PDA

View Full Version : If the election was today....



clemson tigers
04-30-2004, 02:46 PM
Who would you vote for If the election was today?

user4165146510
04-30-2004, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by clemson tigers
...If the election was held today?

be outraged! and claim that it was unconsitutional if not held in November every 4 years!


P.S. This poll is meaningless. Doesn't matter what a bunch of 18-30 yr olds think - Only 12% of us vote. Senior citizens are the ones you need to convince!

Tech_Zilla
04-30-2004, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by tiger20
Doesn't matter what a bunch of 18-30 yr olds think - Only 12% of us vote. Senior citizens are the ones you need to convince! yep

more people vote on "American Idol" than the presidential election

Does it really matter who you vote for?...you will still get screwed outta money for the next 4 years anyway

AJbuilder
04-30-2004, 03:26 PM
lol yea, american idol is wayyy more popular

but i would vote nader.

dixon
04-30-2004, 03:28 PM
Libertarian party

phikappa
04-30-2004, 03:52 PM
Don't we have a Politics section for this kind of stuff?

user4165146510
04-30-2004, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Tech_Zilla
more people vote on "American Idol" than the presidential election.


ROFL - Is that true?

FiveOneNine
04-30-2004, 10:03 PM
Nader. Wait, I live in Canada. SH!T.

Starsky
04-30-2004, 11:10 PM
Not to jinx Bush here, but why the hell would anyone vote Nader? Kerry, although liberal, is a far more sane and qualified commander-in-cheif and/or economic leader then Ralph Nader could hope to be(thats not saying much though).



Have you guys actually studied Naders *real* positions, and what their impact would have on the economy, the military, and your rights? The guy is not qualified to be Cheif of a convenience store, let alone the presidency.

CerealKiller
04-30-2004, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
Not to jinx Bush here, but why the hell would anyone vote Nader? Kerry, although liberal, is a far more sane and qualified commander-in-cheif and/or economic leader then Ralph Nader could hope to be(thats not saying much though).



Have you guys actually studied Naders *real* positions, and what their impact would have on the economy, the military, and your rights? The guy is not qualified to be Cheif of a convenience store, let alone the presidency.

Because he's the only one with any real integrity who doesn't sell out to the highest bidder. This guy could be a billionaire 30 times over if he wanted.

Do you know how many corporations want to hire this guy and pay him ridiculous sums of money to get him off their backs ? He refuses and remains a thorn in their sides.

An American hero if you ask me.

Starsky
04-30-2004, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
Because he's the only one with any real integrity who doesn't sell out to the highest bidder. This guy could be a billionaire 30 times over if he wanted.

Do you know how many corporations want to hire this guy and pay him ridiculous sums of money to get him off their backs ? He refuses and remains a thorn in their sides.

An American hero if you ask me.


If that qualifies you to be President, then millions of other people deserve just as much as Nader. There are Communists and Nazis who believe stronly enough not to take bribes.


As far as being a thorn in business side, you are correct. Business are nothing more than a group of people trying to make a living, and doing the best they can at it. Then you have some ******* like Nader come along to fire up the Trial Attorneys and try to extort money for other ignorant *******s like himself.


He wants cars and trucks to be forcefully redesigned for *all* Americans to fit his anti-freedom agenda. The man has no understanding of what it takes to run an Economy, and undisputedly no leadership ability to be the commander of the most powerful military in the world. You might as well vote for Mumia Abu-Jamal(believe it, hundreds of thousands of morons would). Ralph Nader = Anti-Freedom nutcase.

CerealKiller
04-30-2004, 11:41 PM
I don't see it that way Starsky. Powerful business people rule the land by buying the influence of our politicians. They are what is wrong with the country.

Starsky
04-30-2004, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
I don't see it that way Starsky. Powerful business people rule the land by buying the influence of our politicians. They are what is wrong with the country.


What's wrong is powerful politicians and lifetime bureaucrats influence on peoples right to be a success.


The only reason they have their cushy government job is the taxes they hit up on business.

Reborn79
05-01-2004, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Starsky
What's wrong is powerful politicians and lifetime bureaucrats influence on peoples right to be a success.


The only reason they have their cushy government job is the taxes they hit up on business.

What is laughable is that you think these 'corporations' are simply 'trying to make a living'. Get real. The bottom line of all these corporations out there is one thing: money. And the corporations will do anything to get more of it. This includes giving donations to candidates in an attempt at getting their money back later on, going around environmental regulations, and essentially screwing over the average american by either polluting, giving them unlivable wages, or whatnot.

Yes, these 'innocent' corporations simply are trying to get by in this tough world of ours. It is unbelievable anyone could believe that.

