Hi y'all - I'd like to see an accurate figure for the percentage of the population who have no money and are therefore unable to vote with their wallets. I suspect it would be rather small and entirely inaccurate.
On Dec 12, 8:23 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > "... For me this is true democracy. I vote with my wallet. ..." - clog > > Typical...equating economics with governance! I know the media keep > pummeling us with this notion, but, of course, they are two entirely > different things. IF one even takes one second to consider the people > who have no money, this becomes painfully clear. Of course, it is all > too common to ignore or rationalize this truth. > > On Dec 12, 10:10 am, Clogtowner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi y'all - yes I do like Wall St. and millions of stock holders. For > > me this is true democracy. I vote with my wallet. If I don't like a > > company (or a CEO) I'll sell the stock and if others do likewise the > > value of the company will be diminished (unlike the Govt.) If we had > > more stock holders, we'd have more democracy, and no, it doesn't cost > > a lot - I can buy or sell any amount of stock for $7. There are > > brokers who help small investors get started by offering $4 trades and > > they will deal in fractions of a share. > > > On Dec 11, 9:00 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > “…If Govt. becomes involved in a business it necessarily sets up a > > > huge bureaucracy in its own image to > > > run it. I've seen these grow from nothing - layer upon layer. It > > > drains the economy slowly and exhaustively. I've never seen one > > > function efficiently in the long term…” – clog > > > > Yeh, sorta like Wall Street and millions of stock holders. Talk about > > > a huge bureaucracy! And, the government claims to regulate all of this > > > too!!! Capitalism bureaucracy built in it’s own image for sure. > > > Clearly, the ‘economy’, whatever anyone wants to mean by the term, is > > > drained fully by CEO’s with BILLIONS of dollars in stock and having to > > > give additional profits to the stock holders. Anyone who wants to buy > > > stuff has to pay so much more because of this grossly inefficient, top > > > heavy and greedy system. > > > > On Dec 11, 7:12 am, Clogtowner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi y'all - "First, ‘the Govt.’ (We the people.) can be in any business > > > > ‘we’ want > > > > to be in. ‘We’ set it up that way. There is no ‘should’ about it. > > > > And, ‘we’ in fact have little to no control over spending. At least > > > > not directly. Also, there are no real ‘strings’ when it comes to such > > > > things. If studied long enough, this will become obvious. And, as > > > > contradictory as it looks, you now seem to think it is OK for ‘us’ to > > > > turn a profit! Strange! " > > > > > Indeed I have only been in this country for 21 years but I have > > > > studied the effect of Govt. ovwnership of business in the Eastern > > > > Bloc, and I've seen the results. If Govt. becomes involved in a > > > > business it necessarily sets up a huge bureaucracy in its own image to > > > > run it. I've seen these grow from nothing - layer upon layer. It > > > > drains the economy slowly and exhaustively. I've never seen one > > > > function efficiently in the long term. > > > > We can't say what strings are attached to the Auto deal yet as it has > > > > not been completed, but so far it looks more promising, from a > > > > taxpayer point of view, than the Bank debacle. > > > > During the recent collapse of many banks the FDIC (and I don't > > > > normally praise the Govt.) has done a fine job of ensuring stability > > > > and guaranteeing accounts. Note the difference in the UK where no FDIC > > > > existed and we were treated to videos of Building Society customers > > > > lined up and screaming for their money. Eventually the UK Govt. were > > > > forced to step in and offer their version of the FDIC. > > > > > On Dec 10, 11:30 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > “Hi y'all - I can't agree with you on this. Neither the Govt. nor the > > > > > whole citizenry of this country should be in the car business. As the > > > > > Govt. controls the spending I have no objections to loans in the > > > > > interest of the country with strings to ensure repayment, and > > > > > hopefully, a profit. The Govt. does a good job of backing up our bank > > > > > accounts FDIC (so far.) > > > > > I do agree about the banks. They should have been offered the same > > > > > deal.” – clog > > > > > > Clog, I know you weren’t born here nor are you old enough to know what > > > > > all has transpired when it comes to such issues here in the US. So, I > > > > > don’t blame you much for being what appears to be quite naïve. > > > > > > First, ‘the Govt.’ (We the people.) can be in any business ‘we’ want > > > > > to be in. ‘We’ set it up that way. There is no ‘should’ about it. > > > > > And, ‘we’ in fact have little to no control over spending. At least > > > > > not directly. Also, there are no real ‘strings’ when it comes to such > > > > > things. If studied long enough, this will become obvious. And, as > > > > > contradictory as it looks, you now seem to think it is OK for ‘us’ to > > > > > turn a profit! Strange! > > > > > Anyway, no, the Govt. (We the people.) do not do a good job of backing > > > > > up our bank accounts. Think “Savings and Loan Crisis’. The thing that > > > > > McCain was deeply involved in among others. > > > > > And, what is ‘common knowledge’ (about the banks) is in fact not the > > > > > reality. IF one reads the 108 pages or so of the first bank bailout, > > > > > what it said was that the banks should just take the money and buy > > > > > other banks! It said nothing about helping people and businesses who > > > > > couldn’t get loans. Look it up. Most of what is presented on corporate > > > > > TV is half truths at best. At worst, much of it makes the old USSR’s > > > > > Pravda look like a comic book! > > > > > > On Dec 10, 7:25 am, Clogtowner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi y'all - I can't agree with you on this. Neither the Govt. nor the > > > > > > whole citizenry of this country should be in the car business. As > > > > > > the > > > > > > Govt. controls the spending I have no objections to loans in the > > > > > > interest of the country with strings to ensure repayment, and > > > > > > hopefully, a profit. The Govt. does a good job of backing up our > > > > > > bank > > > > > > accounts FDIC (so far.) > > > > > > I do agree about the banks. They should have been offered the same > > > > > > deal. > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 10:49 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Again, the notion of nationalization isn't being mentioned. I > > > > > > > would be > > > > > > > for that. At least that way, 'we the people' would get some sort > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > return on our investment. By now, we should own almost every US > > > > > > > bank. > > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 2:30 pm, Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > <<$70/hr. with no reference to benefits. I >> > > > > > > > > > That includes benefits to *retirees*. > > > > > > > > > According to my limited accounting, the benefits that retirees > > > > > > > > receive > > > > > > > > should be expensed as they occurred and not attached to future > > > > > > > > employees. I'd like to see this topic explored in greater > > > > > > > > detail. > > > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 2:39 pm, Clogtowner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi y'all - I've just done some further research on payscales > > > > > > > > > and I've > > > > > > > > > come up with no solid answer. The UAW (I'd expect them to be > > > > > > > > > biased) > > > > > > > > > mention $30/hr plus benefits (what do the benefits amount > > > > > > > > > to?) Faux > > > > > > > > > news and the like mention (I'd expect them to be biased too) > > > > > > > > > $70/hr. > > > > > > > > > with no reference to benefits. I suppose the truth is > > > > > > > > > somewhere in > > > > > > > > > between In any event, these rates seem rather high to a poor > > > > > > > > > old Mid > > > > > > > > > Southerner for manual labor. Why don't they locate their > > > > > > > > > factories > > > > > > > > > (not overseas) where labor is cheaper? I don't know what the > > > > > > > > > pay rates > > > > > > > > > are at the Tennessee Saturn Plant - they seem to be > > > > > > > > > struggling too. > > > > > > > > > I'm sure a plant located in North Mississippi would be more > > > > > > > > > economical, but would the drug free, semi skilled, reliable > > > > > > > > > labor > > > > > > > > > force be available? > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 11:26 am, CrossBow <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The true average is represented below - it is not $70 per > > > > > > > > > > hour, per > > > > > > > > > > se. SPIN DOCTORS are at it again. > > > > > > > > > > > *"That $70 per hour figure is arrived at by dividing total > > > > > > > > > > labour costs by > > > > > > > > > > the total number of workers, then by average hours worked. > > > > > > > > > > It also happens > > > > > > > > > > to include pension obligations for GM, which is comprised > > > > > > > > > > of current > > > > > > > > > > payments accrued by past workers. So, while the average > > > > > > > > > > worker probably > > > > > > > > > > makes closer to **$30 per > > > > > > > > > > hour*<http://www.uaw.org/contracts/07/gm/gm02.php> > > > > > > > > > > *, the total wages paid out include payments to retirees > > > > > > > > > > who have chosen to > > > > > > > > > > defer payment of their wages."* > > > > > > > > > > > I personally don't have as much pity as I maybe should for > > > > > > > > > > the businesses > > > > > > > > > > that are drowning in overstock. It is hard to imagine Mom & > > > > > > > > > > Pop businesses > > > > > > > > > > with dangerous overstock - because it is not easy for them > > > > > > > > > > to get the > > > > > > > > > > capitol to get the inventory in the first place. No, I > > > > > > > > > > think it is the > > > > > > > > > > retail giant/corpses with excess inventory they cannot > > > > > > > > > > sell, with bloated > > > > > > > > > > expectations, that have also been charging too damn much > > > > > > > > > > for little (think > > > > > > > > > > inflation, right?). > > > > > > > > > > > Good Mom & Pops, like I work for, plan ahead, and use > > > > > > > > > > stable business > > > > > > > > > > practices to keep afloat. Most businesses flop in the > > > > > > > > > > first year due to > > > > > > > > > > crappy planning anyway..is it our responsability as a > > > > > > > > > > consumer to rescue > > > > > > > > > > them or the Corpses? > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
