The hypocrisy of the US Republican Party

Doublebob,
I am sorry about your families' pre-existings. I followed the entire thing rather closely as my girlfriend is a public school teacher here in PA.

Not to make light of the difficulties and choices you and your family are facing, but you need to be aware that a lot of the problems are because of the unions past demands and actions.

Health insurance demands by the unions in the past led to the state paying (I think) about 90%, and that will drop by about 5%. The average American is really lucky to have an employer who pays 50%. I get 25% paid by my employer.

Same thing applies to the pension. The added payments are a small %. Yes, to a struggling family it will be hard. I don't have the figures at hand, but I'll use my girlfriend's plan as an example. The state provides her 5% per pay whether she contributes or not. For the first 5% of her own money they match one for one. For the next 5% they match it 1% for every 2%. So if she puts in 10% of her money the state kicks in 12.5%.

She could have retired after 10 years and gotten 50% of her regular pay for the rest of her life. If she works 35 years she's guaranteed 100% of her paycheck.

Me? My employer puts 1% into a 401k, and I can contribute up to 15% of my own.

Please don't buy into the "illegal" bit. It was the Democrats who packed their bags and ran away to Illinois so there couldn't be a vote. Did they collect THEIR paychecks while they were kicking back sipping cocktails in the bar? And your courts have ruled it was legal.

And of course all those wonderful union people who caused over a million dollars worth of damage to your capital building.

Or that poor misunderstood union lady who sent emails to the Gov. and Rep. Senators threatening to blow them AND their families up?

Come on, I know it hits you in a hard place, and you're worried. But public employee unions all across the country have been driving unsustainable demands into their contracts for a long time.

The people whose taxes pay for it don't have anything near as good themselves.

By the way, public employees were never allowed to unionize until a Rep. President (Richard Nixon) authorized them.

I do hope things work out for you.

@rep: 1. whose side are you on? just to be clear. 2. despite the fact that the democrats were in Illinois to prevent the vote, that does not change the fact that the bill was passed without a quorum, and therefore illegally. It was also illegal because the people weren't told 24 hours in advance. It was a surprise vote, and let's not forget the fact the only reason it made it to the Senate in the first place was because it was passed through the Assembly in a fifteen second vote, which was agreed on by the Republicans. And the courts haven't said it was legal, it's currently being blocked by an injunction, or if its not anymore, its because Justice David Prosser of the Wisconsin Supreme Court was recently elected, and as they say, "a vote for Prosser is a vote for Walker". It really is, he said himself he sides with Walker on a lot of things. Let's not forget that in paying taxes to the state, the capitol will be repaired with there money and the other taxpayers. And since the union members who caused the damages are going to be the ones really paying, I think it's about even. And besides, the government closed the capitol from the protesters, so it's really their fault. And even though ONE person sent threatening messages to some people, doesn't mean we all think like that. Or at least vocalize it.... JK. And what do you mean unsustainable? They've been sustained for decades. Maybe if the Republicans agreed to raise taxes every now and then.... For the upper class anyway. God forbid that they should raise taxes to the rich, or even lower them for the middle and lower classes. Hey, what happened to Alterd?

Quick post to say I agree with BBJBS about Republicans never agreeing to raise taxes on the rich (including oil companies - finally brought it back to the original topic!). I thought they were supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility in the States? Take a look at which Presidents have managed to deliver balanced budgets over the last 30+ years. I'll give you a clue - it's only the Democrat ones and only during their second term after inheriting a huge deficit during their first.

Massive post to follow.

@DoubleBob

I'm sorry, I didn't realise how important they were in the States. Medical cover is automatic over here and we don't need our unions to fight that corner for us. I think we Brits still have the Winter of Discontent in our minds. It was before my time, but the 70s was a decade of industrial strife in Britain culminating in widespread strike action by public sector (and some private sector) workers. It led to coffins piling up in Liverpool and Tameside, piles of uncollected rubbish, petrol distribution problems (due to a lorry drivers strike) and hospitals only taking emergency patients.

