Questions that need answering.

[Ramo]

Socialism is not the same thing as "big government spending programs." Fascism (and in general, corporatism) is quite different from socialism.

[Harry Tuttle]

well, ok, if neocon = big govt, big military then what happened during FDR, Truman, and LBJ?

[Dis]

Originally posted by MrFun
1) How long can mass-exportation of jobs continue before American companies have created a long-term economic crisis for United States? Or are we not already in a long-term economic crisis?

Americans will adapt as they always do

2) Why are real wages in United States not keeping pace with cost of living?

We need more unions

3) If we want Americans to stop buying medicine from Canada, then doesn't it make sense to lower medicine prices here in United States?

Drug companies pay off politicians

4) Why are we still in the longest period of political status quo in the history of United States? The last political realignments occured in: 1790s, 1830s, 1860s, 1890s, and finally, 1930s.
The previous political realignments lasted 30 to 40 years -- right now, we are more than 70 years from the last political realignment. Why is this??

I want the whig party to return




Thanks for any meaningful insight, or thoughts on these. [/QUOTE]

[Imran Siddiqui]

We need more unions

No, we need NON-CORRUPT unions .

[Inverse Icarus]

i'll take a stab at #4 by saying that the political machine has gotten too strong and too decadent to allow a major realignment. combine that with increased communication, and the chances grow even smaller.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

We need more unions

No, we need NON-CORRUPT unions .

well that goes without saying. Unions just aren't what they used to be . They started off so well, but many of the largest one's have turned into complete disasters. But I like to think unions still can have some beneficial aspect to them. The one my brother is in, is a sensible union. They don't do unreasonable things.

[Inverse Icarus]

WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Unions just aren't what they used to be . They started off so well, but many of the largest one's have turned into complete disasters. But I like to think unions still can have some beneficial aspect to them.

One of the reasons I dislike unions these days is most of them are run by corrupt bastards. In my work I deal with many people whose unions are stealing their pension money. It's totally ridiculous that these groups are supposed to be working for workers' rights.

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by MrFun
1) How long can mass-exportation of jobs continue before American companies have created a long-term economic crisis for United States? Or are we not already in a long-term economic crisis?

The Asians are filling the menial, cheap-labor jobs, but we're replacing them with high-skills, very technical jobs. This IS a little worrisome, because if you don't have the skills, then you go to a service job, like McDonald's. However, it's only really a motivator to try to expand your brain as much as possible.

3) If we want Americans to stop buying medicine from Canada, then doesn't it make sense to lower medicine prices here in United States?

Do you really think the pharmaceutical companies want to do that? No. Now, count the huge and vast number of Congressmen they own...

4) Why are we still in the longest period of political status quo in the history of United States? The last political realignments occured in: 1790s, 1830s, 1860s, 1890s, and finally, 1930s.
The previous political realignments lasted 30 to 40 years -- right now, we are more than 70 years from the last political realignment. Why is this??

All I can say is, something's ****ed up.

[OzzyKP]

If neo-cons have no domestic policy, then they have no principles, then they have no problem with steel tarriffs to please PA, or a healthcare expansion, or federal funding of schools, or any other politically motivated handout. With no policy they have no ideology to stand on and are exposed to massive, unrestrained PORK.

[Harry Tuttle]

Unions have their uses, but unfortunately there have been to many abuses in the past to make me a supporter. Take for instance the UPS strike a few years back. UPS is chugging along as the top company in their industry. Then their union decides to organize a massive strike for more overtime pay. One year later the company is being usurped by FedEx, UPS' reputation is shot because of shutdowns and late deliveries, thousands of employees had been out of work for a year, and they had to cut back on how many people they could hire because of lost revenue.

How did that help the workers at the company?

Another one: The Teamsters like to think of themselves as bigshots, so they try to "bargain" with small/medium size business for more pay for their members. So they tend to drop threats, muscle themselves into a company, and then decide they want a part in running things. Unfortunately for their members this only has them working longer hours with a nominal bonus in pay because the company cannot afford to expand their workforce. Thye tried to do it at my father's job.

Now yes, in the face of the extremely greedy boss unions do help the average worker by fighting the slave driver upstairs, but quite frankly that rarely happens in most jobs in the U.S. or (stop me if I'm wrong) Europe anymore. There are so many laws relating to employment that trying to screw over your employees just doesn't end up as being advantageous.

To quote Imran:

"One of the reasons I dislike unions these days is most of them are run by corrupt bastards. In my work I deal with many people whose unions are stealing their pension money. It's totally ridiculous that these groups are supposed to be working for workers' rights."

Union leaders have to be the most corrupt bastards I have seen. They are supposed to do everything they can for their members but all to often there is abuse of power. Remember, there is no regulatory committee minding the union bosses like there is in Congress. I think the argument for unions is extremely flawed considering the reality we live in today.

[Az]

Fascism (and in general, corporatism) is quite different from socialism.

define 'corporatism'.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ramo


You missed '68. The South used to be Democratic, remember?

I forgot 1960s.

[MrFun]

But wait a minute now -- if many white Souterners felt betrayed by the Democratic platform for racial equality in 1948 so much that they bolted with their failed Dixiecratic party, then after that fallout, went to the Republican party, then this happened BEFORE the 1960s.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle

2) They are. Stop buying a bunch of crap. Your parents made do with a black and white TV (even that might be a stretch) and a crappy refrigerator. No one spent money on $200 game consoles back in the "good old days". Time magazine had an article last month that explained how are perception is warped because we actually live better, on a whole, than we did in the past.

