OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

On 28 Jul 2004 05:46:10 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

You're putting me on here, right?

Nope.

Boeing wasn't really "going" anywhere.
The question was "where will we put together the few parts of the 7E7 that will
be built in the US"

I guess they decided it will be here, since we forgave $1.5mm in taxes for
every middle class job they restored. Woo hoo.

You would be surprised to know that a lot of the opposition to the Boeing
shakedown came from *very* conservative interests here.

That's not surprising, if you think about it. Conservatives do not
like welfare in any form. But sometimes you have to weight the
costs/benefits, and take a gamble.


Boeing: We're leaving unless you make radical improvements to the roads and
other infrastructure in the state, especially those we haul parts over. We're
leaving unless you do something to establish workable public transportation in
the Puget Sound coridor so that our employees are not spending so many hours
every day stuck in traffic. We're leaving unless you upgrade the quality of
your education system so that we can hire a greater number of literate and
qualified trainees."

"Oh, by the way, if you expect *us* to participate in paying for any of our
demands, we're leaving anyway."

Yeah? Don't let the door hit you on the stabilizer.

Well, you can't fault Boeing. They're the ones in a position to
bargain. They can pull up stakes and move, if it's in their best
interests to do so. If their current home is up to their standards
then they have some incentive to stay.

You can make the case just how "unfair" this line of reasoning is, but
it's a fact of life in the business world. My company right now is
jumping through hoops as our largest customer keeps getting larger and
larger and continues to pile on their seemingly increasing demands on
our products and schedules. Many of us question why we bend over so
much for them, but the answer is obvious to anyone who wants to stay
in business.

He who holds the most gold, makes the rules.

Dave

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

Dave Hall wrote:


That's not surprising, if you think about it. Conservatives do not
like welfare in any form.

They certainly like corporate welfare and fixed, "no bid" contracts,
which are nothing more than corporate welfare.



--
We have nothing to fear..
....but four more years of George W. Bush.

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:


That's not surprising, if you think about it. Conservatives do not
like welfare in any form.

They certainly like corporate welfare and fixed, "no bid" contracts,
which are nothing more than corporate welfare.


Sort of like the no bid contracts awarded to Halliburton during the Clinton
Presidency?

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
You're putting me on here, right?

Nope.

Boeing wasn't really "going" anywhere.

And you know that how? In today's day and age, Corporations aren't usually
bluffing when they say they're going to move a plant.

As long as it's legal for a states to selectively offer tax incentives
(aka--bribes) to certain businesses, the practice will continue. It would
take legislation from the Federal level to prohibit the act...and they'll
never get involved in a state's right to conduct business and commerce
within the state (as they shouldn't).

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Since politicians are always to
blame, any one who has to raise taxes might as well say good-bye to
his office.

I guess the answer is to eliminate all taxes on businesses. If every
community in this country imposed zero taxes (at the local level) on
businesses, then the playing field would be even, and businesses couldn't be
bribed to move.

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

She was paid the wages dictated by the free market,

Ah yes. The prinicple that compassionate conservatives substitute for a moral
conscience.

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

I love to watch liberals spin. If your officials had told Boeing to
take some Heinz ketchup, and "shove it" instead, and Boeing then left
the area, you would be here right now bemoaning the loss of jobs, and
as an added touch, would probably blame it on Bush!

Dave


Boeing employs a steadily decreasing percentage of workers in this region.
Every time they cut back, there's a short term pain but the economy recovers.
When they go on hiring binges, tens of thousands of new families move here,
stress our physical and social infrastructure, and three years later they're
all on the dole or tryng to figure out how to earn a living clerking at Home
Depot for $10 an hour.

In the long run, we'd be better off with an orderly, progressive withdrawl
(which we continue to see, anyway) than riding the boom and bust "company town"
cycle.

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I love to watch liberals spin. If your officials had told Boeing to
take some Heinz ketchup, and "shove it" instead, and Boeing then left
the area, you would be here right now bemoaning the loss of jobs, and
as an added touch, would probably blame it on Bush!

