# Predictions for Obama admin



## benbo (Nov 5, 2008)

Any surprising predictions for Obama admin? I predict that all those "rights-eliminating" boogeymen - like warrantless wiretaps and the Patriot Act - that Democrats have been complaining about for years will continue and the Obama admin will make full use of them.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Nov 5, 2008)

A basketball hoop in the driveway of the White House.


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 5, 2008)

^^^ racist bastard.

LOL.


----------



## Wolverine (Nov 5, 2008)

One part of Bill Clinton's campaign was that he would take a completely different attitude than the Bush I admin on those poor Haitian boat people that just wanted to come to our country for political freedom.

Oops, Bill Clinton the President continued the exact same policies, preventing a mass influx of HBP.

What I predict is that you'll see many of the exact same policies repackaged with a different name and all Good taken credit for, all Bad blamed on the previous admin. So it goes.

What ticks me off is that the war in Iraq is effectively over, as of about two days ago. We are out of Anbar, Fallujah is safe, and the Iraqi economy is stabilized. Regardless of who the president is, it's time to start troop drawdowns. Watch BO take full credit for ending the war. God bless GWB for doing what had to be done, no matter how ugly it was (yes, there it is, I said it).


----------



## Flyer_PE (Nov 5, 2008)

Wolverine said:


> God bless GWB for doing what had to be done, no matter how ugly it was (yes, there it is, I said it).


Ditto.

I'm just curious as to how long the state of the economy will be blamed on GWB. From media accounts, everything was great under Clinton and then it got all messed up by the new administration in '01. The economic actions that are currently on the table have been tried before with less than stellar results. Who gets the blame when it gets worse?


----------



## Supe (Nov 5, 2008)

Flyer_PE said:


> Ditto.
> I'm just curious as to how long the state of the economy will be blamed on GWB. From media accounts, everything was great under Clinton and then it got all messed up by the new administration in '01. The economic actions that are currently on the table have been tried before with less than stellar results. Who gets the blame when it gets worse?



The republican candidate who comes after Obama, that's who. Because we all know that the economy is INSTANTANEOUS in nature, and the the policies set forth over the prior 4 years never have any bearing on its condition... :smileyballs:


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 5, 2008)

WTH is a "Predicon"?


----------



## snickerd3 (Nov 5, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> WTH is a "Predicon"?


It's a beast Wars Transformer...duh. 

J/k ...I was wondering the same thing.


----------



## Supe (Nov 5, 2008)

Optimus Prime for Secretary of Defense?


----------



## benbo (Nov 5, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> WTH is a "Predicon"?


I don't know. Where did you get that?

Actually, a predicon is a prediction before 6 AM.


----------



## Bigwolf (Nov 5, 2008)

Supe said:


> Optimus Prime for Secretary of Defense?


lusone:


----------



## Dleg (Nov 5, 2008)

Well, I have no idea how Obama will actually do, but I do believe he has an historic opportunity to do good and capitalize on the good will of the world at large and within the U.S. Kind of like the post-9/11 sentiments, but much bigger. His election is an important symbol, if nothing else, that America is indeed the land of opportunity. I just can't see that being lost on the world at large, as well as the more troubled communities in the US. Let's just hope he doesn't screw up like Bush did and squander this opportunity. I'm hopeful.


----------



## P.E. Luchion (Nov 5, 2008)

VTEnviro said:


> A basketball hoop in the driveway of the White House.


Actually he was thinkin of replacing the bowling alley with a full size indoor baseketball court. The one on site is barely half court.


----------



## Dexman1349 (Nov 5, 2008)

Can they make a '64 Impala into a limo....

In all seriousness though, I think he has a good opportunity in front of him. He could use some of the building blocks in place from GWB and really become great, or trash them all and risk becoming the 2nd bad president in a row.


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 5, 2008)

I wonder how much the president gets to chose his battles. You know that there is a certain member of his party that will come to him and say, Obama, I raised $85M for your warchest, your first priority will be ........

I am sure the same thing happened to Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc, etc, etc,


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 5, 2008)

Dleg said:


> Well, I have no idea how Obama will actually do, but I do believe he has an historic opportunity to do good and capitalize on the good will of the world at large and within the U.S. Kind of like the post-9/11 sentiments, but much bigger. His election is an important symbol, if nothing else, that America is indeed the land of opportunity. I just can't see that being lost on the world at large, as well as the more troubled communities in the US. Let's just hope he doesn't screw up like Bush did and squander this opportunity. I'm hopeful.


well said Dleg.

I really want to see him suceed. I'm an American first and he's going to be my President, so I hope that I was wrong and 53% was right.

I'll give him a chance.

How bad can it really get? right?


----------



## Dleg (Nov 5, 2008)

Now you're talking.

I love America!


----------



## Dark Knight (Nov 6, 2008)

I do really hope he does a good job. Not because he is democrat, not because he is the first Black President( I remember the first season of _*24*_...for some reason came to my mind), not because I agree, or disagree, with his policies, but because our nation needs and deserves a good President NOW.

Things can get much worst(or it is worse???...help me out here)than they are right now. Let us pray and hope the elected President Barack Obama can give back this country something to be proud about.

We did see an historic event but it will be meaningless if the country keeps going down the drain. My point is, and I apologize if I took a long turn around it, that it does not matter if you voted for him or not, we have to wish the new President takes the country to the right path again. It is the right thing to do as Americans.

Ooops...Sorry DV...I think I repeated what you just posted....sorry....100% with you bro.


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 6, 2008)

you said it well DK !



> Predictions for Obama admin


Do you think I can lobby to be a part of the 'spreading' cabinet? LOL


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 6, 2008)

I predict Israel hits Iran before the end of the year.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Nov 6, 2008)

Have we gone from big hair to bikini avs now, Cap'n?


----------



## MA_PE (Nov 6, 2008)

VTEnviro said:


> Have we gone from big hair to bikini avs now, Cap'n?


that's a trend I could live with.


----------



## benbo (Nov 6, 2008)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I predict Israel hits Iran before the end of the year.


:signs051:

Your avatar, not Iran.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 6, 2008)

VTEnviro said:


> Have we gone from big hair to bikini avs now, Cap'n?


No, I went fom Joe the Plumber to bikinis. I think it was a change for the better.


----------



## Guest (Nov 6, 2008)

Dleg said:


> Well, I have no idea how Obama will actually do, but I do believe he has an historic opportunity to do good and capitalize on the good will of the world at large and within the U.S. Kind of like the post-9/11 sentiments, but much bigger.  His election is an important symbol, if nothing else, that America is indeed the land of opportunity. I just can't see that being lost on the world at large, as well as the more troubled communities in the US. Let's just hope he doesn't screw up like Bush did and squander this opportunity. I'm hopeful.


I completely agree. Whether we want to admit it or not, if the U.S. is going to succeed on the fronts we purport (terrorism, poverty, beacon of democracy, etc.) then we are going to need GLOBAL assistance. Our country does not have the resources to ride it out alone.

I think our country has a chance to re-establish itself on the world stage. Like any other troubled relationship, it is going to be different. If this is really going to work .. we (metaphorically speaking) will need to become the change we envision in the world.

Good luck to us ... we are going to need it!



Road Guy said:


> I wonder how much the president gets to chose his battles. You know that there is a certain member of his party that will come to him and say, Obama, I raised $85M for your warchest, your first priority will be ........


I fear the same thing ... especially with some of those who are entrenched in power ... not dropping any name (Nancy Pelosi) ...



DVINNY said:


> well said Dleg.
> I really want to see him suceed. I'm an American first and he's going to be my President, so I hope that I was wrong and 53% was right.
> 
> I'll give him a chance.
> ...


Same here .. I am an american first and I love my country ... the good and the bad! :unitedstates:



Dark Knight said:


> I do really hope he does a good job. Not because he is democrat, not because he is the first Black President( I remember the first season of _*24*_...for some reason came to my mind), not because I agree, or disagree, with his policies, but because our nation needs and deserves a good President NOW.
> Things can get much worst(or it is worse???...help me out here)than they are right now. Let us pray and hope the elected President Barack Obama can give back this country something to be proud about.
> 
> We did see an historic event but it will be meaningless if the country keeps going down the drain. My point is, and I apologize if I took a long turn around it, that it does not matter if you voted for him or not, we have to wish the new President takes the country to the right path again. It is the right thing to do as Americans.
> ...


You are spot on BIO!

Things can get VERY MUCH worse. I am hoping against hope that Obama can bring a sense of collective unity and help EVERY american feel that they have a place in this country. That's what I gather from this election .. a sense of disconnect from the average voter whether it is race, faith, economic status, etc. ... they didn't feel like they were a part of america. Obama promises open, transparent government ... I am waiting and hoping.



Capt Worley PE said:


> No, I went fom Joe the Plumber to bikinis. I think it was a change for the better.


Change you can believe in??? :Locolaugh: :Locolaugh:

:bio:

JR


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 6, 2008)

jregieng said:


> Change you can believe in??? :Locolaugh: :Locolaugh:


Now we're talking. LMAO


----------



## Freon (Nov 6, 2008)

My predictions:

1) He will have a whole lot of people wanting him to "repay" them for their support.

2) He will be forced by the DNC and his "Chicago Connections" to appoint some incompentant clowns to key positions in the administration.

3) Nancy and Harry will try to jam their priorities down his throat at the expense of his agenda.

4) In 18 months he will clean house in his administration, replace the clowns with compentant people and start standing up to Nancy and Harry.

5) The democrats will take big hits in the off-cycle elections, Barry will back off on his agenda and we will kick off the 2012 election cycle.

Carter never recovered from items 1 - 4; Clinton did. Will Barry?


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 6, 2008)

I am curious to see the take on forced "green energy" while I think alternative energy is a great idea (more like a neccessity), I tend to believe if there was a way to do it, americans would have already come up with a way to do it (if its profitable), If windmills are going to lose money, compared to coal, I dont see the point in forcing a government run utility company on the nation.

I think the last few years gas prices will force the market, auto industry to rethink their business plan to what americans want, their will be a shift in the types of cars people will buy (from SUV's to smaller cars for people that dont need them) &amp; I think we are seeing that happen without government involvement.

I dont think you can get there without some type of "pain" if you get my drift.


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 6, 2008)

Road Guy said:


> &amp; I think we are seeing that happen without government involvement.


Government creates problems, and the Free Market fixes them.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Nov 6, 2008)

I just hope we don't end up with the universal health care system.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 6, 2008)

Road Guy said:


> I am curious to see the take on forced "green energy"


I have no problem if is handled properly. By that, I mean I don't have a problem with the government giving grants, etc to make alternative energies more economically attractive. I have a huge problem with the government mandating X% of energy produced by Y by year Z.

I also have a huge problem with the greenie-weenies taking fossil fuels and nukes off the table.


----------



## roadwreck (Nov 6, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> Government creates problems, and the Free Market fixes them.


I would argue that point. The Free Market does not fix all ills (neither does government). In a free market everyone does what will benefit themselves as an individual the most, sometimes at the cost of the whole.


