If this board is a microcosm of society at large, apparently so. Aside from the "birther paranoia nonsense" floating around, this seems to be the sentiment on this board as I stated earlier :"Buncha "Rand cultist sheep" that wanna ban all unions & hurl this country back to the 19th century, turning it into a pre Teddy Roosevelt business monopoly/oligarchy." 2 of thse aforementioned "loonies" pretend to be "rich", while a third "cultist" is preparing to fly to Jonestown to prepare DDT kool-aid.
As much as this pains me to admit it, the U.S. is basically a pragmatic "center right country"; those who embody this approach on the board include St Croix, Dnc Phil, GaG, John Galt ( WTF is he these days ? ). You can generally engage these guys in sensible & intelligent debate. If I've left anyone else out, please lemme know. As for the rest------they provide me with MUCH unintentional humor-----LOL !
Where does this conservative insanity emanate from ?! The blame squarely rests on crazed right wing media which is the tail that's wagging the "conservative dog" in these tough economic times.
-- Modified on 3/7/2011 4:39:37 PM
More proof that liberals/progressives/whatevers like Priapussy have no interest in reality or engaging their opponents in a rational, civilized discussion, and can only respond with strawman arguments and personal attacks.
I have stated, very clearly and without equivocation, that unions, if organized voluntarily and peacefully, without legislation to force employers to deal with them, can play an important and useful role in the economy. No follower of Ayn Rand would want to ban them.
You continually misrepresent what others say. I have no idea if there are "birthers" on this forum. When I first heard that Obama may not be a natural born American citizen, I was hopeful that it might disqualify him from serving as president, but I have been convinced that this is a false hope. I agree that birthers are conspiracy theorists. But given all your other misrepresentations, I wonder if any you accuse of being birthers actually are.
I have not seen any evidence that you are capable of "sensible & intelligent debate". If you were, you would actually reply to people's arguments, instead of the strawman arguments and personal attacks.
Do they actually teach courses in constructing and knocking down strawmen in liberal colleges? You must have aced that course.
you might find the following interesting :
-- Modified on 3/7/2011 5:42:08 PM
Overwhelm him with your intellect. You the man!
or Fey_Ruse ? Permutations are endless.
Ok----enuff sophomoric crap-----out for the night ! Everyone else carry on w/ topic at hand !-----
Yes. Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Whine Rand — how did you know? You get some sleep and dream up some more topics. There's a big day ahead of you tomorrow.
Atta boy pria, your subject line says everything about why many here do not take you seriously. But you are one helluva speller. Oh, except you fucked up 'lobotomized', lmao.
-- Modified on 3/7/2011 6:48:41 PM
hey----it's one thing to falsely accuse me of living with my Mother------but, dude, NEVER call me a bad speller---LOL !
& who doesn't take me seriously here ?!--The "Rand sheep" ?-------doesn't bother me in the least------all I can say is "BAAAA-AAAA"--
YOU NEVER HAVE RATIONAL DEBATE!!!!
In fact, you can never really back up anything you say.
You are so weak at debating you simply go to personal attacks right away.
No wonder everyone thinks you live with your mother, you act like it 
I find it quite odd that while the "free market" Rand cultists seem to like to talk a good game about allowing unions, and getting rid of corporate subsidies (or sometimes if you're lucky, getting rid of corporations all together), when push comes to shove they're far more prone to defend the most horrific business practices against any protection against those practices.
I find it interesting how liberals think its all about the money.
An economy grows by increasing capital investment. The more is invested in production, the less money there is for consumption spending. Production increases, production costs fall, and consumer prices fall, leading to an increase in REAL WAGES.
Its not about the money. (though I assume your graph is adjusted for inflation)
Its about consumer goods, which have become more available to middle class consumers.
Our food supply has become more secure over this time period, and more varied, safer, and better quality. Transportation has become faster and more available to more people. So has communication, exploding with the expansion of the internet and cellular communication.
In every way, life has become better for the middle class, except in those industries that are most controlled by the government, namely health care and housing.
As for unions, I am bout to post a new thread on that subject.
You correctly note that food has become safer and transportation hs become faster. Do you think possibly that the FDA's oversight of food production safety, as well as the construction of the Interstate Hightway System had anything to do with that? Your tax dollars at work.
Actually, the FDA is an impediment to progress. See the link below.
Real progress in food safety comes from technological and industrial advances such as better packaging, refrigeration, food irradiation, artificial fertilizers replacing natural ones that can harbor disease organisms, and so on. The FDA actually plays a very small role, when it isn't actually getting in the way.
Interstate highways could just as easily have been built privately, and probably much more efficiently. What we have now is a system plagued by traffic congestion and unused roads and bridges to nowhere.
