Outsourcing Jobs, in the news again!

[gauchecritic]

Gauche...

The 'British Labour Party...is a 'political party' an arm of the government, is it not?

As it stands, yes, but the question you asked was "what have unions ever done for us?" My answer was as above. And then you decided to ignore the other benefits.

Government of course has the right to tax and confiscate wealth and distribute it as they see fit.

But 'labour unions' are a different story.

So your idea would be that a countrywide organisation with up to one and a half million members should run itself part time and unwaged? You may have closed shops over there but we don't have them here. (well just a few I should imagine even though they are technically illegal)

Perhaps in your bovine minded countryside the concept of 'competition' has withered on the vine.

Is 'bovine' the first blow? You lose.

Your rant about 'free market business practices' studiously ignores the reality of the 'free' market place.

Have you listened to yourself make these accusations? Then studious ignorance is a common domain. The 'reality' of the 'free' market place is on a par with any U.S citizen having a realistic chance of becoming president.

When one producer begins to pay lower wages, or produce inferior products, or tolerate dangerous working conditions, 'competion' rears its lovely head and another enterprise cuts prices, raises wages or provides a safer work environment, whatever it takes to gain a share of the market.

I see, thankyou for that lesson is simple 'free' marketeering. Does Mr Gates know this? He must be quaking in his boots.

I realize you are somewhat at a disadvantage, gauche, as the London School of Economics has not taught, 'classical' free market economics for nearly half a century. I could suggest a few books and an independent course of study if you are interested.

Well I'll start reading economics (might get a job with Mick Jagger then) if you'll agree to read "The Idiots' Guide To Economics". (which is about my level)

I begin to realize that for many, it is much more comfortable just to conform, do what one is told, work and consume as directed and be happy little proletariats.

Do you really, truly, honestly believe that us proletariat give a toss about who is in power or who pays our wages or the structure of the government or the balance of payments? We're far too busy shovelling your shit and making your NikeAirs. Or had you forgotten? We don't actually have the nous to question our lot. We just drink and dance and screw because there's nothing else to do.

Thats why we left the dark continent of Europe in the first place. Few Americans ever chose to seek citizenship in GB, but your folks wait in long lines just for the chance to come here.

"Give us your huddles masses..." Well...we took 'em..from all over the medieval, castle strewn countryside of slave Europe and set them free! And still they come!

And, oh my goodness...what a country they made.

I just love the "we". So Catholic persecution, pre-industrialised starvation and post-industrialised 'big' business, played no part at all in the exodus? The promise of free land and freedom from taxes didn't exactly come true did it? Do range wars, banditry and gun law make for a better life? No? Oh that's right they didn't exist or can be safely ignored in economic theory, as can slavery and civil war.

Don't bother coming back with 'they were your fault' and 'you're no better' because, as you're fond of saying your position is indefensible.

Go get your Big Mac and stuff your face.

Amicus with a smile...

Boef Bourguignon or a simple linguini for preference, rather than your globalised french fries. And a nice Chateau de Chassilier

Gauche

P.S you missed out the word 'fat' in your parting shot to make the insult complete.

 

[amicus]

Mr. Teach: could not keep the Jag running, but loved the little Austin-Heally MK2000

thanks

 

[dr_mabeuse]

"There's no question about it: The corporate conservatives and their allies in the political and religious right are achieving a vast transformation of
American life that only they understand because they are its advocates, its architects, and its beneficiaries. In creating the greatest economic
inequality in the advanced world, they have saddled our nation, our states, and our cities and counties with structural deficits that will last until our
children's children are ready for retirement, and they are systematically stripping government of all its functions except rewarding the rich and waging war.

And they are proud of what they have done to our economy and our society. If instead of practicing journalism I was writing for Saturday Night Live, I couldn't have made up the things that this crew have been saying. The president's chief economic adviser says shipping technical and professional jobs overseas is good for the economy. The president's Council of Economic Advisers report that hamburger chefs in fast food restaurants can be considered manufacturing workers. The president's Federal Reserve Chairman says that the tax cuts may force cutbacks in social security - but hey, we should make the tax cuts permanent anyway. The president's Labor Secretary says it doesn't matter if job growth has stalled because "the stock market is the ultimate arbiter."

--Bill Moyers, https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=264288

Thanks to thebullet (and Somme) for posting this.

This is more than the "free market" at work. We're being screwed by the very people who are supposed to be looking out for us, and it's an open secret. Everyone should read this.

---dr.M.

 

[amicus]

Mab: Bill Moyers is not exactly an 'unbiased' reporter.


The market place is far more complex than it was a century ago, when most of the so called economists wrote their books.

It no longer takes a week to transport cargo across the Atlantic as it did in the 30's.

Going off the 'gold standar' in the 30's also changed the nature of commerce.

Involvement in Europe with the 'Marshall Plan" following WW2 also changed many things.

The South American, Asian and African Colonies of European nations all gained independence following WW2.

The pace of International Commerce exploded with the advent of Commercial jet transport in the 50's and 60's.

I do not see the 'Global Market' as a creation of business or government; I see it rather as an exchange of capital and commerce, with each flowing from supply to demand.

The fall of the Soviet Union and the near pacification of the 1 billion plus in China opened a thousand doors in all directions.

Control of the 'economy' and of business and corporate activities is not in the hands of government in most cases.

The United States has transitioned from a rural, agricultural society, to an Industrial society and, although you may not like the term, to a 'Service' economy.

One should not view the loss of 'manufacturing jobs' as a threat to the nation as a whole. It is merely part of that 'transition' as Americans become investors and managers and other, 3rd world countries begin the process of transitioning through the levels as the US has done.

Rather than moan about the inevitable changes taking place, one should more productively advise and direct the young people of this nation to gain the skills and expertise needed to deal with a new and ever changing environment.

When automobiles replaced the horse, when computers replaced the typewriter...many thought it was the end of the world; it was not, just the end of an era.