----------



## CbusPaul (Nov 6, 2008)

He will end affirmative action because it has achieved its stated goal.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Nov 6, 2008)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I have no problem if is handled properly. By that, I mean I don't have a problem with the government giving grants, etc to make alternative energies more economically attractive. I have a huge problem with the government mandating X% of energy produced by Y by year Z.
> I also have a huge problem with the greenie-weenies taking fossil fuels and nukes off the table.


Why you frontin' on company Y? What'd they do to you?


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 6, 2008)

it just reminds me of a story I saw on the Atlanta news last year, a guy living in the "urban redevelopment" part of atlanta had put in a windmill in his backyard, the cost was such that he would have to live in his house about 25 years before he ever broke even with what it cost to put in the windmill (&amp; of course his neighbors hated the thing) If the cost are going to outweigh the benefit I dont see the point, and I assume that if there was an opportunity to do this on a grander scale then we would already be doing it if it was something that someone could make money from (thats how we roll in the USA )

I dont want it to be like mass transit, which is something the government provides as a service, but is what we call a "cost center" and doesnt come anywhere close to breaking even.


----------



## Wolverine (Nov 6, 2008)

In the Southeast, renewables are a definite piece of the pie in future generation calculations. They should provide a healthy 5-6% of our projected need. Add in the valuable benefit of energy conservation and you gain another strong 5-6%. That only leaves you about 90% more to go.

As a west coaster once said to me, "Well, we'll just have to find another way to generate electricity." Brilliant! I have my scientists working on that right now.



Chucktown PE said:


> I just hope we don't end up with the universal health care system.


I just hope we don't end up with ... i can't even say it. It's too hideous. The most frightening five words in the American lexicon.



Spoiler



Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton


----------



## Katiebug (Nov 6, 2008)

Chucktown PE said:


> I just hope we don't end up with the universal health care system.


There's a difference between universal health care, where individuals have the ability to buy reasonable private insurance for a reasonable price, and single-payer/socialized medicine where the government IS health care.

I'm pretty cool with the former, and very much against the latter. There are industrialized nations with universal health insurance coverage that have a very active free market in the health care sector (Japan, Germany, etc.).


----------



## MGX (Nov 6, 2008)

Road Guy said:


> I am curious to see the take on forced "green energy" while I think alternative energy is a great idea (more like a neccessity), I tend to believe if there was a way to do it, americans would have already come up with a way to do it (if its profitable), If windmills are going to lose money, compared to coal, I dont see the point in forcing a government run utility company on the nation.
> I think the last few years gas prices will force the market, auto industry to rethink their business plan to what americans want, their will be a shift in the types of cars people will buy (from SUV's to smaller cars for people that dont need them) &amp; I think we are seeing that happen without government involvement.
> 
> I dont think you can get there without some type of "pain" if you get my drift.


Its creeping in and I've noticed quite some opposition to the concept of green buildings, usually from battle-hardened contractors who've not changed their methods in 20 years.

I dig it personally from a nerdy efficiency standpoint (and being a cheapass).

I think if Obama does what he says he will do (ie hike the costs of energy via taxation) then the green ethos will take root. I don't like high energy costs since our modern American infrastructure was designed around cheap energy but I do like the idea of efficient buildings.

Then again, he is a politician and I don't believe much. I remember only a few presidential campaign promises ever reaching fruition in my near 30 years.


----------



## Dleg (Nov 6, 2008)

Road Guy said:


> I am curious to see the take on forced "green energy" while I think alternative energy is a great idea (more like a neccessity), I tend to believe if there was a way to do it, americans would have already come up with a way to do it (if its profitable), If windmills are going to lose money, compared to coal, I dont see the point in forcing a government run utility company on the nation.
> I think the last few years gas prices will force the market, auto industry to rethink their business plan to what americans want, their will be a shift in the types of cars people will buy (from SUV's to smaller cars for people that dont need them) &amp; I think we are seeing that happen without government involvement.
> 
> I dont think you can get there without some type of "pain" if you get my drift.






DVINNY said:


> Government creates problems, and the Free Market fixes them.


Bullshit. Nuclear power only happened as a result of MASSIVE government spending, during a time when taxes were off the charts.

Steam power and internal combustion were "easy" inventions. I could create both in my basement (if I only had one!). Nuclear power and whatever else the future may hold for us (fusion?) require far, far too much money, expertise, and time to ever be taken seriously by the market.

Sorry folks, but there are some instances where "society" must step in and set direction. Although I do not see that happening under Obama, McCain, or any other president, so long as any increase in such funding is immediately shouted down as "socialist" or "un-American". (BTW, was going to the moon a socialist enterprise?)


----------



## benbo (Nov 6, 2008)

Dleg said:


> Bullshit. Nuclear power only happened as a result of MASSIVE government spending, during a time when taxes were off the charts.
> Steam power and internal combustion were "easy" inventions. I could create both in my basement (if I only had one!). Nuclear power and whatever else the future may hold for us (fusion?) require far, far too much money, expertise, and time to ever be taken seriously by the market.
> 
> Sorry folks, but there are some instances where "society" must step in and set direction. Although I do not see that happening under Obama, McCain, or any other president, so long as any increase in such funding is immediately shouted down as "socialist" or "un-American". (BTW, was going to the moon a socialist enterprise?)


I agree with this to a limited extent, maybe not with the same ferocity as Dleg. THere are some things, like going to the moon or the "Manhattan Project" that the government has to either take on or incentivize heavily because the payback period for the business, if any, is just too long.

Now in the case of the first few nukes, probably they needed some gvt involvement. Now, however, the gvt is an impediment because it is next to impossible to get a permit for a new one. And it doesn't always have to do with complexity. I could build a windmill generator in my garage (in fact I think I did as a kid), but only really forward looking companies will build them now without some incentive. So the gvt puts it's thumb on the scale to speed up the process.

I know pure libertarians don't agree. But I think the problem is modulating between a free market and incentivizing some things that just aren't easily profitable.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 6, 2008)

Dleg said:


> (BTW, was going to the moon a socialist enterprise?)


No, that was a largely useless waste of taxpayer money for some dick measuring between us and Russia. Sure, there have been some convenient inventions that came out of the space program, but really, what good does it do society as a whole to know the composition of dust on the moon? And since Russia already had a head start on us, why didn't we just let them spend all the money to get there, then learn from their expenditures?


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 6, 2008)

I guess I would be against private folks playing with uranium wihout some major big brother stuff going on, but most of the other "green" technology shouldnt involve that much of an investment.

Coming up with a decent sized car that gets 50 mpg shouldnt be the goverments job to develop.

If I ever build a house from scratch I would incorporate some solar panels and other stuff, but its just way to expensive to do a retrofit and ever see the savings.

There was a story about putting windmills out in the ocean and how much energy they could create, but the fish people were against putting them there, damned if you do, damned if you dont....


----------



## Dleg (Nov 6, 2008)

^Good questions. I do believe there were a number of benefits from it. You can't do something like that without coming up with at least some new technologies that can then have commercial applications. But I can't think of any that couldn't also have been developed by private industry. Most of the benefit was in intangible things like national pride, inspiration for new engineers and scientists, etc.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 7, 2008)

Road Guy said:


> If I ever build a house from scratch I would incorporate some solar panels and other stuff, but its just way to expensive to do a retrofit and ever see the savings.


If I built from scratch, I wouldn't use PV cells, but I'd put in provisions for them. I'd be more interested in passive solar. Much more cost effective. I'd be tempted to go modular as well. Much more eficient means of construction.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Nov 7, 2008)

> If I ever build a house from scratch I would incorporate some solar panels and other stuff, but its just way to expensive to do a retrofit and ever see the savings.


My Mom tells me this every time I talk to her. She always tells me that if she had to do it all over again in this day and age she would have gone to college for green energy.



> I could create both in my basement (if I only had one!).


I have a half basment, we could do one of the two!


----------



## Chucktown PE (Nov 7, 2008)

Four things I wanted to comment on

1. If green energy isn't profitable now, the only thing the government can do is manipulate the market to make it profitable (by taxation or subsidization). The bottom line is that there are some very smart people in the market place (a lot smarter than the beuracrats) and there are literally billions of dollars to be made. The amount of government subsidies that are available are dwarfed by the profit potential. If someone were to build a relatively inexpensive car that had a fuel efficiency of 100 mpg they would be billionaires overnight. In addition, in case you haven’t noticed, while the government is inefficiently spending billions of our dollars on some of this “research”, oil has dropped to below $60 per barrel, and “green” is going to become even less cost effective.

2. Nuclear power was invented for military purposes. It was gradually adopted for civilian use. There are countless examples of such, from marine propulsion to the airplane.

3. Central planning of an economy doesn’t work. It never has and it never will. Look at France, Germany, the former Soviet Union, etc. There economies are much worse off than ours. It is impossible for the government to attain the tremendous amount of specialized knowledge required to allocate SCARCE resources in a dynamic economy. Millions of individuals which do possess this knowledge are much better suited for allocating scarce resources. When each individual is morally acting in his own best interest he is also working for the good of the whole. Western capitalism operates on a three legged stool of economic freedom, political freedom, and moral restraint. Typically socialists, liberals, etc. attack the moral restraint portion of capitalism through the use of “evil businessmen” and “evil corporations”. There are civil courts set up to remedy those problems.

4. The space race was a tremendous waste of money. If there was a need to determine what moon dust felt like under one’s feet someone would have done it sans the trillion dollars NASA spent on that little 500,000 mile endeavour.


----------



## benbo (Nov 7, 2008)

Chucktown PE said:


> 4. The space race was a tremendous waste of money. If there was a need to determine what moon dust felt like under one’s feet someone would have done it sans the trillion dollars NASA spent on that little 500,000 mile endeavour.


Hundreds of inventions and innovations used in the defense industry and the communications industry came out of the space program. THe entire satellite system was borne out of the space program. Whether it was up to government to do it is debatable, but it was certainly not a waste of time.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 7, 2008)

^ 100% agree


----------



## roadwreck (Nov 7, 2008)

Chucktown PE said:


> 4. The space race was a tremendous waste of money. If there was a need to determine what moon dust felt like under one’s feet someone would have done it sans the trillion dollars NASA spent on that little 500,000 mile endeavour.


whoa whoa whoa...

...slow down just a second here. Without the space race we wouldn't be blessed with space ice cream. What would the little kiddies buy at the gift shops of museums if there were no space ice cream? That right there justifies the costs of that endeavor.


----------



## benbo (Nov 7, 2008)

roadwreck said:


> whoa whoa whoa...
> ...slow down just a second here. Without the space race we wouldn't be blessed with space ice cream. What would the little kiddies buy at the gift shops of museums if there were no space ice cream? That right there justifies the costs of that endeavor.


Not to mention Tang. I forgot about that.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Nov 7, 2008)

I don't have to pay for Tang.


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 7, 2008)

were taking the cub scouts to space camp this spring, I have told all the parents to save up for the gift shop!


