# United Auto Workers union comes calling at Tesla factory



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

"Hi ! We're from the UAW, and we're here to destroy your business..."


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

From the article
_Musk’s informal approach to labor relations may or may not continue to work as the company evolves into a high-volume automaker. He told Wired in 2009, “Most of our experienced factory workers come from unionized environments, and we asked them what benefit did they see in unions. They said, ‘Well, if their boss was an asshole, they had recourse.’ I said, ‘Let’s make a rule: There will be no assholes.’”_

Great Idea - in a properly run company the union becomes the body that organizes beer bashes

But it needs to be there for when the "rule" is broken or dies

I know unions in the US have a bad reputation - 
but where are most of the best cars in the world made? - Germany
And how unionized is Germany??
And how much power do the German Unions have?

The problems with the US car companies were almost completely down to management incompetence 

Example - Pensions
The normal method (used here, UK...) as soon as I have done some work and earned a pension in the future the company puts some money to cover that obligation into a separate fund (with a one way hatch)
IF the funds gets into trouble the company will add to the fund, if the fund does very well the company can take a payment holiday

Not the US companies - they decided NOT to put the money away as it was earned but to pay pensions out of cash flow and declare the money they did not pay as profit (bonus for management) 

Then when the chickens come home to roost they blame the unions!


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

I hope the workers at Tesla are smart enough to NOT vote a
union in.

We had a smart ass union rep join our shop and push for a union.
We voted it out and he went away.


----------



## esoneson (Sep 1, 2008)

A prerequisite for taking a position on this issue is a one-week stay in the fine city of Detroit. There you can get a first hand assessment of the results of the UAW.

The only ones that came out on top were the UAW bosses. Everybody else lost.

How's Saturn doing now that the UAW penetrated them?


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

Duncan said:


> I know unions in the US have a bad reputation -
> but where are most of the best cars in the world made? - Germany
> And how unionized is Germany??
> And how much power do the German Unions have?


I disagree. Most German cars are indeed very well engineered. But they do not last very long. Look around on the road. How many old German cars do you see. Most I see are no more than 10 years old, and having worked for an auto parts store, I can tell you most of our shops hated working on German cars. Most of them had very little good to say about them.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Jason Lattimer said:


> I disagree. Most German cars are indeed very well engineered. But they do not last very long. Look around on the road. How many old German cars do you see. Most I see are no more than 10 years old, and having worked for an auto parts store, I can tell you most of our shops hated working on German cars. Most of them had very little good to say about them.


Interesting - the comment was about unions

When I was at Cummins the view was
Immediate failures were the fault of the plants - assembly problems
Later failures were the fault of "engineering" - parts wear out or break

So you are effectively saying that the German highly unionized car companies make superior cars DESPITE being poorly engineered?

I will add to that I recently watched somebody trying to change an alternator belt on a Merc - it was totally impossible!
The alternator was underneath the engine

But you can't blame the German assembly worker for that

IMHO most of the faults we have seen with cars - even US cars are much more to do with management/engineering than with the guys who actually put them together

I remember witnessing a Plant Manager haranguing a fuel pump assembly line because of a lack of production,
The drive shafts they needed were still at the supplier, - can't really build a pump without one!
And it was definitely NOT the assembly workers fault!


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

Duncan said:


> Interesting - the comment was about unions
> 
> When I was at Cummins the view was
> Immediate failures were the fault of the plants - assembly problems
> ...


Point taken. What I should have said is that the German cars where very well designed and ergonomic. They definitely where NOT engineered for lasting very long.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Just a little bit to add here

One of my major contributions (to improved Quality) at Cummins was the very simple rule that 
First find out who/what caused the fault
Then try and fix it

It sounds insane but a whole lot of effort went on without first determining what was going wrong
The assembly area was being blamed for things that were test harnessing problems
Suppliers were being blamed for engineering hiccups

Simply looking at what had gone wrong - then fixing it worked wonders

Now people are doing the same thing here - 
Unions are bodies that protect their members
They don't make all the management and engineering decisions
And if they do - you are screwed - but its still managements fault for abdicating their responsibility's


----------



## dedlast (Aug 17, 2013)

Duncan said:


> Unions are bodies that *are supposed to *protect their members *but seem to be more interested in protecting their own power.*


There I fixed that for you. 

But I do agree that management has the final responsibility.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Unions DO work for the employee. No doubt about that. Without them, your at risk of the AT WILL EMPLOYER who at any time can, can your butt without an explanation. No doubt about that.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Duncan said:


> From the article
> _Musk’s informal approach to labor relations may or may not continue to work as the company evolves into a high-volume automaker. He told Wired in 2009, “Most of our experienced factory workers come from unionized environments, and we asked them what benefit did they see in unions. They said, ‘Well, if their boss was an asshole, they had recourse.’ I said, ‘Let’s make a rule: There will be no assholes.’”_
> 
> Great Idea - in a properly run company the union becomes the body that organizes beer bashes
> ...


Why? What value add does the Union bring to the Consumer? (Answer: None.)

Oh, this isn't chit-chat, mods better move this thread quick!


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

_Unions are bodies that *are supposed to *protect their members *but seem to be more interested in protecting their own power.

*_I suppose we need to differentiate between American Unions which appear to be something to do with the Mafia

And Unions in the rest of the world which are democratically controlled associations of workers


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

Duncan said:


> _Unions are bodies that *are supposed to *protect their members *but seem to be more interested in protecting their own power.
> 
> *_I suppose we need to differentiate between American Unions which appear to be something to do with the Mafia
> 
> And Unions in the rest of the world which are democratically controlled associations of workers


 The American unions are democratic. The workers get to vote for who the leaders want in office. When the Knights of Columbus 
started the first union the workers were in dire need. Now days unions have become top heavy and self serving. The unionized laborer just traded for a new master.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

dragonsgate said:


> The American unions are democratic. The workers get to vote for who the leaders want in office. When the Knights of Columbus
> started the first union the workers were in dire need. Now days unions have become top heavy and self serving. The unionized laborer just traded for a new master.


Unions are only "Democratic" in that it forms a legal fiction allowing them to extort businesses. The business owners don't get an equal vote in the Union, yet the Union seems to believe they have a right to tell business owners how to manage their business and how much they should pay above market rate for common labor.

All Democracies inevitably become a legal fiction rationalizing the stealing of wealth from the productive by the majority of unproductive. In other words, a Democracy is just a mob.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> All Democracies inevitably become a legal fiction rationalizing the stealing of wealth from the productive by the majority of unproductive. In other words, a Democracy is just a mob.


This is called - 
*The "Tytler" Calumny*

_"A democracy is always__temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent__form of government.__A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.__ From that moment on, the majority__always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from__the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally__collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a__dictatorship."_


And you know what - rather than something that "always happens" - it has never happened once - not once in history!


Democracies have fallen when the rich find they can rob the treasury - but never the poor 



_http://davidbrin.blogspot.co.nz/2012/10/the-tytler-insult-is-democracy-hopeless.html_



_stealing of wealth from the productive by the majority of unproductive._


If you change this to 



_stealing of wealth from the productive by a small number of unproductive parasites._


_*Then it is true - the 1% is parasitic on the rest of us and stealing our wealth*_


_*Romney is a fine example - breaking up companies to rob their pension funds and keeping his loot abroad so he doesn't pay tax*_




_There are "unproductive" normal people - but they are a tiny minority as you can see by looking at history the vast majority of the population want to work and can work - 
_


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

dragonsgate said:


> The American unions are democratic. The workers get to vote for who the leaders want in office. When the Knights of Columbus
> started the first union the workers were in dire need. Now days unions have become top heavy and self serving. The unionized laborer just traded for a new master.



Then why don't they (the workers) vote the bastards out and get the leaders they want??

Unions here are based on the shop floor,
The members (workers) vote for one of their members to go forwards to the next level (shop steward) 
The shop stewards vote select the delegates (normally from the shop stewards) - who are voted on by all

If the delegates (or shop stewards) don't do what the membership want they get voted out PDQ

Who are these "Leaders" that can manage to lead the workers by the nose?


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I have never worked where there was a union, and my father was a member of the "Right To Work" organization that was against union shops and closed shops. My uncle worked at Bethlehem Steel where there was a strong union and it seemed that he was always bragging about his high union wages, which he used to buy the newest, fanciest cars, but then when they went on strike (which seemed to be every year or so) he was whining and moaning about not getting paid.