Dave


Boeing employs a steadily decreasing percentage of workers in this region.
Every time they cut back, there's a short term pain but the economy
recovers.
When they go on hiring binges, tens of thousands of new families move
here,
stress our physical and social infrastructure, and three years later
they're
all on the dole or tryng to figure out how to earn a living clerking at
Home Depot for $10 an hour.

All of them? I thought you were one of the smarter "stupid liberals" here.
;-)

My brother worked for Boeing for a year and then was laid off. As appealing
as that Home Depot job for $10/hr. was to him, he moved to Brownsville,
Texas...and has worked in a manufacturing facility as an engineer for the
past 5 years.

In the long run, we'd be better off with an orderly, progressive withdrawl
(which we continue to see, anyway) than riding the boom and bust "company
town"
cycle.

I agree.

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

Sorry, Doug, but something that happened 30 years ago is not
news...it's
history.




In that case, it matters nothing to you that Clinton chose not to get
his
head blown off in a maniac's war.

No, it really doesn't. What bothers me more is someone like Kerry who, 35
years later, tries to exploit the fact that he spent approximately 4 more
months in Vietnam than George W. Bush. Are we supposed to believe that we
can learn more about the man from the 4 months he spent in Vietnam than
from
the 20+ years he spent in Congress voting against military, defense, and
intelligence spending?

Puh-leeeeze!




1) You learn that Kerry made a committment and followed through with it, as
opposed to Bush, who apparently has something to hide about his service
records. Otherwise, he'd explain the lapse in paychecks for 3 months.

2) Kerry voted against WHICH spending? Please provide specific bill numbers,
and let us know which Republicans voted against them, too. Some legislation
deserves to be killed. You know that.

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
.net...

"Tamaroak" wrote in message
...
Bush is a deserter. The new records indicate he wasn't paid for three
months in 1972. After 30 days you are "dropped from the rolls" as a
deserter, unless your daddy is George H.W. Bush, that is. (Mine
wasn't,
so I had to show up every morning.)

Those of us who wore a uniform know this.

Kerry had the balls to show up in Viet Nam when he probably could have
used his connections and wealth to get out of it like Bush, Rumsfeld,
Cheney, Wolfowitz and all the rsdt of those cheickenhawks did. Bush
didn't, and has never done anything in his life I've heard of showing
any real courage.

Capt. Jeff


In the reserves, if you were out more than 30 days changing units, you
got
a
notice to go to meetings, and if you were out longer than 90 days, you
got
activated for the duration of what it takes to make 2 years active duty.
So
he was out maybe less than 120 days, and he may have had 2 years active
duty
in. Flight training would take at least a year of active duty.
Bill


President Bush was an F-102 pilot. The F-102 was being phased out. So the
Air Guard, and the Air Force, weren't really interested in retraining him
to
fly other aircraft when he was getting out in less than a year. Most
likely
hes was told to make himself scarce.



Most likely. But nobody wants to get past "most likely" and actually explain
it.

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 07:35:00 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On 27 Jul 2004 23:41:48 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

SIGN SEEN ON A TIP JAR TODAY:

Hey, Republicans! Afraid of change? Leave it here! :-)

The jar was owned by a Democrat of course.

Yup. Just another hard working American trying to scratch a living together.
Just a single mom too proud to take welfare, and working for the subsistence
mini-wages paid by a billionaire "compassionate conservative". \


She was paid the wages dictated by the free market, which have nothing
to do with the government.

With a statement like this, Dave, you have demonstrated how naive and
simple-minded you are. There is no free market in the absence of
government.

Horsecrap.

Government is the ultimate impeder of the free market. A free market
needs no government to operate. The role of government in the free
market is to provide some protection, fairness, and oversight.
Excessive governmental intervention in the free market results in a
stifling or unnatural progression of the free market. Our present
healthcare situation is a prime example of the free market gone
horribly wrong. If the free market had been allowed to set the costs
for healthcare, rather than having insurance subsidies artificially
inflate the demand, the costs would not be nearly as high.