We are undergoing such a change now and surely it is traumatic to many as they must adapt to the new era.

amicus

 

[KarenAM]

My sense of things is that two things are happening at once.

First, the wealth and power of the United States is shrinking relative to the rest of the world. This is largely inevitable, since our unrealistic use and control of resources, like any empire's, cannot last forever. So some outsourcing is inevitable because of basic labor cost issues.

This, however, does not need to be as harmful to the US as it has been. Americans are amazingly creative problem-solvers, if they are allowed to solve problems. Increasingly, however, we are not being permitted to do so. The fact is that as the US enters its post-imperial stage, the elites in America have turned on their own people and are trying to eliminate the middle class and create a two-tier society. This is occurring just as middle classes are emerging in numerous countries, and these middle classes are rapidly outcompeting their American counterparts because they are increasingly better educated and willing to work long and hard for less. For them the middle class is something to rise into; for Americans it is a place to fall out of, since the cost of living in the US is rising faster than the ability of most Americans to meet even basic needs.

This need not be the case, but the political and economic elites in the US have abandoned free market capitalism in favor of corporate welfare and the use of America's military to enrich themselves, and using the government to shift control of resources into the hands of an ever smaller group that does not actually pay for it. The strange thing about the Neocons and the corrupt Congress, etc., is that they aren't capitalists at all; neither are they conservatives. Instead they might best be called feudalists, because the America they envision and are actively creating more closely resembles the strict nobilty/serf class systems of medieval Europe and elsewhere than it does the nation envisioned by America's founding fathers.

In the long run, if left unchecked, this process of feudalization will destroy the US. The simple fact is that our economy is growing less and less competitive as this social experiment in feudalism continues, even as other economies pick up steam. To make things worse, our belligerent attitude only makes us a target for groups who will either see us as easy pickings for conquest (which need not be military but could as easily be economic as the US sells off its assets to meet its unmanagable debt), or whose own failing societies (as in the middle east) lead them to do something stupid with a weapon of mass destruction, and who see us as a target.

Grim? You bet. But that's how I see things in the long term.

 

[amicus]

KarenAM...

Not sure I know how to address your last post...

I question your use of 'post imperial stage.... "Imperial...of or pertaining to empire..." Now that applies to England, France and Germany but is not accurate in describing American History.

and your use of 'elites', I also question....we are not as European nations were/are possessed of Monarchs, royalty who by birth attain position.

America the great melting pot tends to allow success to determine who the 'elite' in society are.

Like Mab, you seem to see the overall direction of the nation as being controlled and guided, I do not see that.

If anything, I see a lack of intelligence, a desire to return to more pastoral times and a vast ignorance about contemporary ecomomics as the main cause of the problems we experience.

The 'intellectual elite' who occupy 90 percent of professorial platforms in our universities, to me, are the greatest danger to the future of a free nation.

Someone impugned the title of an Ayn Rand book, "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal..." I rather think one might portray, "Freedom" that way as well.

As evidenced on this forum, most have never considered what 'freedom' means in terms of the market place or within the life of an individual. It seems many are looking for a 'belief' to crawl inside so they need not think with reason and rationality about the issues of the day.

To hear such things as, 'reject reason as a mean to understand emotions..." harkens back to the dark ages, and if anything is frightening about the current crop of intellectuals, that truly is.

The United States will continue along the transitional path to the future, making mistakes no doubt, but if fundamental freedoms are still protected and the power of government held in check, that future is still an optimistic one...

amicus

 

[thebullet]

if fundamental freedoms are still protected and the power of government held in check, that future is still an optimistic one

Amicus your goals are in direct opposition to your arguments. You blame Unions for the economic woes of the world, when the power of the Union has been fading for decades. You argue in favor of our fundamental freedoms while supporting a government that is attacking those freedoms. You claim to wish to limit the power of government while supporting a government that has been reaching for more and more power.

While an extremist administration that approaches facism is in control, the future of American freedom is in dire jeopardy. We are however extremely lucky in that the administration while very good at grabbing power is almost incapable of exercising it successfully. It is the incompetence of this administration that has brought it nearly to its knees.

Your insensitivity to the needs of the common man is almost beyond my comprehension. It seems to be a disease of the upper-middle class in the country. Why can't those lazy bastards in the lower class pull themselves up by their bootstraps? We refuse to invest in our schools. We refuse to provide health care to our people. We, the richest country in the world, treat our poor like outcasts and pariahs. Our government has declared war on the underclass.

And people like you applaud. "It's just the law of the open marketplace" What a dispicable lie. We have no open market. That is assured by the political contributions of the big corporations.

If you believe that market forces drive our economy then you are a very naive person indeed. Any executive will tell you that a competitive economy is just too chancy. It's much better for large corporations to share information, fix prices, and assure a large profit for all.

It's a loose affiliation of millionaires and billionaires.

Amicus, you just don't live in the real world. But I like your stories.

 

[SeaCat]

Snoopdog....more than just a thank you for confirming what I hear on the news.

The press, being the way it is, is loathe to publicize the failure of the 'liberal dream' of 'free health care for all. the realities are much different.

My take on US Medicine is that the AMA purposely limits the number of medical students so as to keep Doctors in high demand. Further, the AMA has influenced legislation that limits what 'paramedics' can do..again, so as to price the skills of the MD far above what it should be.

It is a confusing world sometimes...

amicus

My Dear Amicus,

You remind me of Rush Limbaugh and Joe Black. Let's hang them by their short hairs by any means, but lets scream when they do the same thing to us.

If you want to argue against the medical system in the Untied States you need to do your homework. Oh and by the by, the A.M.A. is not a union.

Here's a question for you. Rather than whning like a politician and pointing out the problems, how about trying to fix the problem?

Cat

 

[amicus]

I like your stories also, Bullet, and left a handful of 5's on all of them and I look forward to more of your latest series.

However...ahem...

I don't particularly like the Bush administration and I am most leery of the 'Homeland Security' issue, really upset with 'faith based' folks having any influence in the nations capitol and do not quite understand how 'Republicans' with a majority in Congress have allowed spending to continue at the rate it has.

