DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on December 30, 2006, 02:45:23 AM
-
Stocks drop, closing out record year
By JOE BEL BRUNO, AP Business Writer
Fri Dec 29, 2006
NEW YORK - Wall Street slipped lower Friday, closing out a year that will be remembered for the stock market's great comeback, a year-end rally that pushed the Dow Jones industrials past 12,000 for the first time.
By all accounts, 2006 ended up a very good year for stocks as bullish investors bounced back from a slumping housing market and the Federal Reserve's two-year campaign of interest rate hikes. The markets approached record levels in the spring, pulled back sharply in the summer, but found a clear direction in the fall to send the major indexes to multi-year highs.
Blue chips were the standouts of 2006. The Dow Jones industrial average, the index of 30 of the nation's biggest companies, hit record levels dozens of times since achieving its first close above 12,000 on Oct. 19; it traded as high as 12,529.87 before dipping to its close for the year.
This was the best year for the stock market since 2003, when Wall Street staged a massive recovery from levels sideswiped by a bear market. But 2006 will really be remembered for the market's soaring to heights not seen since the height of the dot-com era — this time, however, Wall Street advanced cautiously, not recklessly.
The rally was fed by investors' growing belief that the economy has withstood well the Fed's rate hikes and the impact of record high oil prices. And some analysts expect the advance to continue.
"The stock market is correct in its judgment that we are probably only in the fifth or sixth inning of the game, and that this (economic) expansion may even go into extra innings," said Stuart Schweitzer, global markets strategist for JPMorgan Asset & Wealth Management. "This was a barn-burner of a year, and I expect reasonably solid results over the course of 2007."
On Friday, the Dow fell 38.37, or 0.31 percent, to 12,463.15.
Broader stock indicators also slipped. The Standard & Poor's 500 index fell 6.43, or 0.45 percent, to 1,418.30, and the Nasdaq composite index closed down 10.28, or 0.42 percent, to 2,415.29.
The major indexes posted healthy gains for the year, with the Dow Jones industrials rising 16.29 percent, the S&P 500 adding 13.62 percent, and the Nasdaq up 9.52 percent. That's the best showing since 2003, when the Dow closed up 25.3 percent, the Nasdaq rose 50 percent, and the S&P 500 gained 26.4 percent — but those gains were the beginning of the market's recovery from the trough of three straight losing years.
It wasn't just the stock markets that made significant gains in 2006.
The bond market moved in lockstep with stocks — a rare event on Wall Street. Investors bought into equities because of a strong economy and robust corporate confidence. Meanwhile, typically more conservative bond investors used the fixed-income market as a hedge for a possible recession and interest rate cuts.
This year was also a bit of a rule bender for Treasuries. Yields on long-term Treasury notes and bonds were lower than for short-term Treasury bills. Junk bonds were in such demand that their yields were on almost on parity with those of investment-grade bonds.
Bonds slipped further in Friday's session, with the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury rising to 4.71 percent from 4.69 percent on Thursday. The yield stood at 4.37 percent on the first day of trading this year, and was over 5 percent just a few months ago.
The dollar, which has struggled against the euro and other major currencies, was mixed on Friday. The U.S. currency lost support in 2006 after the Fed stopped raising rates on Aug. 8 and kept them unchanged in its past three meetings.
And gold prices continued their rally; investors have sent precious metals sharply higher, viewing commodities like gold and silver as safe-haven investments instead of the greenback.
Plunging oil prices also fed the stock market's 2006 rally. Crude reached all-time highs in the summer when it briefly surpassed $78 a barrel due to the resilience of consumer demand and expectations of a bad hurricane season. But energy prices soon plummeted back to 2005 levels by the fall when traders saw that refiners in the Gulf of Mexico were untouched by hurricanes, and realized global crude inventories remained ample.
That retreat gave momentum to the stock market's rally, and enable investors to tolerate upward blips in the price of crude and gasoline.
The price of a barrel of light sweet crude on Friday rose 52 cents to settle at $61.05 on the New York Mercantile Exchange — about 22 percent below its highs of the year.
Stocks are expected to rise further in the new year, but not without some resistance. A big question still hanging over the market is whether the Fed will feel comfortable enough with the balance between inflation and a moderating economy to start lowering interest rates. If inflation seems to be accelerating, an interest rate hike could still be in the offing.
"There is going to be a tug of war between the bulls and the bears as we head into next year," said Quincy Krosby, chief investment strategist for The Hartford.
"We could hit a speed bump as Treasury market yields grow higher, and that could put pressure on the stock market," she said. "We need to pay close attention to the Fed, and how they view what I believe is going to be a growth spurt that will be manifested by yields moving up."
She also pointed to fluctuations in the dollar as another greater influence on Wall Street. Rising interest rates in Europe could help the region lure foreign investment away from the United States, further pressuring the dollar next year.
There was little corporate news Friday as traders looked toward a four-day break that includes a suspension of trading for New Year's Day and the funeral of President Gerald R. Ford. And, again trading was thin — typical of the week between Christmas and New Year's.
Advancing issues outnumbered decliners by about 2 to 1 on the New York Stock Exchange, where consolidated volume came to 1.66 billion shares, compared to 1.67 billion on Thursday.
The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies dipped 6.82, or 0.86 percent, to 787.66. For the year, the Russell rose 17 percent.
Overseas markets also soared to multi-year highs in 2006. Japan's Nikkei stock average closed up 0.01 percent on Friday. Britain's FTSE 100 was down 0.32 percent, Germany's DAX index fell 0.23 percent, and France's CAC-40 was up 0.15 percent.
The Dow Jones industrials ended the week up 121.21, or 0.98 percent, to finish at 12,463.15. The S&P 500 index was up 7.55, or 0.54 percent, to end the week at 1,418.30. The Nasdaq rose 17.07, or 0.71 percent, to finish the week at 2,415.29.
The Russell 2000 index closed the week was up 7.37, or 0.94 percent, to end at 787.66.
The Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Composite Index — a free-float weighted index that measures 5,000 U.S. based companies_ ended the week at 14,257.55, up 79.84 points from last week. A year ago the index was at 12,517.69.
As high as 12,529.87 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061229/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street)
-
45 million Americans without health-care insurance but the Dow broke through 12,000. Hilarious. Glad you got YOUR priorities straight.
-
45 million Americans without health-care insurance but the Dow broke through 12,000.
And strangely none of those Americans prevented from getting health insurance or being denied any emergent healthcare. Yep, priorities are straight, thank you very much.
Now if we could just get government less involved in the private sector & decrease taxes some more, more people would have more money to purchase their own healthcare. Gads, what a concept
-
It is seldom in history to have more than three good years in a row , but the record was recently set with five good years in a row during the Clinton administration.
As the economies of the world become more global is the cycle of good vs bad years fundamentally changed?
I think we are well into an era in which it is no longer valad to consider the economies of seprate nations as seprate entities , but as symbiotic interdependant mutually supporting joined at the hip entities that share a single bloodstream.
A lot of the laws of international commerce are quaint and ought to be revisited in every country.
-
The next to last year of an administration has been an up[ year for the market for the past 68 years.
I am betting on commercial real estate, Latin America, China, European large cap stocks and US value stocks, wiht a 5% position in a gold mutual fund
Check these mutual funds out, out if you wish:
DODFX, DREGX, FUNDX, JAOSX, PRLAX, TRREX, UMEMX, UNWPX, WIBCX
and the ETF's IEV and FEZ.
-
45 million Americans without health-care insurance but the Dow broke through 12,000. Hilarious. Glad you got YOUR priorities straight.
=============================================
There is nothing I can do to enact universal health care, other than vote. I have a pretty good Blue Cross Plan where I work, and it seems to me that I am going to avail myself of the opportunities of the stock market, or they will avail themselves of me. So I don't keep my money in low-rent CD's.
We really don't have a choice with regard to our priorities. You are in the game of the staock market whether you are an active buyer and seller or not.
I use mutual funds, since a good mutual fund director will know more about his field than I do. The 2% or less that a no-load MF charges is well worth the price. So is a good newsletter.
-
To me, a stock market is just a market. Like a vegetable market. If tomatoes are up, it's good for some people and bad for others. Good for the farmer, bad for the housewife. If stocks are up, it's good for the guy who already had some, bad for the guy who wants to get in on them. If investment money goes into stocks, it goes out of bonds. Interest rates have to rise to induce lenders to lend. So a rising stock market is bad for new home buyers, good for mortgage lenders.
The general concept seems to be, however, that a rising stock market is good for everybody.
I am no economist but it seems to me that there have to be better measures of how the country as a whole is doing than just a rising stock market.
-
I am no economist but it seems to me that there have to be better measures of how the country as a whole is doing than just a rising stock market.
I'm no economist either, and yet I'm aware of many other measures, besides the stock market that indicate how well a country is or isn't doing. GDP, Consumer Confidence, Retail sales, Misery Index, & Unemployment #'s are the ones right off the top of my head. I don't believe anyone here has indicated that the record Stock Market was the sole indicator of how well the country was humming
-
To me, a stock market is just a market. Like a vegetable market. If tomatoes are up, it's good for some people and bad for others. Good for the farmer, bad for the housewife. If stocks are up, it's good for the guy who already had some, bad for the guy who wants to get in on them. If investment money goes into stocks, it goes out of bonds. Interest rates have to rise to induce lenders to lend. So a rising stock market is bad for new home buyers, good for mortgage lenders.
The general concept seems to be, however, that a rising stock market is good for everybody.
I am no economist but it seems to me that there have to be better measures of how the country as a whole is doing than just a rising stock market.
A market is a symbiosis and it can be good for all participants simultainously , or at least each in turn.
If Tomatos are up more will be planted and the supply to consumers will be dependable.
If Tomatos are down Farmers plant fewer and waste is minimised.
No artificial measure has improved on the natural selection of a free market.
-
45 million Americans without health-care insurance but the Dow broke through 12,000.
And strangely none of those Americans prevented from getting health insurance or being denied any emergent healthcare. Yep, priorities are straight, thank you very much.
Now if we could just get government less involved in the private sector & decrease taxes some more, more people would have more money to purchase their own healthcare. Gads, what a concept
People with pre-existing conditions are denied insurance all the time. People without insurance rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars of bills constantly. Your ideas of how to solve the medical crisis in America is laughable.
How is giving someone who works construction as a day laborer a tax break going to free up enough money to help him pay a $300 a month insurance bill?
-
<<A market is a symbiosis and it can be good for all participants simultainously >>
I don't see that as possible - - if the housewife pays more for a tomato today it means she's got less money to buy something else today, when she wants to eat it. On that one day the rise was good for the farmer and bad for the housewife. Sure prices MIGHT come down next year because tomatoes were overplanted following the rise, but next year a certain percentage of those housewives will be dead.
<< . . . or at least each in turn.>>
same thing. It's just guesswork, it's not inevitable. Some things keep rising in price over time. Or falling. I figure any fluctuation in price has to be bad for either a seller or a buyer and good for the opposite party. There's no "win-win" in market fluctuations.
-
No artificial measure has improved on the natural selection of a free market.
=====================================================
I suppose this depends on what you mean by a "natural selection".
The Japanese system of "just in time" delivery of auto components is far more efficient that what came before, and has greatly improved quality control as well as lowered production costs.
US auto companies tend to overproduce and then are forced to sell casr and trucks at a loss.
-
The Japanese system of "just in time" delivery of auto components is far more efficient that what came before, and has greatly improved quality control as well as lowered production costs.
Actually, "just in time" inventory control does nothing for quality control.
It does, however, drastically reduce warehouse costs.
-
People with pre-existing conditions are denied insurance all the time. People without insurance rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars of bills constantly. Your ideas of how to solve the medical crisis in America is laughable.
And before the condition was determined to have existed?? Sorry Brass, they can still purchase insurance, it's simply going to cost more for a pre-existing condition. The laugable part is how you'd advocate that you, I, and everyone here in the saloon & country needs to pony up additional tax dollars to pay for Rush Limbaughs' health care coverage, Bill Gates' insurance coverage, anyone and everyone. That's the epitome of laughable
How is giving someone who works construction as a day laborer a tax break going to free up enough money to help him pay a $300 a month insurance bill?
I see. So you're assuming someone is going to be too dumb, or too stubborn, or too focused on "gimmee gimmee gimmee" to make any effort what-so-ever to progress beyond a simple day laborer. I've got news for you Brass...most folks, at least at one time, actually cared about taking care of themselves, and even found it demeaning to constantly rely on others. No one is stopping simple day laborers from becoming Managers, Foremen, Supervisors, Directors, EMPLOYERS. Bottom line remains that the more money EVERYONE can keep, means the more money EVERYONE has to purchase their own health insurance
-
<<A market is a symbiosis and it can be good for all participants simultainously >>
I don't see that as possible - - if the housewife pays more for a tomato today it means she's got less money to buy something else today, when she wants to eat it. On that one day the rise was good for the farmer and bad for the housewife. Sure prices MIGHT come down next year because tomatoes were overplanted following the rise, but next year a certain percentage of those housewives will be dead.
<< . . . or at least each in turn.>>
same thing. It's just guesswork, it's not inevitable. Some things keep rising in price over time. Or falling. I figure any fluctuation in price has to be bad for either a seller or a buyer and good for the opposite party. There's no "win-win" in market fluctuations.
You may not see it possible because you have a lacuna in your vision. The best possible price for any item is a price that fully supports its production but does not drain the consumor unduly.
Haveing multiple consumers in competition ,and multiple producers in competition ,( simultainiously) produces the best price beter than any other method known to man.
-
<<You may not see it possible because you have a lacuna in your vision. >>
plane, my vision's fine. You've got a lacuna in your thinking. If you don't do something about that, you'll soon have a big lacuna in your wallet. Trust me on this, plane, if you are the buyer, a rise in the price of whatever you are buying is definitely NOT good for you. And don't let anyone tell you different.
Similarly, if you are a seller - - for example, of your labour - - a decrease in the price of your labour is NOT good for you, although it probably is good for your boss. Don't let your boss convince you or your union otherwise, plane. Try to keep this simple thought in mind: pay raise GOOD; pay cut BAD.
<<The best possible price for any item is a price that fully supports its production but does not drain the consumor unduly.>>
I don't really know where this nonsense comes from, plane, but you really should ask yourself, "best for whom?" The best possible price for my beans if I am selling is whatever the market will bear and if I am buying it is the lowest I can get away with paying. There's a subjective element in all of this that you, as a capitalist, should be well aware of. If you don't know that, you really shouldn't be allowed into stores with money in your pocket, someone else had better do all your shopping for you.
-
<<You may not see it possible because you have a lacuna in your vision. >>
plane, my vision's fine. You've got a lacuna in your thinking. If you don't do something about that, you'll soon have a big lacuna in your wallet. Trust me on this, plane, if you are the buyer, a rise in the price of whatever you are buying is definitely NOT good for you. And don't let anyone tell you different.
Similarly, if you are a seller - - for example, of your labour - - a decrease in the price of your labour is NOT good for you, although it probably is good for your boss. Don't let your boss convince you or your union otherwise, plane. Try to keep this simple thought in mind: pay raise GOOD; pay cut BAD.
<<The best possible price for any item is a price that fully supports its production but does not drain the consumor unduly.>>
I don't really know where this nonsense comes from, plane, but you really should ask yourself, "best for whom?" The best possible price for my beans if I am selling is whatever the market will bear and if I am buying it is the lowest I can get away with paying. There's a subjective element in all of this that you, as a capitalist, should be well aware of. If you don't know that, you really shouldn't be allowed into stores with money in your pocket, someone else had better do all your shopping for you.
" pay raise GOOD; pay cut BAD"
Hahahahahahaha
Oh you Liberals !
Always everything in stark black and white , no shades or nuances , no complexity , no intrest in potentials .
You might as well say Hot water good cold water bad , with no qualifiers this statement is not really true , how hot is good and for what?
A pay raise that does not equal inflation or taxes or unavoidable cost is inflation =good?
Every one of us is actually on both sides of the equation, pay raises that are unreasonable for any reason can be bad for the economy and an unhealthy economy is not good for anyone .
Imagine you and I both getting a doubbleing in pay for no reason tomorrow, then another doubbleing in pay the next day , and so on ad infinitem , such a set of pay raises would stop the worlds economy within a month for just us two.
