Good idea if we're going to be stuck in Iraq for the next 30 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/washington/20bush.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

Man... I am sooooo glad that Canada isn't in Iraq militarily. I sense a numbness in much of America. It's a mixture of not knowing what to do, and not wanting to think about it.

This board is a microcosm of similar feelings. A couple of years ago, U.S. involvement in Iraq saw spirited debate. Today, regardless of your personal stand, any discussion is downheartening.

He's a dickwad.

I guess that is disheartening.

If the draft and offering better pay don't work you can:

Do like the Frenchs, "la légion étrangère" or the French Foreign Legion. If you create it as it was at it origine, you will also empty you jails at the same time. You can also decide that every new immigrant that serve in this new legion for 5 years before becoming an US's citizens.

/e only a little bit ironic.....

I have hear that the Canada have like 5 to 10 solders in Irak, their job is a logistical one, it to help with the rotation of US solders with Afganistan, clerc work only. It may have changed since (about 1 year ago).


And Canada begin to have the same troubles in Afganistan that US have in Irak too. And recalling the troupes is begining to be talked.

Eridalafar

Good idea if we're going to be stuck in Iraq for the next 30 years.You mean, until 2009. If Bush doesn't remove the troops, it will be the first order of business for the next president, and will probably make his/her approval ratings soar.

Uh... like McCain? Even a lot of the democrats can't figure out what to do with Iraq: Leiberman, Clinton, probably a lot of others would have us staying.

Uh... like McCain? Even a lot of the democrats can't figure out what to do with Iraq: Leiberman, Clinton, probably a lot of others would have us staying.You really think a future president is going to trash his reputation from the outset (and chances for reelection) by continuing to support an unpopular war? Also, if Bush doesn't cut and run before the election, he'll be hurting the republican candidate's chances.

One way or another, we're pulling out of there. We won the war, we lost the peacekeeping mission, now we serve no useful purpose there.

You really think a future president is going to trash his reputation from the outset (and chances for reelection) by continuing to support an unpopular war? Also, if Bush doesn't cut and run before the election, he'll be hurting the republican candidate's chances.

Yeah, look at how many presidents stayed the course in Vietnam and that war was very unpopular. McCain is already saying we have to send more troops: McCain, general call for higher troop levels (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003478616_mccain15.html).
Two other senators in the delegation, Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., agreed.

"We need more, not less, U.S. troops here," Lieberman said.

And try to decipher this...
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday she would not support a short-term increase in American troop presence in Iraq unless it was part of a more comprehensive plan to stabilize the country.

She's going to do whatever makes her look "tough".

So there you go, 3 possible front runners that I think would have us lingering in Iraq.

Newt and Romney both want more troops too.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday she would not support a short-term increase in American troop presence in Iraq unless it was part of a more comprehensive plan to stabilize the country.I suppose that means, she wouldn't send more troops unless she were convinced they would serve a specific purpose to stabilize the country.

I'm still baffled as to why these leaders want to stabilize the country. Our goal should be to destabilize it, to our advantage. Cut a deal with Saudi Arabia, or whatever other important neighbors plan to get involved in the inevitable civil war.

Our goal should be to destabilize it, to our advantage.

It wouldn't be to US advantage. Whatever the US wants in terms of security will not be provided by a destabilized Iraq. You can argue that a destabilised middle east isn't a conventional military threat but the middle east isn't a concentional military threat to the US anyway. Everyone prospers by having stable, friendly governments across the world to engage with.

Cut a deal with Saudi Arabia, or whatever other important neighbors plan to get involved in the inevitable civil war.

The deal is ... the important neighbours made it clear before the invasion that Iraq had to be held together. The coalition is now honouring that deal and there is nothing to negotiate. By letting Iraq disintegrate you are reneging on the old deal, not cutting a new one.

If we let Saudi Arabia, Kurdistan, and Kuwait divy up Iraq, they wouldn't bitch at us ;) If we told we were doing so in order to free our forces to take out Iran...they would love us long time.

Tudamorf, having a destablized ME has never been a good thing. They sit on the stuff we need to have a functioning civilization.

I second that....a destabilized Pan is never a good thing....

Damn you! I'm sitting on a chair though. Don't think its loss will cause civilization to fail. :p

Tudamorf, having a destablized ME has never been a good thing. They sit on the stuff we need to have a functioning civilization.Well, to begin with, they don't. I've cited the statistics too many times -- only about 10% of our oil comes from there. So if the Middle East's oil wells dried up tomorrow, life would go on in America without much ado.

Second, the choice is not between a stable Middle East, and an unstable one. It's not even between a stable Iraq and an unstable one. It's between trying to stabilize Iraq, and trying to destabilize it. Think about it.

I think a _sudden_ loss of the chair would cause you to fall, though.

Well, to begin with, they don't. I've cited the statistics too many times -- only about 10% of our oil comes from there. So if the Middle East's oil wells dried up tomorrow, life would go on in America without much ado.

