What Happened to America?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Sloth wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Maybe we should mandate and regulate diet and exercise? This would certainly be as beneficial for children as child labor laws. How about regulating parent involvement in home work?

How about regulating that if you have a child you MUST marry the child’s mother, and stay married. Looking at the cycles of poverty and violence broken homes cause, it would seem to be as justified as child labor laws. Child raising/parenting laws? Do it for the children. Do it for America.[/quote]

Makes sense. Let’s have a vote, damn the constitution.

142

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

You should make some time to read about how these wonderful theories affected the lives of REAL people in the Lochner era before they were justly abandoned. It would be an eye opener. You would do very well to go beyond economic theory and read up on some history to see how things shook out in the real world.

In a world where population exploded, living standards rose even higher?

Dickensian poverty that was the result of feudalism was ended in mere decades?

A healthier, better educated population than ever before?

Book on that topic:
http://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Wealth-Nations-Economic-Discovery/dp/0393329887/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230594787&sr=8-1 [/quote]

Is this any good? I am running low on books to read. I really need some on CD for the car if anyone has any suggestions.

143

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
What a joke, HH!

I’m just SCANNING the list, and guess who comes up?

  1. Goldman Sachs???

  2. Mattel (Never any Chinese Made products from THAT company, huh?)

Please.

Try again!

Mufasa[/quote]

Those companies started emulating Walmart. See how Walmart is despoiling capitalism?

144

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
What a joke, HH!

I’m just SCANNING the list, and guess who comes up?

  1. Goldman Sachs???

  2. Mattel (Never any Chinese Made products from THAT company, huh?)

Please.

Try again!

Mufasa[/quote]

I guess I have to admit that you’re right, Mufasa. There is no morality left in the country. We live in a society of scavengers scrambling over a rotting corpse.

Who is John Galt?

145

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
To a couple of JS’s points:

  1. As a Corporate lawyer, you know as well as anybody that the problems of Wal-Mart are not UNIQUE to Wal-Mart.

  2. Also, Wal-Mart, on a DAILY basis, most likely has more lawyers and law firms up their ass than a Porn Star.

They are probably kept “in check” AT LEAST as much as any other Corporation, and in some cases, probably more.

Mufasa[/quote]

I never said the problems of Wal-Mart were unique to them. Others in this thread did, but I never claimed that.

They are a particularly bad actor, though. One that continuously pushes back and sees what they can get away despite close scrutiny and plaintiff firms and attorneys keeping them ‘in check.’

146

[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

You should make some time to read about how these wonderful theories affected the lives of REAL people in the Lochner era before they were justly abandoned. It would be an eye opener. You would do very well to go beyond economic theory and read up on some history to see how things shook out in the real world.

In a world where population exploded, living standards rose even higher?

Dickensian poverty that was the result of feudalism was ended in mere decades?

A healthier, better educated population than ever before?

Yeah, those laisser faire economists really went after after the little guy.

I am hardly saying that. I am saying that the market left to its own devices will not provide decent and fair working conditions in many cases. It didn’t. Wouldn’t. Can’t.

No, they invariably must.

[/quote]

Please provide an example of a single country where this was ever the case.

147

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
What a joke, HH!

I’m just SCANNING the list, and guess who comes up?

  1. Goldman Sachs???

  2. Mattel (Never any Chinese Made products from THAT company, huh?)

Please.

Try again!

Mufasa

I guess I have to admit that you’re right, Mufasa. There is no morality left in the country. We live in a society of scavengers scrambling over a rotting corpse.

Who is John Galt?

[/quote]

Guess what, HH?

NOW maybe we can get into a discussion of the “real” issues facing the Nation and stop looking for a “Boogey Man” to blame for it all.

Mufasa

148

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
To a couple of JS’s points:

  1. As a Corporate lawyer, you know as well as anybody that the problems of Wal-Mart are not UNIQUE to Wal-Mart.

  2. Also, Wal-Mart, on a DAILY basis, most likely has more lawyers and law firms up their ass than a Porn Star.

They are probably kept “in check” AT LEAST as much as any other Corporation, and in some cases, probably more.

