NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

[Jose]

(remember the prepends?)

> In 1993, he
> showed a group of children a drawing of a chubby black child dressed
> up as a policeman, followed by photos of several adults, each of whom
> had two of the three traits: being black, chubby and dressed as a
> policeman. Asked to decide which person was the boy as a grown-up,
> most children chose a black adult even though he was either not
> overweight or minus a police uniform. "Kids appear to believe," says
> Hirschfeld, "that race is more important than other physical
> differences in determining what sort of person one is."

Being chubby and being a policeman are changable traits. Skin color is
not (unless you are a rock star). Therefore, the conclusion (in this
summary) is not warranted by the (apparantly flawed) experiment.

The Hammond and Axelrod experiment was interesting though.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> That is my point. Today's Capitalism demands that producers meet the
> lowest price in the marketplace, or face insolvency. That means that
> if one producer is willing to reduce the cost of production through
> unethical or immoral means, all the other producers are FORCED to do
> the same or go broke. The cost-cutting efficiency of Capitalism is
> commendable, but Capitalism's continual dive to the bottom begins to
> cause problems after a certain point. That issue should be addressed.
> Surely, even you can see the truth in what I'm saying.

Hmmm. In light of a prevous post about arbitrary groupings, I find what
you say interesting. What is the difference between outsourcing from
California to Nevada, and outsourcing from California to Korea?

> I for one, would be willing to pay a little more for goods produced in
> the USA, wouldn't you?

No. I'd pay more for higher quality (where quality matters). Higher
quality is often foreign. Higher quality per dollar is also often foreign.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> The way I understand it, Congress has used the money generated by SSI
> payments to fund other federal spending. And now government is faced
> with the issue of a shortfall in funding SSI recipients as a result of
> the "baby-boom" bulge in the retirement aged population.

Also, when SSI started, there were a huge number of wage earners who
were being tapped to pay for the retirements of a small number of
workers. This spread the burden around very thinly. The pyramid has
inverted.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >> Wouldn't you characterize streets awash in homeless retirees a burden
> >> on society?
> >
> >it's not an either-or situation...
>
> What is your rationale for that statement?

The Federal government is not the only possible provider for senior
citizens (notice I didn't say the Feds were a solution).

Do you (Larry) really think that only Social Security prevents the streets
from being awash in homeless retirees?

Maybe families should care for each other. nah, that couldn't possibly work.



> That's not the way FDR saw it.

so what?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Maxwell]

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
>> The way I understand it, Congress has used the money generated by SSI
>> payments to fund other federal spending. And now government is faced
>> with the issue of a shortfall in funding SSI recipients as a result of
>> the "baby-boom" bulge in the retirement aged population.
>
> Also, when SSI started, there were a huge number of wage earners who were
> being tapped to pay for the retirements of a small number of workers.
> This spread the burden around very thinly. The pyramid has inverted.
>
> Jose

Agreed. I think people living longer for a number of reasons has added to
the list as well.

My point is, the government TAKES our money to fund our retirement because
we all realize far too many people cannot be trusted to fund their own
retirement. But the government themselves have proven they can't be trusted
with the money as either.

That's why it ticks me that I can't opt out and do my own thing. We all know
there are much better deals to be had. And many of us would manage our own
fund much better than the fed has.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> The way I understand it, Congress has used the money generated by SSI
> payments to fund other federal spending. And now government is faced
> with the issue of a shortfall in funding SSI recipients as a result of
> the "baby-boom" bulge in the retirement aged population.

That's not the only cause of the shortfall.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Apparently you are just not old enough to simply look around yourself to
>> answer that question junior.
>
> I have, and I don't see any indication that people are spending large sums
> of
> money on electronics. Most people have a standard complement of
> electronic
> gadgets, but their total cost still isn't very significant.
>

Then you must be blind as well.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> What is your rationale for that statement? That's not the way FDR saw it.
>

FDR was wrong.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 28, 6:07 am, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> > On Apr 26, 1:37 pm, kontiki > wrote:
>
> > . On top of that, the BIGGEST benefactor
> >> odf rising gas prices IS government. Federal and state governments
> >> make more off a gallon gass through taxes than the oil companies do.

> I'm sure others can offer similar "horror stories".

All true, maybe. But all irrelevant to your comment about government
profiting off of RISING gas prices. Taxes are "per gallon", not a
percentage of sales price.

The only way government benefits is through more income tax collected
on the rising profits of the company. All of which is a good thing.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:30:29 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> >> Wouldn't you characterize streets awash in homeless retirees a burden
>> >> on society?
>> >
>> >it's not an either-or situation...
>>
>> What is your rationale for that statement?
>
>The Federal government is not the only possible provider for senior
>citizens (notice I didn't say the Feds were a solution).

The federal government is the only entity that is not subject to
Enronization of workers retirement funds. Or do you know of others?

>Do you (Larry) really think that only Social Security prevents the streets
>from being awash in homeless retirees?

I believe that most workers are too shortsighted to provide for their
old age themselves. I have no source to support that, but I have
lived long enough to understand human behavior a bit.

>Maybe families should care for each other. nah, that couldn't possibly work.
>

And what do you propose for those without families, or whose families
are unable to afford supporting older workers?

>
>
>> That's not the way FDR saw it.
>
>so what?

So better minds than ours have hashed this issue out long ago, and
come to the conclusion that SSI was a beneficial plan in the '30s, and
I don't see how the situation has fundamentally changed from that
time.

[Jose]

> So better minds than ours have hashed this issue out long ago, and
> come to the conclusion that SSI was a beneficial plan in the '30s, and
> I don't see how the situation has fundamentally changed from that
> time.

The population distribution has changed, and the number of entitled
people has changed.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 03:06:08 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>:

>FDR was wrong.

Oh, that completely explains it then.

Thanks to your comment, I understand the issue much more fully now.
How silly of me to respect the judgment of only U.S. president to have
been elected to more than two terms by our nation's people, guided our
nation through recovery from the Great Depression, and through World
War II. Your opinion clearly trumps FDR's. I forgot how omnipotent
ATC controllers are. Sorry. :-(

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >The Federal government is not the only possible provider for senior
> >citizens (notice I didn't say the Feds were a solution).
>
> The federal government is the only entity that is not subject to
> Enronization of workers retirement funds. Or do you know of others?

1) Your faith in the federal government is not justified. There is nothing that
absolutely guarentees that the Feds won't stop social security (after all,
social security is not a constitutional requirement of the federal government).

2) Protection from "Enronization" is a requirement? what would constitute
such protection?




> >Do you (Larry) really think that only Social Security prevents the streets
> >from being awash in homeless retirees?
>
> I believe that most workers are too shortsighted to provide for their
> old age themselves. I have no source to support that, but I have
> lived long enough to understand human behavior a bit.

You didn't answer the question. Do you believe that ONLY social security
prevent the streets from being awash in homeless retirees?



>
> >Maybe families should care for each other. nah, that couldn't possibly work.
> >
>
> And what do you propose for those without families, or whose families
> are unable to afford supporting older workers?

Charities (which are NOT subject to the bureaucratic nonsense of DC).
I, for one, would have more money to give to charities, if my tax burden was
lower.

Neighbors (haven't you ever seen people helping people?)



> >> That's not the way FDR saw it.
> >
> >so what?
>
> So better minds than ours have hashed this issue out long ago, and
> come to the conclusion that SSI was a beneficial plan in the '30s,

hmmm, "beneficial" to who?

Are you seriously suggesting that everything decided 70 years ago
can't be reevaluated in the context of today's needs and abilities?


>and
> I don't see how the situation has fundamentally changed from that
> time.

"I don't see how the situation..." no kidding that you don't see it.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Jose]

> How silly of me to respect the judgment of only U.S. president to have
> been elected to more than two terms by our nation's people,

Bush was wrong too, and he was re-elected by the American People.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John Theune]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:30:29 -0400, Bob Noel
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> In article >,
>> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>>>>> Wouldn't you characterize streets awash in homeless retirees a burden
>>>>> on society?
>>>> it's not an either-or situation...
>>> What is your rationale for that statement?
>> The Federal government is not the only possible provider for senior
>> citizens (notice I didn't say the Feds were a solution).
>
> The federal government is the only entity that is not subject to
> Enronization of workers retirement funds. Or do you know of others?
Your right, if people make stupid choices in their selections of
retirement funds they can get hurt. Putting all your money into a
single company is a bad idea but it's your choice as opposed to SS where
your still putting your money into a single company ( US GOV ) but you
have to hope it's going to be ok. From what I know, none of the Enron
employees lost their retirement money if it was not in Enron stock.
>
>> Do you (Larry) really think that only Social Security prevents the streets
>>from being awash in homeless retirees?
>
> I believe that most workers are too shortsighted to provide for their
> old age themselves. I have no source to support that, but I have
> lived long enough to understand human behavior a bit.
>
>> Maybe families should care for each other. nah, that couldn't possibly work.
>>
>
> And what do you propose for those without families, or whose families
> are unable to afford supporting older workers?
>
>>
>>> That's not the way FDR saw it.
>> so what?
>
> So better minds than ours have hashed this issue out long ago, and
> come to the conclusion that SSI was a beneficial plan in the '30s, and
> I don't see how the situation has fundamentally changed from that
> time.
>

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> Bush was wrong too, and he was re-elected by the American People.

Unfortunately, in a democracy, there is no requirement that the voters be
right. In fact, very often there are no competency requirements at all,
although age and (sometimes) gender restrictions are common enough (and
ironically these often have nothing to do with competence).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:42:54 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>> How silly of me to respect the judgment of the only U.S. president to have
>> been elected to more than two terms by our nation's people,
>
>Bush was wrong too, and he was re-elected by the American People.

