Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

GE is Shipping Up to Boston

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

    Yes, GE left Connecticut for the high taxes, but they didn't relocate to Texas or Atlanta. My point was that even cities with relatively high levels of taxation and regulation can still be attractive places to do business. Converse maybe wasn't the best example, but according to the link you provided about New Balance, they still have 5 factories in the US, 2 in Massachusetts 3 in Maine. One in Massachusetts is about 15 minutes from downtown. New Balance is committed to continuing to do domestic manufacturing. If other companies took the same stance it could bring tens of thousands of jobs back to the US, especially if the government helped incentivize this with tougher restrictions on the use of foreign labor.


    Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
    When FDR died there was a spontaneous party at my Grandfather's house with people from all over the political spectrum becasue FDR was so....beloved?
    Anyone who celebrates the death of a President, especially one who led the nation through the Great Depression and WW2, is a part of the problem in this country. I disagreed very strongly with George W. Bush on a number of issues, but he was still my president and I will be sad when he dies.

    And for the record, FDR's approval rating was around 70% when he left office. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's the highest any president has had when they've left office ever since. And among the scholarly ranking of greatest presidents of all time, Lincoln gets number one, FDR gets number 2. Obama is chugging along at 17 ahead of John Quincy Adams, and George W. Bush is at 34 right behind Nixon at 33.

    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

    And my mom told of how people cried in the south. But if you want to see how the majority felt about FDR, well, that would be found in the fact he was elected 4 times, and would probably have been elected more, if not for his death. The real proof here in is the pudding, and quite the inconvenient fact. And it is inconvenient for those who have a convoluted view of those times.

    I just viewed this, and its pertinent to the discussion. Since we are probably gonna be where we were when FDR was elected. Gerald ends his talk up with some needed common sense, which says, to bring the troops home to end the mass migration of muslims to Europe, and to end the insanity economically by manufacturing here, employing our own, with everything that we buy, from tvs and cameras to toaster ovens and washing machines. Of course, we would have to relegate the gop to the same status they had until 1981, and elect another man like FDR, to clean up the mess the GOP neoliberalism has created once again as they did in the 1920s.

    I have seen two economic models, FDRs and the GOP's. Anyone who would choose the GOP's needs some strong psycho drugs. And once again, we have seen that the GOP will drive working people into the ground, and when they have help from the dems, it is time to get a real progressive gov't again, and elect another FDR, to save us once again, from the failed ideology of GOP neoliberalism.
    I'd like to put a slight twist on your economic models. There is FDR's model and Teddy Roosevelt model of breaking up monopolies, supporting unions, and protecting manufacturing. The Dems and Reps have their partisan models. And then there is the neo-liberalism which exists within both parties. I think the goal of neo-liberalism and globalization was to ride the tide sort of speak of the new world order that was carved out with the opening of trade with China and accelerated with the collapse of the Soviet Union. I think the goal of this movement was simple, that because the US was by far the most powerful economically and otherwise, we should exert our influence on other nations by passing on some of our prosperity. Unfortunately I think instead of passing on prosperity it allowed our companies to take advantage of poor working conditions that existed in those countries. Quality of life has improved slightly in the third world, but not as rapidly as it improved in the US from 1900-1950. The free trade aspect of this movement did benefit some in the US, and things wouldn't have been so bad if the wealth that was created from free trade was re-invested into the economy, but instead it ended up pilling up into the hands of the super rich who used it to cement their hold on political power.

    Free trade isn't all bad, and it has allowed us to have increased influence in the world. But it can't be done at the expense of the American worker or the third world worker. We have standards in the free-world. Worker's rights, minimum wage, pensions, etc... There should also be standards for American companies doing business overseas, and those companies should given incentives to reinvest their earnings at home. Neo-liberal free trade has some advantages, if the US had the money to burn, but we don't anymore and we need to scale back our influence in the world and accept that we are not the only super-power anymore. Neo-liberalism has also failed to pass on any of its benefits to the middle class, and the proof is plain to see for those who are willing to look.

    The fact that places like Boston, New York, Seattle, and California continue to be economic powerhouses including with certain manufacturing despite regulations shows that high tax, high investment, high regulation and high worker protection can work. Simple manufacturing like tires can be done anywhere, and it also helps to have low tax zones, but across the board the United States needs to treat itself as it really is, an economically wealthy nation that should seek to have high levels of investment in infrastructure and other things, strong workers rights, environmental protections, etc...