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Nov 7, 2008)

Dammit I always wanted to do that as a kid. But nooooo, Cape Canaveral had to be in Florida instead of Long Island.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 7, 2008)

benbo said:


> Hundreds of inventions and innovations used in the defense industry and the communications industry came out of the space program. THe entire satellite system was borne out of the space program. Whether it was up to government to do it is debatable, but it was certainly not a waste of time.


He didn't say the space program...he specified the trip to the moon. The logistics of landing a craft on the moon, traveling while there, and getting the people off the moon necessitated the invention of several technologies and techniques that are useless except for similarly useless missions back to the moon or to Mars.

Even the space program as a whole could be accomplished more efficiently by private entities if it weren't for the anti-competitive tactics of NASA. There are already several companies that have the technology to launch satellites into orbit, but their services are usually cost prohibitive since NASA can do it with taxpayer subsidized "cheap" rates.

I think in political debates like this, people actually assign living, breathing, human characteristics to "the government". The government is nothing but a group of people like you and me. All of these inventions and technologies that you attribute to the government just means that their development was paid for by tax dollars taken out of your paycheck. If the scientists and other project team members had been hired to private sector jobs at companies with similar goals, the inventions would have been the same...they just would have been developed when there was a need for them in society (i.e. they would be profitable to develop).


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 7, 2008)

VTEnviro said:


> Dammit I always wanted to do that as a kid. But nooooo, Cape Canaveral had to be in Florida instead of Long Island.


Space Camp is in Huntsville, AL, at the Redstone Arsenal/US Space and Rocket Center.


----------



## benbo (Nov 7, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> He didn't say the space program...he specified the trip to the moon. The logistics of landing a craft on the moon, traveling while there, and getting the people off the moon necessitated the invention of several technologies and techniques that are useless except for similarly useless missions back to the moon or to Mars.
> Even the space program as a whole could be accomplished more efficiently by private entities if it weren't for the anti-competitive tactics of NASA. There are already several companies that have the technology to launch satellites into orbit, but their services are usually cost prohibitive since NASA can do it with taxpayer subsidized "cheap" rates.
> 
> I think in political debates like this, people actually assign living, breathing, human characteristics to "the government". The government is nothing but a group of people like you and me. All of these inventions and technologies that you attribute to the government just means that their development was paid for by tax dollars taken out of your paycheck. If the scientists and other project team members had been hired to private sector jobs at companies with similar goals, the inventions would have been the same...they just would have been developed when there was a need for them in society (i.e. they would be profitable to develop).


The trip to the moon was not a "one shot" deal. Prior to that the entire space program developed launching mechanisms, communications systems, satellite (such as Surveyor) and the associated control systems, all of which are the basis of our cell phones, GPS systems, and a lot of the military technology we have today.

The private sector would have done it? When? Would they be starting now? Because I don't recall a lot of private companies working on this type of technology back in the early 1960s. Please tell me who they were, other than companies like Lockheed which were under government contract.

You keep talking about this imaginary system that has NEVER happened anywhere. If your ideas are so transcendental, how come they have never actually been put into practice in the history of mankind? Maybe "the market" decided they weren't all that great. It is hard to argue with somebody who is positing a fantasy that has never actually happened.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 7, 2008)

benbo said:


> The trip to the moon was not a "one shot" deal. Prior to that the entire space program developed launching mechanisms, communications systems, satellite (such as Surveyor) and the associated control systems, all of which are the basis of our cell phones, GPS systems, and a lot of the military technology we have today.
> The private sector would have done it? When? Would they be starting now? Because I don't recall a lot of private companies working on this type of technology back in the early 1960s. Please tell me who they were, other than companies like Lockheed which were under government contract.
> 
> You keep talking about this imaginary system that has NEVER happened anywhere. If your ideas are so transcendental, how come they have never actually been put into practice in the history of mankind? Maybe "the market" decided they weren't all that great. It is hard to argue with somebody who is positing a fantasy that has never actually happened.


You are passionate in your defense of government...I'll give you that. Tell me, did we need the government to invent cars for us? People were happily living their lives with horses and buggies and bicycles at the time. There really wasn't demand for cars, but they were invented anyway and the rest is history. Same deal with trains.

The fact of the matter is that government IS a corporation. It's just the most inefficient corporation in the world because it has a captive customer base and no competition. There is no motivation for the government to find a better or cheaper way to do something...if it costs too much, they'll either take more money from us or create it out of thin air. If you take away that ability, then it forces the government/corporation to become efficient.

Here's a, perhaps, less drastic analogy for you. Say the government were to provide their services a la carte. Everybody pays a base tax that covers things that cannot be broken out (national defense, welfare, etc.). But if you own a car, you pay a little bit more for access to the roads. If you have a child in public education, you pay more taxes. This way, competition would cause the public schools to either get better or shut down completely. If you can afford the extra taxes for public education, then you may be able to afford private education. If private offers better quality, then public will cease to exist. And before I hear about how unfair this is to poor people, please show me the Article or Amendment in the Constitution that says "A persons right to an education shall not be infringed.".


----------



## FLBuff PE (Nov 7, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> You are passionate in your defense of government...I'll give you that. Tell me, did we need the government to invent cars for us? People were happily living their lives with horses and buggies and bicycles at the time. There really wasn't demand for cars, but they were invented anyway and the rest is history. Same deal with trains.
> The fact of the matter is that government IS a corporation. It's just the most inefficient corporation in the world because it has a captive customer base and no competition. There is no motivation for the government to find a better or cheaper way to do something...if it costs too much, they'll either take more money from us or create it out of thin air. If you take away that ability, then it forces the government/corporation to become efficient.
> 
> Here's a, perhaps, less drastic analogy for you. Say the government were to provide their services a la carte. Everybody pays a base tax that covers things that cannot be broken out (national defense, welfare, etc.). But if you own a car, you pay a little bit more for access to the roads. If you have a child in public education, you pay more taxes. This way, competition would cause the public schools to either get better or shut down completely. If you can afford the extra taxes for public education, then you may be able to afford private education. If private offers better quality, then public will cease to exist. And before I hear about how unfair this is to poor people, please show me the Article or Amendment in the Constitution that says "A persons right to an education shall not be infringed.".


While not part of the US Constitution, it is a recognized right of the UN, which the US is a part of. From Wikipedia:

Right to education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The right to education is recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 14.

The realisation of the right to education on a national level may be achieved through compulsory education, or more specifically free compulsory primary education, as stated in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The right to education may also include the right to freedom of education.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 7, 2008)

FLBuff said:


> While not part of the US Constitution, it is a recognized right of the UN, which the US is a part of. From Wikipedia:
> Right to education
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


I disagree with the bold part whole-heartedly. First, because if someone doesn't wish to be educated, they should not be forced into compulsory education. Second, public education is FAR from free. Tax paying citizens are forced to pay more than the value of the education their children receive in order to provide the same education to the lower classes for free.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Nov 7, 2008)

benbo said:


> The trip to the moon was not a "one shot" deal. Prior to that the entire space program developed launching mechanisms, communications systems, satellite (such as Surveyor) and the associated control systems, all of which are the basis of our cell phones, GPS systems, and a lot of the military technology we have today.
> The private sector would have done it? When? Would they be starting now? Because I don't recall a lot of private companies working on this type of technology back in the early 1960s. Please tell me who they were, other than companies like Lockheed which were under government contract.
> 
> You keep talking about this imaginary system that has NEVER happened anywhere. If your ideas are so transcendental, how come they have never actually been put into practice in the history of mankind? Maybe "the market" decided they weren't all that great. It is hard to argue with somebody who is positing a fantasy that has never actually happened.


The point I am trying to make is that those things shouldn't have happened. They were a tremendous waste of resources. If something needs to be invented, it will be invented and that has happened throughout the history of mankind. Some government official decided we should get into a pissing contest with the USSR for national morale, hence we spent billions upon billions (independent analysts now say this was over a trillion in 2008 dollars). That money would have been put to better use were it left in the pocket of the taxpayers. Maybe it would have been devoted to a cure for disease, inventing a more efficient automobile, the development of a computer, etc. And since that system has NEVER happened anywhere, please tell me where everything you use in your everyday life came from, it certainly wasn't the government. The guy who invented the telephone, the radio, the car, the PC, software, electricity, the light bulb, even your freaking watch was invented, manufactured, exported, imported, distributed, marketed, delivered, and sold to you buy a series of individuals with one goal in mind, to provide a product to you, the consumer and make a profit doing it. The most remarkable thing, is that they did it without a government subsidy, or a handout, or welfare, or someone telling them to do it for the good of society.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Nov 7, 2008)

FLBuff said:


> While not part of the US Constitution, it is a recognized right of the UN, which the US is a part of. From Wikipedia:
> Right to education
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


Compulsory, now there's a good fucking word. That is government speak for putting a gun to your head so you'll do what they think you should do. By the way, I was born in a country where the supreme law of the land is the U.S. Constitution. As far as I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, we haven't ammended that to include the UN bullshit.


----------



## chaosiscash (Nov 7, 2008)

Chucktown PE said:


> If something needs to be invented, it will be invented and that has happened throughout the history of mankind.


I agree with that statement, but I also think that for certain specific things, its completely reasonable for that inventor to be the "government". Just because there is no "for-profit" need for something doesn't mean its not needed. The Manhatten Project comes to mind as an example. I'm sure that some would say that it was a complete waste of money, but there are (were) thousands of american servicemen that would of had to invade Japan that would disagree, not to mention Cold War workers and servicemen.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Nov 7, 2008)

^ I agree with that from the military standpoint. In fact, our constitution has provisions for the use of military force. It would be foolish to say that our military could "provide for the common defense" were they still using muskets and 13lb cannons. In that case, the military must ask the free market to provide it with a product, whether it be ammunition or a bomber. In this case however, there is competition. In most cases, the military asks multiple private enterprises to compete. But, for someone to say that a windmill or a solar panel, etc. wouldn't have been invented were it not for the government is assinine.


----------



## benbo (Nov 7, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> You are passionate in your defense of government...I'll give you that. Tell me, did we need the government to invent cars for us? People were happily living their lives with horses and buggies and bicycles at the time. There really wasn't demand for cars, but they were invented anyway and the rest is history. Same deal with trains.
> The fact of the matter is that government IS a corporation. It's just the most inefficient corporation in the world because it has a captive customer base and no competition. There is no motivation for the government to find a better or cheaper way to do something...if it costs too much, they'll either take more money from us or create it out of thin air. If you take away that ability, then it forces the government/corporation to become efficient.
> 
> Here's a, perhaps, less drastic analogy for you. Say the government were to provide their services a la carte. Everybody pays a base tax that covers things that cannot be broken out (national defense, welfare, etc.). But if you own a car, you pay a little bit more for access to the roads. If you have a child in public education, you pay more taxes. This way, competition would cause the public schools to either get better or shut down completely. If you can afford the extra taxes for public education, then you may be able to afford private education. If private offers better quality, then public will cease to exist. And before I hear about how unfair this is to poor people, please show me the Article or Amendment in the Constitution that says "A persons right to an education shall not be infringed.".