I want to get paid what my work is worth to my employer , wanting otherwise is dishonest and harmfull.
My employer ought to reciprocate with wanting to pay what my work is worth in reality , not just for the sake of his self respect , but also because he wants to participate in a healthy economy.
When some foolishness or misfortune prevents this conflict from being freindly it can still work just as well in an advesarial mode, (only with uneeded extra indigestion ), because the participants do not have to understand how it works for it to work anyway , just as a stupid swimmer does not have to understand bouyancy to swim , if he does it right it works anyway.
Now about a pay cut being bad , I ought to let you discuss that one with Brassmask , he thinks I could get along well enough with a 100% pay cut.
-
"The best possible price for my beans if I am selling is whatever the market will bear and if I am buying it is the lowest I can get away with paying."
This is what makes the market work so well.
If you are offering me beans and I am offering you money we will agree or not to a deal.
If you want a dollar a bean they had better be magic beans like Jacks , for eating beans I might offer you a penny a pound.
Of course you will not want to give up your beans for less than it took you to produce them so you will not agree to the penny a pound unless you are getting out of the bean business.
As long as there are other bean sellers And other bean buyers in the market we both have reason to be reasonable and there is a race to the CENTER that Marx was too preoccupied to notice.(Boils on the seat you know)
A bad situation occurs when Monopolys or Primadonnas or Cartells or Governments operate without real competition , a monopoly can demand an unreasonable price , a person with wildly rare talent can demand a huge wage, a cartell can controll availibility , and a Government can skim the profit of everything till everyone is starving.
The best role of government is to ensure competition is as fair as can be without allowing monopoly.
-
Actually, "just in time" inventory control does nothing for quality control.
======================================================
Actually, it sure as hell does. Parts held awaiting assembly can rust.
Non-metal parts can deteriorate. Parts stacked on top of one another can warp or be damaged.
Parts in a warehouse where you have guys tooling around in forklifts are at risk of being damaged. A damaged part installed will make a big difference on quality control.
One rusty brake cylinder could cause the brakes on a new car to fail with catastrophic results.
-
Actually, it sure as hell does. Parts held awaiting assembly can rust.
Non-metal parts can deteriorate. Parts stacked on top of one another can warp or be damaged.
Parts in a warehouse where you have guys tooling around in forklifts are at risk of being damaged. A damaged part installed will make a big difference on quality control.
One rusty brake cylinder could cause the brakes on a new car to fail with catastrophic results.
Parts being shipped can be damaged. Many times, "just in time" inventory means it's stored offsite, and delivered on time, rather than being produced just before it's needed (this is true of parts that require significant retooling). None of those are eliminated by "just in time" inventory.
I was involved with a "just in time" project at Homelite (at a manufacturing facility that is now owned by John Deere). We still had bad parts delivered in the door. So, if we had bad parts delivered, we had a production slowdown rather than a dip in inventory levels.
Of course, you're changing the argument from "just in time" not causing quality control to increase to an actual decrease in quality control on the manufacturing floor. Bad parts (whatever the source) should not be installed. And every part delivered (regardless of the inventory control system used) is not guaranteed to be a good part. Quality control should filter out the bad parts, regardless of inventory control systems being used.
-
And before the condition was determined to have existed?? Sorry Brass, they can still purchase insurance, it's simply going to cost more for a pre-existing condition. The laugable part is how you'd advocate that you, I, and everyone here in the saloon & country needs to pony up additional tax dollars to pay for Rush Limbaughs' health care coverage, Bill Gates' insurance coverage, anyone and everyone. That's the epitome of laughable
Look what you're saying and think for a minute will you? You're saying that someone who has a pre-existing condition and maybe can't work can just pay a little more for insurance!!! Do you ever use your head for something besides a hat rack?
Limbaugh, Gates and the like would be putting in a lot more than you and me. It's not about who is paying for someone else's health care. It's about everyone getting health care. Why are you so filled with hate for your fellow man? What do you care if a percentage of your money goes to the government if you know that EVERYONE in the country has health care? Why is it sooooo horrible that hundreds of thousands of people will not have to choose between having something more than PB&J for dinner and having their medicine that keeps them alive? How is it that you are so ready to refuse to help those people?
What kind of human being are you that you can think of hundreds of thousands of AMERICANS are choosing between food and medicine because they can't work and just say, "Oh well, they shoulda done (X)." or "I gave to the Salvation Army." What are you gonna do with the measly amount of money that is so god damned important that you don't want to help out Americans who can't work anymore and are every day having to make sure they didn't spend more than X amount because if they do, they'll have to try and make it a day or two with excruciating pain or the horrid discomfort of diabetes that sets in without their medication? WHAT IS IT? WHAT'S SO FUCKING IMPORTANT THAT YOU CAN JUST DISREGARD PEOPLE WHO BREAK THEIR LEGS AND CAN'T WORK AND FALL INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO PAY FOR THEIR KIDS TO HAVE CLOTHES AND SHOES AND COATS AND EVERY DAMNED THING ELSE THAT KIDS NEED BUT THEY COULDN'T AFFORD INSURANCE?
Tell me. I want to know. What's so goddamned important that the money that you might be paying for insurance for just yourself, might then go away in the form of taxes rather than monthly payments taken from your check or sent off in the form of a check that you wrote while YOU STILL HAVE INSURANCE AND EVERYONE ELSE DOES TOO? What fucking difference does it make?
You know, I suspect I already know how you'll want to respond so let me make it harder for you so you'll have to come up with something different because you could never write something that I have written and say that I'm absolutely right and understand how you think. You'll want to say, "It doesn't MATTER what I want to do with the money because IT'S MY FUCKING MONEY! I should be able to throw it in the street if I want to!!"
[/quote]
I see. So you're assuming someone is going to be too dumb, or too stubborn, or too focused on "gimmee gimmee gimmee" to make any effort what-so-ever to progress beyond a simple day laborer. I've got news for you Brass...most folks, at least at one time, actually cared about taking care of themselves, and even found it demeaning to constantly rely on others. No one is stopping simple day laborers from becoming Managers, Foremen, Supervisors, Directors, EMPLOYERS. Bottom line remains that the more money EVERYONE can keep, means the more money EVERYONE has to purchase their own health insurance
[/quote]
You know, if you think that people always move up and always become the bosses or foremen or supervisors or employers then you're about the goddamnedest stupid person I've ever met. I'm sorry to shatter your blessed vision of American capitalism and how great everything is and how much opportunity there is in America but you're a fucking idiot. LOTS of people stay at the same job they got in high school or just after and never have a crew or their own business. I would say millions of Americans stay at the same level forever. Sure, there are cost of living increases when the government gets off their asses and realizes that inflammation has made literally slaves of Americans and raises the minimum wage but that does little more than allow them to eat better or catch up on their rent.
The sad truth that dumbasses like you don't understand is that there are people in this country who just can't face the idea of improving themselves or becoming something more than a day laborer. And guess what? They still matter because someone has to be the day laborer. Someone has to pick up the loose trash on a site. Someone has to drag the stuff out from the trucks and set it all up and then tear it all down again. Someone has to hold the ladders and hand the tools. But there are Americans who do that stuff forever. And there's nothing wrong with it. Sure some you might classify as just plain lazy or skating the system, but that's just some.
The reality, sirs, is that there are some Americans who have problems. I'm not talking about crying-on-the-Montel-show, my-dad-hit-me problems with every one of them. Some people have defects. Physical (you should know about) defects that are no fault of their own. Mental and emotional defects that they haven't surmounted and sabotage their ambition perhaps without them even knowing it. And there is a wide swath of Americans who haven't been taught to improve themselves. These are the people that I'm sure you look upon with the most disdain for they usually appear to "not know how good they have it to have been born in America".
In the African-American community for years, anyone who sought to improve themselves or get smarter was derided and jeered and call a house nigger or Uncle Tom. Why do you think that is? Do AA's just want to stay poor and unintelligent? No, it's because of slavery. Our race made them that way by buying and selling them, by beating them and killing them, by ignoring them and exploiting them. As a race, they would rather not think of themselves as free Americans who work with their fellow Americans because of our race's actions over several hundred years. Like an abused spouse who has abandoned hope and trust of their spouse, the AA community for a long time would not accept the help of white America because of what we had done to them. Who could blame them? I"m sure you can. Perhaps they are finally taking the conservatives' advice and are "getting over it".
When you're whining about that fraction of money that the government starts taking from you in leiu of you giving it freely to someone for health insurance, maybe you should consider it as atonement or aid or charity or whatever it is that you need to think of it as so you can just shut the fuck up and let this country be like every other industrialized nation in the world who has made the decision that it is better to be kind, decent human beings who kick in a little so that everyone in society can have a better way of life and the nation be a moral and just beacon for the world.
-
<<Imagine you and I both getting a doubbleing in pay for no reason tomorrow, then another doubbleing in pay the next day , and so on ad infinitem , such a set of pay raises would stop the worlds economy within a month for just us two.>>
sigh . . .
When was the last time that ever happened to you, plane?
I guess I should have some kind of macro for right-wingers that prefaces any remark of mine with "Confining ourselves to the real world . . ."
<<A pay raise that does not equal inflation or taxes or unavoidable cost is inflation =good?>>
Sure, it's always better than a pay cut, it's just not as good as a bigger raise. Pay raise good, pay cuts bad, remember that, plane.
<<I want to get paid what my work is worth to my employer , wanting otherwise is dishonest and harmfull.
My employer ought to reciprocate with wanting to pay what my work is worth in reality , not just for the sake of his self respect , but also because he wants to participate in a healthy economy.>>
This is starting to sound weirdly like the arguments I used to have about communism when I was a university student. I would argue that a new socialist man was being born, one who would not compete but was content to work selflessly for the common good, and my friends would laugh at the naievete and claim that human selfishness and greed would never allow it to work, the slackers and non-cooperators would just make fools of the "new socialist man" and in the end he would only wind up being taken advantage of. (I felt that with enough firing squads, the problem could be solved.) You are starting to remind me of my teenage me. Even if you were dumb enough to really believe that shit, it wouldn't work in the real world because you or the guys who think like you would be ripped off by unscrupulous employers, who would actually be rewarded for their baser instincts by prospering due to their ability to undersell the competition. I suppose in your theory, the bad employers would lose their workforce to the good employers who pay a fair wage and so would ultimately fail - - another example of the fallacy in your "long-run" thinking, because before the bad guys fail , they have profited by pocketing the proceeds of your unfairly exploited labour and you on the other hand have nothing to show for your time spent with them but years of underpaid work which you can never get back.
Cutting through all the blather and rationalizations about what's good for today might not be good in the long run (as I think it was John Kenneth Galbraith who said, "In the long run, we're all dead.") the fact of the matter is that a pay raise is good for you today and bad for the boss today. A pay cut helps the boss today and hurts you today. A rise in the price of bread today is good for the store today and bad for the housewife today.
There is no such thing as a fluctuation in market price that is simultaneously good for both buyers and sellers of the same commodity. All you are really doing with your long-term rationalizations is pointing to a later fluctuation which reverses the benefits and burdens of the first one.
-
yada...rant....blather...rant
Boy, I do appreicate the time you put into that rant Brass. Harnass that and we could do away with fossil fuels altogether. The point remains 2 fold:
A) You have no frellin clue how generous or not generous, how caring or not caring, how compassionate or not compassionate I am towards those who are less fortunate, uninsured, poor, etc. You ask ANYONE that personally knows me, and they'll blow your grossly pathetic misconceptions about me right out of the water
B) It all comes down to how you and I define and practice FREEDOM. To me it's a support of individual responsibility, and for me to keep the hell out of other people's pockets, & demanding that they pay for what I THINK is the right thing to do. Mind you that's different than what the Constitution says we're to do, as in providing for the common defense. You obviously have a different definition of freedom, hiding behind "noble intentions" while demanding what others are to do with their miney, to make you feel better about yourself.
Why don't you keep your hands out of my pockets, and I'll refrain from trying to convert you to Christianity. Oh wait, I'm already doing that
-
[[" I suppose in your theory, the bad employers would lose their workforce to the good employers who pay a fair wage and so would ultimately fail - - another example of the fallacy ..."]]
And why would workers prefer a bad employer to a good one?
I have had fly by night employment , I did not prefer it and did not stay with it .
[[[<<Imagine you and I both getting a doubbleing in pay for no reason tomorrow, then another doubbleing in pay the next day , and so on ad infinitem , such a set of pay raises would stop the worlds economy within a month for just us two.>>
sigh . . .
When was the last time that ever happened to you, plane?
I guess I should have some kind of macro for right-wingers that prefaces any remark of mine with "Confining ourselves to the real world . . ."]]]
Ok, fair enough , to make it more realistic, instead of just two people getting an impossible raise of a million times their present wages, imagine 400 million (US + Canada) getting a 15% wage increase. It is not as simple but it works out to be about the same amount of imaginary money created and dumped into the economy to no purpose. This is pretty much what we will have after the Mini Wage goes up next time.
[[[the fact of the matter is that a pay raise is good for you today and bad for the boss today. A pay cut helps the boss today and hurts you today. A rise in the price of bread today is good for the store today and bad for the housewife today. ]]]
You are leaveing out the element of competition entirely. This is makeing you entirely wrong.
If a Store were to raise the price of bread while the store across the street did not, which store will really benefit? If a store were to raise the price of bread enough to give its customers to the other store I would guess that the store that sold all of its bread would benefit more than the one that wound up throwing all that stale bread away.
This principal works for almost any product or service , as long as there is a reasonable competitor , includeing employment , yes an employer that treats its employees better does enjoy certain benefits , if, there is another employer that could be stealing all the talent. If not, the monopoly on employment can pay as little as it takes to keep the worker alive.
Just Yesterday I read a story of an employer who learned that his newly hired Jewish engineer feared to return to his native Italy in 1940. "Why should I be paying you $300 a month ?" So the engineer had to put up with a wage of $160 a month untill the Manhattan project picked him up.
I don't think that this employer was a nice guy , I do not think that we have to all become nice for Capitolism to work well I do not think that your accusation of nievitie is accurate. This particular employer shows the reason. He was paying $300 a month for an engineer during a depressed economy because he needed an engineer , but when he learned that he had this particular engineer over a barrell he got mean on him and paid him half the going rate for his level of skill. This was not cured by the employer or anyone elese becomeing nicer but by the engineer looking out for himself once a competeing employer became availible.
I like capitolism because it can force the mean to do right without resort to multiple fireing squads .
-
<<You are leaveing out the element of competition entirely. This is makeing you entirely wrong.
<<If a Store were to raise the price of bread while the store across the street did not, which store will really benefit? If a store were to raise the price of bread enough to give its customers to the other store I would guess that the store that sold all of its bread would benefit more than the one that wound up throwing all that stale bread away.>>
I didn't leave it out completely. I was speaking of general price rises. If there's a crop failure and the price of farm products rises, it rises for everybody. Within that rise in price, there is room for price competition but the overall effect is a rise in price for everyone, but for some more than others. Like gasoline - - the rise is steady. (with minor fluctuations along the way) This is good for Big Oil, bad for drivers. You cannot have a rise or fall in prices that is good for both seller and buyer. It's absurd on the face of it.
The original thread was the stock market. If stock prices rise, there is no competition, a share of GM costs the same for all buyers (subject to volume buys, broker discounts, etc.) but there is really not much room for competition here.
-
The original thread was the stock market. If stock prices rise, there is no competition, a share of GM costs the same for all buyers (subject to volume buys, broker discounts, etc.) but there is really not much room for competition here.
For shares on public exchanges, this is true.
There are also OTC markets where buying and selling is done without an exchange regulating the prices. This is common with bond and FOREX markets, for example.
-
Insurance depends on the principle of shared risk. We all pay a small amount, so that when someone has a major problem, it is affordable. It is not at all a bad idea, but when the company is allowed to cherry-pick its customers, then those rejected are left with a major burden. People do not choose to be sickly or to have congenital diseases, after all.
-
It all comes down to how you and I define and practice FREEDOM. To me it's a support of individual responsibility, and for me to keep the hell out of other people's pockets, & demanding that they pay for what I THINK is the right thing to do. Mind you that's different than what the Constitution says we're to do, as in providing for the common defense. You obviously have a different definition of freedom, hiding behind "noble intentions" while demanding what others are to do with their miney, to make you feel better about yourself.