Mufasa

I never said the problems of Wal-Mart were unique to them. Others in this thread did, but I never claimed that.

They are a particularly bad actor, though. One that continuously pushes back and sees what they can get away despite close scrutiny and plaintiff firms and attorneys keeping them ‘in check.’[/quote]

HEY, JS!

NO…I was not implying you were saying that…as a matter of fact, I am in agreement with you on a NUMBER of issues (including this one).

What was getting to me was the painting of Wal-Mart as some Demon Seed or Devil Incarnate, while other retailers were as pure as the proverbial driven snow.

I simply was not going to accept that.

Mufasa

149

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
What a joke, HH!

I’m just SCANNING the list, and guess who comes up?

  1. Goldman Sachs???

  2. Mattel (Never any Chinese Made products from THAT company, huh?)

Please.

Try again!

Mufasa

I guess I have to admit that you’re right, Mufasa. There is no morality left in the country. We live in a society of scavengers scrambling over a rotting corpse.

Who is John Galt?

Guess what, HH?

NOW maybe we can get into a discussion of the “real” issues facing the Nation and stop looking for a “Boogey Man” to blame for it all.

Mufasa

[/quote]

What is it about Walmart that made me cast them as ‘The Boogeyman’?

150

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
To a couple of JS’s points:

  1. As a Corporate lawyer, you know as well as anybody that the problems of Wal-Mart are not UNIQUE to Wal-Mart.

  2. Also, Wal-Mart, on a DAILY basis, most likely has more lawyers and law firms up their ass than a Porn Star.

They are probably kept “in check” AT LEAST as much as any other Corporation, and in some cases, probably more.

Mufasa

I never said the problems of Wal-Mart were unique to them. Others in this thread did, but I never claimed that.

They are a particularly bad actor, though. One that continuously pushes back and sees what they can get away despite close scrutiny and plaintiff firms and attorneys keeping them ‘in check.’

HEY, JS!

NO…I was not implying you were saying that…as a matter of fact, I am in agreement with you on a NUMBER of issues (including this one).

What was getting to me was the painting of Wal-Mart as some Demon Seed or Devil Incarnate, while other retailers were as pure as the proverbial driven snow.

I simply was not going to accept that.

Mufasa

[/quote]

No worries, Mufasa. In full agreement with you.

151

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

You should make some time to read about how these wonderful theories affected the lives of REAL people in the Lochner era before they were justly abandoned. It would be an eye opener. You would do very well to go beyond economic theory and read up on some history to see how things shook out in the real world.

In a world where population exploded, living standards rose even higher?

Dickensian poverty that was the result of feudalism was ended in mere decades?

A healthier, better educated population than ever before?

Yeah, those laisser faire economists really went after after the little guy.

I am hardly saying that. I am saying that the market left to its own devices will not provide decent and fair working conditions in many cases. It didn’t. Wouldn’t. Can’t.

No, they invariably must.

Please provide an example of a single country where this was ever the case. [/quote]

Austria.

Kids worked on the fields during summer, that is why our summer holidays are still very long.

They had too, otherwise it would have been impossible to keep a farm going.

That ended in the 60´s when we introduced cool stuff like machinery.

152

[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

You should make some time to read about how these wonderful theories affected the lives of REAL people in the Lochner era before they were justly abandoned. It would be an eye opener. You would do very well to go beyond economic theory and read up on some history to see how things shook out in the real world.

In a world where population exploded, living standards rose even higher?

Dickensian poverty that was the result of feudalism was ended in mere decades?

A healthier, better educated population than ever before?

Yeah, those laisser faire economists really went after after the little guy.

I am hardly saying that. I am saying that the market left to its own devices will not provide decent and fair working conditions in many cases. It didn’t. Wouldn’t. Can’t.

No, they invariably must.

Please provide an example of a single country where this was ever the case.

Austria.

Kids worked on the fields during summer, that is why our summer holidays are still very long.

They had too, otherwise it would have been impossible to keep a farm going.