Good Lord. Do you ever actually answer a post? You are impossible to debate because whenever I bring up a point you don't like you just refuse to address it. I'll refer back to an old post you made (it exists, don't make me go back and find it) where you made some ridiculous statement about how there was no government during the revolutionaty war and the militias just all stepped up and funded the effort. There was a continental congress and they had a hell of a time getting anyone to pay and had to borrow othe money just like we do today. You didn't like it so you just skipped it. Care to answer that now?

I repeat, you have no basis in reality that anything you say up here will happen would actually happen. There is NO SOCIETY in the history of the world that has done what you propose. So you can just make up a bunch of stuff you think is going to happen, with zero empirical evidence. If the market is so great and all knowing, how come it never set up a system like you posit here. Please answer (although I won't hold my breath).

And I do believe in competition in schools. THe monopoly of the public education system is something I despise. But competition in schools is something that I know works from empirical evidence.


----------



## benbo (Nov 7, 2008)

Chucktown PE said:


> And since that system has NEVER happened anywhere, please tell me where everything you use in your everyday life came from, it certainly wasn't the government.


I wasn't talking to you. I believe I was responding to a post by someone who doesn't even believe there should be a government at all, not even for a military. That's the system I was talking about.

And of course there is a large place for private industry within a system that includes a government. But since you chose to jump in, can you tell me of the society you speak of where there was no government? Where everything was market driven? Because all of those advances were made by business but under a governmental system as well. You talk about medicines. Do you believe any company would invest huge amounts of money in a medical treatment if there were no such things as patents or copyright laws? Why waste a whole bunch of money to develop something when somebody can just rip it off after you've done all the work.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Nov 7, 2008)

opcorn:


----------



## snickerd3 (Nov 7, 2008)

FLBuff said:


> opcorn:


Mind if I join you? opcorn: opcorn:


----------



## Chucktown PE (Nov 7, 2008)

benbo said:


> Good Lord. Do you ever actually answer a post? You are impossible to debate because whenever I bring up a point you don't like you just refuse to address it. I'll refer back to an old post you made (it exists, don't make me go back and find it) where you made some ridiculous statement about how there was no government during the revolutionaty war and the militias just all stepped up and funded the effort. There was a continental congress and they had a hell of a time getting anyone to pay and had to borrow othe money just like we do today. You didn't like it so you just skipped it. Care to answer that now?
> I repeat, you have no basis in reality that anything you say up here will happen would actually happen. There is NO SOCIETY in the history of the world that has done what you propose. So you can just make up a bunch of stuff you think is going to happen, with zero empirical evidence. If the market is so great and all knowing, how come it never set up a system like you posit here. Please answer (although I won't hold my breath).


Sorry benbo, but I am not sure I understand the question. I'll try to answer as I understand it. wilheldp_PE was incorrect in saying that there was no government in the revolutionary war. There was a government and it lacked the power to levy taxes. The states were asked to voluntarily contribute to the war effort. Historians say that the revolutionary war was unpopular, ergo the state legislatures couldn't tax their citizens to pay for the war effort or they would have a revolt on their hands. Therefore, the states borrowed to money to contribute to the effort. As such, when the continental congress was disolved as it proved itself rather ineffective, the new Consitution included the power to levy taxes. In order to pay back the debt incurred by the states during the war, Alexander Hamilton pushed the Assumption Act through Congress, whereby the Federal Government would assume the debts of the states.

I suppose my argument is not for no government, just that the federal government's role be restricted by the enumerated powers clause of the constitution. I think the federal government's role should be restricted to protecting our lives, liberty, and property. States can handle the rest more efficiently and to the preference of its citizens. Those that live in California could have a progressive income tax, welfare, etc. while those that live in South Carolina wouldn't, meanwhile, we would all pay federal taxes for the federal government to provide those enumerated powers. That's the way this whole republic thing was intended to work.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Nov 7, 2008)

benbo said:


> I wasn't talking to you. I believe I was responding to a post by someone who doesn't even believe there should be a government at all, not even for a military. That's the system I was talking about.
> And of course there is a large place for private industry within a system that includes a government. But since you chose to jump in, can you tell me of the society you speak of where there was no government? Where everything was market driven? Because all of those advances were made by business but under a governmental system as well. You talk about medicines. Do you believe any company would invest huge amounts of money in a medical treatment if there were no such things as patents or copyright laws? Why waste a whole bunch of money to develop something when somebody can just rip it off after you've done all the work.


Please see my previous post. I am not arguing for no government, that would be anarchy. I am arguing for a more Jeffersonian approach to the federal government.


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 7, 2008)

Mind if I join to? opcorn: opcorn: opcorn:


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 7, 2008)

benbo said:


> Good Lord. Do you ever actually answer a post? You are impossible to debate because whenever I bring up a point you don't like you just refuse to address it. I'll refer back to an old post you made (it exists, don't make me go back and find it) where you made some ridiculous statement about how there was no government during the revolutionaty war and the militias just all stepped up and funded the effort. There was a continental congress and they had a hell of a time getting anyone to pay and had to borrow othe money just like we do today. You didn't like it so you just skipped it. Care to answer that now?
> I repeat, you have no basis in reality that anything you say up here will happen would actually happen. There is NO SOCIETY in the history of the world that has done what you propose. So you can just make up a bunch of stuff you think is going to happen, with zero empirical evidence. If the market is so great and all knowing, how come it never set up a system like you posit here. Please answer (although I won't hold my breath).
> 
> And I do believe in competition in schools. THe monopoly of the public education system is something I despise. But competition in schools is something that I know works from empirical evidence.


You are impossible to debate with because you are far too emotionally attached to the idea of the government to even consider alternative viewpoints. I have developed my ideas over several years because I used to just rail against the status quo. Back then, the response I always ran into was "if it's so bad, why don't you suggest an alternative". So, I accumulated knowledge from a variety of sources, and formed a theory of _what I think would work_. You are the first person that I have encountered that has used the defense of "it has never happened up until this point in history, therefore it is an impossibility and an invalid theory". Quite frankly, that is a very non-scientific viewpoint. May I also point out that NO SOCIETY that had a strong central government with a fiat money system or socialistic ideals has ever withstood the test of time. They all eventually collapse under their own weight because their philosophy causes them to be come larger and larger to the point where they are no longer sustainable. Best example of this is the Roman Empire. Maybe it's time to try something new because what has already been tried failed catastrophically.

You also misrepresented my statement about the Revolutionary War. I didn't say that there was no government, I said that there was no army. The citizens in the colonies got pissed off with the British government, so they declared independence. When they were attacked, they grouped together to defend themselves against the aggressors. We didn't have the biggest military in the world at the time, but we were able to defeat a large, organized army.

If you want to calm down and actually discuss this, I am willing. But if you post another tirade like the one quoted above, you won't be hearing from me on the subject again.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Nov 7, 2008)




----------



## benbo (Nov 7, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> You are impossible to debate with because you are far too emotionally attached to the idea of the government to even consider alternative viewpoints. I have developed my ideas over several years because I used to just rail against the status quo. Back then, the response I always ran into was "if it's so bad, why don't you suggest an alternative". So, I accumulated knowledge from a variety of sources, and formed a theory of _what I think would work_. You are the first person that I have encountered that has used the defense of "it has never happened up until this point in history, therefore it is an impossibility and an invalid theory". Quite frankly, that is a very non-scientific viewpoint. May I also point out that NO SOCIETY that had a strong central government with a fiat money system or socialistic ideals has ever withstood the test of time. They all eventually collapse under their own weight because their philosophy causes them to be come larger and larger to the point where they are no longer sustainable. Best example of this is the Roman Empire. Maybe it's time to try something new because what has already been tried failed catastrophically.
> You also misrepresented my statement about the Revolutionary War. I didn't say that there was no government, I said that there was no army. The citizens in the colonies got pissed off with the British government, so they declared independence. When they were attacked, they grouped together to defend themselves against the aggressors. We didn't have the biggest military in the world at the time, but we were able to defeat a large, organized army.
> 
> If you want to calm down and actually discuss this, I am willing. But if you post another tirade like the one quoted above, you won't be hearing from me on the subject again.


Once again, you make some sort of judgement about whether I need to "calm down." I assure you I am perfectly calm. But not only that, now you have created a quote that I never said. It's a nice debating technique if you are looking to debate yourself. -

"it has never happened up until this point in history, therefore it is an impossibility and an invalid theory".

I don't believe it is an impossiblity or invalid theory, necessarily. However, it seems to me if the market sorts all things out in due time, at one point in the history of civilization it would have created a society like the one you theorize. What I believe is that you can assume all these things, and theories are nice, but at some point the theory has to be tested empirically for validity. Otherwise it is just a theory with no validation.

As far as what you said about the REvolution, I guess I'll have to go back and see. If all you said was that it wsan't the biggest Army, well that's true. But it was eventually organized and controlled from a central Continental Congress, which found that just relying on rich landholders to fund the effort because of "the market" didn't work out.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 7, 2008)

benbo said:


> Once again, you make some sort of judgement about whether I need to "calm down." I assure you I am perfectly calm. But not only that, now you have created a quote that I never said. It's a nice debating technique if you are looking to debate yourself. -"it has never happened up until this point in history, therefore it is an impossibility and an invalid theory".
> 
> I don't believe it is an impossiblity or invalid theory, necessarily. However, it seems to me if the market sorts all things out in due time, at one point in the history of civilization it would have created a society like the one you theorize. What I believe is that you can assume all these things, and theories are nice, but at some point the theory has to be tested empirically for validity. Otherwise it is just a theory with no validation.
> 
> As far as what you said about the REvolution, I guess I'll have to go back and see. If all you said was that it wsan't the biggest Army, well that's true. But it was eventually organized and controlled from a central Continental Congress, which found that just relying on rich landholders to fund the effort because of "the market" didn't work out.





> Good Lord. Do you ever actually answer a post? You are impossible to debate...


This did not seem like a calm statement to me. And calling my ideas ridiculous in that same paragraph is not a good way to keep my interest in a debate. That is all I'm going to say on that subject.

I apologize if my assumption of what your central argument is turned out to be inaccurate, but you kept repeating that my theory had never been tested, then saying that you didn't think it could work. Well, since it has never been tested, I cannot prove that it will work, nor can you prove that it would not work. What I have not seen is a cogent reason from you as to why you think it won't work. Hence my characterization of your argument as "it hasn't happened, therefore it won't work".


----------



## roadwreck (Nov 7, 2008)

+1

opcorn:


----------



## benbo (Nov 7, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> You also misrepresented my statement about the Revolutionary War. I didn't say that there was no government, I said that there was no army.


Here's your statement about the Revolutionary War, from a thread called Religion and Engineers." I'm too dumb to link to it.

"National Defense: Well, we fought the Revolutionary War before we had our own government...and even as huge underdogs, we prevailed over the most powerful military in the world at that time. If our national security was truly being threatened, there is no doubt in my mind that we could and would bond together to fight for our common good against foreign threats. Right now, I don't feel like our government is fighting to protect our national security, or even our best interests, by starting wars in places that do not have any affect us."

