Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[sgtmac_46]

And incidentally it was unions not corporations who gave us the 40 hour week and time and a half betond that. You can try and debate that point, but you're really just fighting with reality.:uhyeah:

Of course without businesses, you don't need to worry about a 40 hour week, as you can have all the free time you want......being unemployed. It's clear that you don't understand what the prosperity you enjoy comes from. Unions don't bring prosperity, they merely exploit that which is created by others. Whether or not that is a good thing takes a backseat to the question of what creates that prosperity to begin with.

 

[bustr]

Of course without businesses, you don't need to worry about a 40 hour week, as you can have all the free time you want......being unemployed. It's clear that you don't understand what the prosperity you enjoy comes from. Unions don't bring prosperity, they merely exploit that which is created by others. Whether or not that is a good thing takes a backseat to the question of what creates that prosperity to begin with.

And of course without workers corporate fatcats would have lots of free time. It's clear that you don't understand where YOUR Prosperity comes from. Corporations create prosperity for those who are wicked and cunning enough to run them. Unions and government mandates spread the wealth around. Trickle down means they're pissing on you.

 

[sgtmac_46]

And of course without workers corporate fatcats would have lots of free time. It's clear that you don't understand where YOUR Prosperity comes from. Corporations create prosperity for those who are wicked and cunning enough to run them. Unions and government mandates spread the wealth around. Trickle down means they're pissing on you.

LMFAO. It's clear that you follow the old socialist mindset that believes that the creative mind, which invents a thing, is worth no more than the lowiest mind that he teaches to manually produce that thing. One is far more valuable than another. The reason capitalism succeeds over socialism, is that it understands what to value more, and by rewarding those things in proportion, it allows the creation of wealth. Socialists believe that wealth is just sitting around, independent of human creativity. Capitalists understand that wealth is created, not found. That is why socialists are never able to produce anything but conflict.

Again, it is clear you view wealth as an adversarial thing, however, it is the wealth created by the men you despise, that is responsible for the fact that Americans today live more prosperously today, as a whole, than any humans in the history of the world.

 

[jdinca]

Of course without businesses, you don't need to worry about a 40 hour week, as you can have all the free time you want......being unemployed. It's clear that you don't understand what the prosperity you enjoy comes from. Unions don't bring prosperity, they merely exploit that which is created by others. Whether or not that is a good thing takes a backseat to the question of what creates that prosperity to begin with.

This is probably the only time you and I are going to disagree. :idunno: I'm a union member, a former union officer, AND a conservative (very schizophrenic at times, believe me). I think unions play an important role in society. To a certain extent, a checks and balances sytem to corporate/government leaders beholden to stockholders/taxpayers (I'm one of those too), with consumers/taxpayers being the third leg of the triangle.

I also consider unions to be their own worst enemy. Many times, they pick and choose the wrong battles, and use the almost completely wrong tack when getting their message out to the public. For instance, shutting down the NY transit system, in direct violation of the law and in direct conflict with the national union. Hello! What did they expect to gain by pissing off everybody! Militant just doesn't work.

That said many of the wages, benefits and worker protection laws enjoyed by union and nonunion employees were established by union precedent.

 

[sgtmac_46]

This is probably the only time you and I are going to disagree. :idunno: I'm a union member, a former union officer, AND a conservative (very schizophrenic at times, believe me). I think unions play an important role in society. To a certain extent, a checks and balances sytem to corporate/government leaders beholden to stockholders/taxpayers (I'm one of those too), with consumers/taxpayers being the third leg of the triangle.

I also consider unions to be their own worst enemy. Many times, they pick and choose the wrong battles, and use the almost completely wrong tack when getting their message out to the public. For instance, shutting down the NY transit system, in direct violation of the law and in direct conflict with the national union. Hello! What did they expect to gain by pissing off everybody! Militant just doesn't work.

That said many of the wages, benefits and worker protection laws enjoyed by union and nonunion employees were established by union precedent.

Perhaps you misunderstand. The use of the word 'exploit' is not meant in a derogatory way. My grandfather worked for GM as a UAW member for 30 years. However, unions did not create that prosperity, they merely took advantage of prosperity produced by the ingenuity of others. If we lose sight of the fact that it is entrepenurism that creates wealth and prosperity, not unions and government programs, then we have a serious problem.

