More economic GOOD News...DOW hits new record..on track to hit 17K.

[kaz]

Not really sure what your "board" position on these issues are..they seem to change depending on who you are replying too and the time of the day.

And you are right..we can't.

Because that would mean you'd have to start being honest.

That hasn't happened.

wow ... just wow

Come on, RKM, let's admit it, Sallow's got us. We recognize the inherent truth of liberalism like he does, I mean it's obvious. It's just pure reason, it makes no sense to deny it. It's not enough that we would be freer, richer and happier in his socialist paradise, we just don't want blacks to get it too. I mean if we could just keep the blacks out, then we'd all want socialism. But c'mon, it's the blacks! We just can't have that...

You forgot the part about not wanting La Raza to get too much.

Well, mainly it's the blacks, but sure, it's the Hispanics too. Not to mention women, gays, the handicapped and Muslims. It's more important they get nothing then that we're rich, don't you think?

 

[boedicca]

Not really sure what your "board" position on these issues are..they seem to change depending on who you are replying too and the time of the day.

And you are right..we can't.

Because that would mean you'd have to start being honest.

That hasn't happened.

wow ... just wow

Come on, RKM, let's admit it, Sallow's got us. We recognize the inherent truth of liberalism like he does, I mean it's obvious. It's just pure reason, it makes no sense to deny it. It's not enough that we would be freer, richer and happier in his socialist paradise, we just don't want blacks to get it too. I mean if we could just keep the blacks out, then we'd all want socialism. But c'mon, it's the blacks! We just can't have that...

You forgot the part about not wanting La Raza to get too much.

Well, mainly it's the blacks, but sure, it's the Hispanics too. Not to mention women, gays, the handicapped and Muslims. It's more important they get nothing then that we're rich, don't you think?

Well, as a woman, I'm fine with Women getting rich, as long as they are Blue-eyed Blondes, such as I.

 

[Valerie]

Well, as a woman, I'm fine with Women getting rich, as long as they are Blue-eyed Blondes, such as I.

hey! lol why do you hate brunettes?

 

[kaz]

Well, mainly it's the blacks, but sure, it's the Hispanics too. Not to mention women, gays, the handicapped and Muslims. It's more important they get nothing then that we're rich, don't you think?

Well, as a woman, I'm fine with Women getting rich, as long as they are Blue-eyed Blondes, such as I.

Obviously you know I'm kidding, but at least in my house, does it matter who gets to earn it or "own" it? Or is it who gets to decide how it's spent? The latter certainly isn't me...

 

[boedicca]

Well, as a woman, I'm fine with Women getting rich, as long as they are Blue-eyed Blondes, such as I.

hey! lol why do you hate brunettes?

Okay, you can be RICH too!

 

[boedicca]

Well, mainly it's the blacks, but sure, it's the Hispanics too. Not to mention women, gays, the handicapped and Muslims. It's more important they get nothing then that we're rich, don't you think?

Well, as a woman, I'm fine with Women getting rich, as long as they are Blue-eyed Blondes, such as I.

Obviously you know I'm kidding, but at least in my house, does it matter who gets to earn it or "own" it? Or is it who gets to decide how it's spent? The latter certainly isn't me...

As you know that I am kidding too. In the boe household, we've both earned a decent amount of money and it's all pooled together. We each have certain latitude to spend money on minor things. Larger purchases are joint decisions. That's worked pretty well for us.

 

[Valerie]

Well, as a woman, I'm fine with Women getting rich, as long as they are Blue-eyed Blondes, such as I.

hey! lol why do you hate brunettes?

Okay, you can be RICH too!

hee hee, i'm well on my way!

1. a person with dark colored hair that is generally really cool and smart and knows a hell of a lot more then blondes.

Urban Dictionary: brunette

^

 

[Sallow]

And in other news:

Stocks on Wall Street moved mostly higher on Thursday, pushing the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index nearer to another record close.

Traders were encouraged by the latest positive sign in the United States job market, a decline last week in the number of people applying for unemployment benefits.