Maybe I misrepresented something, or misunderstood something. I don't know.

I also saw in that thread we've been through this ad nauseum. I'll sum up my opinion - I am for competition in things like schools, private roads, all sorts of things. I am not for a huge government. But I don't believe the profit motive will always deliver for the public good. And I also believe there are ways to use government rarely and wisely to spur innovation. I believe used wisely gvt can be like the trim on the controls. I agree it is not always (or even often) used wisely.

If that makes me a wild eyed commie, so be it. I've been called a fascist just as often.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 7, 2008)

benbo said:


> Here's your statement about the Revolutionary War, from a thread called Religion and Engineers." I'm too dumb to link to it.
> "National Defense: Well, we fought the Revolutionary War before we had our own government...and even as huge underdogs, we prevailed over the most powerful military in the world at that time. If our national security was truly being threatened, there is no doubt in my mind that we could and would bond together to fight for our common good against foreign threats. Right now, I don't feel like our government is fighting to protect our national security, or even our best interests, by starting wars in places that do not have any affect us."
> 
> Maybe I misrepresented something, or misunderstood something. I don't know.
> ...


Well, since we are going to press the issue...

The Continental Congress wasn't really a government. It was a group of delegates from 12 out of the 13 colonies that got together to discuss options about what to do with their British rulers. They met for a month and a half less a little less than a year before the Revolutionary War began. They didn't try to levy taxes, or set up even a provisional government. Although they did arrange for the Second Continental Congress to happen the following year.

From your second to last paragraph, it sounds like we have a lot in common. I argue from the standpoint of anarcho-capitalism because most people with which I debate start from the standpoint of huge, socialistic government. I find that when we "meet in the middle" it is usually a system of government that I would be comfortable with. The problem is that the trend I see becoming more and more prevalent is one of bigger government no matter what. Neither of the "Big Two" parties this year even mentioned the possibility of shrinking the government...they just had different plans to expand it. I find that completely unacceptable and unsustainable. This will lead us towards the same end as the Roman Empire (i.e. complete governmental and economic collapse). Then, history proves that nothing will be learned from the failure of the government, and a new one will simply take its place.


----------



## MGX (Nov 7, 2008)

Velcro people, where would we be without velcro?


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 7, 2008)

MGX said:


> Velcro people, where would we be without velcro?


Happily using hook-and-loop tape?


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Nov 7, 2008)

The peanut is neither a pea nor a nut. Discuss.


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 7, 2008)

you sounding it out wrong its "P-Nut"


----------



## FLBuff PE (Nov 7, 2008)

Jeff Dunham

Wait...wrong thread

Edit: Since it seems to be my research place of choice, I decided to look at Wikipedia's entry on the subject. This is the last thing posted in the entry. I move that from now on, peanuts be called monkey nuts. And peanut butter is from now on known as monkey nut butter.

Peanuts are also known as earthnuts, goobers, goober peas, pindas, jack nuts, pinders, manila nuts, and monkey nuts. (The last of these is often used to mean the entire pod.)


----------



## Dleg (Nov 7, 2008)

Can I join with an emoticon sentiment, too?

:jerkit:

I'd love to join in, but it's Saturday.

I live in a place that has the closest thing to an unregulated free market that I have ever lived in. now, granted, it's an island and therefore a totally un-free market, but we got the stamp of approval from Tom Delay as being the "perfect petri dish of capitalism" back in the late 1990s when he visted with Jack Abramoff, while fixing it for us in congress to assure that we could continue to import foreign labor at less than US minimum wage.

So what we ended up with was an economy where all the private sector jobs - including engineers - went to foreign workers who were willing to work for the minimum wage - $3.05 an hour until last year - and the local US citizens were left with no other choice than to work in the government, where many of them augmented their income with bribes from the foreign businesses, which were paid to additionally get out of other taxes and fees.

Once the Chinese garment copmanies discvoered this place, we went from a potentially high-profit tourist destination to a third world hell hole in the span of about 2 years (1995 to 1997). Now things have shifted glbally, and the garment manufacturers have left, and left behind their mess, and a totally corrupted system. A near-complete lack of government oversight is to blame for most of it, as anyone familiar with the situation will tell you.

Now, once again, i realize that this is a strange case, we're on an island, the market wasn't entirely free, etc. But I have personally observed that the "free market" will, if left to it's own devices, seek out what is good for itself, and itself only. The last of the garment factories (once over 30) will be leaving in the net few months, and what we are left with now is a completely uglified island that no tourist is interested in, tens of thousands of out-of-work immigrant workers (rapidly turning to theft, drug sales, and prostitution to make a living), a trashed infrastructure that the "free market" folks refuse to pay for, and an indigenous population who were left behind throughout the whole process.

Not perfect, like I said, but enough for me to believe it couldn't possibly ever work - businesses are always after what's best for them, and unless carefully regulated, they will methodically remove all obstacles to their growth, and you'll just end up with a series of geographic monopolies. It would, in short time I think, revert back to some sort of medeival society, where businesses control individual cities or even whole countries. And yes, that would ultimately be bad for them, but businesses don't look that far into the future. it goes against the basic principals.

(gee, I thought I didn't have any time for that - I'm out)


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 7, 2008)

Dleg said:


> when he visted with Jack Abramoff,


Visited Jack who off?


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 7, 2008)

It sounds like there is a perfect opportunity in DLeg's neck of the woods to buy some land for cheap, develop it into a nice resort, and make big money from tourists. Seriously...it sounds like you have everything to make a very profitable resort town; tropical climate, no shortage of beaches/ocean views, local workforce willing to work for relatively cheap, and an abundance of abandoned (cheap) land. I'm surprised the free market hasn't adjusted to tourism on its own, and something tells me that the governmental corruption is keeping that from happening (i.e. the market isn't free not just because of location).


----------



## Chucktown PE (Nov 7, 2008)

Dleg, you'll have to remind me where exactly you live. I though I remembered you saying Guam, and I also thought that there were very weak private property rights. In fact, I thought you said that you weren't allowed to own property. If that is the case then 1. Tom Delay is an even bigger dumbass than I originally thought and 2. That was not even close to a free market. One of the hallmarks of a capitalistic free market are strong private property rights.


----------



## Dleg (Nov 9, 2008)

I'm in the Northern Mariana Islands. I've been Googling to try to find a nice, concise article that touches on the free-market success of our economy (and subsequent collapse), but unfortunately the best I can find right now is from Ms. Magazine, so please excuse the source. I'm surprised no one has taken the opportunity to write up an analysis of what has happened here, in terms of free-market theory, etc. Some good thesis material, for sure.

Here's the DeLay stuff from the Ms. Article:



> Among the visitors were DeLay, his wife and daughter, and six of his aides. During his 1998 New Year’s holiday trip, he told Saipan officials, as was later reported in The Dallas Observer, "When one of my closest and dearest friends, Jack Abramoff, your most able representative in Washington, D.C., invited me to the islands, I wanted to see firsthand the free-market success and the progress and reform you have made.” At a New Year’s Eve dinner on Saipan, DeLay lavishly praised the governor—in a moment caught on camera and later shown by ABC’s 20/20—“You are a shining light for what is happening in the Republican Party, and you represent everything that is good about what we’re trying to do in America, in leading the world in the free-market system.”
> Two years later, DeLay still saw the islands through rose-colored lenses, as he told The Washington Post: “[The CNMI] is a perfect petri dish of capitalism. …It’s like my Galapagos Island.”


DeLay and his successors were able to keep federal immigration and labor law out until last year, but the garment industry moved on anyway, in response to global market conditions (lifting of quotas for imports from China and other countries, I believe). They left behind a huge mess, ruined infrastructure, and thousands of illegal aliens who refuse to leave. Now the island is so ugly from all the uncontrolled development that occurred during the garment build-up (I am a witness to that), and the crime and prostitution that remains with the unemployed foreigners, that the tourists just aren't interested anymore.

So yes, as I said, this is not a perfect example. But it was a lot closer to an unregulated free market than anything in the mainland US. And my point in bringing this up is just to state my opinion, based on my experience, that a so-called "free market" will be just a corrupted and un-free as any government-controlled scheme, and actually, a lot worse. The biggest flaw, in my opinion, of the free-market / anarcho-capitalism ideas is the assumption that, somehow, human weaknesses won't come into play, or that the "market" will somehow cancel them out. To the contrary, the "market" (if left unregulated or poorly regulated) will allow the corrupt and selfish to run rampant. There's always going to be someone who is bold enough to just keep grabbing more money, more power, etc., and supressing others to get their way. The "good of all" that the economic theory predicts would never be realized.

Wilheld - I hope the above answered your question why tourism hasn't stepped in to fill the void - the cheap workforce is foreign labor willing to do anything for minimum wage - including engineering (watch out - this is the future for the US if they ever adopt a "guest worker" program, which Bush proposed to model after ours.) No private sector employer in his/her right mind would hire anyone for more than minimum wage with all these cheap, skilled workers available to them. The local/US citizenry work almost exclusively for the government, because only government pays wages that will support a reasonable quality of life. The market has not adjusted to promote tourism because the garment industry trashed the island (third-world ugly) and the tourists don't want to come. You could say that the free market just kind of burned through here and left us in ashes. A "petri dish" indeed - one that, I think, tells us a lot of what _could_ happen in the US, if the market was left to run itself unregulated.

Oh- Chucktown - the property rights thing: yes, only "locals" can own land, but outsiders can lease land for up to 55 years. Judging by the number of big hotels (all built prior to the garment explosion), that hasn't been too much of an obstacle, but an obstacle nonetheless, I agree.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Nov 9, 2008)

PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS:

What has been going on there is not the free market. Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff wouldn't know the free market if it kicked them both in the nuts. My definition of the free market (and I suppose Willheld's) is when the government protects our lives, liberty, and property. Without knowing the specifics, I can almost certainly say that if those two knuckleheads were involved, there was corruption. As such, the government was not protecting someone's life, liberty, and property, and more than likely rewarding certain companies with special favors in return for hefty campaign contributions, special trips to Northern Mariana islands, etc. My guess is that the government was picking winners and losers in the Norther Marian islands, just like they are picking winners and losers with that pesky little $700 billion.

People who advocate for more government involvement typically concede that, if people are left to their own vices, they will "run rampant." My question is, what is the government made of. The answer to that is more people. So the corollary is, wouldn't government officials "run rampant" in the same style. When the government is simply the arbiter, and is simply enforcing the very simple rules of law, they can't pick winners and losers, and corruption is much less likely. So ask yourself, would you rather trust your future to a beuracrat, who has the potential to be just as corrupt as Tom DeLay, or trust yourself to choose your own destiny provided it does not infringe on anyone else's right to life, liberty, and property.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 9, 2008)

My definition of a free market wouldn't include the word government, but you are right, if the government meddles or regulates the market in any way, it is not free. I believe the corruption that you describe now was caused by all kinds of shady dealings that led to the textile plants locating on your island. Those dealings probably led to other industries facing artificial barriers to entry (i.e. the tourism industry couldn't get a foothold because of the deals being offered to textile companies). Then again, this is pure speculation on my part based on your description of the aftermath. If/when I have some free time, I might research the situation for my own amusement.