You appear, along with many Americans, seem to think that a 'democracy' has the right to confiscate the wealth of its citizens and to return it in ways acceptable to the majority.

That is only true to the extent the the Constitution and the Bill of Rights remains inviolable.

The United States of America is, by definition, a Representational Republic, not a 'Democracy'. Our representatives are charged with converying our requests to government and acting upon those requests 'within the limits' of the constitution.

The framers of that document carefully limited the actions of government to prevent the 'masses' of democracy legislate whatever spur of the moment fad came about.

Intellectually, I support a limited government that acts only to 'protect' the innate and ennumerated 'rights' of the people.

Your may think that 'free' socialized medicine and 'free' public education is a value and within the constitutional power of government to provide. I do not.

In my ideal world, there would be no Social Security, no Medicare, no Public Education. I acknowledge that 'free' men, with free choices will provide the services they require in a 'free' market place. I have great respect for the common man, I think he is much smarter than you give him credit for.


Your hatred of Bush equals but does not surpass my hatred of Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman and Roosevelt.

Roosevelt and his 'New Deal' and Johnson's Great Society opened the door into social intervention that has changed life and destroyed individual initiative in this country.

I am not 'insensitive' to the 'plight' of the common man; for the most part, this nation was built by them. It is the intellectual 'elite' your ilk of folk, that has sold them out. It is your philosophy of taking from the rich and giving to the poor that has destroyed initiative.

I will never fully comprehend the size of the ego of those who think they are better than the rest of us to the extent that they will take half of our time and energy and spend it on things they think the 'poor' need. "Let us alone" was the outcry of the French Revolution. Take your 'do gooder' socialist, altruistic philosophies back to Europe where they sprung from the rotting remains of the middle ages.

Unions have declined in size, yes, but their influence is still great, pay attention as Kerry/Edwards pander to them and note, that they, like Teachers, blacks, Spanish all whom feed at the public trough will again cast 90 percent of their vote for the 'paternal' big brother democrats.

Does it not seem an anomaly to you that 90 % of college faculty bote left, time and time again? Would it not seem likely to be divided more equally even in a random selection?

Faculty exists and profits from the largesse of government and at least they are smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds them.

I look forward to the continuation of your series about the kids.

amicus...

 

[KarenAM]

Empires have many forms, historically speaking, amicus. Your three examples were colonial empires. The Soviet Union was a territorial empire, as was the Roman Empire. But what empires all have in common is their three tiered structure:

Imperial Elites. Those in the empire with political, social or economic power, which they guard jealously. In England and other European powers it was the nobility. In the Soviet Union it was the communist party. In America it is the wealthy, particularly those who have inherited their wealth (like the Bushes).

Imperial Citizens. These are the ones who build the empire, who provide the labor and the manpower to create it. They are typically part of the same nation/ethnic group as the elites, and they share many similar cultural traits.

Subjects. These are the people who live in the conquered or controlled territories. They themselves can be divided into elites and non-elites, in that many imperial systems use the local elites (or sometimes the former local elites) to help manage the provinces. Saddam Hussein in the 1980's would be one such example. In general, however, the subjects of an empire are regarded by the imperial elites as a resource to be exploited, just as those imperial elites exploit the natural rescources of the territories they control.

Here's the thing about empires, though. Naturally, the citizens gain some benefit from the empire, since they are the ones who physically do the work in building it. But the elites, in fact, take an overwhelming percentage of the wealth that an empire generates, and take the least risk, at least up until the empire falls, at which time they run the risk of being exterminated by angry subjects.

Now, you say that we are not European nations possessed of a hereditary noble class. This is both true and not true. We lack the titles and the class culture that Europe possessed (and still does, to a degree, though WW I and WW II pretty much destroyed that culture), but a look at wealth in America, as well as things like quality of education and other competitive advantages, and you see that the children of the wealthy are far more likely to be wealthy themselves, and are far more likely to occupy positions of authority such as corporate boards and high political office than are the children of middle-class families.

Ignorance, of course, is a serious problem; you're right about that. Yet a look at public education in America reveals that every time money is pumped into an educational district, most of it goes to schools that serve wealthy neighborhoods, and of course the extremely wealthy are able to afford extremely expensive and high quality private schools; the result is that those who already have wealth get an intrinsic advantage over those who do not. This creates a de facto class system.

As to the tenure system that dominates American universities, there is no doubt but that it has a lot of problems, one of which is the creation of faculty who are answerable to no one and who stifle intellectual freedom in favor of ideologies. On the other hand, removing tenure would, especially in this day and age, stifle intellectual freedom by forcing professors to be mouthpieces for whoever has power, in this case the elites who are using America as toilet paper.

So, then. I stand by my assessment that America today is an empire, since our social system matches previous empires. It hasn't always been this way, but power corrupts, and it has corrupted us. The great tragedy is that imperial glory is exciting and addictive for many, and they are all too often happy to send their sons and daughters off to fight and die while the elites protect their children from harm, all the while raising them to believe that citizens exist to squeeze wealth from subjects and pass this wealth along to them.

But every empire in history has fallen, and we will be no exception.

 

[amicus]

Seacat....

I have no idea who Joe Black is and it has been years perhaps 5 years since I listened to Limbaugh and I heard only a few of his programs during the Clinton years. Thus my thoughts are not 'second hand' blame me alone for what I write.

Union or not, the AMA has a great deal of influence on legislation concerning medical practice in the USA.

"Whining like a politician...?"

Well I have been accused of being 'bombastic' along with a dozen other things, but, 'whining' is a new one.

I tend to think that as an 'intellectual activist' I am doing something about it. I defend freedom and individual rights in every arena I visit and have for nearly a half century.

My only contention about the medical field is that in a free market system, there would be no shortage of doctors or nurses or medical facilities offering care as the market will bear.