Why don't you keep your hands out of my pockets, and I'll refrain from trying to convert you to Christianity.
Out of curiosity, where in Christianity does it discuss "keeping the hell out of other people's pockets" and "individual responsibility" as a definition of freedom? I don't seem to recall this libertarian view of society from the teachings of Christ or the Apostles.
-
<<You are leaveing out the element of competition entirely. This is makeing you entirely wrong.
<<If a Store were to raise the price of bread while the store across the street did not, which store will really benefit? If a store were to raise the price of bread enough to give its customers to the other store I would guess that the store that sold all of its bread would benefit more than the one that wound up throwing all that stale bread away.>>
I didn't leave it out completely. I was speaking of general price rises. If there's a crop failure and the price of farm products rises, it rises for everybody. Within that rise in price, there is room for price competition but the overall effect is a rise in price for everyone, but for some more than others. Like gasoline - - the rise is steady. (with minor fluctuations along the way) This is good for Big Oil, bad for drivers. You cannot have a rise or fall in prices that is good for both seller and buyer. It's absurd on the face of it.
The original thread was the stock market. If stock prices rise, there is no competition, a share of GM costs the same for all buyers (subject to volume buys, broker discounts, etc.) but there is really not much room for competition here.
You are leaveing the dimention of competition out of the picture entirely , and this is giveing you a two dimentional view of a three dimentional situation. If production costs rise for all producers the effect on competition is nutral , but when the cost of supply rises across the board no system will cushion the effect on the consumor better than capitloism , as long as there is real competition.
When the price of a commadity is unavoidably riseing, is there no advantage to a company that finds a clever way to reduce the rate of rise to its consumors?
The Price of fuel has hit all airlines hard but has not hit all of them equally hard , the rise of fuel is actually going to be good for Boeing because it is bringing a more fuel efficient aircraft to market ...
http://www.boeing.com/...
What makes me worry about Boeing is that they are being so succesfull that their competition is failing to thrive in the reduced market. If Boeing becomes a practical monopoly it will loose the impetus to improve and produce a better product at a better price. I hope that Airbus gets well and that some of the presently reduced airframe builders grow.
I begin to think that you cannot see competition , as if you are colorblind to it . If I want to buy into a Car building stock and Ford seems to be a poor value to me I would look at buying GM or Toyota or Chery. If I can manage to learn what the real value of the plants are worth and see trends of sales and developments , why should I buy a company that is less than the best value? I would shop for a Car company stock with the same sort of diligence that I use shopping for a car. Since the stock market is an auction with literally millions of bidders eager for information and comparison , there is literally no better system for priceing the value of a company possible.
-
If a Store were to raise the price of bread while the store across the street did not, which store will really benefit? If a store were to raise the price of bread enough to give its customers to the other store I would guess that the store that sold all of its bread would benefit more than the one that wound up throwing all that stale bread away.
Raising the price of a loaf of bread at one store is not going to make people go to another store. Nobody changes their routine shopping for stuff like bread. If everything in the store went up suddenly, then people would go somewhere else. I would, in fact, say that people may not even change then.
My mother is all the time telling me that so and so product, like ham or chicken is on sale at Kroger this week or at so and so this week. And every time, I say, "So? Am I supposed to go do my regular grocery shopping at the place I like and then stop at Kroger on the way home to buy a ham? I can buy ham at Super-lo even if it is a few pennies more a pound and not have to make an extra stop."
I don't know anybody (other than my mother) who compares prices regularly. Everyone I know finds a place they like and sticks with it till they get screwed somehow or hears of some kind of awesome experience that someone else had somewhere else.
A loaf of bread is a loaf of bread, wheat or white or whatever.
-
I don't know anybody (other than my mother) who compares prices regularly.
You must know a lot of people that don't need to watch their spending, then. Lots of monied friends, I presume?
Because just about everyone I know watches for the sales in the flyers and shops based on what's on sale.
-
I certainly wouldn't say that most of the people I know are moneyed but I know most of them are not going to bother going three different places to do their grocery shopping.
I know several folk who go to Costco to buy their bulk stuff like TP and Cokes and the like.
That's something that I've been meaning to ask the conservatives about. You guys are all about choice and the like allegedly. What about the restriction on choice as far as how little you can buy at places like Costco? The last time the wife and I were there, she wanted a bag of chips but the sign was like 2 for so and so. And she was like, "well, they can't make me buy 2."
When we got to the check out, the lady was like, "These are TWO for so and so." The wife stated she only wanted the one bag. The lady was like, "we can't sell you only one." The wife declined the one and we paid for the rest and left.
Now, that doesn't sound like choice to me.
-
Brass is correct. I daresay most consumers have their favorite stores and shop at them, especially for the most mundane items such as bread, milk, eggs, etc. In many cases the convenience of location often outweighs the price differential unless it is substantial enough to be noticable. Your charecterisation is likely way off base Ami. Notice that Brass isn't talking about large ticket items like vehicles, real estate, or bulk merchandise. He's simply saying that he doesn't find price information when going to pick up a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk, or a carton of eggs. I'd say he enjoys the company of the vast majority of American consumers (and likely European and Canadian consumers as well).
There are some people who actually shop at mutliple stores, like my Mother-in-law, but I'd wager that they are amongst the majority. Moreover, I'd wager that they haven't accounted for the non-monetary costs of gas consumption, vehicle maintenance, and time spent researching price information when determining whether or not the benefits of multiple store shopping actually outweighed the costs.
-
Why is it that every time there is a post on the stock market, you fellows start yammering about every other damned thing BUT the stock market?
Plane needs to understand that the ideal price for labor or anything else you might wish to sell anyone else is INFINITE or at least AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, and the best price to buy anything for is FREE.
No matter how useless to society your labors might be, they have to be worth more than those of some schmuck that plays with a ball or yells stupid-ass rhymes into a mike. The actual value of labor has nothing to do with fairness; it has everything to do with scarcity.
Ballplayers and rappers get big bucks because they sell their extremely modest and limited talents simultaneously to millions of simpleminded chuckleheads. Most of us do far more useful stuff, but it is less entertaining to said chuckleheads.
The stock market is not really like selling beans. The price of beans basically depend on hunger, or the opinion that there will be a certain amount of hunger for said beans. Prices in the stock market are much less rational, and, since no one can actually eat GM common stock, on the theory that the next idiot will pay more (or less) for the stock than the last guy.
It has very little to do with what a good job Juniorbush is doing in Iraq. A bad president can indeed screw up the market, but a great one will not guarantee a good run in the stock market.
-
Why is it that every time there is a post on the stock market, you fellows start yammering about every other damned thing BUT the stock market?
Plane needs to understand that the ideal price for labor or anything else you might wish to sell anyone else is INFINITE or at least AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, and the best price to buy anything for is FREE.
No matter how useless to society your labors might be, they have to be worth more than those of some schmuck that plays with a ball or yells stupid-ass rhymes into a mike. The actual value of labor has nothing to do with fairness; it has everything to do with scarcity.
Ballplayers and rappers get big bucks because they sell their extremely modest and limited talents simultaneously to millions of simpleminded chuckleheads. Most of us do far more useful stuff, but it is less entertaining to said chuckleheads.
The stock market is not really like selling beans. The price of beans basically depend on hunger, or the opinion that there will be a certain amount of hunger for said beans. Prices in the stock market are much less rational, and, since no one can actually eat GM common stock, on the theory that the next idiot will pay more (or less) for the stock than the last guy.
It has very little to do with what a good job Juniorbush is doing in Iraq. A bad president can indeed screw up the market, but a great one will not guarantee a good run in the stock market.
You are absolutely incorrect or backwards on every point you made except this one->"A bad president can indeed screw up the market, but a great one will not guarantee a good run in the stock market."
-
It is indeed well worth my while to check the newspaper and sales flyers for lower prices. If I can save 25% on tomatoes, it is money in my pocket. Especially on items that do not spoil, like sugar, paper towels, dish soap, motor oil, olive oil and such, you can save a whole lot by buying it on sale and stocking up. You can save even more by shopping at the cheapest stores that are on your way home from work or from some other place you were traveling to.
Costco, BJ's, Sam's Club (I have belonged to them all at one time or another) are only really useful if you have a fairly large family. If I buy two gallons of milk or soymilk, one will spoil before I can use it. Costco would be fine if they would sell imperishables of regular quality for a low, low price, but they don't normally do this: they sell huge sizes of premium quality stuff, and you don't actually save at all.
I gave up on Costco when they had no men's white t-shirts at all. None, only tshirts which cost $6.99 and advertised the Pacific Ocean. I realize that the same t shirts would have cost $10.99 in the Mall, but it was my feeling that I do not really want to use my bod to advertise any ocean.
-
If a Store were to raise the price of bread while the store across the street did not, which store will really benefit? If a store were to raise the price of bread enough to give its customers to the other store I would guess that the store that sold all of its bread would benefit more than the one that wound up throwing all that stale bread away.
Raising the price of a loaf of bread at one store is not going to make people go to another store. Nobody changes their routine shopping for stuff like bread. If everything in the store went up suddenly, then people would go somewhere else. I would, in fact, say that people may not even change then.
My mother is all the time telling me that so and so product, like ham or chicken is on sale at Kroger this week or at so and so this week. And every time, I say, "So? Am I supposed to go do my regular grocery shopping at the place I like and then stop at Kroger on the way home to buy a ham? I can buy ham at Super-lo even if it is a few pennies more a pound and not have to make an extra stop."
I don't know anybody (other than my mother) who compares prices regularly. Everyone I know finds a place they like and sticks with it till they get screwed somehow or hears of some kind of awesome experience that someone else had somewhere else.
A loaf of bread is a loaf of bread, wheat or white or whatever.
You should listen to your Mother!
How long will your favoite store remain your favoriate after you learn that they are giveing you bad serveice , gougeing prices or disrespecting you?
If there is only one store in town they can get away with more , but this is the situation to be avoided and your Mother is working the diffrence to the benefit of the whole community around her. Without the efforts of people like your Mother what leverage does the community have on the store?
-
There are some people who actually shop at mutliple stores, like my Mother-in-law, but I'd wager that they are amongst the majority. Moreover, I'd wager that they haven't accounted for the non-monetary costs of gas consumption, vehicle maintenance, and time spent researching price information when determining whether or not the benefits of multiple store shopping actually outweighed the costs.
I was reading an article the other day (may have been here, I can't remember) that said that some group was pushing for a law that made the food industry put the "actual cost" or "true cost" on a product. I think that's what it was called.
-
It is indeed well worth my while to check the newspaper and sales flyers for lower prices. If I can save 25% on tomatoes, it is money in my pocket. Especially on items that do not spoil, like sugar, paper towels, dish soap, motor oil, olive oil and such, you can save a whole lot by buying it on sale and stocking up. You can save even more by shopping at the cheapest stores that are on your way home from work or from some other place you were traveling to.
Costco, BJ's, Sam's Club (I have belonged to them all at one time or another) are only really useful if you have a fairly large family. If I buy two gallons of milk or soymilk, one will spoil before I can use it. Costco would be fine if they would sell imperishables of regular quality for a low, low price, but they don't normally do this: they sell huge sizes of premium quality stuff, and you don't actually save at all.
I gave up on Costco when they had no men's white t-shirts at all. None, only tshirts which cost $6.99 and advertised the Pacific Ocean. I realize that the same t shirts would have cost $10.99 in the Mall, but it was my feeling that I do not really want to use my bod to advertise any ocean.
I commend you , the extra troubble you go to exerts a small pressure on your local stores to do right by your community , this small pressure is multiplyed by the number of persons who posesses this wisdom and can really influence the actions of the stores.
-
There are some people who actually shop at mutliple stores, like my Mother-in-law, but I'd wager that they are amongst the majority. Moreover, I'd wager that they haven't accounted for the non-monetary costs of gas consumption, vehicle maintenance, and time spent researching price information when determining whether or not the benefits of multiple store shopping actually outweighed the costs.
I was reading an article the other day (may have been here, I can't remember) that said that some group was pushing for a law that made the food industry put the "actual cost" or "true cost" on a product. I think that's what it was called.
What profit margin do you think Grocery stores operate on?
-
I find it rather sad that you feel that your labors are less valuable than those of ballplayers or rapsters. I know what I do took me longer to learn and is more useful than anything one does with spherical objects or plebeian vocabulary rhythmical hissing and popping sounds.
If you feel that my opinion of the stock market is wrong, it is perhaps a good thing that you are not a major investor, because prices in the NYSE (or any other stock market) have really no comparison to the price of beans.
One buys beans because one anticipates being hungry for them. One does not buy GM stock for any reason other than selling it later for more. No one eats stock, nor does not buy it with the purpose of eating it.
Over the years I have found that I can actually make more money buying and selling mutual funds according to anticipated changes in the market than I have made for actually working at a productive job. I have been trading mutual funds in my IRA and Roth IRA's ever since 1988. I have made more by working only for two years, 1990 and 2002, and have lost money only in 1990.
Sirs and UP might even tell you that my shuffling of funds is MORE productive to society than my job as a professor, but I don't think I'm going to actually believe that.
-
What profit margin do you think Grocery stores operate on?
It varies between companies. Larger chains can obviously operate on a smaller margin.
Kroger and Ingles operate on roughly a 1.5% margin whereas Publix operates on about a 4.6% margin. In Tennessee were Brass and I live we also have the addition of a rather hefty sales tax. It is our regressive price to pay for not having an income tax.
-
You should listen to your Mother!
How long will your favoite store remain your favoriate after you learn that they are giveing you bad serveice , gougeing prices or disrespecting you?
If there is only one store in town they can get away with more , but this is the situation to be avoided and your Mother is working the diffrence to the benefit of the whole community around her. Without the efforts of people like your Mother what leverage does the community have on the store?
Generally, I do sometimes listen to my mother. Sometimes I think that she is mad but sometimes she is right. Saving 30 cents on chicken parts is not what I want my life or even my shopping experience to be about. Money isn't everything. I go to Super-Lo because the prices are fair enough (I'd buy Best Choice brand on nearly everything if my wife would let me), the people are rarely rude and it's unassuming.
I really don't understand how my mother's driving to three and four stores to get her groceries helps the whole community. Please expand on that. Personally, I think it is detrimental in the end. While she may be helping a Mom and Pop grocery a LITTLE, she's also helping Kroger a LITTLE and so the Kroger help is more negative than the Mom and Pop help who I feel should get more of my help even if it means that I pay a higher price.
I prefer my SuperLo over Kroger. I drive by Kroger on the way to my SuperLo. http://www.superlofoods.com/Home.htm (http://www.superlofoods.com/Home.htm)
The only thing wrong with SuperLo is they don't carry soy yogurt for my kid. Kroger does. And sometimes I stop there and get him some on the way home from SuperLo.
-
Brass is correct. I daresay most consumers have their favorite stores and shop at them, especially for the most mundane items such as bread, milk, eggs, etc. In many cases the convenience of location often outweighs the price differential unless it is substantial enough to be noticable. Your charecterisation is likely way off base Ami. Notice that Brass isn't talking about large ticket items like vehicles, real estate, or bulk merchandise. He's simply saying that he doesn't find price information when going to pick up a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk, or a carton of eggs. I'd say he enjoys the company of the vast majority of American consumers (and likely European and Canadian consumers as well).
I'm not talking about large ticket items, either. I have many friends that spend some time at home with the sales flyers every week, then plan their menus and shopping around the sales. It only takes a short while to do once you're used to it, and you can save a huge amount on your grocery bill. If you vary your trips to and from work, or to and from other errands, only slightly, you can usually hit all the stores you need without using much, if any, extra fuel.
-
I used to get a lot of phone calls from survey companies. I noticed that if I told them I was over 60, they would thank me and not ask any more questions, but if I said I was between 25 and 45, they would ask dozens of questions. Most of this had to do with advertising. A friend who teaches marketing told me that one of the tenants of marketing theory is that by the time one has reached 45, he or she will either always buy the same product (Colgate toothpaste, for example) at any reasonable price (which can be up to twice that of a competing product), or they will always buy the cheapest product. In either case, advertising is wasted on them.
No amount of advertising will cause me to pay $2.95 for 7 oz. of Colgate when I can buy Ultra-brite for $1.59 or less. No amount of advertising will cause me to buy cow's milk instead of soy milk.