----------



## Dleg (Nov 9, 2008)

(in response to Chucktown) Well, that was my whole point - you seem to think that with a minimalist government, we will be somehow immune from human corruption because "the market" is somehow free from it. That's simply never going to happen - as long as humans are involved, they will corrupt any organization, including the "market".

So you ask which I would trust, but you name only government or myself. That's not an honest choice. You're leaving out "business" or "the market" or whichever. As long as anyone is making more money than most other people, or controlling more resources, there will be no such thing as answering only to yourself as an individual. Whoever or whatever has control of the resources will have the power, and will use it. History has not once contradicted this basic principle of human behavior.

So if I had my choice, I'd choose something very simlar to what we have in America today - a carefully regulated free market, and a democratic government. Nothing's perfect, but at least there are checks on the power of both parties in our current system - neither can run out of control, but you should expect occasional see-saws between the rule of the market, and the rule of government: Once in a while the market gets a break, until enough people begin to feel like they're getting the shaft, then regulation and "re-distribution of wealth" gets a turn. It goes back and forth, and that's unavoidable in a situation where every single person has a say in what happens. Hence my belief that you could never have a truly free market unless under a dicatatorship - it would never make it past the polling booth in a democracy, because once people's wages begin to adjust to the market - which for us over-paid Americans would mean an adjsutment downward (in a global market) - the majority woud vote to put restrictions back onto it.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Nov 9, 2008)

I don't mind the regulation part so much. I think government is needed to set the ground rules (enforce contracts etc.). I don't think the government should be competing directly in the marketplace against private industry. When the government offers something for "free" or at least for less than it costs to produce, they are engaging in a practice that would bankrupt a normal company that cannot accept the losses. Once the private companies are gone since they can't compete, there is no incentive for the government to improve efficiency or service. Any time government puts is hand on the supply/demand scale to favor one group or industry, there's another group that gets screwed. The difference between the favored group and the one getting screwed can usually be found in who has the better lobbying effort in DC.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 10, 2008)

Dleg said:


> The biggest flaw, in my opinion, of the free-market / anarcho-capitalism ideas is the assumption that, somehow, human weaknesses won't come into play, or that the "market" will somehow cancel them out.


I meant to address this point earlier, but forgot. "Power corrupts" sums up my response to this statement. When you put people in government, where they can make decisions that affect anywhere from hundreds to billions of people, not only are they still human (possessing human weaknesses), but now those weaknesses are amplified. The influence of lobbyists in this country, and flat-out bribes in other countries, to influence the decision making of government officials -- decisions which are implemented at the point of a bayonet -- is far worse than any corporate greed/corruption that I have ever seen. When a CEO is found out to be corrupt, he loses everything; his business, his money, his stuff, usually his family, and often his freedom. When a politician is exposed as being corrupt, he usually gets re-elected (see Ted Stevens and Marion Barry).


----------



## Chucktown PE (Nov 10, 2008)

A couple of other points I have been meaning to discuss here.

I know everyone says that this is “pie in the sky” stuff that I’m talking about but it isn’t. I have seen some write that this “has never existed”. By any objective standard, early 19th century America experienced the greatest increase in standard of living and increase in wealth as has ever been seen in recorded history. Look it up if you doubt. This was done with very little government interference. The state governments were much more powerful than the federal government and the economy flourished. Yes, slavery existed in the southern states and this is an ill which I do not think I will ever understand how it made it into the US. However, look at the northern states as well.

Also, we are obviously participants in a global economy and what I propose doesn’t work very well if some nations are free and others are not. With central banks, fiat money, currency manipulation, control of the money supply, tariffs, trade restrictions, burdensome regulations, discrepancies in patent laws, bribery, corruption, etc. (all tools by which governments, not the free market, manipulate the economy and their citizens), we do not have anything close to a free market as Adam Smith defined it. Again, I go back to the fact that bureaucrats are people. The thing that makes a bureaucrat more dangerous than the free market is the fact that they can force their citizenry to do essentially anything at the point of a gun. At least with the free market, we have choices and coercion is not possible.


----------



## benbo (Nov 10, 2008)

Chucktown PE said:


> A couple of other points I have been meaning to discuss here.
> I know everyone says that this is “pie in the sky” stuff that I’m talking about but it isn’t. I have seen some write that this “has never existed”.


Okay, I don't want to get involved deeply in this, but since my quote was mentioned I need to repeat what I was talking about so people don't mischaracterize it. There is a difference between a balance of power shifted between a weak federal government and stronger state governments, and a system with absolutely NO government. That is what I said never existed. Obviously, in the early 19th century I don't think anybody would claim we had NO government, or even NO federal government. This federalism / anti-federalism argument has been going on since the country was founded. I think that was in large part what the Civil War was about (in addition to slavery) and the federal government grew more powerful after the Civil War, and all those amendments after the Civil War that were an outgrowth of the war. I beleive it grew more powerful with the New Deal. I know all this.

And again, I know nobody is arguing explicitly for no government, and I am not even saying a completely government-less system would work or wouldn't work. I have no way of knowing. But with the results of the last election it doesn't look like we're going to find out any time soon.


----------



## Dleg (Nov 10, 2008)

Chucktown, I think you and I are converging on the same conclusions, it's just that we're on slightly different sides of the midpoint in the government vs. free market balance. I agree with benbo, the US was a very different place in the early 19th century, and the civil war, and countless other things have changed it since then (and continue to change it). But bottom line is we are still Americans, and operating under the same basic system, and it seems to be working pretty well so far.

Adam Smith, as I recall, always pointed out the necessity of government regulation on his free market.

Wilheld, unless you are arguing that some government is sitll required in an anarcho-capitalist scheme, at least in the form of a police force/army, then I think you are still deluding yourself that CEO corruption would not be as harmful as government corruption. Please tell me honestly - do you really believe that , in the absence of a strong, independent police force - corporations would not arm themselves and become their own security forces, and eventually abuse the power of those arms to subjugate their customers and wipe out their competitors? Of course they would, because if they didn't, the organized criminal class (which will always exist) would do it to them. And the same goes for a privately fundede security/police force - it would be just as subject to corruption and abuse of power.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 10, 2008)

Dleg said:


> Wilheld, unless you are arguing that some government is sitll required in an anarcho-capitalist scheme, at least in the form of a police force/army, then I think you are still deluding yourself that CEO corruption would not be as harmful as government corruption. Please tell me honestly - do you really believe that , in the absence of a *strong, independent police force* - corporations would not arm themselves and become their own security forces, and eventually abuse the power of those arms to subjugate their customers and wipe out their competitors? Of course they would, because if they didn't, the organized criminal class (which will always exist) would do it to them. And the same goes for a privately fundede security/police force - it would be just as subject to corruption and abuse of power.


A strong independent police force does not exist in today's society, but yes, I do agree that one would be required to enforce basic laws (like murder, assault, etc.). I really don't want to get into the whole Dispute Resolution Organization discussion on here because it would consume more time than I am willing to devote to it. But you can independently research DROs if you are interested in how an anarcho-capitalist society could exist.


----------



## Wolverine (Nov 11, 2008)

Redirecting the thread:

News Story:

[SIZE=12pt]Obama Urges Bush to Help Auto Industry[/SIZE]

Administration aides say President Bush is unhappy that his discussion Monday with President-elect Barack Obama was leaked and cast as a horse trade between signing a second economic stimulus bill in exchange for congressional passage of the Colombia Free Trade deal.

Under the Obama Administration (or the O-ministration as it shall now be called), get ready for a lot more leaks, er... I mean "transparency in government."

One criticism that's been made about Bush is the lack of transparency, but I will contend that opaqueness(?) is a good thing. How many times has Jimmy Carter revealed classified information that could help our enemies? The world does not need to know how many nukes Israel has, or why our missiles are so accurate, or where we keep captured bad guys.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 11, 2008)

Wolverine said:


> Redirecting the thread:
> News Story:
> 
> [SIZE=12pt]Obama Urges Bush to Help Auto Industry[/SIZE]
> ...


This whole "bailout" of the auto industry pisses me off to no end. There are Japanese car-makers that are making cars in factories IN THIS COUNTRY, that aren't having the same profitability issues as the Big 3. Why should my tax dollars go to bail out a company that has obviously inefficient and ineffective leadership and business practices? I've heard that the government will take ownership stakes in the companies as collateral for the bailout "loans". I have two problems with this: 1) I don't want stock in these failing companies, and 2) If they are having trouble staying afloat, and have needed bailouts in the past, what makes the government think that these bailouts are going to have any positive effect whatsoever?


----------



## Enginnneeer (Nov 11, 2008)

Whats it all about calling it the O-ministration?


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 11, 2008)

the japanese car countries probably dont have unions?

if we bailout the auto industry, why not Circuit City?


----------



## Flyer_PE (Nov 11, 2008)

^^ I heard this morning that Circuit City claims they delayed their announcement so as not to adversely affect the election. WTF? If we announce we are TU, "our guy" may lose. Somehow I don't think it made any difference.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Nov 11, 2008)

Look folks, we have already begun the slide down the slippery slope. American Express was just given bailout status. So know we, as taxpayers, will be paying delinquent credit card bills in addition to the delinquent mortgages. So why not bail out the automakers as well. Since we are in the business of preventing poorly run businesses from failing, I might open a little shit box business, run it into the ground, then go piss and moan to the taxpayers about how someone should help me wipe my ass. WHEN ARE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY GOING TO WAKE UP?

Just remember, this country wasn't intended to be a democracy, it was founded as a republic. Unfortunately it has turned into a democracy. I have posted this before but this should scare the shit out of everyone with half a brain whether you are a Republican, Democrat, or whatever, this quote is most often attributed to someone named Alexander Tyler writing in 1787 about the fall of the Athenian Republic. I think we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the United States of America.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 11, 2008)

Road Guy said:


> the japanese car countries probably dont have unions?


Exactly.



Road Guy said:


> if we bailout the auto industry, why not Circuit City?


Exactly.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Nov 11, 2008)

Chucktown PE said:


> "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."


Sadly, there are a lot of people out there that think that if it is provided by the government, it must be free. Somebody somewhere has to bear the costs. The 'rich' are not an inexhaustible resource.


----------



## Wolverine (Nov 11, 2008)

Continuing the tirade, it is POOR FINANCIAL PLANNING AND OVEREXTENSION OF CREDIT that has been a major contributor to the economic difficulty we are seeing (sorry 'bout the yelling). And now the solution is overextended credit and poor financial planning? Right, exactly.


----------



## cement (Nov 11, 2008)

and the 'test of leadership' that Biden (remember him?) promised is sure to help the econimic picture as well.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Nov 11, 2008)

^^ As I remember Senator Foot-In-Mouth also went on to blather about their response to said test will likely be unpopular.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 11, 2008)

Flyer_PE said:


> Sadly, there are a lot of people out there that think that if it is provided by the government, it must be free. Somebody somewhere has to bear the costs. The 'rich' are not an inexhaustible resource.


