Politics

[MJ12666]

I"m not sure if we are talking about the same book but I intend to order Nader's book the "Left Right Alliance in Dismantling the Corporate State" or something along those lines. Nader was promoting on the radio, I like the themes the book.supposedly tries to address. I am looking forward to reading it.

May I suggest you read "Animal Farm" instead. Great book and Nader would have been exactly like Napoleon had he every been elected president.

 

[connor_in]

Tough call. Governments that seem more interested in raising corporate profits than the standard of living for its citizens. Little concern for the environment. Capital punishment. Little patience for other ideas. Low wage jobs aplenty. Do I have to decide now?

Please tell me you are being facetious, snarky, ironic, sarcastic, etc.

 

[GoIrish41]

Please tell me you are being facetious, snarky, ironic, sarcastic, etc.

Only half kidding really. When someone asks if you would rathe eat a booger or a turd there should be a third choice ... neither.

 

[connor_in]

Only half kidding really. When someone asks if you would rathe eat a booger or a turd there should be a third choice ... neither.

Never play this game...

Amazon.com: Zobmondo!! Would You Rather? Boardgame - Classic Version: Toys & Games

 

[Whiskeyjack]

May I suggest you read "Animal Farm" instead. Great book and Nader would have been exactly like Napoleon had he every been elected president.

Animal Farm is a critique of Soviet Communism (Napolean is Orwell's caricature of Stalin). You think Nader is a Communist?

 

[BobD]

Are you a betting man......or woman

2016 Presidential Election Odds | Next US President | Oddschecker

 

[connor_in]

Are you a betting man......or woman

2016 Presidential Election Odds | Next US President | Oddschecker

What?!?!?!!! You got something against transgender gambling?

 

[MJ12666]

Animal Farm is a critique of Soviet Communism (Napolean is Orwell's caricature of Stalin). You think Nader is a Communist?

No but Nader had his time to shine about 20-30 years ago, and at this point in his life he to me does not appear to be in full control of his faculties (at least in my opinion) so I see no particular reason to pay to read anything he has to say. I actually know what Animal Farm was based on and my reference to Napolean was a tab sarcastic in nature, but I do believe that "Chicago" would benefit much more from reading Animal Farm then anything Ralph Nader has written or he would probably find Lynn Cheney's book on Monroe also more illuminating considering his interest in our "Founding Fathers".

 

[ACamp1900]

Y'all need Jesus

 

[Whiskeyjack]

No but Nader had his time to shine about 20-30 years ago, and at this point in his life he to me does not appear to be in full control of his faculties (at least in my opinion) so I see no particular reason to pay to read anything he has to say.

I'm not very familiar with his views as he's always been a marginal political figure and I never went out of my way to learn about him. I enjoyed the excerpt from his upcoming book linked above, but this take is at least defensible based on what I know of Nader.

I actually know what Animal Farm was based on and my reference to Napolean was a tab sarcastic in nature, but I do believe that "Chicago" would benefit much more from reading Animal Farm then anything Ralph Nader has written or he would probably find Lynn Cheney's book on Monroe also more illuminating considering his interest in our "Founding Fathers".

How was chicago supposed to divine all that from a snide comment comparing Nader to a cartoonish Stalin?

 

[connor_in]

Federal Judge Rejects State Election Law, Puts John Conyers Back on Primary Ballot

This election year, Democrat and longtime Congressman John Conyers did not satisfy Michigan election law by getting enough valid signatures on his nomination petitions, so the state ruled he did not qualify for the ballot. Now a federal judge has vacated the state's decision and put Conyers back on the ballot.

 

[Bluto]

Ralph Nader deserves a medal for all he has done for this country. He is the epitome of the civically engaged citizen who put it all one the line to make this country a better place.

 

[Redbar]

I also know what these guys make down here (non-union jobs) and even adjusted for the cost of living (which is much less than Chicago) is around $12/hour which is about $25k/year before taxes.That is just above a 3-person family poverty level. I appreciate being assessed as a fair poster and I do my best to look at as many perspectives as I can.

The point of my post was that this company came in and hamfisted our state government to get the best deal they could while touting they were going to bring "high paying" jobs. Well our government gave them everything and more and this company has only created about 1,200 permanent jobs with an average pay rate of $12/hour. They moved existing workers from out of state to here to fill the majority of jobs. People applying for the jobs are told they will make a pay rate of about $25/hour. During the training they agree to get paid $9/hour through the training while being told to expect $25/hour (which are rates they pay other people, just not here). So when you get done with training after 6 months you are sent to the assembly lines and in fact do not get the "high paying" job you were told but a much less paying job.

