Are you For or Against an increase in domestic drilling?

[Teddi]

The problem is that one size does not fit all.

 

It would take two of those little "pop-can" sized cars to haul around families with more than four members.

 

Many Americans really do need larger vehicles because they better fit our families/lifestyles.

 

 

I wasn't speaking to giving up our rights to SUVs, etc. I was addressing in general SDWTMer's assertion that we're giving up our freedoms all too easily. As it happens, though, I do believe giving up our rights to gas hogs would benefit the common good. Just have to figure out how to haul my family without the gas hog to further that goal:D

[Mrs Mungo]

First, is it your position that their bias precludes them from telling the truth?

 

It is my position that their definition of economic freedom has an agenda. There is no absolute truth when you're making your own definition.

[PineFarmMom]

:) The sooner the better

[cornopean]

It is my position that their definition of economic freedom has an agenda. There is no absolute truth when you're making your own definition.

So you disagree with their definition of economic freedom? Where do they err and what definition would you offer?

do you think economic freedom is valuable?

[Colleen]

A prosperous society, of course, gives weight to both individual rights and the common good.

 

What example can you give me for the above statement? The common good is individual rights, that is what made America so great.

 

Ummm...all kinds of examples. Many other countries. Because as I'm sure you're aware, there are many other "great" countries, in addition to America.:)

 

I hear that the common good says that we should have our kiddos in public school; it's good to give the federal government our money when our kiddos are there. How can one choose an individual right (homeschooling) in one case and not in the other?

 

I'm not clear as to your question. Are you asking how can we support both homeschooling and public education? If so, my answer is, "Quite easily."

[Colleen]

The problem is that one size does not fit all.

 

I never said one size fits all.

 

Many Americans really do need larger vehicles because they better fit our families/lifestyles.

 

Well, sure. My "wants" lead to my "needs". If I choose to have five children, if I choose a lifestyle that requires driving hither and yon, then I "need" the gas guzzler. And that's my reality, admittedly. But I don't pretend it's a "need". It's what I've chosen I have to be honest about potentially-negative consequences of my choices.

[Colleen]

what do you think of this quote (esp. the boldfaced part)?

 

the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

 

It is perfectly possible to provide a hand-up to the poor, to support all members of society including those who are suffering under less-than-ideal circumstances, without engendering a listless, drunken lower class. Because we are human, and sin knows no class, there will always be people who receive societal support and make no attempt to provide for themselves. Just as there will always be people in the upper echelon of society whose pride is such that they believe they are some how "better than".

[Mrs Mungo]

So you disagree with their definition of economic freedom? Where do they err and what definition would you offer?

 

I don't pretend that they *err*, I think different people can have the same information and come to a different conclusion and that's OK.

 

do you think economic freedom is valuable?

 

In what sense?

 

Do I think government should have a hands-off approach to business? No. Business has proved it is about making as much money as humanly possible. Until business learns to grow a conscience (as a few companies have) then it needs to be controlled by government.

[Merry]

Just curious, don't we need the oil to make plastic? Or is plastic made from something else? If from oil, then isn't that a huge part of our economy and way of life? Imagine life without syringes, IV tubes, etc. If we get the plastic from the oil, then I vote for domestic drilling.

[PineFarmMom]

Just curious, don't we need the oil to make plastic? Or is plastic made from something else? If from oil, then isn't that a huge part of our economy and way of life? Imagine life without syringes, IV tubes, etc. If we get the plastic from the oil, then I vote for domestic drilling.

 

My bil is in the oil industry..he's a patent lawyer for an oil company. It is my understanding that even some chip bags are a petroleum product. I think I remember him pointing specifically to a Doritos bag one time. I didn't know that before.

 

Teresa

[battlemaiden]

a hands-off approach to business? No. Business has proved it is about making as much money as humanly possible. Until business learns to grow a conscience (as a few companies have) then it needs to be controlled by government.

 

This gives me the heeby jeebies. Giving the government the power to regulate assumes that the government is above corruption and influence as well. What makes you think politicians have more of a conscience than the business leaders? They are both susceptible to corruption, but one is driven more actively by outside market interests.

 

This fear of private business and free market exercise terrifies me. We will lose all our big businesses to other countries who are loosening their restrictions and tax rates. We will be ruined if we continue down this path of corporate hatred. Businesses of all shapes and sizes built this country into a thriving, prosperous nation---now we are throwing it all away in favor of government control.