The S.&P. 500 rose 0.2 percent in midday trading and the Dow Jones industrial average was up 0.4 percent, while the Nasdaq composite was largely flat.

Hewlett-Packard rose 5 percent after the company reported its first sales increase in nearly three years.

Shares of Sears Holdings fell 7 percent after the retailer reported that its loss doubled in the latest quarter.

JOBS, JOBS, JOBS Claims for unemployment benefits, which are a proxy for the number of people who lost their jobs and are looking for work, fell by 14,000 last week, to 298,000. The less-volatile four-week average was 300,750, below the average before the Great Recession.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/22/b...arket-activity.html?partner=yahoofinance&_r=0

 

[kaz]

Well, mainly it's the blacks, but sure, it's the Hispanics too. Not to mention women, gays, the handicapped and Muslims. It's more important they get nothing then that we're rich, don't you think?

Well, as a woman, I'm fine with Women getting rich, as long as they are Blue-eyed Blondes, such as I.

Obviously you know I'm kidding, but at least in my house, does it matter who gets to earn it or "own" it? Or is it who gets to decide how it's spent? The latter certainly isn't me...

As you know that I am kidding too. In the boe household, we've both earned a decent amount of money and it's all pooled together. We each have certain latitude to spend money on minor things. Larger purchases are joint decisions. That's worked pretty well for us.

In my house, I decide what to spend it on. And we do that as soon as my wife let's me know what I want to spend it on...

 

[Faun]

S&P 500 sets record close on signs of healthier economy

Obama akbar!

 

[Andylusion]

You folks keep saying this and yet? When there is major economic turmoil in this country? It generally starts in the Stock Market.

Now why is that? Could it be there a huge tie in between banks (Savings) and financials (investment)? Could it be that when the market goes south, credit freezes up?

Real wealth (the stuff outside of money) is acquired in several ways.

You grow it.
You mine it.
You produce it.
You service it.

And America wasn't suffering a large scale decline in any of those things during the great depression and the Bush cataclysm.

What did happen?

The stock market crashed and banks were failing.

That dried up credit and investment. And led to massive unemployment.

Your argument here is laughable at best.

This is what bugs me about this argument. This is just more proof, the left is who supports big bankers the wealthy, the CEOs the rich and powerful.

Do you not realize that what you said is exactly what the banks, and wealthy people, WANT you to believe?

What you just spelled out, is the exact rationalization to justify "too big too fail".

If I was in a major industry of any kind, and I wanted the government to bail me out whenever I made a mistake, the best way to do that is to convince the public, and government, that without me and my industry, the entire country will end in depression, if you don't save my butt.

That's exactly what you tried to outline here. The Big Banker Credo. What happened? The stock market crashed, and let's not determine why. Banks were failing, and let's not determine why. And because of that, credit dried up. And because of that investment dried up. And because of that, massive unemployment.

There you go... let's institute 'too big too fail', and bailout all the banks, and pay off all the wealthy rich people, because we don't want banks to fail, because we don't want credit to freeze, because we don't want investment to dry up, because we don't want massive unemployment.

Party of the Rich, at your service!

FAIL! I completely don't buy any of this.

Banks do not CAUSE the economy. Banks RESPOND to the economy. The stock market equally, is almost always a reflection of the economy, or a reflection of future economy issues. It does not cause either.

If a business is successful and growing, it's not possible for the stock price dropping, to cause the business to fail. Equally, if the business is failing, it's not possible for the stock price increasing, to cause it to become profitable again. In fact, Enron was a great example of that. Stock prices near the end, were still going up, even though they were losing money.

Equally, if my mortgage is with Countrywide, and Countrywide goes bust, that doesn't harm me. My mortgage will simply be sold off to another bank, and I still pay it, and keep my house.

Credit drying up, is not a problem, if your business is successful. In every recession, people complain about credit drying up. Credit is not drying up. The number of credit worthy borrowers is drying up, because there is an economy down turn.