And I've certainly never heard of this organization so perhaps you can reveal its bona fides. As for the article itself, I was hoping for something a little less than 13 years old. It may be correct, I don't know, but by itself it's hardly a broad indictment of the FDA.
What voters from both political parties should focus on, is using the primary to vote in the best possible candidate to parade in front of the independent voters. You see, the voting blocs for both republicans and democrats are just about equal in size, and its the indy voters who make the final call on who gets elected. For either voting bloc to launch an offensive on the philosophy of the opponent, is basically to waste energy that could end up hurting the very candidate that they are trying to get elected to further their chosen agendas. BOTH parties are dirty to the indy voters, equally dirty. For this government to function at the highest level, both philosophies need to be employed. One philosophy for a certain program, the opposite philosophy for another. When it becomes winner take all, we all lose.
Just my opinion
ps....please let me know what media outlet besides Fox is decidedly conservative? As an indy voter I swear that's the only one I know of in the entire shooting match.
Good points, all. No reason I can think of not to post them under your handle, but what the hell. You've highlighted exactly what's the problem with the primary process. Since only the most motivated (read Partisan) voters vote in the primaries, the only way to win is to pander to the extreme of either party. Then, in the general election, you've got to run back to the middle, which is where the election will be won. The result: hypocrisy. Which leads to cynicism on the part of intelligent voters.
Rand favored a free market. She discusses her understanding of capitalism in her book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" indicating that the ideas you are attributing to her have no direct role in her philosophy.
Modern corporatism has nothing in common with capitalism as Rand understood it. Because of both the highly regulated nature of business processes, tax codes which bias certain decisions and so forth; a free enterprise can hardly exist. Furthermore, because of corporate welfare and what she calls "pull politics" in which people either buy-off politicians in order to erect regulations as a barrier to entry for competitors and also biased treatment of some companies over others; we do not have anything even close to a free market in which, for just the capital needed for machinery, materials and starting wages, anyone can start a car company.
In a Randian economy, unions would not be necessary because enterprise would be free, thereby allowing for entry of competitors into markets as opposed to oligarchies. The free competition would also be competition for labor, which would reverse the situation in which many workers find themselves as being powerless pawns. Hence, unions would not be necessary for productive workers.
True, she (and I) have a philosophical objection to unions on the basis of their enforcement of treatment without regard to merit that tends to bring performance down rather than up and to stifle the efforts of the best and brightest by promoting less capable people ahead of them due to longevity and making it problematic to pay them more than others if they are more productive. I believe these objections are valid.
Nevertheless, I'd say you are misunderstanding Rand's conception and advocacies regarding free markets and free enterprise. Both Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and The Anti-Industrial Revolution by her will prove interesting reading.
I'm afraid I am pretty much balls to the wall these days with a number of projects. But I'll poke my head up if someone nudges me. LOL
John, I realize you're just stating Rands opinion, and it may or may not reflect directly your opinions on the subject, but I'm going to assume that you agree with them for the purposes of discussion here.
You're quite right that modern corporatism has many problems which you cite, many of which I happen to agree with, but a fundamental aspect of markets in my view, regardless of whatever rules you apply to it, is that no enterprise can survive unless it maximizes profit. There's various means to do this, but as Adam Smith noted, "capitalists left to their own devices would rather collude than compete." The wager here is whether a free market would actually lower this bar for entry, and if so, would stimulate this competition over collusion.
In my mind, the likelihood of collusion is quite high, and the establishment of cartels controling resources (like raw materials, machinery, etc.) would create a greater bar of entry for competitors, then if we had the public having some input to make rules for the game.
And as profit is maximized, a few gain more resources to use to stamp out competition.
"True, she (and I) have a philosophical objection to unions on the basis of their enforcement of treatment without regard to merit that tends to bring performance down rather than up"
This could be the case. Or, workers that are equally paid well, and are free from a demoralizing environment could be more productive. Regardless, markets naturally stimulates greater efficiency (often by making others pay those costs), and if there is no one who can afford to buy those goods, you end up in trouble. Bringing down efficiency can have net positive results.
"and to stifle the efforts of the best and brightest"
I think it's a bit of an assumption that any enterprise will promote the best and the brightest. I think they're more likely to promote someone with charm over brains, which I so rudely found out in the private sector, lol. Barbara Ehrenreich noted in her book Bait & Switch that corporations spend some ungodly amount of money teaching their executives basic English, a fact that often tickles me when I think of it.
Good luck on your endeavors, perhaps you can stop by here and tell us about some of them when you have some more time on your hands.
-- Modified on 3/8/2011 1:09:23 AM
I agree with you entirely, on everything except two points.
I don't think it is accidental misunderstanding. A lot of it is intentional lies. How is it possible to repeat the same mistake, after being corrected so many times?