 

Jo

[Mrs Mungo]

Just curious, don't we need the oil to make plastic? Or is plastic made from something else? If from oil, then isn't that a huge part of our economy and way of life? Imagine life without syringes, IV tubes, etc. If we get the plastic from the oil, then I vote for domestic drilling.

 

http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2007/03/14/plastics/

 

To quote from the above:

The best estimate I could find says that about 4 percent of the world's annual oil production of some 84.5 million barrels per day is used as feedstock for plastic, and another 4 percent or so provides the energy to transform the feedstock into handy plastic.

 

According to the U.S. EPA, manufacturing new plastic from recycled plastic requires two-thirds of the energy used in virgin plastic manufacture. I have more numbers, too: one ton of recycled plastic saves 685 gallons of oil. You can find lots of these "x amount is saved when we recycle" numbers in recycling promotional literature.

 

DoE site

Other interesting information that pertains:

Global Oil Consumption per Capita

 

2/3 of the oil used in the US is used for transportation:

Chart with stats to indicate above

 

US Oil Demands by Product

 

 

If we could cut the amount of gasoline used by cars it would leave that more oil for the making of plastics (which can also be made from corn, biomass and natural gas; it doesn't have to be petroleum), jet fuel, etc.

[Mrs Mungo]

This gives me the heeby jeebies. Giving the government the power to regulate assumes that the government is above corruption and influence as well. What makes you think politicians have more of a conscience than the business leaders? They are both susceptible to corruption, but one is driven more actively by outside market interests.

 

While the child labor movement was a grassroots movement it took political action to cease child labor in this country. Was that a bad thing? At the time businesses argued that the children needed to work in order to keep their families afloat.

 

What about other labor laws? Do you disagree with those?

 

This fear of private business and free market exercise terrifies me. We will lose all our big businesses to other countries who are loosening their restrictions and tax rates. We will be ruined if we continue down this path of corporate hatred. Businesses of all shapes and sizes built this country into a thriving, prosperous nation---now we are throwing it all away in favor of government control.

 

Jo

 

It's not fear, it's fact. Businesses (especially big businesses but small business too to some extent) will get away with whatever they can in order to make the maximum amount of money.

 

Case in point: in college my hubby worked in a small machine shop. In order to avoid repairing the machines properly (because they were ancient and the parts would have had to been tooled) the business owners removed the safety features of the machines. As a result my hubby got his finger caught in one of the machines. He was working the night shift, alone and had to drive himself to the ER which was 15 miles away. Yes, the company paid for his surgery and hubby was left with just a bit of scar tissue but he was extremely lucky, it could have been much worse. If it had crushed his hand he would have lost his US Army commission and livelihood.

 

Even though it was a small business these people were millionares at the time, they had huge houses, the whole nine yards. But they were willing to endanger their employees in order to save a buck. People who work for non-union companies and/or small companies don't have protection from firing to call OSHA over unsafe conditions.

[at the beach]

While the child labor movement was a grassroots movement it took political action to cease child labor in this country. Was that a bad thing? At the time businesses argued that the children needed to work in order to keep their families afloat.

 

What about other labor laws? Do you disagree with those?

 

 

 

It's not fear, it's fact. Businesses (especially big businesses but small business too to some extent) will get away with whatever they can in order to make the maximum amount of money.

 

Case in point: in college my hubby worked in a small machine shop. In order to avoid repairing the machines properly (because they were ancient and the parts would have had to been tooled) the business owners removed the safety features of the machines. As a result my hubby got his finger caught in one of the machines. He was working the night shift, alone and had to drive himself to the ER which was 15 miles away. Yes, the company paid for his surgery and hubby was left with just a bit of scar tissue but he was extremely lucky, it could have been much worse. If it had crushed his hand he would have lost his US Army commission and livelihood.

 

Even though it was a small business these people were millionares at the time, they had huge houses, the whole nine yards. But they were willing to endanger their employees in order to save a buck. People who work for non-union companies and/or small companies don't have protection from firing to call OSHA over unsafe conditions.

 

Amen, Mrs. Mungo. Also, IMHO big business is controlling our government. America is run by large corporations. Sigh...