    I'm not saying all regulation is good either. In Boston for example you can't cut down a tree without a $10k environmental impact study. But there needs to be common ground. Like increasing the minimum wage to what it was in the 60's, and the effective tax rate on the wealthy to what it was during the 60's. I don't think this would hurt the economies of any red states. I think liberals would be all for the Keystone pipeline if it was constructed properly; with overpasses and underpasses for wildlife, higher berms to control spills, thicker pipes, etc... It might cut down on the margins, but it could still be profitable and would not affect the environment to the degree that it needs to be blocked.

    I hope I'm defining neo-liberalism correctly as you see it BD. Sort of free-trade, low regulation, globalization? Again I think there are times when free-trade works and is important. Norway has tons of trees but the UK is lacking. The UK makes great biscuits, Norway does not. Norway should not limit UK biscuit imports to protect their biscuit industry nor should the UK limit their timber imports. But it's not always that simple. Fair-trade coffee is one important example of where free-trade isn't necessarily good. Coffee can be grown anywhere, but it has historically been dominated by places like South America and Indonesia who could manipulate prices. Fair-trade coffee is sometimes slightly more expensive but the farmers are better off for it and poorer countries can enter the market.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #17
      Originally posted by .3dontVoteParty View Post


      Yes, GE left Connecticut for the high taxes, but they didn't relocate to Texas or Atlanta. My point was that even cities with relatively high levels of taxation and regulation can still be attractive places to do business. Converse maybe wasn't the best example, but according to the link you provided about New Balance, they still have 5 factories in the US, 2 in Massachusetts 3 in Maine. One in Massachusetts is about 15 minutes from downtown. New Balance is committed to continuing to do domestic manufacturing. If other companies took the same stance it could bring tens of thousands of jobs back to the US, especially if the government helped incentivize this with tougher restrictions on the use of foreign labor.




      Anyone who celebrates the death of a President, especially one who led the nation through the Great Depression and WW2, is a part of the problem in this country. I disagreed very strongly with George W. Bush on a number of issues, but he was still my president and I will be sad when he dies.

      And for the record, FDR's approval rating was around 70% when he left office. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's the highest any president has had when they've left office ever since. And among the scholarly ranking of greatest presidents of all time, Lincoln gets number one, FDR gets number 2. Obama is chugging along at 17 ahead of John Quincy Adams, and George W. Bush is at 34 right behind Nixon at 33.



      I'd like to put a slight twist on your economic models. There is FDR's model and Teddy Roosevelt model of breaking up monopolies, supporting unions, and protecting manufacturing. The Dems and Reps have their partisan models. And then there is the neo-liberalism which exists within both parties. I think the goal of neo-liberalism and globalization was to ride the tide sort of speak of the new world order that was carved out with the opening of trade with China and accelerated with the collapse of the Soviet Union. I think the goal of this movement was simple, that because the US was by far the most powerful economically and otherwise, we should exert our influence on other nations by passing on some of our prosperity. Unfortunately I think instead of passing on prosperity it allowed our companies to take advantage of poor working conditions that existed in those countries. Quality of life has improved slightly in the third world, but not as rapidly as it improved in the US from 1900-1950. The free trade aspect of this movement did benefit some in the US, and things wouldn't have been so bad if the wealth that was created from free trade was re-invested into the economy, but instead it ended up pilling up into the hands of the super rich who used it to cement their hold on political power.

      Free trade isn't all bad, and it has allowed us to have increased influence in the world. But it can't be done at the expense of the American worker or the third world worker. We have standards in the free-world. Worker's rights, minimum wage, pensions, etc... There should also be standards for American companies doing business overseas, and those companies should given incentives to reinvest their earnings at home. Neo-liberal free trade has some advantages, if the US had the money to burn, but we don't anymore and we need to scale back our influence in the world and accept that we are not the only super-power anymore. Neo-liberalism has also failed to pass on any of its benefits to the middle class, and the proof is plain to see for those who are willing to look.

      The fact that places like Boston, New York, Seattle, and California continue to be economic powerhouses including with certain manufacturing despite regulations shows that high tax, high investment, high regulation and high worker protection can work. Simple manufacturing like tires can be done anywhere, and it also helps to have low tax zones, but across the board the United States needs to treat itself as it really is, an economically wealthy nation that should seek to have high levels of investment in infrastructure and other things, strong workers rights, environmental protections, etc...