One need look no further than Europe to see the result of the Union mentality gone astray. With legislation restricting work weeks to 35 hours, for the purposes of reducing unemployment. The result? Has actually been job loss.

 

[bustr]

LMFAO. It's clear that you follow the old socialist mindset that believes that the creative mind, which invents a thing, is worth no more than the lowiest mind that he teaches to manually produce that thing. One is far more valuable than another. The reason capitalism succeeds over socialism, is that it understands what to value more, and by rewarding those things in proportion, it allows the creation of wealth. Socialists believe that wealth is just sitting around, independent of human creativity. Capitalists understand that wealth is created, not found. That is why socialists are never able to produce anything but conflict.

Again, it is clear you view wealth as an adversarial thing, however, it is the wealth created by the men you despise, that is responsible for the fact that Americans today live more prosperously today, as a whole, than any humans in the history of the world.

It's clear that you are naive enough to believe that success is based on intelligence. It's not. There are plenty of intelligent people out there. Most of them are not rich. Ask Bill Gates what made him successful. He readily admits that stealing material from other computer nerds was his secret to success. Another example is your president. He obviously didn't get the job by being smart or creative. He was born rich. His father was born rich. His grandfather was born rich. Prescott also made alot of money with his banking corporation which loaned money to your ideological elder, Adolph Hitler.

Your last statement is complete bull. The quality of life I enjoyed growing up was created by my father's union affiliation. The union's success was due to the good quality work they provided. Any republican engineer will back me up on that one. If corporations had their way we'd be paid with a script to the company store and we'd be eternally in their debt for overpriced goods.

You can debate all you want. Your just arguing with reality but ultimately you know I'm right. Now go and sin no more.

 

[sgtmac_46]

It's clear that you are naive enough to believe that success is based on intelligence. It's not. There are plenty of intelligent people out there. Most of them are not rich. Ask Bill Gates what made him successful. He readily admits that stealing material from other computer nerds was his secret to success. Another example is your president. He obviously didn't get the job by being smart or creative. He was born rich. His father was born rich. His grandfather was born rich. Prescott also made alot of money with his banking corporation which loaned money to your ideological elder, Adolph Hitler.

Hitler my ideological elder? ding ding ding. We've now invoked Godwin's law. If there was anyone who I knew would do it, it would be you.

The only problem with your 'theory' is that the very richest men in American history all came from poverty, not wealth. Their children, who are born in wealth, often squander it. True desire builds success, not being 'born lucky'. Luck is merely when opportunity meets preparedness. Meaning, if you're lazy and talentless, you can squander even the most wonderful luck. Likewise, if you're industrious, creative, and somewhat intelligent and resourceful, you can create luck where none exists.

I know a girl who came in to approximately $50,000. A good bit of luck. However, she managed to squirt it away in the matter of about 4 months, being broke at the end and having absolutely nothing to show for it. She would probably share your sentiments, that she's 'unlucky' and that fate was against her. However, the reality is that she had extraordinarily good luck and a prime opportunity to improve herself....she simple squandered it.

There are people in this world that are incapable of exploiting a lucky break to better themselves better. There are also people who can turn even back luck, good. That you believe success is about pure luck is only an indication of the fact that you don't want to have be responsible for your own success or failure. You'd rather others take care of you.

Success is determined by hard work, creativity and determination. That lazy and foolish people seek to cling to the idea of 'determination' is only more proof that their lot is self-imposed. Those who want to convince everyone that success, monetary and otherwise, is chance, merely want to distract our attention, while they pick our pockets.

Your last statement is complete bull. The quality of life I enjoyed growing up was created by my father's union affiliation. The union's success was due to the good quality work they provided. Any republican engineer will back me up on that one. If corporations had their way we'd be paid with a script to the company store and we'd be eternally in their debt for overpriced goods.

Your 'union' produced nothing itself, and they never do. Having a union without business won't put one cent in your pocket. It is business that produces wealth, not unions.

You can debate all you want. Your just arguing with reality but ultimately you know I'm right. Now go and sin no more.

Well, you do enjoy a rich fantasy life.

Your entire argument is predicated on the belief that failure is accidental and that envy should be the natural state of man. It's ironic that those who embrace the 'pure luck' argument rarely succeed, while those who believe their fate is in their own hands more often do. There's a lesson there, though I doubt you'll get it. Your position appears to be nothing but an embodiment of what Nietzsche called the Slave Morality, and as such it is founded on nothing more than envy.