Bush wasn't wrong; he was deceitful. Bush administration former CIA
director George Tenet claims, that:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml
In the midst of the al Qaeda threat, Tenet says he was astonished
and mystified when the White House turned its aim to Iraq.

The truth of Iraq begins, according to Tenet, the day after the
attack of Sept. 11, when he ran into Pentagon advisor Richard
Perle at the White House.

"He said to me, 'Iraq has to pay a price for what happened
yesterday, they bear responsibility.' It’s September the 12th.
I’ve got the manifest with me that tell me al Qaeda did this.
Nothing in my head that says there is any Iraqi involvement in
this in any way shape or form and I remember thinking to myself,
as I'm about to go brief the president, 'What the hell is he
talking about?'" Tenet remembers.

"You said Iraq made no sense to you in that moment. Does it make
any sense to you today?" Pelley asks.

"In terms of complicity with 9/11, absolutely none," Tenet says.
"It never made any sense. We could never verify that there was any
Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al Qaeda
for 9/11 or any operational act against America. Period."

"The president, in October of 2002, quote: 'We need to think about
Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work.' Is that what
you're telling the president?" Pelley asks.

"Well, we didn't believe al Qaeda was gonna do Saddam Hussein's
dirty work," Tenet says.

"January '03, the president again, [said] quote: 'Imagine those 19
hijackers this time armed by Saddam Hussein.' Is that what you're
telling the president?" Pelley asks.

"No," Tenet says.

The vice president upped the ante, claiming Saddam had nuclear
weapons, when the CIA was saying he didn’t.

"What's happening here?" Pelley asks.

"Well, I don't know what's happening here," Tenet says. "The
intelligence community's judgment is 'He will not have a nuclear
weapon until the year 2007, 2009.'"

"That's not what the vice president's saying," Pelley remarks.

"Well, I can't explain it," Tenet says.

Tenet says he sometimes warned the White House its statements were
false, but he admits that he missed a big one in the 2003 State of
the Union address, when the president said, "The British
government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa."


Further, Bush was not re-elected; he was declared the winner of the
election by the Judicial branch of government. Bush is the only US
president that wasn't elected.

(A few months before the election, his brother, the governor of
Florida, employed a private firm to expunge that state's voter rolls
of felons. When asked to provide evidence to support the selection of
those expunged voters, that firm didn't, and it subsequently came to
light that less than 5% of those voters removed from Bush's brothers
state voting rolls had actually committed any crime, but they were 95%
registered Democrats. At least that's what was purported in the video
Orwell Rolls In His Grave available here:
<http://www.freespeech.org/fscm2/contentviewer.php?content_id=1166>)

Unfortunately, Bush was able to mask his lies from the American
electorate until after being declared president. FDR served four
consecutive four-year terms. If he'd been caught lying, that wouldn't
have occurred.

To compare that duplicitous recovering alcoholic from Midland, Texas
with FDR is an affront to thinking people everywhere.

Brash humorist Bill Maher had this to say about our Commander And
Chief on the February 27, 2007 Tonight Show hosted by Jay Leno:

This man. I mean, come on. Let's get real... The science is in
on this question...

The people who were defending him were saying he was just
inarticulate, but 'inarticulate' doesn't explain foreign policy.
I mean, it's not that complicated.

The man is a rube. He is a dolt. He is a yokel on the world
stage, a Gilligan who cannot find his ass with two hands. He is a
vain halfwit, who interrupts one incoherent sentence with another
incoherent sentence. I hope I'm not piling on...

I'm just saying... Here's George Bush, the 'decider, deciding all
on his own, that this is a good idea. This was not a
recommendation from our commanders on the ground. This was not a
recommendation from the Iraq Study Group, as you know. It's not
supported by the American people. It's not supported by the Iraqi
people.

It's just President Charles-in-Charge, spitballin', thinkin'
outside the bun, and saying to himself, "Everybody else is wrong.
I alone know what the right answer is. I got everybody else's
recommendations. I, you know, I talk to the Big Guy, so I
know..." And even the Pope said he was wrong... This recovering
alcoholic from Midland, Texas, he cannot be wrong, at any point.


Bush is so bad, that:

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1613120,00.html
Friday, Apr. 20, 2007
Vermont Senate: Impeach Bush
By AP/ ROSS SNEYD
(MONTPELIER, Vt.) — Vermont senators voted Friday to call for the
impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney,
saying their actions have raised "serious questions of
constitutionality."

The non-binding resolution was approved 16-9 without debate — all
six Republicans in the chamber at the time and three Democrats
voted against it.

The resolution says Bush and Cheney's actions in the U.S. and
abroad, including in Iraq, "raise serious questions of
constitutionality, statutory legality, and abuse of the public
trust."

"I think it's going to have a tremendous political effect, a
tremendous political effect on public discourse about what to do
about this president," said James Leas, a vocal advocate of
withdrawing troops from Iraq and impeaching Bush and Cheney. ...

More than three dozen towns voted in favor of similar nonbinding
impeachment resolutions at their annual town meetings in March.
State lawmakers in Wisconsin and Washington have pushed for
similar resolutions.


And it's gathering momentum.

Ohio Congressman Rep. Dennis Kucinich filed articles of impeachment
against Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday April 24, 2007.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jose writes:
>
>> Bush was wrong too, and he was re-elected by the American People.
>
> Unfortunately, in a democracy, there is no requirement that the voters be
> right. In fact, very often there are no competency requirements at all,
> although age and (sometimes) gender restrictions are common enough (and
> ironically these often have nothing to do with competence).
>

Typical Mx conclusion. If someone doesn't agree with you, their incompetent.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:06:06 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>> That is my point. Today's Capitalism demands that producers meet the
>> lowest price in the marketplace, or face insolvency. That means that
>> if one producer is willing to reduce the cost of production through
>> unethical or immoral means, all the other producers are FORCED to do
>> the same or go broke. The cost-cutting efficiency of Capitalism is
>> commendable, but Capitalism's continual dive to the bottom begins to
>> cause problems after a certain point. That issue should be addressed.
>> Surely, even you can see the truth in what I'm saying.
>
>Hmmm. In light of a prevous post about arbitrary groupings, I find what
>you say interesting.

Groupings? Are you referring to the report about living organisms'
innate discrimination against members of groups other than their own?

>What is the difference between outsourcing from
>California to Nevada, and outsourcing from California to Korea?

I would assume that there is a difference in labor pay rates between
those that prevail in California and Korea, as well as a difference in
working conditions and benefits. There is likely a difference in the
environmental standards between the US and second or third world
countries also. Due to these differences a producer might reduce his
production costs (at the expense of the other factors I mentioned, and
US jobs), and that might enable him to undersell his competition (for
awhile until they start doing the same). At that point, there is
little ethical means available to reduce production costs further, so
if a producer desires to do so he must pursue even less attractive
(from the standpoint of exploitation and environmental impact) labor,
or compete on the basis of something other than price, or resort to
unethical practices.

But during the period that his prices in the marketplace are below his
competition's, he has the potential to reap significant revenue.

It is this desperate drive to the bottom that unrestrained capitalism
imposes to which I object. Fair completion based on innovation and
creativity is far preferable to exploitation, and it is that which
should be rewarded instead of rewarding the exporting US jobs to
foreign countries, IMO.

>> I for one, would be willing to pay a little more for goods produced in
>> the USA, wouldn't you?
>
>No. I'd pay more for higher quality (where quality matters).

And I believe your attitude is representative of the majority of
consumers. But things are changing, and hopefully a future, more
patriotic, humane, and environmentally conscience class of consumers
can find products on the market that meet their expectations in other
areas beside price.

>Higher quality is often foreign.

It depends on the product. Who is currently making a better product
than Boeing? The problem with US goods is that they are more often
than not assembled from foreign made goods, so it's difficult to
assess the true quality of US goods.

>Higher quality per dollar is also often foreign.

That is probably true, but it is also probably because the working
conditions, worker skill level and wage, and environmental impact are
significantly different from those in the US.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:00:46 +0200, Martin Hotze >
wrote in >:

>On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:10:07 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>>> That is my point. Today's Capitalism demands that producers meet the
>>>> lowest price in the marketplace, or face insolvency.
>>>
>>>And that, my friend, is exactly how it is supposed to work. MArxism
>>>see things totally differently... the way you do in fact.
>>
>>Unfortunately, you seem to be unable to understand my point of view at
>>all. I don't know how to make it any clearer for you.
>
>Larry, what you try to explain is a system that some countries in Middle
>Europe tried and still try. It is called something like social free-market
>economy (it might got lost in translation).

Thank you for your input.

Unfortunately, I seem to not have made myself clear at all. I'm
describing the shortcomings of pure capitalism. I'm not advocating
any particular system or remedy. I'm just interested in discovering
how those shortcomings a of capitalistic system I mentioned might be
mitigated, so that ALL benefit, producers and consumers alike. After
all, producers are victims of ever decreasing prices just as consumers
are victims of the loss of US jobs.

As it is, the producer who is able to offer a product at the lowest
prices in the marketplace, regardless of the consequences to society
and the environment as a result of the methods used to achieve that
price reduction, effectively dictates the quality and ethics for ALL
producers of that product if they want to remain solvent.

>Free market and capitalism at every price is not always the best way to go.

I have no problem with free-market capitalism if it doesn't drive
better and more responsibly produced products from the marketplace and
export US jobs to other countries.