The miner's union had made demands for pay rises earlier in the decade (the Conservative government had capped them to control inflation - coal mining was a heavily-subsidised nationalised industry back then and so came under the same public sector pay restraints). They ended up forcing the government to introduce a 3-day working week to conserve electricity, caused them to lose the next election and the UK to take a loan from the IMF - a shocking embarassment for a former imperial power.

Thatcher planned to close uneconomic pits, presumably prior to privatisation (which finally happened in '94). Needless to say, the miners went on strike again. Thatcher had stockpiled coal (helped by merry-go-round trains) at power stations to ensure that there would be no return to the 3-day week. The strikes lasted over 2 years with unemployment in some towns reaching 50%, caused and continues to cause tension between those who supported the strike and those who didn't. I didn't know this, but apparently a murder in a former mining town in 2004 was attributed to an argument between former members of the NUM and UDM. That's why Thatcher still raises hackles here, and that's why I have lower opinions of unions - some of ours were far too powerful. I still fully support the rights of workers to unionise - it kinda goes with the territory of being slightly left of centre on the economic political axis.

@rep

Got to agree with the idea of finding the balance between social safety net and retaining the incentive to work. The other aspect of capitalism that contributed to the demise of the USSR was its ability to produce widgets in 512 different colours - the command economy couldn't cater to people's desire for consumer products (whenever East Berliners did manage to visit the West, they'd take back jeans with them because you couldn't buy them in the East). I think I'm right in saying that the Ford Transit is available in over a million combinations of engine size, wheelbase, layout, colour, etc. The command economy just couldn't compete.

Anyway, on to your point: where would I place the line. By and large, I think physical infrastructure should be nationalised, albeit with access rights for private companies to run additional services. Privatisation of the railways in Britain has been an utter disaster, but more due to the crap way it was done. We now pay far more on ticket prices AND subsidies than we did when it was nationalised and there is little extra capacity or reliability to show for it. Granted, I can't blame the free market for most of that, just the way the Conservatives went about privatising it. I just think infrastructure is too important to be left in private hands - after all, if everyone struggles to get to/from work, to get clean drinking water, to communicate with colleagues and clients, there's going to be a knock-on effect on productivity. One last point on this - nationalised companies really ought to be placed out of reach of meddling politicians. It is a sorry state of affairs, but a number of our private rail and water companies are now run by the state-owned companies of other European countries, most of which are run as private enterprises where the sole shareholder is the state. Give me French, German or Swiss rail travel any day!

"Our current President is an international embarrassment."
Actually, that's not the view over here. Most Europeans would have thought you were talking about his predecessor.

Whether in the Falklands or Libya, mess with one you mess with both. They were two strong international leaders at the same point in history.
Falklands was a solely British affair, at Thatcher's discreet insistence - the fact that she was able to take so much credit for it contributed to her 1983 election victory. Personally, I'd like to see Britain keeping out of any more 'interventions' for now. As far as I'm concerned, we are an ex-international power. We don't have the money to go off on this far flung foreign jollies any more.

I'd like to see democracy brought to the Middle East (although given that the first action of the Palestinians was to democratically elect Hamas, I'm not sure that America would always like the regimes it ended up having to deal with), but I don't think Britain should go beyond what is sanctioned by the UN. That was our big mistake with Iraq - I'm not sure how many Americans realise how badly it played over here, but that's a separate issue.

Our newly elected PM (David Cameron - I'd lambast you for not naming him in your post, but it took me a while to remember) is currently getting away with everything. Every time the coalition government does something unpopular, the media seem to go for the Conservative's coalition partner (the Liberal Democrats under Nick Clegg). The general consensus seems to be that he is cutting too deep, too soon. Even the OECD seems to think we might be moving too fast.

