see that Hard Rock Cafe across the street?"
"Yes."
"And about two blocks down on the same side, you see another Hard Rock Cafe?"
"Umm, yes."
"Well," the hooker says, I own both of them and also a third Hard Rock Cafe here in town. And the reason that I own them is, I give a hand-job that is worth $500."
The businessman can't resist. He and the hooker go up to his hotel room, and (long story short) he gets the best hand-job of his whole life, worth every bit of his $500.
So he's lying on the bed in his room and he asks the hooker, "So what's a blow-job? Fifteen hundred?" and the hooker replies, "No, it's $2500. But before you say anything, let me ask you this: Did you happen to notice, as we headed across the lobby to the elevators, the name of the casino here in your hotel?" The guy says, "Sure. It's Diamond Lil's." And the hooker asks him, "And who do you think is Diamond Lil?" The guy says, "You? You're Diamond Lil?" And the hooker says, "Yep. I'm Diamond Lil and I own that casino because I give a blow-job that's worth $2500."
What the hell, the guy figures it's once in his life, the hand-job was unbelievable, so he springs for the $2500 and gets his blow-job. Every bit as fantastic as promised. And afterwards, lying on his back on the bed, he says to the hooker, "I know I can't afford it but I have to ask anyway - - how much for a little pussy?" The hooker, standing by the window, just says to the guy, "C'mere" and beckons him to the window. "You see all those lights out there? You see all those hotels, those nightclubs, those theatres and concert halls?"
The guy can't believe it; he says to the hooker, "You . . . you own Las Vegas???"
And the hooker says, "No. But I would if I had a pussy."