Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:36:13 -0400, hk wrote:

he Co-Op used to sell button down Gant shirts for $7.95. Same shirts
are now about $100, and the funny thing is they cost less to make now
than they did when I was a schoolboy buying them.

You do realize that a ordinary wood baseball bat costs a hundred
bucks? A major league glove costs about only about 160, somewhat
surprising.

Casady


What's your point, that we're being gouged by corporations?

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:36:13 -0400, hk wrote:

he Co-Op used to sell button down Gant shirts for $7.95. Same shirts are
now about $100, and the funny thing is they cost less to make now than
they did when I was a schoolboy buying them.

You do realize that a ordinary wood baseball bat costs a hundred
bucks? A major league glove costs about only about 160, somewhat
surprising.

Casady


What's your point, that we're being gouged by corporations?


There you go again ..... those pesky corporations. You are starting to
sound like my Swedish grandfather who used to recite to us the prices for
everything in 1916 and how we were all getting ripped off in the 1980's.

BTW .... caught a few of the speeches tonight. Pelosi didn't seem to know
where she was, but Mrs.O. just finished delivering a very powerful and
moving message. Highlight of day one, IMO.

If you missed it, it's ok. You wouldn't have wanted to see his kids being
exploited anyway.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:36:13 -0400, hk wrote:

he Co-Op used to sell button down Gant shirts for $7.95. Same shirts are
now about $100, and the funny thing is they cost less to make now than
they did when I was a schoolboy buying them.
You do realize that a ordinary wood baseball bat costs a hundred
bucks? A major league glove costs about only about 160, somewhat
surprising.

Casady

What's your point, that we're being gouged by corporations?


There you go again ..... those pesky corporations. You are starting to
sound like my Swedish grandfather who used to recite to us the prices for
everything in 1916 and how we were all getting ripped off in the 1980's.

BTW .... caught a few of the speeches tonight. Pelosi didn't seem to know
where she was, but Mrs.O. just finished delivering a very powerful and
moving message. Highlight of day one, IMO.

If you missed it, it's ok. You wouldn't have wanted to see his kids being
exploited anyway.

Eisboch




I saw Mrs. Obama deliver her speech, and my impression was the same as
yours. The kids were quite natural and enjoyable, and amazingly, neither
of them flipped "the bird" to the cameras.

I happened to be watching earlier on NPR and got to see Jesse Jackson,
Jr., deliver a pretty darned good speech, too. I wasn't impressed with
the "coverage" on CNN or MSNBC because instead showing all the speeches
from beginning to end, they kept the cameras on their talking heads and
instant analysts.

As for the corporations, well, when the shirt factory was in New Haven,
and the shirts were selling for under $10 and being sewn by U.S.
workers, the workers were paid more than the Chinese workers are paid
now, and these days the shirts sell for $100 each. Corporate gouging.

"hk" wrote in message
. ..

As for the corporations, well, when the shirt factory was in New Haven,
and the shirts were selling for under $10 and being sewn by U.S. workers,
the workers were paid more than the Chinese workers are paid now, and
these days the shirts sell for $100 each. Corporate gouging.


Obviously, you don't own any Gant stock.

I mentioned before, when my family lived in Woodbridge, CT, Steve Gant (Gant
owner's son) was in my class at Amity. I knew him fairly well as we both
played football, he doing very well, me don't so well. Anyway, Gant
(which was a private, family owned business at the time) was eventually sold
in 1967. Right now it is a Swedish company, listed on the Stockholm Stock
Exchange.

Which brings up an point I'd like to make that differentiates us.

I believe in a free market system with government regulations designed to
prevent corruption or activities that pose a threat to national security.
Other than that, it should be Supply and demand, because it works. If Gant
shirts have become too expensive for the majority, it opens up opportunities
for new businesses manufacturing shirts at lower prices .... much like Gant
did back in the 60's. We don't need the federal government sticking their
noses into business to make sure Gant shirts are affordable by all.

That's what cracks me up. Both political philosophies, Left and Right,
support "empowering people". In theory, the Right empowers by minimizing
government interference. allowing people to aspire to whatever level of
interest, business and financial success they desire, based on their
individual level of motivation.

The Left "empowers" by attempting to level the playing field, demanding
equal or similar benefits, rewards and lifestyle for everyone by penalizing
those with more than average ambition.

Eisboch

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 07:16:38 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


That's what cracks me up. Both political philosophies, Left and Right,
support "empowering people". In theory, the Right empowers by minimizing
government interference. allowing people to aspire to whatever level of
interest, business and financial success they desire, based on their
individual level of motivation.

The Left "empowers" by attempting to level the playing field, demanding
equal or similar benefits, rewards and lifestyle for everyone by penalizing
those with more than average ambition.

