tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post3887542502159241642..comments2023-11-08T12:09:20.020-05:00Comments on Prove Me Wrong: Milton Friedman's Awesome Idea - Guaranteed Minimum IncomeJonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-57745985515954274922013-06-10T16:01:37.781-04:002013-06-10T16:01:37.781-04:00One more thing -
Unions - my view on unions are m...One more thing -<br /><br />Unions - my view on unions are malleable (I hope). However, though there are things about the American flavor of them that I would like to see overhauled (fixed) I think in the scale of completely disapprove to completely approve - from the center point I am a bit on the approve side.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14278834635241999491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-30812788728020270932013-06-10T15:45:47.763-04:002013-06-10T15:45:47.763-04:00Also, and I've mentioned this before, I don...Also, and I've mentioned this before, I don't view the free-market/capitalism ideologically as a goal (the ends) but rather as means to an end. Should there be another system I felt/believed worked better that would be fine.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14278834635241999491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-60536384567378368462013-06-10T15:41:49.476-04:002013-06-10T15:41:49.476-04:00HP -
been out of town for a few days so am trying...HP -<br /><br />been out of town for a few days so am trying to catch up on this thread. Assuming you are still following it -<br /><br /><i>Curious: what makes you a liberal vs a conservative? You sound more conservative than you say. Especially groupC</i><br /><br />For me the word conservative is tainted and I want no part of it. I have quite negative views on what what you've categorized as group A and B of conservative. From my perspective religous conservatism cannot go the way ofr the dodo bird quickly enough. Similarly with the jingoistic group B.<br /><br />Sure there may be many things about group C that I agree with or am open too. But let me give you a general sense of where i stand on some issues and you tell me where you think I fit better.<br /><br /><br />I am strongly pro-choice<br />I am strongly in support of LBGT equality (same sex marraige, etc)<br />I do not support taking public money and giving vouchers to parents to pay for private schools.<br />I support univeral health care.<br />I am in strong support of a progressive tax system.<br />I do not view regulations are a priori bad. Often times find them not only reasonable but necessary.<br />I think human contribution to global warming is real and we, collectively, ought to be taking pro-active steps to address it.<br />I support immigration reform and dream act.<br />I support social security.<br />I think the drug war, at least how it has been "fought", is a waste of money. I favor legalization of marijuan for personal use and am in support of decriminalization of, generically speaking, illicit drugs.<br /><br />I proudly pronounce myself of liberal but I may be a libertarianish liberal.<br />Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14278834635241999491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-41009657674005961772013-06-09T19:46:01.547-04:002013-06-09T19:46:01.547-04:00Chad
thanks for that
Out of no where pity you don...Chad<br />thanks for that <br />Out of no where pity you don't read wider. The cases I cited are in the media Aus media NOW. The government has confirmed it. Ford is stopping local manufacturing after 70 years. GM has also given notice that it's doing the same in 2016.<br />They have been massively subsidised but were only making the *once* popular Aussie models Commodore and Falcon. They're importing the smaller cars from Germany ( BTW their factories are highly automated with industrial robots not cells but on production lines. <br />BTW you need to research US govt funding of electricity generators and the grids...Profit guarantees etc. <br /><br />What do you think happened in Allen town? What do you think is happening in Detroit? <br />Fox industries (china) got into bother over the number of staff suicides so they uped their game but also announced that they were building a robotic /automatic factory that would reduce the staff by 75%.<br />BHP is fact look it up.<br /><br />Everyone thinks they pay too much tax ...and want someone else to pay more but not them. (HUMAN nature .<br />BTW. I have owned and run a small chain of Pet stores ( small business)<br />In previous posts you claim to be in a $600 million a year company that isn't a small business. <br />now you're saying it's a small business... which sounds more plausible. <br /><br />And you're back to throwing abuse and vague assertions but no provable facts. <br />Everything I've said about corporations is EASILY PROVEN even on the unreliable wiki. Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-13808913158249532682013-06-09T07:31:01.175-04:002013-06-09T07:31:01.175-04:00There in lies my issue with your entire thinking -...There in lies my issue with your entire thinking - its a key hole view. Your personnel stories are valid - they represent the world, mine are limited even though I work with and talk with thousands of small companies yearly. Talk directly with owners, Presidents, VP's and decision makers - mainly the core of small business's in this country in several states - some big as well. Yeah my view is limited and yours is all enlightening - not.<br /><br />You find a single company that 'supposedly' disproves a thought and ou ignore the hundreds maybe thousands of companies that would benefit.<br /><br />Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-44342420960287723422013-06-09T07:22:53.810-04:002013-06-09T07:22:53.810-04:00You disproved your own logic - why do I have too?