I have worked as an outside contractor where the shop was highly unionized, and it seemed that workers were paid way too much for doing too little. They were only allowed to work within a narrow spectrum of what was considered their job description, and refused (or couldn't do) simple things that came under someone else's area. One time I was doing a commissioning of a breaker test set at the Trident Sub-Base in WA, and we had to plug it in and apply power. But nobody there was authorized to do so. They had to schedule a qualified electrician, and he was elsewhere, maybe on break or an hour lunch, and we had to wait until he showed up. According to their rules, he had to wear a full protective arc blast suit and lineman's gloves, just to plug three connectors into a switch panel, and throw the switch. But as I recall, he did not do any other precautionary testing, such as measuring the load to see if there were any shorts or dangerous conditions. He was essentially a highly paid trained monkey.

Just a couple days ago I saw the Marlon Brando classic "On The Waterfront", which dealt with corrupt union bosses who were essentially gangsters out for their own power and monetary gain. Most of what I have seen of union activity is trying to squeeze as much money as possible from companies and allowing simple factory workers to get wages equivalent to those of highly skilled professionals. So the result has been that Detroit automakers and steel mills and other American industry has been shut down by foreign corporations who are able to find workers who are often much better motivated at much reduced yet reasonable salaries, while our workers are on unemployment or delivering pizza. 

And now they are crying to increase the minimum wage, which will lead to more downsizing and unemployment and foreign competition. There are many jobs that just aren't meant as careers or to enable a single wage-earner to live in a big house in the suburbs with an SUV and all sorts of lavish material possessions to brag about.


----------



## hmincr (Jan 20, 2012)

PStechPaul is spot on, in the USA union gangs. I know first hand what takes place. Ever hear of the longshoremen, shutting down the dock, so it takes days-weeks, before they go back to work and start processing YOUR goods ?

It's a way overdue organization that needs to be shut down. How much do y'all think the unions GIVE the freaking thieving Politicos ??


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

I suppose if you want to be serfs - 

Me I will stick with unions - much better than tugging my forelock (which is well gone these days) and saying, yes sir, three bags full sir,


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Duncan said:


> This is called -
> *The "Tytler" Calumny*
> 
> _"A democracy is always__temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent__form of government.__A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.__ From that moment on, the majority__always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from__the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally__collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a__dictatorship."_
> ...


David Brinn is such a talented writer; it's a shame he cannot shake loose from his Liberal education.

Sadly, your hypothesis is utterly incorrect. Adolph Hitler was elected in a Democracy based on his promises of gifts to the poor - and he delivered, for a while. In truth it would have bankrupted the nation - but it did result in the end of the Democracy. Nor was that the only time in history when the nation was either bankrupted (several times in ancient Rome, which had a representative form of Democracy) or where the promises of free stuff were simply used as a stepping stone to the ulitmate power of a dictatorship (Venezuela is a good recent example - encapsulates both a Democracy voting so much of the productive classes wealth to the poor that the nation was bankrupted, allowing Chavez to become a dictator).

Yet, for all the billions stolen by the schemers and war criminals, that theft was only a few percentage points of what was given out to the non-workers that was first taken from the productive class.

What you are so utterly and neurotically fixated on is that the wealthy actually aggregated some of that money. The poor do not ever aggregate - when given money they immediately spend it (that's why most of them are poor to begin with). Yet, in the larger scheme of things, that theft was orders of magnitude greater than the greatest robber barons or crony capitalists ever managed to make off with. One year's worth of Medicade is greater than the sum of the wealth of the entire top 1% of the wealthy you are so fixated on. You need to let go of this obsession - this anger can only make you unhappy... 

Since it is all coming from the productive, who is harming the productive most? Ahem, that is rhetorical - your boogey-men rich are as moquito bites compared to the shark bites of the greedy unproductive.



> _stealing of wealth from the productive by the majority of unproductive._
> 
> If you change this to
> 
> ...


Again what you say is partly true, but misses the mark by orders of magnitude. And, ironically, it is only because there is such a massive government facilitating extraction of 50% of our GDP from the productive that these large excesses to a few can be noticed. Remove the camouflage of a budget measured in trillions, and at best they could steal a few millions.



> _*Romney is a fine example - breaking up companies to rob their pension funds and keeping his loot abroad so he doesn't pay tax*_


Yawn. You're just trolling now. Romney's track record was one of revitalizing companies - despite all of their dirt digging the libs could only come up with one or two talking point companies that he was lambasted for, and the truth was that those did not deserve to continue to exist. The resources were far better used as fertilizer for other, better endeavors.



> _There are "unproductive" normal people - but they are a tiny minority as you can see by looking at history the vast majority of the population want to work and can work - _


Doesn't it bother you just a little bit to spout things which are clearly and obviously not factual? If not, there is a word for that kind of person.

Most people who have received 99 weeks of "unemployment" have no desire at all to go back to work, and multiple studies done in the past 100 years in this nation always conclude that the longer you make unemployment benefits the longer most of those people remain unemployed. Since 1948 the Bureau of Labor Statistics has kept tabs on how many people of working age are employed. It started out around 56% in 1948 (when most women still did not work), and from 1988 to 2008 averaged about 63%. That leaves a minimum of 37% of working age people who do not work - hardly a "tiny percentage" as you claim. Clue: No more than 1% of them can be 1%-ers..... 

Of those who DO work, some are virtual charity cases. That would include most "government workers.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

You complain that the poor people immediately spend all of their income, whether earned or received as welfare or Medicaid, but why is that so terrible compared to the rich who put their money into speculation, legalized gambling (stock market), foreign investments, tax shelters, and other places which do nothing really good for our economy? The money spent by the poor, including benefits such as health care, go directly to private businesses who employ people and keep them off unemployment. Every transaction contributes to the GNP and taxes are returned to the government that "invested" in these people.

The only valid argument against this premise is when people give their money to drug dealers and other criminals who cause a huge drain on the economy by financing foreign drug lords and requiring ever more police and prisons. So if you decriminalize drugs and other "victimless" crimes such as prostitution, you direct that money to the government and ultimately the people, and allow the "immoral" behavior to be treated as a health issue rather than a crime.

In the early days of the industrial revolution, big business dominated and without regulations used child labor and paid starvation wages and amassed huge profits which were spent on self-aggrandizement, while workers were commodities that were discarded when they were injured or became ill. Then the tide turned and labor unions acquired power and the government enacted regulations that leveled things out. We did well while we enjoyed the prosperity of seemingly limitless resources and continuous expansion, but now all of us must accept a more equitable distribution of the wealth that is really the birthright of all citizens, not just of the US, but the entire world.

The problem with the unfettered Big Business model, and the Powerful Union model, are that absolute power corrupts absolutely. If people truly get involved in politics and government, it should be possible to constrain both sides of the labor/management situation and make things relatively pleasant for everyone. Stop worshipping money and the "stuff" it can buy, and learn to enjoy free time and relaxation.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Since 1948 the Bureau of Labor Statistics has kept tabs on how many people of working age are employed. It started out around 56% in 1948 (when most women still did not work), and from 1988 to 2008 averaged about 63%. That leaves a minimum of 37% of working age people who do not work - hardly a "tiny percentage" as you claim. Clue: No more than 1% of them can be 1%-ers.....

37%
Lets remove
Full time housewife/mother - 17%??
Full time education - 8%?
Temporary unemployment (between jobs) - 4%?
Disabled - 4%?
The 1% - 1%

What have we left for unemployable - don't want to work - 6%???

Now they do exist - but we can see (in other countries at least) that when there are jobs available the vast majority of people do work

In NZ in the 60's (before the neoliberal revolution) The Minister in charge of employment
"Knew the names of all of the people who had been unemployed for more than a year"
There were that few of them


----------



## dedlast (Aug 17, 2013)

PStechPaul said:


> "victimless" crimes such as prostitution,


I have to respond to this. If you think prostitution is "victimless", do a search for and watch the film "Rape for Profit". Seriously.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

There are certainly cases where gangsters pimp young girls and illegals and are often violent criminals who should be prosecuted. But when it is decriminalized and reasonably regulated, it is no longer "underground" and abuse is less likely. It is legal in parts of Nevada and the Netherlands and other parts of Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_brothels_in_Nevada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Europe

Prostitution is victimless in the same way that applies to drinking alcohol, smoking, recreational drug use, gambling, drinking giant sodas, and other such activities that may be harmful to whomever chooses to engage in them, but not to others. This goes along with personal responsibility for ones own actions, and the principle that the government must not infringe on life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It has been proven that attempts to legislate "morality", as intended by the Volstead Act and the 18th Constitutional amendment that was finally repealed, do not work. Instead they make the problem worse, and give money and power to criminals.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

> ....Prostitution is victimless in the same way that applies to drinking alcohol, smoking, recreational drug use, gambling, drinking giant sodas, and other such activities that may be harmful to whomever chooses to engage in them, but not to others.