Just for fun, when anyone calls me for a survey, if I have the time, I tell them exactly the opposite of what I really think. It gives me a buzz.
-
I have many friends that spend some time at home with the sales flyers every week, then plan their menus and shopping around the sales. It only takes a short while to do once you're used to it, and you can save a huge amount on your grocery bill. If you vary your trips to and from work, or to and from other errands, only slightly, you can usually hit all the stores you need without using much, if any, extra fuel.
If you live somewhere that has a number of stores nearby. If you invest in receiving the local paper (or receive sales flyers by another method). If you vary your trips to and from work, meaning you commute and you don't use another means of transit.
Is it really worth it? Or could you do as Brass or XO suggest and simply buy the cheaper items or ones on sale at the grocery store you typically shop at. Furthermore, one could simply alter their habits and not consume certain food items if they aren't on sale rather than expending the extra fuel and time searching for a coupon and maintaining a menu.
Don't get me wrong, it is a viable option, but why?
Personally I have other reasons I don't shop at certain stores. For example, Wally world's rather extreme anti-unionism turns me off (I was almost an employee there back in my college days until they began an lengthy discussion - with videotape on the evils of unions). So price is but one reason to select a store.
-
If you live somewhere that has a number of stores nearby. If you invest in receiving the local paper (or receive sales flyers by another method). If you vary your trips to and from work, meaning you commute and you don't use another means of transit.
All of which are true for the vast majority of people. Everywhere I live, I have received the sales flyers in the mail, for no charge.
-
I actually do a combination of things with my grocery purchases. I always buy all bread products at the Flowers bakery outlet. They always have the onion & kaiser rolls I like and the 9 or 12 or 13 grain bread for less than half than any grocery, and it's only half a block out of the way from my usual route home from work.
I get most of the staples -- graham crackers, grape juice, saltines, oatmeal,generic cheerios, biscuits, butter, fish planks, chicken, potpies at the Sav-A-Lot, which is only about 20 blocks S of my house. All the rest I usually get at the Publix, because unlike the Winn Dixie (my old neighbor called it the Dim Pixie) I won't have to wait forever in line, there store brands are excellent (Winn Dixie's --especially thrifty maid--suck) and the don't stick me to use their ATM. About once a month I stop by the new Wallyworld and buy a few things the other stores don't have: their ersatz version of Crystal Lite and Helluva Good Extra Sharp Cheddar. There is a 99¢ Stuff store I go by every month or so to pick up cheap Argentine and Chilean and other stuff.
Fresh veggies I always pick up on Thursday or Friday at the Opa-Locka Hialeah Flea market, because they are less than half the price of any market. This is tomato season in Fla, and you can get up to 5 pounds for a dollar.
-
All of which are true for the vast majority of people. Everywhere I live, I have received the sales flyers in the mail, for no charge.
What would really blow the minds of those who made the decision to start sending sales flyers via the mail is the fact that I have looked at the flyer simply for the name of the grocery and made certain NOT to shop there if at all possible.
Not only are they losing the money for the printing and postage but also my own personal dollars that I might have spent at their store had I not known they were killing forests to try and make a dollar.
-
One buys beans because one anticipates being hungry for them. One does not buy GM stock for any reason other than selling it later for more money which as an older person you may want for buying beans which you don't need right now but might need later.
Everything can be measured by its equivelent worth in beans.
-
All of which are true for the vast majority of people. Everywhere I live, I have received the sales flyers in the mail, for no charge.
What would really blow the minds of those who made the decision to start sending sales flyers via the mail is the fact that I have looked at the flyer simply for the name of the grocery and made certain NOT to shop there if at all possible.
Not only are they losing the money for the printing and postage but also my own personal dollars that I might have spent at their store had I not known they were killing forests to try and make a dollar.
Without advertisement the News Paper would have to rely on subscribtrion alone and would cost more with ads the store subsidises your news.
-
You should listen to your Mother!
How long will your favoite store remain your favoriate after you learn that they are giveing you bad serveice , gougeing prices or disrespecting you?
If there is only one store in town they can get away with more , but this is the situation to be avoided and your Mother is working the diffrence to the benefit of the whole community around her. Without the efforts of people like your Mother what leverage does the community have on the store?
Generally, I do sometimes listen to my mother. Sometimes I think that she is mad but sometimes she is right. Saving 30 cents on chicken parts is not what I want my life or even my shopping experience to be about. Money isn't everything. I go to Super-Lo because the prices are fair enough (I'd buy Best Choice brand on nearly everything if my wife would let me), the people are rarely rude and it's unassuming.
I really don't understand how my mother's driving to three and four stores to get her groceries helps the whole community. Please expand on that. Personally, I think it is detrimental in the end. While she may be helping a Mom and Pop grocery a LITTLE, she's also helping Kroger a LITTLE and so the Kroger help is more negative than the Mom and Pop help who I feel should get more of my help even if it means that I pay a higher price.
I prefer my SuperLo over Kroger. I drive by Kroger on the way to my SuperLo. http://www.superlofoods.com/Home.htm (http://www.superlofoods.com/Home.htm)
The only thing wrong with SuperLo is they don't carry soy yogurt for my kid. Kroger does. And sometimes I stop there and get him some on the way home from SuperLo.
This is useing the power of the Consumor .
You may have no choice but to buy beans , but you can use your choice of bean supplyer to make the retailers behave themselves.
This leverage is strong for price , but some people use this leverage to reward stores that give themn a pleasant environment or political correctness.
-
Supermarket flyers consume less paper than ads in newspapers. I don't really care how they advertise.
There is one nearby President supermarket that has become a favorite of the local Haitians. The prices are very low, there are always lots of specials, but it can take 30 minutes on even the fastest day to check out. The cash registers are old, the cashier is incompetent, and the fat lady in front of me wants to argue about everything. The place refuses to buy whatever it is that most US supermarkets use to deodorize, and the place smells beyond funky: a medley of rotten lettuce, salt cod, sour milk and long deceased quadrupeds and bipeds.
The 4¢ I save on a pound of bananas is rarely worth the bother. They have dozens of specials advertised in every flyer.
======================================================================
Everything can be measured by its equivelent worth in beans.
===================================================
If your only reaction to any mention of the stock market is to discuss your potential future consumption of beans, it might be that you have not comprehended the personal utility of the stock market to your own present or future existence.
That's okay with me, but you might consider asking yourself if you are missing something that could improve your existence. At least it might result in your being able to consume greater quantities of beans.
-
Without advertisement the News Paper would have to rely on subscribtrion alone and would cost more with ads the store subsidises your news.
[/quote]
Newspapers as far back as the forties wondered whether the newspaper should be free, instead of the stipend cost. They decided that making their papers free would devalue its worth, like a over-sized flyer.
If you charge a nickel, you up its status. Dime, more. They reach a certain price just under what the country minds paying for it, thereby establing a good status, and the highest price the gentry will pay for it.
Newspapers have pretty much depended on advertisers all along.
No paper or magazine at all makes it on subscriptions, if by subscriptions you are talking about the price at the register.
A magazine, solidly established in the currents and producing an interesting read and a good menu can command huge sums for their ad space. Its figures dwarf those of the dispensary cost.
I can't imagine what miniscule part of producing the final product is paid by the $5 or so you pay for it.
-
Playboy gave me a totally FREE sub to their magazine for four years. All I did was buy a tape for $15.00, and they sent me a form to fill out for the next four years.
Now Esquire is offering to sell me a year's sub for $5.99.
I guess they need to have a certain number of subscribers to be able to justify their ad rates.
-
Out of curiosity, where in Christianity does it discuss "keeping the hell out of other people's pockets" and "individual responsibility" as a definition of freedom? I don't seem to recall this libertarian view of society from the teachings of Christ or the Apostles.
Is this Js advocating more implimentation of Christian doctrine within our Governmental policies? But to answer the question, since I wasn't referencing the bible or theology with my comments on freedom, off the top of my head, I wouldn't be able to tell you off hand "where". When I have more time, perhaps I could do a little reserach and reference those verses in the bible that advocate individual responsibility and not stealing from others.
::)
-
Jesus was not a classical libertarian. I don't think he was even pro-capitalist.
"Sell what you own, give the money to the poor and follow me and trust that you shall be fed as the lilies of the field and the little birdies are fed", is definitely NOT, repeat NOT a Libertarian doctrine.
Neither is joining what is essentially a collective ruled by one unremoveable leader. NOT LIBERTARIAN. Not even Republican.
I continue to wonder why no one in this group is remotely interested in actually investing in the stock market.
-
I continue to wobder why no one in this group is remotely interested in actualy investing oin the st0ock market.
Well, "wobder" no more. I invest "oin" the "st0ock market."
Also, in bonds, munis, etc. I'm pretty sure I told you this already. I do most of my investing via mutual funds, but not all (mainly because I keep working for companies that give me stocks as part of my bonus mix).
-
Jesus was not a classical libertarian. I don't think he was even pro-capitalist.
"Sell what you own, give the money to the poor and follow me and trust that you shall be fed as the lilies of the field and the little birdies are fed", is definitely NOT, repeat NOT a Libertarian doctrine.
Neither is joining what is essentially a collective ruled by one unremoveable leader. NOT LIBERTARIAN. Not even Republican.
I continue to wonder why no one in this group is remotely interested in actually investing in the stock market.
Most of my stock ownership is in the form of the Thrift Saveings Plan , something like a 401k.
My other big investment is real estate .
-
Is this Js advocating more implimentation of Christian doctrine within our Governmental policies? But to answer the question, since I wasn't referencing the bible or theology with my comments on freedom, off the top of my head, I wouldn't be able to tell you off hand "where". When I have more time, perhaps I could do a little reserach and reference those verses in the bible that advocate individual responsibility and not stealing from others.
Of course Christianity does not advocate "stealing," but it certainly advocates a responsible society and not simply a land of individualism. So when you do your research, try and answer the question I asked and not the one you fabricated.
What is it to you whether or not I advocate Christian doctrine in Government policies?
-
Of course Christianity does not advocate "stealing," but it certainly advocates a responsible society and not simply a land of individualism. So when you do your research, try and answer the question I asked and not the one you fabricated.
Show me where it advocates TAKING money from others to do good works as a "responsible society", so as to fine tune my research
What is it to you whether or not I advocate Christian doctrine in Government policies?
Only that you keep referencing such when discussing practical policy making, be it foreign or domestic
-
Show me where it advocates TAKING money from others to do good works as a "responsible society", so as to fine tune my research
You are turning this on me. You advocate the free market, quasi-libertarian view. I'm just asking you to show me where Christian doctrine supports such a social view. You are a Protestant so it should be right there in the Bible. I can't recall a parable or kerygmatic argument to support such a social view, but perhaps you can correct me.
I'll be happy to answer your questions, if you will answer mine.
Only that you keep referencing such when discussing practical policy making, be it foreign or domestic
That does not answer my question. That tells me what makes you ask me, my question is why is it important to you whether I advocate Christian views in government or not?
-
Without advertisement the News Paper would have to rely on subscribtrion alone and would cost more with ads the store subsidises your news.
I'm not talking about the newspaper (which I don't get either), I'm talking about the flyers and papers that grocery stores send through the mail.
-
Show me where it advocates TAKING money from others to do good works as a "responsible society", so as to fine tune my research
You are turning this on me.
You're the one advocating Christian princples within a Capitalstic democracy. Which ironically i do believe is doable, but currently it appears you're trying to apply "grandma's guilt" by implying some form of how we all need to take care of one another, to make it work. Which is fine, and a noble concept. One that I actually believe we ALL support. The difference lies in when you start advocating taking more money out of other people's pockets vs simply advocating that we do what we can to help our fellow man, which is much more analogus to WHAT Jesus was trying to teach.
You advocate the free market, quasi-libertarian view.
Actually, I'm advocating the sirs' view.
I'm just asking you to show me where Christian doctrine supports such a social view.
Since I'm not using Christian theology as the foundation to my view of freedom, Capitalism, or the Stock Market, your question doesn't actually apply, but I'll endeavor to answer it anyways, in the next paragraph.
I'll be happy to answer your questions, if you will answer mine.
- The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. Ezekiel 18:20
- Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. Galatians 6:7,8
- So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God. Romans 14:12
- For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 2 Corinthians 5:10
- Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. Matthew 16:24,25
There's many many more examples, but suffice to say, there's a myriad of verses that advocate personal responsibility. Keep in mind, that's not saying at the expense of helping others, and not what I'm saying either. Your question referenced where in the Bible does God/Jesus advocate indivdual responsibility. I'm simply answering that question. But Jesus does encourage and advocate helping others, simply not by way of forcibly taking someone else's property (in this case, someone else's money via tax dollars) to do it. Now, would you mind answering mine? Where DOES Jesus advocate taking money/property from others by force/coercion to help others?
Only that you keep referencing such when discussing practical policy making, be it foreign or domestic
That does not answer my question. That tells me what makes you ask me, my question is why is it important to you whether I advocate Christian views in government or not?
Only that you seem to keep doing so, and coming from the left, I would have thought the seperation of church & state played a much larger role in your policy formation. Am I wrong?
-
Without advertisement the News Paper would have to rely on subscribtrion alone and would cost more with ads the store subsidises your news.
I'm not talking about the newspaper (which I don't get either), I'm talking about the flyers and papers that grocery stores send through the mail.
Then they are subsidiseing the Post office?
Junk Mail is obsolete , I used to have an airtight stove in which I would burn rolled logs of paper as fuel . I don't get that much anymore.
Still , it was something for nothing , RBE?
-
Then they are subsidiseing the Post office?
No, junk mail pays a junk rate for delivery. It might be slightly less than the actual cost of delivery.
Some of my immigrant neighbors never get anything BUT junk mail, apparently. I know this because they have no door on their mailboxes and they never empty the things.
--------------------------------------------
Junk Mail is obsolete , I used to have an airtight stove in which I would burn rolled logs of paper as fuel . I don't get that much anymore.
Still , it was something for nothing , RBE?
Yes, it was something for nothing. I pick up pennies in the street, find at least one every day. If I had a need to do so, I could pick up aluminum cans for free and cash them in, too.
But not RBE, since there are no robots involved in delivering the cans to the bums who throw them in the street.
0-------------------------------------------------------------
Junk mail is not obsolete. Newspapers for many people (perhaps even you) are obsolete., and the only way for the supermarkets can advertise chicken leg quarters for 34¢ per lb. is by sending out flyers.
It could be that your stove was obsolete, since you no longer use it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
You're the one advocating Christian princples within a Capitalstic democracy. Which ironically i do believe is doable, but currently it appears you're trying to apply "grandma's guilt" by implying some form of how we all need to take care of one another, to make it work. Which is fine, and a noble concept. One that I actually believe we ALL support. The difference lies in when you start advocating taking more money out of other people's pockets vs simply advocating that we do what we can to help our fellow man, which is much more analogus to WHAT Jesus was trying to teach.
How so?
Actually, I'm advocating the sirs' view.
Which is a free-market, quasi-libertarian view of society. I believe your phrase was "keeping the hell out of other people's pockets" and it wasn't I who you used it on, but Brass.
Since I'm not using Christian theology as the foundation to my view of freedom, Capitalism, or the Stock Market, your question doesn't actually apply, but I'll endeavor to answer it anyways, in the next paragraph.
In your view does Christian doctrine not apply to society?
There's many many more examples, but suffice to say, there's a myriad of verses that advocate personal responsibility.
Interesting, but not my question. My question was this: Out of curiosity, where in Christianity does it discuss "keeping the hell out of other people's pockets" and "individual responsibility" as a definition of freedom?
Now, look at Luke 6:30 - " Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back."
Direct from the mouth of the Son of God, can you live up to that?
Luke 12:30-34 All the nations of the world seek for these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these other things will be given you besides. Do not be afraid any longer, little flock, for your Father is pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your belongings and give alms. Provide money bags for yourselves that do not wear out, an inexhaustible treasure in heaven that no thief can reach nor moth destroy. For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.
Proverbs 17:5
James 2:5
James 5:1-3
Indeed, we know that the Holy Family were poor.
I can hardly see how Christianity can then fit into a society of ardent free market, laissez faire capitalism.
-
Christianity has almost nothing to do with laissez faire capitalism.
Jesus' family was middle class: his father was a carpenter. One assumes that he made furniture. New furniture is typically purchased by members of the middle class and aristocracy. There is no indication that Jesus was a beggar chid. Begging was what the pooest did. They did not have a shop.