OK, I am finally getting to the new topic you introduced - social conservatism. I am happy to go into more depth on that. As this post is now ridiculously long, I'll stop and let you choose where to start.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

The general consensus seems to be that he is cutting too deep, too soon. Even the OECD seems to think we might be moving too fast.<!-/Quote-!>

Contractionary policy is contractionary. Surprise!
If only that confidence fairy was around...

I have several questions. Are conservatives over there the same as there are on the west side of the Atlantic? Uneducated, anti-education loser against taxing the rich, for taxing the poor, and over all put money and votes over the actual voters? Two: WTF is a lorry driver? Do you mean someone who drives hearses? Also, sounds like unions are more accepted over here. Most (if not all) public employees are unionized.

Skandar first-
Sorry for the delay. Thunderstorms rolled through and killed the electricity. Just got it back.

We're in agreement with basic infrastructure being done by a government (or at least a heavily regulated private enterprise). Roads, rail, and utilities are too vital to a nation's interests to be left alone.

GW Bush in his second term was pretty much an idiot, but he did not go around on any apology tours. He didn't figuratively slap the Queen, nor return the bust of Churchill which had held a place of honor here since WWII. He didn't make a pathetic attempt to speak with an Irish accent in Dublin. He didn't repeatedly attempt to throw our only TRUE middle eastern ally under the bus.

Will have to correct you on the Falklands. As with Libya, no actual military cooperation ocurred (darn it, I need a spell-check!), however full use of air bases, naval resupply points, air and naval "permission to pass through" were part of both ops, whether the ally actually took advantage of it in actuality or not. And you can well believe that had either op escalated the ally would have been there full force. I was in the military during J. Carter (disaster) and the Reagan administrations. Spent a bit of time at Bentwaters, in fact that's where I met my first "Anglo" friends.

I'm going to pass on making comments regarding "democracy" in the Mid East. There are too many intangibles and it's been my experience that some countries are not ready for democracy. Even the Sovs needed to return to a more authoritarian regime to get their act back together. And the "true" number one superpower in the world (China) is pretty far from democratic. The US is neck and neck in military and technology, but we are too wrapped up in our own difficulties (apparently) to be paying attention. If you want a surprise research China's African status. They give huge amounts of aid, they're building infrastucture, they own a large amount of scarce mineral mines throughout the continent, and have various treaties in the area giving them access to land and air space.

Sorry, off topic. Yes, the US probably won't like the form the new regimes in the area of the Mid East, particularly if the Muslim Brotherhood (as expected) wins Egypt's upcoming elections.

Having a number of Brit friends, I do know how badly Iraq was viewed over there. I wasn't convinced we needed to go there in the first place. But the worst thing we did was once we did go we returned to the same policies which cost us a victory in Vietnam. IF you're going to go in, GO IN! Fight to win; it's not some freaking video game where you can reset if you screw up. Level and rebuild. Period.

Don't sell Britain short. Your Dominions still provide a good source of international influence for you. Although I agree with you that both our nation's need to get out of the police business. I am not a fan of the UN, but at least it does provide a forum for communication among nations, which is a lot better than it used to be. WWI might have been avoided if countries had a place to bitch at each other. Then again, maybe not. The League of nations didn't stop WWII.

I didn't use Cameron's name because I don't like to name politicians. It gives them power, and I strongly dislike 96% of ALL politicians. Which is wierd because I was a Political Science/History double major in college.

I'm going to save the social conservatism begin point for the next shot, I've been rambling too long.

Doublebob,

Since neither of us will change each others' minds about the situation in Wisconsin, this will be my final thoughts on that subject.

(1)I'm on my side, and only my side. I call things as I see them. Picking sides is for folks who (a)don't know the issue, or (b)don't care about the issue but want acceptance from one side or the other, or (c)are either incapable or unwilling to rationally look at an issue and decide for themselves.

The issue is resolved. The injunction was overturned by the appellate court, your Attorney General delayed implementing it as long as he was legally allowed, but his time limit ran out and he was forced to put it in effect. That's the reason for the "recall" votes, hoping to get enough Dems in office to overturn it before it takes full effect. Prosser's election had nothing to do with it other than his vote would be the vote that broke the tie when it gets to your Supreme Court.