...You disproved your own logic - why do I have too?<br /><br />You think the closer of the mill was related to the reduction of taxes? - well your dumber than I thought then. You are pulling one unassociated event into another in hopes to make a point which you haven't done well. If the labor costs in Aussie make them uncompetitive in the world they will move - the reduction in taxes then was not enough and should have possibly been more. How about regulations - how bad are they - sound crippling from here. What about forced labor charges?<br /><br />Pretty clear you've never owned or ran a business is all you clarified here.<br /><br />My company mirrors millions of small companies in the USA - perfect model to listen too. Does it mean that tax breaks will automatically keep our company in business forever? No - just give us an opportunity to hire more people.<br /><br />I suppose those robotic work cells were created by God - poof out of mid air? Did you realize that there is a company that built the robotic cell you hayseed? Company that has employees, engineers, laborists, sales guys, guys/gals that support the product now - my guess is a net positive in total jobs lost at the end company you referenced - still need to hire maintenance folks, someone to stand next to the machine, a tech to run it and folks with a brain to set it up.<br /><br />You told me - good job.<br />Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-13288291415421222852013-06-09T07:18:08.983-04:002013-06-09T07:18:08.983-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-66366617077059078782013-06-08T21:53:50.935-04:002013-06-08T21:53:50.935-04:00HP
Why don't you stop ducking and weaving and...HP <br />Why don't you stop ducking and weaving and address the facts that CAPITALISM as it is today exists on exploitation ( i.e. NEEDS inequity).<br />And that Both Accounting and Economics treat the poor's up keep as externalities. And tries to spread the the cost to the others ( as opposed to user pays as implied in the opening sentence) <br />And that the argument Ouwet put ( essential the same as yours) is merely moving the accounting to other entities e.g. NGO's and obscure it in other govt bureaucracies and therefore ordinary tax payers.<br /><br />Again your logic is based on an accounting / economics artefact (slight of hand ). At the end of the day the money must come from some where, it must be administered, accounted for and policed. <br />Consider the complaint by lots of aid NGO's in that US often ties it's foreign aid to US production which is paid for by the tax payer and involves a profit then needs transporting ( another profit) thus resulting in less e.g. grain etc. on the ground for the expenditure. ( well sort of the efficiency) not to mention that the grain could be bought cheaper and arguably better caloric quality from local sources . Let's not forget that local sought sources encourage local industries (the multiplier effect) “give a aid recipient a loaf of bread you feed him for a day but help him to create the food locally you feed him every day.”<br /><br />While on a less dramatic scale the same principals apply on the domestic scale... the clear blind spot to people like you is that your preference is to support status quo ( existing perhaps not so efficient industries located not where the jobs are needed). The problem is the notion of the centralised business model. <br /><br />A fact of life is that the bigger the business becomes the greater it's need to cover greater markets . And consequently the greater the need to reduce the human employee effect on the recurrent costs.<br /><br />The real problem in my mind is that the righties focus on their personal situation and extrapolate e.g. Chad <br />Part of that extrapolating pushes their reasoning to the extremes i.e. a legalistic one size fits all and hence the lack of nuance, partisan approach. Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-49235956623030233472013-06-08T21:14:05.070-04:002013-06-08T21:14:05.070-04:00Chad,
There in lies my criticisms of your logic. ...Chad,<br />There in lies my criticisms of your logic. YOU are looking at your personal (your company/industry) and extrapolating across ALL, which is simply not sound. Look at all the labour intensive jobs going over seas look at Allen town. <br /><br />Take for example BHP one of Australia's biggest home grown mining and steel making corporations. To continually make bigger profits it merged with Billiton (English) now they are one for the biggest steel corps in the world. Guess what happened next? Yup despite 'TAX' breaks and direct Cash inputs they closed down most of their steel smelting. Any guesses where it went ... 3rd world Brazil, etc. (yep one of those nasty communistic countries and now they focus on African/ PNG mining MORE profit.<br /><br />Soon or later you technology, transportation to markets and wages will bite.<br /> <br />Unless you are suggesting that staff should work for 3rd world wages I really can't see that as anything but inevitable. As your market gets smaller it will become less competitive to the third world smelters ...bigger cheaper etc. Your company will have to merge, diversify or ? etc.