We know that Jesus wore clothing worth the Romans casting lots for. He probably had some relatively snazzy duds.
One would imagine that after all that flogging, his threads might have been a bit bloody. Maybe that was a come-on for a Roman troop.
-
I think that sirs' point of view is that he should be able to decide to whom his charitable will would be directed without the use of government as a tool for the collection or dispersement of his charitable will. That charitable will then serving the greater purpose of "taking care of the lesser among us" in the way he feels is best.
Where his ideal (libertarian in slant) runs afoul of America is that this country (if you believe what you read in the papers) is a democratic republic and therefore the people elect officials to go forth and enact the will of said people. And in 1913, those who were elected to go forth and enact the will of the people went and produced the 16th Amendment which states:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
And sirs don't like that too good. What he don't like even worse is the idea that The Congress could use that tax money to the advantage of ALL Americans instead of it only supporting a FEW Americans.
And worst of all is that the will of the people, some of the people, sure, but most of the will people (and that's democratic republic for ya) is that taxes should be used for the betterment of all Americans even the ones who some people think are "lazy" or "don't work" or "smell bad" or are "sick".
In the end, government is a tool to enact the will of the people. In 2003, the will of the people was to invade Iraq illegally. (They arrived at that will be being lied to but it was their will all the same.) When Clinton was impeached, the will of the people was that he not be removed from office, only censured.
The will of the people, as far as we can tell, is that we should all pay taxes (some more, some less) to the government and the government should then use that money in a manner that benefits us all because most Americans believe that we are all in this together. Sometimes that is interpreted as "Illegally invade a sovereign nation" other times it is interpreted as "Use our taxes to make the lives of all Americans a little easier."
-
You're the one advocating Christian princples within a Capitalstic democracy........
How so?
"where in Christianity does it discuss "keeping the hell out of other people's pockets" and "individual responsibility" as a definition of freedom?"
A) I never made the claim that it was part of Christian Doctrine
B) You're the one bringing the 2 together
C) Watch following references by yourself later in this post
Actually, I'm advocating the sirs' view.
Which is a free-market, quasi-libertarian view of society.
Ummm, if you say so
In your view does Christian doctrine not apply to society?
See? But to answer your query, Christian principles apply to individual acts
There's many many more examples, but suffice to say, there's a myriad of verses that advocate personal responsibility.
Interesting, but not my question. My question was this: Out of curiosity, where in Christianity does it discuss "keeping the hell out of other people's pockets" and "individual responsibility" as a definition of freedom?
Once again, I never applied the 2. That's your doing, so you tell me
Now, look at Luke 6:30 - " Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back."
Direct from the mouth of the Son of God, can you live up to that?
I endeavor to do my best. Have you stoned any prostitues lately? And ironically it's a request for one to allow such to happen, at another's request. Not a command to turn over any and everything you own
Luke 12:30-34 All the nations of the world seek for these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these other things will be given you besides. Do not be afraid any longer, little flock, for your Father is pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your belongings and give alms. Provide money bags for yourselves that do not wear out, an inexhaustible treasure in heaven that no thief can reach nor moth destroy. For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.
Proverbs 17:5
James 2:5
James 5:1-3
Indeed, we know that the Holy Family were poor. [/color]
Strangely all again requesting to help others, and give generously. And none of which commands to hand over anything & everything at the voice of the ruling government, in order to help others.
I can hardly see how Christianity can then fit into a society of ardent free market, laissez faire capitalism.
To be painfully honest with you Js, you're all over the ballpark on this one. Is there a Separation of Church and State, or not? If so, at what point do you claim it goes over the line, as it relates to Domestc Government Policy? Are you indicating your support for Bush's Faith Based Initiatives?
-
I think that sirs' point of view is ....... Where his ideal (libertarian in slant) runs afoul of America is that this country (if you believe what you read in the papers) is a democratic republic and therefore the people elect officials to go forth and enact the will of said people. And in 1913, those who were elected to go forth and enact the will of the people went and produced the 16th Amendment
[/color]
Actually, what my POV is what the Constitution mandates, which includes the Bill of Rights, and how the Consitution is to be amended if and when the "will of the people" believe that the government needs to provide more in the way of health care, or whatever's the new liberal feel-good social program. If they can do it with the 16th amendment, by golly they can do some more amending, IF it's the "will of the people"
And sirs don't like that too good. What he don't like even worse is the idea that The Congress could use that tax money to the advantage of ALL Americans instead of it only supporting a FEW Americans.
Again amazing how if one doesn't believe in Brass's view of how Government is our savior, the same government he deplores to high heaven, when Republicans are running things, then by definition folks like "sirs" only care about "a few Americans" Nevermind my support for tax relief for EVERYONE. Nevermind my support for School choice vouchers that are overwhemingly supported most notably in the low income urban areas, predominantly resided by African Americans. Nevermind my support of giveing Payroll tax relief and support of SS reform that would help the lowest income folks in the labor market the most. Naaaaaaaaa, can't be adding those to the equation. Messes up a perfectly good template already set up.
And worst of all is that the will of the people, some of the people, sure, but most of the will people (and that's democratic republic for ya) is that taxes should be used for the betterment of all Americans even the ones who some people think are "lazy" or "don't work" or "smell bad" or are "sick".
And worst yet is when others conclude if you don't believe their way, they must not care about the less fortunate, and must think of them all as "lazy" or "smell bad". Pretty pathetic, even for you Brass. I guess that greed label, of yours, on how eager you are to spend other people's money hit pretty hard
In the end, government is a tool to enact the will of the people.
In the end the Consitution provides precisely the mechanisms to make Government enact the "will of the people" By all means, let's get together another Constitutional Convention. When was the last one, by the way. Seems it's been too long, I guess
In 2003, the will of the people was to invade Iraq illegally. (They arrived at that will be being lied to but it was their will all the same.)
Pure hyperbolic opinion there, but that 1st amendment of the Constitution sure is nice to have around, isn't it. Ironically had Brass said the same as an Iraqi, regarding Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, he and his family likely would have been shot......or worse. Go figure
When Clinton was impeached, the will of the people was that he not be removed from office, only censured.
More than a country of polls, we're a country of laws, with a foundation in the Rule of Law. I even seem to recall a certain hyper leftest of the name Brass, mentioning is support of the Rule of Law. I guess it's only when it suits his purposes.
The will of the people, as far as we can tell, is that we should all pay taxes (some more, some less) to the government and the government should then use that money in a manner that benefits us all because most Americans believe that we are all in this together.
They already are, extra-constitutionally, I might add.
Sometimes that is interpreted as "Illegally invade a sovereign nation" other times it is interpreted as "Use our taxes to make the lives of all Americans a little easier."
And most every time, opinion is simply opinion as it relates to "interpretation"
-
"And sirs don't like that too good. What he don't like even worse is the idea that The Congress could use that tax money to the advantage of ALL Americans instead of it only supporting a FEW Americans."
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
When has that ever happened?
Everything that congress has to give to the people it must first remove from the people .
-
When has that ever happened?
Everything that congress has to give to the people it must first remove from the people .
The people have lots of nice highways to travel on. The people have a top-notch military to protect them. The people have a top-notch health care system to care for them.
The idea is for Americans to pay into a great fund that benefits all Americans. This is all semantics. I see paying my taxes as benefiting everyone in my country, my little part of humanity, and in some cases all of humanity since my government who I gave my tax money sends aid and comfort to people around the world who are in need.
Others who don't like paying taxes see it as the government stealing from them in order to do some things they don't want the government to do. Sure they want a military handy to go and seek retribution from just about any old somebody if a small group of guys fly planes into two of our buildings but they don't want other peoples' kids getting free medicine or a free bone-setting on their stolen dime. Where's the honor in that? Where's the consistency in that?
-
Others who don't like paying taxes see it as the government stealing from them in order to do some things they don't want the government to do. Sure they want a military handy to go and seek retribution from just about any old somebody if a small group of guys fly planes into two of our buildings but they don't want other peoples' kids getting free medicine or a free bone-setting on their stolen dime. Where's the honor in that? Where's the consistency in that?
Well, that's certainly a salient point. If I had my druthers, government wouldn't be helping itself to other people's resources for either one.
As it is, at election time you get to vote on which welfare program you want to support. One party wants a welfare program for inner-city crack-heads, the other one supports a welfare program for trigger-happy crackers. Interestingly, the beneficiaries of these programs seem to be largely interchangeable components.
I would note that at least the crack-heads don't give us a load of lip about performing a "service to the country" while they're pocketing our money. And noting that a black market is probably the freeest market in existence, I submit their claim to performing a service would be at least as good as anybody's.
-
One party wants a welfare program for inner-city crack-heads, the other one supports a welfare program for trigger-happy crackers. Interestingly, the beneficiaries of these programs seem to be largely interchangeable components.
Awesome line.
Well, that's certainly a salient point. If I had my druthers, government wouldn't be helping itself to other people's resources for either one.
That begs the question then how would you then "provide for the common defence"? Surely, "the market" is not the best way for a nation to go about establishing a military. Isn't that one of the big problems with Iraq right now? Too many people are able to create their own militias?
Would we want Americans to pay for their own personal armies? Police forces? Fire Departments? Would we want market forces infringing on noble causes that call for one American to put his life on the line for another like those I mentioned? Police forces becoming armies of mercenaries? Do we really want to see a hostile takeover of one police force company by another?
-
That begs the question then how would you then "provide for the common defence"? Surely, "the market" is not the best way for a nation to go about establishing a military. Isn't that one of the big problems with Iraq right now? Too many people are able to create their own militias?
It used to be paid for by tarriffs and excise taxes. If "provide for the common defence" was interpreted now as it was when it was written, it still could be.
Would we want Americans to pay for their own personal armies? Police forces? Fire Departments? Would we want market forces infringing on noble causes that call for one American to put his life on the line for another like those I mentioned? Police forces becoming armies of mercenaries? Do we really want to see a hostile takeover of one police force company by another?
It's been done in the past. Also, besides the military, most of those functions are handled by local governments, whose powers are limited.
Let me ask you this - you don't like the Bush administration, but what other type of government do you expect to get when you entrust so many powers to government? In all of history, power has never attracted nice people. I'd point out that nearly every obnoxious deed Bush has committed, from initiating an undeclared war to his novel interpretations of the constitution, has a precedent in a liberal administration. If it weren't for the expansions of government power facilitated by past liberal administrations, Bush wouldn't have the power to amount to more than an annoying yapping poodle.
It's all very nice to believe governments should have the power to intervene constructively in people's lives. The problem is that having the power to intervene constructively is also the power to act destructively. You can start out with a government of the most benevolent people in the world. But when there's sufficient money and power at stake, it's going to attract a whole different breed of politicians and interests. And there are few examples in history of them acting benevolently.
As one witty pundit put it, Bush is no conservative, but he's the kind of conservative liberals deserve. They made him possible.
-
That begs the question then how would you then "provide for the common defence"? Surely, "the market" is not the best way for a nation to go about establishing a military. Isn't that one of the big problems with Iraq right now? Too many people are able to create their own militias?
It used to be paid for by tarriffs and excise taxes. If "provide for the common defence" was interpreted now as it was when it was written, it still could be.
Would we want Americans to pay for their own personal armies? Police forces? Fire Departments? Would we want market forces infringing on noble causes that call for one American to put his life on the line for another like those I mentioned? Police forces becoming armies of mercenaries? Do we really want to see a hostile takeover of one police force company by another?
It's been done in the past. Also, besides the military, most of those functions are handled by local governments, whose powers are limited.
Let me ask you this - you don't like the Bush administration, but what other type of government do you expect to get when you entrust so many powers to government? In all of history, power has never attracted nice people. I'd point out that nearly every obnoxious deed Bush has committed, from initiating an undeclared war to his novel interpretations of the constitution, has a precedent in a liberal administration. If it weren't for the expansions of government power facilitated by past liberal administrations, Bush wouldn't have the power to amount to more than an annoying yapping poodle.
It's all very nice to believe governments should have the power to intervene constructively in people's lives. The problem is that having the power to intervene constructively is also the power to act destructively. You can start out with a government of the most benevolent people in the world. But when there's sufficient money and power at stake, it's going to attract a whole different breed of politicians and interests. And there are few examples in history of them acting benevolently.
As one witty pundit put it, Bush is no conservative, but he's the kind of conservative liberals deserve. They made him possible.
GOOD POST!
-
One party wants a welfare program for inner-city crack-heads, the other one supports a welfare program for trigger-happy crackers. Interestingly, the beneficiaries of these programs seem to be largely interchangeable components.
Awesome line.
Well, that's certainly a salient point. If I had my druthers, government wouldn't be helping itself to other people's resources for either one.
That begs the question then how would you then "provide for the common defence"? Surely, "the market" is not the best way for a nation to go about establishing a military. Isn't that one of the big problems with Iraq right now? Too many people are able to create their own militias?
Would we want Americans to pay for their own personal armies? Police forces? Fire Departments? Would we want market forces infringing on noble causes that call for one American to put his life on the line for another like those I mentioned? Police forces becoming armies of mercenaries? Do we really want to see a hostile takeover of one police force company by another?
Privately run prisons are a comeing thing .
In my area a privately owned city is being proposed for a location between Warner Robins and Hawkinsville presently known as "Okie Woods".
I don't prefer it , but it does work.
-
In my area a privately owned city is being proposed for a location between Warner Robins and Hawkinsville presently known as "Okie Woods".
There's a "Sammyville" in Oregon that is privately owned, by a guy named Sammy. I discovered this when I watched the indie movie "Sammyville (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0189977/)" (also known as "Dark Woods") which is partially set there.
Excellent movie, BTW. Production quality and acting were not so great, but it was a fantastic storyline.
-
Christianity has almost nothing to do with laissez faire capitalism.
Jesus' family was middle class: his father was a carpenter. One assumes that he made furniture. New furniture is typically purchased by members of the middle class and aristocracy. There is no indication that Jesus was a beggar chid. Begging was what the pooest did. They did not have a shop.
We know that Jesus wore clothing worth the Romans casting lots for. He probably had some relatively snazzy duds.
One would imagine that after all that flogging, his threads might have been a bit bloody. Maybe that was a come-on for a Roman troop.
On the contrary we know that the Holy Family is poor from their offering in Luke 2:24 and to offer the sacrifice of "a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons," in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord. From Mosaic law we know that the turtledoves are the substitue offering of a poor family for what should be a bull or ram (along with wine and flour). Also notice that Mary did not give the five sheckels to any of the priests (or at least Luke nor any of the other Gospel writers give an account of it). We would at least expect Matthew to speak on it as his Gospel is most directly written towards Jews.
I think one of the largest mistakes here is to believe that economics was similar to today. Yes Jesus and Joseph were carpenters, but that does not make them wealthy or "middle class." In fact, the middle class was virtually nonexistent in most cities outside of Greece and the Italian peninsula. Even in Rome, at the height of the Roman Empire - roughly 97 to 98% of the population were either very poor or slaves. Israel and Judah were no exception to this, in fact it was likely that outside of Jerusalem there were few who lived well. Also note that it is likely that Joseph died while Jesus was young and certainly before his ministries.
-
A) I never made the claim that it was part of Christian Doctrine
B) You're the one bringing the 2 together
C) Watch following references by yourself later in this post
A) You said you are a Christian when you discussed the issue with Brass.
B) Yes, so? You said the two can coexist.
C) I never claimed otherwise.
Ummm, if you say so
You aren't a libertarian because you don't believe in individual freedom to that extent. You like government control over social issues. Yet, you support the free market, or at least I gathered so from your comment to Brass.
But to answer your query, Christian principles apply to individual acts
Really?? So Christianity is not to be practiced at a community or society level? Just an individual level?
I endeavor to do my best. Have you stoned any prostitues lately?
No, nor do I think Christ demands that of me. That is almost a pathetic atheist's response (and note I mean a pathetic atheist as opposed to an astute atheist).
Strangely all again requesting to help others, and give generously. And none of which commands to hand over anything & everything at the voice of the ruling government, in order to help others.
None of it seems to indicate support for free market economics or Christians acting only as individuals either.
To be painfully honest with you Js, you're all over the ballpark on this one. Is there a Separation of Church and State, or not? If so, at what point do you claim it goes over the line, as it relates to Domestc Government Policy? Are you indicating your support for Bush's Faith Based Initiatives?