I also am tired of people thinking that they should be paid more than they are worth, but what is it worth to subsidize a companies profits? This is what we are doing when we allow a company to pay workers shit wages who then need assistance to make ends meet. And I know many more people who struggle to do this than a random 28 year old single person with a new hog.

A single Wal-mart store costs taxpayers $900k to subsidize their lowly-paid workers. Its a viscous cycle that needs to be addressed on both sides. So in reality not only do we subsidize workers who do not earn enough but we also subsidize the companies that pay these low wages so they can make a profit. Its welfare all around except for you and me.

I was in our local Sam's store and happened to talk to one of the store managers, I realized they were a little slow and asked if the new Costco had effected their store traffic. He told me that it had not effected it other than a lot of his employees wanted the higher paying jobs that Costco offered. He then went on to say that they are always slower in the second half of the month after people had run through their food stamps. It occurred to me that if we were to stop this "family assistance", "people" like Wal Mart, AT&T your local grocer would probably squawk as loud as anyone. Welfare may sustain the poor but it enriches the wealthy. So who is really benefitting from the welfare system?

 

[autry_denson]

edit: never mind, it was incoherent. Carry on.

 

[BobD]

Via the communist state. Would you and BobD rather live in China or Texas?

Politics aside.......hmmmm.

 

[chicago51]

Ralph Nader would be consider a liberal politician for sure but from what I've seen and heard his book looks at themes from both the left and the right regarding corporatism.

I think most people here agree corporatism sucks. Granted we have a few corporatists on this board that claim to be "conservatives". You guys can call yourselves what you want but clearly everything is Fox News corporate kiss up points of view.

I do appreciated the conservative points of view of a lot of folks here, Whisky, Buster, etc. I may disagree with you guys on the level of federal action that is appropriate regarding single payer health care and some other areas at times, but I have a lot of respects for you guys and there is a lot we agree on including that corporatism sucks.

I by no means consider myself to be a conservative but in some respects I am more conservative in a lot of areas than some the supposedly conservatives which are really neo liberals. A lot of things like war spending, prison sentencing, coporate subsidies I am very conservative on as I think we should cut the role of federal government in a lot of areas.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Politics aside.......hmmmm.

Politics aside...Houston, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio. I'm not dumb enough to post a picture of Compton on here and try to paint the whole state of CA like that.

 

[BobD]

Politics aside...Houston, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio. I'm not dumb enough to post a picture of Compton on here and try to paint the whole state of CA like that.

Generalizing can be fun. Pull your panties outta that bunch.

 

[BobD]

Politics aside...Houston, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio. I'm not dumb enough to post a picture of Compton on here and try to paint the whole state of CA like that.

BTW my condolences for your Tea Party. May they RIP.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

BTW my condolences for your Tea Party. May they RIP.

See you in November. In the meantime feel free to take McCain or McConnell. We true conservatives are done with 'em.

 

[Rizzophil]

Federal Judge Rejects State Election Law, Puts John Conyers Back on Primary Ballot

Judicial activism is alive and well. All of the moral firewalls have been busted

 

[connor_in]

George Will: The 2016 presidential candidate we need - The Washington Post


They Had a Dream | The Weekly Standard

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

95% of the time I can't stand Stephen A Smith. Today, I like him a lot. Good for him.

Stephen A. Smith: Not Every Single Issue Is About Race | Video | RealClearPolitics

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

LOL. No they are anti-growth.

In regards to China, I'll side with Mark Steyn. LOL...

'China is now the second-biggest economy on the planet, but it has immense structural problems: As I’ve been saying for years, it will get old before it gets rich. Thanks to its grotesque “one-child” policy, it has the most male-heavy demographic cohort in history — no chicks and millions of guys who can’t get any action, which is not normally a recipe for social stability."

 

[MJ12666]

I'm not very familiar with his views as he's always been a marginal political figure and I never went out of my way to learn about him. I enjoyed the excerpt from his upcoming book linked above, but this take is at least defensible based on what I know of Nader.



How was chicago supposed to divine all that from a snide comment comparing Nader to a cartoonish Stalin?

Okay I apologize and I will refrain from including any snide remarks in any post going forward. I should not have done so. Bad habit when I get annoyed. However, I still think an individual like Chicago would benefit much more from reading Animal Farm than a book written by Ralph Nader; and even though Animal Farm was written with Stalin in mind, the theme can easily be applied to our current government.