 Simply "decriminalizing" something doesnt necessarily make it better.
Are you seriously suggesting that junkies, drunks, smokers, gamblers, and even overweight "giant soda drinkers" do not cause harm to others ?
These are not innocuous substances like fruit and veg, they are addictive, leading to over consumption and major social problems...which directly impact on others and society generally.
The well known violent tendencies and "antisocial" behavior of drug/acohol fueled addicts are bad enough, but minor compared to the social impact of the cost of healthcare and law enforcement directly associated with them.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Booze, Drugs, Tobacco, Prostitution, Gambling

All "bad" things - but legalizing and regulating is a ton better than making them illegal and driving them into the hands of the criminals

There is no way that they are going to go away - so let us hope our legislature will do a better job of protecting the vulnerable than Al Capone did


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Duncan said:


> .... legalizing and regulating is a ton better than making them illegal and driving them into the hands of the criminals


 The problem is as soon as you have to "regulate" or control ( licensing, taxing, restricting etc) ...you create opportunities for criminal activity.
Eg.. black market trade in Tax free booze and tobacco, 
...unlicensed "clubs" for gambling/drinking ..
Even much of the "licensed" clubs, brothels, and Taxi services are known to be closely associated with criminal organizations !

How do you "control" an addictive product !


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Karter2 said:


> The problem is as soon as you have to "regulate" or control ( licensing, taxing, restricting etc) ...you create opportunities for criminal activity.
> Eg.. black market trade in Tax free booze and tobacco,
> ...unlicensed "clubs" for gambling/drinking ..
> Even much of the "licensed" clubs, brothels, and Taxi services are known to be closely associated with criminal organizations !
> ...


_How do you "control" an addictive product !_

With difficulty - Very carefully

If you squeeze too tight you drive the black market
Too loose and you get the adverse consequences

Look at tobacco and booze - both regulated so the black market is minor,
I would say both are too loosely controlled so some tightening is appropriate

There is no perfect fix but making it illegal just abdicates all control to the crims
And they have even less empathy for the vulnerable than the politicians


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

PhantomPholly said:


> David Brinn is such a talented writer; it's a shame he cannot shake loose from his Liberal education.


How is blind stupidity a talent? I can't speak for all coutries but I know Argentina has suffered complete economic collapse at least 3 or 4 times because of running up social programs where the goal seems to be 100% of the population living off the work of the other 0%.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

PStechPaul said:


> You complain that the poor people immediately spend all of their income, whether earned or received as welfare or Medicaid, but why is that so terrible compared to the rich who put their money into speculation, legalized gambling (stock market), foreign investments, tax shelters, and other places which do nothing really good for our economy? The money spent by the poor, including benefits such as health care, go directly to private businesses who employ people and keep them off unemployment. Every transaction contributes to the GNP and taxes are returned to the government that "invested" in these people.


That is called "the Broken Window theory." The idea goes like this: A punk breaks a storefront window. The store owner then must cough up $1,000 (or whatever amount) to have the window fixed. Thus the window repair man makes some money, and passes some along to the glass maker. Etc. ad infinitum. So, the theory says, the economy was that much better off! The fly in the ointment is that the store owner is out $1,000. That $1,000 might have been put to better uses - perhaps as working capital to finance a new employee. The point is, the economy is not better off because someone was harmed by way of having their money confiscated - thus it is a false (although specious) argument.



> In the early days of the industrial revolution, big business dominated and without regulations used child labor and paid starvation wages and amassed huge profits which were spent on self-aggrandizement, while workers were commodities that were discarded when they were injured or became ill. Then the tide turned and labor unions acquired power and the government enacted regulations that leveled things out.


Yes, that is the union fairy tale propaganda. Yet it is factually untrue. "Child labor" and "conscription for labor" and actual slavery were the norm prior to the industrial revolution. It was only the great wealth created by the industrial revolution which enabled our society to start lifting the masses out of poverty, thus allowing us time for things like reading newspapers and, upon learning about the plight of working children etc. demand that our legislators make changes. The role of the Unions in all of this? Why, they were absolutely opposed to labor laws until they recognized that they were going to happen despite their resistance. From that moment on, like any political organization, they claimed that they were for it and attempted to take credit for every new law - even those they opposed with funding paid for by their worker's dues!

You need to go read some actual histories written at the time, not the propaganda lies being told in an attempt to re-write history...



> We did well while we enjoyed the prosperity of seemingly limitless resources and continuous expansion, but now all of us must accept a more equitable distribution of the wealth that is really the birthright of all citizens, not just of the US, but the entire world.


Where on earth do you get the idea that wealth is a "birthright?" That is simply BS rationalization for stealing. Because wealth is created, not something that simply sits around on a shelf, someone must create that wealth - and it is they, and no one else, who deserve that wealth.



> The problem with the unfettered Big Business model, and the Powerful Union model, are that absolute power corrupts absolutely. If people truly get involved in politics and government, it should be possible to constrain both sides of the labor/management situation and make things relatively pleasant for everyone. Stop worshipping money and the "stuff" it can buy, and learn to enjoy free time and relaxation.


You may go live in the wilderness off the land if you wish, I have no intention of doing so. I agree that big business has far too many special exemptions and loopholes - but Unionization is a separate demon and thus not the "cure" to big business.

When (or if) you ever learn wrap your head around the fundamental truth that no net good can come from enacting evil, then you will no longer be a liberal.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Duncan said:


> Since 1948 the Bureau of Labor Statistics has kept tabs on how many people of working age are employed. It started out around 56% in 1948 (when most women still did not work), and from 1988 to 2008 averaged about 63%. That leaves a minimum of 37% of working age people who do not work - hardly a "tiny percentage" as you claim. Clue: No more than 1% of them can be 1%-ers.....
> 
> 37%
> Lets remove
> ...


That was some good verbal ju-jitsu. I had to go back and read the original post to see how it even relates...

Got it. Its an attempt to change the subject, which is "who is benefiting from the theft from the productive class."

47% of GDP goes to workers as salaries and benefits.
6% of GDP is corporate profits. Of that, most is eventually doled out as dividends (which are then taxed) or re-invested in the business (which grows, and when stocks change hands the capital growth is taxed). Who benefits from those stocks and dividends? Mostly individual investments and retirement programs.
67% of our Federal expenditures are for entitlement programs. Some of those are outrageous government pensions, some are honorable commitments to our troops, and the rest are payouts to voters to bribe them to vote "D".

Now, you seem to be conflating "any wage earner" with "the productive class." That is not technically correct - for when they are receiving government benefits paid for by other taxpayers they are not actually productive. Personally, I would group all government employees under this umbrella too - but for sake of argument we'll leave them alone. Too, as you walk down that domino chain of "who is doing what," you have conveniently left out the fact that 8% of working age people (about 30 million, no small decimal place) who had jobs prior to 2008 no longer have jobs - so there is clearly an error in your math.



> Now they do exist - but we can see (in other countries at least) that when there are jobs available the vast majority of people do work


But that alone does not make them part of the productive class. Merely showing up and drawing a paycheck is not productivity, no matter what the Unions preach.

Too, out of the so-called 1% there are many who truly earned what they have.

The big numbers never lie. Only about 1/2 of all Federal taxes come from Income Taxes (wherein the percent paid is hugely skewed towards the wealthy, even if the skew is not as much as you wish). The other 1/2 comes from "employment taxes," of which half comes from individual employees and the other half is paid by businesses. Thus, the lion's share of taxes are paid by working people who both pay income taxes and employment taxes. Meanwhile, we are heavily subsidizing an extraordinarily large portion of our society from out of the pockets of taxpayers (mostly productive workers, some eclectically wealthy). Many of those people must labor for nearly 1/2 of the year for someone else's benefit - in other words, unadulterated slavery.