From my point of view you are the one lacking consistency.
The state is irrelevant in my opinion. If they can do some good for society (and I think they can) then that should be pursued. I don't believe the unemployed should be left out in the cold as an "incentive" to find work. Nor do I believe that the aged should be left to work at Wal-Mart or a convenience store once they have reached an age where they should be able to retire. I believe everyone should have a right to proper healthcare services, regardless of race or income. So in those cases the government as a representative of society should be able to make a positive difference.
Otherwise the Church does not need the state to pass along its message or further belief in Christ. The Church does not need to rely on state indoctrination, She has a message that goes far beyond posting Mosaic laws in man-made buildings and forcing children to say Protestant prayers. Those are false victories and wholly unnecessary. Peter and Paul did not win converts through such useless methods.
I have no problem with the Government allocating money to faith-based resources in areas where they are proven to be succesful. I do worry that the Government may lay down stipulations that overreach its natural boundaries. As for Bush, it wasn't his idea and from what I've read he and his people basically used it as a political vote-gathering ploy rather than a real initiative.
-
Sirs: <<Where DOES Jesus advocate taking money/property from others by force/coercion to help others?>>
Matthew 22:17-22 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give
tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image
and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them,
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
We vote, we live in a free society. Taxes are due from us as citizens. We vote on how they will be used: To help others by creating Social Security, Healthy Start, lunch programs for kids, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Public Health system, the system of highways across the nation, the meat inspectors, health inspectors, postal service, military, firemen, policemen, etc. All those things help others.
-
We vote, we live in a free society. Taxes are due from us as citizens. We vote on how they will be used: To help others by creating Social Security, Healthy Start, lunch programs for kids, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Public Health system, the system of highways across the nation, the meat inspectors, health inspectors, postal service, military, firemen, policemen, etc. All those things help others.
Thank you for saying what I wanted to say but couldn't.
Excellent, Lanya
-
Sirs: <<Where DOES Jesus advocate taking money/property from others by force/coercion to help others?>>
Matthew 22:17-22 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give
tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image
and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them,
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
We vote, we live in a free society. Taxes are due from us as citizens. We vote on how they will be used: To help others by creating Social Security, Healthy Start, lunch programs for kids, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Public Health system, the system of highways across the nation, the meat inspectors, health inspectors, postal service, military, firemen, policemen, etc. All those things help others.
Is it impossible to vote to do wrong?
I vote for what I like , and I occasionally agree with enough peoiple to get it.
More often I vote against what I don't like and accept for the sake of fairness what results.
If we were to vote thatthe government commit theft and make everyone dependant on the government , this would be wrong , it doesn't become right just because most of us like it that way.
-
Thank you, Brass.
I wanted you to look at a post at Berube's site. He has stopped blogging, but he left his archives up. I thought of you right away when i read this. He describes his encounter with a preacher when he was a grad student, and he explained why he was agnostic. Very interesting.
http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/credo/
-
Is it impossible to vote to do wrong?
Of course not, we can look at the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections and se that is true.
I vote for what I like , and I occasionally agree with enough peoiple to get it.
As do we all. (Although at times, I feel that voting is an opiate for the masses to make them feel like they have some control.)
More often I vote against what I don't like and accept for the sake of fairness what results.
That is how we are all supposed to do it but sometimes a SCOTUS decides to take us out of the equation.
If we were to vote thatthe government commit theft and make everyone dependant on the government , this would be wrong , it doesn't become right just because most of us like it that way.
Well, your use of the term "theft" is subjective but I know what you mean and I take issue with your other subjective term use "dependent" but I know what you mean there too but I have to disagree with what I assume is the point of your sentence.
That universal health care would be "wrong". It would actually be right and would make this nation stronger. Health care costs are outrageous in America. Most of us liking it that way is not what makes it "right". A healthier, wealthier populace makes it right. Schwarzenegger is already moving on it and the US as a whole will follow suit shortly.
-
Is it impossible to vote to do wrong?
Of course not, we can look at the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections and se that is true.
I vote for what I like , and I occasionally agree with enough peoiple to get it.
As do we all. (Although at times, I feel that voting is an opiate for the masses to make them feel like they have some control.)
More often I vote against what I don't like and accept for the sake of fairness what results.
That is how we are all supposed to do it but sometimes a SCOTUS decides to take us out of the equation.
If we were to vote thatthe government commit theft and make everyone dependant on the government , this would be wrong , it doesn't become right just because most of us like it that way.
Well, your use of the term "theft" is subjective but I know what you mean and I take issue with your other subjective term use "dependent" but I know what you mean there too but I have to disagree with what I assume is the point of your sentence.
That universal health care would be "wrong". It would actually be right and would make this nation stronger. Health care costs are outrageous in America. Most of us liking it that way is not what makes it "right". A healthier, wealthier populace makes it right. Schwarzenegger is already moving on it and the US as a whole will follow suit shortly.
I consider Universal health care to be experimental , and I can imagine it failing.
If it were to fail we would be worse off than before.
And poorer too.
I think it appropriate that it be tested in a large state or two .
-
Yeah, it's sooooo failing in nearly every industrialized nation from Costa Rica to Israel to Canada to the UK. Just failing its ass off.
I bet it won't suck so bad when we have it across the board and you need a hip replacement in twenty years.
-
Yeah, it's sooooo failing in nearly every industrialized nation from Costa Rica to Israel to Canada to the UK. Just failing its ass off.
I bet it won't suck so bad when we have it across the board and you need a hip replacement in twenty years.
If I have paid twenty times the cost of a Hip replacement before I need on it will suck.
I might have chosen some purpose for the money that I thought more important , but my choices should be restricted to what the government deems wise.
-
I might have chosen some purpose for the money that I thought more important
Yeah, like insurance? Well, that money that you used to pay for insurance is now just going somewhere else. What's the diff?
-
I might have chosen some purpose for the money that I thought more important
Yeah, like insurance? Well, that money that you used to pay for insurance is now just going somewhere else. What's the diff?
The diffrence is freedom and being treated like an adult.
Do I want my government to act like my parent ?
Do I want a tighter line drawn around my choices and my freedom to be reduced again?
-
Yeah, it's sooooo failing in nearly every industrialized nation from Costa Rica to Israel to Canada to the UK. Just failing its ass off.
Yeah, we hear that a lot. Here's what we don't hear: about 50% of new medical treatments developed each year are developed in the United States. Not Costa Rica, Canada, Israel or the UK, or even all of them put together.
Guess why?
-
Guess why?
One could imagine its because people in other countries get preventative medicine and are overall more healthy and therefore there is less need for new treatments.
One could also see how that since medicine and health care is a business here, the business must continually come up with new and exciting ways to treat illnesses in order to stimulate profits for the health care industry. What was the last absolute, end-of-the-disease cure for a disease that you heard of? Polio?
I imagine the cure number goes up in countries where a cure for a disease actually SAVES money for the public. Absolute CURES in America would negatively impact the bottom line.
-
about 50% of new medical treatments developed each year are developed in the United States. Not Costa Rica, Canada, Israel or the UK, or even all of them put together.
Guess why?=====================================================
If 50% are developed in the US, then it means that 50% are developed elsewhere.
We pay through the nose for pharmaceuticals. They have a higher markup than yachts.
And no, most of the extra money is pissed away on advertising, trying to convince people who need D--Gel that they need Nexium at thirty times the price.
-
Guess why?
I imagine the cure number goes up in countries where a cure for a disease actually SAVES money for the public. Absolute CURES in America would negatively impact the bottom line.
You might suppose so , but what are the facts?
As far as diagnostic devices , tecniques , drugs , or even cures .
Where is the best and most happening?
-
A) You said you are a Christian when you discussed the issue with Brass.
Context Js. I referenced Christianity simply to quell the idea I should make him become one because I believe it's the right thing to do analogus to making me pay for what HE believes is the right thing to do("Why don't you keep your hands out of my pockets, and I'll refrain from trying to convert you to Christianity"), was the quote in context
B) Yes, so? (the one bringing the 2 together) You said the two can coexist.
So why the do you keep asking me about it, as if I brought it into the realm of debating Capitalism??
C) I never claimed otherwise.
So why the frell do you ask me why I'm bringing the point up, the blurring of Christianity & Capitalism, the blurring of practicing religion and practicing domestic policy making??
You aren't a libertarian because you don't believe in individual freedom to that extent. You like government control over social issues.
LOL.....EXCUSE ME? You're getting me confused with folks who promote Universal Health Care, Affirmative Action/Quotas, Tax paying subsidizing for illegal immigrants & their families, cradle to grave Governmental intervention, if not control
Yet, you support the free market, or at least I gathered so from your comment to Brass.
Hoo raaa, finally got something right :)
Really?? So Christianity is not to be practiced at a community or society level? Just an individual level?
To be blunt yes. I'm neither a preacher nor a theologian, but in my Christian opinion, it's to be practiced at an individual level 1st and formost. Your actions as an individual, is what God looks at, and likely what you're judged on. When you combine individual acts with others, THAT is what influences both community & society. Individual acts are what influence society, but to focus your priorities & actions on trying to influence society misses the entire mark of what it is to be a Christian, IMHO
I endeavor to do my best. Have you stoned any prostitues lately?
No, nor do I think Christ demands that of me. That is almost a pathetic atheist's response (and note I mean a pathetic atheist as opposed to an astute atheist).
Leviticus 20, 8-16 gets pretty "demanding" from the big guy himself, God. Can you live up to them? Point being is that we have become a bit more civilized and modernized, as Christians. At least in theory.
None of it seems to indicate support for free market economics or Christians acting only as individuals either.
That's because neither the Bible, nor Jesus, nor God are bringing forth any form of an economic plan to support or follow. Which ironically, neither have I. You seem to be the only one pulling that ome
From my point of view you are the one lacking consistency. The state is irrelevant in my opinion. If they can do some good for society (and I think they can) then that should be pursued. I don't believe the unemployed should be left out in the cold as an "incentive" to find work. Nor do I believe that the aged should be left to work at Wal-Mart or a convenience store once they have reached an age where they should be able to retire.
And you'll note that YOU are not being prevented from doing anything in YOUR power, with YOUR money and YOUR resources, do help anyone in any way YOU wish.
I believe everyone should have a right to proper healthcare services, regardless of race or income. So in those cases the government as a representative of society should be able to make a positive difference.
Then by all means, lobby your congress critters to amend the Constitution to prompt the Government to provide precisely that, if that is the "will of the people"
I have no problem with the Government allocating money to faith-based resources in areas where they are proven to be succesful.
Cool. Thanks for the additional clarity
-
Yeah, we hear that a lot. Here's what we don't hear: about 50% of new medical treatments developed each year are developed in the United States. Not Costa Rica, Canada, Israel or the UK, or even all of them put together.
Guess why?
What makes you think that? Are you presupposing that a nation with nationalised healthcare does not have private pharmaceutical companies?
I'm calling bullshit on the 50% number.
The German Pharmaceutical Merck (not to be confused with the American version which was taken from its German owners in the Great War) is an industry leader.
AstraZeneca is a former division of Imperial Chemicals, a British company and it split into its own major company and is located in London as well as having its research division located in Sweden - both nations with large nationalised healthcare systems.
They developed (to name a few):
Crestor
Tri-cor
Protein-Kinase B inhibitors
Avanir
Selective Glucocorticoid Receptor Agonists
Entocort
Losec/Prilosec/Mopral
Nexium
Atacand (candesartan)
Betaloc (metoprolol)
Crestor (rosuvastatin)
Exanta (ximelagatran) – withdrawn in 2006
Imdur (isosorbide mononitrate)
Inderal (propranolol)
Lexxel (enalapril/felodipine)
Logimax (felodipine/metoprolol)
Nif-Ten (atenlol/nifedipine)
Plendil (felodipine)
Ramace (ramipril)
Seloken ZOK/Toprol-XL (extended-release metoprolol)
Tenoretic (atenolol/chlorthalidone)
Tenormin (atenolol)
Unimax (felodipine/ramipril)
Xylocard (lidocaine)
Zestoretic (lisinopril/hydrochlorothiazide)
Zestril (lisinopril)
Accolate (zafirlukast)
Bambec (bambuterol)
Bricanyl (terbutaline)
Oxis (formoterol)
Pulmicort/Budecort (inhaled budesonide)
Rhinocort/Budecort NT (intranasal budesonide)
Symbicort (budesonide/formoterol)
Arimidex (anastrozole)
Casodex (bicalutamide)
Faslodex (fulvestrant)
Iressa (gefitinib)
Nolvadex (tamoxifen)
Tomudex (raltitrexed)
Zoladex (goserelin)
Seroquel (quetiapine)
Vivalan (viloxazine)
Zomig (zolmitriptan)
Carbocaine (mepivacaine)
Chirocaine (levobupivacaine)
Diprivan (propofol)
EMLA (lidocaine/prilocaine)
Marcaine/Sensorcaine (bupivacaine)
Naropin (ropivacaine)
Xylocaine (lidocaine)
Apatef/Cefotan (cefotetan)
Merrem/Meronem (meropenem)
The list could be made much longer.
I haven't even got to GlaxoSmithKline, the third largest Pharmaceutical company in the world. A British company (makers of Paxil, Wellbutrin, Advair, Avandia...). Anyone heard of Bayer? It is a German company.
Sanofi-Aventis? The fourth largest pharmaceutical company in the world is French. You might recognize a few of their products such as Plavix, Allegra, Ambien, Avapro, Ketex, Lovenox...
As for breakthroughs, the 2005 Nobel Prize was awarded to two Australian Physicians for their work with the bacterium Helicobacter pylori and its role in gastritis and peptic ulcer disease. The 2000 Nobel prize award went to Two Americans and a Swede for their work on neurotransmitters and memory. One of those Americans studied at Cambridge and the Univeristy of Amsterdam. (The award for medicine is shared with physiology)
I wouldn't act as though this is some contest where we win hands down. Like all academic studies, it is a collaborative effort and other nations most certainly do their part (I'd say for their size the British have certainly done more than their share).
Moreover the United States spends roughly 13.5% of the GDP on healthcare whereas Britain spends around 7% and Australia around 8%, both providing universal coverage. I love hearing so-called fiscal conservatives argue for higher spending.
-
Leviticus 20, 8-16 gets pretty "demanding" from the big guy himself, God. Can you live up to them?
Mosaic law. Why was Stephen stoned to death and became the first Christian martyr? Did Christ participate in stoning adulterers? Was Jesus defying his Father?
I referenced Christianity simply to quell the idea I should make him become one because I believe it's the right thing to do analogus to making me pay for what HE believes is the right thing to do("Why don't you keep your hands out of my pockets, and I'll refrain from trying to convert you to Christianity"), was the quote in context.
I realize the context, but find it interesting that you separate the two. Shouldn't Christian belief guide one's economic principles as well?
So why the frell do you ask me why I'm bringing the point up, the blurring of Christianity & Capitalism, the blurring of practicing religion and practicing domestic policy making??
I'm not saying you brought the point up, I brought the point up. I'm saying, "why not?"
LOL.....EXCUSE ME? You're getting me confused with folks who promote Universal Health Care, Affirmative Action/Quotas, Tax paying subsidizing for illegal immigrants & their families, cradle to grave Governmental intervention, if not control
No, I'm not confused at all. UP is a Libertarian who believes in the freedom of individuals. You are a conservative who believes in some freedom, but not at the espense of your conservative social ideals. No need to be so defensive, I wasn't making a judgement on whether that was good or bad.
Your actions as an individual, is what God looks at, and likely what you're judged on. When you combine individual acts with others, THAT is what influences both community & society. Individual acts are what influence society, but to focus your priorities & actions on trying to influence society misses the entire mark of what it is to be a Christian, IMHO
Love thy neighbor, do unto the least of these, the establishing of the Church by Peter and Paul - you don't see how man is guided to mutual service and dialogue with his brethren through society? To focus your priorities and actions on only yourself is the misguided view here. What of family? Community? Did Paul focus only on himself?
That's because neither the Bible, nor Jesus, nor God are bringing forth any form of an economic plan to support or follow. Which ironically, neither have I. You seem to be the only one pulling that ome
I never said Jesus did. I said that we are given certain Christian notions and I see no reason why we cannot incorporate them into our society. Otherwise, why have a government? What is the purpose of government if not to help those who cannot help themselves? As an aside, your statement is not ironic at all.