The error is the belief that someone made themselves rich off of you. The reality is that you are not poorer, but rather, richer, for their wealth. You would not have create that wealth for yourself, had someone not created it first, so no one has taken anything from you.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

It's clear that you are naive enough to believe that success is based on intelligence. It's not. There are plenty of intelligent people out there. Most of them are not rich. Ask Bill Gates what made him successful. He readily admits that stealing material from other computer nerds was his secret to success. Another example is your president. He obviously didn't get the job by being smart or creative. He was born rich. His father was born rich. His grandfather was born rich. Prescott also made alot of money with his banking corporation which loaned money to your ideological elder, Adolph Hitler.

Whoa! Calling someone you disagree with politically an ideological descendent of Adolph Hitler is way out of line and totally uncalled for and inappropriate. Let's agree to disagree without being disagreeable, shall we?

This is a road we do not want to take, believe me. Depersonalizing those who disagree with you politically is the path of civil war and atrocity.

 

[Ray]

And I'm still a republican. In fact, recent remarks by Hillary and Gore and the mayor/prophet of New Orleans remind me what it means to be a democrat.

 

[jdinca]

Perhaps you misunderstand. The use of the word 'exploit' is not meant in a derogatory way. My grandfather worked for GM as a UAW member for 30 years. However, unions did not create that prosperity, they merely took advantage of prosperity produced by the ingenuity of others. If we lose sight of the fact that it is entrepenurism that creates wealth and prosperity, not unions and government programs, then we have a serious problem.

One need look no further than Europe to see the result of the Union mentality gone astray. With legislation restricting work weeks to 35 hours, for the purposes of reducing unemployment. The result? Has actually been job loss.

Hmm, we're still going to have to disagree to a point. It seems to me that you are looking at the unions as the entity, I prefer to look at unions for the group of workers that make up the union. The entity does not create prosperity but the members do. Based on your analogy, any employee who does not have the entrepenurial mindset is exploitational. They're just not doing it as part of a recognized employee group. What the union can do that is good, is prevent all of the proceeds of that entrepenurial spirit from going into the pockets of the executives and the shareholders. Shareholders, IMHO, are the ones you should be looking at as explotational, based on your statement. I do understand that your terminology is not meant as derogatory.

As for unions in Europe, you are totally right. There needs to be balance.

 

[bustr]

Success is determined by hard work, creativity and determination.

Sometimes. More often than not it's determined by birth or treachery.

Your 'union' produced nothing itself, and they never do. Having a union without business won't put one cent in your pocket. It is business that produces wealth, not unions.

Except for good wages, a safe working environment and better craftsmen than any private trade school can produce. Having a business without workers produces nothing.

The error is the belief that someone made themselves rich off of you. The reality is that you are not poorer, but rather, richer, for their wealth. You would not have create that wealth for yourself, had someone not created it first, so no one has taken anything from you.

Big companies would not have their wealth if therre were no workers to create it for them. And even well paid workers take little from corporations. In spite of the strain that payrolls put on companies like Disney for example they still manage to offer ousted CEOs 100 million dollar severance packages. That's money that should be put into raises, business development and dividends but they keep it at the top. Trickle down means they're pissing on you.

Your entire argument is predicated on the belief that failure is accidental...

Your entire argument is predicated on the belief that you can read minds. I don't think in absolutes like you do. It is possible to work your way to the top. But more often than not people backstab their way up

 

[Jade Tigress]

Mod. Note.
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Pamela Piszczek
-MT Moderator-

 

[tradrockrat]

Conservatives can't change their minds. Changing their minds when presented with truth would make them liberal by definition.

And yet the "liberals" on this thread are as guilty of it as the "Conservatives". Hmmm.....

BTW - I'm about as conservative as a teacher can be, but that ain't much. Both parties are out of touch, criminal, greedy, uncaring, and elitest.

Pot, meet Mr. Kettle, but you can call him black.

 

[jdinca]

Sigh, this is where the schizophrenia comes in...

Bustr, it's all right. Unions play a big part in our economy and I don't think that sgtmac is saying they don't. His view is just more to the right than you would like.

I'm a believer in trickle down economics, whether the money made at the top sits in an account or gets spent, it is still in the economy via investments made by whoever is holding the money. Even if it's in a savings account, the entity holding it is still using it. That creates jobs, which creates wages, which get spent, which puts the money back in play. Yes, I know the arguments against but that is MY personal opinion.