If your business starts losing money every month, yeah, the bank isn't going to give you a loan. It's not because 'credit dried up!', it's because you are bad risk. You are losing money every month. You think giving a failing business, increased overhead cost with interest payments, is going to save the business? No, it will just sink the business faster, and the bank will lose all it's money.

At the same time, Investment doesn't dry up because of banks. Investment dried up because in a down economy, there were fewer worthy investments.

There are dozens, if not hundreds of businesses, that were started, expanded, and grew all throughout the recession. They got plenty of investment, because they were growing and successful. There were fewer, that's true.... because the economy was bad. Simple as that.

The real answer is this.

The downturn in the economy was due to the minimum wage, and bad government regulation.

The crash in the mortgage market, and the housing price bubble crash, was due to bad government regulation and policy pushing bad sub-prime loans.

 

[Sallow]

You folks keep saying this and yet? When there is major economic turmoil in this country? It generally starts in the Stock Market.

Now why is that? Could it be there a huge tie in between banks (Savings) and financials (investment)? Could it be that when the market goes south, credit freezes up?

Real wealth (the stuff outside of money) is acquired in several ways.

You grow it.
You mine it.
You produce it.
You service it.

And America wasn't suffering a large scale decline in any of those things during the great depression and the Bush cataclysm.

What did happen?

The stock market crashed and banks were failing.

That dried up credit and investment. And led to massive unemployment.

Your argument here is laughable at best.

This is what bugs me about this argument. This is just more proof, the left is who supports big bankers the wealthy, the CEOs the rich and powerful.

Do you not realize that what you said is exactly what the banks, and wealthy people, WANT you to believe?

What you just spelled out, is the exact rationalization to justify "too big too fail".

If I was in a major industry of any kind, and I wanted the government to bail me out whenever I made a mistake, the best way to do that is to convince the public, and government, that without me and my industry, the entire country will end in depression, if you don't save my butt.

That's exactly what you tried to outline here. The Big Banker Credo. What happened? The stock market crashed, and let's not determine why. Banks were failing, and let's not determine why. And because of that, credit dried up. And because of that investment dried up. And because of that, massive unemployment.

There you go... let's institute 'too big too fail', and bailout all the banks, and pay off all the wealthy rich people, because we don't want banks to fail, because we don't want credit to freeze, because we don't want investment to dry up, because we don't want massive unemployment.

Party of the Rich, at your service!

FAIL! I completely don't buy any of this.

Banks do not CAUSE the economy. Banks RESPOND to the economy. The stock market equally, is almost always a reflection of the economy, or a reflection of future economy issues. It does not cause either.

If a business is successful and growing, it's not possible for the stock price dropping, to cause the business to fail. Equally, if the business is failing, it's not possible for the stock price increasing, to cause it to become profitable again. In fact, Enron was a great example of that. Stock prices near the end, were still going up, even though they were losing money.

Equally, if my mortgage is with Countrywide, and Countrywide goes bust, that doesn't harm me. My mortgage will simply be sold off to another bank, and I still pay it, and keep my house.

Credit drying up, is not a problem, if your business is successful. In every recession, people complain about credit drying up. Credit is not drying up. The number of credit worthy borrowers is drying up, because there is an economy down turn.

If your business starts losing money every month, yeah, the bank isn't going to give you a loan. It's not because 'credit dried up!', it's because you are bad risk. You are losing money every month. You think giving a failing business, increased overhead cost with interest payments, is going to save the business? No, it will just sink the business faster, and the bank will lose all it's money.

At the same time, Investment doesn't dry up because of banks. Investment dried up because in a down economy, there were fewer worthy investments.

There are dozens, if not hundreds of businesses, that were started, expanded, and grew all throughout the recession. They got plenty of investment, because they were growing and successful. There were fewer, that's true.... because the economy was bad. Simple as that.

The real answer is this.

The downturn in the economy was due to the minimum wage, and bad government regulation.

The crash in the mortgage market, and the housing price bubble crash, was due to bad government regulation and policy pushing bad sub-prime loans.

Want me to believe?

No..there are some things in economics that are truths.

There maybe different ways to approach those truths but there are truths.