And you'll note that YOU are not being prevented from doing anything in YOUR power, with YOUR money and YOUR resources, do help anyone in any way YOU wish.
Wow, what a bold statement. Actually, what a typical free-market capitalist statement. Cold and without purpose.
Again I say: If they [the government] can do some good for society (and I think they can) then that should be pursued. I don't believe the unemployed should be left out in the cold as an "incentive" to find work. Nor do I believe that the aged should be left to work at Wal-Mart or a convenience store once they have reached an age where they should be able to retire.
Otherwise, why have a government? To kill people in foreign countries? To prop up horrible dictatorships? To support horribly oppressive institutions for decades and even over a century? If that is the purpose then why bother? Shouldn't we aspire to something better than that?
Then by all means, lobby your congress critters to amend the Constitution to prompt the Government to provide precisely that, if that is the "will of the people"
You imply that I haven't.
-
"If they [the government] can do some good for society (and I think they can) then that should be pursued. I don't believe the unemployed should be left out in the cold as an "incentive" to find work. Nor do I believe that the aged should be left to work at Wal-Mart or a convenience store once they have reached an age where they should be able to retire. "
Should the government be preferred when thre is an equally good non government choice for getting the good done?
Sometimes it seems that the government is preferred even when there is a better non government choice.
-
Should the government be preferred when thre is an equally good non government choice for getting the good done? Sometimes it seems that the government is preferred even when there is a better non government choice.
I think that stems from the notion that the Government can do the non-better choice for more folks. It's kinda dovetails with the Universal Health care and their proponets. They'll be happier if everyone is covered, even if the care is significantly reduced, and waiting tomes for non-emergent operative procedures can be months, if not years. Just as long as everyone is covered, and damn the repercussions
-
I think that stems from the notion that the Government can do the non-better choice for more folks. It's kinda dovetails with the Universal Health care and their proponets. They'll be happier if everyone is covered, even if the care is significantly reduced, and waiting tomes for non-emergent operative procedures can be months, if not years. Just as long as everyone is covered, and damn the repercussions
You know, you're such a hypocrit.
The best way to get lower prices is to buy in volume. You have a fleet of cars and you're going to be buying oil changes all the time, you set up a deal with the local oil change guy that is a reduced rate of his regular $30 that he charges for an oil change. That makes utter sense to you, doesn't it? Yes, HE will lose some money per deal but he makes more money because he'll be doing more oil changes. Right? What's he going to do differently than he did before? Use one can of oil too few to try and make up that little bit off that you negotiated? Maybe, but if one car gets screwed up from lack of oil, then he's going to lose your business and he's back to square one. Why bother?
More over, since he has more cars to change the oil in, maybe he helps the economy and he hires another guy to catch the overflow.
Now, please tell me why that can't work with the government acting for all Americans with the health care system?
The American People buying insurance in bulk. Nobody's FORCED to use the Universal Health Care Insurance. You can still use whatever high priced insurance you want.
You're all for Bush having $400B to kill lots of people but not $34-69B a year to keep people, healthy and alive. What's up with that, christian?
So, here we are
-
You know, you're such a hypocrit.
Takes one to know one I guess
The best way to get lower prices is to buy in volume. You have a fleet of cars and you're going to be buying oil changes all the time, you set up a deal with the local oil change guy that is a reduced rate of his regular $30 that he charges for an oil change. That makes utter sense to you, doesn't it? .... More over, since he has more cars to change the oil in, maybe he helps the economy and he hires another guy to catch the overflow.
Now, please tell me why that can't work with the government acting for all Americans with the health care system?
Quick dose of reality, Healthcare is not car care. The providing a service is NOT equal to selling a car or maintaining a car, and neither are Health care providers equal to some Used Car Salesman. Are you now advocating Universal Car Care Coverage??
-
The VA buys meds in volume so it can get better bargains. Surely you're not against this?
That is what some congressmen are proposing we do for Medicare. That is a good idea.
-
Volume buying on some drugs might work well.
Wall Mart is improveing the deal on generics .
But if there is a loss n each sale volume is not the answer.
-
Plane, every country that has universal health care gets drugs at a bargain rate because they say, OK, we need X Purple Pills for the year 2008. And then they bargain for them. A whole country bargains with your company to buy medicine? That's a great sale. You know how much to make, you have job security, you have no ad budget in that country---no need to. Your company saves money there, the country saves money, people are able to afford medicine --->allows them not to get sicker--->allows them not to end up in ICU--->>saves money in the end.
-
Quick dose of reality, Healthcare is not car care. The providing a service is NOT equal to selling a car or maintaining a car, and neither are Health care providers equal to some Used Car Salesman. Are you now advocating Universal Car Care Coverage??
This diversionary reply is proof that you don't want to discuss the merits of universal health care.
Single payer makes us, the customer, equal to the industry and not subject to their demands. If they have one huge customer that demands lower rates then we'll get lower rates.
-
This diversionary reply is proof that you don't want to discuss the merits of universal health care. Single payer makes us, the customer, equal to the industry and not subject to their demands. If they have one huge customer that demands lower rates then we'll get lower rates.
Your definition of diversion is none the less an ignorance of current reality. I simply need look no further than those countries that do provide Universal healthcare, and continuously thank God I live in America. Amazing how you can deplore the government being in control of so many aspects of life, and yet so ready to roll over and hand them over a huge junk of it. :-\
-
You act like the government is some disconnected group with no controls on it.
You and I are supposed to be the government. Unfortunately, we have to look at it as a second job since those elected tend to think no one is looking and lose sight of what they're supposed to be doing.
You act like your congressman will be deciding who gets a band aid and who doesn't when the reality is YOU will decide if you need a bandaid or a shot or a doctor visit or whatever and you just go get it.
You have to wait in line NOW when you go to the doctor generally. You won't see a diff.
-
You act like the government is some disconnected group with no controls on it.
I guess that depends who's in office now, doesn't it. If it's someone with an R, well, the country's going to go down in flames. If they have a D, well then it'll be our savior. Especially if his 1st name is Bill, right?
You act like your congressman will be deciding who gets a band aid and who doesn't when the reality is YOU will decide if you need a bandaid or a shot or a doctor visit or whatever and you just go get it.
Wrong Brass, it'll be Government bureacrats and layer upon layer of Government employees hired/appointed by other Government employees, making the decisions. I realize the effort to equate us with Government, but it won't be "us" deciding when we get seen, what tests will be payed for, what procedures will be approved, what actions will be re-imbursed. And in the end, after the service is provided, still the potential remains that the person(s) who provided the service will NOT get payed for it.
You have to wait in line NOW when you go to the doctor generally. You won't see a diff.
You're trying to make a joke, right?
-
Let's see how Arnold's plan for Universal Healthcare unfolds.
States should be the incubator for any national program anyways.
-
Let's see how Arnold's plan for Universal Healthcare unfolds. States should be the incubator for any national program anyways.
A state with an already horrendously poor borrowing rating, is going to borrow more money to "pay off debt" we still have, and going to raise taxes on Dr's & Hospitals to pay for universal health care including upon illegal immigrants. What a great incentive for Dr's to come here or those here to stay :P
-
I simply need look no further than those countries that do provide Universal healthcare, and continuously thank God I live in America.
You mean like Ireland, whose people are wealthier than Americans?
You mean like Sweden, whose people live much longer, are more productive, and have much more leisure time?
You mean like Norway, whose people have more purchasing power and live longer than Americans?
You mean like Germany, France, Netherlands, and Canada who all have higher life expectancies?
And guess what, they pay less[/i] for healthcare than we do.
Yes, that is one pathetic argument you have there.
-
You mean like Ireland, like Sweden, like Norway, like Germany, France, Netherlands, and Canada...And guess what, they pay less[/i] for healthcare than we do.
Yes, that is one pathetic argument you have there.
Yea, those countries who don't have near the GDP we have, that have no where near the other domestic & foreign expenses we have, those countries that don't have near the freedoms we have, those countries that don't have near the llines and waiting periods for elective and non-emergent procedures that we have. Yea, and guess what, we pay more in just about everything else than they do. I won't even mention the military budget.
So yea, like those
-
A state with an already horrendously poor borrowing rating, is going to borrow more money to "pay off debt" we still have, and going to raise taxes on Dr's & Hospitals to pay for universal health care including upon illegal immigrants. What a great incentive for Dr's to come here or those here to stay
If that is the way Arnold laid out the program, so be it.
If it works, then good on him. If iit doesn't we have an american style track record to look back on.
I still say it should be funded locally by sales tax.
-
I simply need look no further than those countries that do provide Universal healthcare, and continuously thank God I live in America.
You mean like Ireland, whose people are wealthier than Americans?
You mean like Sweden, whose people live much longer, are more productive, and have much more leisure time?
You mean like Norway, whose people have more purchasing power and live longer than Americans?
You mean like Germany, France, Netherlands, and Canada who all have higher life expectancies?
And guess what, they pay less[/i] for healthcare than we do.
Yes, that is one pathetic argument you have there.
Is there one, amoung these contries, that has more Americans wanting in ,than it has citizens of its own wanting to become Americans?
This is a test that America passes pretty well but why?
-
I simply need look no further than those countries that do provide Universal healthcare, and continuously thank God I live in America.
You mean like Ireland, whose people are wealthier than Americans?
You mean like Sweden, whose people live much longer, are more productive, and have much more leisure time?
You mean like Norway, whose people have more purchasing power and live longer than Americans?
You mean like Germany, France, Netherlands, and Canada who all have higher life expectancies?
And guess what, they pay less[/i] for healthcare than we do.
Yes, that is one pathetic argument you have there.
If these programs work for a single generaton or even two that is not suffecint , if a uniersal health care system were to fail in the third or fourth generation it would be worse than if they had failed sooner, I am glad that the experiment is being made , but it strikes me as a case of a perpetual motion machine that surprises everyone when it runs down.
How pasing all the money through government beaurocrcys causes increased effeciencys mystifys me , I am a civil servant myself and when our chain of command wants to increase effeciency they attempt to emulate private enterprise.
-
Yea, those countries who don't have near the GDP we have
They don't have 300 million people. You did have to take math didn't you?
that have no where near the other domestic & foreign expenses we have
Do you mean nominal expenses, because again that's just a dumb argument? If you mean as a percentage (say of GDP) then I'd like to see your evidence of that. I mean real evidence Sirs, because honestly you've lacked evidence in many of the previous debates we've had and I want to see something real this time. I'll grant you that they spend less on healthcare than we do, but hey that was a part of my point!
those countries that don't have near the freedoms we have
Name a freedom you don't have in one of those countries. Start naming them Sirs. I want to read a list and keep in mind I'm from Germany. I want to know the horrible oppression that takes place in those nations. I look forward to that list.
those countries that don't have near the llines and waiting periods for elective and non-emergent procedures that we have
So? Amazingly they live longer without them. Why is that?
Yea, and guess what, we pay more in just about everything else than they do.
As a percentage of the total budget? Well Sirs, let me help you with Math. There is a total of 100%. We cannot possibly pay more of everything in every category than all of those countries lest our total exceed 100%. Try again, and this time think before typing.
(Perhaps if we spent more on Mathematics education).
I won't even mention the military budget.
And it is doing us a hell of a lot of good in Iraq. Why should Sweden pay more than they do on military spending? The UK is our ally, but you badmouth them as well. Nice.
Daft arguments. Come back with evidence. I look forward to your list and your evidence.
-
Is there one, amoung these contries, that has more Americans wanting in ,than it has citizens of its own wanting to become Americans?
Meaningless. Americans in general aren't very migratory.
If these programs work for a single generaton or even two that is not suffecint , if a uniersal health care system were to fail in the third or fourth generation it would be worse than if they had failed sooner, I am glad that the experiment is being made , but it strikes me as a case of a perpetual motion machine that surprises everyone when it runs down.
The UK has had the NHS since 1948. Next year will be its third generation.
How pasing all the money through government beaurocrcys causes increased effeciencys mystifys me , I am a civil servant myself and when our chain of command wants to increase effeciency they attempt to emulate private enterprise.
Having worked in both it really doesn't surprise me.
-
Is there one, amoung these contries, that has more Americans wanting in ,than it has citizens of its own wanting to become Americans?
This is a test that America passes pretty well but why?
=======================================================
This has little or nothing to do with healthcare. People who immigrate are nearly all young and very ambitious people, and in great health. Heathcare is probably the last thing on their minds.
I don't think that the difference between Swedes, Norwegians and Irish who want to become US citizens is all that different from Amenricans who seek to become Swedes, Norskis or Irish. They are way down the list of prospective immigrants, in any case.
-
Is there one, amoung these contries, that has more Americans wanting in ,than it has citizens of its own wanting to become Americans?
Meaningless. Americans in general aren't very migratory.
Great deflection Js. Plane demonstrates an ominous comparison, but you brush it right under the rug. So, only Americans are not very migratory, and yet the flocks of folks we get all seem to come here vs those other heavenly locales you mentioned. Why is that? Tunnel Vision? Stircter (read; less free) immigration standards/requirements?
I won't even mention the military budget.[/qote]
And it is doing us a hell of a lot of good in Iraq. Why should Sweden pay more than they do on military spending?
Because our constitution mandates a military defense. I doubt very seriously Sweden could repel any agreesive take over attempt by some other hostile nation, if that were to ever occur. It does NOT mandate universal healthcare
Name a freedom you don't have in one of those countries. ...I want to know the horrible oppression that takes place in those nations
[/color]
Somehow, not surprisingly unfortunately, we went to my reference as not as many freedoms as the U.S. to "horrible oppression" by all these other countries you cited. I tell you what Js, when you can start representing my comments accurately & honestly, I'll be more inclined to provide greater detail to my responses.
-
Great deflection Js. Plane demonstrates an ominous comparison, but you brush it right under the rug. So, only Americans are not very migratory, and yet the flocks of folks we get all seem to come here vs those other heavenly locales you mentioned. Why is that? Tunnel Vision? Stircter (read; less free) immigration standards/requirements?
You act like nobody ever moves to these other countries. I would like to see some real numbers on people who WANT to move to certain countries. Most other countries have a lower percentage of immigration because they are choosier about who they let in and are concerned about the population of their nation. Whether that is "right" or "wrong" is another discussion.
You guys seem to live under the delusion that everyone in the world is just salivating over the thought of moving to the US. And if they are, I'd bet the number one reason they would want to move ihere would be "The US won't be invading the US and bombing everybody to death."
-
Great deflection Js. Plane demonstrates an ominous comparison, but you brush it right under the rug. So, only Americans are not very migratory, and yet the flocks of folks we get all seem to come here vs those other heavenly locales you mentioned. Why is that? Tunnel Vision? Stircter (read; less free) immigration standards/requirements?
You act like nobody ever moves to these other countries.
Never said or implied such. the implication was in why are there not mass amounts of folks flocking to those other countries, like they are to us. You don't hear of such huge amounts of immigration literally overwhelming any of those other countries, and they're a fraction of our size. Those answers continue to be provided, but continue to be ignored.
-
Great deflection Js. Plane demonstrates an ominous comparison, but you brush it right under the rug. So, only Americans are not very migratory, and yet the flocks of folks we get all seem to come here vs those other heavenly locales you mentioned. Why is that? Tunnel Vision? Stircter (read; less free) immigration standards/requirements?
Show me the statistics. You and Plane made an assertion Sirs. Show me the statistics of how many from each of the countries I mentioned moved to the United States in 2006 (or 2005). Then show me how many Americans moved to those nations. Then we can discuss variables that might lead them to move.
Because our constitution mandates a military defense. I doubt very seriously Sweden could repel any agreesive take over attempt by some other hostile nation, if that were to ever occur. It does NOT mandate universal healthcare
When was the last time Sweden was succesfully invaded? The United Kingdom? Care to venture a guess? Oh that's right - before the United States ever existed. I'd say their track record is pretty damn good. Who is going to invade Sweden? Denmark? Finland? Norway?
Come back when you have a grown up argument.
I tell you what Js, when you can start representing my comments accurately & honestly, I'll be more inclined to provide greater detail to my responses.
It was on purpose, and you of course did the same to me with "heavenly locales."
Now, do you have the information or not? Seriously Sirs. Is your argument based on fact or are you simply making this stuff up?