Second, the choice is not between a stable Middle East, and an unstable one. It's not even between a stable Iraq and an unstable one. It's between trying to stabilize Iraq, and trying to destabilize it. Think about it.

Ok, lets think this through a little bit...
How much oil does the rest of the world get from the middle east? Lets make up a number and say 50%. So if 50% of the worlds oil suddenly disappear, like my chair, you don't think that'll have any impact on us? Doesn't it make the remaining oil in the world extremely valuable and make governments have to compete with one another to get that oil?

And you really think that wouldn't change anything for us?

And you really think that wouldn't change anything for us?It will change a lot, but not necessarily for the worse. It will make us (and Canada!) rich as hell, as force Europe and Asia to come begging at our and Russia's door for the stuff. Who knows, it might even convince the world to stop spewing garbage into the atmosphere.

This is all mental masturbation anyway; the issue is not whether the Middle East oil reserves are going to vanish, just who is going to control them.

This is all mental masturbation anyway; the issue is not whether the Middle East oil reserves are going to vanish, just who is going to control them.

Exactly.

Worst case:
If it is not being pumped out now, it will just be there for safe storage for later.

It's not like the Harkonnens are going to come down and beat us to it, or something.

How do you figure it'll make us all rich as hell? We import most of our oil. It takes about 10 years to develop any new oil finds, so we'll be years and years away from solving any short fall ourselves. We certainly don't have enough to be exporting any.

How do you figure it'll make us all rich as hell? We import most of our oil.We import about half of our oil. If you take out the Middle East, the United States has the greatest amount of proven oil reserves (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html) after Canada, Venezuela, and Russia. If you look at current production (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.html), we are right behind Saudi Arabia (#1 in all respects) and Russia. And don't forget, the cost of the crude product makes up only half of the U.S. price.

So, in the vanishing Middle East scenario, we will be way ahead of the curve. On top of that, we are one of the most advanced countries, and are better situated than most countries to convert to alternative energy methods.

Also consider that Saudi Arabia alone controls most of Middle Eastern oil, so whoever controls or is allied with Saudi Arabia (*cough* U.S.) need not be overly concerned with Iraq, Iran, and what not.

So you think life will just perk along like normal on 50% of our usual oil for the 10 years it'd take to find and drill out all that oil? Look what 3 planes crashing on 9/11 did to our economy that took a year or more to recover from.

You're dreaming! Our economy would be in tatters within a couple of weeks and it wouldn't recover for years and years. It would make the Great Depression look like a minor problem.

So you think life will just perk along like normal on 50% of our usual oil for the 10 years it'd take to find and drill out all that oil?Are you also assuming that no other country will export oil to us? We get 10%, not 50%, of our oil from the Middle East.

Still, in your fanciful scenario, where every country has to fend for itself, we would be far better off than most of the world. No doubt, there would be economic repercussions, but in the end, we'd be far better off. We might even decide to invade and annex Canada; I'm sure we would win, this time.Look what 3 planes crashing on 9/11 did to our economy that took a year or more to recover from.How do you figure the economy was damaged for a year? Stocks, for example, bounced back in less than a month.

The biggest economies of the world are importing most of their oil. If 50% of the worlds oil drops off the face of the earth tonight the price of oil for everyone is going to increase insanely. I don't argue that in 50 years, sure we'll be better off. But you're being a bit pollyanic about what happens in the meantime.

The biggest economies of the world are importing most of their oil. If 50% of the worlds oil drops off the face of the earth tonight the price of oil for everyone is going to increase insanely.It's all relative. If our economy drops 30%, but the rest of the world's drops 50%, we're still better off.

It's all relative. If our economy drops 30%, but the rest of the world's drops 50%, we're still better off.

Nonsense. Stop playing world power politics and look after the people. Nobody wants to be the person laid off when the economy drops 30% and they don't care if a Bulgarian, Swede, and Thai lose their jobs too.

How do you figure it'll make us all rich as hell? We import most of our oil. It takes about 10 years to develop any new oil finds, so we'll be years and years away from solving any short fall ourselves. We certainly don't have enough to be exporting any.

Actually we import about half of our oil...we produce the other half ourselves.

Very few, if any, nations actually produce more oil per year than we do...we just don't have the known reserves to keep it up for much longer than another 20 years or so...and we don't produce enough to cover our expenditure.

Theoretically, we could produce all of our necessary oil...but only for about a decade.

This train derailed faster than I thought possible.

Well not exactly derailed, but it isn't on the track it is supposed to be on! :p

Tuda's thought is so what if the middle east goes bonkers, we don't need their oil. I guess he's right as long as people don't feel they need their jobs, and food and stuff.

We don't need their oil.

We, technically, don't need foreign trade at all. If push came to shove, America could be entirely self-sufficient. Sure we'd have to make due with the fake American kobe beef...and the fake wisconsin feta cheese...and for a few years our clothes would be rediculously expensive...but in the end, it'd probably take us less than five years to revert back to an industrial nation capable of self-sufficiency.