Since medical care is in short supply, it indicates that the market is being controlled by keeping the supply of that commodity in short supply. Like a fast food hamburger joint, there should be a clinic on every corner and would be in a free system.

We had to fight for freedom once against ole King George, we may have to fight another oppressor one day. We will.

amicus

 

[amicus]

KarenAM...

An impressive defense of your assertion that the United States is an Imperical society. I don't accept it, of course and I wonder how most who might read it might respond.

I think perhaps the 'Utopians' from Plato to Marx/Lenin, were looking for a system that attempted to keep all at an 'equal' level in the societal structure.

The fault in that and in your and many others view of social structure is that we are not all born with equal abilities and talents.

Inheritance notwithstanding, as most who rose to the top did not inherit wealth, and many that did inherit, wasted it away, the fact is that men and women are born with greater or lesser ability in many ways.

In a free society, without class structure, intelligence in any field will always percolate to the top.

Bill Gates from his garage is an example, there are thousands of others, it is not class, or the elite, or the wealthy and their progeny that occupies the higher strata of our society, it is those who are successful in their endeavors.

I suppose it is thought to be 'unfair' that some are born with talent and others are not, I always wanted to be a jazz pianist, but the art is not within me, I wish it were.

I cannot disagree that every previous 'Empire' has fallen, but you err, first in called the US an Empire and secondly by not realizing that the United States, while being an enitity all its own, is composed of people from all over the world. People who came here and still come here, for that oh so ellusive breath of political freedom so lacking in the rest of the world.

Because of that, I postulate that the United States will never decline as your 'empires' have. The reason being that the 'freedom' those rights to life, liberty and pursuit, will be reborn, time and time again and the concept will live and flourish and we will take it with us when we depart for the stars.

amicus...

 

[thebullet]

I am not 'insensitive' to the 'plight' of the common man; for the most part, this nation was built by them. It is the intellectual 'elite' your ilk of folk, that has sold them out. It is your philosophy of taking from the rich and giving to the poor that has destroyed initiative.

Come on, Amicus. Really now, you are existing in a time warp, aren't you? To you it is 1950 and you are living with June and Beaver Cleaver.

'Taking from the rich and giving to the poor' you say? In what universe? Every year the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The gap between rich and poor is obscene and growing more obscene every day. What kind of person cannot see the falicy or selfishness of your argument? You view the world through the prism of your philosophy and that view is untainted by any sense of reality. Your world view allows you to treat the underclass with callous contempt while congradulating yourself on the openness of your mind.

I haven't heard arguments like yours since my Youth for Goldwater days. I was the one making them. But guess what, I learned that this way of looking at the world is naive and dangerous.

One summer as a college sophomore I worked at a small company in North Philly. There probably wasn't a white family living within 20 blocks in any direction of where I worked. But guess what, of the 50 people working at that company, only 2 were black - the truck drivers - the more or less public face of the company in the community. In terms of intelligence, ability and initiative, the truck drivers were as talented as the executives, far more talented than the office or warehouse staff. And yet that company (and most companies that made their home in this black neighborhood) hired only whites. If this was the way it was in the middle of the ghetto, who were the companies in the suburbs hiring?

Don't tell me that they were hiring whites because of education, or talent, or anything other than pure racism.

I realize this is anecdotal, but I will say that my 'let them pull themselves up by their own bootstraps' mentality died in the face of the reality of racism. And things have not changed.

My wife worked in a college admissions office that recruited from suburban and inner-city schools. The suburban schools had much more money to spend on a per student basis than did the city schools. Invariably the city students were unprepared for the college experience. My wife hired many of them as student aides in her office and found them to be intelligent, industrius, and trustworthy. But their schooling failed to prepare them for college.

And that is not the worst of it. The college was well aware of the inadequacy of the inner-city school system, and yet they actively recruited these students, brought them in for a year, stuck them with huge student loans, and then flunked them out. These young people faced life knowing that they would have to work for minimum wage while carrying the burden of a mult-thousand dollar loan that they had been tricked into accepting.

Amicus what you fail to understand is that your concept of good government can only work on an even playing field. But there is no such even playing field in the United States. The playing field is tilted strongly in favor of the rich and powerful. The poor have been shoved into a hole not of their own making, one that is impossible for most to climb out of, and are criticized by unfeeling people for not 'making something of themselves'; not 'pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps'.

America, the land of the hypocrite. Or the blind ideologue whose 'philosophy' replaces reason and caring.

Thank God I'm not you. I couldn't live with myself.

 

[KarenAM]

The question isn't whether we're born with equal talent; obviously we are not. The question is whether societies that make efforts to grant equal opportunity are more successful than those which do not. I maintain that the granting of opportunity creates happier, healthier societies than those which deny opportunity. Our is failing because many of the wealthy find it in their own best short-term interests to deny opportunity to those less wealthy.

For much of its history the US has tried, with varying degrees of success, to make opportunity available to as many people as possible. This has resulted in tremendous advancements as opportunity was extended (sometimes slowly, painfully and with much resistance) to previously disenfranchized people (women, blacks, orientals, hispanics). This is why America has been rightly seen as such an amazing success as a society.

We aren't there yet, of course. But the ideal of equal opportunity is something that has always driven American society forward, even as some try to pull it back.

But it is human nature (genetically encoded) to be selfish as well as altruistic. Bill Gates is an amazing success story as an entrepeneur. He has also engaged is business practices designed to prevent anyone else from achieving the same success he has. This isn't for money (I'd say by any sane standard he has enough) but for pure power, because there is something in him that gets off knowing he can act with impunity because of his wealth, and never mind the harm he has done.

My argument, then, is that the US is declining because it has stopped being true to the ideals of opportunity, individualism, and liberty. The Constitution, arguably one of the most profound and amazing documents ever written, has been hijacked by the self-interest of the American elites, who openly flaunt it and attempt to ammend it in their own self-interest. We inherited our empire after WW II, and we are paying the price for this as our liberties and our opportunities and the very things that made the USA one of the most (In my opinion the most) incredible social experiment in human history are being destroyed by those who would rather rule than govern.