The problem with individuals like Chicago (who seems to be a nice guy) is that they lack the knowledge in certain subjects and take the easy way and simply find literature that confirms their preconceived notions. For example, a couple of months ago Chicago found an article written by an obscure journalist claiming that speculators trading futures contracts were driving up the price of the underlying commodity and profiting from this. I explained to Chicago what this was not possible but it did not matter since the author's conclusion matched is own and therefore the author must be correct even though it was clear that the author had no idea what futures are used for; but what was really humorous was that even in the article the author made reference to a quote from an individual heading up a UN agency no less, who stated that futures speculators had no impact on the price of the underlying commodity. This opinion was summarily dismissed by both the author and Chicago.

Then more recently, Chicago concludes that ATT buying Direct TV is somehow going to create a monopoly in the US telecommunication industry. Question, what telecommunication services does Direct TV provide? Answer: none. As a matter a fact ATT already has an agreement with Direct TV to provide TV service to ATT customers who do not have U-verse service but want a bundled package of phone, internet and TV. Therefore ATT buying Direct TV will have no impact on telecommunication pricing. My quess is that ATT wants access to Direct TV's NFL "Sunday Ticket" package. If they can renew the contract with the NFL they can probably offer the package to their existing U-verse customers and probably increase their U-verse subscriber base with this option. But why let facts get in the way. Chicago found some article written by some college professor who ranted about the lack of access and high prices in the US related to high speed internet and other telecommunication and TV services. And which country did the professor used in comparison to the US to justify his conclusions? France of course. I quess it doesn't matter that France has population density ratio of a little less then 4x's the ratio of the US making this like comparing apples and oranges. But why do a little research when you can find gibberish to confirm your preconceived notion that corporations are simply in business to screw you.

That is why Chicago in my opinion would benefit from reading Animal Farm (assuming he has not read it already) then Ralph Nader. He seems to not really want to research an issue that he does not understand and will stop when he finds any piece that agrees with his own preconceived notions. Anyway, that is all I have to say on this issue.

However, I have a question for you. You seem interested and knowledgeable with regard to classical economic theories. I am curious if you know anything about Joseph Schumpeter? If not don't worry about it is is not that important. If you are familiar with Mr. Schumpeter I am curious about how you feel about his views that equilibrium is not the normal state of the economy?

 

[EddytoNow]

Judicial activism is alive and well. All of the moral firewalls have been busted

The facts are that Conyers (a Democrat) had more than enough valid signatures to place his name on the ballot. His name was going to be omitted from the ballot (by a Republican) in favor of a weaker Democratic challenger, because one or more of the signature gatherers was not a registered voter. So it seems the judicial decision was to allow the will of the people to supersede a technicality that would have denied Conyers a place on the ballot. I, for one, don't see how that qualifies as busting a moral firewall. If anything, it is honoring the will of the people, letting them have the option of voting for a candidate of their choice. Letting the voters decide seems more morally righteous than denying them the right to vote for a candidate by keeping his name from being printed on the ballot. Let the voters decide, not the politicians.

 

[RDU Irish]

https://www.youtube.com/embed/rKsW6c_CgFY?feature=player_detailpage

Day late, but good stuff.

 

[RDU Irish]

See you in November. In the meantime feel free to take McCain or McConnell. We true conservatives are done with 'em.

Or? Take both.

 

[Cackalacky]

In regards to China, I'll side with Mark Steyn. LOL...

'China is now the second-biggest economy on the planet, but it has immense structural problems: As I’ve been saying for years, it will get old before it gets rich. Thanks to its grotesque “one-child” policy, it has the most male-heavy demographic cohort in history — no chicks and millions of guys who can’t get any action, which is not normally a recipe for social stability."

Of course my images were facetious. Mr. Steyn's view of growth is equally as shortsighted a view of "growth as it really only equates getting rich with success. I tend to view it another way, or better yet, in multiple ways.

China's biggest problem will be the damage it inflicts to the environment before its population gets old.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I appreciate the thoughtful response:

I still think an individual like Chicago would benefit much more from reading Animal Farm than a book written by Ralph Nader;

Chicago and I are pretty far apart on a lot of political issues, but we both agree that crony capitalism is a serious problem. That's the subject of Nader's book, which we both expressed some interest in. But you dismissed the book immediately based on its author, and instead recommended that a "silly liberal" like chicago would do better reading an allegorical criticism of Soviet Communism. Doesn't that seem a bit condescending?

[A]nd even though Animal Farm was written with Stalin in mind, the theme can easily be applied to our current government.

Really? Once one starts making comparisons to extremist ideologies (fascism, communism, etc.), the prospect for meaningful dialogue goes out the window. And I would argue that uniformity of political philosophy--shared across both parties-- is a much bigger problem in America than extremism.