 

Anita

[Carol in Cal.]

Seriously, do you?

 

When I was a kid, it was a lot worse than now in urban CA. That is because we now have the pollution controls in vehicles, required by law. We also have the Bay Area Air Quality Control Board watching for emission problems.

 

This was not a market-driven change. Any company that had put these devices into their cars without needing to would not have been economically viable. The incentive was not there until the law was.

 

I have visited one South Pacific country without pollution controls. Wow, the diesel fumes...wow. If I lived there, I would probably die of athsma. Still, the smell reminded me of my childhood and the diesel buses on city streets.

 

I don't favor big government, but I do favor some government. Although in "Civil Disobediance" Henry David Thoreau argued the less government, the better, my view is much more nuanced than that. Big brother government needs to be fought, but no government leaves you with a 'might makes right' and 'he who has the gold rules'-type government.

[sdWTMer]

A prosperous society, of course, gives weight to both individual rights and the common good.

Ummm...all kinds of examples. Many other countries. Because as I'm sure you're aware, there are many other "great" countries, in addition to America.:)

 

Okay, I'll bite. Which are they? I think that America far exceeds most other countries. Sure yeah, I love and respect all countries and cultures, but there is a reason for so many people literally dying to get to this country.

 

I'm not clear as to your question. Are you asking how can we support both homeschooling and public education? If so, my answer is, "Quite easily."

 

I realize that you can support public education with property taxes, but what my question is, if you truly believe in the "common good" train of thought, why homeschool your kids? I'm sure that most public educators would think that putting your kids in school is for the common good of all. How can you quite easily support public education when your kids not being there deprives them of the funds that they would receive if your kids were enrolled?

[battlemaiden]

Child labor, pollution, toxic hazards....all valid public interest regulations.

 

Cost of oil? Production of corn? Mandated crappy looking light bulbs full of mercury? Not so much.

 

My day has gone from bad to worse, so I'm checking out of this thread for the time being. ;) It's for my own good (and the indirect health of the baby). I don't want you to think I'm not responding sufficiently. Of course I'm right and I need to convince you of that ;), I just don't have it in me right now.

 

Jo

[Mrs Mungo]

I realize that you can support public education with property taxes, but what my question is, if you truly believe in the "common good" train of thought, why homeschool your kids? I'm sure that most public educators would think that putting your kids in school is for the common good of all. How can you quite easily support public education when your kids not being there deprives them of the funds that they would receive if your kids were enrolled?

 

I'm not Colleen but I support the idea of public education. Not everyone is willing or able to educate their own children. I am so I do. Educated (even semi-educated) children are to the benefit of society.

 

battlemaiden-I do agree that not everything needs government interference, I wasn't trying to make that an argument at all.

[battlemaiden]

I'm giggling at my own lack of self-control. One more (shower inspired) thought:

 

I hope the next billionaire capitalist is the one who creates the machine that will sit in the garage and produce all the fuel we need out of garbage- I hope there is a person left in America that profit motivated!

 

:D

 

I'm off....really.

 

jo

[cornopean]

 

It is perfectly possible to provide a hand-up to the poor, to support all members of society including those who are suffering under less-than-ideal circumstances, without engendering a listless, drunken lower class.

You claim it is possible but you don't give any examples. Let's be realistic here. I can't think of a govt program that hasn't had perverse, unintended consequences. Some estimate that we've spent over 6 trillion dollars in The War on Poverty. but all this did was create a permanent under class that is trapped in a cycle of dependency and poverty. that is why I am with Franklin here. I ache to help the poor but govt programs exacerbate the problem.

 

and the same unintended consequences happen when the govt subsidizes research into alternative fuels.

 

Because we are human, and sin knows no class, there will always be people who receive societal support and make no attempt to provide for themselves.

so how do we help such people? by enabling them with money stolen from other taxpayers? I think the best thing that can be done for such is to cut them loose and make them work or starve.

 

Just as there will always be people in the upper echelon of society whose pride is such that they believe they are some how "better than".

this is not something the govt can do anything about.

[cornopean]

I don't pretend that they *err*, I think different people can have the same information and come to a different conclusion and that's OK.

 

well what conclusion do you come to when you notice that the countries that are most economically free are also the countries with the lowest poverty rates, the highest avg incomes, the best standard of livings, etc etc.?