 

[amicus]

Well...The Bullet jumping on one shoulder and KarenAM on the other.....oh, well...

On another thread I posted from the US Census dept some facts about the gap between rich and poor. Seems as though both of you are wrong.

Income at the lowest levels is on the rise and at the highest levels ever.

Those living is poverty...are less than ever before.

More young people are attending college than ever before.

The standard of living continues to rise.

I have lived and worked among blacks and hispanics, so spare me your bleeding heart anecdotes.

I started work at 8 years of age for .50 cents a day. I have been working every since in about as many jobs as one person could have. So don't BS me about the lower class, the working class, the minorities, been there, done that.

Aparently neither of you have traveled to other parts of the world. I have and I challenge to point a finger at any nation that offers a better opportunity for one to advance. You cannot because there is no other place.

Your complaints and hatred of this nation leaves me to inquire, what would you replace it with? How would you fund socialized free medicine for all? Would you draft the doctors if they refused? Who determines what medical care you would receive in such a system? the government?

The economy is changing from post industrial to service, what kind of jobs would you create? and how? and how would you determine how to pay whom? A living wage? by whose standard?

Since you obviously have all the answers on just how your 'slave' nation would work, just how much of my income do you plan on confiscating? Will you tell me where I can work and for how long?

Population, I fathered 8 kids..would you limit my family to one or two? and how would you enforce it? sterilize me?

Your utopian world of equality by government edict is not a world I would choose to live in. In fact, I would begin to destroy it and you with every means at hand. Suicide bombers, WTC weapons of mass destruction? mess with my freedom and you ain't seen nuthin yet.

Oh, well....since you have all the answers about how to make things 'left' in the world...sally forth...

amicus

 

[thebullet]

Amicus said:

On another thread I posted from the US Census dept some facts about the gap between rich and poor. Seems as though both of you are wrong.

Income at the lowest levels is on the rise and at the highest levels ever.

Those living is poverty...are less than ever before.

Here is a report that seems to rebut your alleged statistics:

Widening Gap Between Rich and Poor and Deteriorating Situation of Worker's Economic and Social Rights

The latter part of the 20th century was the most economically prosperous period in US history, with the economic growth rate rising steadily 118 months by the end of 2000.

However, the gap between the rich and poor widened and the living standards of the laborers went from bad to worse. Pressing issues such as poverty, hunger and homelessness proved difficult to solve.

The gap between the rich and poor in the United States grew at the same pace as the economic growth. Statistics show that the richest 1 percent of the US citizens own 40 percent of the total property of the country, while 80 percent of US citizens own just 16 percent.

Since the 1990s, 40 percent of the increased wealth went into the pockets of the rich minority, while only 1 percent went to the poor majority.

From 1977 to 1999, the after-tax income of the richest 20 percent of American families increased by 43 percent, while that of the poorest 20 percent decreased 9 percent, allowing for inflation. The actual income of those living on the lowest salaries was even less than 30 years ago. Amicus, do you see this as a good thing?

An article in the February 21, 2000 issue of US News and World Report pointed out that the average income of the richest 5 percent of families in 1979 was 10 times of that of the poorest 20 percent of families. In 1999, the income gap had been enlarged to 19 times, ranking first among the developed countries, and setting a record since the Bureau of Census of the United States began studying the situation in 1947.

The income of the executives of the largest US companies in 1992 was 100 times that of ordinary workers, and 475 times higher in 2000.

According to an assessment by the US journal Business Week in August 2000, the income of chief executive officers was 84 times that of employees in 1990, 140 times in 1995, and 416 times in 1999.

A survey shows that the real income of the one-fifth richest of the families in Silicon Valley has increased 29 percent since 1992, while the real income of the one-fifth poorest of the families in the valley decreased during most of the 1990s, and the current income for the poorest has bounced back to the same level in 1992, with the employees at the lowest rank now earning 10 percent less than a decade age.

A great number of Americans suffer from poverty and hunger. According to the statistics of the US government, over 32 million citizens, or 12.7 percent of the total population of the country, live under the poverty line. The incidence of poverty is higher than in the 1970s, and higher than in most other industrialized countries.

Amicus feels that because we see problems in our country we are America haters. That fits in very well with the other extreme right hate-mongers who call those who disagree with the Administration 'traitors'.

I believe it is possible to love one's country and still acknowledge its faults.

Amicus it is time you took off your blinders. I AM NOT a bleeding heart, but you and your ilk fall back on name calling and insults whenever you run up against a legitimate argument since you are incapable of making a serious reply.

Read my lips, Amicus, I AM A MODERATE. I don't rob the rich and give to the poor. But you would rob the poor and give to the rich. That is exactly what your ugly little Administration has been doing for the last four years.

The only way this country will ever become the country you claim it to be already is when there actually is equal opportunity for all. In your view of America, Amicus, everyone is equal. It's just that the rich are more equal than anyone else.

Since you obviously have all the answers on just how your 'slave' nation would work, just how much of my income do you plan on confiscating? Will you tell me where I can work and for how long?

Now we are starting to see the real Amicus. Your paranoid delusions have made the jump from asking for a level playing field for all to confiscation of wealth and slave labor. That's quite a leap, Amicus. I'm surprised you didn't hurt yourself.

Population, I fathered 8 kids..would you limit my family to one or two? and how would you enforce it? sterilize me?

No, Amicus, I wouldn't want to sterilize you. However, it probably would be a better world if someone had sterilized your parents.

Your utopian world of equality by government edict is not a world I would choose to live in. In fact, I would begin to destroy it and you with every means at hand. Suicide bombers, WTC weapons of mass destruction? mess with my freedom and you ain't seen nuthin yet.

As usual, violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. You live in a world you don't understand. Your freedoms are being taken away from you by the people you support. And yet you would kill those who want to make you more free.

That's a very odd way of thinking you have, Amicus.

 

[amicus]

Now come on Bullet, you can do better than that...


