U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-22-2013, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Ohio
19,692 posts, read 14,151,738 times
Reputation: 15870

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Do you always dodge and evade comments that thoroughly repudiate what you support rather than admitting that your perspectives are disreputable?
Nothing you say is relevant....and if you want, I dig up threads where you ran away when your claims were repudiated with facts from your own government.

Let's do that anyway....

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Our nation is fortunate enough to need practically nothing else from the rest of the world, having substantial agricultural and mineral wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
"The United States has become highly dependent on imports of the minerals used to make titanium and TiO2, which primarily comes from Australia and Canada."

USGS Minerals Information: Statistical Compendium - TITANIUM

Uh-huh......and how many other links from the US government would you like me to post that will totally refute your ridiculous claim that the US has "substantial agricultural and mineral wealth?"

I'll be nice and let you tell me.
You should open your mouth a little wider when you speak.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Start by making clear what you pretend should be done with the "surplus population" that results from skyrocketing productivity and globalization.
The fact that you think people should be engaged in production their entire lives is disgusting, but then we expect that from Liberals.

The "surplus population" can engage in a core Conservative value called "leisurely pursuits," such as self-introspection, self-study, self-learning, hobbies, volunteer activities, travel and many other activities.

Obviously, you are totally opposed to things-leisurely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Do you have any concept of society?
Yeah, do you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
If 90% of the remaining jobs in society are automated and globalized out of existence, what then?
Then people have time for leisurely pursuits.....apparently you find the mere thought of people engaged in leisure activities appalling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
If the point of increasing productivity and exploiting lower cost labor overseas isn't to "decrease the surplus population" here at home, then explain how the system will remain in balance given that we need so many fewer hours of work done by Americans yet the cost of living as an American continues to increase. It's simple, basic logic.
You forgot Demand Destruction.

The Laws of Economics will create balance and harmony (via Demand Destruction in part).

Note that Cost-of-Living is related to Standard of Living, so it would seem you may be labeled as an Hedonist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Do the math.
I did.....that's what I do for a living.....when I feel like working....the rest of the time I engage in leisurely pursuits, and we all know how you detest any person who has leisure time, and the whole concept of leisure activities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
First, let us know if your intention is to priggishly and arrogantly cull the herd. Let us know if you are so callous and self-centered that you think flushing other human beings down the drain is acceptable.
There's no reason to do that, but I can see where Liberals find the idea tantalizing and constantly bring it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
I'm pretty sure that stated in those terms you'll be forced to claim at least that that's not your intention. That leaves two other options: Either recreating a slave economy, spewing offensive rationalization for fostering a second-class citizenship; or doing what is necessary to ensure that there are enough jobs where Americans live that allow them to pay their own way.
What a treat!

You normally employ all manner of fallacies, but today you have given us the Fallacy of False Dilemma!

Yeah!

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
The next Fed chair Janet Yellen is one of the strongest proponents for using monetary policy to address unemployment.
And she has already failed before she has even started.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Economics professor John Burger of Loyola University Maryland said of Yellen, "She is on the side that there are serious impediments in the labor market."
Yes, indeed, and Impediment Numero Uno is Government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
He says that for Yellen, "the labor market won't create full employment by itself."
And, pray tell, what is "full employment?"

In the New America, ~10%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
And if you believe that there are serious impediments to full employment, that gives you the case for an active policy that stimulates the economy to drive the unemployment rate down."
Again, that's not possible for any number of reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Morality is a matter for society,...
Since Society is Subjective, so is Morality, which makes both Society and Morality Relative.

I guess you forgot that Society said slavery was A-Okay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Face it: You don't have a response to the challenges put to your perspectives in this thread that can be tied back to recognized standards of moral behavior.
"Recognized standards of moral behavior" constantly change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Fairness is a qualitative aspect,...
And highly Subjective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Fault is irrelevant. As such, even though I disagree with your implicit attempt to claim that big companies don't have culpability for bringing about the situation we see today in the labor marketplace, it doesn't matter.
Yes, it does matter.....your government caused the situation you see today.

It would be accurate to state that a small number of publicly traded corporations also had a role, such as Chiquita (United Fruit), National Sugar, IT&T, AT&T, and any number of defunct or existing oil companies (but not all oil companies....you can't blame Marathon, for example).