And if you doubt me, just look at the new Medicare bill signed by the President, which essentially gives back billions of dollars to the pharmacutical(sp) industry and HMOs in the form of subsidies. Do some research (what a concept) and you'll see.

Starsky
05-01-2004, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Reborn79
What is laughable is that you think these 'corporations' are simply 'trying to make a living'. Get real. The bottom line of all these corporations out there is one thing: money. And the corporations will do anything to get more of it. This includes giving donations to candidates in an attempt at getting their money back later on, going around environmental regulations, and essentially screwing over the average american by either polluting, giving them unlivable wages, or whatnot.

Yes, these 'innocent' corporations simply are trying to get by in this tough world of ours. It is unbelievable anyone could believe that.

And if you doubt me, just look at the new Medicare bill signed by the President, which essentially gives back billions of dollars to the pharmacutical(sp) industry and HMOs in the form of subsidies. Do some research (what a concept) and you'll see.


Guess what allows you to have the standard of living you enjoy? Magic? It may as well be, because you have no appreciation for what Business is responsible for.


You are absolutely privileged to be living in a Country were business is allowed to provide you with a good standard of living, instead of one where business is vilified and millions live in poverty.

The_Pain_Train
05-01-2004, 10:44 AM
if the election was today I would vote Bush, and I really don't see that changing any time soon...

Reborn79
05-01-2004, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Starsky
Guess what allows you to have the standard of living you enjoy? Magic? It may as well be, because you have no appreciation for what Business is responsible for.


You are absolutely privileged to be living in a Country were business is allowed to provide you with a good standard of living, instead of one where business is vilified and millions live in poverty.

What you fail to understand is that there can, and SHOULD, exist a balance. Yes, business should be allowed to grow, and corporations should be allowed to exist... I never said anything to the contrary. What I *do* think we need are stricter enforcement of current regulations protecting the average citizen from the corporations', and MORE regulations concerning corporate pollution.

Sadly neither of these will be done under Bush, as some of his major campaign donors are people in these organizations.

BigKazWSM747
05-01-2004, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
What you fail to understand is that there can, and SHOULD, exist a balance. Yes, business should be allowed to grow, and corporations should be allowed to exist... I never said anything to the contrary. What I *do* think we need are stricter enforcement of current regulations protecting the average citizen from the corporations', and MORE regulations concerning corporate pollution.

Sadly neither of these will be done under Bush, as some of his major campaign donors are people in these organizations.

You do realize don't you that such measures you refer to negatively effect profit. And as a result , when a downturn in business occurs their are less stores of cash to whether it and due to these policies that can not be changed (in part) the business go bankrupt and no one has a job.

As paradoxical as it may seem to you. Minimum wages only hurt the consumer because they have to pay an inflated price for goods to make up for the above market-value wages given to the laborer.

Also how is their abuse? I want this defined before I go on. And, also I wish to know how capitalists are inherently evil, the labourers inherently good.

http://www.mises.org/efandi/ch13.asp

Reborn79
05-01-2004, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
You do realize don't you that such measures you refer to negatively effect profit. And as a result , when a downturn in business occurs their are less stores of cash to whether it and due to these policies that can not be changed (in part) the business go bankrupt and no one has a job.

As paradoxical as it may seem to you. Minimum wages only hurt the consumer because they have to pay an inflated price for goods to make up for the above market-value wages given to the laborer.

Also how is their abuse? I want this defined before I go on. And, also I wish to know how capitalists are inherently evil, the labourers inherently good.

http://www.mises.org/efandi/ch13.asp

How is there abuse? My main concern with corporations is environmental destruction and pollution. However, I'll be the first to admit that I have not looked far into the effects of the minimum wage on the economy in general.

I do believe, however, that in a country where money is always the bottom line for these corporations, there should be government oversight to ensure that no abuses are taking place. Examples of 'abuse' could be time-card manipulation (the retail industry is a good example of this), exploition of immigrants, health and safety violations, worker compensation, and so on.

Ethics are a sidenote in any industry where money is the bottom line, take a look at Enron, Tyco, etc. So yes, I do think I am justified at being suspicious of these entities.


However, as I stated earlier, my main concern, at the moment, is with the weakening of pollution regulations that control the amount of waste these corporations can produce (such as the laughable 'Clean Air Act', which does the opposite).

BigKazWSM747
05-01-2004, 12:49 PM
The essential problem of the Communistic utopia: You put consumption ahead of production. Look at the world, at its goods, its factories, and then assume them to always be there, a product born of the environment.

Whenever you seek to consume you must produce.

Further define how businesses exploit immigrants.

Also history would tell you that unions (and popular pressure) are able to ensure that workers recieve proper compensation and certain health and safety standards are met. Which is one of the positive roles they have had (and they have had many negative roles as well). Why does government need to get involved?