>As you stated, in some cases
>it might make sense to buy local (for different reasons: to save jobs and
>generate money locally, to cut transportation, to cut down emission on
>transport, ...). Some people go directly to the farmer and buy their
>products off the farm at higher prices than the 'same' product would cost
>in the supermarket. There are different reasons for doing so.

Yes. Recently consumers have begun so have the choice of buying the
at the lowest price, or buying the best or most responsibly produced
product. I would like to find a way to reward those producers who
want to produce quality, responsibly produced goods made with US
labor, so that impact of their reduced market share is mitigated.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Yes. Recently consumers have begun so have the choice of buying the
> at the lowest price, or buying the best or most responsibly produced
> product. I would like to find a way to reward those producers who
> want to produce quality, responsibly produced goods made with US
> labor, so that impact of their reduced market share is mitigated.

There is a way. Buy from them, ask your friends and neighbors to buy from
them and tell them why they should.

[ktbr]

Bob Noel wrote:

>
>>and
>>I don't see how the situation has fundamentally changed from that
>>time.
>
>
> "I don't see how the situation..." no kidding that you don't see it.
>

The definition of irrational is not being able to accept or even
see things as they really are.

[ktbr]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Unfortunately, in a democracy, there is no requirement that the voters be
> right. In fact, very often there are no competency requirements at all,
> although age and (sometimes) gender restrictions are common enough (and
> ironically these often have nothing to do with competence).
>

And this is why the founding fathers did not want a true democracy
for this nation, rather a Democratic Republic. Starting with FDR,
liberals have been struggling mightly to slowly and inexhorably
convert it to a Democracy, AKA 'Mob Rule'.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:06:52 GMT, kontiki >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Wouldn't you characterize streets awash in homeless retirees a burden
>> on society?
>>
>
>Again Larry, if you were to be intellectually honest you would find
>that 'homeless' people are largely that way because of decisions
>they have (or have not) made.

Apparently I'm not nearly as familiar with what the homeless do as you
must be to make that statement, but those homeless that I have seen,
appear to be _innately_ unemployable to me.

>It is not my responsibility to comphensate [sic] others for their failure
>to be responsible.

That seems like a reasonable statement. But it isn't humane to just
let them freeze to death in the streets. Surly our great nation is
better than that, isn't it?

>For some reason you do... and so does socialistic governments.

I don't think it is our _responsibility_, but I do think caring for
the unemployable and/or cripples is desirable if not beneficial to
society by reducing crime, making the streets safer and more pleasant,
if not down right ennobling for our nation. And I believe that paying
ahead for the inevitable is prudent.

>THIS is where we differ.
>
>For example, if I, as a respinsible parent were confronted by my
>child wanting to quit school, I would let them do it only if they
>signed a legal document that stated they could make no claim
>against me for future benefits. They voluntarily decided to
>SQUANDER a free education for themsleves and I do not feel
>responsible for the consequences of their actions.

While I might not agree with that, I can understand your reasoning in
arriving at that decision.

>This is never required of welfare recipients in this country...
>but it should.

Even if it were, they'd just not honor such a document, and we'd be
faced with a lot of frozen corpuses and streets that would be even
less safe to walk than we are currently. The problem of what to do
with cripples isn't going to go away by getting them to sign a
contract.

>Most of the ones I see drive a car (albeit an old
>gas guzzler [which we subsidize]) and have a cell phone and several
>children, more than likely cable or satellite TV etc. etc. They
>are NOT poor.

Welfare is a difficult issue. I don't pretend to have a solution to
the welfare issue.

>
>People who live on the street CHOOSE that life Larry.

Some may. Some may also be so mentally unstable as to be forced into
homelessness. It's probably not fair to intimate that ALL street
people are capable of joining the majority of society.

>How can you
>argue that they can not find work when ILLEGALS who can't even speak
>english risk their lives to cross a border to come here work?

If they are crazy, would you employ them?

>I'm sorry, but your bleeding heart liberal-socialist ideas do NOT
>work and do NOT hold water. They are not rationally justifiable.
>

Our opinions differ.

>-----
>"In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as
>possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other."
>
> -Voltaire (1764)
>
>

The true Axis Of Evil in America is our genius at marketing
coupled with the stupidity of our people. -- Bill Maher

[ktbr]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> Unfortunately, I seem to not have made myself clear at all. I'm
> describing the shortcomings of pure capitalism. I'm not advocating
> any particular system or remedy. I'm just interested in discovering
> how those shortcomings a of capitalistic system I mentioned might be
> mitigated, so that ALL benefit, producers and consumers alike. After
> all, producers are victims of ever decreasing prices just as consumers
> are victims of the loss of US jobs.
>

_All_ can never benefit. That is not how life works. Though people
have tried mightily over the years to force outcomes with legislation,
governmental fiat or physical force. It is not sustainable.. any more
than trying hold the steam inside of a tea kettle.

> As it is, the producer who is able to offer a product at the lowest
> prices in the marketplace, regardless of the consequences to society
> and the environment as a result of the methods used to achieve that
> price reduction, effectively dictates the quality and ethics for ALL
> producers of that product if they want to remain solvent.
>
That's not true. Look at Toyota... walking all over American car
makers. Better overall quality and customer satisfaction and NOT
the lowest prices.

>
>>Free market and capitalism at every price is not always the best way to go.
>
>
> I have no problem with free-market capitalism if it doesn't drive
> better and more responsibly produced products from the marketplace and
> export US jobs to other countries.
>
We've already covered all of this, its boring to repeat the reasons
why this occurs and whether it is good or not.

>
>>As you stated, in some cases
>>it might make sense to buy local (for different reasons: to save jobs and
>>generate money locally, to cut transportation, to cut down emission on
>>transport, ...). Some people go directly to the farmer and buy their
>>products off the farm at higher prices than the 'same' product would cost
>>in the supermarket. There are different reasons for doing so.
>
>
> Yes. Recently consumers have begun so have the choice of buying the
> at the lowest price, or buying the best or most responsibly produced
> product. I would like to find a way to reward those producers who
> want to produce quality, responsibly produced goods made with US
> labor, so that impact of their reduced market share is mitigated.

"responsibly produced" ? What does that mean? WHo determines whether
something is 'responsibly produced'... Al Gore? Sheesh...

The free market is always the best arbiter.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:51:16 GMT, kontiki >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Why isn't profit motive sufficient encouragement to produce things?
>>>
>>>>Because it lacks long-range vision, and encourages sleaze and planned
>>>>obsolescence rather than durable, high quality products.
>>>
>>>Oh, I see. If it isn;t something that "government' envisions as
>>>a 'good" thing then it lacks long range vision.
>>
>>
>> I am at a loss to understand why you insist on bringing government
>> into the discussion. You were talking about PROFIT MOTIVE, not
>> government.
>>
>>
>In the absence of government mandating the taking of money from
>people who work and giving it to people who do not, what other
>entity would we be discussing?

Huh? In the absence of the "taking" to which you refer, we probably
wouldn't be having a discussion at all.

>
>>>You think Hillary or someone like that *really* cares about people, or that her
>>>"long range thinkin" is about anything other than getting elected?
>>
>>
>> I have very little esteem for today's Congressional representatives.
>> And I have no clue how that is germane to the subject of PROFIT
>> MOTIVE.
>>
>
>You say that as if 'profit motive' were a HORRIBLE thing.

I do? Are you able to quote the part of what I said that supports
such an counter-intuitive notion? Capatolism without a profit motive
is ridiculous.

>You would still be using candles and crapping in a hole in the ground if it
>were not for profit motive Larry. Businesses that make profits
>benfit _all_ that work for or invest in that business.
>

I have no argument with that.

>>
>>>You have just factually illustrated your irrational thinking.
>>
>>
>> Or you have just demonstrated your inability to comprehend the written
>> word. :-)
>>
>Irrationality is difficult to comprehend Larry.

Are you able to cite my specific words that cause you feel my
reasoning is not rational? Lacking that, I'm completely unable to see
how you arrived at that conclusion.

>
>>
>>>I rest my case.
>>
>>
>> For some unknown reason, we seem to be talking past each other.
>>
>
>I know the reason.

Well, you've not successfully expressed it.


There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
to avoid the real labor of thinking.
-- Sir Joshua Reynolds

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"ktbr" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Unfortunately, in a democracy, there is no requirement that the voters be
>> right. In fact, very often there are no competency requirements at all,
>> although age and (sometimes) gender restrictions are common enough (and
>> ironically these often have nothing to do with competence).
>>
>
> And this is why the founding fathers did not want a true democracy
> for this nation, rather a Democratic Republic.

No, they wanted (and got) a Representational Constitutional Republic.

>Starting with FDR,
> liberals have been struggling mightly to slowly and inexhorably
> convert it to a Democracy, AKA 'Mob Rule'.

Try at least 40 years earlier.


--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Colorado Springs, CO

[ktbr]

Matt Barrow wrote:

>>
>>And this is why the founding fathers did not want a true democracy
>>for this nation, rather a Democratic Republic.
>
>
> No, they wanted (and got) a Representational Constitutional Republic.
>
>

I stand corrected. What my mind is thinking and what gets typed
is sometimes at odds. It is, as you stated, a Representative
Republic.

;^0

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:06:51 GMT, kontiki >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:42:39 GMT, kontiki >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>
>>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You feel that way despite the fact that Halliburton earned their
>>>>income from the US government?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Larry, your fixation with 'Haliburton' demonstrates
>>>you can't think rationally.
>>

I'm not fixated on Halliburton. I've just used Halliburton's fleeing
to an Arab country to escape paying US income taxes as an example of
how _unrestrained_ competition causes both buyers and sellers to
become victims.