      I'm not saying all regulation is good either. In Boston for example you can't cut down a tree without a $10k environmental impact study. But there needs to be common ground. Like increasing the minimum wage to what it was in the 60's, and the effective tax rate on the wealthy to what it was during the 60's. I don't think this would hurt the economies of any red states. I think liberals would be all for the Keystone pipeline if it was constructed properly; with overpasses and underpasses for wildlife, higher berms to control spills, thicker pipes, etc... It might cut down on the margins, but it could still be profitable and would not affect the environment to the degree that it needs to be blocked.

      I hope I'm defining neo-liberalism correctly as you see it BD. Sort of free-trade, low regulation, globalization? Again I think there are times when free-trade works and is important. Norway has tons of trees but the UK is lacking. The UK makes great biscuits, Norway does not. Norway should not limit UK biscuit imports to protect their biscuit industry nor should the UK limit their timber imports. But it's not always that simple. Fair-trade coffee is one important example of where free-trade isn't necessarily good. Coffee can be grown anywhere, but it has historically been dominated by places like South America and Indonesia who could manipulate prices. Fair-trade coffee is sometimes slightly more expensive but the farmers are better off for it and poorer countries can enter the market.
      Yes, I do not disagree with what you have said about neoliberalism. I think it will always be a failed philosophy, and that we already know what works the best for the American people, for we have a record of it historically. We, some of us, seem to forget, or simply will not recognize that the regulations of he FDR model were a reaction to great problems created by men chasing profits, and so a framework was laid down which tried to remove the risks of such endeavors, which would cause tremendous problems, socially and economically within a nation. These regulations and policy also addressed the disparity in income and wealth, for the truth is, unfettered capitalism will not do anything but send most of the income to the top, impoverishing working people, and never creating a large middle class. And FDR and others saw capitalism in a different light. They saw it as a tool to be used by a nation, to bring prosperity to the greatest number of people, instead of a tool that only creates great wealth for a few, at the top. So, this was what was behind the regulated economy of FDR, and while not perfect, as nothing is ever perfect, it served the American people the best and that cannot be refuted. Of course the cons did not like it because it went against their ideological beliefs, no matter if it was the best thing for the People. And the elites did not like it, for it limited, yes limited, the degree of their income and wealth, by not allowing them to keep as much of the income pie as they would want to do. And so the conservatives and the elites had a common interests here, and once the GOP came back into power, they served their ideology, while serving the self interests of the elites. And that has created the America we see today. This is rather simple stuff here, easy to observe.

      Basically the neoliberals in first the GOP and then the Dem. Party, moved us from an economy, which served to allow the American people to prosper by their work, but which limited the degree of wealth on the top, to an economy that primarily serves the elites on the top to max out their own income and wealth. That is what underlies this. And this is what the changes entail. This is the fact of the matter, and yet some people will simply deny this fact. Plus, there is an ideology that believes that we should never limit the growth of income and wealth at the top, for somehow this interferes with freedom. Yet when freedom involves gutting out a nation, impoverishing its people, taking away the ability of working people to thrive by their work, well, its like hollering out fire in a crowded theater. If freedom of the elites has such consequences upon the rest of the people in a nation, to call this a freedom is a very nefarious and uneducated thing. No one should be free to destroy a nation, to hurt its people, for the simple reason of wanting to make their own pile of gold higher. But man cons are incapable of seeing this, and that has been a problem with the voters since 1980. For sometimes an ideological belief can be a very destructive thing, and in this particular area, indeed it has been. For we have this beast called conservative neoliberals, and ironically they are mostly white working people, being hurt the most by holding such a belief, and for some reason, they do not have the rational clarity of mind, to understand what they are doing, to themselves.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #18
        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