Reborn79
05-01-2004, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
The essential problem of the Communistic utopia: You put consumption ahead of production. Look at the world, at its goods, its factories, and then assume them to always be there, a product born of the environment.

Whenever you seek to consume you must produce.

Further define how businesses exploit immigrants.

Also history would tell you that unions (and popular pressure) are able to ensure that workers recieve proper compensation and certain health and safety standards are met. Which is one of the positive roles they have had (and they have had many negative roles as well). Why does government need to get involved?

http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/immigration/ns09062001.cfm


Once again, I am not advocating the abolition or complete dominance over corporations by the government. What I am saying is that if there is no one to check the corporations, they WILL NOT check themselves. Anyone who says otherwise is being ignorant.

Unions are a good thing, and I am glad for them...however, many corporations are vehemently opposed the creation of unions...look at Wal-Mart. So who is looking out for the hundreds of thousands of workers at their stores?

And as I said before, I *AM* for strict environmental regulations on corporations. Money is NOT the bottom line in my opinion, it is the future of this Earth. Too many people selfishly think of themselves and only themselves and don't care if their actions will have extremely detrimental effects 20 years down the road or so.

Call me 'communist' or anti-capitalist or whatever, but I am simply admitting to the fact that corporations cannot be trusted to regulate themselves...the only thing that 'regulates' them is money and wanting more of it.

BigKazWSM747
05-01-2004, 06:39 PM
Companies don't check themselves, usually. On this point you are correct. It is from things such as popular pressure (boycotts are an effective method) and from labor organization that certain standards are held.

Unions are a good thing for some aforementioned things, but they also only look out for members of the union and hold back people not in the unions. They also can inflate the value of the work force way past its market value, which only hurts the consumers and the business itself.

May I ask what is wrong with hiring someone who is willing to work for less pay? You are holding back those that are willing to work more frugally for those that are essentially overpaid. I mean if your skills are interchangeable with an illiterate, barely speaking english worker then I really can't say why you deserve to be paid more and they need to be prevented from getting a job. Can you?

Please stay on this topic, the enviroment is imo a different issue, and one that I do favor some regulation.

LordNeon
05-01-2004, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
Guess what allows you to have the standard of living you enjoy? Magic? It may as well be, because you have no appreciation for what Business is responsible for.


You are absolutely privileged to be living in a Country were business is allowed to provide you with a good standard of living, instead of one where business is vilified and millions live in poverty.

Business will not collapse as a result of environmental regulations, consumer protections, reasonable taxation, and the many other restrictions placed in the name of public safety and health which corporations have withstood for the past few centuries. They have continued to propser with them, and still will.

And the true naivete is not in denying that industry provides us with prosperity, but that industry does so selflessly and will always have society's best interests at heart. Corporations are fundamentally sociopathic entities. They do not have morals. They aren't supposed to - their single purpose (with some exceptions) is to make a profit. If this involves breaking the law, that's fine as long as the expected cost is low enough. If it involves damage to public health, or killing people - ditto.

This doesn't mean that "business is evil", as conservatives childishly insist liberals think. It means that business is not there to serve the public, but to serve themselves. Government is there to keep them in check.

Section 8
05-01-2004, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/immigration/ns09062001.cfm


Once again, I am not advocating the abolition or complete dominance over corporations by the government. What I am saying is that if there is no one to check the corporations, they WILL NOT check themselves. Anyone who says otherwise is being ignorant.

Unions are a good thing, and I am glad for them...however, many corporations are vehemently opposed the creation of unions...look at Wal-Mart. So who is looking out for the hundreds of thousands of workers at their stores?

And as I said before, I *AM* for strict environmental regulations on corporations. Money is NOT the bottom line in my opinion, it is the future of this Earth. Too many people selfishly think of themselves and only themselves and don't care if their actions will have extremely detrimental effects 20 years down the road or so.

Call me 'communist' or anti-capitalist or whatever, but I am simply admitting to the fact that corporations cannot be trusted to regulate themselves...the only thing that 'regulates' them is money and wanting more of it.

Everything above is nonsense. What madness. Irrespective of whatever name with which you identify your purported ideology, the very syntax of your epistemic faculties is of a purely communistic origin. What's sad is that you probably aren't even aware of it.

I'm writing an article about people like you.

LordNeon
05-01-2004, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Section 8
Everything above is nonsense. What madness. Irrespective of whatever name with which you identify your purported ideology, the very syntax of your epistemic faculties is of a purely communistic origin. What's sad is that you probably aren't even aware of it.

I'm writing an article about people like you.

Translation: "Shut up, you damn Commie."