Give us your recipe for income equality, how you would lower the gap between the haves and the have nots...you are writing a story along those lines...share it with us.

Give us your world shaking revelations about a more benign form of government.

I wait with bated breath.

amicus

 

[KarenAM]

Once again, amicus, you're falling into that straw Karen trap we talked about. I would suggest reading my posts a little more carefully, perhaps a second time if you're having trouble understanding them. And again, your deep-seated subjectivity is showing through with this imaginary "left" you've created. Let's look at what you've said:

Well...The Bullet jumping on one shoulder and KarenAM on the other.....oh, well...

On another thread I posted from the US Census dept some facts about the gap between rich and poor. Seems as though both of you are wrong.

Income at the lowest levels is on the rise and at the highest levels ever.

Those living is poverty...are less than ever before.

More young people are attending college than ever before.

The standard of living continues to rise.

I missed your posting of this information. Can you cite your source? I would very much love to be wrong about my dire predicitons for the future of this country.

I have lived and worked among blacks and hispanics, so spare me your bleeding heart anecdotes.

I too have lived and worked among blacks and hispanics. Can you point out precisely where I have tossed out "bleeding heart anecdotes"? And can you explain how this relates to the discussion at hand?

I started work at 8 years of age for .50 cents a day. I have been working every since in about as many jobs as one person could have. So don't BS me about the lower class, the working class, the minorities, been there, done that.

You are to be commended for your long working life, amicus. I don't believe I ever said otherwise. Again, you need to watch out for the straw Karen thing.

Aparently neither of you have traveled to other parts of the world. I have and I challenge to point a finger at any nation that offers a better opportunity for one to advance. You cannot because there is no other place.

I have in fact traveled extensively, which is precisely why I am so fond of the USA and why I am so troubled at what I regard as its decline. You shouldn't play the patriotism game as part of your straw Karen thing, amicus, because although you may love this country as much as I do, I doubt it is possible for you to love it more.

Your complaints and hatred of this nation leaves me to inquire, what would you replace it with? How would you fund socialized free medicine for all? Would you draft the doctors if they refused? Who determines what medical care you would receive in such a system? the government?

Hatred? See above. You're retreating into the ad homenim, and your imaginary, subjective world of you vs. this imaginary "left" you're so fond of assigning to people when they say things you don't like.

As to medicine (which I haven't addressed before, despite your efforts to paint me as a socialist), I believe that a balance needs to be struck between government regulation and private enterprise, based on reality, not ideology or greed. Public health needs to be better funded and supported because of the danger of catastrophic disease outbreaks like the 1918 influenza disaster. The private sector needs to balance legitimate profit with providing maximum patient benefit at lowest customer cost. They cannot do this if they are on corporate welfare, since that discourages competition. Physicians need more freedom to do their job without excessive fear of malpractice suits, while at the same time being regulated to ensure they act responsibly and in the best interests of their patients and customers, given the importance and impact they have on their patients. It's not a simple problem and cannot be solved with simple, ideological solutions, whether your totally free market fantasy or the equally fantastic socialist one. Complexity, you see, is part of the objective world you seem so eager to hide from.

The economy is changing from post industrial to service, what kind of jobs would you create? and how? and how would you determine how to pay whom? A living wage? by whose standard?

The trouble with the economy is that it is being undermined by the greed of the elites, who want increased government spending along with tax cuts, which puts the federal government more than 7 trillion dollars in debt with 500 billion dollar deficits. In addition the size of government continues to grow, giving it a disproportionate importance in the overall economy, which will drag the overall economy down when the government defaults on its debt.

The shift in economy, as I posted above, is not the central problem; Americans are highly creative problem-solvers and are more than capable of handling such shifts. But when the elites are more interested in foreign adventures like Iraq to secure wealth for themselves than than they are in participating in the well being of America, the system begins to break down, as it is doing now. And since these elites have been the principal cause of this crisis, I see no reason they shouldn't have to pitch in and help the rest of us out. If that means taxing them heavily to help pay off the debts they have created, it seems to me only fair that they do so. How paying one's bills constitutes socialism is a mystery to me.

Since you obviously have all the answers on just how your 'slave' nation would work, just how much of my income do you plan on confiscating? Will you tell me where I can work and for how long?

Straw Karen again. I have never claimed to have all the answers. This is because when I see the objective world, I see a complex place where problems are not simple or always easily solved. And I argued quite passionately that what I want is to get away from a "slave nation" (your words, amicus, not mine) by returning to the values of liberty, tolerance, and small government, which are values that the wealthy elites in America have abandoned. And since I am a believer in freedom and capitalism, I have no intention of telling you where and when you can work. I do insist that if you are going to enjoy the benefits of living in America, you particpate in the nation, and that will involve paying taxes, voting, and engaging in constructive dialogue with your fellow citizens, rather than straw Karen attacks that accomplish nothing.

Population, I fathered 8 kids..would you limit my family to one or two? and how would you enforce it? sterilize me?

What this has to do with anything we've talked about is unclear to me. Perhaps you would be so kind as to refer to which post I made where I said you shouldn't be allowed to have children.

Your utopian world of equality by government edict is not a world I would choose to live in. In fact, I would begin to destroy it and you with every means at hand. Suicide bombers, WTC weapons of mass destruction? mess with my freedom and you ain't seen nuthin yet.

Oh, well....since you have all the answers about how to make things 'left' in the world...sally forth...

amicus

And still another appearance of straw Karen, followed by a bit of trolling in the form of a macho threat (alpha male behavior, perhaps?). I have never said I seek a utopia, or that I have all the answers; my views of objective reality tell me that such a thing is impossible, since human beings are too varied and complex for it to happen. Efforts at utopias in the last century generally led to mass murder, and so I oppose them as immoral.