Unions play a part in keeping trickle down economics from swinging too far and preventing money earned by the company from getting to the worker, so they can participate in the economy too. Not to mention workers rights, especially where safety is concerned.

Consider it a yin and yang thing. For the most part, there is no such thing as always and never. Trickle down economics cannot be the sole way the economy is run, neither is an economy run by unions. sgtmac's example of Europe is a perfect example.

No, conservatives CAN change their mind, they would just rather not, or at the very least, not as quickly, or in the direction liberals would like. To say they can't as a definition is rhetoric that clouds the issue being discussed, pisses people off and gets the hackles up on the moderators.
:readrules

Now, it's time for me to drift back to the right...

 

[sgtmac_46]

Sometimes. More often than not it's determined by birth or treachery.

Again, more evidence of the pick-pocket mentality (I deserve to be able to take what belongs to another, because I rationalize that he is just 'lucky'). The reality is that hard work and determination have created the bulk of wealth in this country. The richest men that ever lived created their wealth. The two richest men that ever lived in this country, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnagie were both born dirt poor,. Carnagie was an Irish immigrant, who came to America as a child. At that time, Irish immigrants were considered lower than slaves, and fit only for work too dangerous for slaves to perform (as an investment in a Slave was high, a dead Irishman cost nothing).

They both created their wealth. Your belief that one is only 'born in to wealth' is absurd. ALL wealth is created. Those born in to wealth, merely had their wealth created by an ancestor, who exhibited the qualities I illustrated. Name one fortune in this country that doesn't have at it's root an enterprising and resourceful man of vision who created it.

Except for good wages, a safe working environment and better craftsmen than any private trade school can produce. Having a business without workers produces nothing.

And having workers without a business is less profitable still. A creative and resourceful man can create a fortune with mediocre workers. Good workers can't produce anything of value devoid of a business. In other words, how many Fry cooks does it take to build a Fortune 500 company? You can take a 1000 Fry cooks, devoid of a visionary, and they'll produce NOTHING independently. If they don't have the ability to be creative, than their individual labor is worth very little.

Creativity and vision are FAR more valuable than physical labor. You might believe to the contrary, but you can't point to a single aspect of reality that supports your position.

Big companies would not have their wealth if therre were no workers to create it for them. And even well paid workers take little from corporations. In spite of the strain that payrolls put on companies like Disney for example they still manage to offer ousted CEOs 100 million dollar severance packages. That's money that should be put into raises, business development and dividends but they keep it at the top. Trickle down means they're pissing on you.

You keep referring to 'big' companies, but there is really no difference between big companies and small. A creative leader can take any number of employees and produce a profitable company. However, he can also fire any individual laborer and still replace him. An employees individual physical labor is far less valuable than vision and creativity at the top.

Your entire argument is predicated on the belief that you can read minds. I don't think in absolutes like you do. It is possible to work your way to the top. But more often than not people backstab their way up

Of course you think in absolutes. 'Big business BAAADDDD/labor GOOOODDDD' 'You are NAZIIII' all those are absolutist thinking. I'm the one who thinks in nuance. I understand where each aspect of an economy fits with another. Individual labor is important, but without the creative spark to provide something new, it is also useless. I can even prove this.

You claim that labor is as important, or more important, than creativity. But robots have been increasingly a part of the physical labor of corperations for years. Tell, how important was the physical labor provided by the employees that those robots replaced compared to the creativity required to invent those robots? How valuable is it now?

 

[bustr]

Again, more evidence of the pick-pocket mentality (I deserve to be able to take what belongs to another, because I rationalize that he is just 'lucky').

And when the county siezes your land to sell to a Wal Mart so they can build a new store and generate more tax revenue that's okay but organizing to leverage against the robber baron's isn't? Big businessand republicans pick more pockets than anyone else. A good example of a pickpocket mentality is the enron corp execs who lied about the companies earnings to keep the stock prices artificially high unitl they could sell out.

The reality is that hard work and determination have created the bulk of wealth in this country. The richest men that ever lived created their wealth. The two richest men that ever lived in this country, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnagie were both born dirt poor,. Carnagie was an Irish immigrant, who came to America as a child. At that time, Irish immigrants were considered lower than slaves, and fit only for work too dangerous for slaves to perform (as an investment in a Slave was high, a dead Irishman cost nothing).