<br /><br />The only other options are import trade tariffs then you'll be facing WTO (America's 2nd favourite tool to beat up on the rest of the world) or subsidies (yup corporate welfare).<br />Steel manufacturing , manufacturing in general is a sunset industry in the west. (unbridled capitalism 101 as writ by Smith 200 odd years ago .. and proven correct).<br />The corollary of this is no jobs in USA ...no market pressure for expansion of labor intensive industries...Capital WILL GO where the demand for growth is and profit is the easiest. <br />As I keep saying the single greatest recurrent cost on a balance sheet is staff (wages safety et al) <br />Logic therefore dictates that 'Fox industries?' (I phone factory) they are moving from people wage obscene exploitation to robotics. Progressively eliminating human labor. <br />This is a common event . Detroit is a whisper of employment of what it was … Without workers to buy 401k etc who is going to get the benefit... answer an ever reducing minority of the population. <br />Chad disprove the logic of what I say. Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-51509217512365288842013-06-08T14:45:14.631-04:002013-06-08T14:45:14.631-04:00Jon,
My Milton Friedman response was not meant to...Jon,<br /><br />My Milton Friedman response was not meant to imply that you had not known he is the father of direct income to the poor. That response, especially given the context, was to show that this issue (direct income to the poor) IS largely a right-wing championed issue. It is not 'tone downed' like you claim it is. <br /><br />Either way, here we go wasting responses on misunderstandings. We've each just wasted valuable time and got nowhere. It's a pattern. HispanicPundithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10220166238164432290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-76491871914386620142013-06-08T05:45:25.909-04:002013-06-08T05:45:25.909-04:00"As far as your idea that if only we'd gi..."As far as your idea that if only we'd give the rich and corporations more tax breaks we'd see an even better outcome, this is really getting to the point in my mind of being a laughingstock."<br /><br />I forgot I was in this conversation. I know you have your stats from book knowledgable people that you believe in. Let me try and reason with you on a common sense level for one second.<br /><br />If corporations paid say 10% in taxes instead of 29% average which you wrote - would the number of employees go up or down? Simple question of logic Jon - up or down Jon? Would average earnings within the company go up or down?<br /><br />First Monday of every month the owner and I along with our financial advisor have a health of the company meeting - when I hear about the how regulations, taxes stolen by dollars/percentage both federal and state (Illinois) it almost makes a man ill. Thankfully and praise God we have enjoyed success through very hard work and a little luck, but at the same time it is a chilling reminder just how business unfriendly this country really is and why corporations take business to other countries/states. If our tax burden was lower we would immediately hire more people - we desperately need to at our growth curve yet we can't. So when you preach to me that corporate tax reductions don't work due to some study I frankly laugh back sir. We want to hire and we are not the minority - all of our Principals would like to hire as well.<br /><br />Take the boot off the throat of private business - good results will come.<br /><br />Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-32079665604236482442013-06-07T22:33:21.792-04:002013-06-07T22:33:21.792-04:00Big cover up? Where did I say such a thing. What I...Big cover up? Where did I say such a thing. What I'm saying here is what I've said many times before. Conservatives often support the right policies. Often they are against corporate welfare, against some of the awful government waste. You find individuals that have good ideas about what welfare should be like. But their emphasis means that certain things they say they support don't get implemented whereas as other things do. Things that help their wealthy donors like preventing limits on greenhouse gas emissions or starting wars. I see this as another case. It's not an accident that Murray pushed through the cuts in handouts to the poor but never successfully implemented his preferred means of getting some support to them. That's speculative but it's my opinion. If you don't agree that's fine. I don't think this digression matters. HP prefers to talk about me personally rather than the ideas and that's why I'm the focus in the comments here. You think a guaranteed minimum income is something AEI emphasizes? Go ahead and believe it and HP can believe it to if he likes. It's really not the point of this blog post.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-79984712156031576802013-06-07T22:04:07.516-04:002013-06-07T22:04:07.516-04:00FOLKS