No, the rich are annoying but they aren't the biggest thieves by a long shot. The people forcing me to work as a slave an extra 15 years are all dole-ees of one kind or another. You could take away all of the money from the rich and it would not impact that equation by more than 6 months.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Karter2 said:


> The problem is as soon as you have to "regulate" or control ( licensing, taxing, restricting etc) ...you create opportunities for criminal activity.
> Eg.. black market trade in Tax free booze and tobacco,
> ...unlicensed "clubs" for gambling/drinking ..
> Even much of the "licensed" clubs, brothels, and Taxi services are known to be closely associated with criminal organizations !
> ...


Going to have to agree with Duncan for a change...  

That's what "sin taxes" are for. Enough could be raised in marijuana taxes alone to pay for (above and beyond the administrative costs of regulation) a good portion of the harm these people are already doing to themselves which we are paying for, and also to fund awareness campaigns which have proven at least somewhat effective in reducing abuse.

Note that not all users of any drug are addicts, although admittedly there are some that are so harmful as to be categorized simply as poison by most rational folks. The rational majority paying sin taxes would serve to offset costs of the few who succumb to addiction, and would relieve our tax burden of literally trillions for enforcement officers and incarceration of otherwise decent citizens who have done nothing more than either seek escape or been enticed by high profits caused by "drug prohibition" to try pushing for profit.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Ziggythewiz said:


> How is blind stupidity a talent? I can't speak for all coutries but I know Argentina has suffered complete economic collapse at least 3 or 4 times because of running up social programs where the goal seems to be 100% of the population living off the work of the other 0%.


Was speaking of Brinn's talent as a writer, not his politics. 

Read "Uplift" by David Brinn (and if you like it it is part of a series). Clever and thoughtful work on what it means to be a "sentient being," and avoids most of his more political hack work. Also gets into what will clearly be politics surrounding what a sentient being is if we ever find or invent other life in the galaxy.

"Where does an 800 lb gorilla sit? Anywhere he wants..."


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Ziggythewiz said:


> How is blind stupidity a talent? I can't speak for all coutries but I know Argentina has suffered complete economic collapse at least 3 or 4 times because of running up social programs where the goal seems to be 100% of the population living off the work of the other 0%.


Now that is utter nonsense

Argentina has been a classic kleptocracy with 99% of the wealth "owned" by about 40 families 

That naturally has resulted in some "unrest"


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I see what you mean about the "broken window" example. But wealth and money (not the same, BTW) are rather artificially measured, increased, and devalued. Ultimately, most of the wealth of a nation, and the citizens that are part thereof, is based on natural resources. Who owns those resources? In a true democracy, they are owned equally by all, as their "birthright". But in a capitalistic society, a small number of powerful people have taken control of these resources, and by exploiting and depleting them, they are essentially "breaking windows" and causing the build-up of monetary wealth with each transaction. 

So, overall, there is a steady diminishment of these resources, and those who immediately benefit are the people and corporations who have secured the rights to their use, often by fraudulent and violent means. We as human beings are still operating as predators, and resources are owned by the strongest, smartest, and most ruthless of competitors. Most of nature is based on survival of the fittest, but only mankind (and some other primates) exhibit the phenomenon of endless greed and unfair competition. Native American Indians should be the rightful owners of the resources of North America, and although they acted as predators in taking land and game from the wolves and other animals who preceded them, they at least were reasonable stewards of their environment and they lived in relative harmony with other creatures in a sustainable manner.

But then "white man" from Europe arrives, and he "conquers" the existing residents and decimates their numbers and proceeds to clearcut the wilderness and shoot Bisons for sport and in general rape and pillage for personal wealth and power in a highly competitive manner. There were huge untapped sources of "wealth", in fertile land, timber, minerals, water, animals, and even people themselves. Wealth was built by those who were powerful enough to get more than their fair share of these resources, and they were seemingly boundless, so people still had a chance to get a piece of the action. But then people lost their farms and small shops to agribusiness and land speculators and corporate businesses, and soon most of them no longer really "owned" anything of value and became virtually servants to big business masters.

Much of what we perceive as wealth has been gained by speculation, making money from money, credit fees, and artificial valuation of things with little intrinsic value. In 2007 a house might be worth $500,000 and many more were being built with workers who received high wages and the economy was growing because the trend was always upward and people expected to be earning twice as much in a few years and these houses would be worth $1,000,000. Meanwhile the big banks and investment firms were "breaking windows" and placing inflated values on worthless paper that was passed around at increasing prices in a game of "hot potato" until the whole thing collapsed and people got burned. There was no less real value on hand after the 2008 crash, but perceived value, based on what one could sell something for, changed drastically.

So, instead of thinking of government "handouts" as money down the drain, consider them to be investments that will eventually return as benefits to the economy. You aren't "breaking windows", but you are just stimulating a cycle of transactions that build wealth at every step and return some back to the source in taxes. It might even cause a bit of inflation, which helps reduce the real cost of the National Debt, and is actually a sign of a healthy economy. As for taking money from "productive" businessmen, much of their wealth has been obtained through less than honest means and most certainly not from the "sweat of their brow", except when they were stressed by their Ponzi schemes and failed speculation. They aren't going to "invest" in more American workers when they can make better profits offshore and through automation. And if they have "extra" money, they will use it to buy another Jaguar or yacht or stash it in the Cayman Islands.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

Paul,
Well spoken!
More Americans should be thinking this way.
I'm a fan of Robert Reich. I saw his documentery "Inequality for All". It tells the simple truth about the financial problems facing, not only the rich, but the 46 million living in poverty.
BTW. Mitt Romney really enjoyed the Delphi bailout billions! Of course he very seldom expressed his joy about it.
People need to wake up and smell the doom! 

http://youtu.be/q-rpkZe2OEo

http://youtu.be/rpbRXXntGM8


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

PStechPaul said:


> I see what you mean about the "broken window" example. But wealth and money (not the same, BTW) are rather artificially measured, increased, and devalued. Ultimately, most of the wealth of a nation, and the citizens that are part thereof, is based on natural resources.


Completely inaccurate. Wealth is nothing more than a measure of the residual perceived value of durable goods (which can even be "bits" in a computer) providing a quantifiable measure of the sum of "what people want." About 30-40% of the "Wealth" of any nation on earth is tied up in private homes (which, incidentally, was why screwing with home financing by our government's regulators was able to nearly implode the whole world's wealth). Think about that - if we suddenly became immortal and utterly insensitive to the elements, homes might become nearly worthless overnight.

"Natural Resources" are worthless. Only when someone invests the time, energy, and money to extract and convert them into something valuable do they have value. Usually, the government places a tax on resources extracted up front as well as when finished goods are sold. Too, the idea of "limited resources" is almost (not quite) bogus. In fact, in recent decades the amount of any given resource has increased due to more efficient and cost-effective methods of extraction. As we start moving into space, the ability to mine asteroids will make the idea of "resource scarcity" a complete joke.



> Who owns those resources?


The people who have purchased or leased mineral rights, or the government. Those rights are worthless to most people. If a resource starts truly becoming scarce (not simply expensive because all available means of extracting it have high costs - in which case having more "mines" would not increase production nor reduce cost) the government has vast tracts of land available to lease; or, if they feel that a few companies are manipulating the prices they can annul leases and let those lands to competitors.



> In a true democracy, they are owned equally by all, as their "birthright".


Thanks be to god that we do not live in a true Democracy, a situation where drooling idiots have an equal say in how resources should be allocated...



> But in a capitalistic society, a small number of powerful people have taken control of these resources, and by exploiting and depleting them, they are essentially "breaking windows" and causing the build-up of monetary wealth with each transaction.


Paul, I cannot say this any other way. Your entire world-view seems to be based on completely false teachings. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Please go study the facts - this is not being critical, it is simply pointing out that your conclusions are not based on factual evidence. 

There is no monopoly of any resource in the world - none. The closest thing to that scenario is the DeBoers cartel of diamonds - which is now a joke because we can manufacture synthetic diamonds for industrial use cheaper than they can be dug out of the ground, and if women decided diamonds were "out of fashion" the value for a 10 caret diamond would drop to pennies. 

The actual "profit" made by any business can be completely quantified - which will reveal to you that the prices charged are only a few percentage points higher than their actual cost to deliver the refined / processed resource. Their "control" is limited to what people are willing to pay and how low their competitors are willing to lower their profit margins. About 50% of GDP is in the form of wages and benefits to workers. About 44% is what a business pays to be able to deliver their product ("parts", machinery, utilities, buildings, etc.). Only 6% is profit. That 6% is split across all kinds of people, with about half of it being large retirement funds (teachers, union workers, firemen, policemen - all of your "ordinary workers").