That's because the people who benefit the most from government services do receive them for free (i.e. no taxes paid).


----------



## Dleg (Nov 11, 2008)

Wolverine, I sincerely hope that you don't subscribe to such obviously flawed logic as to believe that a "leak" about a bailout discussion with Bush will somehow equate to a leak of important miltary secrets to our enemies.

Here's an interesting opinion piece from Newsweek about the so-called "rich" voting for Obama.


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 11, 2008)

I bought GM stock today. Honest.

If they bail them out, I want them to SHARE THE WEALTH my way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I got it for 2.90 a share today.


----------



## benbo (Nov 11, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> I bought GM stock today. Honest.
> 
> If they bail them out, I want them to SHARE THE WEALTH my way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I got it for 2.90 a share today.


I was waiting for them to hit $0. Then I was going to lauch a hostile takeover. Just call me T. Boone Benbo.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 11, 2008)

Chucktown PE said:


> "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."


The continuation of that quote...

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

* From bondage to spiritual faith;

* From spiritual faith to great courage;

* From courage to liberty;

* From liberty to abundance;

* From abundance to complacency;

* From complacency to apathy;

* From apathy to dependence;

* From dependence back into bondage."

I'd say we're somewhere between dependence and bondage right now.


----------



## Dleg (Nov 11, 2008)

I'd say somewhere closer to complacency.


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 12, 2008)

good grief, I heard some guy on CNN last night saying if GM goes under it will be a "failure of George W." jesus I can see placing blame on him for some things but at some point in time you have to stand up and look in the damn mirror Detroit.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 12, 2008)

Road Guy said:


> good grief, I heard some guy on CNN last night saying if GM goes under it will be a "failure of George W." jesus I can see placing blame on him for some things but at some point in time you have to stand up and look in the damn mirror Detroit.


Personal responsibility is dead in this country. If you screw up and fail, it is the government's fault, and their responsibility to fix it.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Nov 12, 2008)

^^ I wasn't aware that W was running GM. I figured enlarging the federal government pretty much took up all of his time. The 'to big to fail' argument is getting pretty stale. The consequences for bad business decisions should not be checks from Uncle Sam.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 12, 2008)

Road Guy said:


> the japanese car countries probably dont have unions?
> 
> if we bailout the auto industry, why not Circuit City?


Because Circuit City is retail. The workers can easily find new jobs and the goods will just be bought elsewhere.

The auto industry has millions of specially trained workers and they produce a product.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Nov 12, 2008)

I think we're all in agreement here but we have no hope of stopping this shit. Our government didn't listen to us with the last bailout, the AIG bailout, the Fannie and Freddie Bailout, the airline bailouts, etc. so they certainly aren't going to listen to us with this bailout. In addition, now the democrats have an even greater incentive to make sure this goes through. The UAW supports it and the UAW supports the democrats, ergo, the democrats support the bailout. Not saying republicans are any better here but how in the hell is this W's fault?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 12, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> I got it for 2.90 a share today.


Shoot, you can buy both a GM stock and a Ford stock for about five bucks altogether.

Then again, I though GM was a good buy at 20.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Nov 12, 2008)

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27641538

This could be a serious problem. I am not blaming any party but our elected officials are entirely to blame for this. Read my previous post about loose monetary policy, then look at this. It isn't that hard to connect the dots. The end may be nigh. I certainly believe it will be within my lifetime but may be even sooner. Once we lose our AAA rating the interest rates go up. We already spend 20% of our federal budget just paying interest on the debt. What happens when that figure goes up? The government isn't going to slow down spending so the compounding effect will be tremendous, the credit rating will fall further, and the downward spiral accelerates. I hate to preach doom and gloom but think about your families and whether or not it is worth it to start making preparations in case the worse happens.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 12, 2008)

Chucktown PE said:


> http://www.cnbc.com/id/27641538
> This could be a serious problem. I am not blaming any party but our elected officials are entirely to blame for this. Read my previous post about loose monetary policy, then look at this. It isn't that hard to connect the dots. The end may be nigh. I certainly believe it will be within my lifetime but may be even sooner. Once we lose our AAA rating the interest rates go up. We already spend 20% of our federal budget just paying interest on the debt. What happens when that figure goes up? The government isn't going to slow down spending so the compounding effect will be tremendous, the credit rating will fall further, and the downward spiral accelerates. I hate to preach doom and gloom but think about your families and whether or not it is worth it to start making preparations in case the worse happens.


How the hell did we still have AAA rating with $10T in debt already?


----------



## Chucktown PE (Nov 12, 2008)

Actually, if the government uses the accounting methods that businesses have to use then they are $53 trillion in debt. This includes all those unfunded liabilities (entitlements) that we voted to ourselves. While you're at it, if anyone hasn't read Atlas Shrugged, now would be a good time to do it.


----------



## benbo (Nov 12, 2008)

If all you people beleive the end of the world is here, and the government is so horrible, why are you bothering to get a government sanctioned engineering license?

I swear I've been hearing this same stuff for 35 years. The natioanl debt as a portion of GDP was over 120% at the end of World War II.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 12, 2008)

Ron Paul is the lone voice of reason in Washington.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 12, 2008)

benbo said:


> If all you people beleive the end of the world is here, and the government is so horrible, why are you bothering to get a government sanctioned engineering license?


In order to do our jobs and earn a living without interference from the armed wing of the government.


----------



## benbo (Nov 12, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> In order to do our jobs and earn a living without interference from the armed wing of the government.


How does getting a license from government exactly protect you from "the armed wing of government?"


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 12, 2008)

benbo said:


> How does getting a license from government exactly protect you from "the armed wing of government?"


Doing engineering work without a valid license is an actionable offense in most states.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Nov 12, 2008)

benbo said:


> If all you people beleive the end of the world is here, and the government is so horrible, why are you bothering to get a government sanctioned engineering license?
> I swear I've been hearing this same stuff for 35 years. The natioanl debt as a portion of GDP was over 90% at the end of World War II.


What choice do I have? I suppose it would be much more practical for me to go work at a fucking McDonalds so I don't have to have a government sanctioned engineering license. I don't agree with government licensing of anything but I have a wife and kids to support so in the name of practicality I have to play by the arbitrary bullshit rules of the government. In addition, licensing is a state law and as long as the federal government isn't mandating it and it's a state's right then I don't have as much of a problem with it.

And you're WWII argument is really irrelevant in this argument. See the attached graphic by the GAO to illustrate my point.


----------



## benbo (Nov 12, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Doing engineering work without a valid license is an actionable offense in most states.


Not in California for exempt industries. Maybe it's different in your state and every engineer needs a license. Come on out and you won't have to subject yourself to that governmental intrusion.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 12, 2008)

benbo said:


> Not in California for exempt industries. Maybe it's different in your state and every engineer needs a license. Come on out and you won't have to subject yourself to that governmental intrusion.


I think I'd rather be in jail than in California.


----------



## benbo (Nov 12, 2008)

Chucktown PE said:


> What choice do I have? And you're WWII argument is really irrelevant in this argument. See the attached graphic by the GAO to illustrate my point.


Of course you have a choice. There are plenty of professions that don't require a license. I worked as an electrical engineer for years without one.

As far as the debt, the past is always relevant to the future. I'm sure they could have made the same dire prognostications after WWII. Granted, if we don't change our ways the scenario in this projection could come true. But if you read the accompanying text it states it is based on a lot of assumptions. And the same document shows a surplus for a few years in the nineties. So I agree we have to do somehting about it, I just don't agree that the world will come to an end in a few years (or your lifetime) as you say.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Nov 12, 2008)

I don't know anything about electrical engineering. But by the same rationale, maybe I should just go be an insurance salesman. I am not going to get into a debate on the licensing thing because I have done what I've had to do to increase my earning potential.

And I am not saying the world will come to an end. I am saying that this Republic turned into a Democracy will fall and a dictatorship will replace it or, given our state militias, hopefully a much more peaceful alternative would be that the states disband from the union as they see fit and multiple nation states will replace the USA .


----------



## benbo (Nov 12, 2008)

Chucktown PE said:


> And I am not saying the world will come to an end. I am saying that this Republic turned into a Democracy will fall and a dictatorship will replace it or, given our state militias, hopefully a much more peaceful alternative would be that the states disband from the union as they see fit and multiple nation states will replace the USA .


Well, you could always be right, I can't say for sure it won't happen. I just don't think I'll be around to see any of this.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 12, 2008)

benbo said:


> Well, you could always be right, I can't say for sure it won't happen. I just don't think I'll be around to see any of this.


NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!


----------



## FLBuff PE (Nov 12, 2008)

^^^Wrong thread.


----------



## MGX (Nov 12, 2008)

I heard some talk of bailing out credit card companies.

Seriously....Can we bail out anyone stupider?


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 12, 2008)

MGX said:


> I heard some talk of bailing out credit card companies.
> Seriously....Can we bail out anyone stupider?


Yep...car companies.


----------



## MGX (Nov 12, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Yep...car companies.


Nationally, wealth can be mined, grown or manufactured. I could more argue the bailout of a manufacturer than a debt-peddler (and an insidious one at that) as being in the best interests of a nation.

I don't agree with any bailout period, but this is past insane. Chrysler may have had its flaws, but Iacocca paid that debt off in record time. I don't know if Ford or GM would pay back such a thing. Also, doesn't the gov take a stake in the companies they bail out? If so, I'd recommend Clinton to take the reigns of Hummer.

Part of me wants both Ford and GM to stick it out, given that they're American (or as American as any car company can be today). The other part says we're capitalist so screw them if they can't make a profit. The third, evil part says bankrupt the company and rise from the ashes like a phoenix only without the UAW.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 12, 2008)

MGX said:


> The other part says we're capitalist so screw them if they can't make a profit. The third, evil part says bankrupt the company and rise from the ashes like a phoenix only without the UAW.


That pretty much sums up my opinion.


----------



## Dleg (Nov 12, 2008)

I'm no fan of the American auto makers. They have failed to compete with the rest of the world by producing decent product, in my opinion. If the government is going to bail them out, the terms of that bailout better be very harsh indeed - scrap all the management, bring in younger, more imaginitive teams, and start competing with decent new products and forego the reliance on the "buy American" guilt trip that has been the only thing keeping them in business for the last 25 years.


----------



## Dleg (Nov 12, 2008)

^Oh yeah, and scrap the UAW. I agree. They served a purpose, but they're nothing more than cement shoes at this point.


----------



## benbo (Nov 12, 2008)

I heard some local professor on the radio today predicting a minimum 1.5 trillion deficit next year. So maybe you're not far off. I'm still not panicking yet.

He had some dire predictions - like 10% plus unemployment, -4% GDP growth, which are numbers I sort of expected.


----------



## cement (Nov 13, 2008)

I'm thinking that any money we give the automakers will go to the UAW for the fat pensions that buy those freaking land yachts that roll thru here in the summer. the rest goes to buy political ads. and politicians.