It's one thing to have or express an op...FOLKS <br />It's one thing to have or express an opinion but it is rubbish to assert it's the absolute truth, particularly when it comes to 'soft topics' like ideology culture et al. <br />I often wonder, as I flip from one chat site to another, why so many people get on the Chat site yet don't want to chat (explore topics) or take examinations of their assertions as personal attacks. <br /> Neither Jon ( a leftie lite ), Jonathan (a rightie) don't seem to take such examinations personally (I don't either and I'm neither). <br />Jon and I will actually engage with views we don't necessarily agree with. Jonathan while more discriminatory about his involvement doesn't seem to get lost in the difference between a person and what they believe/say . i.e. Subscribe to the notion that you're either an extreme ally or a sworn enemy.<br />Nor do I always agree with either of the afore mentioned J's . <br />As I've said before my mom is a fundie convert and we clearly don't ideologically agree but we can still discuss a contentious topic. <br /><br />Prove me wrong is a benign center left (ish) site and apart from my contextual histories/tales It is certainly light on personal detail and avoids the extremes ( tub thumping). In that context I'm puzzled why the personalised attacks, least of all on Jon.<br />By comparison Look at 'No more nice guy' While Steve's clearly politically well informed and highly intelligent I don't always comment. Particularly when the posts are rhetorical or simply right bashing. I can't see he point. Much less so I take a personal affront at the ,IMO sometimes extreme /biased stances, which I may and do disagree with. <br /><br /> The reality is that once an argument is personalised, then it is no longer about the issue at hand. In this case 'Milton Freidman's awesome idea ' and it's many threads. At best it's an overly aggressive/desperate diversionary tactic at worst a unwarranted attempt at censorship. Simply put there is absolutely no good reason to go down that route here. I guess it all comes down to why one writes /comments at all to examine thoughts or seek confirmation . <br /><br />Jon for what it's worth I'd close the topic off. Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-89152686246104835452013-06-07T20:17:09.311-04:002013-06-07T20:17:09.311-04:00Ouwet,
Using this article to prove HP's case ...Ouwet,<br /><br />Using this article to prove HP's case is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.<br />You and HP are still starting from the third floor up reasoning on the leaning tower of Pisa "shorten the wall on one side"<br />The article is still based on the faux quasi religious belief that economics is a HARD SCIENCE...it's not. at best it's an indicative one (usually in hind sight). <br />In essence HP's argument boils down to My quasi religious belief in economics tops you 'left wing ' belief/ reasoning because you were Catholic/Christian. "Being conceived in a barn doesn't make one hay." it's a non seq argument.<br />I've pointed out many times that catholic, conservatism or left wing ism aren't exclusively mutual except in by comparing extremes. I've also pointed out political extremophiles are a minute proportion of the population (blinded by bias zealots). Jon certainly not one of them. HP meh? <br /><br />As for the argument in the article it moves from an obvious statement but doesn't explain why it assumes that the US approach is correct why because it's (soft science) economics backed... that too is non sec.<br />if not false logic.<br /><br />It goes on to then to quote a demonstrable furphey that transfer payments don't require a bureaucracy! When in truth it does ( all government activities do) and the NGO have them too. Oh yes they have to deal with donor country bureaucracies too. Which by the way requires USA federal government bureaucracies involvement. The statement is an accounting avoidance of reality by treating it as an externality. ( false logic) NGO's couldn't operate without Government bureaucracies (period). <br />As for transparent Meh another 'externality' Clearly the authors have never actually done any 'on the ground coal face' dealings. <br /><br />And finally the article asserts that the method is popular... by numbers involved so is smoking... anybody want to argue that population wide that is a longterm benefit? Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-30649499348136761862013-06-07T12:02:44.786-04:002013-06-07T12:02:44.786-04:00http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2012/09/28/...http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2012/09/28/help_the_worlds_poor_hand_them_cash_100254.html<br /><br />Jon, <br /><br />This article was co-authored by Daniel M. Rothschild the Director of External Affairs at AEI. An excerpt<br /><br />"The Mexican and Brazilian cash transfer gained popularity with citizens - and international donors - because they actually work. Dozens of studies, many using randomized control trials, show these program increase school enrollment and improve nutrition. In most cases, they started as small trial programs and, having proven successful, were rolled out nationwide."<br /><br /><br />I think HP was spot on in his analogy with the emotional convert. You have a neat narrative set up and are using the evident to fit the narrative. <br /><br />When Charles Murray and the director of External Affairs of AEI are advocating this policy, I think arguing there is a big cover up of this idea by the right wing is a facetious claim. Ouwethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09208152161529167878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-39356168196555527272013-06-07T07:52:17.196-04:002013-06-07T07:52:17.196-04:00HP, here's an earlier comment from you:
