Minimum Wage - From another topic

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

I actually can find no fault with his thinking on this. He contends that the USA requires all sorts of burdens on US companies operating in the US. Among them is minimum wage, health and safety regulations, Environmental/anti pollution regulations, a Hostile legal environment, and a host of other requirements.

His point was that it is unfair to American Workers and American Businesses for their foreign competition to be able to operate in the absence of all these governmental requirements, and therefore in order to make the playing field equal between foreign manufacturers and American based manufacturers, there should be an import tax commensurate with the cost to American businesses having to comply with all the governmental requirements.
I get it. Because the American government punishes businesses in America the rest of the world should punish its businesses as well.

Unbeatable logic that. I'm not sure the politics is sustainable.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

I beleive this attitude is a direct result of the policies since Reagan.
I wish Ronnie was still alive. He would no doubt find it humorous that he is directly responsible for a fact of human nature in evidence for some 3,000 or so years of recorded history.

My prediction: Carter II is President. In 2013 Reagan II will be President. As night follows day.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

hanelyp
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Post by hanelyp »

MSimon wrote:My prediction: Carter II is President. In 2013 Reagan II will be President. As night follows day.
I hope you're right about Reagan II.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

MSimon wrote:
I actually can find no fault with his thinking on this. He contends that the USA requires all sorts of burdens on US companies operating in the US. Among them is minimum wage, health and safety regulations, Environmental/anti pollution regulations, a Hostile legal environment, and a host of other requirements.

His point was that it is unfair to American Workers and American Businesses for their foreign competition to be able to operate in the absence of all these governmental requirements, and therefore in order to make the playing field equal between foreign manufacturers and American based manufacturers, there should be an import tax commensurate with the cost to American businesses having to comply with all the governmental requirements.
I get it. Because the American government punishes businesses in America the rest of the world should punish its businesses as well.

Unbeatable logic that. I'm not sure the politics is sustainable.

Not the rest of the world, Just Us. The U.S. Government should punish the rest of the world's businesses for not complying with OUR regulations. Yeah, it's overbearing and burdensome, but why shouldn't the rest of the world enjoy what American businesses have to put up with ?

It's not like we would be forcing them to do business here. If they don't like our apples they can stop shaking our tree.

Of course on the OTHER hand, we can reduce the crap we force our businesses to go through... (which I think is secretly the whole reason behind mentioning the idea in the first place. )


David

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

MSimon wrote: I get it. Because the American government punishes businesses in America the rest of the world should punish its businesses as well.
By George I think he's missed it again!
If the American government insists on punishing American businesses for wanting to do business in America, perhaps they should punish everyone who whats to do business in America equally. :o
This has no effect on those businesses in America or elsewhere that want to sell elsewhere.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

clonan wrote:
I firmly believe that General Motors executives knew full well that the deals they made with the Unions (to get them to behave in the short term) were completely untenable

It's the old "I got mine!" thing.
Absolutly there is a lot of this on all sides. I beleive this attitude is a direct result of the policies since Reagan. These policies are the one that are in fundamental conflict with human nature. The elevation of the individual to the level of personal god while all obligations to society are destroyed is what has primarily lead to this crisis.


Blaming this on Reagan is like giving the Rooster the credit for the sunrise. I would point out that most of the "Greed" of the 80s and 90s was promulgated by the "baby boom" generation. A more selfish and narcissistic group of people there never was. The baby boom Generation has been far more Amoral, Unethical and self indulgent than have previous generations, and I dare say they would have been just as bad no matter who was President. It was going to happen anyway.

Truth be told, all the Major financial wheeling and dealing going on for the last several decades have been in places that are no bastions of conservatism. (i.e. New York, LA,Chicago, Boston, etc.) Most of the names involved in the various financial scandals I heard about were Limousine Liberals who were the anti thesis of Reagan.