----------



## MA_PE (Nov 13, 2008)

Bailing out the automakers will fund the "Legacy" programs that are killing them in the first place. The UAW doesn't seem to understand that all of these life long pensions and benefits that they fight for create so much overhead that the companies would rather shut down than keep paying them.

Chapter 11 is the only way to break the deal and start fresh.

It happened when Ma Bell finally broke up. The state and federal governements need to get on board and recognize that the budgets can't tolerate these lifetime commitments.

Rather than cutting pensions they just talk about the general public's loos of social security.

The wealth is being "distributed" right in front of our eyes.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Nov 13, 2008)

Just so everyone knows, the democrats in Congress as well as BO have proposed giving $25 billion of your money directly to the automakers and another $10 billion directly to the unions.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Nov 13, 2008)

^^ I wonder how many votes $35 billion will buy.


----------



## roadwreck (Nov 13, 2008)

Flyer_PE said:


> ^^ I wonder how many votes $35 billion will buy.


well last year's vote purchase stimulus package was $600 per person. So $35 million divided by $600 would 58,333 votes.

Do you think questions like this will be on the exam?


----------



## chaosiscash (Nov 13, 2008)

roadwreck said:


> well last year's vote purchase stimulus package was $600 per person. So $35 million divided by $600 would 58,333 votes.
> Do you think questions like this will be on the exam?


Better hope not. The question was 35 BILLION, making the answer 58,333,333 votes.


----------



## roadwreck (Nov 13, 2008)

chaosiscash said:


> Better hope not. The question was 35 BILLION, making the answer 58,333,333 votes.


ops, I thought it was million. Yea, billion makes it a whole lot worse. Does that count as a units error? Or just being careless?


----------



## Chucktown PE (Nov 13, 2008)

I look at it another way. I have heard it said that the collapse of the big three would mean the loss of about 2,500,000 jobs (about 200,000 that work for the automakers and the rest at suppliers, restaurants, etc.) so $35,000,000,000 divided by 2,500,000 is roughly $14,000 per job. Of course that assumes that the people that get laid off won't go get new jobs which is what our government wants you to believe. The 2,500,000 is also a number from the UAW which is as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.

So my guess is by the time it's all said and done, this number will be around $50,000 per job, or enough to send these people to a 4 year college or 2 year technical school, move them from Detroit to some other state, and pay their rent for a few months.


----------



## CbusPaul (Nov 13, 2008)

25 Billion was actually passed as law last year or in '06 as a loan to the Big 3 in order for them to begin making more fuel efficient cars. This is the amount that is being discussed right now because the bill was passed but not funded before it terminated so it needs to be relegislated is my understanding. Still doesn't make it right.

I also have an issue with Paulson selling this TARP to lawmakers as 700 billion to be used for buying bad assets. Now he says he's not going to use it for that. Did we really give him a blank check with no checks and balances on how he spends it. That's ridiculous.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 13, 2008)

If GM makes it to 2010, it will be able to shed the pensions; the UAW funds them after that.

If the Big 3 collapse, even one of them, it will be far, far worse than if the banks, all of them collapsed. Jobs and manufacturing will be lost.

However, I think GM will HAVE to eventually declared Chapter 11.


----------



## snickerd3 (Nov 13, 2008)

Capt Worley PE said:


> If GM makes it to 2010, it will be able to shed the pensions; the UAW funds them after that.If the Big 3 collapse, even one of them, it will be far, far worse than if the banks, all of them collapsed. Jobs and manufacturing will be lost.
> 
> However, I think GM will HAVE to eventually declared Chapter 11.


I'm not very familiar with bankruptcy stuff, but once they file couldn't they legally then cut everyones pay without all the Union lawsuits to follow? Sucks for the workers but it would give the company a place to start over...having a job is better than not having one.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Nov 13, 2008)

snickerd3 said:


> I'm not very familiar with bankruptcy stuff, but once they file couldn't they legally then cut everyones pay without all the Union lawsuits to follow? Sucks for the workers but it would give the company a place to start over...having a job is better than not having one.


But then where would the union bosses get their money?


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 13, 2008)

Chucktown PE said:


> I look at it another way. I have heard it said that the collapse of the big three would mean the loss of about 2,500,000 jobs (about 200,000 that work for the automakers and the rest at suppliers, restaurants, etc.) so $35,000,000,000 divided by 2,500,000 is roughly $14,000 per job. Of course that assumes that the people that get laid off won't go get new jobs which is what our government wants you to believe. *The 2,500,000 is also a number from the UAW which is as full of shit as a Christmas turkey*.


Agreed. That number might actually be representative of the entire auto industry, including supply chain and support industries. But GM going out of business, or even all of the Big 3, would not make the entire auto industry in America disappear. I guarantee you that Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Kia, etc. would expand to fill most of the void, and some Chinese and Indian companies would jump at the opportunity to enter the American market. I'm sure that Detroit suppliers that are facing the decision to either reorganize to reduce costs and supply to the foreign auto plants, or close up shop and go out of business would choose the former in great numbers. I do, however, feel that the end of the Big 3 would sound the Death Toll for the UAW which has been a long time coming.


----------



## CbusPaul (Nov 13, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Agreed. That number might actually be representative of the entire auto industry, including supply chain and support industries. But GM going out of business, or even all of the Big 3, would not make the entire auto industry in America disappear. I guarantee you that Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Kia, etc. would expand to fill most of the void, and some Chinese and Indian companies would jump at the opportunity to enter the American market. I'm sure that Detroit suppliers that are facing the decision to either reorganize to reduce costs and supply to the foreign auto plants, or close up shop and go out of business would choose the former in great numbers. I do, however, feel that the end of the Big 3 would sound the Death Toll for the UAW which has been a long time coming.



The 2,500,000 number also assumes that every laid off worker has to return to work. I would suspect that a good number of the UAW members are very close to retirement age and would not continue working.


----------



## CbusPaul (Nov 13, 2008)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if those jobs are really needed, meaning we need to produce as many cars after the collapse as we do before, then wouldn't another company step in and pick up manufacturing.

If they collapse and all of these people are out of a job, then doesn't that mean that the jobs weren't needed in the first place. So would the market forces have created the sinking of the industry due to supply and demand. Isn't that what we want in a capitalist society?


----------



## Chucktown PE (Nov 13, 2008)

^^ Dude,

Where have you been the last 70 years. We aren't a capitalist society. We like to "spread the wealth around." Market forces, what the hell are those? Those are just greedy rich people getting richer off the backs of the "working class."


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 13, 2008)

What was the Michael Keaton movie where all the american auto workers had to adapt to work at the Japanese auto plant?


----------



## MA_PE (Nov 13, 2008)

Gung Ho


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 13, 2008)

CbusPaul said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if those jobs are really needed, meaning we need to produce as many cars after the collapse as we do before, then wouldn't another company step in and pick up manufacturing.
> If they collapse and all of these people are out of a job, then doesn't that mean that the jobs weren't needed in the first place. So would the market forces have created the sinking of the industry due to supply and demand. Isn't that what we want in a capitalist society?


That was the point that I was making in saying that foreign car makers would step in to fill the void. But they aren't going to accept the lazy, entitled, and overpaid attitude of existing UAW workers. So they are either going to have to change their attitude, or live with being unemployed.

Also, with the collective bargaining power of the UAW, there were also far more employees required to be on payrolls than were actually required to build the cars. Hence the reason that GM isn't worth saving as long as the UAW is still calling the shots.


----------



## CbusPaul (Nov 13, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> That was the point that I was making in saying that foreign car makers would step in to fill the void. But they aren't going to accept the lazy, entitled, and overpaid attitude of existing UAW workers. So they are either going to have to change their attitude, or live with being unemployed.
> Also, with the collective bargaining power of the UAW, there were also far more employees required to be on payrolls than were actually required to build the cars. Hence the reason that GM isn't worth saving as long as the UAW is still calling the shots.



I agree wholeheartedly. That Jobs Bank that they have to pay workers to do nothing is incredibly UnAmerican or the way I perceived America to be before this latest fiasco.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 13, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Agreed. That number might actually be representative of the entire auto industry, including supply chain and support industries. But GM going out of business, or even all of the Big 3, would not make the entire auto industry in America disappear. I guarantee you that Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Kia, etc. would expand to fill most of the void, and some Chinese and Indian companies would jump at the opportunity to enter the American market. I'm sure that Detroit suppliers that are facing the decision to either reorganize to reduce costs and supply to the foreign auto plants, or close up shop and go out of business would choose the former in great numbers.


The part suppliers already supply the foreign factories on US soil. The proble is that if one of the automakers, say GM, closes its doors, the parts suppliers will lose a bunch of business and collapse. then all the other carmakers can't get parts.



> I do, however, feel that the end of the Big 3 would sound the Death Toll for the UAW which has been a long time coming.


100% agree. One of the main reasons I think GM would be better off going Chapter 11. They can void the contract.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Nov 13, 2008)

I don't know if ya'll are aware of this but while I was living in Atlanta, I guess it has been about two years ago now, Ford and GM both shut down plants in Atlanta. The Ford plant was down near the airport and the GM plant was on the north side. Even though they shut the plants down and paid the workers that used to work there not to work, the UAW wouldn't let them sell the property or bulldoze the plants for two to three years. The reason why was great, "in case they needed to start building those cars again." The same cars that were discontinued because people weren't buying them. The UAW actually thinks that one day millions of Americans are going to wake up and decide to start buying shitty products that are inferior to the Japanese competition. During the real estate boom it was estimated that these properties were worth nearly a billion dollars, and that's just the property. It doesn't include the machinery and equipment.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 13, 2008)

I thought the GM Atlanta plant was still buiding the bottlenosed minivans thru December.


----------



## MGX (Nov 13, 2008)

Ugh, Union Workers.

Here in OKc GM shut down its plant several years ago. The layed off employees sought work and found no jobs that would pay big salaries to pretty much stand around and complain about the injustices of the world.

Most company owners I know wouldn't hire someone if they knew they worked for GM previously. The sense of entitlement and attitude is enough to put you off the idea of hiring anyone union.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Nov 13, 2008)

No, that plant has been idled for two years now.


----------



## CbusPaul (Nov 13, 2008)

Hasn't Saturn been building plants lately?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 13, 2008)

No, and I'm not sure of the plans for Spring Hill.


----------



## ktulu (Nov 13, 2008)

Chucktown PE said:


> No, that plant has been idled for two years now.


That plant is being torn down as we speak. The School of PE course was held at the Best Western across the street from the Ford plant.


----------



## ktulu (Nov 13, 2008)

The KIA plant in West Point, GA is coming along swiftly.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 13, 2008)

What are they gonna build? Borregos?


----------



## FLBuff PE (Nov 13, 2008)

ktulu said:


> That plant is being torn down as we speak. The School of PE course was held at the Best Western across the street from the Ford plant.


Man the trebuchet!


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 13, 2008)

Shall we load the Trojan Rabbit?


----------



## FLBuff PE (Nov 13, 2008)

I just had to pay homage to one of the best posts over at the other board. :bowdown: :respect:


----------