1-Con...HP, here's an earlier comment from you:<br /><br /><i>1-Constantly misread me. Even in this case, Paul read me correctly. This is a subconscious defense mechanism.</i><br /><br />A subconscious defense mechanism. So when you feel the need to explain how MF supported this, despite the title of this thread, despite my extensive discussion of his support, what does your constant misreading suggest about you?<br /><br />This is on the heels of you accusing me of having the religious mindset, clinging to beliefs on faith and ignoring evidence. I give example after example of me changing my opinions in the face of evidence and when I ask you to do the same you instead decide to pick and choose which questions you will answer based on supposedly what is more interesting. You won't answer questions about how the evidence changes you. For you it looks like it doesn't, for me it obviously does.<br /><br />To me this looks like you are projecting. You fear that you are religious. Your commitment to conservatism you fear is a religious commitment. You've had too many big fights with family and friends in your minority and liberal community and you are too dug in to let the evidence change you now. But to help persuade yourself that it's untrue you project those qualities on me. Even though I'm the atheist. I'm the one that left religion leaving a trail of tears, hating every step, wanting to stay, but because for me evidence matters I couldn't. I personally don't think your efforts at projection are working well, but I'll admit my bias prefers that conclusion, so I could be wrong.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-80487332791643515362013-06-07T07:35:22.836-04:002013-06-07T07:35:22.836-04:00HP, it's great of you to take time out of your...HP, it's great of you to take time out of your busy schedule to help explain things to me, but why do you always simply state the obvious, or things it's clear I already know. Murray thinks eliminating welfare helps the poor. Well yeah. That's obvious. The rich always offer policies that clearly help them, but they package them in a way that we're supposed to believe it helps the poor. The war will help the Iraqi's. Tax cuts grow the economy and help the poor. Eliminating minimum wage restrictions is for your own good. You constantly explain the obvious, then pretend that since you needed to explain such an obvious thing I'm ignorant.<br /><br />Liberterianism 101? I'm not talking about libertarianism. I mentioned certain right wing think tanks that don't push this, and they are not libertarian. Murray may fancy himself a libertarian. A lot of war mongers do. A guy who thinks monitoring bracelets on citizens is a good idea. Massive surveillance. Maybe he needs a lesson in libertarianism 101. You don't constantly go to war to advance the interests of wealthy corporations.<br /><br />Speaking of pointing out the obvious, it's seems, almost bizarrely, that you have missed the fact that I ALREADY KNOW Milton Friedman supported GMI. In your prior post you wrote:<br /><br /><i>even Milton Friedman formulated it and is largely credited with the creation of the EITC...a smaller form of this.<br /><br />Sigh. I give up.</i><br /><br />And now:<br /><br /><i>His argument is basically the same argument the very famous Milton Friedman has been arguing for generations before the publication of the book. But its still a view he holds and has done more to promulgate among the masses than anybody else - except the more famous right winger, Milton Friedman.</i><br /><br />When you feel the need to explain things to me that it's so obvious I already know, and then get exasperated about how it's such a burden to explain such obvious things, I think that is kind of a good microcosm of this discussion. Even though the title of this thread credit's Friedman with the idea, even though I discuss how it's Friedman's idea extensively, you're just exhausted because again you have to explain the obvious to me. "Even Milton Friedman formulated this, Jon." Wow, thanks professor. You have serious reading comprehension problems. Fix those and you may find our discussions to be less frustrating.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-29626935455118532112013-06-07T01:11:03.491-04:002013-06-07T01:11:03.491-04:00That's it I've lost the plot totally! And...That's it I've lost the plot totally! And I haven't had a drink!(yet)<br />http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/39540 <br />Perhaps that's the problem ;-)Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-23317358521594272632013-06-07T01:07:40.607-04:002013-06-07T01:07:40.607-04:00Bugger, damn I forgot the the site details to watc...Bugger, damn I forgot the the site details to watch ... particularly the food, population stats to what is coming.<br />The hither to unknown "fire tornado" is frightening consider is this the sort of extreme weather event AGW could spawn. Goming to a wild state near you? Washington state etc. Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-72361431817825288082013-06-07T00:59:22.315-04:002013-06-07T00:59:22.315-04:00HP and Jon,