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
What matters is what we do about the situation.
There is nothing you can do. The situation is now out of your control.....thankfully.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Returning the power labor had in the labor marketplace in the 1970s doesn't place fault on or penalize employers, even though it may adversely affect their ability to continue to exploit the power imbalance they helped bring about.
That would only cause more job losses and more hardship for more Americans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexcanter View Post
And how does a very profitable company carry their own weight by asking the public to pay for the general maintenance of their machines ( the worker) ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexcanter View Post
whats the difference with a company which cannot set aside a budget to maintain machines, sending the machines bill to the taxpayer ?
You have it backwards.

It is not the company that is "asking the public to pay for the general maintenance of their machines."

It is the machines who are asking the public to pay for their superfluous maintenance.

Obamaphones would be a great example.

Repudiating....

Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-22-2013, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Massachusetts
10,032 posts, read 7,107,534 times
Reputation: 4207
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
Nice try, but not quite the truth. No corporation gets ANY government money to subsidize their wages. I know libs love to pretend that their employees being on welfare is some sort of corporate subsidy, but it is a lie.

And why just corporations? There are a lot of mom and pop shops that pay the same wage, whose employees are also on welfare. Should they be "forced"? Or is liberal hatred only reserved for large corporations?

And at what point does lifestyle choice enter in to the decision?

Cue the "you hate poor people and want them all to just die"........wait for it, wait for it.

Quote:
Cue the "you hate poor people and want them all to just die"........wait for it, wait for it.
That ship sailed long ago further back in the thread. Don't you realize that these corporations have lots of money and that's just not fair??!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2013, 12:27 PM
 
Location: Massachusetts
10,032 posts, read 7,107,534 times
Reputation: 4207
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
False: I've held the offensive perspective you support to account for its offensiveness. And that annoys you. Get over it.

I doubt you could express my position accurately even if you cared to try, given how little effort you've probably devoted to actually trying to understand a perspective you disagree with. So this comment is just more silly nonsense.

Thanks, and please understand that the reason why you, nor anyone else, "know what the answer is" may be because there may be no answer that addresses the moral imperatives while still paving a pretty highway to a land flowing with milk and honey.

Putting unemployment as the criterion for relaxing QE implicitly recognizes the primacy of addressing the basic needs of the most vulnerable in society. The Fed has no other means available to it to recognize that primacy, has no other means of forestalling the greater harm that the unemployed and underemployed would suffer.

Like Rick's lame efforts above, this isn't a question, but rather a ridiculously partisan bit of nonsense. The use of the word "take" disqualifies the sentence from respectful consideration.

Now if you want to reword the question, relying only on representations that we all agree on, then that could be a valid question. Should you gather up the impetus to actually ask a question along those lines, the answer will probably be something akin to "it's better than 4%". Understanding the reality here will require accepting that the monetary system isn't yours, Swingblade. It is society's. You own your own time and effort. If you choose to offer that into the labor and commercial marketplace that society furnishes, then you are agreeing to play by their rules, and excuses you'd make to rationalize criticisms of their rules that don't specifically serve your needs but perhaps instead reflect a recognition of the need for compromise between opposing forces in the economy don't have any merit.

Since what I do is focus on what directly affects the poor's most basic needs, their wages, their health, etc., I'm sure I'm an advocate for their interests, even though I know that egoistic right-wing propaganda would attempt to cloud the issue with FUD. The right time to apply high-order theory is when the critical needs are met. An asthmatic should be taking their meds regularly and following their asthma action plan conscientiously, but the time to talk about that isn't during a critical asthma attack, but rather after the attack is over and breathing has resumed to normal parameters.
Quote:
I doubt you could express my position accurately even if you cared to try
You disagree so the question isn't valid. Color me shocked!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2013, 05:37 AM
bUU
 
Location: Georgia
11,908 posts, read 8,622,386 times
Reputation: 8374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Roma View Post
You disagree so the question isn't valid. Color me shocked!
Try reading what I wrote next time. Maybe you'll have a chance of understanding it. What I pointed out was that Swingblade built into his "question" basic premises of his perspective, which I disagree with. In doing so Swingblade committed a prototypical logical fallacy, often referred to as the "loaded question fallacy". It reflects a failure (either deliberate or through ignorance) of critical thinking in the crafting of the question. Wikipedia explains it well:
Quote:
The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.
I love how you doubled-down on the nonsense by jumping in to defend a fallacious question asked by one of your cohorts. The partisans who engage in deceptions together ... I'm not sure how that sentence could end best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2013, 06:57 AM
 