        Yes, I do not disagree with what you have said about neoliberalism. I think it will always be a failed philosophy, and that we already know what works the best for the American people, for we have a record of it historically. We, some of us, seem to forget, or simply will not recognize that the regulations of he FDR model were a reaction to great problems created by men chasing profits, and so a framework was laid down which tried to remove the risks of such endeavors, which would cause tremendous problems, socially and economically within a nation. These regulations and policy also addressed the disparity in income and wealth, for the truth is, unfettered capitalism will not do anything but send most of the income to the top, impoverishing working people, and never creating a large middle class. And FDR and others saw capitalism in a different light. They saw it as a tool to be used by a nation, to bring prosperity to the greatest number of people, instead of a tool that only creates great wealth for a few, at the top. So, this was what was behind the regulated economy of FDR, and while not perfect, as nothing is ever perfect, it served the American people the best and that cannot be refuted. Of course the cons did not like it because it went against their ideological beliefs, no matter if it was the best thing for the People. And the elites did not like it, for it limited, yes limited, the degree of their income and wealth, by not allowing them to keep as much of the income pie as they would want to do. And so the conservatives and the elites had a common interests here, and once the GOP came back into power, they served their ideology, while serving the self interests of the elites. And that has created the America we see today. This is rather simple stuff here, easy to observe.

        Basically the neoliberals in first the GOP and then the Dem. Party, moved us from an economy, which served to allow the American people to prosper by their work, but which limited the degree of wealth on the top, to an economy that primarily serves the elites on the top to max out their own income and wealth. That is what underlies this. And this is what the changes entail. This is the fact of the matter, and yet some people will simply deny this fact. Plus, there is an ideology that believes that we should never limit the growth of income and wealth at the top, for somehow this interferes with freedom. Yet when freedom involves gutting out a nation, impoverishing its people, taking away the ability of working people to thrive by their work, well, its like hollering out fire in a crowded theater. If freedom of the elites has such consequences upon the rest of the people in a nation, to call this a freedom is a very nefarious and uneducated thing. No one should be free to destroy a nation, to hurt its people, for the simple reason of wanting to make their own pile of gold higher. But man cons are incapable of seeing this, and that has been a problem with the voters since 1980. For sometimes an ideological belief can be a very destructive thing, and in this particular area, indeed it has been. For we have this beast called conservative neoliberals, and ironically they are mostly white working people, being hurt the most by holding such a belief, and for some reason, they do not have the rational clarity of mind, to understand what they are doing, to themselves.

        I meant am I defining neo-liberalism correctly? Free-trade, low regulation, globalization? And I'll add low tax to that as well. I also think we agree more than we disagree. I have long been against organizations such as the WTO, World Bank, and others who use free trade as an excuse to exploit third world workers. One only needs to open the newspaper to hear the horror stories of sweat shops and alike.

        My support of free-trade is mostly philosophical. I think Adam Smith was describing basic human behavior as much as an economic model when he described the relationship between supply and demand, competitive advantage vs comparative, elasticity, alternative goods, etc... It's all common sense stuff.

        Throughout human history nations and empires have been subject to the economic forces of the time. Rome suffered because of trade imbalance. The Middle East gained from it's position between China and Europe. Etc... I just think as a matter of philosophy, if one nation has a competitive advantage on a certain product it is in the world's interest to allow that nation to retain that advantage. I like the example of Norway having cheap lumber - no one should put tariffs on Norwegian timber imports to protect their own timber industry, it just doesn't make sense. I'll just quickly point to three cases where free trade has helped both the world economy and national interests.

        First was the opening of trade with Japan in 1853. When Japan finally opened up trade, at the barrel of an American gun I might add, it benefited both the US and Japan enormously. Japan gained access to Western technology and through government and foreign investment capitalized on those technologies. The US likewise gained a market allowing for increased exports.

        Second is the case of New Zealand. They had historically been a high tariff country benefiting mainly from trade with the UK. The UK did this for political reasons, which is one of the uses of free trade, but the UK was on the losing end of that deal. By the 1960's they began to wean New Zealand off. New Zealand responded by negotiating trade agreements with other nations like Japan, China, Singapore, and Australia. This allowed their economy to modernize and specialize. Well, specialize in dairy at least. And today Fonterra is one of the world's largest dairy companies. If New Zealand had not done this it might have more of an electronics industry, but certainly less of a dairy industry. Overall I think the right decision.

        Third is the ultimate example of world's colliding; the oil embargo(s). OPEC decided to embargo the West, especially the US, in 1967, 1973, and 1979. The embargo did severely hurt the West, at least in the short term. But in the long term, it caused the West to increase it's own production, spurred advances is renewable technology, and in the long run hurt OPEC. I realize this is different from imposing a tariff, but it goes to the heart of what free-trade means. Was the oil embargo worth it for OPEC? Are sanctions worth it for the US? It's a tricky question.