Free Market 101: A good or service is worth what the market is willing
to pay for it

A Corollary: A person's salary is directly proportional to their
relative value, which is dependant on the importance (demand) of the
job, divided by the amount of people (supply) qualified to do the
work.

In other words, if I offer a job sweeping streets for $1.00 an hour
and 10 people show up willing to work for that wage, then there is no
incentive for me to raise it.

On the other hand, if I advertise for an IT network professional, and
offer to pay them $5 an hour and no on shows up, then I have to raise
my salary offer until someone bites. If that figure turns out to be
$45,000 a year, then that is what that position is worth.

THAT is the free market.

I wouldn't expect a socialist to understand these concepts.

Dave

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

On 28 Jul 2004 14:10:13 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

I love to watch liberals spin. If your officials had told Boeing to
take some Heinz ketchup, and "shove it" instead, and Boeing then left
the area, you would be here right now bemoaning the loss of jobs, and
as an added touch, would probably blame it on Bush!

Dave


Boeing employs a steadily decreasing percentage of workers in this region.
Every time they cut back, there's a short term pain but the economy recovers.
When they go on hiring binges, tens of thousands of new families move here,
stress our physical and social infrastructure, and three years later they're
all on the dole or tryng to figure out how to earn a living clerking at Home
Depot for $10 an hour.

In the long run, we'd be better off with an orderly, progressive withdrawl
(which we continue to see, anyway) than riding the boom and bust "company town"
cycle.

A perfect microcosm model of what this whole country will have to deal
with as more and more of our economy becomes world-wide.

Dave

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

Sorry, Doug, but something that happened 30 years ago is not
news...it's
history.




In that case, it matters nothing to you that Clinton chose not to get
his
head blown off in a maniac's war.

No, it really doesn't. What bothers me more is someone like Kerry who,
35
years later, tries to exploit the fact that he spent approximately 4
more
months in Vietnam than George W. Bush. Are we supposed to believe that
we
can learn more about the man from the 4 months he spent in Vietnam than
from
the 20+ years he spent in Congress voting against military, defense, and
intelligence spending?

Puh-leeeeze!




1) You learn that Kerry made a committment and followed through with it,
as
opposed to Bush, who apparently has something to hide about his service
records. Otherwise, he'd explain the lapse in paychecks for 3 months.

2) Kerry voted against WHICH spending? Please provide specific bill
numbers,
and let us know which Republicans voted against them, too. Some
legislation
deserves to be killed. You know that.


Kerry knew that the supplemental to Senate bill 1689 included things like
body armor to troops, and pay raises and/or extension of benefits for
veterans. Yet, he voted to kill the entire bill. It's fine to be against
certain provisions in a bill, but must you kill the entire bill because of a
couple of provisions that you don't like? Particularly when those
provisions would save the life of soldiers at a time when they're in harm's
way? That was a terrible choice on Kerry's part...and no explanation is
satisfactory to the family of any soldier who could have been killed because
he didn't have the necessary body armor.

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:38:37 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Since politicians are always to
blame, any one who has to raise taxes might as well say good-bye to
his office.

I guess the answer is to eliminate all taxes on businesses. If every
community in this country imposed zero taxes (at the local level) on
businesses, then the playing field would be even, and businesses couldn't be
bribed to move.


Unfortunately, it's not that easy. Taxes are only one (Usually a
major) factor. Community services, logistical considerations, and
quality of local workforce are also worthy considerations.

Dave

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:38:37 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Since politicians are always to
blame, any one who has to raise taxes might as well say good-bye to
his office.

I guess the answer is to eliminate all taxes on businesses. If every
community in this country imposed zero taxes (at the local level) on
businesses, then the playing field would be even, and businesses couldn't
be
bribed to move.


Unfortunately, it's not that easy. Taxes are only one (Usually a
major) factor. Community services, logistical considerations, and
quality of local workforce are also worthy considerations.


I was speaking tongue-in-cheek. All things being equal (workforce,
logistics, taxes, etc), Florida would have the most businesses flocking here
because the weather is nicer.

