Hi y'all - I think we've been down this road before about what the "poor" do with their money. I don't for one moment believe we have a fair system - life is not fair. Nevertheless, a poor person's vote counts just as much as a wealthy one in the polling booth. Of course a wealthy person voting with a wallet has more effect on companies that go bust or surivie and this was the root of the debate. In the present economic environment Nieman Marcus is feeling the pinch. Wal Mart are doing very nicely thank you.
On Dec 14, 9:54 am, "Liz Purkrabek" <[email protected]> wrote: > No. It's not as small as you think, and even if it is small, how is it a > fair system when those most likely to benefit from enforcing a change in the > system are the least able to effect such a change? The neighborhood I grew > up in is typical of thousands of others across this country, and I don't > like the idea that it is somehow not significant that because their wallets > are empty, they are powerless to "vote" with them. > > liz > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Clogtowner > Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:40 AM > To: Memphis Freethought Alliance > Subject: Re: WASHINGTON MUST BAILOUT RETAIL SECTOR > > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