Great refutation. :rolleyes:

LordNeon
05-01-2004, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
Companies don't check themselves, usually. On this point you are correct. It is from things such as popular pressure (boycotts are an effective method) and from labor organization that certain standards are held.


Unfortunately, I think a primary problem is those forces aren't effective enough. Labor organizations, in particular, are waning in power with a rise in free trade; corporations have effectively globalized while organized labor hasn't.

BigKazWSM747
05-01-2004, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
Unfortunately, I think a primary problem is those forces aren't effective enough. Labor organizations, in particular, are waning in power with a rise in free trade; corporations have effectively globalized while organized labor hasn't.

Well by and large the crucial elements of labor have been preserved such as safety standards and work related injury insurance. Too much else only exploits the businesses and causes problems.

BigKazWSM747
05-01-2004, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
This doesn't mean that "business is evil", as conservatives childishly insist liberals think. It means that business is not there to serve the public, but to serve themselves. Government is there to keep them in check.

How would supply and demand not work, in a fully free-market system? Unions raise wages above free-market levels, to the detriment of others. So if your argument is "we need what's best for the masses as a whole", then there goes the union argument.

Also, something else:

Almost all of us wish to "work for ourselves", that is, be a capitalist. So tell me, do we all wish to be evil, and are merely discontented, not because we're the "slave", but rather because we are not the master.

If that is so, then aren't you just as evil as those whom you criticize?

Reborn79
05-01-2004, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
Well by and large the crucial elements of labor have been preserved such as safety standards and work related injury insurance. Too much else only exploits the businesses and causes problems.

That is only if these measures are taken to the extreme. In moderation and with the passage of common-sense laws, corporations and regulations can co-exist peacefully. It is necessary in a capitalist society if any semblence of a healthy workforce is wanted.

BigKazWSM747
05-01-2004, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
That is only if these measures are taken to the extreme. In moderation and with the passage of common-sense laws, corporations and regulations can co-exist peacefully. It is necessary in a capitalist society if any semblence of a healthy workforce is wanted.

You mean the same so called "common sense" that spawned the minimum wage?

Reborn79
05-01-2004, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
You mean the same so called "common sense" that spawned the minimum wage?

As I said before, I have not done much research on this issue, but as I have stated before, I believe it is necessary to have a minimum wage. As I have oft repeated, regulations need to exist to keep corporations in check and to protect the workers (and vice versa, in some cases).

Are you suggesting that the minimum wage should be done away with?

If this happened, this is what I think would occur:

-Wages would drop, in some cases dramatically (for the 'lowest' of jobs, that have high-turnover, etc.)

-Contrary to what some believe, product prices would not drop drastically. A small drop would likely occur, but in comparison to the drop in wages it would hardly register.


This all goes back to what I have been saying: The bottom line for corporations is money, not necessarily the workers well-being (unless profits would be negatively affected, etc.)

If an opportunity arose to cut costs and yet keep product price up (throw in a slight price cut to simulate a 'drop' due to the lowering of the worker's wages), they would jump on it.

BigKazWSM747
05-01-2004, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
As I said before, I have not done much research on this issue, but as I have stated before, I believe it is necessary to have a minimum wage. As I have oft repeated, regulations need to exist to keep corporations in check and to protect the workers (and vice versa, in some cases).

Are you suggesting that the minimum wage should be done away with?

If this happened, this is what I think would occur:

-Wages would drop, in some cases dramatically (for the 'lowest' of jobs, that have high-turnover, etc.)

-Contrary to what some believe, product prices would not drop drastically. A small drop would likely occur, but in comparison to the drop in wages it would hardly register.

This all goes back to what I have been saying: The bottom line for corporations is money, not necessarily the workers well-being (unless profits would be negatively affected, etc.)

If an opportunity arose to cut costs and yet keep product price up (throw in a slight price cut to simulate a 'drop' due to the lowering of the worker's wages), they would jump on it.

Why do you continue to suggest that minimum wage should be maintained despite the fact that it INCREASES unemployment by keeping people from being hired and that people are forced to pay for a job at far above the market value.

If I arbitrarily forced it so that every person in my country all earned, at the minimum, of 50,000 dollars per year, what greater wealth would we have?

First, again think about where from which production comes----note, it's not the workers. Take the average labour union, cast them back 2,000 years in time, and tell me what wealth to their society they'd bring, but the brute alone.

[paraphrased] "Regulations are needed to protect the workers from the greedy businesses"

Oh, so when at work, you outdo your fellow workers for a promotion, and as some may do this by deceit, you do this with skill, you are just an abuser.

[paraphrased]"They don't care about how they make a profit", in a legal system, excluding force/favors, there's only one way to profit...which is appealling to the consumer.