It seems likely that you are about to abandon this discussion, amicus, as you usually do when you reach the point of assigning all who disagree with you to your imaginary (and for you perhaps rather frightening) "left", and then insulting them (and now threatening; should I bolt my doors?). But it does seem to me that your highly subjective worldview is making you, not me, the believer in utopias, and your admission above that you would engage in mass murder to "protect" that utopia puts you in the company of some rather unsavory totalitarian individuals.

Myself, I'll stick with living in and trying to improve America, which is my home and is still well worth saving.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

KarenAM,

I think you're finding out what the rest of us learned some time ago: that Amicus is quite literally delusional, if not downrirght psychotic. There is not only no reasoning with him; there's not even the faintest possibility of rational discussion.

Amicus is only capable of thinking in extremes: either you're for unfettered capitalism and libertarian freedom, or you're an America-hating communist criminal. He's totally unable to deal in nuance or to understand what's said to him. He hears not what you say, but what he wants to hear. As I said, psychotic.

Just leave it alone because it really is hopeless. He keeps on throwing these clumsily baited hooks into the AH, and yet people keep biting on them, and as long as they do we're going to have to put up with these screeds on the inferiority of women and non-whites and the glories of putting our lives into the hands of the wealthy business elite.

---dr.M.

 

[thebullet]

Dr. M-
Thanks for the words of wisdom. From now on I won't bite.

 

[amicus]

KarenAM...... Thank you, I appreciate the time and the depth of your reply. It is heartening to read such well versed, although mild support for the system under which we live.

Mab...the Bullet..., you really don't get it, do you?

Karenam...You seem well prepared to carry on a debate, what with the use of 'straw man' and your precision with language, a pleasure to read.

Consider, if you will, the following premise:

Extremes exist in a polarized manner in all things, would you agree?

There are words such as 'good' and 'bad', and these words have meanings, absolute definable meanings. Would you also agree with that?

One can conceive of 'absolute freedom' and the opposite, 'absolute slavery'. okay?

While the general opinion seems to be that solutions to problems arise from a calm and reasoned observation of the symptoms, causes and effects of the issue under question, that may not be the case.

It appears to me that the nature of all things involves involves conflict, competition and most often, cataclysmic events to bring about resolution.

Not just 'natural' events such as the changing output of the sun that regulates weather on planet earth, nor plate tectonics, earthquakes, tidal waves, vulcanism, etcetera.

In the course of human history, it is also evident that massive events take place, changing much or even all of mankind's activities.

Change rarely comes about in a gentle, polite fashion, reference the wars of man from even before the diaspora of the Jewish people from Egypt, reference all the wars of mankind.

I explore and postulate one extremity of possible human activity, the concept of total, absolute freedom. I choose to be firm, combative and aggressive in my presentation, unbending, uncompromising, unwilling to consider opposing values regardless of merit.

It is by that means that 'ideas' are formulated, epistemological foundations and framework constructed and defended.

Most who respond on this forum are simply politically motivated and are not cognizant of the philosophical implications involved as they advocate systems the require greater control over an individuals right to choose the means by which one lives.

I have often challenged those who advocate greater control, restriction and regulation to justify the imposition of limits to man;s freedom. I usually get some old Marxist regurgitation of, 'the greater good', and so on.

In short, the 'middle ground' the 'golden mean' of Aristotle is arrived at by a passionate conflict between two opposite and opposing viewpoints. I do my best to represent one viewpoint, I still seek those who would present the other.

There is usually an amount of shame and guilt from the opposite viewpoint, once they realize that they 'must' use force to realize their goals.

And of course, I claim moral superiority in that my viewpoint, total freedom, does not require the use of 'force' to impliment.

Yes, a nation of 300 million scurrying about in all directions is surely complex, I do not mean to imply otherwise. Even more so, a planet with 8 billion occupying the entire spectrum of differences, is quite a challenge to comprehend.

I do not claim to be an Aristotle or an Ayn Rand or even the author of the 'great american novel'. I do, however, claim, to the best of my ability, to express my thoughts in a non-contradictory manner, using as much reason, logic and rationality as I can summon forth.

I am not above error or even a lapse of judgment from time to time and late at the night the bubbly loosens my inhibitions and I tend to get sharp tongued and even a little nasty at times.

I do however, in most cases, refrain from name calling and using obscenities, although I have little personal respect for those who have the audacity to claim superior moral status as they advocate taking money out of my pocket and spending it as 'they' wish.

I do not 'leave' the discussion as you and others suggest, when the debate gets heated. I do not spend as much time as some on this forum, it is more of a relaxation and challenge when I get stuck on a writing project. And, there seems in each discussion, to be a point when the regulars tend to trash a thread with inanities when they can no longer raise a valid point in the debate.

In summation, I again express my appreciation to you for the effort you put into your response. Do not see this as an apololgy, it is not so intended.

For those who have the courage to present and defend the 'left coast', please carry on.

Regards, amicus

 

[KarenAM]

Amicus and Dr. M, thank you both very much. As I read both your posts, I found that both noted amicus' penchant for arguing from extremes. Dr. M's view was (as I understood it) that this indicates that amicus is a psychotic, and amicus felt that this was the way to reach common ground, by moving in from extremes.

Unfortunately, amicus, you are, by your own words:

firm, combative and aggressive in my presentation, unbending, uncompromising, unwilling to consider opposing values regardless of merit.

Which you have to know is going to cause problems in any discussion, since it keeps you in your extreme. It is also the reason you often seem to leave debates (I've noted before that I frequently find that you do not respond to my posts, or that you respond to small parts of them and abandon the rest), since your position does not evolve when presented with evidence, which I believe causes stagnation in the discussion. Extremes, of course, tend to be be rigid and therefore do not evolve much if at all. This I think explains your feeling that

there seems in each discussion, to be a point when the regulars tend to trash a thread with inanities when they can no longer raise a valid point in the debate.

Perhaps the "inanities" of which you speak are simply the frustration of others at your debating style, which you yourself have noted is inflexible.