I'm trusting that you're not lying about their backgrounds.

They both created their wealth. Your belief that one is only 'born in to wealth' is absurd. ALL wealth is created. Those born in to wealth, merely had their wealth created by an ancestor, who exhibited the qualities I illustrated. Name one fortune in this country that doesn't have at it's root an enterprising and resourceful man of vision who created it.

Bill gates did to by stealing (there's a good example of pickpocket mentality) material from other computer geeks. He admits it.

You can take a 1000 Fry cooks, devoid of a visionary, and they'll produce NOTHING independently. If they don't have the ability to be creative, than their individual labor is worth very little.

True. But if they organize, take steps to insure quality and offer their services to the restaurant for a fair wage then they can. Also those fry cooks are alot more likely to succeed in the business arena than the manager is to succeed in the kitchen.

Creativity and vision are FAR more valuable than physical labor. You might believe to the contrary, but you can't point to a single aspect of reality that supports your position.

True but alot of companies have non-compete policies that squelch or sieze any good ideas that an employee has. I know some WORKERS who developed a new type of compressor and couldn't market it because their employers legal team threatened to tie them up in the courts. Their design worked where the company's R&D division had a series of failures. Their creativity got them nowhere

You keep referring to 'big' companies, but there is really no difference between big companies and small. A creative leader can take any number of employees and produce a profitable company. However, he can also fire any individual laborer and still replace him. An employees individual physical labor is far less valuable than vision and creativity at the top.

That's how Disney sees it anyway. Maybe you screwed up a company and got a big severance package.

Of course you think in absolutes. 'Big business BAAADDDD/labor GOOOODDDD' 'You are NAZIIII' all those are absolutist thinking. I'm the one who thinks in nuance. I understand where each aspect of an economy fits with another. Individual labor is important, but without the creative spark to provide something new, it is also useless. I can even prove this.

That creative spark usually comes from the bottom. You can only prove it with an addition to the equation If you can keep your employer or a competitor from stealing your idea then you might very well succeed. The correct formula would be:

labor + creativity + the freedom to pursue = success

...compared to the creativity required to invent those robots? How valuable is it now?

That kind of work is done on drawing boards and in workshops by engineers and craftsmen not by executives. And most engineers will tell you they want union craftsmen on the job to insure quality.

 

[sgtmac_46]

And when the county siezes your land to sell to a Wal Mart so they can build a new store and generate more tax revenue that's okay but organizing to leverage against the robber baron's isn't? Big businessand republicans pick more pockets than anyone else. A good example of a pickpocket mentality is the enron corp execs who lied about the companies earnings to keep the stock prices artificially high unitl they could sell out.

It's obvious you've entirely missed the point (as usual) I don't support the government being involved in business any more than it has to. Enron and it's corruption were a direct result of government regulation. It is business that has created what prosperity there exists in this country. Withhout business, you would not have any pockets to pick. Business creates employment, more so than any assertion that employment creates business. All you've done is fall back on the old class warfare playbook. Without an appeal to envy and resentment, you really don't have any argument at all.

I'm trusting that you're not lying about their backgrounds.

Actually, it's quite common knowledge.

Bill gates did to by stealing (there's a good example of pickpocket mentality) material from other computer geeks. He admits it.

Well, you can try and make the argument that Bill Gates 'stole' windows. However, you'll find it harder to make a case that we would have even heard of windows without Bill Gates. If someone takes an idea that is idle, and turns it in to Billions, it is the ingenuity in knowing something for what it is worth, and selling it, that is valuable.

True. But if they organize, take steps to insure quality and offer their services to the restaurant for a fair wage then they can. Also those fry cooks are alot more likely to succeed in the business arena than the manager is to succeed in the kitchen.

If those 'fry cooks' were as valuable as you think they are, they'd start their own business and make considerably more money. The fact that they are limited by their own lack of imagination or ability is no fault of anyone else. Moreover, any decent manager can not only do his job, but any job below him. If he's not, he's a poor manager, and a poor business investment. Again, your argument falls flat.

True but alot of companies have non-compete policies that squelch or sieze any good ideas that an employee has. I know some WORKERS who developed a new type of compressor and couldn't market it because their employers legal team threatened to tie them up in the courts. Their design worked where the company's R&D division had a series of failures. Their creativity got them nowhere

You'll find that I don't support corperate protectionism. A competative market place is the ideal. Those that take a statist stance on business are the problem, not the solution. I support the free market...... the employee who takes that compressor and starts his own business is a perfect example of the freemarket in action.