Ah, such blessed ignorance. This country would be making decisions like: Do we use the oil to produce food or to drive to work? When it takes 10 calories of oil to produce 1 calorie of food corn... you've got some issues to work out.

No, the nation would ramp up production of its oil to meet our own demands and then focus our research heavily into either A) finding alternative fuels B) Finding the means of inexpensively extracting shale oil C) reducing the cost of coal gassification.

As I mentioned...we can produce enough oil, ourselves, but we can only do so at current consumption levels for about a decade, afaik.

I have no doubt that, if the situation demanded it, we could and would find solutions to the one, if not all, of the above three problems. When the full weight of the United States is placed on finding a solution to a problem...we find that solution. Be it nuclear power or putting men on the moon.

Of course...considering the largest importer of oil to the US is Canada...I don't think we have to worry so much...

Actually we import about half of our oil...we produce the other half ourselves.
The CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)gives the following breakdown for US oil:
Production: 7.61 million bbl/day (2005 est.)
Consumption: 20.03 million bbl/day (2003 est.)
Exports: 1.048 million bbl/day (2004)
Imports: 13.15 million bbl/day (2004)
Proved reserves: 22.45 billion bbl (1 January 2002)

We, technically, don't need foreign trade at all. If push came to shove, America could be entirely self-sufficient.
We could but we sure as hell wouldn't want to be forced into it.

So if the Middle East's oil wells dried up tomorrow, life would go on in America without much ado.
Yeah, 'cause the US ecconomy isn't impacted at all by changes in the global economy. :rolleyes:

No, the nation would ramp up production of its oil to meet our own demands and then focus our research heavily into either A) finding alternative fuels B) Finding the means of inexpensively extracting shale oil C) reducing the cost of coal gassification.

As I mentioned...we can produce enough oil, ourselves, but we can only do so at current consumption levels for about a decade, afaik.

I have no doubt that, if the situation demanded it, we could and would find solutions to the one, if not all, of the above three problems. When the full weight of the United States is placed on finding a solution to a problem...we find that solution. Be it nuclear power or putting men on the moon.

Of course...considering the largest importer of oil to the US is Canada...I don't think we have to worry so much...

A new oil reserve was found recently. They said it would take 10 years to get it up for production. 10 years! Meanwhile, ok... alternative fuels. How long does it take to retool all the things that run on petroleum to use any new alternative fuels? Like I said before, sure we'll eventually make that change if it suddenly disappears. But we'd quite likely have people starving to death in this country, not to mention the world, for many years. And the social upheaval from the unemployment and poverty would drastically change things here.

Sure, Canada sells us oil. But if China, India, Japan, Europe and all the other large economies are also going to be looking to bid on it it is going to become incredibly expensive. You'd have to decide which parts of industry or the economy to run and which to shut down.

This country would be making decisions like: Do we use the oil to produce food or to drive to work? When it takes 10 calories of oil to produce 1 calorie of food corn... you've got some issues to work out.No, they'd be making decisions like: Let's plan out more efficient methods of farming. Let's finally roll out alternative energy vehicles. And so on. In your crisis, we'd adapt far better than most countries could, and in the end, we'd be far ahead, relative to most countries.They said it would take 10 years to get it up for production. 10 years! Meanwhile, ok... alternative fuels. How long does it take to retool all the things that run on petroleum to use any new alternative fuels?It might take 10 years when there's no rush, we have plenty of oil, and the only goal is maximizing profit. In exigent circumstances, there will be a drastic change. You'd be surprised how quickly a deadline can spring people into action.

Yeah, 'cause the US ecconomy isn't impacted at all by changes in the global economy. :rolleyes:Of course it's impacted, but it's all relative. If we can weather the storm better than most countries, we'll be better off in the end.

Of course it's impacted, but it's all relative. If we can weather the storm better than most countries, we'll be better off in the end.

Not that it is going to convince Tudamorf, but the US economy would be hit as hard by this hypothetical collapse of oil production in the Middle East as the rest of the world simply because the US economy depends to a large extent on exports and its trade partners have to import the majority of their oil. Suddenly doubling the oil prices is going to do nasty things to the Japanese, Chinese and European economies and that translates in them not going to do a lot of importing/exporting for a long while. Which translates shortly after in american manufacturers shutting down, or at least scaling back considerably, closely followed by a sharp rise in unemployment and further drop of domestic spending.

It really is not relevant if the US economy can eventually be reworked towards autarkism or not, as the damage will be done long before, and all that trade is not just for looks. Without external trade to buffer things every change in economy has to be absorbed by the US economy alone, leading to a much more pronounced cycle of hausses and recesions.


Eri

It might take 10 years when there's no rush, we have plenty of oil, and the only goal is maximizing profit. In exigent circumstances, there will be a drastic change. You'd be surprised how quickly a deadline can spring people into action.
And in the meantime, what do you think would happen? How would people go to work? How would trains run? How would produce move from where it is grown to the cities?