Doing something Unethical to get ahead is perfectly consistent with the philosophy of people who oppose religion and morality, and indeed most of these people HATED Reagan. It's just another inevitable consequence of our social decline.

clonan wrote:
brilliant genius graduates of places like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cornell,


ohh please thoes schools are pathetic. I went to a state school. Actual learned the material and applied it. You buy low - sell high is Always a part of it but it isn't the whole picture. Your high school grad learned that the hard way...besides in America he was probably Morgaged up to his eye balls and heading to bankruptcy court the next week.




It's not the size of the Education system the kid is in, It's the size of the Education system in the Kid! :)



David

clonan
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:16 pm

Post by clonan »

MSimon wrote:
I beleive this attitude is a direct result of the policies since Reagan.
I wish Ronnie was still alive. He would no doubt find it humorous that he is directly responsible for a fact of human nature in evidence for some 3,000 or so years of recorded history.

My prediction: Carter II is President. In 2013 Reagan II will be President. As night follows day.
Umm, I never said that Reagan "caused" the current problems. I said the policies he started did.

While I am not a fan of Reagan he at least could learn from his mistakes. He tried supply side economics, caused a recession, reversed his policies by reversing his tax cuts and recession goes away.

However the idea that a strong individual is all you need for a successful society was strongly supported by his policies and enhanced by both Bushes while only maintained by Clinton. This idea, to this extent is essentially novel. What 3000 years of history show is that any large society (over a few thousand people) will fall apart within 2 generations when the individual is exemplified at the expense of society as a whole.

A strong society absolutely demands that the people in the society support the members of the society. Time and again you see that ignoring this requirement leads to anarchy and then serf type feudalism. This is what Reagan's philosophy forgot.

Carter I was the last of about 30 years of generally left leaning presidents. He was followed by about 30 years of generally right leaning presidents.

Therefore I predict that:

FDR II is in office now and in 2013, Truman II is in office in 2017. Reagan II comes to office in 2021 or 2025. Then comes your Carter II in 2033 or so.

My reasoning is this:

Building infrastructure (like Obama is trying to do) does not help short term but does tend to provide excellent growth about 2-3 years down the line. Even if Obama TRIED to kill the economy it would likely recover before the next election. So almost certainly Obama will be re-elected.

Since a 2nd recession is unlikely during his 2nd term (due to the length of this one) it is likely that Biden (or Obama's named successor) will be elected in 2017.

We will then hit a recession and get your Reagan II. If the recession is early in Biden's term he will probably get two terms.

Your Reagan II will have policies that are generally centrist but are also so different than the prior 12-16 years that there will be a backlash, putting in a Carter II. Carter II will not have the political power to initiate his own, new policies so he will be seen as inept and replaced with a Reagan III. The cycle starts over again.

Bush II = Carter I

This cycle has repeated itself over and over again. I am sorry my friends but we are on the leading edge of the left side of the political pendulum. Get ready for another 25 years of these policies.

clonan
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:16 pm

Post by clonan »

ravingdave wrote:
Blaming this on Reagan is like giving the Rooster the credit for the sunrise. I would point out that most of the "Greed" of the 80s and 90s was promulgated by the "baby boom" generation. A more selfish and narcissistic group of people there never was. The baby boom Generation has been far more Amoral, Unethical and self indulgent than have previous generations, and I dare say they would have been just as bad no matter who was President. It was going to happen anyway.
Again, not blaming Reagan, just his philosophy.

You seem to be forgetting history. The 80's and the last decade are just a pale reminder of the 1890's. We are witnessing a cycle not some fundamental shift. Remember, most founding Fathers were NOT Christian. they were Deists. They had very weak religious convictions. This was followed by an era where religion was strongly promoted leading into the civil war. After the civil war the secular sector of society took precedence until it got out of control in the 1890's or so leading into the great depression. This lead into the New Deal, followed by a short era in the 60's (killed by Nixon) and leading into Carter.

We are NOT witnessing some dramatic moral decline. we are witnessing the rise of Womens Lib, TV and the internet. What you are assuming the past is like is simply the 50's (your parents childhood).