 

 

In what sense?

do you think it is a desirable thing for a country to be economically free? is it something policy makers should aim for when they write legislation?

 

 

 

Do I think government should have a hands-off approach to business? No. Business has proved it is about making as much money as humanly possible. Until business learns to grow a conscience (as a few companies have) then it needs to be controlled by government.

the odd thing is....that the more businesses pursue profit, the harder they try to please the customers. in a free society where there is rule of law, companies can only become really profitable when they please the most people. A company's profits are really a measure of how well they have met people's needs and wants.

[cornopean]

While the child labor movement was a grassroots movement it took political action to cease child labor in this country. Was that a bad thing? At the time businesses argued that the children needed to work in order to keep their families afloat.

 

What about other labor laws? Do you disagree with those?

I am not an anarchist. I agree with some very limited basic labor laws.

I have two problems here:

 

First, when the govt takes from one person in order to give it to another who they judge needs it. this kind of wealth redistribution is theft IMO.

 

Second, when the govt thinks that it has to "protect" us from all the dangers. I think people should be able to enter contract freely w/ whomever they want. Minimum wages laws are a good example. If some retiree wants to wash windows for 5/hr......why shouldn't he be allowed to do this?

 

 

 

It's not fear, it's fact. Businesses (especially big businesses but small business too to some extent) will get away with whatever they can in order to make the maximum amount of money.

 

again, I support laws that punish such. but don't forget that the biggest punishment such businesses get is the punisment they get from the free market. people take their business elsewhere.

 

 

Case in point: in college my hubby

a good example for why businesses should not be left completely unregulated. we do need some laws. I am not an anarchist. But the current laws are WAY too burdensome. Sarbanes Oxley is a good example.

[Carol in Cal.]

well what conclusion do you come to when you notice that the countries that are most economically free are also the countries with the lowest poverty rates, the highest avg incomes, the best standard of livings, etc etc.?

 

QUOTE]

I think that you have not observed other countries accurately as reflected in your statement above.

 

The US has a much more economically free system but also much higher crime rates than most European countries and than Japan.

 

In general the countries with the great freedom also have long 'tails' in their distributions of lifestyles and wealth. That is acceptable to some but not to others. Personally, I think that it is reprehensible that we do not have a basic safety net in this country for hardworking people who are unable to completely support themselves, for all children, and for those with disabilities and the elderly. The low end of our economic/safety net tail is a source of shame for our country, IMV.

 

And, the level of violent crime in our country, amounting to house arrest for most females in cities and suburbs, is horrid. We don't have a cultural consensus in teaching what is and isn't unthinkable. We have an impersonal system.

 

I love my country, and I want us to be better at these things.

[Mrs Mungo]

well what conclusion do you come to when you notice that the countries that are most economically free are also the countries with the lowest poverty rates, the highest avg incomes, the best standard of livings, etc etc.?

 

I don't think our goal as a nation should be to have the highest average income.

 

do you think it is a desirable thing for a country to be economically free? is it something policy makers should aim for when they write legislation?

 

I have yet to see you define what you think "economically free" means.

 

 

the odd thing is....that the more businesses pursue profit, the harder they try to please the customers. in a free society where there is rule of law, companies can only become really profitable when they please the most people. A company's profits are really a measure of how well they have met people's needs and wants.

 

This is really *only* true in the customer service industry. None of the customers who bought the product made by my husband's former employer would have had the first *clue* about how the business was run.

 

There has been a large-scale boycott in place against Nestle more or less since 1977. They participate in *disgusting* business practices and I won't give them my money. I carefully screen my groceries for Nestle products. They own a LOT of companies to include a large share of L'Oreal who in turn owns The Body Shop. I write all 3 companies every year or two to remind them why I'm boycotting. Do they care? No, they don't. Their business practices have not changed despite a UK ruling against them and called on the carpet repeatedly by the UN and UNICEF.

[Mrs Mungo]

I am not an anarchist. I agree with some very limited basic labor laws.

I have two problems here:

 

First, when the govt takes from one person in order to give it to another who they judge needs it. this kind of wealth redistribution is theft IMO.

 

I haven't said anything about wealth redistribution at all. ETA: I've actually lived in Europe and I could expound upon pros and cons of both systems.

