Fixing the Ghetto

[dhickey]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I’m not quite sure how dhicky gets into these discussions about economics text books in every thread, but that’s not the answer. In the best of times and in the worst of times, there’s ghettos, so that doesn’t make sense to me.
[/quote]
The more prosperous the society the more opportunities for everyone. How are the poor provided for in our country compared to third world countries?

Some people will always have more or less compared to others. The real value is in making sure everyone has more, not that everyone has the same.

Figure out how to improve the economy as a whole and the people as a whole will be better off. Focusing on specific people and specific jobs is centralized planning. This has never worked.

These are undenyable economic truths. If you chose not to think through this with logic and reason, I don’t know what to tell you.

[dhickey]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I’ve always wondered why, if the left can see very costly and counterproductive consequences stemming from the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, why can they not see the same with the War on Poverty?

[/quote]

Intellectually dishonest
Intellectually lazy

Pick one.

[Cockney_Blue]

I agree that some drugs are simply too dangerous to have around and promote their use. Nicotine and Alcohol. Crack, Heroin and Meth are way less of a problem.

I say legalise and tax the lot, control supply, control where people can use, cut out the profits for the criminals.

Now use your supply as a method of education (same as they do with tobacco and alcohol.) way less people smoke these days than 20-30 years ago, this is not because cigs are banned, it’s because they become socially unacceptable to large groups of people.

Yes people will still use, yes some people will still be fuck ups but at least criminals are not profiting from it in the US. Ideally, Mexico, Columbia etc would nationalise their drugs production and churn the profits into education and health for the poor in their countries.

Now in the US you can invest lots of money saved on fighting the war on drugs into education and healthcare giving the youngsters in the Ghetto a much better chance of getting a decent job (even if it is in the Crack packaging plant.)

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I agree that some drugs are simply too dangerous to have around and promote their use. Nicotine and Alcohol. Crack, Heroin and Meth are way less of a problem.

No. Alcohol and nicotine are certainly dangerous and addicting, but neither of them makes someone uncontrollably, dangerously addicted to the point where they will rob, steal, cheat, or kill others because they can’t have it.

Comparing a drunk to someone on meth is like comparing a .22 to freight train.
[/quote]
People kill themselves and other people due to drink far more often than this happens due to Crack or Meth (I know that more people drink so the figures are skewed but to say it doesn’t happen is ignoring the facts.)

Nicotine is horrifically addictive and far more dangerous than smoking Pot or Opium.

[quote]

I say legalise and tax the lot, control supply, control where people can use, cut out the profits for the criminals.

Now use your supply as a method of education (same as they do with tobacco and alcohol.) way less people smoke these days than 20-30 years ago, this is not because cigs are banned, it’s because they become socially unacceptable to large groups of people.

Sounds nice. But how the hell are you going to not condone it to children when its sold in stores?

Most people try cigarettes at least once in their lives. Far more drink from time to time. You gonna put heroin up there, “Hey give it a shot, you’ll be cool?”

most people also smoke a joint so prohibition evidently doesn’t work. Most people don’t take crack not because it is illegal but because they have seen a crack head.

Yes people will still use, yes some people will still be fuck ups but at least criminals are not profiting from it in the US. Ideally, Mexico, Columbia etc would nationalise their drugs production and churn the profits into education and health for the poor in their countries.

Not for nothin, but this is completely irrational. The government in Mexico can’t do anything about the drugs. Columbia is in a similar situation. The drug lords ain’t gonna just hand over the keys and say, “I’ve made my money, you take it for a ride.”

Yes it would be difficult but there is no way than it would be more difficult than stopping the traffic at the moment. If the government could send good quality coke to the US at a far lower rate than the current street price then the drug barrons would take a huge hit in the pocket.

This would be far more damaging than the current situation where the government stops maybe 10% of drugs that are being shipped into the US.

Now in the US you can invest lots of money saved on fighting the war on drugs into education and healthcare giving the youngsters in the Ghetto a much better chance of getting a decent job (even if it is in the Crack packaging plant.)

I think that the thing, the worst thing, is the drugs. But I don’t believe that legalizing them will solve it.

Unless I heard a better way of doing it

I think the worst thing is the crime related to the drugs. Most of that crime is caused by the fact that the drugs are illegal. Yes there would still be drugs smuggling to try to avoid taxation (same as happens with booze and cigs now) but there would be far less money in it for the criminals.