And I'm getting frustrated with the "it's all illegal, they didn't play fair" argument. Although it wasn't done in a sportsmanlike manner, everything WAS done by the book. Sneaky, yes, but also legal. The very same dirty tricks were used by DC politicians to shove Obamacare down our throats, but that was legal too. I don't like it but I accept it.

The capital argument is weak. If they wouldn't have caused the damage their tax dollars wouldn't have to pay to repair it. And if my boss makes me take a pay cut I should go out and "key" his Porsche? Since I'm going to be paying for it in a way, it should be okay, right?

Closing the capital for security reasons was the only thing they COULD do, and is standard government practice all over the world.

I know that not all the "liberals" in Wisconsin don't want to blow up the folks. They ARE allowed to think it, they haven't taken that away from us (yet).

But imagine if it was the President or a US Senator she threatened instead. The poor woman would be at Gitmo rather then getting a pat on the head and being told "now be a good little girl".

The union contracts are unsustainable. As you say, they've been around for decades. A couple factors enter in. Each contract is usually 3 or 4 years long. Say 4 for convenience. In the 40 years they've been around that's ten contracts. It's not so much the pay raises themselves, it's the retirement benefits. Which each contract increased for the most part. People are routinely living into their 80s nowadays, and since most public servants are eligible to retire at 55, that's 25-30 years of retirement bennies.

Using my teacher girlfriend again as an example, she will have 35 years service at age 56. She will collect 100% of her salary plus 90% of her medical benefits for 25-30 years! They are giving her full pay to kick back and drink Bacardi's!

And of course someone has to teach the kids, so here comes a new teacher. Starting salary around here is about 30k. My girl, with her time in and PhD, makes 75k. So add her 75 to the 30 for the new teacher and all of a sudden the public is paying 105k a year one teacher! How is that sustainable?

In good economic times it doesn't show up so much because people still have the bucks to do pretty much what they want. But when idiots in DC from BOTH parties go out like drunken sailors for years on end (apologies to any Navy folks out there) someday the piper needs to be paid. And 3 years of 9+% unemployment plus hidden inflation of around 10% means the piper is at the door wanting in.

The rich. The rich. Okay folks. The top 5% of moneymakers contribute over 70% of the taxes in this country. The top 10% combined pay over 90% of the taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners get every penny back! You can't go lower than zero.

The problem with ALL politicians is they make a career out of it. The original intent was to have Joe Smith from Main street go to congress for a couple years, then come back and let Sam Jones go, etc.

But people being people they kind of liked the power they got in DC, and pretty soon it became a lifetime deal. There's where we need to cut! Do you know that a politician only needs to serve 6 years to collect his/her 100% pension? No joke. Go to DC, collect a couple hundred grand to boss the country for 6 years, then go back to the mansion and collect your couple hundred a year to watch sports on TV.

A lorry driver is Brit for truck driver. And even though you were asking Skandar, If I was thin skinned I'd be pretty PO'd right about now about your characterization of conservatives here in the US. I have two degrees (Political Science and History) which I earned in 4 years by going year round. After which I served in the military, because in spite of how screwed up it can be at times, it's still my country and I owed it something in exchange for the opportunities it gave me. I am not anti-education, just against public employee unions. Unions are good for private business at times (coal workers HAVE to have a union!) but not in the public sector. Even the progressive liberal icon FDR was against public employee unions.

Side note to Skandar: roughly 80% of public employees belong to a union, less than 10% of private employees do.

I'll just have to respectfully disagree with the premises you believe in, and to reiterate that the true fault lies with politicians from BOTH sides of the aisle. I didn't happen to see any big tax breaks for the poor in the two years of this administration when the Dems had bulletproof majorities in both houses of Congress and could have done anything they wanted. Should make you ponder. Don't talk filibuster. For two full years the Senate was filibuster proof. Nothing happened to help the poor. And just as a "it's not relevant but someone will sooner or later say it" bit: An American at poverty level here makes more money than 70% of the world.