So blame our dearest, adored common man.

If I employed a talking spider monkey. do you just think you should "have" his position, or do you think you'd have to earn it?

Afterall, if you can't beat the monkey, what claim do you have to anything?

Reborn79
05-01-2004, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
Why do you continue to suggest that minimum wage should be maintained despite the fact that it INCREASES unemployment by keeping people from being hired and that people are forced to pay for a job at far above the market value.

If I arbitrarily forced it so that every person in my country all earned, at the minimum, of 50,000 dollars per year, what greater wealth would we have?

First, again think about where from which production comes----note, it's not the workers. Take the average labour union, cast them back 2,000 years in time, and tell me what wealth to their society they'd bring, but the brute alone.

[paraphrased] "Regulations are needed to protect the workers from the greedy businesses"

Oh, so when at work, you outdo your fellow workers for a promotion, and as some may do this by deceit, you do this with skill, you are just an abuser.

[paraphrased]"They don't care about how they make a profit", in a legal system, excluding force/favors, there's only one way to profit...which is appealling to the consumer.

So blame our dearest, adored common man.

If I employed a talking spider monkey. do you just think you should "have" his position, or do you think you'd have to earn it?

Afterall, if you can't beat the monkey, what claim do you have to anything?

First off, corporations are outsourcing to third world countries where labor is extremely cheap. Look at THAT when you are complaining about unemployment.

And you are entirely missing my point on this regulation issue. You trust that the 'people' will regulate the corporations (using their money to talk, so to speak)? In some cases this will work (such as sweat shops being utilized in third world countries). In others, it doesn't, as these corporations have massive PR firms, paid billions yearly simply to put a 'happy' spin on anything that comes out from their companies. They can turn a diamond mined by (literal) slaves into a 'must-have' possession. The power of these companies and their ability to sway public opinion is considerable, and the corporations have the means and the financing to do it.



Bottom line is this: Corporations can only be totally (I don't mean 'entirely', I mean 'securely') 'regulated' by one entity- the government.

BigKazWSM747
05-02-2004, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by Reborn79
First off, corporations are outsourcing to third world countries where labor is extremely cheap. Look at THAT when you are complaining about unemployment.

And you are entirely missing my point on this regulation issue. You trust that the 'people' will regulate the corporations (using their money to talk, so to speak)? In some cases this will work (such as sweat shops being utilized in third world countries). In others, it doesn't, as these corporations have massive PR firms, paid billions yearly simply to put a 'happy' spin on anything that comes out from their companies. They can turn a diamond mined by (literal) slaves into a 'must-have' possession. The power of these companies and their ability to sway public opinion is considerable, and the corporations have the means and the financing to do it.

Bottom line is this: Corporations can only be totally (I don't mean 'entirely', I mean 'securely') 'regulated' by one entity- the government.

You do realize that if the minimum wage didn't exist companies would not be outsourcing because they would not have to pay grossly inflated wages to people here, rather they would be paying them at the actual market value. Our unemployment caused by outsourcing would then be very, very small as the only reason for outsourcing would be finding more qualified workers.

Government regulation (such as tariffs, minimum wage, price controls etc.) do not ameliorate the situation they only worsen it. Government regulation only gets excessive and just hurts the economy.

LordNeon
05-02-2004, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
How would supply and demand not work, in a fully free-market system? Unions raise wages above free-market levels, to the detriment of others. So if your argument is "we need what's best for the masses as a whole", then there goes the union argument.

Also, something else:

Almost all of us wish to "work for ourselves", that is, be a capitalist. So tell me, do we all wish to be evil, and are merely discontented, not because we're the "slave", but rather because we are not the master.

If that is so, then aren't you just as evil as those whom you criticize?

First off, standard laws of supply and demand make assumptions about the fluidity of markets that aren't always appropriate in real life. Disparities between buyers and sellers (e.g. monopolies and oligopolies) can disrupt them. Markets are generally likely to tend towards this kind of lopsidedness over time; there are game-theoretic explanations for this that I don't have time to get into right now.

And it may not have been apparent, but I wasn't trying to declare corporations, or the profit motive in general, to be "evil". I'd probably be morally obliged to sell off all my stocks if I believed that. All I was saying is that I do, however, think these things are fundamentally amoral. If a corporation can push the costs of its operation onto others, for instance, it is in its interest to do so. The only reason a corporation exists is to produce as much profit as possible, regardless of any ethical concerns; indeed, anything less than that would be a failure of its leadership. One of government's duties should be to keep them in check.