And here's another.

No government.
No real or sustainable economy.

It's as simple as that.

If one looks at it through the lens of a conservative?

Theocracy, Monarchy or Fascism is the way to go. All of those systems of government encourage what you do..wealth = power. And top down government.

Minimum wage doesn't cause crashes.
Neither does most regulations.
Neither do Unions.

What causes crashes are extremely wealthy people paying games with their wealth, to increase it..

 

[LeftofLeft]

You folks keep saying this and yet? When there is major economic turmoil in this country? It generally starts in the Stock Market.

Now why is that? Could it be there a huge tie in between banks (Savings) and financials (investment)? Could it be that when the market goes south, credit freezes up?

Real wealth (the stuff outside of money) is acquired in several ways.

You grow it.
You mine it.
You produce it.
You service it.

And America wasn't suffering a large scale decline in any of those things during the great depression and the Bush cataclysm.

What did happen?

The stock market crashed and banks were failing.

That dried up credit and investment. And led to massive unemployment.

Your argument here is laughable at best.

This is what bugs me about this argument. This is just more proof, the left is who supports big bankers the wealthy, the CEOs the rich and powerful.

Do you not realize that what you said is exactly what the banks, and wealthy people, WANT you to believe?

What you just spelled out, is the exact rationalization to justify "too big too fail".

If I was in a major industry of any kind, and I wanted the government to bail me out whenever I made a mistake, the best way to do that is to convince the public, and government, that without me and my industry, the entire country will end in depression, if you don't save my butt.

That's exactly what you tried to outline here. The Big Banker Credo. What happened? The stock market crashed, and let's not determine why. Banks were failing, and let's not determine why. And because of that, credit dried up. And because of that investment dried up. And because of that, massive unemployment.

There you go... let's institute 'too big too fail', and bailout all the banks, and pay off all the wealthy rich people, because we don't want banks to fail, because we don't want credit to freeze, because we don't want investment to dry up, because we don't want massive unemployment.

Party of the Rich, at your service!

FAIL! I completely don't buy any of this.

Banks do not CAUSE the economy. Banks RESPOND to the economy. The stock market equally, is almost always a reflection of the economy, or a reflection of future economy issues. It does not cause either.

If a business is successful and growing, it's not possible for the stock price dropping, to cause the business to fail. Equally, if the business is failing, it's not possible for the stock price increasing, to cause it to become profitable again. In fact, Enron was a great example of that. Stock prices near the end, were still going up, even though they were losing money.

Equally, if my mortgage is with Countrywide, and Countrywide goes bust, that doesn't harm me. My mortgage will simply be sold off to another bank, and I still pay it, and keep my house.

Credit drying up, is not a problem, if your business is successful. In every recession, people complain about credit drying up. Credit is not drying up. The number of credit worthy borrowers is drying up, because there is an economy down turn.

If your business starts losing money every month, yeah, the bank isn't going to give you a loan. It's not because 'credit dried up!', it's because you are bad risk. You are losing money every month. You think giving a failing business, increased overhead cost with interest payments, is going to save the business? No, it will just sink the business faster, and the bank will lose all it's money.

At the same time, Investment doesn't dry up because of banks. Investment dried up because in a down economy, there were fewer worthy investments.

There are dozens, if not hundreds of businesses, that were started, expanded, and grew all throughout the recession. They got plenty of investment, because they were growing and successful. There were fewer, that's true.... because the economy was bad. Simple as that.

The real answer is this.

The downturn in the economy was due to the minimum wage, and bad government regulation.

The crash in the mortgage market, and the housing price bubble crash, was due to bad government regulation and policy pushing bad sub-prime loans.

Want me to believe?

No..there are some things in economics that are truths.

There maybe different ways to approach those truths but there are truths.

And here's another.

No government.
No real or sustainable economy.

It's as simple as that.

If one looks at it through the lens of a conservative?

Theocracy, Monarchy or Fascism is the way to go. All of those systems of government encourage what you do..wealth = power. And top down government.