 

Second, when the govt thinks that it has to "protect" us from all the dangers. I think people should be able to enter contract freely w/ whomever they want. Minimum wages laws are a good example. If some retiree wants to wash windows for 5/hr......why shouldn't he be allowed to do this?

 

A retiree *can* wash windows for $5/hour. However, a company who is making a profit off the sweat of his brow cannot pay him a $5/hr wage to wash windows.

 

again, I support laws that punish such. but don't forget that the biggest punishment such businesses get is the punisment they get from the free market. people take their business elsewhere.

 

Again, I disagree but I've discussed this in my post above with regard to Nestle.

 

a good example for why businesses should not be left completely unregulated. we do need some laws. I am not an anarchist. But the current laws are WAY too burdensome. Sarbanes Oxley is a good example.

 

But the law *as it stands* did not protect my husband.

[cornopean]

I have yet to see you define what you think "economically free" means.

I agree with the defn they supply. You disagreed with it, so I asked you what your defn was. I think you need to tell me what is wrong with their defn. I have no problem with it.

 

For everyone else, their definition of econ freedom involves the following:

 

• Business Freedom

• Trade Freedom

• Fiscal Freedom

• Government Size

• Monetary Freedom

• Investment Freedom

• Financial Freedom

• Property rights

• Freedom from Corruption

• Labor Freedom

 

This is really *only* true in the customer service industry. None of the customers who bought the product made by my husband's former employer would have had the first *clue* about how the business was run.

 

we have no disagreement with regards to your husband's experience. I agree we need some legislation along those lines.

 

 

There has been a large-scale boycott in place against Nestle more or less since 1977. They participate in *disgusting* business practices and I won't give them my money. I carefully screen my groceries for Nestle products. They own a LOT of companies to include a large share of L'Oreal who in turn owns The Body Shop. I write all 3 companies every year or two to remind them why I'm boycotting. Do they care? No, they don't. Their business practices have not changed despite a UK ruling against them and called on the carpet repeatedly by the UN and UNICEF.

do you have any more info on this? what is disgusting?

[cornopean]

I haven't said anything about wealth redistribution at all. ETA: I've actually lived in Europe and I could expound upon pros and cons of both systems.

last time I checked, the average unemployment rate in Europe was 8.5 percent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate

 

I am told that the unemployment rate among young people is near 25 percent.

 

 

A retiree *can* wash windows for $5/hour. However, a company who is making a profit off the sweat of his brow cannot pay him a $5/hr wage to wash windows.

why shouldn't the company and he be allowed to contract with each other on these terms?

 

 

 

 

But the law *as it stands* did not protect my husband.

well laws are broken. the laws against murder don't always succeed in protecting innocent people from killers either. but the laws do punish those who violate them. your husband's company violated the law and they paid for it. yes?

[Mrs Mungo]

well laws are broken. the laws against murder don't always succeed in protecting innocent people from killers either. but the laws do punish those who violate them. your husband's company violated the law and they paid for it. yes?

 

I'm walking out the door but I did want to at least say-no, no laws were actually broken. The company only paid in the sense they paid for DH's medical bills. They went on with the same jacked up equipment they had been using and did not repair it properly.

 

And about Nestle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott

 

http://www.clrlabor.org/alerts/2005/oct10-nestle.htm

 

There is a lot of information out there about Nestle from child labor to the babymilk issue to trying to gain control of water rights. Like I said, I'm walking out the door at the moment or I'd add more!

[Colleen]

You claim it is possible but you don't give any examples.

 

As a matter of fact, I consider our own nation an example. Yep, that's right. I don't consider the American "lower class" merely a bunch of lazy, drunken bums. The rest of my experiences (and, therefore, examples) are primarily based in Western, industrialized nations. But being "realistic", I could list every one for you and you'd still disagree because bottom line, we disagree on the subject.

 

I can't think of a govt program that hasn't had perverse, unintended consequences.

 

Okay.

 

I ache to help the poor but govt programs exacerbate the problem.

and the same unintended consequences happen when the govt subsidizes research into alternative fuels.

 

Yes, I understand that's your opinion.

 

so how do we help such people? by enabling them with money stolen from other taxpayers?

 

I don't consider taxation ~ including taxation that exists in part to fund social welfare programs ~ on par with thievery. To that end, your emotional language is lost on me.