I believe that it is in this style of debating from extremes that you run into trouble. Eventually you meet a moderate, someone who does not argue from extremes, who instead finds themselves prefering to occupy the middle ground and enjoy the flexibility that this entails. My impression from our discussions is that your preference for arguing from extremes makes you ill-suited to debates with moderates, who simply don't fit the categories you want to allow for those who disagree with you.

Change, as you noted, often takes place quickly and violently, when extremes meet. But it also takes place slowly and gradually, in increments that are often too small to be easily seen. To understand change one must be willing to look for both.

In short, the 'middle ground' the 'golden mean' of Aristotle is arrived at by a passionate conflict between two opposite and opposing viewpoints. I do my best to represent one viewpoint, I still seek those who would present the other.

I, however, cannot be that "other" you seek, amicus. I tend to start from the middle ground and do my best to operate without any particular ideology. When I debate it is generally not the crashing of an earthquake but rather the gentle flow of a river; both alter the landscape, but in different ways. I see no benefit from arguments from polarized extremes because neither extreme ever really convinces the other and no one leaves the debate having learned anything.

What I gain from our discussions is a greater understanding of how human subjectivity works, how we all seek to see objective reality and how we all always fall short. While I believe that Dr. M's description of you as a psychotic is not quite accurate, I do believe you do live in a world where your perception of reality is filtered through a narrow subjective lens of your political and social beliefs. In my own efforts to see objectively, I've found that it helps to open up the lens whenever possible.

This is the point, of course, where you and I usually end up, which isn't necissarily a bad place, since I entertain no illusions about changing your mind about anything. My hope, rather, is that if we have another discussion, you will remember this one and what you now know about both my political views and my preference for debating constructively from the middle, which differs from the approach you have described for yourself.

In summation, I again express my appreciation to you for the effort you put into your response. Do not see this as an apololgy, it is not so intended.

No apology is required or expected, amicus. I do thank you for your appreciation, which is nice to hear.

For those who have the courage to present and defend the 'left coast', please carry on.

Since I am not on this "left coast", I'll sign off here.

 

[amicus]

Well Karen, aside from your accusation of 'subjectivity' and that you do not seem to view 'extremes' as the only means at resolving differences, aside from that, another very readable post.

Long ago there was a long, heated argument between those who postulated that the earth was flat and another that the sun traveled around the earth.

Rather extreme positions and of course in that time, people were censured for their opinions.

Now, between the two, flat/ round earth/sun opposite theories indeed...extreme theories...there was a great deal of passion.

Now...you are saying that the 'middle ground' is where the calm well thought out changes take place. Permit me to disagree.

Those fiery zealots of the right and left determine the nature of the playing ground upon which the middle ground, fence sitters putter about. I am happy to leave it to them.

The pursuit of truth requires single minded focus and passion and a certainty that ones quest is valid.

As with the two examples above, one is 'right' rational and objective, the other is wrong, irrational and subjective.

But...enough of that....

Someone, rhgraham or gauche, maybe, made the statement, "Art is ethically neutral..." as I recall...

It may have coincided with a statement I made that even 'beauty' is rational, definable and knowable...

Could I be reminded of where that was located?

Thank you...

amicus...

 

[gauchecritic]

Long ago there was a long, heated argument between those who postulated that the earth was flat and another that the sun traveled around the earth.

Rather extreme positions and of course in that time, people were censured for their opinions.

Now, between the two, flat/ round earth/sun opposite theories indeed...extreme theories...there was a great deal of passion.

Just how many times do I need to repeat this? There has never been any arguement about whether the earth is flat or round.

Jeffrey Burton Russell is Professor of History, Emeritus, at the University of California who has published a book: "Inventing the Flat Earth" (1991), which shows how nineteenth-century anti-Christians invented and spread the falsehood that educated people in the Middle Ages believed that the earth was flat.

See here

An article in The Observer in which Terry Jones (the celebrated Python) states in reasons why he made a 'populist' documentary about medieval times:
"Take for example the idea that the people of the Middle Ages thought the earth was flat. It simply isn't true. And yet the New York Times takes it as gospel and, indeed, some get quite cross when you try to tell them that people in the Middle Ages were quite aware that the world was round.

The idea that they thought it was flat was invented by an American journalist by the name of Washington Irving. In 1828, he wrote a biography of Columbus in which he described the great man confronting the Church leaders who accused him of heresy for claiming the earth was round when the Church taught that it was flat.

The meeting never happened and the Church never taught that the earth was flat. Irving simply made it all up. And yet it's stuck.

So you know what you can do with your propaganda.

Now...you are saying that the 'middle ground' is where the calm well thought out changes take place. Permit me to disagree.

Those fiery zealots of the right and left determine the nature of the playing ground upon which the middle ground, fence sitters putter about. I am happy to leave it to them.

As Karen points out (and you are free to disagree) zealots by definition are unable to debate substantively. Merely repeating dogma is not debate. Debate requires a willingness to compromise if any kind of change is to be met. You can't make granite become talcum or vice versa but there is a middle ground where each is closer to the other whilst remaining granite and talcum.

[quoteThe pursuit of truth requires single minded focus and passion and a certainty that ones quest is valid.

As with the two examples above, one is 'right' rational and objective, the other is wrong, irrational and subjective.[/quote]

The pursuit of ideals is indeed a commendable effort, but disregarding other 'ways' is not going to lead to "truth". Can you agree that the 'pursuit' itself is enough? I don't think you can because you require results.

Your first example of objectivity (flat earth) is ineligible and your second (Earth orbit) simply points out that available tools (observation and no knowledge of gravity) will give limited results. Which begs the question; How can you know if you have the right tools?

But...enough of that....

Someone, rhgraham or gauche, maybe, made the statement, "Art is ethically neutral..." as I recall...

It may have coincided with a statement I made that even 'beauty' is rational, definable and knowable...

Could I be reminded of where that was located?

Thank you...

amicus...

It was RG, I know nothing about art only what I like.

Gauche

 

[Guest]

I know nothing about art only what I like.

Oh la la! I like that philosophy. And also O.W.'s "All art is quite useless."

Perdita