That ended in the 60´s when we introduced cool stuff like machinery.

[/quote]

There’s that inconvenient truth again, voluntary unemployment. Rules and regulation did not give us this, improved quality of life from the free market did. The same phenomenon that gave us the single income household and the stay at home mom. Increased wages from competition, reduced cost of living to help spread these wages further, and technological advancements, etc.

For some reason people still think free market that gave us this would keep the poor working man beholden to the evil corporation without the beneficent politician and bureaucrat.

Amazing really.

153

[quote]dhickey wrote:
The same phenomenon that gave us the single income household and the stay at home mom. Increased wages from competition, reduced cost of living to help spread these wages further, and technological advancements, etc.
[/quote]

Yes, and the funny thing they will not accept is that central bank fiat money took it all away for the average family starting in the early '70s.

The Federal Reserve stole a quality of life that many Americans worked their asses off to save for with the flip of a switch of a printing press.

154

I know I have been pimping this you tube but Liftmaximus and Hickey are hitting it head on. This is what conservatism is all about, not the poor hating ways of the Republican

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5232639329002339531

155

In all the Walmart back and forth you guys are ignoring the real issue, which is that our manufacturing sector, and blue collar work in general, is virtually on life support, wages of middle class Americans have stagnated for decades now, and economic inequality is at a level not seen since robber baron times. You can lecture the OP on the power of positive thinking all you want, maybe justifiably, I don’t know, but these things are real and they aren’t going away.

156

[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

You should make some time to read about how these wonderful theories affected the lives of REAL people in the Lochner era before they were justly abandoned. It would be an eye opener. You would do very well to go beyond economic theory and read up on some history to see how things shook out in the real world.

In a world where population exploded, living standards rose even higher?

Dickensian poverty that was the result of feudalism was ended in mere decades?

A healthier, better educated population than ever before?

Yeah, those laisser faire economists really went after after the little guy.

I am hardly saying that. I am saying that the market left to its own devices will not provide decent and fair working conditions in many cases. It didn’t. Wouldn’t. Can’t.

No, they invariably must.

Please provide an example of a single country where this was ever the case.

Austria.

Kids worked on the fields during summer, that is why our summer holidays are still very long.

They had too, otherwise it would have been impossible to keep a farm going.

That ended in the 60´s when we introduced cool stuff like machinery.

[/quote]

Ok, that’s one. But that was a shift from an agricultural society. Not that working on a (likely family) farm isn’t grueling work. But I wouldn’t put it at the same level as working in a factory sweatshop for strangers under dangerously unsanitary, not to mention UNSAFE, working conditions.

Child labor, and abominable and unsafe working conditions continued in factories for many YEARS in many countries after the shift from agricultural to industrial society. It took labor laws to improve things. Not to mention consumer protection. You should read Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle. Try and look past his socialism. The book exposed some extremely despicable practices of the meat industry that were rectified by legislation.

Child labor is only one issue, and depending on the society, the least appropriate to address through labor laws. At some developmental stages, children will simply need to work for families to survive. That doesn’t mean a country that can afford to provide safe and sanitary working conditions shouldn’t be obligated to. If there are interest groups pushing for this and some measure of equal bargaining power, it’s not necessary for law to intercede. That’s not always the case.

157

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
In all the Walmart back and forth you guys are ignoring the real issue, which is that our manufacturing sector, and blue collar work in general, is virtually on life support, wages of middle class Americans have stagnated for decades now, and economic inequality is at a level not seen since robber baron times. You can lecture the OP on the power of positive thinking all you want, maybe justifiably, I don’t know, but these things are real and they aren’t going away.[/quote]

Specific industries or colors of collars are not important. Doing what is best for overall growth and prosperity is. The invisible hand of the free market will put people in positions where they are most productive and needed.

There should be no shortage of demand for new products and services, and thus no shortage of demand for quality labor. When prices for goods and services are kept artificially high, demand for other products go down. Read that one again. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is an understatement.