I would say, your failure to address my question, and attempt to
divert the discussion away from it displays your lack of a credible
argument.

>>
>> It's a valid question that illustrates what you are advocating.
>>
>> You're dismissal of it in a thinly valid personal attack demonstrates
>> very clearly, that you are unable to respond to it without admitting
>> that it is your reasoning that is faulty, and emotionally based on
>> subjective self-interest.
>>
>
>The reason is that I do not want to engage in a tit-for-tat
>regurgitation of government scandal Vs. private scandal.

I have no desire to discuss scandal either. I'm just interested in
discovering a way to mitigate the negative effects of _unrestrained_
competition in the marketplace.

>I would FAR rather deal with a private scandal than a government
>scandal because it make me less cynical of why money is taken
>from my paycheck every two weeks.
>

Ummm...

>>
>>>>In your ideal world, how would the US government be funded?
>>>>
>>>
>>>If its functions were limited to those specified by the
>>>Constitution it would be funded by various excises [sic] taxes
>>>and that's it.
>>>
>>
>> What amount of excise tax, expressed as a percentage of sale price,
>> would have to be charged to fund the military, NAS, maintain the
>> nation's infrastructure (roads, courts, national parks, ...)?
>>
>This has all been detailed by people far mor learned than I. Don't
>be juvenile and make me research the information that will result
>in a proper rersponse to that basic question.

Research is juvenile in your opinion? Interesting.

>
>> If producers were paying such an excise tax on the raw materials they
>> used in the production of their products, could they be competitive in
>> foreign markets?
>
>BINGO you nailed it... except it is called income tax and other
>types of taxes that are being paid now that cause companies to seek
>foreigh shores to try and remain competative.
>

But it was you that proposed an excise tax, not me. Have you
forgotten that?

Let me see if I understand what you're implying. You think that
reducing US manufacturing workplace conditions to turn of the
(nineteenth) century sweatshop conditions by eliminating taxes, in
order to compete with the low cost of producing goods in third world
countries that lack social and environmental reforms, would be a step
forward? Are you advocating third world workplace conditions be
permitted in the US?

>>
>> If such an excise tax as you advocate meant that there would be no
>> escaping the payment of taxes by any person or entity, I would
>> consider supporting it. But if you're going tell me you advocate
>> certain exclusions, it betray's your hidden agenda.
>>
>
>Well now you are beginning to see the light... the fact is that
>despite your desires, corporations do net really pay taxes. They
>pass it along to customers in higher prices... or they lay people off.

Or they escape taxation through loopholes in the laws that their
lobbyists have influenced, or they move to Dubai or ...

>Pretty underhanded way for the government to increasae taxes on people
>don't ya think?

The way I parse that "sentence" is, that you are saying that the
federal government passes the cost of income tax on to consumers by
taxing corporations who don't pay taxes. Absurd.

>But it works if you can control the economic
>education of society.
>
>>
>>>You seem to forget the fact the government functioned fine
>>>without income tax for the first 150 years of its existance.
>>
>>
>> I'm not advocating any increases in any taxes. Where'd you get that
>> idea?
>>
>
>But how do you feel on increases in government spending? Because
>like it or not they have been happening at an alarming rate.

Oh, you must be referring to Bush's $3-billion a day giveaway in Iraq.
Or are you referring to the Bush giveaway to parasitical companies
through the prohibition of competitive bidding for the drugs purchased
through Medicare, or ... ?

>
>And let me stipulate that I am not partisam about this... BOTH
>paries (all politicians) have been intoxicated by the drug of
>being able to take money from people at the threat of prison
>time in order to further their goals to remain in power.

Huh? "At the threat of prison time?" WTF?

It's beginning to sound like you're the one "intoxicated by the drug"
of your choice...

[ktbr]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
>>And let me stipulate that I am not partisam about this... BOTH
>>paries (all politicians) have been intoxicated by the drug of
>>being able to take money from people at the threat of prison
>>time in order to further their goals to remain in power.
>
>
> Huh? "At the threat of prison time?" WTF?
>

Prove me wrong then... try refusing to pay taxes and see what
happens to you.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> I'm not fixated on Halliburton. I've just used Halliburton's fleeing
> to an Arab country to escape paying US income taxes as an example of
> how _unrestrained_ competition causes both buyers and sellers to
> become victims.
>

The fact that a company large or small would leave the US to reduce the
amount of taxes they have to pay ought to show you that taxes are too high
in this country.

[Jose]

> As it is, the producer who is able to offer a product at the lowest
> prices in the marketplace, regardless of the consequences to society
> and the environment as a result of the methods used to achieve that
> price reduction, effectively dictates the quality and ethics for ALL
> producers of that product if they want to remain solvent.

No, that is not true. It assumes people make choices based on price
alone. This is clearly false. People make choices based on many
things, including quality, "Made in the USA", foreign cachet, marketing
and image, ecological impact, and many other things. People =do= pay
more for what they want.

However, they don't want to pay more for what =you= want.

Pure capitalism does have problems; this is why libertarianism is so
naive. Some careful tweaks are warranted. However, it does seem to be
the least bad system there is, so tweaking it needs to be done very gently.

> I would like to find a way to reward those producers who
> want to produce quality, responsibly produced goods made with US
> labor, so that impact of their reduced market share is mitigated.

Permitting people to buy them is sufficient.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

Remember the prepends? :)

> But it isn't humane to just
> let them freeze to death in the streets.

Then give =your= money to them. Don't take =my= money from me for
=your= social programs. I have social programs of my own that I want my
money for, and that you are not contributing to.

> I don't think it is our _responsibility_,

Then don't make it a law.

> but I do think caring for the unemployable and/or
> cripples is desirable if not beneficial to
> society by reducing crime....

A feeding trough is an "attractive nuisance". It causes people to
depend on it. This makes our country weaker. If you can figure out how
to care for the truly needy without creating more needy, I'm listening.
I don't think it can be done by government.

>> How can you
>> argue that they can not find work when ILLEGALS who can't even speak
>> english risk their lives to cross a border to come here work?
> If they are crazy, would you employ them?

How do you figure they are crazy?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Groupings? Are you referring to the report about living organisms'
> innate discrimination against members of groups other than their own?

Yes.

> I would assume that there is a difference in labor pay rates between
> those that prevail in California and Korea, as well as a difference in
> working conditions and benefits.

This is likely true between California and Nevada too (though admittedly
to a smaller extent). But you know what? Outsourcing works to even
this all out.

> There is likely a difference in the
> environmental standards between the US and second or third world
> countries also.

This is true. It raises the question of whether we should protect =our=
environment, or the =world= environment, and what is the best way to do
so. But this is really the same problem as we have here, the problem
for which we've created environmental laws. Absent these laws, what
prevents company A from dumping sludge into the river (that runs into
Nevada) instead of treating it first? This is one of the basic flaws of
unrestrained capitalism - shifting costs invisibly. Got a good solution
that doesn't kill the patient?

> It is this desperate drive to the bottom that unrestrained capitalism
> imposes to which I object. Fair completion based on innovation and
> creativity is far preferable to exploitation, and it is that which
> should be rewarded instead of rewarding the exporting US jobs to
> foreign countries, IMO.

You are confusing "exporting jobs to foreign countries" with
"exploitation and unfair competition". While they can be related, using
one phrase as a stand-in for the other will induce the wrong solutions.

>>No. I'd pay more for higher quality (where quality matters).
>
> And I believe your attitude is representative of the majority of
> consumers. But things are changing, and hopefully a future, more
> patriotic, humane, and environmentally conscience class of consumers
> can find products on the market that meet their expectations in other
> areas beside price.

You are hoping that people will change from buying based on quality to
buying based on "made in the USA"?

>>Higher quality is often foreign.
> It depends on the product. Who is currently making a
> better product than Boeing?

Yes. Who makes a better car than Chevrolet? (answer: everybody) Ok,
I'm being snarky, but only a little bit. It does depend on the product.
And I should be permitted to buy quality. If the US doesn't make
quality, and loses market share, then that serves as an incentive for
the US to compete. Absent an incentive, the US =will= =not= compete.
It will market instead.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Bush wasn't wrong; he was deceitful.

He was wrong =and= deceitful. But he was elected to office. Twice.
After four years of study, half of America still couldn't answer a one
question true-false test.

FDR had his detractors too. You seem to worship him. Maybe he was
good, but I do not believe that anything he said was golden - that he
was incapable of being wrong.

It is possible that SSI morphed into something FDR did not envision.
(remember, the original SSI was that everybody's children would pay for
a tiny number of elderly retirees, in exchange for a promise). However,
in that case he was wrong for not envisioning the disaster it could
easily turn out to be.

FDR is certainly capable of being wrong.

Any of us are capable (with fifty years of hindsight FDR didn't have) of
seeing that.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[ktbr]

Jose wrote:
>
> FDR is certainly capable of being wrong.
>
> Any of us are capable (with fifty years of hindsight FDR didn't have) of
> seeing that.

There are many who feel his caving in to the soviets by allowing
Stalin to take control of so much of Europe was a bad decision.
That resulted in 50 years of oppression of eastern Europe (hundreds
of thousands got sent to the gulag) and we spent billions defending
western Eurpoe and fighting a cold war at home.

[ktbr]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> The fact that a company large or small would leave the US to reduce the
> amount of taxes they have to pay ought to show you that taxes are too high
> in this country.
>
>

Exactly. When a company wants to build a new plant somewhere (or
relocate an existing one) they typically go where they costs are
lowests so that they can remain competative. Different states are
willing to advertize their low tax rates and even offer special
packages to attract the businesses to their state. This is good
competition and if forces the states to be competetive and be
efficient in spending money.