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:34:09 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
You're putting me on here, right?

Nope.

Boeing wasn't really "going" anywhere.

And you know that how? In today's day and age, Corporations aren't usually
bluffing when they say they're going to move a plant.

As long as it's legal for a states to selectively offer tax incentives
(aka--bribes) to certain businesses, the practice will continue. It would
take legislation from the Federal level to prohibit the act...and they'll
never get involved in a state's right to conduct business and commerce
within the state (as they shouldn't).

Sure. It's the states competing for future tax revenue. They offer
"sweet" deals to attract companies, who will (hopefully) settle there
for the long term. Even at the reduced tax rate (Which usually rises
over time), the states (and counties) make more tax money than if the
company never located there.

Corporate tax revenue offsets residential taxes. That's why counties
which have a high density of commercial businesses usually have lower
residential taxes.

Of course there are some third world countries who don't tax at all...
Uh oh......

Dave

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

On 28 Jul 2004 14:04:36 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

She was paid the wages dictated by the free market,

Ah yes. The prinicple that compassionate conservatives substitute for a moral
conscience.


How else would you do it and be fair to all involved?

We went down this road before, and predictably, when the broader
aspects of a "fair living wage" were explored, the proponents of such
a strategy dropped the issue like a hot potato.

Dave

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

Dave Hall wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 07:35:00 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On 27 Jul 2004 23:41:48 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

SIGN SEEN ON A TIP JAR TODAY:

Hey, Republicans! Afraid of change? Leave it here! :-)

The jar was owned by a Democrat of course.

Yup. Just another hard working American trying to scratch a living together.
Just a single mom too proud to take welfare, and working for the subsistence
mini-wages paid by a billionaire "compassionate conservative". \


She was paid the wages dictated by the free market, which have nothing
to do with the government.

With a statement like this, Dave, you have demonstrated how naive and
simple-minded you are. There is no free market in the absence of
government.

Horsecrap.

Government is the ultimate impeder of the free market. A free market
needs no government to operate.


Government is involved fundamentally through the creation and
enforcement of property rights, without which what you are calling a
"free market" cannot be achieved.

I'm involved in a worldwide project that has as one of its goals the
establishment of a methodology that enables poor people in undeveloped
countries to rebuild their little villages and set up businesses.
Financial resources are needed to finance these projects, as is some way
to "secure" the real property on which these businesses might be
established. But in some of these countries, the concept of land title
or even ownership is unknown. Right now, I suppose, these folks have a
true free market...they can barter...but they are going nowhere. They
need government to help them establish a framework in which they can
developed a real marketplace.

As I stated, your knowledge is a mile wide but only a millimeter deep.
Read some books.



--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

Sorry, Doug, but something that happened 30 years ago is not
news...it's
history.




In that case, it matters nothing to you that Clinton chose not to
get
his
head blown off in a maniac's war.

No, it really doesn't. What bothers me more is someone like Kerry
who,
35
years later, tries to exploit the fact that he spent approximately 4
more
months in Vietnam than George W. Bush. Are we supposed to believe
that
we
can learn more about the man from the 4 months he spent in Vietnam
than
from
the 20+ years he spent in Congress voting against military, defense,
and
intelligence spending?

Puh-leeeeze!




1) You learn that Kerry made a committment and followed through with it,
as
opposed to Bush, who apparently has something to hide about his service
records. Otherwise, he'd explain the lapse in paychecks for 3 months.

2) Kerry voted against WHICH spending? Please provide specific bill
numbers,
and let us know which Republicans voted against them, too. Some
legislation
deserves to be killed. You know that.


Kerry knew that the supplemental to Senate bill 1689 included things like
body armor to troops, and pay raises and/or extension of benefits for
veterans. Yet, he voted to kill the entire bill. It's fine to be against
certain provisions in a bill, but must you kill the entire bill because of
a
couple of provisions that you don't like? Particularly when those
provisions would save the life of soldiers at a time when they're in
harm's
way? That was a terrible choice on Kerry's part...and no explanation is
satisfactory to the family of any soldier who could have been killed
because
he didn't have the necessary body armor.