This era has been idealized. While generally divorce was lower, out of wedlock children were rampant, approaching today's levels only hidden. Violent crime was not generally advertised outside of the local community and most of it occurred in the home.

We generally think that crime is worse today because we are here witnessing it AND because we hear about the worst crimes committed anywhere in the world while most people have no clue what is happening in their neighborhood.

The marriage rate has remained fairly constant. The divorce rate has risen almost entirely due to women's lib. Women can now be very successful on their own so they don't hang around unless we men behave ourselves...which we aren't very good at because of the odd family life common in the 50's. Give it a few decades and the divorce rate will decline again.

Personally I believe the religious fundamentalism has done more to hurt the morality of the country than anything the New Deal has ever done. Fundamentalists generally feel the need to dictate morality and smite those that don't adhere. This tends to reduce the impulse to care for the people you are supposed to smite and lowers the general sense of community. At the same time it makes some extreme sense of morality judge without any mercy to temper it. No one can keep to it, and since there is no forgiveness it drives people away from real morality. Notice how the divorce rate is always higher in strongly fundamentalist areas? Check it out (bible belt USA has the highest levels of teenage pregnancy and divorce).

If you want to see morality return to the society, STOP PERSECUTING PEOPLE. Minister to them. Show them how living a moral life is superior. Let them find morality on their own. Only then will you see true morality return. This is exactly opposite of the fundamentalism that has run rampant over the last two decades.


ravingdave wrote:
Truth be told, all the Major financial wheeling and dealing going on for the last several decades have been in places that are no bastions of conservatism. (i.e. New York, LA,Chicago, Boston, etc.) Most of the names involved in the various financial scandals I heard about were Limousine Liberals who were the anti thesis of Reagan.

Doing something Unethical to get ahead is perfectly consistent with the philosophy of people who oppose religion and morality, and indeed most of these people HATED Reagan. It's just another inevitable consequence of our social decline.

It's not the size of the Education system the kid is in, It's the size of the Education system in the Kid! :)



David
Truth be told that is a historical artifact.

Up until about 30 years ago you HAD to be in NY, LA, Boston etc in order to be a major banker/broker.

Most of the name I heard about were dyed in the wool republicans. I am not saying that only GOP supporters are crooks.

Greed knows no political party. But I am saying that the majority of people in the position of being ABLE to commit fraud are right leaning (very well proven). The firms these people work at happen to be in New England and California by historical accident.[/b]

Billy Catringer
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Billy Catringer »

clonan wrote:
ravingdave wrote:Most of the name I heard about were dyed in the wool republicans. I am not saying that only GOP supporters are crooks.

Greed knows no political party. But I am saying that the majority of people in the position of being ABLE to commit fraud are right leaning (very well proven). The firms these people work at happen to be in New England and California by historical accident.[/b]

The money backed Barack Obama during the election. AIG was one of his top contributors as were the majority of the banks. Perhaps they were backing him instead of the Goopers this time because the Bushbaby wanted to reign them in and make the behave, I don't know.

The majority of your notable and respected "liberals" are extremely wealthy. Warren Buffet, for instance, is just one example. Barbara Streisand isn't exactly performing on street corners with a bowl at her feet.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

If the American government insists on punishing American businesses for wanting to do business in America, perhaps they should punish everyone who whats to do business in America equally.
Well what about the guy who just wants a cheap shirt?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Again, not blaming Reagan, just his philosophy.
His philosophy was to acknowledge that individuals are looking after their own interests. You see anything in the recent debacles that refutes that?

The second part of his philosophy was that competition of interests was the best safeguard of our wealth and liberty. That government was not up to the job. You see anything in the recent debacles that refutes that?

Government is always the death of competition and the refuge of cartels. Because, in the end, the cartels always design the controls for their benefit. You see anything in the recent debacles that refutes that?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

clonan
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:16 pm

Post by clonan »

MSimon wrote: His philosophy was to acknowledge that individuals are looking after their own interests. You see anything in the recent debacles that refutes that?
In this country, no...but the US is so dramatically individualistic that if we weren't a superpower we would be termed mentally ill.
MSimon wrote:
The second part of his philosophy was that competition of interests was the best safeguard of our wealth and liberty. That government was not up to the job. You see anything in the recent debacles that refutes that?
Umm, the ENTIRE debacle refutes that. We have seen exactly what happens when for profit organizations are asked to regulate themselves.