The problem with individuals like Chicago (who seems to be a nice guy) is that they lack the knowledge in certain subjects and take the easy way and simply find literature that confirms their preconceived notions. For example, a couple of months ago Chicago found an article written by an obscure journalist claiming that speculators trading futures contracts were driving up the price of the underlying commodity and profiting from this. I explained to Chicago what this was not possible but it did not matter since the author's conclusion matched is own and therefore the author must be correct even though it was clear that the author had no idea what futures are used for; but what was really humorous was that even in the article the author made reference to a quote from an individual heading up a UN agency no less, who stated that futures speculators had no impact on the price of the underlying commodity. This opinion was summarily dismissed by both the author and Chicago.

We're all guilty of this to varying extents, which is one reason why it's good to have civil discussions about controversial topics here. And to chicago's credit, his posting has indicated a consistent willingness to adapt his political views in response to strong arguments or evidence to the contrary. Now he knows more about futures contracts; but does that single misinformed article invalidate his underlying concerns about corporatism? Absolutely not.

Then more recently, Chicago concludes that ATT buying Direct TV is somehow going to create a monopoly in the US telecommunication industry. Question, what telecommunication services does Direct TV provide? Answer: none. As a matter a fact ATT already has an agreement with Direct TV to provide TV service to ATT customers who do not have U-verse service but want a bundled package of phone, internet and TV. Therefore ATT buying Direct TV will have no impact on telecommunication pricing. My quess is that ATT wants access to Direct TV's NFL "Sunday Ticket" package. If they can renew the contract with the NFL they can probably offer the package to their existing U-verse customers and probably increase their U-verse subscriber base with this option. But why let facts get in the way. Chicago found some article written by some college professor who ranted about the lack of access and high prices in the US related to high speed internet and other telecommunication and TV services. And which country did the professor used in comparison to the US to justify his conclusions? France of course. I quess it doesn't matter that France has population density ratio of a little less then 4x's the ratio of the US making this like comparing apples and oranges. But why do a little research when you can find gibberish to confirm your preconceived notion that corporations are simply in business to screw you.

There is ample evidence to support the contentions that: (1) the Antitrust Division isn't looking out for Joe Consumer; and (2) America's telecom giants are lobbying hard for the right to extract rents from Americans instead of providing the sort of infrastructure improvements that they've been promising for decades. I agree that AT&T's purchase of DirecTV doesn't have monopoly implications, but just because chicago linked to a dubious article doesn't mean that he (or his arguments) should be categorically dismissed as misinformed.

That is why Chicago in my opinion would benefit from reading Animal Farm (assuming he has not read it already) then Ralph Nader. He seems to not really want to research an issue that he does not understand and will stop when he finds any piece that agrees with his own preconceived notions. Anyway, that is all I have to say on this issue.

Animal Farm is a classic, and should be read for its own artistic merits. But how are chicago's politics going to be improved by reading it? I can't recall him ever recommending communistic policies, so I doubt he'd find much to disagree with there. In fact, the vast majority of people on the American left have no problem condemning communism, just as those on the right have no issue denouncing fascism.

However, I have a question for you. You seem interested and knowledgeable with regard to classical economic theories. I am curious if you know anything about Joseph Schumpeter? If not don't worry about it is is not that important. If you are familiar with Mr. Schumpeter I am curious about how you feel about his views that equilibrium is not the normal state of the economy?

I'm not sure how to gauge my relative knowledge of economics. I didn't major in it, but I took a handful of econ courses as electives during undergrad and law school, have had a subscription to The Economist since high school, etc. So, maybe I'm conversant? Definitely not an expert.

Yes, I'm familiar with Schumpeter (The Economist runs a column named after him), and as a general rule, the Austrian School is intuitively more appealing to me than the Modern, but I'd be in over my head if I tried to take a position on the chief disagreements between them. Regardless, I'm increasingly coming around to the view that it's absurd to treat this most miserable of subjects as a hard science, since it's all contingent on very complex (and still poorly understood) human behaviors:

(Economists would be even further to the left than the Sociologist).

And both schools are very liberal in their philosophy-- they assume that humans are autonomous individuals who interact with each other on a mostly contractual basis, and that "the market" is a pre-existing force of nature that humans discover, rather than a social construct whose contours are defined by the rules and norms that govern it. I disagree strongly with both of those premises, and I think our tendency to analyze everything in economic terms is a symptom of something that is profoundly wrong with modern society.

But I've gotten ahead of myself.