Businesses have a fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders
to make decisions that result in the company being profitable.

[gatt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera wrote:

>> I'm not fixated on Halliburton. I've just used Halliburton's fleeing
>> to an Arab country to escape paying US income taxes as an example of
>> how _unrestrained_ competition causes both buyers and sellers to
>> become victims.
>>
>
> The fact that a company large or small would leave the US to reduce the
> amount of taxes they have to pay ought to show you that taxes are too high
> in this country.

Unless the purchasers of the company aren't domestic in the first place.


-c

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> The federal government is the only entity that is not subject to
> Enronization of workers retirement funds. Or do you know of others?
>

The federal government is just as subject to "Enronization" of workers
retirement funds as Enron.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

gatt wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>> I'm not fixated on Halliburton. I've just used Halliburton's
>>> fleeing to an Arab country to escape paying US income taxes as an
>>> example of how _unrestrained_ competition causes both buyers and
>>> sellers to become victims.
>>>
>>
>> The fact that a company large or small would leave the US to reduce
>> the amount of taxes they have to pay ought to show you that taxes
>> are too high in this country.
>
> Unless the purchasers of the company aren't domestic in the first
> place.
>

Purchasers of what? The company's stock? Their product or service?

[kontiki]

gatt wrote:
>>
>>The fact that a company large or small would leave the US to reduce the
>>amount of taxes they have to pay ought to show you that taxes are too high
>>in this country.
>
>
> Unless the purchasers of the company aren't domestic in the first place.
>

What does that have to do with anything? No matter who owns a given
company it behooves them to locate the business in the most advantageous
location that they can. If they discover they are in a place that
with a climate hostile to business they're gonna go elswhere.

Its not suprising Tennessee, Texas and Florida have booming economies..
all three states have no income tax. That's attractive to employers
(less paperwork) and workers (they get to keep more of their money).

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Thanks to your comment, I understand the issue much more fully now.
> How silly of me to respect the judgment of only U.S. president to have
> been elected to more than two terms by our nation's people, guided our
> nation through recovery from the Great Depression, and through World
> War II. Your opinion clearly trumps FDR's. I forgot how omnipotent
> ATC controllers are. Sorry. :-(
>

FDR did not guide the US through recovery from the Great Depression, he
drove us deeper into it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bush wasn't wrong; he was deceitful.
>

Prove it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Thank you for your input.
>
> Unfortunately, I seem to not have made myself clear at all. I'm
> describing the shortcomings of pure capitalism. I'm not advocating
> any particular system or remedy. I'm just interested in discovering
> how those shortcomings a of capitalistic system I mentioned might be
> mitigated, so that ALL benefit, producers and consumers alike. After
> all, producers are victims of ever decreasing prices just as consumers
> are victims of the loss of US jobs.
>

There is no improving of free markets. Whatever shortcomings you might see
in them, the "cure" is always worse.

[gatt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

>>> The fact that a company large or small would leave the US to reduce
>>> the amount of taxes they have to pay ought to show you that taxes
>>> are too high in this country.
>>
>> Unless the purchasers of the company aren't domestic in the first
>> place.
>>
>
> Purchasers of what? The company's stock?

The company. IE, I'm a corporation in Asia or Europe, I'm acquiring your
company (say, Chrysler), I'm moving it outside of the US. Not because the
taxes are too high, but because I can.



-c

[gatt]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...

> What does that have to do with anything? No matter who owns a given
> company it behooves them to locate the business in the most advantageous
> location that they can. If they discover they are in a place that
> with a climate hostile to business they're gonna go elswhere.

But not necessarily because of taxation is unfair. I'm definately not saying
that it's not a reason that businesses do it, it's just not necessarily THE
reason to do it. By extension of the philosophy, it's like saying if taxes
were lower outside of America, Americans would leave America. Some Americans
do leave, and possibly because of taxes, but it's incorrect to say that they
all leave because of high taxation. In fact, most don't; they remain in
America and grumble about the taxes. ;P

By the way, check out this piece of propaganda I found:

"Wal-Mart firmly believes in local procurement. We recognize that quality
products can generate more job opportunities, support local manufacturing
and boost economic development. Over 95% of the merchandise in our stores in
China is sourced locally."
http://www.wal-martchina.com/english/walmart/index.htm


-c

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:24:36 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
. net>:

>FDR did not guide the US through recovery from the Great Depression, he
>drove us deeper into it.


I think you're thinking of president Hoover:

http://home.att.net/~history240/history100greatdepression.html
Aggravating the nation’s economic problems was the passage of the
Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act of 1930, intended to protect American industry
from foreign competition. As the highest tariff in the history of the
United States, it is named after the Republican Congressman (Willis C.
Hawley) and Republican Senator (Reed Smoot), who jointly sponsored its
passage, which was immediately signed into law by President Herbert
Hoover. The tariff brought immediate revengeful tariffs against the
United States, which resulted in a severe decrease in foreign trade,
thus intensifying the harsh effects of the Great Depression worldwide.
Hoover maintained that status quo insofar as his policy agenda was
concerned; in other words, he failed to take action to correct a
rapidly deteriorating economic situation, depending instead on private
enterprise and corporations to pick themselves up and correct the
situation.

Despite rapidly increasing evidence to the contrary, President
Hoover continued to deny that the economy was in crisis. On December
2, 1930, after the passing of the first year of the Great Depression,
President Herbert Hoover delivered his message to the Congress,
insisting that “the fundamental strength of the economy is
unimpaired.”

Later, a critic of the President pointed out evidence to the
contrary of Hoover’s continued assertions, stating that there are
great numbers of unemployed men selling apples in a desperate effort
to earn just a little money. Defending his position, the President
responded by contending that these men were simply engaged in “free
enterprise.” According to Herbert Hoover, “Many people have left
their jobs for the more profitable one of selling apples.”

Meanwhile, “Hoovervilles” sprung up across the United States.
Hooverville was the name given to shantytown built on the outskirts of
American communities during the Great Depression, to house poor and
dispossessed
people in the 1930s.


------------------------------------
The “Bonus Expeditionary Force” of 1932, was composed of unemployed
World War One veterans, who, largely independent from one another,
congregated at Washington, D.C., to demand passage of the Patman Bill
that proposed the immediate issue of promised government bonuses
rather than wait thirteen years for the planned date of issue.

Pursuant to the demands of these veterans, and as the result of
intense and successful lobbying to that end by veterans’ advocates,
including the American Legion, the Congress passed the Veteran Bonus
Act of 1924 over the veto of President Calvin Coolidge. Acting in
accordance with the new law, the Federal government issued
certificates in 1924, guaranteeing payments of $1,000 per veteran on
average, to be made in 1945.

During the crisis of the Great Depression, many desperate and
unemployed American veterans demanded early payment to meet their
financial needs. In an effort to meets such exigencies, Wright Patman
of the U.S. House of Representatives, introduced a bill to speed up
the payment of the veterans’ bonuses.

Calling for the passage of the Patman Bill, veterans converged on
Washington D.C. in the spring of 1932, taking up residence in a tent
city near where the Pentagon stands today. Having passed through the
House of Representatives, the bill was killed in the Senate in mid
June 1932.

When the camped out Bonus Expeditionary Force, as the veterans were
called, refused to break camp and depart, President Herbert Hoover
ordered their eviction and dispersal of the members of the Bonus
Expeditionary Force, and the destruction of their tent city. These
orders were carried out by the U.S. Army, under the command of General
Douglas MacArthur (1880–1964).

A few months earlier (January 4, 1932), Time magazine reported a quote
from President Herbert Hoover, who still denied the depths of the
nation’s economic crisis. The President, according to the article,
was even proud of the fact that “the nation’s needy have gone through
three hard winters without a dollar’s worth of direct aid from the
Federal Treasury” (as a supposed indication that welfare socialism was
unnecessary).

According to the President, “Nobody’s actually starving. The hoboes,
for example, are better fed than they have ever been. [And, with
reference to the lines of people waiting to be fed at the soup
kitchens, he stated:] One hobo in New York got ten meals in one day.”

Either in a continued state of denial or a sense of his own importance
and grandiosity, Herbert Hoover decided to run for reelection in the
autumn of 1932. In this reelection bid, Hoover is astonished when his
presidential train is regularly battered with eggs and tomatoes as it
passes through communities along the campaign trail.

As his train passed through cities and towns in the Upper Mid-West,
unprecedented numbers of people appeared to greet the President with
placards and chants of “Hang Hoover.” Such a clamoring crowd thronged
the route that his limousine took from the train station to Detroit’s
Olympic Station.

Referring to such discontented hordes, and the success of the various
police forces at keeping them at bay, President Hoover praised his
administration, stating, “Thank God we still have a government in
Washington that still knows how to deal with a mob.”

Facing incessant criticism from all sides, a beleaguered President
Herbert Hoover found his only solace and escape from the problems at
hand through fishing. Eighteen years later, on May 19, 1947, Herbert
Hoover affirms the comfort of that activity, stating that “[t]here are
only two occasions when Americans respect privacy, especially in
Presidents. Those are prayer and fishing.” To him, fishing is
sacred. He states, that the sport “is discipline in the equality of
men – for all men are equal before fish.”

The only answer to the ongoing and worsening situation nationally was
that of statism, and one that President Hoover refused to consider.
Statism is the belief or idea that the power and authority of the
state supersedes individual, group, and corporate authority of any
form. Statist ideals stress the importance of state intervention in
behalf of the rights of its citizenry, when situations emerge leading
to social and economic imbalances, such as the Great Depression.

