ultracooldave
@verizon.net
| reply to ultracooldave
Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"
I might add that I could not see any need for term limits with the "none", the voters need to be able to "fire" politicians they do not want, at least 1 chance to do so every election but in the interests of having a government "none" should only be able to be used once, the risk is that the new candidates may be worse but it gives voters tremendous power.
This is similar to a no confidence vote in the British system. |
|
MrMoody
Carbon Based Lifeform
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
 ·Embarq
 ·Skype
·magicjack.com
| Here's a hypothetical question. Some are saying the president actually makes little difference, but what would the US and world be like today if we had no term limit and Clinton had been reelected in 2000? How would he have reacted to 9/11 and reports of Iraqi WMDs? What would the price of oil be? The national debt? Maybe he wouldn't have won after the sex scandal and IT bubble burst, but he still had a 65% approval rating and I would've voted for him.
I think term limits are counterproductive. The incumbent has no advantage when he's a screw-up.
--
Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over the choice for President put forth by either party. |
|
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
 ·Comcast
| reply to DownTheShore
The point is that "party platforms" are just corporate-driven agendas. I applaud his ability to "spoil" the race by forcing the major parties to take the third-pary will seriously. Same for the voters - make them aware that there really could be a choice. I could care less whether McBush or Obama get elected - the outcome will be the same 4 years from now. Corporate agendas will be furthered by the administration at the cost of the citizens. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by SLD  :I could care less whether McBush or Obama get elected - the outcome will be the same 4 years from now. Corporate agendas will be furthered by the administration at the cost of the citizens. I'm willing to bet that the minimum wage is increased at some point in an attempt to gather some votes, further adding to the already skyrocketing inflation, and, naturally, congress will surely give themselves a raise at some point over the next 4 years. Anything that else that gets done will most likely be a few passed bills with deceiving names that help a few C-level types at large companies at the rest of our expense. |
|
ultracooldave
@verizon.net | reply to MrMoody
You need term limits if you do not have the "none" option due to campaign financing, but I see no need to get rid of politicians if the majority wants them, good ones are rare! |
|
ultracooldave
@verizon.net
| reply to jmn1207
Do you realize that the minimum wage is $12.43 hour in Australia, nearly every other civilized country is much higher than us and they almost all get 6 weeks paid vacation per year, in Australia tax free, why don't you look at the inflation rates in other countries- you are talking complete nonsense with your "skyrocketing inflation" |
|
ChrisXP
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
Premium
join:2002-12-13
USA
| reply to HiDesert
said by HiDesert :The democrats are no better then the Bush admin. Yeppers.
Dirty politics need power and money, and corporations and online advocate websites helps to grease their very wheels.
--
Zionism is a crime
»www.jewsagainstzionism.com »www.christianzionism.org |
|
ChrisXP
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
Premium
join:2002-12-13
USA
| reply to ultracooldave
said by ultracooldave :
Do you realize that the minimum wage is $12.43 hour in Australia, nearly every other civilized country is much higher than us and they almost all get 6 weeks paid vacation per year, in Australia tax free, why don't you look at the inflation rates in other countries- you are talking complete nonsense with your "skyrocketing inflation"
They aren't a super power, let alone innovators of technology, either. If we modelled our businesses after the French, with their 30hr days and other Socialist perks, we'll be in their same position.
Everytime the pay scale goes up, the cost for goods also goes up. So what is bought at $8/hr now for $5, will jump to $10 @ $16/hr.
--
Zionism is a crime
»www.jewsagainstzionism.com »www.christianzionism.org |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by ChrisXP :Everytime the pay scale goes up, the cost for goods also goes up. So what is bought at $8/hr now for $5, will jump to $10 @ $16/hr. That's false. It assumes labor is the only cost of a product.
It is true that rising wages contribute to inflation. In europe, the way unions negotiate contracts that tie wage increases to inflation, it contributes to prolonged inflation. But, it's not like the costs of goods rise by the same percentage as the union wages did. Because the cost of goods includes the cost of materials, transportation, office space, etc.
Mark |
|
ChrisXP
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
Premium
join:2002-12-13
USA
| said by amigo_boy :That's false. It assumes labor is the only cost of a product. It is true that rising wages contribute to inflation. In europe, the way unions negotiate contracts that tie wage increases to inflation, it contributes to prolonged inflation. But, it's not like the costs of goods rise by the same percentage as the union wages did. Because the cost of goods includes the cost of materials, transportation, office space, etc. It assumes that businesses will pass on any wage increases to the consumer.