And I don't think Ayn Rand thought unions would be unnecessary in a free market. If you remember, one character in Atlas Shrugged is Tom Colby, the head of the Rearden Steel Workers' Union.
On p 554 and 555, there is a conversation between Hank Rearden and Tom Colby. Unions can represent an important line of communication between workers and management. It is when unions gain political power or use intimidation that they create real problems.
working out? (2) Troops out of Iraq - Obama budget recommendations are to increase spending in Iraq and Afghanistan to 600 billion dollars (3) Mortgage foreclosure relief - 2,000,000 families lost their homes since 2009.
Another area President Obama has let down the left is not pushing for single-payer health care insurance. My suggestion to the leftists, liberals, progressives or whatever you want to call yourselves is to stop bellyaching about the birthers and whining about the right-wing cultists and start holding the President you elected, accountable. By accountability I mean start, by performing the job a President is constitutionally required to do and that is enforcing the law.
President Obama has failed to enforce EPA, OSHA, DOT regulations etc. Chile saves 33 men buried in earth. While here in America, twenty-three men died in the biggest mining diaster since the 1920's and the owners got away with some fines. OBama promised relief after Haitian earthquake and not a single house has been built. Right-wing Chile has 9.3 earthquake and they hum along.
But most of all President Obama has failed to put anyone in jail for the financial fiasco of 2008. Only Bernie Madoff has gone to jail and that was because he made the mistake of stealing from rich clients. Trillions were stolen and Obama hired the fox to guard the chicken coop with Geintner, Summers et al to head the treasury and SEC, respectively. When President Bush took office, heads rolled and CEOs went to jail who defrauded investors in Enron, World Com, Tyco, Martha Stewart Inc. etc.
The blame is not the "crazed right wing media" it's Obama himself. So, tell me what kind of kool-aid does Obama make you drink to buy his bullshit. There is more, but you really don't want a rational debate, you prefer to name call and whine about "Rand cultish sheep". Ba!Ba!Ba!!
It's always amazed me at how good the right wing media machine is at convincing the especially poor people in red states to vote against their own interests.
The right wing is very conscious of the fact that there are many more registered Democrats than Republicans, and the only chance they have of winning elections is either to somehow appeal to the center, or to commit election fraud. The latter is a likely reason that conservatives always push to get electronic voting machines with no audit trails approved everywhere they can. But I digress.
Somewhere on this board there is a list of all the new bills passed by the newly elected Republican conservative majority in the House. We have all sorts of bills, bills to ban abortion nine ways till Tuesday, a birther bill for entertainment, bills to ban the EPA from doing their job, bills to provide more tax breaks to the wealthy, and a bill to empower the Speaker of the House (that's a new power grab, chuckle) to enforce someone's idea of what marriage should be. We even have a bill to deny healthcare coverage to Americans who will need it the most. Good work, guys, you thought of everything.
Entertaining, and amusing, but not a single bill in the bunch actually benefits Americans who need it most. No jobs bill, no education bill, no job training bill, no extension of unemployment benefits, no support to Americans trying to get back on their feet at all.
God, guns, gays. I guess having a gun can come in handy if you need to stick up a gas station so you can feed your family. Praise God.
I'll never understand red state support for conservative causes, but I am in awe of their marketing. Maybe I'll copy it for my businesses....let's see. how do I fold in God, guns, gays to my product line?
I could not possibly disagree with someone, more than I do with you and your post. The main thing I disagree with is your assertion that the dems have a much larger registered voting bloc than repubs. That is patently false. I stated the truth in my post above, the two parties have virtually the same size blocs. The deciding votes will be cast by independent voters. The independent voters will vote for change in the next general election. The change will involve removing more incumbents from office. Since there are more dem incumbents at this time, more dems will be removed than repubs. The link below explains some things for you, as it was written in 2008 before the indies helped vote Obama in and also gave the dems a majority everywhere. Note that the lead changed drastically ONLY because of independent votes. Those votes have now dramatically shifted the other way, toward the repubs. To see if I'm right, just wait until the next general election.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/933/a-closer-look-at-the-parties-in-2008
When voters like you attack, and you do it with vitriol like you have, you lose credibility with voters such as myself, the independents. That means your party's message loses credibility too.
Your post proves my point, precisely.
You are certainly free to disagree with any post, and I encourage you to do so, it makes for a more vibrant board.
However, that does not change the voter registration numbers, nor the list of bills cleared by the new House.
If every registered voter voted party line, Democrats would win most of the elections, it's all in the turnout, another reason maybe whenever you hear of voting suppression or voter challenges, it's usually being done by Republicans.
I didn't see any vitriol in my post, maybe you just don't like reading the truth in the message.