LordNeon
05-02-2004, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
You do realize that if the minimum wage didn't exist companies would not be outsourcing because they would not have to pay grossly inflated wages to people here, rather they would be paying them at the actual market value. Our unemployment caused by outsourcing would then be very, very small as the only reason for outsourcing would be finding more qualified workers.

It's simply not true that we're guaranteed to have minimal outsourcing if workers were paid their "market value". Even if the minimum wage were removed, the cost of living in the US is still so high that American workers simply can not currently compete with Third World laborers, regardless of qualification or willingness to deal with crappy conditions. Removing the minimum wage won't change this significantly by itself. (Most workers whose jobs are being outsourced are paid above the minmum wage anyway, for that matter.)

BigKazWSM747
05-02-2004, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by LordNeon
It's simply not true that we're guaranteed to have minimal outsourcing if workers were paid their "market value". Even if the minimum wage were removed, the cost of living in the US is still so high that American workers simply can not currently compete with Third World laborers, regardless of qualification or willingness to deal with crappy conditions. Removing the minimum wage won't change this significantly by itself. (Most workers whose jobs are being outsourced are paid above the minmum wage anyway, for that matter.)

The outsourcing of factory jobs to China would certain reduce. Technology related jobs probably would not (do to the abolition of the minimum wage), but again your neglecting that we are overpaying people for a job where we can get about the same quality of work for much, much less.

If you are going to hire two men for your business with basically the exact same qualifications only one wants 60% more pay who are you going to hire? Most likely your going to hire the one is just as qualified and is willing to work for less.

The standard of living in this country is also significantly higher than many countries in the world (especially those third world countries).

Does every industry, job, have the same earning potential? Does every worker contribute to the same end, in the same capacity. If I'm a cashier at McDonalds, should I earn the same, as say, a doctor?

And don't say "but I should earn enough to live", as again, production precedes consumption, and to no surprise should it be that, like all commodities there's supply and demand, and the greater your (perceived) capacity to produce, that however rare, the greater, generally, your earning potential.

Here is something very interesting:

Why don't we view farmers as continuing the same iniquities as do all other landowners? No, in this case, they're at the mercy of the common man, the consumer, and so they, from the government they seek aid.

Starsky
05-02-2004, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
Business will not collapse as a result of environmental regulations, consumer protections, reasonable taxation, and the many other restrictions placed in the name of public safety and health which corporations have withstood for the past few centuries. They have continued to propser with them, and still will.

And the true naivete is not in denying that industry provides us with prosperity, but that industry does so selflessly and will always have society's best interests at heart. Corporations are fundamentally sociopathic entities. They do not have morals. They aren't supposed to - their single purpose (with some exceptions) is to make a profit. If this involves breaking the law, that's fine as long as the expected cost is low enough. If it involves damage to public health, or killing people - ditto.

This doesn't mean that "business is evil", as conservatives childishly insist liberals think. It means that business is not there to serve the public, but to serve themselves. Government is there to keep them in check.


Of course their purpose is to make a profit. In the process they produce products that raise the standard of living for everyone. The products they sell require workers, those workers are given a salary, and thus more people are able to make a living because of the jobs they provide.


As to whether it involves killing people? What...cigarettes, automobiles? Since when are people forced to smoke or buy specific cars? Ralph Nader has advocated radical redesign of all cars and trucks to enhance safety "standards". In the process he is taking freedom of Choice from the everyday consumer to satisfy his regulatory binges.


Reality is easier to believe in than ideology. Look at California, look at the anemic growth rates, unemployment rate, and even price of gas in highly regulated states or countries? You think most Americans want that? No, people like Nader do not represent the public at large. The public wants the best possible good at the lowest possible price, which business will provide if it can make a profit. If you take away motivation, both parties are negatively impacted.


It comes down to politicians, bureaucrats, and attornies forcing people to buy the products and services that they decide. They view the consumer as stupid chattel, too ignorant to be able to figure out for themselves that certain products are dangerous, and thus screw the vast majority of intelligent people out of free choice. If someone wants to smoke, own a gun, eat McDonalds, buy a fast car, and drink alot of coffee...then fine its their choice, not some elitist bureaucrat douche.

supergarr
05-02-2004, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
You do realize that if the minimum wage didn't exist companies would not be outsourcing because they would not have to pay grossly inflated wages to people here, rather they would be paying them at the actual market value.

nothing in the computer industry pays minimum wage in america; it never has. Neither has any call center work. that point you made is moot.

BigKazWSM747
05-02-2004, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by supergarr
nothing in the computer industry pays minimum wage in america; it never has. Neither has any call center work. that point you made is moot.

If you were not so hasty reaching in your conclusions you would have realized that I addressed this above and specified that it would would dramatically decrease factory outsourcing.