Minimum wage doesn't cause crashes.
Neither does most regulations.
Neither do Unions.

What causes crashes are extremely wealthy people paying games with their wealth, to increase it..

Reid, Kerry, Pelosil, Clinton, and Kennedys are obviously to blame.

 

[Andylusion]

You folks keep saying this and yet? When there is major economic turmoil in this country? It generally starts in the Stock Market.

Now why is that? Could it be there a huge tie in between banks (Savings) and financials (investment)? Could it be that when the market goes south, credit freezes up?

Real wealth (the stuff outside of money) is acquired in several ways.

You grow it.
You mine it.
You produce it.
You service it.

And America wasn't suffering a large scale decline in any of those things during the great depression and the Bush cataclysm.

What did happen?

The stock market crashed and banks were failing.

That dried up credit and investment. And led to massive unemployment.

Your argument here is laughable at best.

This is what bugs me about this argument. This is just more proof, the left is who supports big bankers the wealthy, the CEOs the rich and powerful.

Do you not realize that what you said is exactly what the banks, and wealthy people, WANT you to believe?

What you just spelled out, is the exact rationalization to justify "too big too fail".

If I was in a major industry of any kind, and I wanted the government to bail me out whenever I made a mistake, the best way to do that is to convince the public, and government, that without me and my industry, the entire country will end in depression, if you don't save my butt.

That's exactly what you tried to outline here. The Big Banker Credo. What happened? The stock market crashed, and let's not determine why. Banks were failing, and let's not determine why. And because of that, credit dried up. And because of that investment dried up. And because of that, massive unemployment.

There you go... let's institute 'too big too fail', and bailout all the banks, and pay off all the wealthy rich people, because we don't want banks to fail, because we don't want credit to freeze, because we don't want investment to dry up, because we don't want massive unemployment.

Party of the Rich, at your service!

FAIL! I completely don't buy any of this.

Banks do not CAUSE the economy. Banks RESPOND to the economy. The stock market equally, is almost always a reflection of the economy, or a reflection of future economy issues. It does not cause either.

If a business is successful and growing, it's not possible for the stock price dropping, to cause the business to fail. Equally, if the business is failing, it's not possible for the stock price increasing, to cause it to become profitable again. In fact, Enron was a great example of that. Stock prices near the end, were still going up, even though they were losing money.

Equally, if my mortgage is with Countrywide, and Countrywide goes bust, that doesn't harm me. My mortgage will simply be sold off to another bank, and I still pay it, and keep my house.

Credit drying up, is not a problem, if your business is successful. In every recession, people complain about credit drying up. Credit is not drying up. The number of credit worthy borrowers is drying up, because there is an economy down turn.

If your business starts losing money every month, yeah, the bank isn't going to give you a loan. It's not because 'credit dried up!', it's because you are bad risk. You are losing money every month. You think giving a failing business, increased overhead cost with interest payments, is going to save the business? No, it will just sink the business faster, and the bank will lose all it's money.

At the same time, Investment doesn't dry up because of banks. Investment dried up because in a down economy, there were fewer worthy investments.

There are dozens, if not hundreds of businesses, that were started, expanded, and grew all throughout the recession. They got plenty of investment, because they were growing and successful. There were fewer, that's true.... because the economy was bad. Simple as that.

The real answer is this.

The downturn in the economy was due to the minimum wage, and bad government regulation.

The crash in the mortgage market, and the housing price bubble crash, was due to bad government regulation and policy pushing bad sub-prime loans.

Want me to believe?

No..there are some things in economics that are truths.

There maybe different ways to approach those truths but there are truths.

And here's another.

No government.
No real or sustainable economy.

It's as simple as that.

If one looks at it through the lens of a conservative?

Theocracy, Monarchy or Fascism is the way to go. All of those systems of government encourage what you do..wealth = power. And top down government.

Minimum wage doesn't cause crashes.
Neither does most regulations.
Neither do Unions.

What causes crashes are extremely wealthy people paying games with their wealth, to increase it..