Farmer Bob, are you out there? I need your help!

Tee hee, I keep forgetting you ex-colonial types don't speak proper English. Yep, lorry is English for truck in American English. We'd be more likely to think of a truck as a pickup (truck) rather than an 18-wheeler (not that we have those - our roads are too narrow and twisty).

Side note: the most fun I've had with our language differences was when an American friend asked where so-and-so was and I replied, "on a fag break" forgetting its American English meaning (it's slang/informal English for cigarette). The look on his face was priceless.

As I said, our view of unions has been coloured by the crippling powers they exercised in the 70s. Membership has plunged from 80% to 30%, most of whom are in the public sector.

@Double Bob Our conservatives are less easily pigeon-holed. They have recently undergone a top-down paint job on social liberalism issues in order to get re-elected. I'm not convinced this extends down to the grass-roots membership so I am on the guard against more socially conservative issues rising up the agenda from the bottom. Generally, our Conservative Party are nearer your Democrats than Republicans, but it depends on the issue.

@rep: Your comments on Obama's faux pas just highlight how much the media paints the picture for us. I didn't know he'd figuratively slapped the Queen, return a Churchill bust, or attempted an Irish accent. I think bigger news over here was when Michelle Obama touched the Queen. We had a huge debate about whether it was a breach of protocol.

I think we might be more accepting of the occasional diplomatic slip-up. We've had to put up with Prince Phillip (a.k.a. Phil the Greek) risking our diplomatic relations with various countries for the best part of 60 years. Some choice quotes:

To an Aboriginal leader on an official visit to Australia, "Do you still throw spears at each other?"
"It looks as if it was put in by an Indian." (in 1999, referring to an old-fashioned fuse box in a factory near Edinburgh)
"You managed not to get eaten, then?" (in 1998, to a student who had been trekking in Papua New Guinea)

And here are some more arranged conveniently on a map using Google Earth.

I take your point on the Falklands, I was merely pointing out that it wasn't a combined operation like Iraq and Afghanistan with both our nations putting troops on the ground and planes in the air.

Re: selling Britain short
To be honest, I didn't think our Dominions provided much international influence for us. Canada and Australia rightly have their own representation on international bodies and we have no influence over their foreign policies. We just happen to be close allies and share a Head of State.Our military expenditure is 3rd largest, yet barely half China's and less than a tenth of the US. It's out of proportion to the threats we face and I think we would be better off expanding our response capabilities through the EU. All too often we've been the most significant European contributor to coalition forces by far and it's unfair that we can't share that burden (and cost) with our neighbours. If political deadlock results in far fewer interventions, then so be it.

Lastly, on the issue of selling Britain short. How widespread was media coverage of Cameron's slip-up when he described the UK as the "junior partner" in the allied campaign against Germany in 1940? This being, of course, 2 years before Germany declared war on the US (note that the BBC article erroneously states that the US declared war on Germany - they didn't, the US only declared war on Japan: Germany and Italy then declared war on the US in support of their Japanese ally).

Social conservatism
Might be an idea to spin this off into a separate topic thread. Anyway, I'm an agnostic (technically a theological noncognitivist, but let's not split hairs), secular, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-assisted suicide, anti-abstinence-as-a-reproductive-health-strategy, anti-right to bear arms (not really an issue over here), slight leftie liberal. Pick a target and we'll start from there.

P.S. Damnit, this was supposed to be a short post. There have just been so many interesting points made on all sides. I hate you all for being such proficient master debaters (sorry, couldn't resist the opportunity for a little innuendo - another British trait).

@rep: that post was way to long to respond to, plus when you count skans post, I couldn't keep going back up and down. I'll print it out later and respond to it there, although since most of your points were about the Wisconsin budget and that's the last you'll say on it, it doesn't really matter. Also, if you EVER call me farmer bob again, I will find out who you are, hunt you down and slit your throat while you fucking sleep.