> So, overall, there is a steady diminishment of these resources, and those who immediately benefit are the people and corporations who have secured the rights to their use, often by fraudulent and violent means. We as human beings are still operating as predators, and resources are owned by the strongest, smartest, and most ruthless of competitors. Most of nature is based on survival of the fittest, but only mankind (and some other primates) exhibit the phenomenon of endless greed and unfair competition. Native American Indians should be the rightful owners of the resources of North America, and although they acted as predators in taking land and game from the wolves and other animals who preceded them, they at least were reasonable stewards of their environment and they lived in relative harmony with other creatures in a sustainable manner.


Dude. Go learn the facts. We are not running out of anything, and in fact we have more now (partly due to recycling) than we ever had.



> Much of what we perceive as wealth has been gained by speculation, making money from money, credit fees, and artificial valuation of things with little intrinsic value. In 2007 a house might be worth $500,000 and many more were being built with workers who received high wages and the economy was growing because the trend was always upward and people expected to be earning twice as much in a few years and these houses would be worth $1,000,000. Meanwhile the big banks and investment firms were "breaking windows" and placing inflated values on worthless paper that was passed around at increasing prices in a game of "hot potato" until the whole thing collapsed and people got burned. There was no less real value on hand after the 2008 crash, but perceived value, based on what one could sell something for, changed drastically.


Again, you have been mis-informed. The finest suits in 1800 cost about 1 oz of gold. In 1900, it still cost about 1 oz of gold. In 2014 it still costs about 1 oz of gold. It may take less labor today, but then again today's "finest suit" is made of different materials in keeping with latest technology. What you are describing is simply inflation of our currency due to corrupt politicians cranking out paper money, or "fiat currency." Google Fiat Currency and watch some videos to see how Government, not business, is stealing from you invisibly while you sleep.



> So, instead of thinking of government "handouts" as money down the drain, consider them to be investments that will eventually return as benefits to the economy.


That is a direct political talking point, and like the "broken window" theory is not factual even though it is extremely popular among the dolees. Handouts do not meet any of the criteria of an investment. An investment produces something of value, retains something of its value even if it never produces, and there is an expectation that some day the investment will produce something new of value. Handouts only create hoards of people clamoring for more handouts.

Your "theory" that handouts are an "investment" is actually a reverse Ponzi-scheme. 

Facts. Try them. Once you get over the bad taste of reality, you will be enlightened.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Karter2 said:


> The problem is as soon as you have to "regulate" or control ( licensing, taxing, restricting etc) ...you create opportunities for criminal activity.
> Eg.. black market trade in Tax free booze and tobacco,
> ...unlicensed "clubs" for gambling/drinking ..
> Even much of the "licensed" clubs, brothels, and Taxi services are known to be closely associated with criminal organizations !
> ...


Yep. And the politicians win - again - as many of them are financed by black market funds.

People of every political affiliation always SAY they are in favor of freedom - right up until they are exposed to people doing things that offend them. The only difference between the parties is "which things are offensive."

Real freedom means people can choose to harm themselves, up to and including suicide. If you don't own your own body, you are really just a slave.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Not only will you be enlightened, but there is no turning back. It is startling to see the world through a conservative lens the first time. Paul, you are the most well spoken liberal I have encountered. Most liberals just stomp their foot and declare all conservatives to be evil fat cats without ever trying to process the bigger picture. You appear to have the cognitive ability to see a bigger picture than the liberal biased one that you were socialized into.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Ah, finally something we can agree upon. I think Ron Paul had similar ideas, and I think this concept is the only way we will ever survive and thrive. One of the "leftist" principles that I oppose is that somehow all life is "sacred" and people do bad things only because they were not "loved enough" or perhaps they have some sort of mental defect. This results in laws and precedents that attempt to protect people from themselves, and trying to "save" or "excuse" people who have turned to crime and violence.

I see no problem giving a suicidal criminal enough rope to hang himself, or provide other means to take his own life and save society a lot of money and future harm. Also, inmates should be allowed to smoke pot and take narcotics that make them sleepy and lethargic. They'd be a lot easier to handle if they were doped up. And they should be allowed to continue after being released, as long as they didn't drive or create a menace to the public. If they don't work or otherwise contribute to society, so what? It's cheap to let them take drugs, and if they OD, that's OK too. Give them help if they want to get off drugs and fly straight, but don't try to force them into a mold they cannot fill. 

Basically, people should be allowed to do as they wish with their lives. If their lifestyle makes them sick, give them tranquilizers and pain pills and allow them to die. Health care should be for those who can afford it or deserve it. We have a rather convoluted concept of freedom, with many laws designed to create unfair advantage for certain entities, or for attempting to enforce religion and morality on people. Why does the government not work on Sundays, or celebrate Christmas and Easter? Why aren't liquor stores allowed to be open on Sunday, or stay open all night? That seems to be based on religious holidays, and specifically Christianity, although they have all taken on mostly secular concepts.

OK, "rant" over.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

PStechPaul said:


> Ah, finally something we can agree upon. I think Ron Paul had similar ideas, and I think this concept is the only way we will ever survive and thrive. One of the "leftist" principles that I oppose is that somehow all life is "sacred" and people do bad things only because they were not "loved enough" or perhaps they have some sort of mental defect. This results in laws and precedents that attempt to protect people from themselves, and trying to "save" or "excuse" people who have turned to crime and violence.
> 
> I see no problem giving a suicidal criminal enough rope to hang himself, or provide other means to take his own life and save society a lot of money and future harm. Also, inmates should be allowed to smoke pot and take narcotics that make them sleepy and lethargic. They'd be a lot easier to handle if they were doped up. And they should be allowed to continue after being released, as long as they didn't drive or create a menace to the public. If they don't work or otherwise contribute to society, so what? It's cheap to let them take drugs, and if they OD, that's OK too. Give them help if they want to get off drugs and fly straight, but don't try to force them into a mold they cannot fill.
> 
> ...


Great rant (although I'd say it's just speaking the plain truth); obviously we have a lot of common ground!


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Paul 

The issue is Phantom and EVMetro believe
_
Thanks be to god that we do not live in a true Democracy, a situation where drooling idiots have an equal say in how resources should be allocated...

_This is their view of the "common man (or woman)"_ -_ only the Randian supermen should have a say

Now I am not quite 60 years old and I have only lived in six countries so I have only worked/lived with a relatively small number of people (a few thousand) but the "common man" I have met is NOT a drooling idiot 

The “Rabble” the common man

First – any “Marching Morons” type of genetic change takes many many generations

In some places the people are only a couple of generations from primitive – where you really had to know your stuff or you starved!

The Roman citizen soldiers who created an empire are the same people who cheered at the circuses 

Our “Rabble(UK)” are the same people who provided the armed forces in WW2 – a technical war fought by machine man

The people who provided tens of thousands of aircrew,- only three decades after the Wright brothers

The people who went from untrained labour to producing spitfire parts in weeks

The people who made precision munitions and crewed submarines and battleships to deliver them

The common man is;

Making hot-rods, building houses, messing with boats, scuba diving, rock climbing, inventing weird things, writing novels, blogs, screenplays…..

Some of the “common man” are a bit dim and lack the horsepower – how many? -5%? 10% 

How many do you think?

I do believe a lot of the “common man” are intellectual couch potatoes preferring to let others do their thinking for them,

I just think most of them have the capability to do otherwise


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Duncan said:


> Hi Paul
> 
> The issue is Phantom and EVMetro believe
> _
> ...


That's just foolish exaggeration Duncan. Nobody thinks this except for nut-cases - because once you allow government to limit voters to "an elite select group" then no one is free.

The Founding Fathers had the right of it, although the criteria they used won't work anymore. All able-bodied adults who demonstrate fiscal responsibility should be allowed the vote. If you took the corruption out of our system (i.e. stop giving free money, and make people choose between the privilege of voting or free meals) then IMHO over half of the people swilling from the public trough would walk away from it to keep their vote. That would, of course, require a full overhaul of our social safety net so that people get food, clothing, housing instead of a blank check and some way to verify people are not on the dole before allowing them to vote - but I believe that that simple criteria would still leave 75% or more of our adults as voters. If it would make you happier, I would even suggest a Constitutional Amendment that "any public program must show steady trend of gains towards 100% votorship or be declared null and void." That reasonable criteria would cause most of today's social programs to disappear!