The Democratic Presidential candidate was a patrician New York
attorney, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882–1945). Pledging to bring
about a “New Deal” for the American people, though his plans for
national recovery appeared vague and unspecific, President Hoover
criticized his ideas as being a “radical departure” from all that was
deemed American. Having failed to resist social change, while at the
same time bringing the national economy down to new depths,
traditional conservatism took a back seat to liberal social reform
under the leadership of a new President, Franklin D. Roosevelt.



------------------------------------
The practice of welfare capitalism emerged shortly after the end of
World War One. It is based in a concept that stresses the role of the
paternalistic corporation in providing the needs and security of its
non-union, dependent and subordinate employees, while restricting the
independence, mobility, and abilities of these workers, to organize
themselves into unions at the same time.
Welfare capitalism ultimately failed to support such workers when the
Great Depression hit American society, thus, the policies of President
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal transferred many worker protections
to the Federal government and initiated reforms helpful to the labor
unions, ending the first stage of twentieth-century welfare
capitalism.

During the post-World War Two period, welfare capitalism reemerged, as
American companies found ways to negate the effectiveness of unions
and negotiate greater control over labor, instilling at the same time,
a nation-wide social belief system that reduced worker expectations
relating to job benefits and security.
In contrast to welfare capitalism, the social and political ideology
of welfare socialism advocates a system where the government assumes
the responsibility for the general welfare of its people, including
education, employment health care, housing, social security, etc. This
is the system that the Depression-Era federal government was forced to
assume when business and private enterprise failed in its calling in
the late 1920s.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:25:09 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
. net>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Bush wasn't wrong; he was deceitful.
>>
>
>Prove it.
>

It'll come out in the impeachment hearings.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:34:57 -0700, "gatt"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Wal-Mart firmly believes in local procurement. We recognize that quality
>products can generate more job opportunities, support local manufacturing
>and boost economic development. Over 95% of the merchandise in our stores in
>China is sourced locally."
>http://www.wal-martchina.com/english/walmart/index.htm


They must be referring to the Wal-Mart stores located in China. :-)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think you're thinking of president Hoover:
>

No, I was thinking of FDR.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> It'll come out in the impeachment hearings.
>

You expect Bush to commit an impeachable offense?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

Jose wrote:
>
> FDR is certainly capable of being wrong.
>
> Any of us are capable (with fifty years of hindsight FDR didn't have) of
> seeing that.

And all the people that warned FDR against it? What hindsight did they have?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:28:13 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
. net>:

>
>There is no improving of free markets. Whatever shortcomings you might see
>in them, the "cure" is always worse.

Perhaps.

But it seems that Congress has recently influenced Halliburton to stop
"trading with the enemy" through it's foreign subsidiary as part of
the economic sanctions the US has imposed on Iran since 1997. I would
characterize that as an improvement.


Incidentally, I was surprised to hear that VP Cheney has over 400,000
shares of Halliburton options that are due when he leaves office in
2009. Isn't there at least a bit of conflict of interest there?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

gatt wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>> The fact that a company large or small would leave the US to reduce
>>>> the amount of taxes they have to pay ought to show you that taxes
>>>> are too high in this country.
>>>
>>> Unless the purchasers of the company aren't domestic in the first
>>> place.
>>>
>>
>> Purchasers of what? The company's stock?
>
> The company. IE, I'm a corporation in Asia or Europe, I'm acquiring
> your company (say, Chrysler), I'm moving it outside of the US. Not
> because the taxes are too high, but because I can.
>
>

Do you have some information that the reason for the move is that
Halliburton is being purchased? I haven't heard that? All I've heard is they
are moving there because that is where the business is thought the general
feeling is they are doing it for the tax advantages. I think it is probably
a little of both.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:34:57 -0700, "gatt"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>> "Wal-Mart firmly believes in local procurement. We recognize that
>> quality products can generate more job opportunities, support local
>> manufacturing and boost economic development. Over 95% of the
>> merchandise in our stores in China is sourced locally."
>> http://www.wal-martchina.com/english/walmart/index.htm
>
>
> They must be referring to the Wal-Mart stores located in China. :-)

You think? Since it clearly says that in the last line, I'd have to say you
are right.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:24:36 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> . net>:
>
>> FDR did not guide the US through recovery from the Great Depression,
>> he drove us deeper into it.
>
>
> I think you're thinking of president Hoover:
>

SNIP Left wing rant.

Sure Hoover was an idiot. But the only reason FDR was able to pull us out of
the depression was WWII and as someone else quoted FDR actions and lack of
actions caused the cold war.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:28:13 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> . net>:
>
>>
>> There is no improving of free markets. Whatever shortcomings you
>> might see in them, the "cure" is always worse.
>
> Perhaps.
>
> But it seems that Congress has recently influenced Halliburton to stop
> "trading with the enemy" through it's foreign subsidiary as part of
> the economic sanctions the US has imposed on Iran since 1997. I would
> characterize that as an improvement.
>
>
> Incidentally, I was surprised to hear that VP Cheney has over 400,000
> shares of Halliburton options that are due when he leaves office in
> 2009. Isn't there at least a bit of conflict of interest there?

Those 400,000 shares were part of deffered compensation package from when he
worked there. Do you expect him to just give away $12.6 million dollars that
he earned?

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 1 May 2007 09:02:25 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>> Incidentally, I was surprised to hear that VP Cheney has over 400,000
>> shares of Halliburton options that are due when he leaves office in
>> 2009. Isn't there at least a bit of conflict of interest there?
>
>Those 400,000 shares were part of deffered compensation package from when he
>worked there. Do you expect him to just give away $12.6 million dollars that
>he earned?

Do you see any hint of a conflict of interest given the enormous
government no-bid contracts awarded to Halliburton?

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 1 May 2007 08:54:57 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>Sure Hoover was an idiot.

Unfortunately, it seem others here still echo Hoover's crass
insensitivity toward their fellow Americans. I believe that those who
think that way would have no qualms about re-instituting slavery in
our nation if they thought they could get away with it.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2007 09:02:25 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>>> Incidentally, I was surprised to hear that VP Cheney has over
>>> 400,000 shares of Halliburton options that are due when he leaves
>>> office in 2009. Isn't there at least a bit of conflict of interest
>>> there?
>>
>> Those 400,000 shares were part of deffered compensation package from
>> when he worked there. Do you expect him to just give away $12.6
>> million dollars that he earned?
>
> Do you see any hint of a conflict of interest given the enormous
> government no-bid contracts awarded to Halliburton?

So are we going to make a rule that a company can't do business with the
government if somebody who used to work for them is in government? This will
solve the homeless problem you are so worried about. They can be government
employees.

As far as no bid contract. There really aren't that many companies capable
of fulfilling the contract if any other than H.

[Maxwell]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>
>>> Those 400,000 shares were part of deffered compensation package from
>>> when he worked there. Do you expect him to just give away $12.6
>>> million dollars that he earned?
>>
>> Do you see any hint of a conflict of interest given the enormous
>> government no-bid contracts awarded to Halliburton?
>
> So are we going to make a rule that a company can't do business with the
> government if somebody who used to work for them is in government? This
> will solve the homeless problem you are so worried about. They can be
> government employees.
>
> As far as no bid contract. There really aren't that many companies capable
> of fulfilling the contract if any other than H.

How can any other company even attempt to "step up to the plate" if the
government refuses put the contracts up for bid?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2007 08:54:57 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>> Sure Hoover was an idiot.
>
> Unfortunately, it seem others here still echo Hoover's crass
> insensitivity toward their fellow Americans. I believe that those who
> think that way would have no qualms about re-instituting slavery in
> our nation if they thought they could get away with it.

While there may be a very limited number of those on the right that might
reinstitute slavery the whole of the left seem to want us all to be the
modern equivalent of tenet farmers with the government as the land owner.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Those 400,000 shares were part of deffered compensation package
>>>> from when he worked there. Do you expect him to just give away
>>>> $12.6 million dollars that he earned?
>>>
>>> Do you see any hint of a conflict of interest given the enormous
>>> government no-bid contracts awarded to Halliburton?
>>
>> So are we going to make a rule that a company can't do business with
>> the government if somebody who used to work for them is in
>> government? This will solve the homeless problem you are so worried
>> about. They can be government employees.
>>
>> As far as no bid contract. There really aren't that many companies
>> capable of fulfilling the contract if any other than H.
>
> How can any other company even attempt to "step up to the plate" if
> the government refuses put the contracts up for bid?

Name a company other than H that might have been able to "step up to the
plate" on this one. Doing everything by the lowest bid isn't always the best
or even the cheapest way to get things done.

Oh, don't get me wrong, the entire government procurement system is broken
and has been long before either Bush was in office.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2007 10:55:53 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> Doing everything by the lowest bid isn't always the best
>> or even the cheapest way to get things done.
>
> Isn't a thread running here claiming that pure capitalism is the best
> solution? ;-)
>


There sure is and I'm on the pure capitalism side of it. What makes you
think that lowest bid = pure capitalism?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 May 2007 09:02:25 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>>> Incidentally, I was surprised to hear that VP Cheney has over
>>>> 400,000 shares of Halliburton options that are due when he leaves
>>>> office in 2009. Isn't there at least a bit of conflict of interest
>>>> there?
>
> So are we going to make a rule that a company can't do business with the
> government if somebody who used to work for them is in government? This
> will solve the homeless problem you are so worried about. They can be
> government employees.
>
> As far as no bid contract. There really aren't that many companies capable
> of fulfilling the contract if any other than H.