Unions increase the overall price of everything when they want to increase wages. The South has a lower price for goods because the pay scale is lower (and we don't have many unions -- heck, even the employees vote them down without the employers hounding them). Goto San Francisco and NYC, and see how expensive it is compared to Atlanta due to the pay scale differences. Everything goes up when the pay goes up -- food; transportation; housing; even entertainment.
--
Zionism is a crime
»www.jewsagainstzionism.com »www.christianzionism.org |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by ChrisXP :It assumes that businesses will pass on any wage increases to the consumer. I agree. But, that's not what you originally said. You gave an example of wages rising 100%, resulting in product price rising 100%. That's an exaggeration. If labor is 25% of the cost of a product, and the price of labor rose 100%, the product price would only rise 25%.
If the wages of the lowest wage earners rise 10%, and their wages account for 5% of the price of a product, their minimum-wage increase would raise the price of the product 0.5%.
Mark |
|
ChrisXP
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
Premium
join:2002-12-13
USA
| said by amigo_boy :said by ChrisXP :It assumes that businesses will pass on any wage increases to the consumer. I agree. But, that's not what you originally said. You gave an example of wages rising 100%, resulting in product price rising 100%. That's an exaggeration. If labor is 25% of the cost of a product, and the price of labor rose 100%, the product price would only rise 25%. It doesn't work out that way. Once the wage increases *everything else increases accordingly*. Some things will go up by 2%, others 200%, but the balance will be whatever your raise offered you gets eaten, as the business is going to pass on the wage increase on everyone else, who in turn raises their rates.
No free rides.
--
See what happened today. The Dems are certainly no better than their Reps counterparts...
»abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventio···2&page=1
Arresting reporters now -- even manhandling them -- while they investigate the VIPs and lobbyists who's glad handing the Dems now.
Same BS as before, different party.
--
Zionism is a crime
»www.jewsagainstzionism.com »www.christianzionism.org |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
3 edits | said by ChrisXP :It doesn't work out that way. ... Some things will go up by 2%, others 200%, Tell me how raising the wage of the lowest wage-earner by 10% will cause products or services to rise 200%. It's mathematically impossible. Especially considering the lowest earner's wage contributes a small fraction to the end price of a product. Even more so, a fraction of other wages such as exempt, salaried employees and executives.
said by ChrisXP :No free rides. I didn't say there was. I agree that raising wages raises the end price of the product. Just not equal to the percentage wage increase. There are other components that go into the price of goods and services. Not just the wage.
That's why we've had inflation due to rising energy prices, completely unrelated to wage increases. You could have inflation due to wage increases, but not energy prices (and thus the end price would rise only a fraction of the percentage of the wage increase).
Or, as I said earlier, there's Europe and its unions who negotiate labor contracts gauranteeing wages rise with inflation. The central bank of europe not only has to adjust monetary policy for inflation due to commodities (oil, precious metals), but also wage inflation which is guaranteed to happen due to labor contract.
Mark |
|
ultracooldave
@verizon.net
| Why don't you actually LOOK at the inflation rates of just about every other civilized country not paying a little more for minimum wages but nearly double in most cases? You also have to consider things like-less govt benefits/ less govt health care/30% taxes collected on those higher wages/ products made in China would NOT increase in price.
Our real inflation is caused by massive govt spending (and massive tax cuts to the mega rich) and increasing the national debt 4 trillion in 6 years!
But if you want to - go on blaming the poor for everything-BUT they are Americans who would buy my products if they could earn more money. maybe there would be less family violence/drug abuse/ crimes leading to costly jail space we are paying for.
It would be much cheaper to subsidise employers' wage cost than pay for the ever increasing welfare state we have created! Lets elimilate this welfare state and let people earn enough to take care of themselves.