The alternative is what we have now - an unholy alliance between people eager to accept free government money with no strings attached and politicians seeking votes. Take away the free money, and the corruption disappears. Provide an unethical incentive to vote for corrupt politicians, and enough people will take the bribe that you cannot hope to balance the budget. Sound familiar?



> Now I am not quite 60 years old and I have only lived in six countries so I have only worked/lived with a relatively small number of people (a few thousand) but the "common man" I have met is NOT a drooling idiot


And for you to suggest that that was how I was describing "the common man" is pretty low, even for one of your fanatical zealotry. We are about the same age and have lived in about the same number of countries - what is it that leads you to believe that a system which allows every idiot to vote is desirable?



> First – any “Marching Morons” type of genetic change takes many many generations


OMG. You are completely off on the genocide track, aren't you? Should I remind you that Planned Parenthood was founded by liberals for the express purpose of encouraging black women to abort their babies?



> I do believe a lot of the “common man” are intellectual couch potatoes preferring to let others do their thinking for them,
> 
> I just think most of them have the capability to do otherwise


So do I - but under our current system they have no incentive to do so.

And, you are in part factually wrong on your assumptions about "genetic shift." If we were to add in, for example, monetary incentives (yes, let us call them bribes) for just the bottom 10% of (intellect, physical stature, worst genetic predisposition to impairing maladies - take your pick, or take all) it has been projected by geneticists that it would only take 2-3 generations to result in a shift of two standard deviations. For those who do not know what that means mathematically, it means that you take a standard bell curve: 









Now, if this curve happened to represent (for example) I.Q. (with the left side being "more dumb than others", or lower IQ) and the standard score today is 100, what you would see is the graph squeezed from the left-hand side so that the average would move to approximately 120 in just a couple of generations (thinks of the graph getting skinnier and taller - less variation between people would erode some of the "advantage" that today's exceptional people have over others, and would dramatically reduce the pool of "stupid people who follow blindly" that allow those people to become so rich it offends you). It is not genocide, it is not forcing anybody - just explaining to people that their children are likely to be disadvantaged compared to the average and encouraging them not to have children. And, what parent wants to wish upon their offspring a vanishingly small chance of being happy and productive?

There are real answers based on facts available to us. As long as we keep fighting about theories based on false truth which can never become true, we are simply holding ourselves back from what we can become.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

PStechPaul said:


> ... inmates should be allowed to smoke pot and take narcotics that make them sleepy and lethargic. They'd be a lot easier to handle if they were doped up. And they should be allowed to continue after being released, _*as long as they didn't drive or create a menace to the public*_.


 You cannot just "hope" they do as you wish...because they wont ! ..


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Phantom

Genetics does not work like that
Even if intelligence was 100% inherited (which it most certainly is not)
Because it is a mixing event (two parents) which does a lot of randomization
removing the bottom 10% (or the top 10%) would have the effect of at best eliminating 10% x 10% of the population - a 1% per generation trim

In practice with Nurture being at least as important as Nature it would take many many generations to drop the average intelligence

Now we do have some data on this - intelligence testing has been performed on very large numbers of people for nearly 100 years

What do we see?
We see "The Flynn Effect" 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
An increase in measured intelligence!!

From the article
The Flynn effect has been too rapid for genetic selection to be the cause
Which is back to my original comment about the speed of genetic change

Now there is a way for genetic change to be quite fast
Change in small isolated populations can be very rapid
See "Punctuated Equilibrium" 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

But change in large "well stirred" populations is very slow


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Duncan said:


> Hi Paul
> 
> The issue is Phantom and EVMetro believe
> _
> ...


Here is a peek of what the common man looks like here in the states. He is probably feeling like a victim when job hunting.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

Night of the living dead!


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

That guy is probably trying to groom himself for a competitive edge in finding a job. We will probably wind up with a protected class of people to ensure that employers hire an equal number of these types. In the meantime, he would be entitled to unemployment and welfare thanks to the productive class. You know, I could be all wrong about this guy... anybody think he is a conservative?


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

I see - Evmetro believes that Americans are some type of subhuman race?

I have met some dumb Americans (I worked in Indiana for four years) - but I didn't think they were any dumber than Brits or Kiwis 
(Probably not as smart as Scots of course)

But who am I to argue with an actual American - if he says Americans are subhuman I suppose he must be right


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

We Americans are subhuman when the US Supreme Court rules that corporations are now considered citizens and can openly fund elections.
Also their lobbyists buy the political campaigns.
We Americans are no longer represented by our politicians, since we are outbid by the corporations.
America has become the Republic of Corporations and no more a Democracy.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Duncan said:


> I see - Evmetro believes that Americans are some type of subhuman race?
> 
> I have met some dumb Americans (I worked in Indiana for four years) - but I didn't think they were any dumber than Brits or Kiwis
> (Probably not as smart as Scots of course)
> ...


I see. Duncan believes that all people from Indiana are a subhuman race. He worked there so if he says people from Indiana are subhuman, he must be right. I was not aware that Brits and Kiwis were subhuman too, but he must be right about them too.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Duncan said:


> Phantom
> 
> Genetics does not work like that
> Even if intelligence was 100% inherited (which it most certainly is not)
> ...


While admittedly it has been quite a while since I read the article I was paraphrasing, judging by your link I was pretty close:



> ...by convention the average of the test results is set to 100 and their standard deviation is set to 15 or 16 IQ points.


So, my recollection of a 20 point shift was probably 1 standard deviation. And it may have been 4 or 5 generations to get that shift vs the 2-3 I spouted from memory.

But here is the point. Today, 50 years after the start of the War on Poverty, we have accomplished almost nothing other to make the condition of poverty more comfortable at the expense of impending bankruptcy of our nation and enslaving the middle class to work an extra 10-15 years before they can enjoy the fruits of their labors. We can do far better; and it can be done without costing a lot of money or stepping on people's rights or discriminating based on race or gender. The reduction in health costs would be astronomical (if you remove the 10% of worst genetic disorders from the pool, the associated costs can be virtually eradicated). So, instead of continually encouraging multi-generational welfare recipients to have 6-10 children by paying them more for each child they have, each of which will be nearly doomed to follow the same path because the only roll models they have are "Community Organizers" geared towards teaching them how to get more money from the government - we would instead be both encouraging people to get off the dole by removing the dole-incentive and also helping to improve each child's odds of having the necessary health and mental capacity to achieve their own version of the American Dream.

Why not pursue actual solutions to the root problems, rather than continue to apply expensive Band-Aids to assuage our consciences?


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

evmetro said:


> That guy is probably trying to groom himself for a competitive edge in finding a job. We will probably wind up with a protected class of people to ensure that employers hire an equal number of these types. In the meantime, he would be entitled to unemployment and welfare thanks to the productive class. You know, I could be all wrong about this guy... anybody think he is a conservative?


His friends all suspect him...


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Why not pursue actual solutions to the root problems, rather than continue to apply expensive Band-Aids to assuage our consciences?


Absolutely!

We need to fix the growing inequality caused by the positive feedback of
"Them as has gets" and also by regulatory capture as the 0.1% buy the levers of power (Just as described by Adam Smith)

If we don't it will get worse until we move to the French Solution

On a related note -
It used to be that fortunes didn't continue to build because every few generations a chinless wonder would be born and lose the lot
Nowadays with the wonders of Trusts and similar instruments even that avenue is closed


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Duncan said:


> Absolutely!
> 
> We need to fix the growing inequality caused by the positive feedback of
> "Them as has gets" and also by regulatory capture as the 0.1% buy the levers of power (Just as described by Adam Smith)
> ...


lol - which French solution? If you will recall, throughout history there have been almost predictable revolutions in which all of the extremely wealthy were executed. The French Revolution was pretty thorough in that regards. Is that what you're looking for?

On the other hand, the Russian Revolution did the same thing but implemented "equality for all people." The result was almost universal suffering and poverty for many generations despite having territory as rich or richer in natural resources than the United States. It is not the only example of "equality" implemented throughout history, so I'm afraid I cannot agree with your favored solution.