And Halliburton, for that reason, has been getting no-bid contracts since
the early 90's.

(Note to the clueless and the mental basket cases (yes, YOU, Larry): Cheney
has only been VP since 2001.)

[LWG]

That great humanitarian, Bono, had U-2 do the same thing -- leave its
country of domicile for tax purposes. Why just trash Halliburton? And why
not consider that there is competition between countries, and that taxation
is a part of the price?



"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not fixated on Halliburton. I've just used Halliburton's fleeing
>> to an Arab country to escape paying US income taxes as an example of
>> how _unrestrained_ competition causes both buyers and sellers to
>> become victims.
>>
>
> The fact that a company large or small would leave the US to reduce the
> amount of taxes they have to pay ought to show you that taxes are too high
> in this country.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Unfortunately, it seem others here still echo Hoover's crass
> insensitivity toward their fellow Americans. I believe that those who
> think that way would have no qualms about re-instituting slavery in
> our nation if they thought they could get away with it.
>

Hoover's crass insensitivity? What are you referring to? WWI food relief?
Mississippi flood relief?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 26 May 2007 21:54:57 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
. net>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Unfortunately, it seem others here still echo Hoover's crass
>> insensitivity toward their fellow Americans. I believe that those who
>> think that way would have no qualms about re-instituting slavery in
>> our nation if they thought they could get away with it.
>>
>
>Hoover's crass insensitivity? What are you referring to? WWI food relief?
>Mississippi flood relief?
>

If you had bother to read the content of the article to which you are
following up, you would have found the answer to your question:



http://home.att.net/~history240/history100greatdepression.html
Aggravating the nation’s economic problems was the passage of the
Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act of 1930, intended to protect American industry
from foreign competition. As the highest tariff in the history of the
United States, it is named after the Republican Congressman (Willis C.
Hawley) and Republican Senator (Reed Smoot), who jointly sponsored its
passage, which was immediately signed into law by President Herbert
Hoover. The tariff brought immediate revengeful tariffs against the
United States, which resulted in a severe decrease in foreign trade,
thus intensifying the harsh effects of the Great Depression worldwide.
Hoover maintained that status quo insofar as his policy agenda was
concerned; in other words, he failed to take action to correct a
rapidly deteriorating economic situation, depending instead on private
enterprise and corporations to pick themselves up and correct the
situation.

Despite rapidly increasing evidence to the contrary, President
Hoover continued to deny that the economy was in crisis. On December
2, 1930, after the passing of the first year of the Great Depression,
President Herbert Hoover delivered his message to the Congress,
insisting that “the fundamental strength of the economy is
unimpaired.”

Later, a critic of the President pointed out evidence to the
contrary of Hoover’s continued assertions, stating that there are
great numbers of unemployed men selling apples in a desperate effort
to earn just a little money. Defending his position, the President
responded by contending that these men were simply engaged in “free
enterprise.” According to Herbert Hoover, “Many people have left
their jobs for the more profitable one of selling apples.”

Meanwhile, “Hoovervilles” sprung up across the United States.
Hooverville was the name given to shantytown built on the outskirts of
American communities during the Great Depression, to house poor and
dispossessed
people in the 1930s.


------------------------------------
The “Bonus Expeditionary Force” of 1932, was composed of unemployed
World War One veterans, who, largely independent from one another,
congregated at Washington, D.C., to demand passage of the Patman Bill
that proposed the immediate issue of promised government bonuses
rather than wait thirteen years for the planned date of issue.

Pursuant to the demands of these veterans, and as the result of
intense and successful lobbying to that end by veterans’ advocates,
including the American Legion, the Congress passed the Veteran Bonus
Act of 1924 over the veto of President Calvin Coolidge. Acting in
accordance with the new law, the Federal government issued
certificates in 1924, guaranteeing payments of $1,000 per veteran on
average, to be made in 1945.

During the crisis of the Great Depression, many desperate and
unemployed American veterans demanded early payment to meet their
financial needs. In an effort to meets such exigencies, Wright Patman
of the U.S. House of Representatives, introduced a bill to speed up
the payment of the veterans’ bonuses.

Calling for the passage of the Patman Bill, veterans converged on
Washington D.C. in the spring of 1932, taking up residence in a tent
city near where the Pentagon stands today. Having passed through the
House of Representatives, the bill was killed in the Senate in mid
June 1932.

When the camped out Bonus Expeditionary Force, as the veterans were
called, refused to break camp and depart, President Herbert Hoover
ordered their eviction and dispersal of the members of the Bonus
Expeditionary Force, and the destruction of their tent city. These
orders were carried out by the U.S. Army, under the command of General
Douglas MacArthur (1880–1964).

A few months earlier (January 4, 1932), Time magazine reported a quote
from President Herbert Hoover, who still denied the depths of the
nation’s economic crisis. The President, according to the article,
was even proud of the fact that “the nation’s needy have gone through
three hard winters without a dollar’s worth of direct aid from the
Federal Treasury” (as a supposed indication that welfare socialism was
unnecessary).

According to the President, “Nobody’s actually starving. The hoboes,
for example, are better fed than they have ever been. [And, with
reference to the lines of people waiting to be fed at the soup
kitchens, he stated:] One hobo in New York got ten meals in one day.”

Either in a continued state of denial or a sense of his own importance
and grandiosity, Herbert Hoover decided to run for reelection in the
autumn of 1932. In this reelection bid, Hoover is astonished when his
presidential train is regularly battered with eggs and tomatoes as it
passes through communities along the campaign trail.

As his train passed through cities and towns in the Upper Mid-West,
unprecedented numbers of people appeared to greet the President with
placards and chants of “Hang Hoover.” Such a clamoring crowd thronged
the route that his limousine took from the train station to Detroit’s
Olympic Station.

Referring to such discontented hordes, and the success of the various
police forces at keeping them at bay, President Hoover praised his
administration, stating, “Thank God we still have a government in
Washington that still knows how to deal with a mob.”

Facing incessant criticism from all sides, a beleaguered President
Herbert Hoover found his only solace and escape from the problems at
hand through fishing. Eighteen years later, on May 19, 1947, Herbert
Hoover affirms the comfort of that activity, stating that “[t]here are
only two occasions when Americans respect privacy, especially in
Presidents. Those are prayer and fishing.” To him, fishing is
sacred. He states, that the sport “is discipline in the equality of
men – for all men are equal before fish.”

The only answer to the ongoing and worsening situation nationally was
that of statism, and one that President Hoover refused to consider.
Statism is the belief or idea that the power and authority of the
state supersedes individual, group, and corporate authority of any
form. Statist ideals stress the importance of state intervention in
behalf of the rights of its citizenry, when situations emerge leading
to social and economic imbalances, such as the Great Depression.

The Democratic Presidential candidate was a patrician New York
attorney, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882–1945). Pledging to bring
about a “New Deal” for the American people, though his plans for
national recovery appeared vague and unspecific, President Hoover
criticized his ideas as being a “radical departure” from all that was
deemed American. Having failed to resist social change, while at the
same time bringing the national economy down to new depths,
traditional conservatism took a back seat to liberal social reform
under the leadership of a new President, Franklin D. Roosevelt.

[601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 21:54:57 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> . net>:
>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Unfortunately, it seem others here still echo Hoover's crass
>>> insensitivity toward their fellow Americans. I believe that those who
>>> think that way would have no qualms about re-instituting slavery in
>>> our nation if they thought they could get away with it.
>>>
>> Hoover's crass insensitivity? What are you referring to? WWI food relief?
>> Mississippi flood relief?
>>
>
> If you had bother to read the content of the article to which you are
> following up, you would have found the answer to your question:
>
>
>
> http://home.att.net/~history240/history100greatdepression.html
> Aggravating the nation’s economic problems was the passage of the
> Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act of 1930, intended to protect American industry
> from foreign competition. As the highest tariff in the history of the
> United States, it is named after the Republican Congressman (Willis C.
> Hawley) and Republican Senator (Reed Smoot), who jointly sponsored its
> passage, which was immediately signed into law by President Herbert
> Hoover. The tariff brought immediate revengeful tariffs against the
> United States, which resulted in a severe decrease in foreign trade,
> thus intensifying the harsh effects of the Great Depression worldwide.
> Hoover maintained that status quo insofar as his policy agenda was
> concerned; in other words, he failed to take action to correct a
> rapidly deteriorating economic situation, depending instead on private
> enterprise and corporations to pick themselves up and correct the
> situation.


Hoover made the mistake in thinking a tax increase could get the US out
of nationwide economic problems. This is a mistake that todays liberals
seem all to willing to repeat. Taxes are a virtually always a negative
to the economy.

FDR's "New Deal" didn't pull the US out of the depression. WWII did.

[Cubdriver]

On Sun, 27 May 2007 10:54:52 -0500, 601XL Builder
<wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote:

>Hoover made the mistake in thinking a tax increase could get the US out
>of nationwide economic problems.

And add to that, tarrifs and quotas on imported goods.

Sound familiar?

[601XL Builder]

Cubdriver wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 10:54:52 -0500, 601XL Builder
> <wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote:
>
>> Hoover made the mistake in thinking a tax increase could get the US out
>> of nationwide economic problems.
>
> And add to that, tarrifs and quotas on imported goods.
>
> Sound familiar?

A tax is a tax is a tax.

[Montblack]

("601XL Builder" wrote)
> FDR's "New Deal" didn't pull the US out of the depression. WWII did.


My understanding of Depression era events hold that 'recovery'(?) was well
underway by mid 1939.

....depending, of course, what yardstick you use.