This isn't just a switch you flip. This would be massive, chaotic upheaval. Living in the middle of a big city would be the worst of it. At least in rural areas you could have access to food.

an, you've been smoking too much of that GMO weed. :p

And in the meantime, what do you think would happen? How would people go to work? How would trains run? How would produce move from where it is grown to the cities?We have production facilities of our own, and emergency reserves on top of that. We'd just have to ration for a while; it's not a new or society-destroying concept.

I'm not saying it won't be a crisis, just that it will be a crisis that we will get through and at the end of which we will end up in a better position than will most countries.

Anyone know how much petroleum we have in our reserves?

Probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 gigabarrels if WikiPedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#United_States)is accurate.

Not sure if this will show up but it's an image from the Wiki entry:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/35/US_Proven_Oil_Reserves_1900_to_2005.png

Anyone know how much petroleum we have in our reserves?You mean, the emergency reserves?

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/<b>U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve</b>

The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve is the largest stockpile of government-owned emergency crude oil in the world. Established in the aftermath of the 1973-74 oil embargo, the SPR provides the President with a powerful response option should a disruption in commercial oil supplies threaten the U.S. economy. It also allows the United States to meet part of its International Energy Agency obligation to maintain emergency oil stocks, and it provides a national defense fuel reserve.http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/spr-facts.htmlHighest inventory - The SPR reached its highest level of 700.7 million barrels in late August 2005. The Hurricane Katrina loans and sales reduced it during Fall 2005.
Current storage capacity - 727 million barrels
aximum drawdown capability - 4.4 million barrels per day
Time for oil to enter U.S. market - 13 days from Presidential decision And it's being expanded to 1 billion barrels, as we speak.

Yeah, the reserves. The stuff we tuck away for a rainy day.

Consumption: 20.03 million bbl/day (2003 est.)
Imports: 13.15 million bbl/day (2004)

So 4.4 million barrels a day... doesn't look like much help. Still would have a considerable shortfall.
hausses and recesions.
I'm having problems translating that. Recessions, I get, but what is hausses?

Hausse = "rise" or "increase". In context, "boom" (as in boom and bust) is likely the best meaning.

So 4.4 million barrels a day... doesn't look like much help. Still would have a considerable shortfall.Uh, it's not as if Americans will be allowed to blithely zoom around in their Hummers and SUVs during a crisis.

Rationing and regulation will cut that consumption figure down -- way down -- until we find a permanent solution.

And like figure out a way not to have to drive 1 1/2 hour to your job accross town to a place where another is doing the same drive toward where you live. Both doing the same job.

In the DC area its such a political place you can't get a job just because you know what your job is. You have to be a bull**** artist. If we were all constrained by disatnce to your job (like we used horses) we all could spend way less time commuting and employers would be forced to hire those that lived nearby. That would cut way down on traffic, the need to make 12 lane highways, gas, costs, etc.

Can you say, "Urban density". :D We'd all be living in apartment houses. Yuck! I'm happy to have escaped that environment.

Can you say, "Urban density". :DCan you say telecommuting, flex schedules, branch offices? Most long commuters have office jobs, which are stuck in the ancient 9 to 5 routine for no good reason.

If you have an office type job where you sit at a desk for 40 hours per week, just ask yourself, how much of that time do you really need to be sitting there to get your work done?

Also ask yourself, do you really need to be sitting there at the hours you're sitting there? We could save a ton simply by spread out commuting traffic throughout the day.

Can you say telecommuting, flex schedules, branch offices? Most long commuters have office jobs, which are stuck in the ancient 9 to 5 routine for no good reason.

If you have an office type job where you sit at a desk for 40 hours per week, just ask yourself, how much of that time do you really need to be sitting there to get your work done?

Also ask yourself, do you really need to be sitting there at the hours you're sitting there? We could save a ton simply by spread out commuting traffic throughout the day.


I can totally agree. While there are reasons to 'be together at work', for the most part most things could get things done without having to be in the same building. A lot of this is training. Training to make telecommuting the norm and still as productive. But I have worked in several places where they flip flop on telecommuting. It seems when 'new' management comes in they seem to want to stop any telecommuting that has been allowed and start all over. Possibly because they want to crack down on those that aren't really doing much while telecommuting. If they just would realize those that are not productive at home arn't doing much in the office as well.

But for the good of much more than the individual company, the reduction of commuting in many areas would be better for so many more reasons. Poeple such as myself, I consider myself a good and faithful worker, I actually get more work done while telecommuting because I can actually work longer hours actually doing work since I'm not spending 3 hours driving. (and yes it's partially because I want to keep that privalidge so I work more that the '8 hour' day - but it's still less time spent than the overall 8 hour plus 3 hours driving).

Can you say, "Urban density". :D We'd all be living in apartment houses. Yuck! I'm happy to have escaped that environment.