Actually that's not true. If you look at areas before they became states, cattle ranchers and such, as well as blacks smiths, as well as pelt trader, all had a thriving economy, and there was no government at all.

Fascists are in fact socialists. And socialist countries were just as much ruled by the wealthy, as any other.

You claim Unions do not cause crashes. Yet did Honda and Toyota crash? Or GM and Chrysler? Did Non-Union Little Debbie crash? Or Union Hostess? BTW, Hostess is now non-Union. Wonder why.

You claim the minimum wage doesn't cause crashes, and yet Greece tried increasing the minimum wage in 08,09,10, and the result was devastating. To the point they cut the minimum wage, in order to increase employment.

And the very last economic policy to pass before the crash here in the US, was the minimum wage hike.

 

[Sallow]

Actually that's not true. If you look at areas before they became states, cattle ranchers and such, as well as blacks smiths, as well as pelt trader, all had a thriving economy, and there was no government at all.

Fascists are in fact socialists. And socialist countries were just as much ruled by the wealthy, as any other.

You claim Unions do not cause crashes. Yet did Honda and Toyota crash? Or GM and Chrysler? Did Non-Union Little Debbie crash? Or Union Hostess? BTW, Hostess is now non-Union. Wonder why.

You claim the minimum wage doesn't cause crashes, and yet Greece tried increasing the minimum wage in 08,09,10, and the result was devastating. To the point they cut the minimum wage, in order to increase employment.

And the very last economic policy to pass before the crash here in the US, was the minimum wage hike.

Pelt trading? You talk about pelt trading in a thread about economies and you expect to be taken seriously?



Additionally Fascism and Socialism are two distinct and separate constructs. Of course their can be some mixing and matching..but generally? Fascism is a nexus of corporate, religious and military entities to form government. Socialism is the notion that the government can do some functions for the public good. There is socialism in the Constitution, like the mail service. Or the military.

And now you are comparing apples and oranges. GM to Honda?

You ever even been to Japan? Japan has government health care. Additionally? If a CEO was paying himself 400 times what an average worker made and they found out about it? He'd have to perform ritual suicide. (Well not really..but he'd be forced to resign). Most workers in Japan, up until very recently, had their jobs for life. And they are paid pretty well.

Have you ever been to Greece? It's basically a basket case of a country. The Greeks are rude. And their work ethic is for shit. They work until noon, have a 2 hour lunch and get drunk..and maybe don't go back to work. Be that as it may? Greece's problem wasn't minimum wage. Greece's problem was borrowing money to upgrade their military. Why? Who knows. Maybe they wanted to make another grab at Cypress.

Why is it you folks want to compare us to other countries in some capacities yet completely leave out a whole lot of stuff? Like Iceland. Iceland also has socialized Medicine. They don't have a huge military nor do they have corporation heads that pay themselves 100s of times what their workers make. They also scale fines and penalties to wealth. For example, if you get pinched for speeding and you are rich? You pay vastly more than someone not so rich. And when the banks "collapsed", the government imposed new regulations on them effectively putting them under glass steagall, Iceland style.

And your saying that the passage of a minimum wage hike caused the Bush cataclysm? You mean the rain had nothing to do with it? How about the OJ trial? Or Madonna's concerts? Or any number of things that had nothing to do with the crash. Heck, throw those in too.

 

[kaz]

Fascism and Socialism are two distinct and separate constructs

So industry being owned by government and industry being in technical private ownership but controlled by government are "distinct and separate constructs?" Seriously? LOL, stick to deskside support, junior.

 

[RKMBrown]

Actually that's not true. If you look at areas before they became states, cattle ranchers and such, as well as blacks smiths, as well as pelt trader, all had a thriving economy, and there was no government at all.

Fascists are in fact socialists. And socialist countries were just as much ruled by the wealthy, as any other.

You claim Unions do not cause crashes. Yet did Honda and Toyota crash? Or GM and Chrysler? Did Non-Union Little Debbie crash? Or Union Hostess? BTW, Hostess is now non-Union. Wonder why.