The solution to the outsourcing of technology jobs is simple as well-- stop asking for above the market value of your work. As my examples already outlined. If you are going to hire a plumber and two of them are equally qualified are you going to hire the plumber who asks for twice as much for the job? I don't think so.

BigKazWSM747
05-02-2004, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
However, as I stated earlier, my main concern, at the moment, is with the weakening of pollution regulations that control the amount of waste these corporations can produce (such as the laughable 'Clean Air Act', which does the opposite).

I just became aware of something regarding PCB.

"You know those "nasty" PCB's that "caused" the hole in the ozone layer? They are part of the class of molecules known as 'organohalides', which comprise the majority of our industrial emissions. We (as a planet) release 26,000 tons of the stuff into the air per year. Enviro-freaks are still harping on their global-warming "evil spawn of man" boogey man. It's too bad that they spend too much time protesting and too little time reading. Once we decided the compounds were a problem, we actually started studying them (imagine that). At that time (30 years ago) we thought, in our arrogance, that since we had created them "artificially", that we were their only producer. Now, after 30 years later, it turns out our arrogance was unfounded; it turns out that volcanic emissions, sea kelp, worms, bacteria, our own immune system--you see what I'm getting at--produce 5 million tons of the stuff per year, "naturally," and release it into the air. IOW, all of the "pollutants" we've produced over the last 200 years adds up to about the same amount as the earth itself produces naturally, in one year."

Section 8 deserves credit for bringing this to light and wording it so well.

Reborn79
05-02-2004, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
I just became aware of something regarding PCB.

"You know those "nasty" PCB's that "caused" the hole in the ozone layer? They are part of the class of molecules known as 'organohalides', which comprise the majority of our industrial emissions. We (as a planet) release 26,000 tons of the stuff into the air per year. Enviro-freaks are still harping on their global-warming "evil spawn of man" boogey man. It's too bad that they spend too much time protesting and too little time reading. Once we decided the compounds were a problem, we actually started studying them (imagine that). At that time (30 years ago) we thought, in our arrogance, that since we had created them "artificially", that we were their only producer. Now, after 30 years later, it turns out our arrogance was unfounded; it turns out that volcanic emissions, sea kelp, worms, bacteria, our own immune system--you see what I'm getting at--produce 5 million tons of the stuff per year, "naturally," and release it into the air. IOW, all of the "pollutants" we've produced over the last 200 years adds up to about the same amount as the earth itself produces naturally, in one year."

Section 8 deserves credit for bringing this to light and wording it so well.

Heh...not exactly the same thing. The kind companies use and the kind nature creates are quite different.

http://www.foxriverwatch.com/monsanto2a_pcb_pcbs.html

Section 8
05-02-2004, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
Heh...not exactly the same thing. The kind companies use and the kind nature creates are quite different.

http://www.foxriverwatch.com/monsanto2a_pcb_pcbs.html

I've never seen a single compelling explication for the nature-humanity delineation. That's because there is no distinction to be drawn. There is no such thing as "nature." It's a figment of your imagination. Industrial pollution = human waste = natural waste = infocognitive noise. The pollutants themselves are merely an entailment of gross over-population. "Factory workers showed higher cancer rates..." That's not news, and that's not directly related to the distinct chemicals themselves; the distinctions are contingent. Immunoreactions entail alterations to the genetic code within a single individual life-span (assuming you've got the genes for it); evolution isn't random.

There are two possible paths; 1) we impose strict birth-control and eugenics policies ourselves, and fix government in the process, or 2) we cling to baseless liberal doctrines regarding the so-called rights entailed by "human compassion," and sit and watch while reality cleans up after itself.

In all likelihood, we will have to sit and watch #2 for a generation or so before enough idiots get weeded out for #1 to become a viable option. One way or another, everything will take care of itself. #1 is the only humane way of going about things; but then again, the vast majority of people lack the intelligence to comprehend what is and is not humane anyways. OTOH, 2 is equally sensible, as the group that survives will be more exclusive than it would otherwise; my only point is that more people will consequently die horrible deaths.

I don't really care either way, as it has no bearing on me. I'm just pointing out that your ideals are nonsensical, and are in fact inimical to the well-being of yourself and quite possibly your progeny.

Reborn79
05-02-2004, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by Section 8
I've never seen a single compelling explication for the nature-humanity delineation. That's because there is no distinction to be drawn. There is no such thing as "nature." It's a figment of your imagination. Industrial pollution = human waste = natural waste = infocognitive noise. The pollutants themselves are merely an entailment of gross over-population. "Factory workers showed higher cancer rates..." That's not news, and that's not directly related to the distinct chemicals themselves; the distinctions are contingent. Immunoreactions entail alterations to the genetic code within a single individual life-span (assuming you've got the genes for it); evolution isn't random.