Location: Fredericktown,Ohio
6,899 posts, read 4,400,070 times
Reputation: 2737
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Try reading what I wrote next time. Maybe you'll have a chance of understanding it. What I pointed out was that Swingblade built into his "question" basic premises of his perspective, which I disagree with. In doing so Swingblade committed a prototypical logical fallacy, often referred to as the "loaded question fallacy". It reflects a failure (either deliberate or through ignorance) of critical thinking in the crafting of the question. Wikipedia explains it well:I love how you doubled-down on the nonsense by jumping in to defend a fallacious question asked by one of your cohorts. The partisans who engage in deceptions together ... I'm not sure how that sentence could end best.
I will agree with your claim of lack of critical thinking in crafting the question and using the word" take". It would have been better if I said "what right does the fed have to inflate away income, investments , and savings by 2% which is the fed target on inflation? And I do understand I am part of the system if I like it or not but I do not have to agree and become a cheerleader for it.

And I stick behind my claim that business/corporations do more for my well being by employing me at agreed upon rate then the fed inflating my savings, wages and investment, year after year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2013, 07:24 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 51,238,770 times
Reputation: 24606
IMHO the fact that a country as prosperous as our still has people in poverty is a shame. I believe an economy, without without government intervention, should provide, at the minimum, clean air and water, safe food, decent cloths and shelter for every one before anyone can amass unconscionable wealth. The most direct way to achieve this is a minimum guaranteed income, at this time around $1500 per month, paid for by a 90% income tax on all income from all sources above the 95 percentile.

This would provide a consumer base for the economy while still allowing those with the wealth obsession to acquire enough money to carouse themselves to oblivion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2013, 07:36 AM
 
Location: Texas
871 posts, read 689,779 times
Reputation: 927
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold View Post
Even if businesses were 'shifting' burden ,which they aren't, they wouldn't have to be 'unfair' to taxpayers if the workers were responsible for themselves and not expecting minimum wage jobs to support families.
You are exactly right.

I have a friend who's son is in College, he is working on a degree in dramatic arts. He wants to 'act', he has a passion for it. I understand wanting to do what you have a passions for. Unfortunately, I do not believe he will be able to make a living doing it, because quite frankly, he is not very good at it.

I have had a discussion with his Mom, about the degree choice limiting him. She says, she is going to let him decide. He is going to probably end up up with a useless degree. He will probably end up working a minimum wage job....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2013, 07:39 AM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
29,722 posts, read 16,475,984 times
Reputation: 22332
Quote:
Originally Posted by dualie View Post
My very first job was McDonalds. I believe the wage was under $2 an hour ... can't remember exactly. I stayed with the company for about 1.5 yrs.

It was a good job. I learned "systems", how to work as a team, how to work with consumers, how to treat customers.

I also learned that that was not what I wanted to do the rest of my life so I worked hard to move up and out. To this day I thank McDonalds for giving me the chance to learn some important skills. Skills I still use today, training that I still remember today and use.

I cringe when I go into most McDonalds today, you can see the lack of involvement in the faces of most who work there. They don't care about the company paying them, they don't care about the customer, they just want their shift to be over and get a check. Most don't deserve any more then minimum wage, because that is what they give the company, minimum effort.
You get what you pay for. I recall all my teen-age friends working at McDonalds back in the day; and they certainly weren't overly 'engaged' with their jobs either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2013, 07:48 AM
 
Location: Texas
871 posts, read 689,779 times
Reputation: 927
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
IMHO the fact that a country as prosperous as our still has people in poverty is a shame. I believe an economy, without without government intervention, should provide, at the minimum, clean air and water, safe food, decent cloths and shelter for every one before anyone can amass unconscionable wealth. The most direct way to achieve this is a minimum guaranteed income, at this time around $1500 per month, paid for by a 90% income tax on all income from all sources above the 95 percentile.

This would provide a consumer base for the economy while still allowing those with the wealth obsession to acquire enough money to carouse themselves to oblivion.
Do you realize how many people would be perfectly fine with this 'guaranteed income', and not work to make any additional money? Then turn around and cry, that it is not enough money and demand more, while refusing to work.

This solves nothing, only creates more issues. Open the Pandora Box....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2013, 07:52 AM
 
Location: Texas
871 posts, read 689,779 times
Reputation: 927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1 View Post
You get what you pay for. I recall all my teen-age friends working at McDonalds back in the day; and they certainly weren't overly 'engaged' with their jobs either.
Have you been into a fast food restaurant and pay with cash. Most of these people that work there have no idea how to make change. Simple math and they cannot do it.... Yes, let's pay these people who do not even know how to make change $15.00 an hour. Geez, most of the time they cannot even get your order right....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:18 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top