Montblack

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Montblack" > wrote

> My understanding of Depression era events hold that 'recovery'(?) was well
> underway by mid 1939.
>
> ...depending, of course, what yardstick you use.

And one could probably argue that, by that time, we were starting to build
up the military machine for the upcoming war.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("601XL Builder" wrote)
>> FDR's "New Deal" didn't pull the US out of the depression. WWII did.
>
>
> My understanding of Depression era events hold that 'recovery'(?) was well
> underway by mid 1939.
>
> ...depending, of course, what yardstick you use.
>
The Dow Jones Industrial Average did not return to the level it held in
October, 1929 until:

a) 1939
b) 1943
c) 1948
d) 1951
e) 1954

Adjusted for inflation, the DJIA did not recover it's full value until:

a) 1943
b) 1949
c) 1954
d) 1958
e) 1962

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Montblack wrote:
> ("601XL Builder" wrote)
>> FDR's "New Deal" didn't pull the US out of the depression. WWII did.
>
>
> My understanding of Depression era events hold that 'recovery'(?) was
> well underway by mid 1939.
>
> ...depending, of course, what yardstick you use.
>
>
> Montblack

A recovery had indeed started by '39. But military production for sale, lend
and lease started before that. It is also not 100% clear that the recovery
would have held had the war not happened.

The government generally can't spend a country out of an economic downturn
without long term negative effects. Historically the one exception to this
is military spending. Since it tends to build both a nations economic and
political position. The one glaring example where this wasn't true was the
USSR 1980s. One where it was true is the USA 1980s.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Montblack" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ("601XL Builder" wrote)
>>> FDR's "New Deal" didn't pull the US out of the depression. WWII did.
>>
>>
>> My understanding of Depression era events hold that 'recovery'(?)
>> was well underway by mid 1939.
>>
>> ...depending, of course, what yardstick you use.
>>
> The Dow Jones Industrial Average did not return to the level it held
> in October, 1929 until:
>
> a) 1939
> b) 1943
> c) 1948
> d) 1951
> e) 1954
>
> Adjusted for inflation, the DJIA did not recover it's full value
> until:
> a) 1943
> b) 1949
> c) 1954
> d) 1958
> e) 1962


I know, I know.








































e
e

[Montblack]

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
> The Dow Jones Industrial Average did not return to the level it held in
> October, 1929 until:


1929 was a bubble, built on a bubble - much like Tokyo in the mid 80's.

The farm economy was hurting before The Crash.

IIRC, its spiral started in 1926-27(?). That would put it almost 3 years
ahead of Wall Street's little party. I'm not sure the exact causes: money
squeeze? land value? crop prices? labor costs? Mississippi River Flood?

That said, I've seen/read a number of pieces that said, if you didn't owe
the bank, lived on a farm, and/or had some cash handy, the depression was
almost a non-event ....for the most part. <g>


Montblack

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you had bother to read the content of the article to which you are
> following up, you would have found the answer to your question:
>

No article can tell me what you believe to be crass insensitivity.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Montblack wrote:
>> ("601XL Builder" wrote)
>>> FDR's "New Deal" didn't pull the US out of the depression. WWII did.
>>
>>
>> My understanding of Depression era events hold that 'recovery'(?) was
>> well underway by mid 1939.
>>
>> ...depending, of course, what yardstick you use.
>>
>>
>> Montblack
>
> A recovery had indeed started by '39. But military production for sale,
> lend and lease started before that. It is also not 100% clear that the
> recovery would have held had the war not happened.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1262

>
> The government generally can't spend a country out of an economic downturn
> without long term negative effects. Historically the one exception to this
> is military spending. Since it tends to build both a nations economic and
> political position. The one glaring example where this wasn't true was the
> USSR 1980s. One where it was true is the USA 1980s.

That's "Myth #3".

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "Montblack" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> ("601XL Builder" wrote)
>>>> FDR's "New Deal" didn't pull the US out of the depression. WWII did.
>>>
>>>
>>> My understanding of Depression era events hold that 'recovery'(?)
>>> was well underway by mid 1939.
>>>
>>> ...depending, of course, what yardstick you use.
>>>
>> The Dow Jones Industrial Average did not return to the level it held
>> in October, 1929 until:
>>
>> a) 1939
>> b) 1943
>> c) 1948
>> d) 1951
>> e) 1954
>>
>> Adjusted for inflation, the DJIA did not recover it's full value
>> until:
>> a) 1943
>> b) 1949
>> c) 1954
>> d) 1958
>> e) 1962
>
>
> I know, I know.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> e
> e
>
"Very good! You win a cookie" - Don Rickles

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Montblack wrote:
>>> ("601XL Builder" wrote)
>>>> FDR's "New Deal" didn't pull the US out of the depression. WWII
>>>> did.
>>>
>>>
>>> My understanding of Depression era events hold that 'recovery'(?)
>>> was well underway by mid 1939.
>>>
>>> ...depending, of course, what yardstick you use.
>>>
>>>
>>> Montblack
>>
>> A recovery had indeed started by '39. But military production for
>> sale, lend and lease started before that. It is also not 100% clear
>> that the recovery would have held had the war not happened.
>
> http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1262
>
>>
>> The government generally can't spend a country out of an economic
>> downturn without long term negative effects. Historically the one
>> exception to this is military spending. Since it tends to build both
>> a nations economic and political position. The one glaring example
>> where this wasn't true was the USSR 1980s. One where it was true is
>> the USA 1980s.
>
> That's "Myth #3".

You are going to have to explain that. III in the the link you posted was
talking about wages.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:

>>>
>>> A recovery had indeed started by '39. But military production for
>>> sale, lend and lease started before that. It is also not 100% clear
>>> that the recovery would have held had the war not happened.
>>
>> http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1262
>>
>>>
>>> The government generally can't spend a country out of an economic
>>> downturn without long term negative effects. Historically the one
>>> exception to this is military spending. Since it tends to build both
>>> a nations economic and political position. The one glaring example
>>> where this wasn't true was the USSR 1980s. One where it was true is
>>> the USA 1980s.
>>
>> That's "Myth #3".
>
> You are going to have to explain that. III in the the link you posted was
> talking about wages.

The myths I'm talking about are not in the link above.

The first three myths are:
Myth #1: The consumer is two-thirds of the economy: as long as she is
spending, we can avoid recession.
(Hint: Production (and only production), is 100% of the economy)
Myth #2: Lower interest rates and easy credit will promote recovery.
Myth #3: Government spending can promote growth.

#3 includes military spending. I don't know what "historically" you are
talking about, because the 1980's in the US military spending DID smother
the Soviet Union, but it certainly did NOT build our economy.

There were four big REAL (not inflation driven numbers) spurts in the US
economy in the last 105 years: 1922, 1962, 1982, and 2003. Can you see a
pattern in those dates?


--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> A recovery had indeed started by '39. But military production for
>>>> sale, lend and lease started before that. It is also not 100% clear
>>>> that the recovery would have held had the war not happened.
>>>
>>> http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1262
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The government generally can't spend a country out of an economic
>>>> downturn without long term negative effects. Historically the one
>>>> exception to this is military spending. Since it tends to build
>>>> both a nations economic and political position. The one glaring
>>>> example where this wasn't true was the USSR 1980s. One where it
>>>> was true is the USA 1980s.
>>>
>>> That's "Myth #3".
>>
>> You are going to have to explain that. III in the the link you
>> posted was talking about wages.
>
> The myths I'm talking about are not in the link above.
>
> The first three myths are:
> Myth #1: The consumer is two-thirds of the economy: as long as she is
> spending, we can avoid recession.
> (Hint: Production (and only production), is 100% of the economy)
> Myth #2: Lower interest rates and easy credit will promote recovery.
> Myth #3: Government spending can promote growth.
>
> #3 includes military spending. I don't know what "historically" you
> are talking about, because the 1980's in the US military spending DID
> smother the Soviet Union, but it certainly did NOT build our economy.
>
> There were four big REAL (not inflation driven numbers) spurts in the
> US economy in the last 105 years: 1922, 1962, 1982, and 2003. Can you
> see a pattern in those dates?


Tax cuts probably.

What I probably should have written is that historically military spending
does not damage the economy as much as other government spending. I read a
paper years ago showing some metrics that basically proved out that since
military spending, especially on the hardware side, creates so many high
paying jobs and develops so many offshoots into the country's civilian
economy that it offsets most of the negatives normally associated with
government spending. That is an incredible simplification of what was about
a 100 page paper but you get the idea.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>>
>> There were four big REAL (not inflation driven numbers) spurts in the
>> US economy in the last 105 years: 1922, 1962, 1982, and 2003. Can you
>> see a pattern in those dates?
>
>
> Tax cuts probably.

Exactly.

Find a graph of real economic growth and the trends are unmistakable. (I
have one in a book but not a web-based one...sorry).

>
> What I probably should have written is that historically military spending
> does not damage the economy as much as other government spending. I read a
> paper years ago showing some metrics that basically proved out that since
> military spending, especially on the hardware side, creates so many high
> paying jobs and develops so many offshoots into the country's civilian
> economy that it offsets most of the negatives normally associated with
> government spending. That is an incredible simplification of what was
> about a 100 page paper but you get the idea.

Military spending is still a drain on an economy. It uses resources that
would be allocated elsewhere (see Bastiat's "Fallacy of the Broken Window"
essay at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy).

It is, however, one of the facts of reality that free humans must endure.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> But the nation wouldn't be guaranteed that you wouldn't become a
> bourdon in your years of retirement, if your choice of retirement plan
> turned out the way it did for Enron employees.
>

The nation does not need that guarantee.