Please tell me what freedoms are denied in the nations I listed that are allowed in the United States.
Please give me the percentages of what we spend more on domestically and foreign compared to those nations.
Or were you blowing smoke?
-
Hogwash.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_new_cit_pergdp-immigration-new-citizenships-per-gdp (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_new_cit_pergdp-immigration-new-citizenships-per-gdp)
-
Then there's this.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_new_cit-immigration-new-citizenships (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_new_cit-immigration-new-citizenships)
-
Great deflection Js. Plane demonstrates an ominous comparison, but you brush it right under the rug. So, only Americans are not very migratory, and yet the flocks of folks we get all seem to come here vs those other heavenly locales you mentioned. Why is that? Tunnel Vision? Stircter (read; less free) immigration standards/requirements?
You act like nobody ever moves to these other countries. I would like to see some real numbers on people who WANT to move to certain countries. Most other countries have a lower percentage of immigration because they are choosier about who they let in and are concerned about the population of their nation. Whether that is "right" or "wrong" is another discussion.
You guys seem to live under the delusion that everyone in the world is just salivating over the thought of moving to the US. And if they are, I'd bet the number one reason they would want to move ihere would be "The US won't be invading the US and bombing everybody to death."
Switzerland will accept no immigrants. At all. They also explain to the tourists as they travel through tunnels that the tunnels are wired to explode, given any invasion. The mountains would compliment the obstruction, at least back when.
Given the irony of the Heidi archetype, I find the Swiss to be odious, specious and criminal. Their banking system, which is no culmination of evolution of banking in that country, enables world-wide crime. Everybody who has bucks to hide can do so in Switzerland. They are the world's most efficient fence. If countries were mafioso, Switzerland would be Lansky. As far as White Racists go, they rank above the Reichland and the various hillbilly havens of hate here.
They have placed themselves in exactly the same middle pivot that they all accuse the evil Jews of doing.
Remarkable.
Then there is the pharmetceuticals, which are largely the prevailing criminal cash cow extant.
-
Switzerland will accept no immigrants. At all.
Bullshit.
Naturalization
Swiss citizenship can be acquired through what is called naturalization.
To become naturalized, you need to have resided in Switzerland for at least twelve years, three of which occurred within the five years prior to the request. Time spent in Switzerland between the ages of 10 and 20 years counts double.
Phase one: federal authorization
The request is to be made to the Aliens Police in the municipality of residence. From there, it will then be sent to the Federal Department of Justice and Police, who will give a principle authorization if the following conditions are met:
* You are integrated in the Swiss community.
* You are accustomed to Swiss way of life and practices.
* You comply with the Swiss legal system.
* You in no way compromise the internal or external security of Switzerland.
Since Switzerland is a federal country, authorization must then be obtained from the canton and the municipality.
Phase two: cantonal and municipal decisions
The canton and municipality of residence can add further conditions and set the cost of acquiring citizenship before approving it. Conditions vary greatly from one region to the next. Some municipalities apply rather open policies, while others will go as far as granting nationality by means of a local population vote. Cost also varies according to municipality and canton.
Swiss nationality (http://switzerland.isyours.com/e/immigration/programs//e/immigration/citizenship/index.html)
-
Hogwash.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_new_cit_pergdp-immigration-new-citizenships-per-gdp (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_new_cit_pergdp-immigration-new-citizenships-per-gdp)
I am not getting this one , Immagrants per billion of GDP?
What is the signifigance of this chart ?
That People come less to the US or that the US has more reserve to handle the influx?
-
Then there's this.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_new_cit-immigration-new-citizenships (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_new_cit-immigration-new-citizenships)
That is a lot simpler the US is getting about four times the number of immagrants as the second place country and eight times as many as the third place .
None of these countrys offer the common man enough better of a deal to attract more than they loose?
-
Quote
Yea, those countries who don't have near the GDP we have
They don't have 300 million people. You did have to take math didn't you?
[][][][][][][]
Europe has more than 300 million and there are not nearly as many Americans attempting to become Europeans as there are Europeans wishing to become Americans.
Is there one, amoung these contries, that has more Americans wanting in ,than it has citizens of its own wanting to become Americans?
Meaningless. Americans in general aren't very migratory.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
It would be meaningfull , if the why of it were considered.
If these programs work for a single generaton or even two that is not suffecint , if a uniersal health care system were to fail in the third or fourth generation it would be worse than if they had failed sooner, I am glad that the experiment is being made , but it strikes me as a case of a perpetual motion machine that surprises everyone when it runs down.
The UK has had the NHS since 1948. Next year will be its third generation.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
And yet , the number of Americans attempting to become British citizens is miniscule.
How pasing all the money through government beaurocrcys causes increased effeciencys mystifys me , I am a civil servant myself and when our chain of command wants to increase effeciency they attempt to emulate private enterprise.
Having worked in both it really doesn't surprise me.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
If you understand the reason that Government is presumed to be better , you are ahead of me . In my experience our effeciency as civil servants was enourmously boosted soon after President Reagan made privitazation a real threat to our job security . Now we have less institutional advantage we have to work as if we are really competeing.
-
No evidence yet?
Plane, do you have some evidence on why Europeans become citizens here? My mom, brother, and I are Europeans who became Americans (except my mom who is still a German citizen). I can go into quite a few reasons that I know, but that would be anecdotal and not statistical evidence. You have not proven causality yet. Are you honestly saying that Brits move here to escape the NHS?
Sirs? Anything yet?
You have both made a lot of claims, yet I've seen no evidence to back them up.
-
Sirs? Anything yet? You have both made a lot of claims, yet I've seen no evidence to back them up.
I haven't had the time to just sit down and do the research. Takes time Js. Much more time than just making random responses, observations, and proclaimations. Perhaps I'll have some tomorrow, if that works for you
-
No evidence yet?
Plane, do you have some evidence on why Europeans become citizens here? My mom, brother, and I are Europeans who became Americans (except my mom who is still a German citizen). I can go into quite a few reasons that I know, but that would be anecdotal and not statistical evidence. You have not proven causality yet. Are you honestly saying that Brits move here to escape the NHS?
Sirs? Anything yet?
You have both made a lot of claims, yet I've seen no evidence to back them up.
I will use you.
You could have stayed in Germany and not had to put up with the lousy conditions here.
You could also have looked at the Charts that Brassmak brought in. I thought them suffecient .
Of copurse you could pretend that there are really a lot of Americans frustrated by their inability to become French , but I seldom hear of them.
I consider it well established that the USA offers a better deal to thy common man than any European country .My personal experience haveing been there lead me to settle here , your personal experence haveing been both places is apparently not so diffrent .
Multiply us by the millions who can move and who choose to move and do or don't.
The causality has to be a better deal here , because a better deal there would reverse the trend.
-
I haven't had the time to just sit down and do the research. Takes time Js. Much more time than just making random responses, observations, and proclaimations. Perhaps I'll have some tomorrow, if that works for you
I'll be here. Might I suggest not making such random responses and proclamations next time?
-
Of copurse you could pretend that there are really a lot of Americans frustrated by their inability to become French , but I seldom hear of them.
I consider it well established that the USA offers a better deal to thy common man than any European country .My personal experience haveing been there lead me to settle here , your personal experence haveing been both places is apparently not so diffrent .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The French do not require anyone to 'become French'. They merely prefer that immigrants learn the language and accept the usual French ways of behaving in public. Other than not walking about in cowboy clothes, American Indian costumes, or packing sidearms, I can't think of any ways that a normal American would offend the French in any way.
Most Americans have no real problems with burkhas, headscarves, and religious ornamentation, after all, and that is what ticks the French off the most these days. I spent 16 days all around France and had a great time, and did not note any hostility to me at all, and my French is not that great.
Most Western Europeans do not even consider coming to the US seriously. Young university graduates frequently find the lack of well-paying jobs and a sense of adventure the main reason for wanting to work in the US. Those that get married to US citizens tend to stay, others just go home.
Mostly it is not the 'common man' that comes to the US: it is far more often university graduates, especially those with good skills in English that come here.
-
I will use you.
You could have stayed in Germany and not had to put up with the lousy conditions here.
See, this is where this argument degenerates. I don't believe that conditions in the United States are lousy nor do I believe that conditions in many European nations are lousy either.
For some reason though I hear phrases like "Thank God I live here" or "this is the free-est country on Earth" or "we have the best xxxx in the world" and when one enquires further there is little evidence to support such grandiose notions. I find that happens much less frequently with Europeans than it does with Americans. It is an interesting phenomenon.
I moved to the United States because my father was transferred to Fort Knox and it wasn't like I had a whole lot of choice in the matter.
What I don't understand is why people think we are so damned special. Yes, we do great things here. But so do the British, Germans, French, Africans, Chinese, etc. It isn't blasphemy to admit that things are rather nice in Sweden. Hey, Britain is a decent country in some respects. What is so awful about that?
I don't think it is nationalism. For sure it is with some. But in many cases, I think it is this religious devotion to the free market. It is truly blasphemous that Sweden has more productive workers or that socialized healthcare in these countries is actually costing them less! And amazingly British pharmacueticals as well as French are developing new and amazing drugs and doctors are developing new techniques. I don't think it is Old Glory being hurt in many people's eyes, but their pre-conceived notions about Europe and free-market economics (which Europe practices more than many of you recognise).
In many ways this view repeats itself in other aspects such as the war on terror. People here wonder why other nations hold us in such low esteem. Look at how we awoke after 11 September and then directed other countries in how to respond to terrorism. Hell, many of them have been dealing with it for decades and we acted as if it was new to the world.
I watched a television program on Discovery Times discussing (in part) the flu epidemic of 1914. It revealed that right now a majority of Americans polled believe that an American invented the automobile and an American discovered penicillin. So, I don't find these attitudes surprising - just detrimental.
-
Americans hear all the time "This is the greatest country on Earth" again and again and again. The same people I hear saying this strangely, prefer Toyotas, Mazdas, Nissans and VWs made in Mexico, and those who don't drive Chevvies made in Canada with Daewoo engines and usually aren't even aware of it. They wear nothing made of American fabric, nothing sewn by Americans. But somehow, the US is still the greatest place on Earth. Most of the Americans I know would only venture abroad on a cruise designed for Americans. Staffed by Norwegian officers, Chinese sailors and Caribbean waiters, with a shopping spree in some island every two days or so. That is an exotic Overseas Adventure for them. There are many, of course that prefer the bogus foreign nations one visits in Disney World.
Like Barnum and Bailey proclaiming itself "The Greatest Show on Earth", Americans like to proclaim "The USA is the Greatest Country on Earth". It is not a logical statement. It is a religion. Just like about half the people I know tell me they expect to see Jesus before they die. So this is not a subject that can be argued logically, just as religion cannot be argued logically with a believer.
The US is better at some things, but certainly not all things. Our plumbing (other than the absence of bidets) second to none. The bread that most Americans eat is second to all.
But we can get good bread for a price. Mostly, I live here because I am from here. I understand the US better than I would anywhere else. This isn't a matter for logic, it's a matter of habit. I do enjoy getting away from time to time, though.
-
I watched a television program on Discovery Times discussing (in part) the flu epidemic of 1914. It revealed that right now a majority of Americans polled believe that an American invented the automobile and an American discovered penicillin. So, I don't find these attitudes surprising - just detrimental.
Most people have a poor knowledge of history. They seem to think that anyone who lived prior to the 20th century were all of lower intelligence, among other idiotic things.
-
They seem to think that anyone who lived prior to the 20th century were all of lower intelligence, among other idiotic things.
========================================================================
Pretty much any depiction of people in movies or on TV presents those that lived in previous centuries to be pretty stupid.
The exception is the "Connecticut Yankee" sort of plot (as on Wild, Wild West) where there are a couple of geniuses who have somehow had the future revealed to them, and are just like us: superior and smart.
The "Greatest Country on Earth" syndrome has its counterpart in "This is the Greatest Time to be Alive" . ('It's Morning in America' beats National malaise every day)
Here and now is always better than there and then.
It's sort of like what Granny Yoakum used to say "Good is better than evil, because its NICER!"
It's all a sort of folk religion.
-
They seem to think that anyone who lived prior to the 20th century were all of lower intelligence, among other idiotic things.
I wonder how many of them have read Shakespeare, Aquinas, Kant, or for that matter read some newspapers from the Civil War era. Though most papers from that time are very biased, I love reading the articles from them as they use some great vocabulary. I couldn't imagine any of our modern papers, even in an editorial, using the eloquent language used in that day.
Today we get the USA Today 4th grade version of events *sigh*
-
I haven't had the time to just sit down and do the research. Takes time Js. Much more time than just making random responses, observations, and proclaimations. Perhaps I'll have some tomorrow, if that works for you
I'll be here. Might I suggest not making such random responses and proclamations next time?
No promises
-
The Dow had another record close today, its third straight. If Bill Clinton were president, or some other Democrat, the media would be jumping up and down like they were during the 90's. I notice a huge difference in the way the mainstream media is coving the economy now.
-
They seem to think that anyone who lived prior to the 20th century were all of lower intelligence, among other idiotic things.
this is soo wrong
ben franklin,thomas jefferson
these guys are far from dumb by TODAYS standards.
also I actually looked up trying to make pennicillian.
that is no simple feat .
to discover it and make it usable without the benefit of prior knowledge like I did is really incredible
P.S. it`s not just made from any old molds.
notice we never hear of people making their own.
-
If Bill Clinton were president, or some other Democrat, the media would be jumping up and down like they were during the 90's. I notice a huge difference in the way the mainstream media is coving the economy now.
============================
If some Democrat were president, there would be no warin Iraq, perhaps no first giulf war, either. There would be no pissing away of bazillions of dollars on said useless war.
Republicans have mostly served to do one of two things: they screw up miserably, as in the case of the Depression and Iraq, or they take a Democratic screw-up like Vietnam and make it a whole lot worse. Of course, had Dulles refused to shake Ho Chi Minh's hand in the 40's, who knows what might have happened in Vietnam?
The US returning it to the French after the Japanese left was a major bad idea, and mostly due to Dulles, one of the least useful Republicans ever.
-
If some Democrat were president, there would be no warin Iraq, perhaps no first giulf war, either. There would be no pissing away of bazillions of dollars on said useless war.
Republicans have mostly served to do one of two things: they screw up miserably, as in the case of the Depression and Iraq, or they take a Democratic screw-up like Vietnam and make it a whole lot worse. Of course, had Dulles refused to shake Ho Chi Minh's hand in the 40's, who knows what might have happened in Vietnam?
The US returning it to the French after the Japanese left was a major bad idea, and mostly due to Dulles, one of the least useful Republicans ever.
OK, OK, I get it. You hate Republicans and you love Democrats. So does the mainstream media. Thus, their biased reporting and downplaying of the booming economy under a Republican president, and exaggerating it and hyping it for a Democrat (Clinton). The stock market is going nuts. You've had 3 straight closes setting new highs for the Dow. Airline stocks are going nuts. You have a piece of any of those? I've owned AMR since last year and loving it.
-
If Bill Clinton were president, or some other Democrat, the media would be jumping up and down like they were during the 90's. I notice a huge difference in the way the mainstream media is coving the economy now.
============================
If some Democrat were president, there would be no warin Iraq, perhaps no first giulf war, either. There would be no pissing away of bazillions of dollars on said useless war.
Republicans have mostly served to do one of two things: they screw up miserably, as in the case of the Depression and Iraq, or they take a Democratic screw-up like Vietnam and make it a whole lot worse. Of course, had Dulles refused to shake Ho Chi Minh's hand in the 40's, who knows what might have happened in Vietnam?
The US returning it to the French after the Japanese left was a major bad idea, and mostly due to Dulles, one of the least useful Republicans ever.
How many Democrat Presidents have not had a warduring their tenure?
Please count the necessacery and unnecssacery wars both , but choose your own cut off date.
-
The Dow closed today, Feb. 1, at another record high. The S&P 500 is also at a 6 year high. Plane was right on the money with his recommendation of oil stocks. Pretty much every one of them is surging. I'm going to buy more on a pullback.
-
The Dow closed today, Feb. 1, at another record high. The S&P 500 is also at a 6 year high. Plane was right on the money with his recommendation of oil stocks. Pretty much every one of them is surging. I'm going to buy more on a pullback.
I wish I could jump that way myself , but I am committed in real estate investment right now.