That's how Disney sees it anyway. Maybe you screwed up a company and got a big severance package.

Again, a true freemarket rewards success, not failure, so you're really not doing much to attack the free market.

That creative spark usually comes from the bottom. You can only prove it with an addition to the equation If you can keep your employer or a competitor from stealing your idea then you might very well succeed. The correct formula would be:

That creative spark usually comes from someone who's innovating. Labor unions do not support innovation, they support a status quo just the same as a business. An innovator works outside of the system.

labor + creativity + the freedom to pursue = success

Which is what makes the free market system the ideal system. Those who are creative, and work hard, can succeed. Which was the original assertion I made that you disputed. Thanks for conceding my point.

That kind of work is done on drawing boards and in workshops by engineers and craftsmen not by executives. And most engineers will tell you they want union craftsmen on the job to insure quality.

What you are saying is that an engineer and a crafter who take a product and start their own company, therefore BECOMING an executive, is worth no more than a fry cook. You've inadvertantly made my point for me. The goal is to become an executive, not to destroy executives. The other option is to decide that everyone is equally worth the same amount, whether they are a fry cook, or an engineer. That has been proven to be a failure of an idea.

 

[bustr]

It's obvious you've entirely missed the point (as usual) I don't support the government being involved in business any more than it has to. Enron and it's corruption were a direct result of government regulation. It is business that has created what prosperity there exists in this country. Withhout business, you would not have any pockets to pick. Business creates employment, more so than any assertion that employment creates business. All you've done is fall back on the old class warfare playbook. Without an appeal to envy and resentment, you really don't have any argument at all.

No but you support business owning the government. Enron was the result of human greed nothing more. It is workers who create prosperity by creating products. You can continue with your empty arguments but you're living in an idealized dream world where businesses don't try to screw their employees and competitors. In your imaginary world businesses like halliburton are not war profiteers sucking off the government tit. Robber barons don't own stock in the federal reserve and don't loan money to the government which then goes to their own companies' government contracts thus running up the national deficit and leaving tax payers to pay the bills.

Well, you can try and make the argument that Bill Gates 'stole' windows. However, you'll find it harder to make a case that we would have even heard of windows without Bill Gates. If someone takes an idea that is idle, and turns it in to Billions, it is the ingenuity in knowing something for what it is worth, and selling it, that is valuable.

Yes he gave it the name windows. However other OSs existed. He simply stole from Apple, made a few changes and sold it. *Note: My friends did not steal the compressor design.

If those 'fry cooks' were as valuable as you think they are, they'd start their own business and make considerably more money.

Well what in the hell did you think I was suggesting?

The fact that they are limited by their own lack of imagination or ability is no fault of anyone else.

Who said they were limited?

Moreover, any decent manager can not only do his job, but any job below him. If he's not, he's a poor manager, and a poor business investment. Again, your argument falls flat.

Ideally. But what you describe is the exception to the rule. No he doesn't have to be able to do the job of his subordinates but he does have to have the good sense to trust them and get out of their way.

You'll find that I don't support corperate protectionism. A competative market place is the ideal. Those that take a statist stance on business are the problem, not the solution. I support the free market...... the employee who takes that compressor and starts his own business is a perfect example of the freemarket in action.

Everything you say is IDEAL. Problem is it's all imaginary.

Again, a true freemarket rewards success, not failure, so you're really not doing much to attack the free market.

Then you have to agree with me that a true freemarket doesn't exist.

That creative spark usually comes from someone who's innovating. Labor unions do not support innovation, they support a status quo just the same as a business. An innovator works outside of the system.

You are dead wrong there. They like it when one of their members opens a business.

Which is what makes the free market system the ideal system. Those who are creative, and work hard, can succeed. Which was the original assertion I made that you disputed. Thanks for conceding my point.

Free market = ideal. The reality is different.

What you are saying is that an engineer and a crafter who take a product and start their own company, therefore BECOMING an executive, is worth no more than a fry cook.

No the engineers and crafters that I know who have tried have been screwed over by their employer. They never became executives.

You've inadvertantly made my point for me. The goal is to become an executive, not to destroy executives. The other option is to decide that everyone is equally worth the same amount, whether they are a fry cook, or an engineer. That has been proven to be a failure of an idea.