[pittbulll]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
That Idiot was Ronald Reagan; he was the biggest enemy of the working class back in the 80’s.The steel valley still has not recovered from Reagan

Dude. Get over the steel valley. So we put tarrifs on all steel coming into this country just to save the steel valley. How many industries will no longer be able to compete in the world market for finished steel goods? I guess they can all shut down and move over seas as long as the fucking steel valley is ok.[/quote]

All I can chalk your statement up to is the lack of knowledge Reagan made an assault on the working class that was equivalent to what we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, You need to spend some time in N.E. Ohio, Western Pa. parts of Illinois, Indiana and Michigan to wonder what happened to this place .All so the America could buy cheap foreign steel. Please explain the benefit America gained ?

[pittbulll]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Who is receiving more of what from whom?

if you are talking about individuals…it depends.

if you are talking about some group of people that participate in various industries…those with no trade restrictions.

If we are talking about net benefit, the only beneficial application of trade restrictions would be with those that hostile. This decision would be tacticle not stratigic.

"You do understand in the this example we are getting more from China then we are giving in return. "

What more are we getting, other than a huge hole in our manufacturing base and a boat load of tainted products. China is walking away with a lot of American dollars, is that what you are talking about?

All you have to do is try just a little bit. What can they do with American dollars? Those dollars have to be spent in America eventually. It would be silly not to get as much in return for them. So we get a bunch of goods that we wouldn’t have had for the same amount domestically. They then have to spend or invest those dollars here, creating jobs in areas we are actually competitive in.

We need manufacturing jobs like we need wagon and buggy manufactures. The specific job matter little. What matters is that we get as much for our dollar and that jobs are created overall.

We need manufacturing jobs, back in the old Steel Valley, now referred as the rust belt; you have a whole generation of young men that never had a job that could support themselves let alone a family. This area used to be strong middle class, everybody had a job, and it is poor now
Your opinion that America does not need manufacturing boggles my mind. We do not need many buggy or whip factories, but we need a numerous other manufactured goods. We need more jobs than we have to do them

We need jobs. This we can agree on. The type of job matters little. We need people to have the oportunity to earn a livable wage. The inuits in Alaska don’t have manufacturing. Bahrain (sp?) doesn’t have manufacturing. You need to get over this.

Now, how do we compete for jobs? How do we get investment and companies to come here?

High corporate tax, or no corporate tax?

Artificially high cost of goods, or world price for goods?

Restictive labor laws, or freedom of association?

Huge Bureaucracies sucking capital, or keeping capital in the market?

Irrational monetary policy, or sane policy that allows speculation of return on investment?

People spending more money on few goods and services, or people having a surplus after purchasing these same goods and services?

As soon as well all understand that we are competing for jobs and investment, the solutions become very clear. If accept that gov’t can create or legislate jobs, we are in trouble.[/quote]

In a couple words , what type of jobs was that? Not how do we build Dickeyville

[pittbulll]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
What jobs do you recommend to have a reemergence of the middle class?

Why do you think the middle class has gone anywhere. Time to start thinking for yourself. Like a big boy.[/quote]

I find irony in the fact you can speak down to anybody. It is amusing

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
That Idiot was Ronald Reagan; he was the biggest enemy of the working class back in the 80’s.The steel valley still has not recovered from Reagan

Dude. Get over the steel valley. So we put tarrifs on all steel coming into this country just to save the steel valley. How many industries will no longer be able to compete in the world market for finished steel goods? I guess they can all shut down and move over seas as long as the fucking steel valley is ok.

All I can chalk your statement up to is the lack of knowledge Reagan made an assault on the working class that was equivalent to what we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, You need to spend some time in N.E. Ohio, Western Pa. parts of Illinois, Indiana and Michigan to wonder what happened to this place .All so the America could buy cheap foreign steel. Please explain the benefit America gained ?
[/quote]

He was hand in hand with Thatcher who was doing the same to Miners in the UK.

Arguably the UK has gained by moving away from coal fired central heating improving the air quality in the country and also by starting the process of breaking the reliance on dead or dying industries.

[pittbulll]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
That Idiot was Ronald Reagan; he was the biggest enemy of the working class back in the 80’s.The steel valley still has not recovered from Reagan

Dude. Get over the steel valley. So we put tarrifs on all steel coming into this country just to save the steel valley. How many industries will no longer be able to compete in the world market for finished steel goods? I guess they can all shut down and move over seas as long as the fucking steel valley is ok.

