Greenspan actually made this argument for not regulating the big financial firms, even for fraud. He said if a big firm commits fraud and you discover it, you can go somewhere else.
We all know how that turned out. Even Greenspan said later he was wrong.
Right now the government controls the net and the policy has been net neutrality. "Not have anybody control the net" means the big corporations will control it, just like when you weaken government the big corporations step in -- as we have seen take place since Reagan.
A business doesn't lay of someone because of a small increase in wage costs. Businesses employ the RIGHT NUMBER of people to meet the demand from customers. Increasing the minimum wage increases that demand.
Actually HONEST studies, including your own eyes, show that raising the minimum wage doesn't cost jobs. And every time it is raised there is a bit of an increase in economic growth.
Also OBVIOUSLY moving to a 40-hour workweek created more jobs.
A consumer economy does better when more regular people have more to spend. Passing everything up to the rich is what we did leading up to 1929, and then again leading up to this recent economic crash.
Business doing whatever it wants to do makes everyone poor. Ultimate unfettered capitalism necessarily leads to a very few owning everything.
Corporations are not sentient entities, and can't "commit a crime." Thinking about corporations this way prevents people from understanding how to deal with the problem.
A few PEOPLE make decisions inside of corporations. They are committing the crime. And Boards and shareholders should be held responsible for bringing in people who make these decisions.
Wow, someone who claims that the wealthy pay too much in taxes -- even though the top tax rates have been cut so dramatically that we have had to borrow trillions of dollar to make up for it.
I wonder if you know that the top 1% now take in a higher percentage of all income in the country than ever before?
So you think "spending" on things people need is the problem, when all the borrowing has happened since the huge tax cuts for the rich?
meanwhile countries like China are building out a modernized infrastructure. We're losing the competition because we stopped "spending" -- maintaining infrastructure - back in the 80's.
The current problem is the huge subsidy we give to coal and oil by letting them just dump the waste into the air. WE pay the price for this, they get the profits.
This is the legacy of the Reagan, and later the Bush tax cuts. We deferred maintenance of our infrastructure, never mind modernization. Now it is caught up to us.
You're talking about ONE LAB. But their data matches all the other labs in the world. Are you actually trying to claim that every single climate scientist is part of a vast conspiracy?
I strongly suspect you ran up against what I ran up against. Possibly even the same guy from the way you describe it. Here is what I think is going on: It's pretty clear that there are people employed to do this.
I ran up against someone who I confirmed was employed to put a corporate viewpoint into articles on tort reform, and to keep other viewpoints off of the site. He was an admin, who worked on the site all day, every day, and who was employed as Director of a Tort reform center at a right-wing/corporate "think tank." There was no question that was almost all he was doing with his time. But he had a number of other admins he could call on to confrim his decisions.
So I started tracking the edits of this guy and his cohorts. I found that they were working full-time on articles involving trade issues, tax cuts, tort reform, and the who gamut of the Chamber of Commerce / Corporate agenda...
"with true capitalism a good or service should have a price based on demand "
This has nothing to do with capitalism. You are confusing market economies with capitalism. capitalism is when a few people are allowed to own what would be consider public resources in other economic systems -- to sell you health care and water, stuff like that.
The problem is that during the current process, companies are firing the union organizers and supporters. THAT is the real value of the Employee Free Choice Act, to keep the companies from firing the union supporters.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if you know who publishes this "First Principles Journal?"
Huh? The war costs went away, but we invested in in domestic infrastructure, education... For example, have you heard of the "GI Bill?"
Clinton was running a rather large surplus. Before the Bush tax cuts it looked like the entire US debt would be paid off by now.
Greenspan actually made this argument for not regulating the big financial firms, even for fraud. He said if a big firm commits fraud and you discover it, you can go somewhere else.
We all know how that turned out. Even Greenspan said later he was wrong.
Right now the government controls the net and the policy has been net neutrality. "Not have anybody control the net" means the big corporations will control it, just like when you weaken government the big corporations step in -- as we have seen take place since Reagan.
As contrasted with corporate bureaucrats, who are obviously directly accountable to the public. Right?
"If the government would mind it's own business"
What do you think the business of We, the People IS, if not to mind business? It's OUR economy, and WE set the rules.