The interests that were represented were those of the bankers, investors and other large monied people. Those without the resources to buy the necessary information were not allowed to participate in the competition.

Reagan liked Adam Smith. But he got Smith wrong. He publicized and everyone else went along with the idea that Smith said the invisible hand concept was that

"self interest leads to maximum standard of living and guards our wealth and liberty"

Read the Wealth of Nations. He mentioned the invisible hand concept once on it was that "ENLIGHTENED self interest..." The rest of Adam Smith talked about how crucial government is for the proper functioning of economies...THAT is what capitalism is based on. The competition between private interests and public interests.

I would also like to point out that enlightened self interest is almost an oxymoron. Adam Smith's capitalism demands perfect knowledge and adequate time for analysis for ALL participants. This is an impossibility.

Only those with extreme resources can even come close to that ideal. The person making less than about $300K a years hasn't a chance.
MSimon wrote: Because, in the end, the cartels always design the controls for their benefit. You see anything in the recent debacles that refutes that?
Actually, you find that LACK of government is a refuge of cartels.

All the cartels in the world are founded out of countries that are essentially anarchies. They are either led by people with no power (Columbia) or religious/social extremists with no interest in governing, only ruling (Saudi Arabia).

However properly functioning government PREVENTS cartels. The US and Australia could easily form a cartel on wheat. The majority of wheat production in the US and Australia is owned by about a dozen players. They have tried and failed to form cartels BECAUSE the US and Australian governments have prevented it.

MSimon wrote:Government is always the death of competition and the refuge of cartels.
I won't argue with that but remember that "government" doesn't have to mean a king or constitution or voting or anything. A business is it's own government. An excess of business is just as stifling as an excess of federal regulation.

The real question is, do you want to trust people whose stated goal is to separate you from your property (for profit businesses, this is typically done by selling you things) or someone whose stated goal is for you to follow the procedure (bureaucracy).


Reagan was too limited....

The scariest phrase in the English language is NOT "I am from the government and I'm here to help." The scariest phrase is simply "I am here to help." Especially when said by someone you didn't call first.

clonan
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:16 pm

Post by clonan »

Billy Catringer wrote:


The money backed Barack Obama during the election. AIG was one of his top contributors as were the majority of the banks.
And donated an average of 3:1 to McCain over Obama.

Of course AIG and bankers are going to be some of the largest single investors. When you have a wealth distribution like we do in the US, AIG and the others could donate their pocket change and they would still be some of the biggest contributors.
Billy Catringer wrote:
Perhaps they were backing him instead of the Goopers this time because the Bushbaby wanted to reign them in and make the behave, I don't know.
You are kidding right??? :?: Are you seriously suggesting that the financial industry thought Obama was going to be MORE lax on them than McCain?

Think about what you just said man!
Billy Catringer wrote: The majority of your notable and respected "liberals" are extremely wealthy. Warren Buffet, for instance, is just one example. Barbara Streisand isn't exactly performing on street corners with a bowl at her feet.
Notable and respected...again, did you think about what you said?

Unless you do something dramatic like maybe give birth to IVF Octuplets when you are unemployeed you HAVE to be extremly wealthy to develop any sort of national noteriety. This goes for Right and Left.

All you are saying is that money buys air time...

It is a proven fact that the GOP members tend to have more money then the Dem. members...

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

In this country, no...but the US is so dramatically individualistic that if we weren't a superpower we would be termed mentally ill.
Look at the results and tell me who is crazy.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Umm, the ENTIRE debacle refutes that. We have seen exactly what happens when for profit organizations are asked to regulate themselves.
Let me see: they colluded with government to eliminate competition. They were not competing interests.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply