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. Maybe if she possessed a more in-demand
skill, she'd be earning more money for her time.

Another clue: Not all business owners are billionaires, despite the
left's smear tactics to paint them that way.

Dave

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.



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

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

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

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

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

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

She was paid the wages dictated by the free market,

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

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