Doublebob,
The Farmer Bob reference wasn't to you. He was a "forum-mate" of mine from 3 years ago, and I'm wondering if he's still involved in the game. Sorry you took it wrong.

I was tired and cranky (us old people get that way) when I wrote the last post, so if you want to continue on the Wisc. thing feel free.

Might be a little tough for you to catch me unaware, remember I'm a military vet. Not to mention ex-postal worker!

Skandar,
Good idea about new thread re soc. con. discussion. Thread is getting too long. I can see we'll have some things to discuss. This weekend is a holiday over here, Memorial Day, so I may miss a day or two. We're going on a weekend holiday (vacation BBJBS). The woman doesn't like me spending more attention to the laptop than I do her!

Enjoy, all.

Anyone else noticed that the game sells vacation (US English) and cars (proper English), not holidays (proper English) and automobiles (US English)?

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Skandar,
Forgot to respond to the capitalism/socialism bit.
From my studies and experience, pure forms of either are negative.

Pure socialism basically is just communism by another name. Pure capitalism is too open to abuse such as the UK of Charles Dickens' time and the railroad "robber barons" here in America.<!-/Quote-!>

From my studies/experience, pure capitalism is the only proper system. For example, what kind of abuse are you referring to with the "UK of Dickens' time"? As this quote stands, I cannot challenge it because I know not what grounds you are making it. Regardless, I'm confident that its foundation can be toppled. As for the "robber barons," these are not an example of pure capitalism, but private/public partnerships (the ones I mentioned earlier that were doomed to corruption).
As an example, the Central Pacific held its monopoly through the California legislature. The owners of this railroad got a deal from the legislature for exclusive control of the coastline and prevention of other railroads from entering ports. This was part of a long list of measures used to enforce, with the state, a monopoly. They were able to charge massive rates because they were able to have the legislature take action against competitors. This railroad got land grants, subsidies, state bonds, etc. None of which is capitalistic . . . no government intervention in the economy means no government intervention in the economy - this means stripping the power of legislatures to do this. You cannot tout people whose fortunes were made in a manner that REQUIRED government intervention in the economy as evidence of the failures of capitalism.
This is also an interesting quote I found:

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

In little more than two decades, three transcontinental railroads were built with government help. All three wound up in bankruptcy courts. And thus, when James Jerome Hill said he was going to build a line from the Great Lakes to the Puget Sound, without government cash or land grant, even his closest friends thought him mad. But his Great Northern arrived at Puget sound without a penny of federal help, nor did it fail.<!-/Quote-!>

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Social conservatism
Might be an idea to spin this off into a separate topic thread. Anyway, I'm an agnostic (technically a theological noncognitivist, but let's not split hairs), secular, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-assisted suicide, anti-abstinence-as-a-reproductive-health-strategy, anti-right to bear arms (not really an issue over here), slight leftie liberal. Pick a target and we'll start from there.<!-/Quote-!>

I'm an atheist that differs from you in being pro-abstinence-or-at-least-anti-promiscuity-(but-regardless-not-the-business-of-the-state)-as-a-reproductive-health-strategy, pro-right-to-bear-arms, and pro-pure-capitalism-as-the-only-moral-political/economic-system.

"Anyone else noticed that the game sells vacation (US English) and cars (proper English), not holidays (proper English) and automobiles (US English)?"

Who calls cars automobiles????

And FarmerBob is back under another name. I don't recall what it is at the moment.

Scarlet,
Welcome back to the discussion. I remember you from your previous incarnation; always respected your opinions, and bow at your knowledge of SC.

The London of Dickens was not one of Britain's finest moments. Factories in the city were filled with child labor and women forced to work 16 hours per day, 6 days per week. In some cases the workers were literally chained to their work stations. The matches of the day were made with phosphorous, which prolonged exposure to produces a condition called "flossie jaw". This turns a person's skin green, eats the body's bone structure, and is (or was) 100% fatal.