So, you don't know why he voted against it? Are you aware that some slobs in
Congress tag totally unrelated (and often hideous) riders onto bills?

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:21:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

Sorry, Doug, but something that happened 30 years ago is not
news...it's
history.




In that case, it matters nothing to you that Clinton chose not to
get
his
head blown off in a maniac's war.

No, it really doesn't. What bothers me more is someone like Kerry
who,
35
years later, tries to exploit the fact that he spent approximately 4
more
months in Vietnam than George W. Bush. Are we supposed to believe
that
we
can learn more about the man from the 4 months he spent in Vietnam
than
from
the 20+ years he spent in Congress voting against military, defense,
and
intelligence spending?

Puh-leeeeze!




1) You learn that Kerry made a committment and followed through with it,
as
opposed to Bush, who apparently has something to hide about his service
records. Otherwise, he'd explain the lapse in paychecks for 3 months.

2) Kerry voted against WHICH spending? Please provide specific bill
numbers,
and let us know which Republicans voted against them, too. Some
legislation
deserves to be killed. You know that.


Kerry knew that the supplemental to Senate bill 1689 included things like
body armor to troops, and pay raises and/or extension of benefits for
veterans. Yet, he voted to kill the entire bill. It's fine to be against
certain provisions in a bill, but must you kill the entire bill because of
a
couple of provisions that you don't like? Particularly when those
provisions would save the life of soldiers at a time when they're in
harm's
way? That was a terrible choice on Kerry's part...and no explanation is
satisfactory to the family of any soldier who could have been killed
because
he didn't have the necessary body armor.



So, you don't know why he voted against it? Are you aware that some slobs in
Congress tag totally unrelated (and often hideous) riders onto bills?


Yea, and usually those same people are democrats.

Dave

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:15:19 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Horsecrap.

Government is the ultimate impeder of the free market. A free market
needs no government to operate.


Government is involved fundamentally through the creation and
enforcement of property rights, without which what you are calling a
"free market" cannot be achieved.

Nonsense! The free market existed centuries ago, long before such
formalities as "property rights" even existed.


I'm involved in a worldwide project that has as one of its goals the
establishment of a methodology that enables poor people in undeveloped
countries to rebuild their little villages and set up businesses.

Ah! This is good. Bring those poor areas up to our "greedy" capitalist
standards and there will be little incentive to outsource to those
areas. Equalization in living standards is a goal that we should all
push for.


Financial resources are needed to finance these projects, as is some way
to "secure" the real property on which these businesses might be
established. But in some of these countries, the concept of land title
or even ownership is unknown. Right now, I suppose, these folks have a
true free market...they can barter...but they are going nowhere.

What were you just saying about free market not working without the
mighty government putting its hands into everyone's pockets? Thank you
for helping me make my point.


They
need government to help them establish a framework in which they can
developed a real marketplace.

They "need" nothing of the sort, unless you are trying to accelerate
decades of industrial and social progress into a few years. That's not
without inherent risk however.

Dave

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:10:44 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:38:37 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Since politicians are always to
blame, any one who has to raise taxes might as well say good-bye to
his office.

I guess the answer is to eliminate all taxes on businesses. If every
community in this country imposed zero taxes (at the local level) on
businesses, then the playing field would be even, and businesses couldn't
be
bribed to move.


Unfortunately, it's not that easy. Taxes are only one (Usually a
major) factor. Community services, logistical considerations, and
quality of local workforce are also worthy considerations.


I was speaking tongue-in-cheek. All things being equal (workforce,
logistics, taxes, etc), Florida would have the most businesses flocking here
because the weather is nicer.

Actually, if I were to have my druthers, I'd prefer the weather in
southern California (Minus the people, traffic, and cost of living)

Florida is a nice second though.

Dave

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:15:19 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Horsecrap.

Government is the ultimate impeder of the free market. A free market
needs no government to operate.


Government is involved fundamentally through the creation and
enforcement of property rights, without which what you are calling a
"free market" cannot be achieved.