Take that minimum wage to $18 and require everyone to buy their own health insurance! Eliminate food stamps and everything else to anyone capable of working-BUT-pay them. |
|
ChrisXP
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
Premium
join:2002-12-13
USA
| said by ultracooldaveOur real inflation is caused by massive govt spending[/bquote :Which is but a small factor in how and why local prices are raised when pay scales in the region are raised. Remember this is local prices, not national (and China is national!). And no, socialism is bad news for everyone, as someone still has to pick up the tab for subsidises. Everything that costs the employer will be passed onto the customer, as businesses aren't in business to lose money. --
Zionism is a crime
»www.jewsagainstzionism.com »www.christianzionism.org |
|
ultracooldave
@verizon.net
| I am saying employer wage subsidies in a transition period of years entirely paid for with a reduction in welfare benefits for say 70% (in the able to work category)in this massive and growing welfare state we have created. At the moment we are getting nothing but higher taxes and no productivity at all from these people. And there will be jobs-the baby boomers are retiring and there will actually be labor shortages-lets get the welfare people working and pay them enough so they can take care of themselves including compulsory health insurance!
To give you an example, if say Walmart sells a product for $10 and all the various wages needed to get that product sold is $1 (it is much less) and you double the minimum wage-how much are you going to pay-$11, assuming no subsidies, but there will be subsidies because these people will no longer qualify for welfare benefits. So I would say that $10 product may cost $10.25 and the employee will earn double and SPEND that money! Some of it will be on compulsory health insurance-guess what, we are not paying for that anymore. Get the Govt out of peoples lives!
We would also see a massive reduction in State expenditures on these people so maybe sales taxes could be reduced. We would also have a number of Govt workers that would have to find a real job. |
|
ChrisXP
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
Premium
join:2002-12-13
USA
| said by ultracooldave :
I am saying employer wage subsidies in a transition period of years entirely paid for with a reduction in welfare benefits for say 70% (in the able to work category)in this massive and growing welfare state we have created. Problem there is it never stays for just a few years, just like welfare wasn't a crutch to keep a population down, either (single worst thing the government has done to Black people). It's too good for politicians to scrap.
Plus, price controls can't be managed as easy as folks think. And personally it should be individual businesses setting their prices, as they know their individual market better than some bean counters crunching numbers.
A free market has to be free to work. Add Socialism into it, it no longer is free, but just another State runned institution.
--
Zionism is a crime
»www.jewsagainstzionism.com »www.christianzionism.org |
|
ultracooldave
@verizon.net
| I am definitely not talking price (or wage controls-only a high minimum), no socialism, only what we are already doing in the way of bribed politicians generated subsidies to big business BUT this would be largely paid for with a massive reduction in welfare/health govt payments to people not producing anything but higher taxes.
Look at the whole picture, an example is what West Germany did when it gained back East Germany (a basket case similar to our welfare state). They-overnight traded worthless east German marks for hard currency real marks, AND required that wages would only be paid in real marks with a high minimum (although not as high as West Germany).
Most people thought they were completely crazy (most wanted a "welfare" approach) but look at Germany now! They eliminated their welfare state. Yes, there were many jobs temporarily lost but the explosion of well paying jobs made up for this quickly and created many new ones.
Don't get me wrong- I am not talking about those that really need govt help. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to ChrisXP
said by ChrisXP :A free market has to be free to work. Add Socialism into it, it no longer is free, but just another State runned institution. All of our markets are socialized to some extent. And it's because "free markets" in the literal sense often don't work (just as socialized markets in an absolute sense don't).
- Food and drug quality laws, setting standards to a level a free market wouldn't.
- Laws governing medical products and services. Eliminating willing buyers and sellers of lessor-quality products and services.
- The SEC, moderating the stock market, to create more predictable outcomes and eliminate a large amount of caveat emptor that goes with true "free markets." (The same thing with banking regulations, making it virtually impossible for you to open a bank of lessor quality to serve those who may be willing to purchase those services, or earn more interest with greater risk).
- Building codes and zoning laws, restricting how you can dispose of your property (the basis of free markets).
- Social creation of corporate charters. A corporation is a legal yet fictional "person" created through public law in the State legislature. It serves as the fall guy if officers and investors make bad choices in the pursuit of profits.
It's been my experience that those who promote their position by reference to "free markets" are either naive, or deceptively misusing a term which would be more accurately phrased: "freer markets work better for those things I think should be freer." At that point, we're just talking about who's ox will be gored because you're suckling at the same societal nipple as others. (I.e., we're not talking about good versus evil, or some kind of absolute principle.).
Mark |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| Usually when people are promoting free markets, they are doing so from an idealistic vantage point. The same can be said for people that push for a more socialized agenda. The reality, as you have stated, often lies somewhere in between a true free market and a command economy. |
|