No one seem to be understanding my p...HP and Jon,<br /><br />No one seem to be understanding my point if they do they're ignoring it. <br />It is one thing for armchair pundits, either side, to stand on the 3rd level (See my leaning tower of Pisa analogy) and pontificate theoretical ideologically based solutions. HOWEVER it's another thing entirely, to fund, implement, maintenance or deal with the consequences.<br /><br />Jon , the reality is that the idea is the equivalent to blankets on the deck chairs of the Titanic. <br />The Mastodon ( short sighted/ limited field of view, Hairy/ hoary obsolete Elephant) poo in the room is that with a SHRINKING pool of workers .Tax is near as damn it either optional, or tokenistic for those with the greatest capacity to pay. The middle class are being hollowed out and the rest, relative to the well off are static ( effectively losing) in the increasing “cost of living” ( sic.. in an already profligate life style that is ) who is going to pay for the idea? Hence HP and his ilk are bucking. . <br /> Added to that there how are is it going to implement , administrate... a big bureaucracy something else the “righties” won't support on principal ( more mastodon poo) . <br /> <br />Mind you HP, Chad are true to their 'rightie mastodon/pachyderm myopic vision. They can't see the the changing environment/threats coming. Neither the biggest Bulls however they can smell it , their fear is palpable , as is their propensity to stampede endangering themselves further. <br /><br />Look at their reactions to all issues … they either try to stomp over what sustains them …. the mass US consumer. If the bulk of US has limited money they have less money to spare to make mass production pay. The rich can afford the artist to painstakingly create artefacts of luxury but the money doesn't go very far (trickle down? Economic analysis ) . <br />The nonsense of the stock exchange read any book on market dealer/ investor behaviour. It is anything but rational or objective, research shows that it's more like a game of chasey or ring around Rosie . The origins of which are equally disturbing. <br /><br />Then again the Asses of the DNC aren't any better they kick and are equally intransigent they bray and buck but neither the bemuse public or the mastodons understand they try to talk the language of fear too. <br /> <br />as the old maxim goes “ a definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome …. one needs to look no further than the Great Depression (see Greece 25% unemployed) the rich were threatened to give up some of their disproportionate wealth in the New Deal it was a plan to save Capitalism.... since then they barons haven't learn squat and have connived/ schemed to gain all sacrifices and what have they got today? Nigh on similar circumstances not only in the US of A but on a world wide scale . I consider this not because I'm an alleged Liberal/ leftie (sic) but because the math doesn't lie and human nature is predictable . Add to the officially Unemployed those who are under employed the target of this program.... What it really needed is opportunities and for jobs for those who can or able to pick them up. The same goes for illegal migrants Odds on if they had something to stay for they would. It only arrogance that thinks that the USA to a Mexican is anything more than safety and 'opportunity'.<br />As for those who are left in the social security 'safety net ' 80% of them will those who can't take up the opportunity offered. The last 20% well most of them are the excluded already and either need specialised programs if we are going to avoid the dispossession, hopelessness, isolation, anger etc of the innocent mass murders. <br />None of this is because I'm a bleeding heart “liberal” et al BS pigeon hole over simplistic terms but because it's 101 Pragmatism prove me wrong. <br /> Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-32486599114832724552013-06-06T19:14:12.264-04:002013-06-06T19:14:12.264-04:00Wow, what a surprise - the book FURTHER confirms y...Wow, what a surprise - the book FURTHER confirms your views of the right! Who would have guessed?<br /><br /><br />Anyway, I'm going to make this short, since I dont want to get dragged in:<br /><br />Murray's first book is an argument that the welfare system HARMS the poor. Okay, you disagree. But if his premise is right - and he lays out the arguments in the book, with data etc - then his first book is ALSO pro-poor. <br /><br />You would think that this would be enough: after all, he is arguing for something that ALREADY helps the poor. In his view, no welfare is better than welfare - for the poor. <br /><br />His second book is more of an addendum. Trust me, it got publicity too. Less, yes, but mainly because its libertarianism 101. His argument is basically the same argument the very famous Milton Friedman has been arguing for generations before the publication of the book. But its still a view he holds and has done more to promulgate among the masses than anybody else - except the more famous right winger, Milton Friedman.HispanicPundithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10220166238164432290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-41925075252969264912013-06-06T08:20:06.694-04:002013-06-06T08:20:06.694-04:00HP, I'm very glad you raised this book by Char...HP, I'm very glad you raised this book by Charles Murray because I don't think you could more perfectly illustrate how programs that harm the poor are emphasized and those that help, while nominally advocated, simply aren't emphasized.<br /><br />Go to your own link at amazon and it says this book was published after his prior book "Losing Ground". That book advocated the elimination of welfare. That book was pushed hard. Go <a href="http://shameproject.com/profile/charles-murray/" rel="nofollow">here</a> and you'll learn about how the right wing think tank Murray was a part of at the time literally paid journalists to participate in seminars so that they could pretend the book was a big deal. They pushed hard and ultimately won. Clinton's Welfare Reform package, loathed by liberals, was the final achievement.<br /><br />At your own amazon link it says that this new book arguing for a guaranteed minimum income was published in response to criticism that while Murray has long been pushing to eliminate welfare and has largely succeeded, he OFFERED NOTHING TO REPLACE IT. Imagine that. He pushed hard for one side of the coin. Stop this type of support for the poor. The flip side, replacing it with something that worked, hadn't really been considered. So then this book comes out. Where are the journalists paid to pretend Murray is a celebrity? Where is the lobbying? Where is the pushing of legislation, like we had as a result of "Losing Ground". This book about GMI is LITERALLY, not figuratively but literally, an afterthought.<br /><br />Check the link I provide on some facts about this biggest name at AEI. A guy who burns a cross at the height of the civil rights movement. Promoting junk science and race baiting with the Bell Curve. You call him a liberterian and he participates in covert counterinsurgency, admits to laying the foundation for authoritarian regimes that came to power in Southeast Asia. Talks about mass surveillance and use of technologies to monitor US citizens glowingly. Yeah, I stand by what I said. The cutting of services to the poor was clearly emphasized and providing a GMI was not. That's pretty obvious. You won't be able to admit it because of your religion, but posting it here is maybe useful for others more open minded here.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-63943065357405743752013-06-06T05:28:51.253-04:002013-06-06T05:28:51.253-04:00Part 2
The similarity to service industries' s...Part 2<br />The similarity to service industries' sales people ( the real job of financial analyst's, brokers etc is clear.) <br />So who makes policy etc ? A minority of senior members and the organisational bureaucracy. <br /><br />Consider the similarities of a political party to a business/ corporation. … They aren't part of the public service What is their product? Power and the actual members of Congress members are the sales staff .<br /> Now think about the ratio of 'productive sales members' (read congress members) to party 'non productive' party staff wages etc? Keep in mind this doesn't include there is a bureaucratic army paid by the tax payer to help members do their job. <br />In effect political parties non elected policy makers. Ask your self have you got a better explanation why a party would stop any policy even ones they while in power supported answer they are following party directives. <br /><br />Now let's look at the parties. In reality there are two sort of members those who do paid work for the parties and the ordinary members who have 2cents worth of nothing actual power so who are they selling/ providing power to? Do the math.<br /><br />Frankly it's not rocket science , even with the most charitable view of party power who are the stake holders a small minority of those who vote republican … the GOP have been doing fast foot work to give the rank and file member the impression of giving them what they want. Take the last GOP candidate selection campaign it was a circus and it was patently obvious who was the anointed candidate from day 1 Romney. The campaign process was to sell him to the members. Ask yourself why they picked him ? Because he was the establishment’s choice . That's why the campaign is run like a no holds bared soap campaign or a rock concert promotion. <br />Competence is a low order factor it's the candidates saleability. Ask yourself what real power other than declaring war does POTUS have ? Look at Obama perhaps one of the most competent presidents for some time but every step he took he was blocked, filibustered … why some business would have lost power. <br />Do you really think Obama had free call of the shot with the banks that caused the GFC.? I know he didn't because the system is skewed to the minority.<br />BTW <br />The founding fathers had lengthy arguments about party government look it up for exactly the reasons I wrote here.<br />George Washington ( ex general) was opposed to the undue power of the military manufacturing Complex. <br />Look it up I didn't invent the stuff. <br />The civil war was more over profit than slavery... the south was agrarian based (landed gentry) the north were the industrialists and bankers … the people were proxy pawns ...guess who won? Guess who always wins? <br /> Business doesn't like people having too much power because they might challenge their control. <br />GMI social security would loosen the busines' control over the poor they wouldn't be as motivated to work for shit money. Money they believe is theirs. <br /><br /> Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-77354197578448502542013-06-06T05:19:18.019-04:002013-06-06T05:19:18.019-04:00Jon,