        I personally think the oil embargo was a mistake for OPEC. Slowly decreasing production maybe, but not an embargo. I think sanctions have their purpose, but they can only go so far and should be temporary in nature. Long term isolation of a nation only hurts our national interest. I think each trade agreement ought to be negotiated separately, mostly bilaterally, and with high regard to the cost/benefit to local workers and their long term prospects. If McDonald's benefits from some free-trade then they better raise their wages. That type of thing.

        Overall I agree with you. FDR's model worked extremely well during his time. Today the world is different, but the pendulum has swung way too far towards laissez-faire capitalism, and the rich are obscenely wealthy so much that I agree the US ought to be called an Oligarchy more than a Democracy. It's Quasi-Feudalism. Quite literally. There could be a number of different names for it, Neo-Liberalism could be one. The modern day philosophers and academics are still sorting that out I guess. But when the top 1% owns more than half the world's wealth, it's a national security issue, a moral issue, and an economic issue. And just a damn shame.

        Bottom line: Social-Democracies work - the US model since the 1980's simply doesn't. There is ample evidence for it, for those who are willing to keep an open mind.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #19
          Paying third world workers three times what they have been earning in the past is hardly exploitation. They live in an entirely different economy where a cabbage costs a penny instead of a dollar. They are not being exploited by their standards. We certainly do not have laissez-faire capitalism today. Try to start a business today and see just how many hoops you have to jump through to get it started and run it and then pay the taxes imposed. I went into a warehouse the other day to buy some parts for beer making. The proprietor had things on pallets in the warehouse and said he didn't have enough room for all the things he wanted to stock. I told him he could always go up into the vacant space above. He said in order to do that, he had install a sprinkler system to the tune of $75,000. Fire code.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #20
            Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
            Paying third world workers three times what they have been earning in the past is hardly exploitation. They live in an entirely different economy where a cabbage costs a penny instead of a dollar. They are not being exploited by their standards. We certainly do not have laissez-faire capitalism today. Try to start a business today and see just how many hoops you have to jump through to get it started and run it and then pay the taxes imposed. I went into a warehouse the other day to buy some parts for beer making. The proprietor had things on pallets in the warehouse and said he didn't have enough room for all the things he wanted to stock. I told him he could always go up into the vacant space above. He said in order to do that, he had install a sprinkler system to the tune of $75,000. Fire code.
            Sure it is. Absolute exploitation. For they are not paid enough, to buy what they are making. And they are not paid enough for one reason. This allows CEOs to make 800 times the rate of pay of their average worker. This allows for the MNCs to max out profits, for themselves and their stockholders. But it is done on the backs of the exploited. You have a contorted sense of human values, which is part and parcel of the conservative neoliberal value system.

            Do you think the communist Chinese worker has a choice here? LOL. They were trucked in from farms, and treated like prisoners, so the MNCs could exploit them, which led to nets being put up so they could not commit suicide. And you say they are not being exploited? LOL. Again, this is due to a value system that isn't that far away from the value system that created slavery. And this is what unfettered capitalism creates. This is what capitalism, which is exempted from morality creates. And this is part and parcel of the philosophy of neoliberalism, which has become one and the same as GOP conservatism as we know it. Perhaps not the conservatism of the voter, but their politicians hold these values.

            Anyone who is not paid enough to thrive on, is being exploited. For if you did sharecropping, and you were the land owner, but you took so much of the proceeds from the work of the sharecropper, so that he didn't have enough left to even live on, that is exploitation of another human being, by an owner. And if it happens in an MNC factory in china, there is no difference here between the two.