So you traded an apartment for a tract home in the burbs, Martha Stewart living. Picket fence, rose garden, lawns to mow,,,,bah. Keeping up with the Joneses, 13 cup holder minivan driving with dvd players, soccer moms, and nosy neighbors...

I am so happy I will never have to endure that environment, again.

I'm going to buy a river barge live-aboard, and live on that out in the Delta.

So you traded an apartment for a tract home in the burbs, Martha Stewart living. Picket fence, rose garden, lawns to mow,,,,bah. Keeping up with the Joneses, 13 cup holder minivan driving with dvd players, soccer moms, and nosy neighbors...
I was living (although not participating) in almost exactly that environment when I decided to buy a condo in the small city where I worked so that I could walk to work. About two months after I did the bastards I worked for relocated our office so that I'd have been closer if I'd stayed out in the burbs. /sigh

On the bright side, living in town has been interesting. In the last couple of years it has undergone a fairly massive growth spurt -- from my deck I can see 9 tower cranes that are within three blocks of my building. If someone had asked me 10 years ago if I'd like to live in town I'd have said hell no but after living here I've found it to be a pretty sweet setup. It's nice to be able to walk to restaurants, bars, and grocery stores. Apart from long road trips I hardly ever use my car anymore.

So you traded an apartment for a tract home in the burbs, Martha Stewart living. Picket fence, rose garden, lawns to mow,,,,bah. Keeping up with the Joneses, 13 cup holder minivan driving with dvd players, soccer moms, and nosy neighbors... Stereotype much?
Noise was why I moved to the suburbs.
artha Stewart? Hardly. Keeping up with the Joneses? Not in my neighborhood, its more like everyone scrapping to get by and doing so, for the most part. I think we'd call it a "transitional neighborhood". Scion Xb with 2 cup holders, 35 mph. One neighbor drives the trolley, another couple, close to retirement age, works for the government, the Laotian couple have no kids. Another vietnamese couple across the street, no kids. Very diverse neighborhood. Relatively quiet, compared to the apartments I've lived in. Hardly any kids around either.

I actually like urban living except for being crammed cheek to jowl to everyone else. I don't like hearing other people walking around, playing their stereos loudly, partying when you're trying to sleep. Other than that, urban living is fine. :D

Stereotype much?

Whenever possible.

nm

You're delusional. Does it get worse this time of the year? ;p

Actually it does.

Seeing the throngs of middle class suburbanite conspicuous consumers driving about and shopping about like crazed lemmings, does turn my stomach.

Sorry about the post last night, I was particularly ornery, and had too much too drink.

If you want to know what the United States would do if there was suddenly a whole lot less oil, you only need to look at two countries that faced the same situation.

During World War II, Germany used vast amounts of coal and high pressure gasification to produce synthetic fuels. South Africa did the same when oil imports were cut off during the apartheid years. The United States has lots of coal, and would do the same. Of course, there would also be rationing and fuel costs would skyrocket.

Personally, I would prefer using Liberal Fascists to make light crude using thermal depolymerization.

I don't think that the process is particularly energy efficient, of course. But it would solve the problem of having so many Liberal Fascists around.

A new oil reserve was found recently. They said it would take 10 years to get it up for production. 10 years! Meanwhile, ok... alternative fuels. How long does it take to retool all the things that run on petroleum to use any new alternative fuels? Like I said before, sure we'll eventually make that change if it suddenly disappears. But we'd quite likely have people starving to death in this country, not to mention the world, for many years. And the social upheaval from the unemployment and poverty would drastically change things here.

Sure, Canada sells us oil. But if China, India, Japan, Europe and all the other large economies are also going to be looking to bid on it it is going to become incredibly expensive. You'd have to decide which parts of industry or the economy to run and which to shut down.

It would take us a year, if we needed, I have no doubts. But it isn't needed.

And Canada will not charge us too much for their oil....because their military might consists of five jets, three patrol boats, and moose cavalry.

And Canada will not charge us too much for their oil....because their military might consists of five jets, three patrol boats, and moose cavalry.

But I think that the oil compagnies in Canada are a good part owned by US compagnies. They will probably charge a lot because their actionnaires will want more money.

Unless that the US compagnies will become good citizens and forget to make some money??

I will looking to get the % of Canadian compagnies are owned by the US compagnies. Unless Thicket have it at his finguer tip.

Eridalafar

I just love Eri's accent! :)

But I think that the oil compagnies in Canada are a good part owned by US compagnies. They will probably charge a lot because their actionnaires will want more money.

Unless that the US compagnies will become good citizens and forget to make some money??

I will looking to get the % of Canadian compagnies are owned by the US compagnies. Unless Thicket have it at his finguer tip.

Eridalafar

Oh, this is very true...our oil companies are right bastards who love to charge the nation arms and legs, but in a true crisis where we had to quickly become self sufficient in oil production while maintaining a reasonable price...the oil companies would rapidly realize they could price themselves accordingly of their own volition...or find the People pricing it accordingly for them =D

Viva la revolucion!

This is why governments sometimes nationalize companies. :p

Unless that the US compagnies will become good citizens and forget to make some money??