There are two possible paths; 1) we impose strict birth-control and eugenics policies ourselves, and fix government in the process, or 2) we cling to baseless liberal doctrines regarding the so-called rights entailed by "human compassion," and sit and watch while reality cleans up after itself.

In all likelihood, we will have to sit and watch #2 for a generation or so before enough idiots get weeded out for #1 to become a viable option. One way or another, everything will take care of itself. #1 is the only humane way of going about things; but then again, the vast majority of people lack the intelligence to comprehend what is and is not humane anyways. OTOH, 2 is equally sensible, as the group that survives will be more exclusive than it would otherwise; my only point is that more people will consequently die horrible deaths.

I don't really care either way, as it has no bearing on me. I'm just pointing out that your ideals are nonsensical, and are in fact inimical to the well-being of yourself and quite possibly your progeny.


Wait...let me get this straight...you think everything man-made is natural?

I'm just making sure I read this right...

Reborn79
05-02-2004, 07:59 PM
Also, in response to your 'solutions' to overpopulation:


Or 3) Address the issues causing overpopulation. Fund Family Planning in third-world countries ( like in Africa ) where families are very large. Address the economic issues that cause these nations to remain poor. It is supported evidence that when the standard of living is raised, families on average have fewer kids.

Educate women. Educated women in these countries go on to get decent-paying jobs and hence have less time and reason for producing large families.

Sadly the conservatives in America see 'family planning' as evil and have cut funding to it. :(

Section 8
05-02-2004, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
Wait...let me get this straight...you think everything man-made is natural?

I'm just making sure I read this right...

By definition everything which exists at any given point of reference is natural for so long as we have effective access to that particular locus. Anything that is not natural which exists at any given point is necessarily super-natural. Any extant supernatural thing is so necessarily as the product of magic. Experience of the supernatural isn't possible; in order to fulfill the onus of validating a designation of supernaturality one would have to demonstrate the magical mechanism at work; if they could do so, then the phenomenon argued for would cease to be supernatural. Hence, not only is supernatural a faulty predicate, but so is natural on account of its lacking a corresponding antithesis.

Briefly ... the solutions offered weren't "my" solutions; they are two rough outlines of possible eventualities. I don't even consider impossibilities, because they are, by definition, nonsensical.


Originally posted by Reborn79
Also, in response to your 'solutions' to overpopulation:

Or 3) Address the issues causing overpopulation. Fund Family Planning in third-world countries ( like in Africa ) where families are very large. Address the economic issues that cause these nations to remain poor. It is supported evidence that when the standard of living is raised, families on average have fewer kids.

Educate women. Educated women in these countries go on to get decent-paying jobs and hence have less time and reason for producing large families.

Sadly the conservatives in America see 'family planning' as evil and have cut funding to it. :(

If everyone were to become impotent at this exact moment, we would still have to deal with the fact that the planet currently has two times too many people. You are proposing that we impede what is currently an exponential growth rate by a mere fraction of a percent, and that as a function of time. Insofar as it is even worth considering, given that you lack the agency to effect such a rule, the efficacy of your normative proposal would have an end value of zero change--in regards to population control--inasmuch as economy is concerned, it would have a necessarily negative effect, as any investment with no return is just the same as flushing the cash down the toilet.

I think you see me as some sort of opponent. I'm not; I'm actually entirely apolitical. I'm just not willing to recognize a nonsensical conjecture as plausible. There's one rule of existence: when the truth hurts, deal with the pain and adapt, or go extinct. I'm an optimist; I couldn't call myself that if I stood in denial of the truth.

honeybbqgrundle
05-02-2004, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Section 8
snip

It's not always better to use so many fancy, obscure words just because you can :)

Section 8
05-02-2004, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by honeybbqgrundle
It's not always better to use so many fancy, obscure words just because you can :)

I don't. I actually write as I speak as I think. They are all one and the same to me. I'm not able to parse multiple words to a single definition; I really don't understand how others can do it and keep their thoughts straight. I would go nuts. OTOH, an entailment of that is that I am able to predicatively define any term or syntactical operand in my vocabulary. If there was any part in particular that you didn't understand I will do my best to explain it to you. I do realize that my vocabulary is a bit esoteric; I get off on ideas, and so consequently tend to pull terms from various fields that I have dabbled in.

CerealKiller
05-03-2004, 12:11 AM
Section 8,

I agree with honeybbgrundle.

If you want to be understood you should "dumb it down" some for those of us who have trouble spelling kat.

I think I understand what you're saying but it's a little to dante battista-ish to follow.

clemson tigers
05-08-2004, 02:20 PM
So it looks like bush by a hair.