The answer, therefore, is something new. People will not excel unless they feel they can "win." That means allowing people to get wealthy. It does not mean that they must be allowed to create multi-generational genetic royalty which rule others as emperors. Thus, rational limits on inheritance firmly imposed would eradicate this practice. The government would confiscate all stocks, bonds, and other real property not protected by the "inheritance allowance" and would be required by law to sell them over a reasonable period of time (say, 3 years) and would not have any voting privileges during its time of holding. 

By the way - an Income Tax does nothing to eliminate this "problem" (and I'm not entirely certain it is a "problem" which can be "fixed"). All it does is discourage people from working hard and saving for retirement, because it guarantees that most can never become wealthy enough to stop working (slavery) - and while it is enslaving the workers, it stands as justification for the largest intelligence agency in the world to spy on our own citizens (control). Final note about this kind of solution - it tends to cause deflation.



> On a related note -
> It used to be that fortunes didn't continue to build because every few generations a chinless wonder would be born and lose the lot
> Nowadays with the wonders of Trusts and similar instruments even that avenue is closed


Yes, I know something of that. There was a book written about the United States (I forget the author) in which the writer observed that the United States in general, and the cities of New York and Philledelphia in particular, had more lawyers than anyplace else on earth. Sounds like today, eh? Well, that book was written in 1775 by a British author.

Using the law to steal from others is a form of force every bit as devastating as use of the military. Thus, I would propose all practitioners of law be inducted into the military, at military pay and subject to military justice for unethical behavior. The lawsuits would virtually disappear.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Phantom

We need to fix the problem - like the New Deal was a fix that worked for a while,
Or else we get to the time when only a French Fix with blood on the streets will work

Income Tax is an attempt - you do get something for the Tax you pay,
A Wealth Tax would be better

But the first thing that would be needed for a Wealth Tax would be transparency of ownership

_If you own something, you must openly avow and say that you own it. _ _That's it. Any property that has not been claimed by a human being, family, or clearly tracked group of humans within three years will revert to the state and be re-sold to pay down the public debt._
Think about it. What does "ownership" mean, if you are unwilling to state, openly, "I own that"? So many problems in the world can be attributed to murky title, from peasants abused by a nearby lord to an oil tanker that befouled beaches in Brittany with no owner ever held accountable, because of deeply nested shell companies.
Indeed, no act could ever benefit small stockholders and market capitalism more than for shell corporations to be banned if they are more than three layers deep, forcing hidden puppeteers to come into the open. In other words, no object or land on Earth should be considered owned unless -- just three or less layers down -- you find real, accountable human beings.

http://davidbrin.blogspot.co.nz/2013/12/the-chief-threat-to-our-great.html


----------



## McRat (Jul 10, 2012)

An automotive robotics salesman stops at Tesla.

"We can reduce your labor costs and increase your quality!"

"Sure! Send us 10 robots."

A month goes by, and the salesman stops by.

"How are they working?"

"Great! Well, except they are chrome and shiny, and the glare is irritating."

"OK, we will fix that."

The salesman goes out to his car, and grabs a box.

"These are a bunch of UAW bumper stickers left at our company. I'll put them on the shiny parts of the robots."

Salesman leaves, then comes back in another month.

"How are they working now?"

"Remove ALL of the them!!!"

"What's the problem now?"

"After you put those stickers on, the next day 1/2 of them didn't come to work, and the other half only work when you are looking at them!!!"


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Duncan said:


> Hi Phantom
> 
> We need to fix the problem - like the New Deal was a fix that worked for a while,
> Or else we get to the time when only a French Fix with blood on the streets will work
> ...


Now, that I agree with. Not the wealth tax, but registering what you own under your own name - corporations should own nothing but instead have ownership spread among the stockholders.

Wealth tax is almost as bad as an income tax - those two specifically were what the Founders were attempting to abolish (a wealth tax can be designed to arbitrarily take from your political enemies, which is what Kings used to do). An inheritance tax, on the other hand, can be more reasonably justified because you can easily say that a dead person no longer holds property rights.



> Think about it. What does "ownership" mean, if you are unwilling to state, openly, "I own that"? So many problems in the world can be attributed to murky title, from peasants abused by a nearby lord to an oil tanker that befouled beaches in Brittany with no owner ever held accountable, because of deeply nested shell companies.





> Indeed, no act could ever benefit small stockholders and market capitalism more than for shell corporations to be banned if they are more than three layers deep, forcing hidden puppeteers to come into the open. In other words, no object or land on Earth should be considered owned unless -- just three or less layers down -- you find real, accountable human beings.




Oh, I'd go further than that. No corporation could own other corporation. Corporations are not people.

But, you are still dead wrong in believing that redistribution "fixes" anything. Like all well-meant ideas from do-gooders, the unintended consequences always outweigh any good you hoped to accomplish.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

McRat said:


> An automotive robotics salesman stops at Tesla.
> 
> "We can reduce your labor costs and increase your quality!"
> 
> ...


You know, one of these days someone's going to give them self-awareness and it will happen....


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> But, you are still dead wrong in believing that redistribution "fixes" anything. Like all well-meant ideas from do-gooders, the unintended consequences always outweigh any good you hoped to accomplish.



Redistribution is not meant to "Fix" the problem - just patch it up before something much worse happens

We are driving towards a big hole - redistribution will enable us to miss the hole but won't prevent us from hitting anything else


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

We have already reached a point where there are way too many qualified people to fill the jobs that are actually needed to produce the goods and services necessary to provide for basic necessities and even frivolities that people think they need, or simply want. 

We could do away with most sales clerks and cashiers and the infrastructure needed for most stores by using the model already supplied by Amazon and the on-line stores of the internet. 

We could do away with most of the police force by decriminalizing recreational drugs and instituting effective prison reform. 

By means of proper tort reform and more reasonable representation and true justice for criminals, we could put most lawyers out of business and also reduce the cost of liability insurance. 

If there were better ways to distribute clean water, basic food, shelter, and medical care, there would be little need for riots and revolutions and even warfare. 

By addressing the problem of religious extremism realistically (and not based on what is "politically correct"), there would be less terrorism and people would not be so driven by hatred, greed, and power.

If people could be comfortable and assured of basic needs, there would be less pressure to accumulate wealth, spend money, work long hard hours, and suffer stressful commutes, and there would be more time for parents to spend together and with children and contribute to better health and mental/social well-being.

Let's face it. There is very little that the US and most other highly developed countries really need to produce with "manpower", and there are plenty of people in developing nations who are willing (and often better able) to perform the more menial and physical jobs that are needed. And there is also not enough demand for highly skilled and trained and educated people to fill the needs of the IT industry, although there will always be room for a few talented individuals to innovate and create new technology. For most people, we need to embrace a future based not on full employment and not on individual monetary and material wealth, but instead on a paradigm of leisure and realizing that "less is more". Until that becomes the accepted norm, we may have to redistribute wealth at least to the point where the poor are not actually suffering, and the rich are not motivated to exploit, abuse, and neglect people in their pursuit of the "bottom line" of short term profit.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

PStechPaul said:


> We have already reached a point where there are way too many qualified people to fill the jobs that are actually needed to produce the goods and services necessary to provide for basic necessities and even frivolities that people think they need, or simply want.


Hi Paul 
Can you look at the crumbling infrastructure and all of the things that should be done
and then repeat that with a straight face?? 

There are tons of things that could/should be done - but they won't be done because the 1% (actually the 0.01%) have hoovered up all of wealth

If the 1% had not stolen all of the increase in US wealth over the last 30 years you would all be spending a lot more,
There would be money for;
Homes or better homes for the bottom 50%
Education
Water supply updates to replace civil war era pipes and to keep dodgy chemicals out of the water supply
Fast universal broadband
High speed rail
Light rail
Rehabilitation
Waste reclamation
Roads/bridges

The USA has trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure - it all has a limited life
It takes a lot of work to keep it up
And it is NOT being done

Your infrastructure is not being maintained - and worse it is aging - you should be building new to keep the average age of the infrastructure constant (or even decreasing)


Just think about all the things that should be being done - rather than millions of people being unemployed


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Yes, the infrastructure (roads, bridges, power transmission/distribution, water supply, and sewage) have been and continue to be neglected and patched up, and only addressed on an emergency basis which ends up costing more, and employs people at overtime rates. But most of those jobs are either in engineering (where many Americans are lacking ability due to "dumbing down" and lack of focus on science and mathematics), or skilled/semi-skilled labor to operate machines and actually do the hard work. I don't think the "suits" on Wall Street or advertising executives or lawyers will be donning hard hats and steel-toed boots. So most of the infrastructure jobs will be filled by people from India and China for technical expertise, and Mexico and South America for the grunt jobs. 