That is of course a foul blasphemy to the holy creed of capitalism.

Forget to make more money? Go wash your mouth with soap young man!


Eri

That is of course a foul blasphemy to the holy creed of capitalism.

Forget to make more money? Go wash your mouth with soap young man!


Eri

I suppose you assume that money spent on good works comes from out of the air.

Or maybe poor people pay for and build wings of hospitals, and build theaters for the arts, and college buildings.

Alex Spanos is a virulent philanthropist, with his wife. So is Robert Mondavi.

Look at Bill and Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffet.

These people are the epitome of capitalism, and you see them doing these works, even already be taxed(at the highest tax brackets there are).

Like I said, I suppose that you might think that poor people will do these things.

Alex Spanos is a virulent philanthropist, with his wife. So is Robert Mondavi.

Look at Bill and Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffet.

These people are the epitome of capitalism, and you see them doing these works, even already be taxed(at the highest tax brackets there are).

Like I said, I suppose that you might think that poor people will do these things.The flip side of that, of course, is: where do you think all their money comes from?

They're not adding all that value to society, just redistributing it.

The flip side of that, of course, is: where do you think all their money comes from?

They're not adding all that value to society, just redistributing it.

Of course they are Alex Spanos builds homes for people to live in. He provides jobs to those who build the homes. He provides a good deal to the farmers who he buys the land from, and then they then buy stuff.

Bill Gates, well you all know him.

Warren Buffet, I'm not sure exactly what all Berkshire Hathaway builds or doesn't. Well, I don't think they really produce any real tangible product, it is more of a service company.

And Robert Mondavi makes pretty good wines. And provides jobs for all the people who produce those wines. I think a couple of our local wines are superior to most of his stuff though.

I suppose a socialist does not see any value in those things. Convincing people to buy your product is hard work, I suppose if it were really easy, then socialists would be doing it. So instead of having people decide how they want to redistribute their money, they want to just skip to the end and use the government to force people to do their way.

And like I said, these people are already paying into the legal socialism project you guys have built up since the 30s. These good works are above and beyond that. Poor people don't hire people to do work, rich people do, and corporations do. No poor person ever gave me a job.

So instead of having people decide how they want to redistribute their money, they want to just skip to the end and use the government to force people to do their way.Ok, so you agree it is just redistribution. They are not creating something out of nothing.And like I said, these people are already paying into the legal socialism project you guys have built up since the 30s. These good works are above and beyond that.Well, they're partly above it, and partly instead of it, since the tax deductibility of charitable contributions plays a huge role in the billionaires' philanthropy.Poor people don't hire people to do work, rich people do, and corporations do. No poor person ever gave me a job.No, poor people are just the ones who actually do the dirty work. They harvest the fields, build the homes, clean the streets. Without them, all those dollars floating around would mean nothing.

No, poor people are just the ones who actually do the dirty work. They harvest the fields, build the homes, clean the streets. Without them, all those dollars floating around would mean nothing.

Well, poor people have always had to do dirty work. With or without rich people to pay them.

Rich people came after that, and instead of not getting paid to do dirty work, they can now get paid. That is adding value to the system.

Dennis, there's some nice filth over here...


The very first rich people were in fact poor people who just did the dirty work so effeciently, or better that they were able to modestly charge other people for their services.

And they saved up that profit, so that they then could then hire other poor people to work for them, efficiently. Well, in our society, it works this way.

In the old days, rich people would just go and catch other people, and make them work for their housing and food, against their will. But we made laws preventing people from doing that anymore. So, I suppose that your mindset still thinks this way.

No, you have it all wrong. Without money, the labor would probably still get done, but no one would be paying anyone to do it. Because everyone would be poor(if there were no rich people).

If you have two poor people, and they both build houses for people. Neither one is ever going to get ahead of the other, unless one of them builds houses better, faster, or cheaper than the other. When that happens, the person who does that, will get rich(er). And will have to hire other people, who are not building houses, and then build houses much faster, and much more profitable than the slow poor guy still building his houses.

The rich guy got rich by being more productive and so efficient that he has money left over to hire other people to work for him. That is good. It motivates people to be productive, and it provides jobs for those who were not originally building houses.

Having rich people in a society is a good thing. The more the better. There should be as much Federal money spent on making new rich people, as we spend on poor people. Every year, dollar for dollar.

Well, poor people have always had to do dirty work.Ok. But they still have to do it, and they are still an essential part of the system. And there are many people, including you, who refuse to do what they do.No, you have it all wrong. Without money, the labor would probably still get done, but no one would be paying anyone to do it. Because everyone would be poor(if there were no rich people).I didn't say that without money, the labor wouldn't get done. I said that without the labor, the money would be meaningless.There should be as much Federal money spent on making new rich people, as we spend on poor people. Every year, dollar for dollar.There is, and then some.