You claim the minimum wage doesn't cause crashes, and yet Greece tried increasing the minimum wage in 08,09,10, and the result was devastating. To the point they cut the minimum wage, in order to increase employment.

And the very last economic policy to pass before the crash here in the US, was the minimum wage hike.

Pelt trading? You talk about pelt trading in a thread about economies and you expect to be taken seriously?



Additionally Fascism and Socialism are two distinct and separate constructs. Of course their can be some mixing and matching..but generally? Fascism is a nexus of corporate, religious and military entities to form government. Socialism is the notion that the government can do some functions for the public good. There is socialism in the Constitution, like the mail service. Or the military.

And now you are comparing apples and oranges. GM to Honda?

You ever even been to Japan? Japan has government health care. Additionally? If a CEO was paying himself 400 times what an average worker made and they found out about it? He'd have to perform ritual suicide. (Well not really..but he'd be forced to resign). Most workers in Japan, up until very recently, had their jobs for life. And they are paid pretty well.

Have you ever been to Greece? It's basically a basket case of a country. The Greeks are rude. And their work ethic is for shit. They work until noon, have a 2 hour lunch and get drunk..and maybe don't go back to work. Be that as it may? Greece's problem wasn't minimum wage. Greece's problem was borrowing money to upgrade their military. Why? Who knows. Maybe they wanted to make another grab at Cypress.

Why is it you folks want to compare us to other countries in some capacities yet completely leave out a whole lot of stuff? Like Iceland. Iceland also has socialized Medicine. They don't have a huge military nor do they have corporation heads that pay themselves 100s of times what their workers make. They also scale fines and penalties to wealth. For example, if you get pinched for speeding and you are rich? You pay vastly more than someone not so rich. And when the banks "collapsed", the government imposed new regulations on them effectively putting them under glass steagall, Iceland style.

And your saying that the passage of a minimum wage hike caused the Bush cataclysm? You mean the rain had nothing to do with it? How about the OJ trial? Or Madonna's concerts? Or any number of things that had nothing to do with the crash. Heck, throw those in too.

I agree with you 100% that dumb ass democrats, like you, can't even wipe their asses without government assistance.

 

[Sallow]

Fascism and Socialism are two distinct and separate constructs

So industry being owned by government and industry being in technical private ownership but controlled by government are "distinct and separate constructs?" Seriously? LOL, stick to deskside support, junior.

Seems you don't understand Fascism.

Corporations, Religion and the Military control the state in the Fascist government. And I don't do deskside support. I am a UNIX/Networking guy.

 

[Sallow]

Actually that's not true. If you look at areas before they became states, cattle ranchers and such, as well as blacks smiths, as well as pelt trader, all had a thriving economy, and there was no government at all.

Fascists are in fact socialists. And socialist countries were just as much ruled by the wealthy, as any other.

You claim Unions do not cause crashes. Yet did Honda and Toyota crash? Or GM and Chrysler? Did Non-Union Little Debbie crash? Or Union Hostess? BTW, Hostess is now non-Union. Wonder why.

You claim the minimum wage doesn't cause crashes, and yet Greece tried increasing the minimum wage in 08,09,10, and the result was devastating. To the point they cut the minimum wage, in order to increase employment.

And the very last economic policy to pass before the crash here in the US, was the minimum wage hike.

Pelt trading? You talk about pelt trading in a thread about economies and you expect to be taken seriously?



Additionally Fascism and Socialism are two distinct and separate constructs. Of course their can be some mixing and matching..but generally? Fascism is a nexus of corporate, religious and military entities to form government. Socialism is the notion that the government can do some functions for the public good. There is socialism in the Constitution, like the mail service. Or the military.

And now you are comparing apples and oranges. GM to Honda?

You ever even been to Japan? Japan has government health care. Additionally? If a CEO was paying himself 400 times what an average worker made and they found out about it? He'd have to perform ritual suicide. (Well not really..but he'd be forced to resign). Most workers in Japan, up until very recently, had their jobs for life. And they are paid pretty well.