Even the materials, tools, and equipment needed for infrastructure work will come mostly from overseas industries which have long gone from the US, and "they ain't coming back" to "my hometown". We could also put a lot of people to work if we restarted the WPA and CCC programs that helped a lot during the Great Depression, but people with that sort of physical stamina and solid work ethic are rare these days.

The "glory days" of the 50s and 60s are gone, and we are experiencing the prolonged death throes of an unsustainable socio-economic system that has more than run its course. We will soon be living in a "Brave New World", or die trying to resuscitate the old.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

American politicians have traded it's domestic industrial manufacturing complex for a military one. It is their obligation, to the corporations that pay for their political campaigns, to bankrupt the treasury with the war machine.


----------



## McRat (Jul 10, 2012)

About 600? years ago, the workers took off their wooden shoes and put them in the drive cogs of the mechanized fabric looms. Modern production systems were going to eliminate all their jobs.

Today the "sabotage" eliminating our mfg'g jobs is institutional. 

We like to have airplanes, cars, buildings, roads, furniture, etc. But they have finite lifespans. More manufacturing jobs than ever before are in existence, but we as a society now feel that mfg'g is beneath us. 

Mfg'g is not sustainable in the US. But globally, it is on the rise.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

PStechPaul said:


> But most of those jobs are either in engineering (where many Americans are lacking ability due to "dumbing down" and lack of focus on science and mathematics), or skilled/semi-skilled labor to operate machines and actually do the hard work. I don't think the "suits" on Wall Street or advertising executives or lawyers will be donning hard hats and steel-toed boots. So most of the infrastructure jobs will be filled by people from India and China for technical expertise, and Mexico and South America for the grunt jobs.
> 
> Even the materials, tools, and equipment needed for infrastructure work will come mostly from overseas industries which have long gone from the US, and "they ain't coming back" to "my hometown".
> 
> The "glory days" of the 50s and 60s are gone, and we are experiencing the prolonged death throes of an unsustainable socio-economic system that has more than run its course. We will soon be living in a "Brave New World", or die trying to resuscitate the old.


Disagree - totally disagree,
Most of the stuff you use and need is still made in the USA,
Imports amount to 10% - 15%??
Something of that order
The remaining 80% only hast to be ramped up 25% 

As an example of what could be done think of the UK in WW2,
Normal people (women!!) made the parts for Spitfires, Tanks....
They did not have the skills, they learned them in weeks, thousands of aircrew just three decades after the Wright Brothers

Think of Germany and Japan after WW2

You still have those people - they CAN do the work IF it is given to them

The Lawyers and executive might have more difficulty but the millions of ordinary people who are much MORE skilled than their grandparents can certainly do the jobs


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

McRat said:


> About 600? years ago, the workers took off their wooden shoes and put them in the drive cogs of the mechanized fabric looms. Modern production systems were going to eliminate all their jobs.
> 
> Today the "sabotage" eliminating our mfg'g jobs is institutional.
> 
> ...



Not quite 600 years - more like 250 years

_Today the "sabotage" eliminating our mfg'g jobs is institutional. _

YES - the money system is arranged to suit the wealthy - unemployment is not a bug its a feature

_but we as a society now feel that mfg'g is beneath us. _

Do we? - Or is that just what the 1% want us to think

_Mfg'g is not sustainable in the US. But globally, it is on the rise_

It damn well is sustainable in the US - you need to fix your system and do it

Look at Germany - lots of manufacturing - well paid skilled jobs - strong unions 

One of the main reasons that manufacturing is expensive in the USA is your health "system"
It's incredibly expensive - and that cost goes straight onto your manufacturing businesses 

You NEED single payer - just to compete with the rest of the world


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

You are absolutely correct in saying that we need single payer healthcare.
Canada has it and there are no slums there. Americans are brainwashed to think that we need organ transplants every time we visit the clinic.
Just like we don't need no stinkin taxes because next week we are going to win the Powerball Lottery and we millionaires can't be bothered with any taxes.
Americans need to see the way the rest of the world lives.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I think most consumer goods as well as much of our industrial and commercial goods are imported. As far as what we need, so far we do not import air, water, most fresh foods, housing, and health care, but clothing and electronics, most car parts, and of course oil is largely imported. See the following:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/imports

It seems like about 234 billion dollars a month. That is about $1000 per person per month of imported goods. 32% of imports are industrial supplies, about half of which is crude oil.

According to the following, about 60% of goods in the US is imported, and 40% are from China:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_goods_from_the_US_imported_from_china

The Libertarian News thinks otherwise:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ve...sumers-spend-goes-toward-stuff-made-in-china/

Their point is that most of what a consumer spends for goods goes to "middlemen" such as retail stores with high markup, but I think that is changing as Amazon and eBay facilitate direct sales from Chinese suppliers. Also, there are cases where all of the parts of something are made in China, but they are assembled in the US, and proudly (but deceptively) labeled "Made in USA".


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Paul
Imports - as you said 234B/month which is about $1000/head
BUT
Exports - 195B/month - or about $900/head

So the difference is less than $100/month

Which ties in very well with the Libertarian News,

You (USA) do import a lot of stuff - but you also export a lot of stuff as well

Despite the mass movement of jobs abroad a hell of a lot of stuff is still made in the USA

The way things are in manufacturing for a lot of things it makes sense to set up a BIG plant and supply a lot of countries
So you are better looking at "Value Added"
A plant that assembles bits made at some "world manufacturers" in Asia into complete units may well be adding a LOT of value added and selling the resultant unit for a LOT more than the cost of the parts
So calling it "Made in the USA" is right

And that does not include an enormous number of things which are basically made "on site" - most infrastructure work for instance
These things cannot be outsourced - and people can be trained up quickly

One of the problems is too close a business focus 
Example from here (NZ)

NZ wanted a ferry (its going to be donated to Toga) 
NZ boat builders wanted $12M
The Stupid government is sourcing it from Bangladesh for $9M

Stupid, Stupid, Stupid
The government would have paid $12 - and in the first year taken more than $3m in taxes
Then the money would have kept circulating in NZ, with the Government taking takes

Instead the money is going to Bangladesh - and they will be place to do all of the maintenance and repair needed as well

The governments need to do these simple numbers - and then spend the taxpayers money locally


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

If everyone could watch this fact based documentary on the tax problem in America, they would understand the problem and how to easily fix the problem.

http://youtu.be/33ywO0SgGYE

Watch online free with Hulu


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Duncan said:


> Redistribution is not meant to "Fix" the problem - just patch it up before something much worse happens


But, it doesn't "patch" anything. It simply gives money away - creating a longer line waiting for handouts tomorrow.



> We are driving towards a big hole - redistribution will enable us to miss the hole but won't prevent us from hitting anything else


What on earth are you talking about? The only hole we're driving towards is bankruptcy, and handouts are causing the hole, not helping to avoid it. And you? You want us to hire more diggers...


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

sunworksco said:


> If everyone could watch this fact based documentary on the tax problem in America, they would understand the problem and how to easily fix the problem.
> 
> http://youtu.be/33ywO0SgGYE
> 
> Watch online free with Hulu


Love how the opening starts with teachers in Illinois - the most over-paid bunch of Mafioso in the country. At $120,000 for a 9 month year, with guaranteed jobs even if convicted of child molestation and a pension fit for a king, is it really a surprise that schools are laying them off?

sunworksco, this is a propaganda piece and most of the alleged "facts" in it are mis-represented, taken out of context, or bald faced lies.

We as a country are broke. If you don't believe that, you failed at math.

Edit: As far as the taxes are concerned, I agree that we should eliminate all loopholes. But the loopholes are not the root problem. The root problem is a tax system which rewards Congress for playing favorites. Our tax code should not be more than 10 pages long, and it should not tax people's wages - period.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Duncan said:


> NZ wanted a ferry (its going to be donated to Toga)
> NZ boat builders wanted $12M
> The Stupid government is sourcing it from Bangladesh for $9M
> 
> Stupid, Stupid, Stupid


Yep. A government should represent it's own people and buy domestic when they can (if it isn't simply a ripoff), not play charity to foreign powers.

It's sad how the U.S.A. uses their budget as a global power tool to bribe behavior from other governments.


----------