My bad for using the robber barons as an example. I researched your statements re the transcontinental railways; you are 100% correct.

And J.J. Hill was an extraordinary man. His Great Northern was a model of excellence. He was known (behind his back) as the "One eyed Terror" because he had just one functioning eye and one heckuva temper.

I'll change up my example and go back to factory work. Britain is not alone in the rather nasty conditions. The greatest single loss of life in an American factory was a sewing factory in (I think)the 1880s. A fire started in the 4 story building in which a sewing factory occupied the top floor. The owners had chained the exit doors from the outside (they would unlock them when the days quota had been met), trapping all the workers inside.

Nowhere near the loss of life, but equally horrific was the explosion of the A-Mill, a flour mill in Minneapolis. Charles Wellington, the owner, had decided for financial reasons not to install any method of extracting the flour dust from the mill. One day a spark from one of the grinding stones ignited the dust, causing an explosion that vaporized 18 workers. The explosion shattered windows 5 miles away, and was heard 20 miles away.

I firmly believe in capitalism. But human nature includes a portion of greed in most. This can lead to "shortcuts" in safety measures and some exploitation. The vast majority of companies are conscientious (after all, if their plant blows up or the people all leave due to mistreatment they won't have a business left), but there are always some who want to "cut corners" for fast profits.

Fully agree that legislatures need to stay out of the day to day ops of corporations. My stand on regulations deal with safety measures, and to a certain degree working conditions.

Border C, Thanks for the info about Farmer Bob. Will have to try and track him down. Seems as though a lot of folks have switched identities since '08, but it's good to see that some vets are still around.

@Skan: Have you even been to the United States? I don't know a single person who calls cars "automobiles".
@rep (post before last): Oh sorry, thought farmer bob comment was about me. It's memorial day over here too, we also get Monday off, and I know that in the UK it's called holiday. We here in the States forgive you (lol jk, don't mean to offend you), some of us actually do know a little bit of the language differences.

Rep, Bob is around as linebacker six.
Tell me, who were you in 2008?

Crafty,
Thanks for the info. I was known as JMR back in those days. Was a pupil of Tatooed Priest on GR. That man was good!

Had a lot of fun, but job interfered and had to give it up.

Now I'm here on LU trying to get used to 6 month days.

Now that I've identified myself, there will be some eye rolls from some of the vets! I wasn't an asshat, but my forum talks got some folks going, and got other folks doing the WTF routine.

Were you around back then?

I just about remember the name, but dont remember talking to you, or your posting habits! lol.

Good, this place needs stirring up every now and then.

Crafty,
Last post of the night. I'm on holiday (I'll use that since you're a Brit) and the laptop battery is going. Plus, if I don't get to bed soon there'll be some b--ing in the morning!

There was a Brit back in those days who took part in a lot of our discussions. Incredibly smart guy (he was a physicist in RL)who went by three names. I can only remember his first handle, it was Zeletic. Ring any bells?

Enjoy. And Skandar, I'll be back with a new soc. con. thread. Soon.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I firmly believe in capitalism. But human nature includes a portion of greed in most. This can lead to "shortcuts" in safety measures and some exploitation. The vast majority of companies are conscientious (after all, if their plant blows up or the people all leave due to mistreatment they won't have a business left), but there are always some who want to "cut corners" for fast profits.