Have you ever been to Greece? It's basically a basket case of a country. The Greeks are rude. And their work ethic is for shit. They work until noon, have a 2 hour lunch and get drunk..and maybe don't go back to work. Be that as it may? Greece's problem wasn't minimum wage. Greece's problem was borrowing money to upgrade their military. Why? Who knows. Maybe they wanted to make another grab at Cypress.

Why is it you folks want to compare us to other countries in some capacities yet completely leave out a whole lot of stuff? Like Iceland. Iceland also has socialized Medicine. They don't have a huge military nor do they have corporation heads that pay themselves 100s of times what their workers make. They also scale fines and penalties to wealth. For example, if you get pinched for speeding and you are rich? You pay vastly more than someone not so rich. And when the banks "collapsed", the government imposed new regulations on them effectively putting them under glass steagall, Iceland style.

And your saying that the passage of a minimum wage hike caused the Bush cataclysm? You mean the rain had nothing to do with it? How about the OJ trial? Or Madonna's concerts? Or any number of things that had nothing to do with the crash. Heck, throw those in too.

I agree with you 100% that dumb ass democrats, like you, can't even wipe their asses without government assistance.

Skipped over all the points in the post and went right to an insult.

Grats.

 

[RKMBrown]

Actually that's not true. If you look at areas before they became states, cattle ranchers and such, as well as blacks smiths, as well as pelt trader, all had a thriving economy, and there was no government at all.

Fascists are in fact socialists. And socialist countries were just as much ruled by the wealthy, as any other.

You claim Unions do not cause crashes. Yet did Honda and Toyota crash? Or GM and Chrysler? Did Non-Union Little Debbie crash? Or Union Hostess? BTW, Hostess is now non-Union. Wonder why.

You claim the minimum wage doesn't cause crashes, and yet Greece tried increasing the minimum wage in 08,09,10, and the result was devastating. To the point they cut the minimum wage, in order to increase employment.

And the very last economic policy to pass before the crash here in the US, was the minimum wage hike.

Pelt trading? You talk about pelt trading in a thread about economies and you expect to be taken seriously?



Additionally Fascism and Socialism are two distinct and separate constructs. Of course their can be some mixing and matching..but generally? Fascism is a nexus of corporate, religious and military entities to form government. Socialism is the notion that the government can do some functions for the public good. There is socialism in the Constitution, like the mail service. Or the military.

And now you are comparing apples and oranges. GM to Honda?

You ever even been to Japan? Japan has government health care. Additionally? If a CEO was paying himself 400 times what an average worker made and they found out about it? He'd have to perform ritual suicide. (Well not really..but he'd be forced to resign). Most workers in Japan, up until very recently, had their jobs for life. And they are paid pretty well.

Have you ever been to Greece? It's basically a basket case of a country. The Greeks are rude. And their work ethic is for shit. They work until noon, have a 2 hour lunch and get drunk..and maybe don't go back to work. Be that as it may? Greece's problem wasn't minimum wage. Greece's problem was borrowing money to upgrade their military. Why? Who knows. Maybe they wanted to make another grab at Cypress.

Why is it you folks want to compare us to other countries in some capacities yet completely leave out a whole lot of stuff? Like Iceland. Iceland also has socialized Medicine. They don't have a huge military nor do they have corporation heads that pay themselves 100s of times what their workers make. They also scale fines and penalties to wealth. For example, if you get pinched for speeding and you are rich? You pay vastly more than someone not so rich. And when the banks "collapsed", the government imposed new regulations on them effectively putting them under glass steagall, Iceland style.

And your saying that the passage of a minimum wage hike caused the Bush cataclysm? You mean the rain had nothing to do with it? How about the OJ trial? Or Madonna's concerts? Or any number of things that had nothing to do with the crash. Heck, throw those in too.

I agree with you 100% that dumb ass democrats, like you, can't even wipe their asses without government assistance.

Skipped over all the points in the post and went right to an insult.

Grats.

Thanks. Did you really need someone to respond to your question about OJ? or Iceland? or your insult to retail and hunters regarding the trade of goods, in this case pelts?