All I can chalk your statement up to is the lack of knowledge Reagan made an assault on the working class that was equivalent to what we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, You need to spend some time in N.E. Ohio, Western Pa. parts of Illinois, Indiana and Michigan to wonder what happened to this place .All so the America could buy cheap foreign steel. Please explain the benefit America gained ?

He was hand in hand with Thatcher who was doing the same to Miners in the UK.

Arguably the UK has gained by moving away from coal fired central heating improving the air quality in the country and also by starting the process of breaking the reliance on dead or dying industries.[/quote]

I was in the Mills when Reagan opened the doors on foreign imports; the government said there was going to be all kinds of retraining and free education. I waited until it was move under a bridge or move out of state.

The problem is they have not replaced the steel industry in that area. I will say Pittsburg has made excellent progress. But they were getting out of steel before the shit hit the fan.

There is a whole generation of young uneducated men that has never had a job good enough to raise a family. Call them lazy if you want, the education system is still producing steel workers and there are no jobs

For some reason the girls seem more motivated .

[Cockney_Blue]

this is similar to what happened in the UK, the education system needs to be linked in to producing the people that are needed.

In the UK they had the combined issue that shortly afterwards most technical colleges were given university status, this left a huge number of over educated under skilled people having their raised expectations shattered.

[dhickey]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

All so the America could buy cheap foreign steel. Please explain the benefit America gained ?
[/quote]

I already explained it. If you chose not to listen or exercize the part of your brain responsible for logic and reason, I can’t help you.

[orion]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

All I can chalk your statement up to is the lack of knowledge Reagan made an assault on the working class that was equivalent to what we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, You need to spend some time in N.E. Ohio, Western Pa. parts of Illinois, Indiana and Michigan to wonder what happened to this place .All so the America could buy cheap foreign steel. Please explain the benefit America gained ?
[/quote]

Cheap foreign steel.

[pittbulll]

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

All I can chalk your statement up to is the lack of knowledge Reagan made an assault on the working class that was equivalent to what we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, You need to spend some time in N.E. Ohio, Western Pa. parts of Illinois, Indiana and Michigan to wonder what happened to this place .All so the America could buy cheap foreign steel. Please explain the benefit America gained ?

Cheap foreign steel.

[/quote]

Cheaper

[orion]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

All I can chalk your statement up to is the lack of knowledge Reagan made an assault on the working class that was equivalent to what we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, You need to spend some time in N.E. Ohio, Western Pa. parts of Illinois, Indiana and Michigan to wonder what happened to this place .All so the America could buy cheap foreign steel. Please explain the benefit America gained ?

Cheap foreign steel.

Cheaper[/quote]

So there, there is your benefit.

Why would any American building company have to pay more for steel, just that a few steel workers keep their jobs?

Those jobs would be lost elsewhere in construction, because less gets built.

[pittbulll]

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

All I can chalk your statement up to is the lack of knowledge Reagan made an assault on the working class that was equivalent to what we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, You need to spend some time in N.E. Ohio, Western Pa. parts of Illinois, Indiana and Michigan to wonder what happened to this place .All so the America could buy cheap foreign steel. Please explain the benefit America gained ?

Cheap foreign steel.

Cheaper

So there, there is your benefit.

Why would any American building company have to pay more for steel, just that a few steel workers keep their jobs?

Those jobs would be lost elsewhere in construction, because less gets built.

[/quote]

You do not think it short sighted to open the doors to companies that do not have to deal with EPA, Unions, Health Insurance, Pensions and the list goes on. It went to some steel mill that has a terrible environmental, that totally exploited their workers no benefits for workers only profit for owners. Do you think America should compete with that?

I think the free market ideology is something the wealthy are pushing to create a wealthy ruling class, with serfdom.

So the Builders got a short lived profit until they put the American Industry out of business. Then they could raise their price because there is little competition

[orion]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

All I can chalk your statement up to is the lack of knowledge Reagan made an assault on the working class that was equivalent to what we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, You need to spend some time in N.E. Ohio, Western Pa. parts of Illinois, Indiana and Michigan to wonder what happened to this place .All so the America could buy cheap foreign steel. Please explain the benefit America gained ?

Cheap foreign steel.

Cheaper

So there, there is your benefit.

Why would any American building company have to pay more for steel, just that a few steel workers keep their jobs?

Those jobs would be lost elsewhere in construction, because less gets built.