            This support of the exploitation of other humans for greater profits of the owners, is an extreme moral failure of conservative neoliberal ideology. But this belief, this value system is as old as civilization is, for that was when it was born. It was not the way man lived for at least 50,000 years prior to the rise of civilization. Civilization made man less civilized, not more civilized, For it provided a group of human beings that were easy for the owner class to exploit, in the interest of their own selfish greed. That is just the fact of the matter. But an ideological brain, driven by the ideology, of course is blind to fact. Facts destroy most ideological thinking which is why there is no place for facts in a ideological driven belief and value system. Or not many of them.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #21
              The ruthless have always taken what they could from others, now they wear suits and do it with contracts, a rigged economy, and the weight of socitey behind them instead of with a club or spear.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #22
                Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                Paying third world workers three times what they have been earning in the past is hardly exploitation. They live in an entirely different economy where a cabbage costs a penny instead of a dollar. They are not being exploited by their standards. We certainly do not have laissez-faire capitalism today. Try to start a business today and see just how many hoops you have to jump through to get it started and run it and then pay the taxes imposed. I went into a warehouse the other day to buy some parts for beer making. The proprietor had things on pallets in the warehouse and said he didn't have enough room for all the things he wanted to stock. I told him he could always go up into the vacant space above. He said in order to do that, he had install a sprinkler system to the tune of $75,000. Fire code.
                It may come as a surprise, but this is where I partly agree with you. Globalization has benefited the third world, however I still think that many workers are being exploited. In the US children used to be coal miners and there were deadly factory fires. The same thing is going on in the third world. It is an improvement from the past, but there is still room for further improvement. Overall, the economies of China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, etc... have not improved from 1975-2015 as much as the US economy improved from 1910-1950.

                I think in some cases free trade can be beneficial, and high tariffs have created problems in the past. I think every agreement needs to be carefully considered. The issue is always more complicated than you'd think. But as in the case of Boston, I hope common sense can prevail.

                As for the issue of starting a business, I agree. Small businesses are hit especially hard with licenses, fees, and taxes. I think too often state and local safety codes are enforced in an uneven and heavy handed way. The solution is not always less regulation though, just common sense oversight. I remember hearing stories of how a chip in the sidewalk suddenly became the responsibility of a restaurant nearby rather than the city. There should be a mechanism for the restaurant to fight that without paying tens of thousands in court fees.



                Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                The ruthless have always taken what they could from others, now they wear suits and do it with contracts, a rigged economy, and the weight of socitey behind them instead of with a club or spear.
                The pen is now truly mightier than the sword. As Warren Zevon once said, send lawyers, guns, and money. The unrestrained feudal, overlord, billionaire oligarchy that exists and is running the show can only successfully be constrained by a well-informed representative government. Unfortunately, with multi-nationals and billionaires able to rig elections, and the huge corporate media able to steer the national conversation, we have uninformed partisan idealogues running the government and creating an economy that reduces competition and allows almost every industry to be monopolized by a few at the top.



                Question for all:

                Which nation is the most "fair", economically and politically?

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #23
                  Originally posted by .3dontVoteParty View Post

                  It may come as a surprise, but this is where I partly agree with you. Globalization has benefited the third world, however I still think that many workers are being exploited. In the US children used to be coal miners and there were deadly factory fires. The same thing is going on in the third world. It is an improvement from the past, but there is still room for further improvement. Overall, the economies of China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, etc... have not improved from 1975-2015 as much as the US economy improved from 1910-1950.

                  I think in some cases free trade can be beneficial, and high tariffs have created problems in the past. I think every agreement needs to be carefully considered. The issue is always more complicated than you'd think. But as in the case of Boston, I hope common sense can prevail.

                  As for the issue of starting a business, I agree. Small businesses are hit especially hard with licenses, fees, and taxes. I think too often state and local safety codes are enforced in an uneven and heavy handed way. The solution is not always less regulation though, just common sense oversight. I remember hearing stories of how a chip in the sidewalk suddenly became the responsibility of a restaurant nearby rather than the city. There should be a mechanism for the restaurant to fight that without paying tens of thousands in court fees.





                  The pen is now truly mightier than the sword. As Warren Zevon once said, send lawyers, guns, and money. The unrestrained feudal, overlord, billionaire oligarchy that exists and is running the show can only successfully be constrained by a well-informed representative government. Unfortunately, with multi-nationals and billionaires able to rig elections, and the huge corporate media able to steer the national conversation, we have uninformed partisan idealogues running the government and creating an economy that reduces competition and allows almost every industry to be monopolized by a few at the top.



                  Question for all:

                  Which nation is the most "fair", economically and politically?

                  I guess what strikes me as the most insane is liberals who complain that government is manipulated and run by elitists and yet they want more of it. I want the federal government to protect the country and to deliver the mail. The rest I want done by States where we have more control over who is elected.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?

                  Working...
                  X