Nonsense! The free market existed centuries ago, long before such
formalities as "property rights" even existed.

We're not living centuries ago...although you obviously want to be, eh?





I'm involved in a worldwide project that has as one of its goals the
establishment of a methodology that enables poor people in undeveloped
countries to rebuild their little villages and set up businesses.

Ah! This is good. Bring those poor areas up to our "greedy" capitalist
standards and there will be little incentive to outsource to those
areas. Equalization in living standards is a goal that we should all
push for.


Financial resources are needed to finance these projects, as is some way
to "secure" the real property on which these businesses might be
established. But in some of these countries, the concept of land title
or even ownership is unknown. Right now, I suppose, these folks have a
true free market...they can barter...but they are going nowhere.

What were you just saying about free market not working without the
mighty government putting its hands into everyone's pockets? Thank you
for helping me make my point.

Uh, these people are impoverished. The "free market" ain't working for
them. They aren't even at a subsistence level.




They
need government to help them establish a framework in which they can
developed a real marketplace.

They "need" nothing of the sort, unless you are trying to accelerate
decades of industrial and social progress into a few years. That's not
without inherent risk however.

Dave

What the hell would you know about what they need?

--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Kerry knew that the supplemental to Senate bill 1689 included things
like
body armor to troops, and pay raises and/or extension of benefits for
veterans. Yet, he voted to kill the entire bill. It's fine to be
against
certain provisions in a bill, but must you kill the entire bill because
of
a
couple of provisions that you don't like? Particularly when those
provisions would save the life of soldiers at a time when they're in
harm's
way? That was a terrible choice on Kerry's part...and no explanation
is
satisfactory to the family of any soldier who could have been killed
because
he didn't have the necessary body armor.



So, you don't know why he voted against it? Are you aware that some slobs
in
Congress tag totally unrelated (and often hideous) riders onto bills?


Yea, and usually those same people are democrats.

Dave

Choking your chicken again? Please post information from a DIRECT
congressional source to prove what you just said. You'll need to read the
actual legislation in order to know what you're talking about. See ya next
week.

OT--Bush favorability up, Kerry's down
 

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 08:47:01 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:15:19 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Horsecrap.

Government is the ultimate impeder of the free market. A free market
needs no government to operate.


Government is involved fundamentally through the creation and
enforcement of property rights, without which what you are calling a
"free market" cannot be achieved.

Nonsense! The free market existed centuries ago, long before such
formalities as "property rights" even existed.

We're not living centuries ago...although you obviously want to be, eh?

Not at all. I was simply illustrating that a concept such as the free
market was a viable economic model, in days long before we felt the
need to overly complicate the system with governmental controls and
oversight.


I'm involved in a worldwide project that has as one of its goals the
establishment of a methodology that enables poor people in undeveloped
countries to rebuild their little villages and set up businesses.

Ah! This is good. Bring those poor areas up to our "greedy" capitalist
standards and there will be little incentive to outsource to those
areas. Equalization in living standards is a goal that we should all
push for.


Financial resources are needed to finance these projects, as is some way
to "secure" the real property on which these businesses might be
established. But in some of these countries, the concept of land title
or even ownership is unknown. Right now, I suppose, these folks have a
true free market...they can barter...but they are going nowhere.

What were you just saying about free market not working without the
mighty government putting its hands into everyone's pockets? Thank you
for helping me make my point.

Uh, these people are impoverished. The "free market" ain't working for
them. They aren't even at a subsistence level.

By our modern standards they are impoverished. But they survive, as we
did centuries ago. It was a much simpler life. In many ways, we were
better off.


They
need government to help them establish a framework in which they can
developed a real marketplace.

They "need" nothing of the sort, unless you are trying to accelerate
decades of industrial and social progress into a few years. That's not
without inherent risk however.

Dave

What the hell would you know about what they need?

I would not be so arrogant as to presume that they "need" us to
accelerate their social evolution. I'd be willing to bet that these
people didn't seek out assistance. More likely we gently "suggested"
that they'd be better off to "let" us move them into this century.

Dave