Ok. But they still have to do it, and they are still an essential part of the system. And there are many people, including you, who refuse to do what they do.
You have got to be ****ting me, man. Do you have any idea what an RN has to do. I don't know very many people who would endure that kind of labor. Half the males in my starting class, DROPPED OUT because of it.

Would you stick your fingers in some old dude's ass to pull **** out of it? I doubt it.

The work still needs to get done. I am just glad that there are rich people who are paying me(a poor person) to do the work.

Dude, you have no idea. Funny **** man.

I didn't say that without money, the labor wouldn't get done. I said that without the labor, the money would be meaningless.
Without money, people would be doing the labor for free. I suppose we are saying the same thing, I dunno. I know I don't want to work for free. And like I said, I am grateful that there are rich people who pay me to do work.

I have met no rich people employers who have been ingrateful of the work that I do for them, even when I worked at WalMart. And even when I had employees of my own, I never took them, or their labor for granted.

There is, and then some.
Good. And I include education in this, of course. And I am grateful for being the beneficiary of that, of course. I thank you, Tudamorf, as a taxpayer in the state of California, for helping fund me going back and getting an education. /smile.

Thank you, I won't let you down.

You have got to be ****ting me, man. Do you have any idea what an RN has to do. I don't know very many people who would endure that kind of labor. Half the males in my starting class, DROPPED OUT because of it.I'll bet none of them went to work in the fields, breaking their backs all day long, every day, in the hot sun.

I don't blame them. If I had the choice between making minimum wage working in the fields with zero job security, or a cushy job in a nice hospital earning $30-40/hour, with the occasional disgusting chore, I know what I'd choose.

Surely, you didn't spend all that time and money to get a specialized education just to do a job that's worse than something you could have gotten with no education.

I'll bet none of them went to work in the fields, breaking their backs all day long, every day, in the hot sun.
Some of my classmates have done this. And many of their family members do and did.

I don't blame them. If I had the choice between making minimum wage working in the fields with zero job security, or a cushy job in a nice hospital earning $30-40/hour, with the occasional disgusting chore, I know what I'd choose.
Choice. I love that word, coming from you, it is golden.

I don't even know or care what your choice would be.

I had a classmate who dropped out half way through, because she did not like the working environment, and is now working at a cushy non ****ty non back breaking job as a paralegal.

I have had classmates drop out to become mom's(with no pay at all).

I have had classmates who have dropped out and went back to the typical Mexican farmworker lifestyle.

Surely, you didn't spend all that time and money to get a specialized education just to do a job that's worse than something you could have gotten with no education.
What is 'worse' is relative.

20 years ago, I would never have chosen this field. In fact I did not choose it then.

It is easy to be poor, I know. It is hard work getting rich, I know that too.

BTW, your notion that working in a hospital is cushy is wrong, and inaccurate. Absolutely, with no exception, that I have seen(wiggle room on some invisible exception).

Derail incomming!!

I don't blame them. If I had the choice between making minimum wage working in the fields with zero job security, or a cushy job in a nice hospital earning $30-40/hour, with the occasional disgusting chore, I know what I'd choose

I actually laughed out loud at this statement!! Not that I don't agree that working in a field at minimum wage with zero job security totally sucks!! But I have yet to find a a cushy job in a nice hospital earning $30-40/hr. The closest I have come is working in a very nice county hospital on the night shift in the ICU. I made $36.00/hr on my PRN shifts. But cushy?

As a nurse, any nurse, you are faced with some of the most disgusting jobs (chores) there are really. I dealt with vomit, drool, urine, feces, and a myriad of other bodily fluids every single day. None of it ever bothered me however. Really, I know some nurses that cannot do certain things (like clean up vomit) or handle sputum - because it makes them ill. Personally, I never even think about that kind of stuff.

In my eyes, its just part of the job. I know that people's lives are in my hands and I make a difference in whether they live or die. The decisions I routinely make regarding their life and quality of that life is my job. The fact that I help them during what is usually the worst and most embarrassing time in their life just makes my job even more satisfying to me.

Yes there have been times when I was cleaning up diarreah for the 4th time when I have said, "I went to school to learn how to do this!" But again, it's really just part of the job. Nursing is by no means a cushy job, even if you don't do bedside any more.

Sorry for the derail... I just had to add my 2 coppers because its 3am and I am rambling :) Carry on...

PM, Madie.

But I have yet to find a a cushy job in a nice hospital earning $30-40/hr.Median income for nurses in San Francisco is $70K. I've heard of one that earned over $100K. That's not bad, do the math.

I hope you don't get the impression that I'm putting down your job or making it look easy. I'm not, I'm just saying it's much better than some alternatives.

I hope there are a lot of nurses making over 100K.

Not just one.

100K now is like 60K 90s money, and like 30 or 40K 80s money. I sure as **** made a lot more than that back then, working hard, but not as hard, and certainly did not need to know as much stuff.

If SF nurses are only making 70K, you can sure as bet, and win, I am not coming there with my guns, or IVs. Not with the cost of living there.