You do not think it short sighted to open the doors to companies that do not have to deal with EPA, Unions, Health Insurance, Pensions and the list goes on. It went to some steel mill that has a terrible environmental, that totally exploited their workers no benefits for workers only profit for owners. Do you think America should compete with that?

I think the free market ideology is something the wealthy are pushing to create a wealthy ruling class, with serfdom.

So the Builders got a short lived profit until they put the American Industry out of business. Then they could raise their price because there is little competition

[/quote]

First of all, American steel mills got raped by European steel mills who probably have to deal with more laws than American companies.

Then, the liberal idea of free trade first opposed corn tariffs in England that had the same effects as any other tariff, they made bread expensive, hurt the poor people and made a few landlords rich, so no, the idea of free trade and classic liberalism always was to help the little guy.

That the little guy usually is too shortsighted to get this and votes for the very restrictions that cost him is a tragedy and enough to make any libertarian entrepreneur just a tad cynical.

[pittbulll]

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Cheaper

First of all, American steel mills got raped by European steel mills who probably have to deal with more laws than American companies.

Then, the liberal idea of free trade first opposed corn tariffs in England that had the same effects as any other tariff, they made bread expensive, hurt the poor people and made a few landlords rich, so no, the idea of free trade and classic liberalism always was to help the little guy.

That the little guy usually is too shortsighted to get this and votes for the very restrictions that cost him is a tragedy and enough to make any libertarian entrepreneur just a tad cynical.

[/quote]

So you do not think to be in the American Market that you should have to play by the American Rules. There is some truth about the European market dominating, but the European market had free health care and several had big subsidies from their country

There was also a lot of steel coming out of China, Thailand and other Asian countries
America could have given the steel industry tax breaks to bring their processes out of the dark ages. You can not disable a large area of American industry, for any reason, and tell me it is good for America.

Reagan job was to do the best by the country, not do the best by the market. Just think of the lost taxes on the income of employees alone and not any other supporting industry

[dhickey]

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

All I can chalk your statement up to is the lack of knowledge Reagan made an assault on the working class that was equivalent to what we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, You need to spend some time in N.E. Ohio, Western Pa. parts of Illinois, Indiana and Michigan to wonder what happened to this place .All so the America could buy cheap foreign steel. Please explain the benefit America gained ?

Cheap foreign steel.

Cheaper

So there, there is your benefit.

Why would any American building company have to pay more for steel, just that a few steel workers keep their jobs?

Those jobs would be lost elsewhere in construction, because less gets built.

You do not think it short sighted to open the doors to companies that do not have to deal with EPA, Unions, Health Insurance, Pensions and the list goes on. It went to some steel mill that has a terrible environmental, that totally exploited their workers no benefits for workers only profit for owners. Do you think America should compete with that?

I think the free market ideology is something the wealthy are pushing to create a wealthy ruling class, with serfdom.

So the Builders got a short lived profit until they put the American Industry out of business. Then they could raise their price because there is little competition

First of all, American steel mills got raped by European steel mills who probably have to deal with more laws than American companies.

Then, the liberal idea of free trade first opposed corn tariffs in England that had the same effects as any other tariff, they made bread expensive, hurt the poor people and made a few landlords rich, so no, the idea of free trade and classic liberalism always was to help the little guy.

That the little guy usually is too shortsighted to get this and votes for the very restrictions that cost him is a tragedy and enough to make any libertarian entrepreneur just a tad cynical.

[/quote]

free trade wasn’t the only thing that hurt the steel industry in the US. Corrupt unions and executives alike. their inefficiency was exposed as soon as (somewhat) free trade took hold. Kind of like our auto industry.

[dhickey]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Reagan job was to do the best by the country, not do the best by the market. Just think of the lost taxes on the income of employees alone and not any other supporting industry

[/quote]

Best by the country as a whole or one particular industry? Free trade gives us far more jobs than it takes away. Look what happened after NAFTA.

[pittbulll]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Reagan job was to do the best by the country, not do the best by the market. Just think of the lost taxes on the income of employees alone and not any other supporting industry

Best by the country as a whole or one particular industry? Free trade gives us far more jobs than it takes away. Look what happened after NAFTA.[/quote]

NAFTA is a trade agreement, give me an example where we compete with third world countries industries and can beat their price, I agree there is a short upside to lower prices.

We will not mention lead base paint, melamine in the protein powder, just price
Also please answer what happened to America post, Thanks