Interesting. I was talking with my dad about his high school days. He grew up in rural Oregon, and got a job in 1954 installing televisions and antennae. This was no small task either, as the nearest station (VHF) was miles away so the antennae were large like one of those expensive ham radio antenna. We figured out that each of these sets cost the purchaser about $4000 in today's dollars. All for one crappy VHF station that probably had programming for about 12 hours a day.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Unions have their uses, but unfortunately there have been to many abuses in the past to make me a supporter. Take for instance the UPS strike a few years back. UPS is chugging along as the top company in their industry. Then their union decides to organize a massive strike for more overtime pay. One year later the company is being usurped by FedEx, UPS' reputation is shot because of shutdowns and late deliveries, thousands of employees had been out of work for a year, and they had to cut back on how many people they could hire because of lost revenue.

How did that help the workers at the company?

Another one: The Teamsters like to think of themselves as bigshots, so they try to "bargain" with small/medium size business for more pay for their members. So they tend to drop threats, muscle themselves into a company, and then decide they want a part in running things. Unfortunately for their members this only has them working longer hours with a nominal bonus in pay because the company cannot afford to expand their workforce. Thye tried to do it at my father's job.

Now yes, in the face of the extremely greedy boss unions do help the average worker by fighting the slave driver upstairs, but quite frankly that rarely happens in most jobs in the U.S. or (stop me if I'm wrong) Europe anymore. There are so many laws relating to employment that trying to screw over your employees just doesn't end up as being advantageous.

To quote Imran:

"One of the reasons I dislike unions these days is most of them are run by corrupt bastards. In my work I deal with many people whose unions are stealing their pension money. It's totally ridiculous that these groups are supposed to be working for workers' rights."

Union leaders have to be the most corrupt bastards I have seen. They are supposed to do everything they can for their members but all to often there is abuse of power. Remember, there is no regulatory committee minding the union bosses like there is in Congress. I think the argument for unions is extremely flawed considering the reality we live in today.

I spent my formative years in Michigan where between the a$$holes in the union and the a$$holes running the companies they managed to permanently destroy the auto industry in the area. Both the car companies and the unions still exist, but the plants and jobs are long gone. Kind of the worst of both worlds really.

I think the largest problem with the union model is that it seeks to become a monopoly in its market area as opposed to embracing capitalism and becoming a corporation that supplies workers to other corporations. With the conflict model unions became the enemies of the the source of their livelihood, as opposed to partners in a competitive world. This destroyed the power of many unions in the U.S. and made them a marginal force in this country.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
3) Yeah it does make sense to lower prices in the states. Maybe it's more expensive in the states to make the medicine and the Canadians can make it cheaper therefore sell it cheaper. You could either lower prices or make it illegal to buy medicine in canada, both would work

It's cheaper here because we have laws limiting the amount drug manufacturers can charge.

[MrFun]

KH -- we don't have that kind of common sense among many of our political leaders here, I'm afraid.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If neo-cons have no domestic policy, then they have no principles, then they have no problem with steel tarriffs to please PA, or a healthcare expansion, or federal funding of schools, or any other politically motivated handout. With no policy they have no ideology to stand on and are exposed to massive, unrestrained PORK.

There is only one neo-con policy, often refered to as 'Hard Wilsonianism'. It is basically to use force to spread democracy and Western values. Wilsonianism but with muscle behind it.

Neo-cons can embrace a series of different domestic ideologies (and they do), but all it is a foreign policy and that is it. What its members choose to do in the domestic sphere is none of its business.

They have plenty of ideology, it is only limited to the foreign sphere. Domestically its members can believe what they like.

Just because you close your eyes to it, doesn't mean we don't believe in things .

Remember, there is no regulatory committee minding the union bosses like there is in Congress.

The NLRB is supposed to help in this, but they are useless for the most part. They won't help in disputes between the union and its members.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Sikander


Interesting. I was talking with my dad about his high school days. He grew up in rural Oregon, and got a job in 1954 installing televisions and antennae. This was no small task either, as the nearest station (VHF) was miles away so the antennae were large like one of those expensive ham radio antenna. We figured out that each of these sets cost the purchaser about $4000 in today's dollars. All for one crappy VHF station that probably had programming for about 12 hours a day.

Well do you mean:

1) that you think that people used to spend a lot of money on luxury goods (ie higher cost of living than today)

2) or that the wages of today are meeting our cost of living (ie BW TV cost the same relative to a Plasma TV today?)

3) or that more people bought TV's at a lower relative price back then (meaning we had a lower cost of living back then).

My opinion is that today wages are outpacing our cost of living. Today we can buy a TV, Xbox, car, fridge, and a computer whereas back then a tv, fridge, and car was the norm. Or maybe we just have a wider variety today. But then, if we have a wider variety doesn't that equate to a higher standard of living?

And yeah, I have to say that the only Michael Moore documentary I liked and actually believed was totally fair to both automaker and employee was the one he did on Flint Michigan. The people got screwed, plain and simple.

Not like I'm an activist though. My Ford was made in Mexico, by good hardworking Mexicans.