 

I think the best thing that can be done for such is to cut them loose and make them work or starve.

 

You're labouring (ha! no pun intended) under the mistaken impression that every individual who receives some form of government assistance isn't working and has no desire to work.

[Colleen]

Okay, I'll bite. Which are they? I think that America far exceeds most other countries.

 

Do you actually want me to list all the nations? Canada, Switzerland, Germany, Australia, Sweden...and so on? If I do so, that won't really change your opinion will it?:) I appreciate America, too. I would never go so far as to say it "far exceeds most other countries". In my opinion, that reveals a rather narrow view of the world.

 

I realize that you can support public education with property taxes, but what my question is, if you truly believe in the "common good" train of thought, why homeschool your kids? I'm sure that most public educators would think that putting your kids in school is for the common good of all. How can you quite easily support public education when your kids not being there deprives them of the funds that they would receive if your kids were enrolled?

 

I am stymied, honestly, as to what point you're trying to make. I support ~ financially and morally ~ government-funded, public education. At this time, I don't utilize the system. Not utilizing the system is most assuredly not in conflict with supporting the existence of such a system.

[Carol in Cal.]

]

so how do we help such people? by enabling them with money stolen from other taxpayers? I think the best thing that can be done for such is to cut them loose and make them work or starve.

 

 

this is not something the govt can do anything about.

 

No, you can not mean this.

 

Work or starve? Work or starve?

 

I choose to believe that this is an example of hyperbole, until you tell me otherwise.

[battlemaiden]

 

Do you actually want me to list all the nations? Canada, Switzerland, Germany, Australia, Sweden...and so on? If I do so, that won't really change your opinion will it?:) I appreciate America, too. I would never go so far as to say it "far exceeds most other countries". In my opinion, that reveals a rather narrow view of the world.

 

 

This opens up a question-

 

Since Hans is Swiss, and Switzerland is great, why did you choose to reside and set up "shop" in America?

 

Just curious.

 

Jo

[FlockOfSillies]

Check out these maps: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/05/this-will-be-1-issue-in-2008-election.html

 

Now, those of you dear ladies on the lefter side of the aisle may not appreciate the associated commentary, but really, take a good look at the maps, especially the one that shows where China's drilling. I was completely blown away.

 

I also found some interesting comments from Victor Davis Hanson, one of my favorite brilliant people: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODBmYzE4MDc0YzhhM2MzY2E2YmRlZTg2MTRkZGE1ZGY=

[jacqui in mo]

"This would seem to be an explosive campaign issue (if the candidates disagreed), especially if someone could offer a rough estimate of how many billion barrels of oil are in no-go areas, times them by $120 a barrel, and then compute how many trillions in national wealth we leave untouched while we pay our enemies for the commensurate alternative. I could accept the argument that it will take years to get the oil out of Alaska, the coasts, or other federal lands and therefore is not worth it (the classic argument for stasis), if we could be convinced it will not take even a greater amount of time to get solar and wind technology cheap and efficient enough to produce the bulk of our energy needs.

A postscript: I'm not sure that, ecologically speaking, drilling oil in about 2000 acres in the north of Alaska is all that different from dotting our mountain ridges and coasts (ask the Kennedys et al) with enormous windmills or creating vast acres of solar panels throughout our fragile deserts or covering our roofs with panels and pipes and assorted gadgetry."

:iagree:

 

And as I said before, we still need the oil i& fossil fuel industry in order to continue the research of the alternative resources. Yes we can & should still conserve but I don't think that is enough, especially while the rest of the world continues drilling & apparently right in our back yard. I think we unnecessarily weaken our country.

[Margaret in GA]

OK, I found many, many articles when I googled "rising price of oil due to investor speculation". Here is an excerpt from CNBC.com

 

***"Since the Federal Reserve cut U.S. interest rates in mid-August last year and central banks pumped billions of dollars into financial markets to ease a credit crunch, oil and gold have risen.

 

Investment flows from pension and hedge funds into commodities, including oil, have boomed, as has speculative trading.

 

At the same time, the credit crunch has brought some other markets, such as the U.S. asset-backed commercial paper market, to a virtual standstill.