Fully agree that legislatures need to stay out of the day to day ops of corporations. My stand on regulations deal with safety measures, and to a certain degree working conditions. <!-/Quote-!>

Okay, I can see this. With the example of people being chained to workstations, I think this kind of destroys the idea behind "pure capitalism" which I would consider to be economic freedom - including the freedom to leave the workstation. The existence of literal chains points to an inability to leave or forced labor, which is clearly wrong and I don't believe would constitute a portion of a purely capitalistic system - meaning, in my usage, a system predicated on protecting the life, liberty, and property of individuals which would entail allowing workers to leave at any point. That being said, I don't buy into the whole concept of wage slavery - if you take a job and can leave at any point, this is sufficient for freedom. The fact you're bound by constraints of reality (your stomach) to remain in order to feed yourself, I do not consider to be slavery. Going back to the 16 hours daily, 6 hours a week working, I think that as long as nobody is forcing you to work . . . meaning you take on such conditions voluntarily with full knowledge of what you're taking on, then I don't see any reason for the government to be involved. There's gotta be a good reason someone takes on such conditions, usually having to do with the stomach. If there were legitimately better options (and people weren't being forced to work under lock-and-key), I think these people would've taken them in a heartbeat.

My position (which I believe to be synonymous with pure capitalism) is that as long as you're informed of the situation, dangers and risks involved in taking on a job and you voluntarily decide to take it - then this is perfectly fine. I'm pretty sure that forcing people to work under dangerous conditions without their informed consent is against the ideas behind capitalism - the protection of life, liberty, and property. However, if someone is willing to work under dangerous conditions knowing the risks involved, this is perfectly fine - I assume people would only do so if there was no better option, and competition for workers can almost guarantee that there is a better option. As far as the role of government in the economy, the "pure capitalism" role would be one of ensuring that you aren't forced or defrauded into working in poor conditions that you wouldn't voluntarily work in. In other words, exploitation would still be illegal in a purely capitalist system, but working conditions would remain unregulated.

@Double Bob No, I haven't yet been to the States. I honestly thought you all called cars, autos or automobiles. No idea where I've got that from - enough American programmes make it over here for me to know better (just thought of a few episodes of Family Guy where they refer to their 'car'). D'oh!

@Scarlet "From my studies/experience, pure capitalism is the only proper system."
Another example for you - one policy of the British government that made the Irish Potato Famine (1845-52) even more catastrophic was its refusal to intervene in the free market. A previous famine in 1782-3 had been dealt with, in part, by closing the ports so that food grown in Ireland was used to feed the Irish.

No such restrictions were imposed during the Potato Famine and, peversely, exports of calves, most livestock, bacon and ham actually increased. Also, don't forget that the same potato blight affected crops across much of Europe - this was not peculiar to Ireland. The attitude of the British at the time was that the free market would provide and correct the imbalance. Unfortunately, when people have no income due to crop failure (or unemployment due to an international banking crisis), it's pretty difficult to turn a profit selling them the food they need. Ergo, it was more profitable to export food to richer countries. The market did provide, but only in the form of profit.

"no government intervention in the economy means no government intervention in the economy"
I assume, given our earlier discussions that this would exclude some issues regarding regulation, like accurate, honest and open accounting which must be legally enforced.

Even then, regulation can fail. Construction of our rail network resulted in an stock price bubble ("Railway Mania") as a result of poor scrutiny of bills placed before Parliament for the construction of new lines. This resulted in inflated costs associated with the construction of the network, a big recession when the bubble burst (this was prior to our social security safety-net, so no protection from the poor house), and a whole heap of duplicated and unprofitable routes, many of which were eventually closed in the 1960s (the Beeching Axe). In contrast to your earlier assertions that the free market wouldn't result in unnecessary duplication, we ended up with four routes between London and Birmingham (now down to two after the nationalised British Rail closed two).

"...people being chained to workstations, I think this kind of destroys the idea behind "pure capitalism" which I would consider to be economic freedom"
How do you ensure this does not happen without government legislation? If people are desperate for work, they may be tempted to take any job no matter how well-informed they are of bad working conditions. Health and Safety does impact on profits though, so there are incentives for private companies to cut corners, particularly when labour is cheap and readily available, such as during recessions.

@rep "I can only remember his first handle, it was Zeletic. Ring any bells?"
Zetetic Elench dam Kahveh. That would be me, returned with a much more manageable handle after a year away to train as a physics teacher. Oh, the joys of endless application forms...