HP is a product of his myopic self interest ...Jon,<br />HP is a product of his myopic self interest arm chair pundit thinking. <br />He wants an easy to digest answer. one that doesn't make him think too deeply in case doing so it may reveal an inconvenient truth one that may make him feel uncomfortable with the way he leads and views life. <br />Any marketing person/ sales person knows to be successful one never asks a question in the 'closing sale' that you don't already know the answer. So how do you do that? Simply by limiting the scope of the discussion. One way is to declare all other influencing factors as irrelevant or externalities... (aka controlling the topic) this is exactly what the right and some on the left do.<br /><br />He doesn't want to address the, logic of the implications of what he says and covers this with "I've tried before and there's no point ... you're indoctrinated". That's code for either I can't control where this is going or I might lose (the point see first paragraph). <br />I say that way because I in specific try to raise the 'mitigating' factors or their externalities etc for further consideration.<br /> <br />I've never met a "Rightie" who is able or prepared to to consider factor of a deeper level. Think of the right's arguments like a the leaning tower of Pisa. It was built over a couple of centuries. . What they discovered was that the building was over time, beginning to lean so their reaction was to compensate. There were several upper story fixes.. by shorting walls on one side etc ( It's history is fascinating) rather than deal with the inappropriate to the soil foundations. Consequently the current fix is horrendously expensive and not certain to work. My point for both the second stage builders and the American political party aficionados is simply “a stitch in time ….” and now is that time. But the “righties” simplistically want to shorten the walls on one side . And refuse to look deeper than the current floor level. <br />Compare the depth of what they say with Chomsky's on just about any social or political point. <br />NB I don't agree with all of Chomsky's conclusions particularly about socialism however he has a point about anarchism (see the real meaning). I raise that because it includes libertarian concepts. <br />In reality the whole American re- definitioning is no more than simple no more than advanced marketing techniques. <br />the meta point I've long striving for is that left/right are artificial divisions. <br />They are simply marketing creations mechanisms in order to garner power over the majority. <br />Political parties are simply political consolidators. In order to get a majority they need to simplify human thoughts into clearly saleable simplified generalisations ergo polarise the thought process into left OR right.<br />(Marketing Differentiation) . Like all long term organisation the followers must sacrifice their individuality, identity to the good of the party.i.e. Woe betide the individual congress person who speaks out against party policy ( they are disloyal yarder yarder) regardless of their personal convictions ( peer pressure and fear are the motivators) .<br /><br />At some stage the longevity of he party supersedes the rights of the individual.... i. e. the people serve the tool. This party/ corporate entity creates the means for the increasingly moral 'flexibilty' (read ambition) to use the structure for personal gain. See the Redford old movie “ the candidate” … he gained notoriety by being high moral but during the process of getting elected he had to compromise and obfuscate until at the end he's elected and asks his campaign manager two questions; <br />what is it that we stand for? <br />and what is it we do next? <br />The answer to the latter was published in the WP low people on totem pole newbies spend 4-6 hrs a day begging for money to fund re-election and donations for the party.Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-72401100729868430862013-06-05T22:31:24.070-04:002013-06-05T22:31:24.070-04:00AEI and Heritage aren't too interested.
This...<i>AEI and Heritage aren't too interested. </i><br /><br />This, despite the fact that their most famous intellectual wrote a whole book on the subject? One book of only a few he has ever written. Despite the fact that his libertarianism 101...even Milton Friedman formulated it and is largely credited with the creation of the EITC...a smaller form of this.<br /><br />Sigh. I give up. HispanicPundithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10220166238164432290noreply@blogger.com