A simple example would be to make an apple cost as much as an apple and an orange. Great for the apple grower. Not so much for the orange grower. Not so much for the consumer that now only has an apple instead of an apple and an orange. This creates a few winners at the expense of many more losers. This is exactly what gov’t has done and will continue to do.

When external forces deplete the market of funds, create unproductive jobs, distribute funds to inefficient labor or pay people not to labor, and fix prices for goods and labor, they really fuck up the market.

The distribution of wealth or the disparity between rich and poor is political tool, nothing more. Who gives a shit what someone else has? It has absolutely nothing to do with me. If my life is improving, should I really be concerned about my neighbor’s life improving even more? Who’s the fucking greedy one again?

Reminds me of something my sister said over Christmas. She got a check from my Grandmother for $30. She spends a lot of time with my Grandmother so she seemed a little annoyed that I also received $30. She said she had hoped that everyone else received a little less than her. Not that she would have received more, but that everyone else would have gotten less compared to her. Me getting less wouldn’t have changed anything for her other than some abstract sense of fairness. She’s a liberal by the way.

We should be focusing on improving our entire economy instead of taking from producers to give to the less productive or unproductive. Nothing but politics and jealousy.

158

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
In all the Walmart back and forth you guys are ignoring the real issue, which is that our manufacturing sector, and blue collar work in general, is virtually on life support, wages of middle class Americans have stagnated for decades now, and economic inequality is at a level not seen since robber baron times. You can lecture the OP on the power of positive thinking all you want, maybe justifiably, I don’t know, but these things are real and they aren’t going away.[/quote]

I think its painful but natural. When an economy surges to the forefront, wages rise. This makes it more desireable for employers to seek out low cost areas, such as China and India. Eventually everyone is better off and the process will continue until the world is basically all developed or some parts (like most of Africa) are simply given up on; no one sane will invest there. Think Zimbabwe.

Capitalism is best, but it is painful. And it conflicts with popular government. Voters won’t vote to be unemployed. Hence the trend toward socialism.

159

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
In all the Walmart back and forth you guys are ignoring the real issue, which is that our manufacturing sector, and blue collar work in general, is virtually on life support, wages of middle class Americans have stagnated for decades now, and economic inequality is at a level not seen since robber baron times. You can lecture the OP on the power of positive thinking all you want, maybe justifiably, I don’t know, but these things are real and they aren’t going away.

I think its painful but natural. When an economy surges to the forefront, wages rise. This makes it more desireable for employers to seek out low cost areas, such as China and India. Eventually everyone is better off and the process will continue until the world is basically all developed or some parts (like most of Africa) are simply given up on; no one sane will invest there. Think Zimbabwe.

Capitalism is best, but it is painful. And it conflicts with popular government. Voters won’t vote to be unemployed. Hence the trend toward socialism.

[/quote]

Agreed. Some things just can’t and shouldn’t be fixed by regulation and government intervention. The natural progression of these type of blue collar manufacturing jobs to other countries is one of them. It’s our natural growth.

160

Here’s a short article I read that might provide some insight into the original question:

America the Illiterate

By Chris Hedges

November 16, 2008 “Truthdig” – - We live in two Americas. One America, now the minority, functions in a print-based, literate world. It can cope with complexity and has the intellectual tools to separate illusion from truth. The other America, which constitutes the majority, exists in a non-reality-based belief system. This America, dependent on skillfully manipulated images for information, has severed itself from the literate, print-based culture. It cannot differentiate between lies and truth. It is informed by simplistic, childish narratives and clichés. It is thrown into confusion by ambiguity, nuance and self-reflection. This divide, more than race, class or gender, more than rural or urban, believer or nonbeliever, red state or blue state, has split the country into radically distinct, unbridgeable and antagonistic entities.

There are over 42 million American adults, 20 percent of whom hold high school diplomas, who cannot read, as well as the 50 million who read at a fourth- or fifth-grade level. Nearly a third of the nation?s population is illiterate or barely literate. And their numbers are growing by an estimated 2 million a year."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21239.htm

There’s more to the article, btw. The part about the presidential debates is very interesting.