"I'm a big fan of the government not forcing people to do things against their will."
So go live somewhere that isn't governed by We, the People.
Circulating money increases jobs.
A business doesn't lay of someone because of a small increase in wage costs. Businesses employ the RIGHT NUMBER of people to meet the demand from customers. Increasing the minimum wage increases that demand.
Actually HONEST studies, including your own eyes, show that raising the minimum wage doesn't cost jobs. And every time it is raised there is a bit of an increase in economic growth.
Also OBVIOUSLY moving to a 40-hour workweek created more jobs.
A consumer economy does better when more regular people have more to spend. Passing everything up to the rich is what we did leading up to 1929, and then again leading up to this recent economic crash.
Business doing whatever it wants to do makes everyone poor. Ultimate unfettered capitalism necessarily leads to a very few owning everything.
As partial owner you do have some degree of culpability for employing that branch chief.
Corporations are not sentient entities, and can't "commit a crime." Thinking about corporations this way prevents people from understanding how to deal with the problem.
A few PEOPLE make decisions inside of corporations. They are committing the crime. And Boards and shareholders should be held responsible for bringing in people who make these decisions.
Yes, one "side' says the earth is round. The other says it is flat.
Obviously this means the earth is something in between.
Wow, someone who claims that the wealthy pay too much in taxes -- even though the top tax rates have been cut so dramatically that we have had to borrow trillions of dollar to make up for it.
I wonder if you know that the top 1% now take in a higher percentage of all income in the country than ever before?
I wonder if you know about how many don't even pay ANY taxes? See this about a couple with $108 million income, arranged so they pay no taxes at all: http://www.speakoutca.org/weblog/2010/02/108-million-inc.html
I wonder if you know that the top 1% now own about 80% of everything in the country?
I wonder if you know that this massive increase in income and wealth is enabled by the infrastructure that was built by our taxes?
So you think "spending" on things people need is the problem, when all the borrowing has happened since the huge tax cuts for the rich?
meanwhile countries like China are building out a modernized infrastructure. We're losing the competition because we stopped "spending" -- maintaining infrastructure - back in the 80's.
If governments never save during good times, explain the Clinton surpluses.
The current problem is the huge subsidy we give to coal and oil by letting them just dump the waste into the air. WE pay the price for this, they get the profits.
This is the legacy of the Reagan, and later the Bush tax cuts. We deferred maintenance of our infrastructure, never mind modernization. Now it is caught up to us.
If they release the data it will prove that Obama was born in Kenya!
Obviously the photos of sea lanes in the Arctic are Photoshopped by this vast conspiracy!
You're talking about ONE LAB. But their data matches all the other labs in the world. Are you actually trying to claim that every single climate scientist is part of a vast conspiracy?
I strongly suspect you ran up against what I ran up against. Possibly even the same guy from the way you describe it. Here is what I think is going on: It's pretty clear that there are people employed to do this.
I ran up against someone who I confirmed was employed to put a corporate viewpoint into articles on tort reform, and to keep other viewpoints off of the site. He was an admin, who worked on the site all day, every day, and who was employed as Director of a Tort reform center at a right-wing/corporate "think tank." There was no question that was almost all he was doing with his time. But he had a number of other admins he could call on to confrim his decisions.
So I started tracking the edits of this guy and his cohorts. I found that they were working full-time on articles involving trade issues, tax cuts, tort reform, and the who gamut of the Chamber of Commerce / Corporate agenda...
This does not ELIMINATE secret ballots, it provides an alternative, if that is what the employees want.
(What is TFA?)
Well a lot of the rest of us work here.
"with true capitalism a good or service should have a price based on demand "
This has nothing to do with capitalism. You are confusing market economies with capitalism. capitalism is when a few people are allowed to own what would be consider public resources in other economic systems -- to sell you health care and water, stuff like that.
"The proposed law would eliminate the secret ballot for union formation."
This simply is not true. Where did you hear this? It looks like you fell for some corporate propaganda.
The problem is that during the current process, companies are firing the union organizers and supporters. THAT is the real value of the Employee Free Choice Act, to keep the companies from firing the union supporters.