Again you are not living in the real world. Corporations like DuPont and Cloeren inc seek to destroy competition and concentrate the wealth through any means necessary. I'm saying that the working man and the upstart business need to pull out all of the stops when dealing with them even if the methods at first seem unfair. It's a dog eat dog world out there. Accept it and get your head out of the clouds.

 

[shesulsa]

<<Moderator Note. >>
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our general posting rules. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-G. Ketchmark / shesulsa
-MT Moderator-

 

[sgtmac_46]

No but you support business owning the government. Enron was the result of human greed nothing more. It is workers who create prosperity by creating products. You can continue with your empty arguments but you're living in an idealized dream world where businesses don't try to screw their employees and competitors. In your imaginary world businesses like halliburton are not war profiteers sucking off the government tit. Robber barons don't own stock in the federal reserve and don't loan money to the government which then goes to their own companies' government contracts thus running up the national deficit and leaving tax payers to pay the bills.

lol. Please. I support limited government, not 'anyone' owning government. Business in America has created what prosperity we have. Ask the former Soviet Union and other communist nations what prosperity good workers, devoid of a free market, were able to produce. You use the word 'Greed', but you use it out of envy.

Greed, as a motivator of human ingenuity, is not evil. Without 'greed' there would be no human desire to improve ourselves.

Your philosophy is negative value oriented. It does not add value, it rather, defines itself by what it is against. Again, you imagine a world where you are 'victimized'. People fail, not because they lack ambition and drive, but because they are 'victimized'. I can see how this would be comforting to those with no ambition.....It's also clearly a lie. You have built a philosophy out of averice and jealousy, as such, it is nothing but a negative philosophy who's only purpose is to destroy that which you envy....why? Becaue you want to HAVE what those who you envy possess.

Yes he gave it the name windows. However other OSs existed. He simply stole from Apple, made a few changes and sold it. *Note: My friends did not steal the compressor design.

First, no one produced anything with what you claim Gates stole. Second, I oppose protectionism of all sorts....including company attempts to limit free market, so you're barking up the wrong tree.

Well what in the hell did you think I was suggesting?

You're not suggesting anything, you're merely playing off the old class warfare playbook. Envy and spite are your tools, and what you suggest is nothing but a negative value oriented approach to society.

Who said they were limited?

I say they're limited. That they, thorough action or lack thereof, fail to capitalize is nothing but an indication of how limited they are. You prefer to believe that they are 'victimized'. But if they are victims, they are victims of their own limited abilities.

Ideally. But what you describe is the exception to the rule. No he doesn't have to be able to do the job of his subordinates but he does have to have the good sense to trust them and get out of their way.

No, what i'm suggesting is someone who is a good supervisor. If they can't do the jobs of their subordinates, they are in the wrong position.

Everything you say is IDEAL. Problem is it's all imaginary.

Far less imaginary than your excuses for those who fail to capitalize on opportunity. It's ironic when immigrants come to America and within a few short years begin to prosper, while those born hear whine about 'being victims'. It's really quite pathetic.

Then you have to agree with me that a true freemarket doesn't exist.

I don't have to agree with anything. The free market system is far superior to anything you have or can suggest. It is clear that you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about, and are merely an emotional reactionary striking out based on envy and spite.

You are dead wrong there. They like it when one of their members opens a business.

And then turn around and seek to find away to exploit that member for not 'spreading the wealth' enough.

Free market = ideal. The reality is different.

Free market is an 'model' far superior to anything you have suggested. Again, you are the one that lives in an idealized reality.....where you are not responsible for your own success or failure. It's nothing but an excuse.

No the engineers and crafters that I know who have tried have been screwed over by their employer. They never became executives.

Is that their excuse for failure? Sounds familiar. Those who can, do, those who can't sit around and whine about how 'unfair' it is.

Again you are not living in the real world. Corporations like DuPont and Cloeren inc seek to destroy competition and concentrate the wealth through any means necessary. I'm saying that the working man and the upstart business need to pull out all of the stops when dealing with them even if the methods at first seem unfair. It's a dog eat dog world out there. Accept it and get your head out of the clouds.

LMFAO. It's not me who can't accept that it's a dog eat dog world. The free market model is responsible for creating a degree of prosperity in America not seen in the history of the world. It must be so very hard to whine about 'oppression' in all this prosperity.