I can put it even simpler - the Right believes in individual wealth as
part of the collective and the Left believes in the collective via
redistribution of individual wealth.

And at this point I feel a rant coming on and I'm just not in the mood
at the moment. :)

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 07:16:38 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


That's what cracks me up. Both political philosophies, Left and Right,
support "empowering people". In theory, the Right empowers by minimizing
government interference. allowing people to aspire to whatever level of
interest, business and financial success they desire, based on their
individual level of motivation.

The Left "empowers" by attempting to level the playing field, demanding
equal or similar benefits, rewards and lifestyle for everyone by penalizing
those with more than average ambition.

I can put it even simpler - the Right believes in individual wealth as
part of the collective and the Left believes in the collective via
redistribution of individual wealth.

And at this point I feel a rant coming on and I'm just not in the mood
at the moment. :)

The Republican's have swayed from their core belief for the last 8 yrs,
which has the potential to chase away the independent voters. They need
to get back to conservative fiscal responsibility, providing an
opportunity to excel and stop pandering to the religious right.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 07:16:38 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


That's what cracks me up. Both political philosophies, Left and Right,
support "empowering people". In theory, the Right empowers by minimizing
government interference. allowing people to aspire to whatever level of
interest, business and financial success they desire, based on their
individual level of motivation.

The Left "empowers" by attempting to level the playing field, demanding
equal or similar benefits, rewards and lifestyle for everyone by
penalizing
those with more than average ambition.

I can put it even simpler - the Right believes in individual wealth as
part of the collective and the Left believes in the collective via
redistribution of individual wealth.

And at this point I feel a rant coming on and I'm just not in the mood
at the moment. :)

The last 8 years, the right has not beleived in empowering the people. They
have been much like the Left. Spend, spend, spend. Just different
programs.

Calif Bill wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 07:16:38 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


That's what cracks me up. Both political philosophies, Left and Right,
support "empowering people". In theory, the Right empowers by minimizing
government interference. allowing people to aspire to whatever level of
interest, business and financial success they desire, based on their
individual level of motivation.

The Left "empowers" by attempting to level the playing field, demanding
equal or similar benefits, rewards and lifestyle for everyone by
penalizing
those with more than average ambition.
I can put it even simpler - the Right believes in individual wealth as
part of the collective and the Left believes in the collective via
redistribution of individual wealth.

And at this point I feel a rant coming on and I'm just not in the mood
at the moment. :)

The last 8 years, the right has not beleived in empowering the people. They
have been much like the Left. Spend, spend, spend. Just different
programs.



It really was hard to tell the difference between one drunken sailor and
another. And don't get me started on Ashcroft and Rumsfield.

Eisboch wrote:

That's what cracks me up. Both political philosophies, Left and Right,
support "empowering people". In theory, the Right empowers by minimizing
government interference. allowing people to aspire to whatever level of
interest, business and financial success they desire, based on their
individual level of motivation.

The Left "empowers" by attempting to level the playing field, demanding
equal or similar benefits, rewards and lifestyle for everyone by penalizing
those with more than average ambition.

I don't think that's accurate. I'm fairly left leaning due
to the historically pitiful performance of the right and I
just want fair/honest ground rules to minimize deception and
help provide equal opportunity, *not* equal outcome.

Externalization of costs onto the public while privatizing
profits and crony capitalism run amuck has been a
significant burden on average citizens with respect to
energy, health, defense, and the environment.


--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth
about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would
be chased down in the streets and lynched."
-George H. W. Bush, spoken in an interview with
Sarah McClendon, June 1992

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:08:45 -0700, -rick- wrote:

I don't think that's accurate. I'm fairly left leaning due
to the historically pitiful performance of the right and I
just want fair/honest ground rules to minimize deception and
help provide equal opportunity, *not* equal outcome.

There is no such thing as equal opportunity without equal outcome.
It's typical economic pablum for simpletons for the reason that
providing a means in which every one has a equal chance to achieve a
goal is by definition special intervention which is anything other
than "equal" because it results in an equal outcome by definition.

How do you define "equal"? Do you provide an equal opportunity for a
borderline mental competant to learn quantum physics? Do you divide
by class structure? How is it done?

Let's assume for the moment that you have a work force of people of
whom 2/3's are 6 feet tall and 1/3 4 feet tall. Do you have to hire 1
1/3 four foot person for every 6 foot person you have to hire? Is
that equal?

Externalization of costs onto the public while privatizing
profits and crony capitalism run amuck has been a
significant burden on average citizens with respect to
energy, health, defense, and the environment.

And it's been that way since the beginning of time and will continue
until time ends. It's endemic in all economic systems from the
collective to the non-collective.

Get over it and get used to it.