 

Some of that money has found its way into energy and commodities, analysts say."***

 

I have some things to say about Free Market and this investor speculation speaks to that. You and I are driving the market in ways we don't even know about because of our stock portfolios. Whether you have just a little money in a 401K or you are a big-time player with a huge, diverse portfolio of mutal funds, etc. , you are pushing this market in sometimes perverse ways. Some of you speak about capitalism as an divine system and indeed, I agree, unless we are talking about these huge corporations run by investors like you and me. They have no conscience. These aren't human beings, they are machines run entirely by numbers. Investors pull out when the numbers don't go up. It doesn't matter if they maintain, you and I demand that they continually GO UP. I cannot stand to compare what my husband and I do as small business owners (true free market, capitalism) with what is going on at Exxon or BP. I don't have a team of lobbyists at my disposal creating spin or policy at the government level, for one thing. Nor do I have a group of people I don't even know that will devalue my stock if I have a few unexpected expenses- like paying sick leave for an employee that needs it- that brings my profit down temporarily.

 

Margaret

[Mamagistra]

Some of you speak about capitalism as an divine system and indeed, I agree, unless we are talking about these huge corporations run by investors like you and me. They have no conscience. These aren't human beings, they are machines run entirely by numbers. Investors pull out when the numbers don't go up. It doesn't matter if they maintain, you and I demand that they continually GO UP. I cannot stand to compare what my husband and I do as small business owners (true free market, capitalism) with what is going on at Exxon or BP. I don't have a team of lobbyists at my disposal creating spin or policy at the government level, for one thing. Nor do I have a group of people I don't even know that will devalue my stock if I have a few unexpected expenses- like paying sick leave for an employee that needs it- that brings my profit down temporarily.

 

Right. What you're describing is not capitalism; it's corporate fascism. :glare:

[cornopean]

No, you can not mean this.

 

Work or starve? Work or starve?

 

I choose to believe that this is an example of hyperbole, until you tell me otherwise.

well, of course, the point is that they won't starve. but if make the options work or starve...they will work. that is what Franklin means by driving them out of their poverty NOT making them comfortable in it.

Look what happened when they passed welfare reform;

 

Welfare reform was passed in 1996. When no provision is made for such people, they go out and get a job. that is a plus.

[Carol in Cal.]

well, of course, the point is that they won't starve. but if make the options work or starve...they will work. that is what Franklin means by driving them out of their poverty NOT making them comfortable in it.

Look what happened when they passed welfare reform;

 

Welfare reform was passed in 1996. When no provision is made for such people, they go out and get a job. that is a plus.

 

All that graph proves is that there was a decrease in people on welfare. It does not prove that they got jobs. It does not prove that they are not starving.

 

I know hardworking people who spend their entire paychecks to rent one room for their whole family to live in. They have to get food and clothes from charity. They have NO MARGIN. One thing goes wrong, and they are truly homeless.

 

And do you remember the economic conditions in the late 90s? There were more jobs then and a better economy than since the crash. What has happened to those people now?

 

I think that we need a safety net in this country. I am willing to be taxed for that and also to contribute toward it, because of my Christian faith.

[cornopean]

All that graph proves is that there was a decrease in people on welfare. It does not prove that they got jobs. It does not prove that they are not starving.

well it at least proves that they were providing for themselves in some way. I mean if you aren't getting a govt check, you must be earning a living. what other options are there? at least, we have no reports of widespread starvation in this country. Frankly I don't know of any cases of starvation. most poor people in this nation are obese.

 

 

I know hardworking people who spend their entire paychecks to rent one room for their whole family to live in. They have to get food and clothes from charity. They have NO MARGIN. One thing goes wrong, and they are truly homeless.

These kind of people are rare. for every one of these, there are a hundred who sit on their front porches all day smoking cigarettes all the while collecting hundreds in taxpayer money.

 

 

And do you remember the economic conditions in the late 90s? There were more jobs then and a better economy than since the crash. What has happened to those people now?

what crash are you talking about?

 

 

I think that we need a safety net in this country. I am willing to be taxed for that and also to contribute toward it, because of my Christian faith.

I too want a safety net. but I want a safety net that preserves people from destitution and starvation; not a safety net that makes people comfortable while they are lazy and idle with cable TV and 200 dollar sneakers. and I want a safety net that isn't so crazy difficult to administer. one that doesn't require a massive bureaucracy to keep everything straight.

 

I would suggest a negative income tax or this suggestion from Charles Murray.