If you are factoring in LVNs, that number sounds more right, maybe.

I suppose you assume that money spent on good works comes from out of the air.

Or maybe poor people pay for and build wings of hospitals, and build theaters for the arts, and college buildings.

Alex Spanos is a virulent philanthropist, with his wife. So is Robert Mondavi.

Look at Bill and Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffet.

These people are the epitome of capitalism, and you see them doing these works, even already be taxed(at the highest tax brackets there are).

Like I said, I suppose that you might think that poor people will do these things.


Yes, and for every Gates...there's a hundred folks making a mere 100 million or so a year that don't give bubpkis, unless they need to reduce their income in a hurry to avoid some taxes.

Somehow I suspect the CEO of Exxon won't be setting up any huge philanthropic funds with his 400 mil.

As for Gates...I have much respect for him, but make no mistake...Bill Gates, by himself, couldn't do jack...nor ****. This Atlas Shrugged bull****, is just that. Bull****.

Further, If Bill Gates gave away 4/5ths of his wealth...he'd still be worth an insane amount of money.

I don't care what manner of bootstrapper you are...you can't make millions without other folks doing work on your behalf (unless you win the Lotto).

And Berkshire Hathaway is pretty much just a company which redistributes wealth. Its officially a "holding company"...which so far as I can tell means they buy and sell companies.

You have got to be ****ting me, man. Do you have any idea what an RN has to do. I don't know very many people who would endure that kind of labor. Half the males in my starting class, DROPPED OUT because of it.

Would you stick your fingers in some old dude's ass to pull **** out of it? I doubt it.

The work still needs to get done. I am just glad that there are rich people who are paying me(a poor person) to do the work.

Dude, you have no idea. Funny **** man.


Without money, people would be doing the labor for free. I suppose we are saying the same thing, I dunno. I know I don't want to work for free. And like I said, I am grateful that there are rich people who pay me to do work.

Well, if people would labor for free, then we don't need this capitalist crap and we can move onto a utopic communistic society where everyone labors for the good of the people...

I have met no rich people employers who have been ingrateful of the work that I do for them, even when I worked at WalMart. And even when I had employees of my own, I never took them, or their labor for granted.

You're just lying, or are incredibly naive.

Of course, as an employee at walmart, I suspect you never got to meet one of the "rich people employers", unless you were working in corporate.

Of course, as an employee at walmart, I suspect you never got to meet one of the "rich people employers", unless you were working in corporate.

Shareholders of WalMart are the real owners of WalMart, of course.

I was never treated with disrespect by the majority of the managers there, and many of them are shareholders, of course. I did have a personality conflict with one of them, which allowed me to end my relationship with the company. But it was not behavior(the manager's) which was rewarded or condoned, he was demoted for it actually, a month after I left.

All of the managers made more than me. I was poor. Thus they were rich. In a month, I will be making more than any of them save the store manager. Rich and poor, is relative.

Well, if people would labor for free, then we don't need this capitalist crap and we can move onto a utopic communistic society where everyone labors for the good of the people...

I don't like most of the people.

I certainly don't want to work for them for free. Especially the lazy ones. That is slavery, and stupid.

Partially answering the question about "How many oil companies in Canada are American".

Oil companies are international. They have headquarters in a specific country (or two), but their business transcends national boundaries.

Of the large oil companies operating in Canada...

Esso/Imperial Oil is American based (Exxon-Mobil)
Shell Canada is British/Dutch
Petrocanada is Canadian
Sun Oil is American
Texaco is American
Encana is Canadian
Canadian Natural Resources is Canadian
BP is British
Husky Energy is Canadian
Irving Oil is Canadian

Shareholders of WalMart are the real owners of WalMart, of course.

Heh, and who do you think the largest shareholders are?

I bet it isn't Ma and Pa Jones over on Main St....

I was never treated with disrespect by the majority of the managers there, and many of them are shareholders, of course. I did have a personality conflict with one of them, which allowed me to end my relationship with the company. But it was not behavior(the manager's) which was rewarded or condoned, he was demoted for it actually, a month after I left.

All of the managers made more than me. I was poor. Thus they were rich. In a month, I will be making more than any of them save the store manager. Rich and poor, is relative.

That's the most asinine definition of "rich" I've ever heard...and you well know it.

I don't like most of the people.

I certainly don't want to work for them for free. Especially the lazy ones. That is slavery, and stupid.

But you just said...most people would labor for free. Well, just said meaning sometime last week, obviously.

Well, looks like the Pres is going to order a "surge" of troops into Iraq. The guess is an additional 20,000-40,000. *sigh* I guess he really wants to cement his legacy as a complete and utter failure.

Well, looks like the Pres is going to order a "surge" of troops into Iraq. The guess is an additional 20,000-40,000. *sigh* I guess he really wants to cement his legacy as a complete and utter failure.

It seems a weak policy before it even starts. He either should have done it when it was a military necessity or he shouldn't be doing it now. Moreover, it's a reaction to the US political situation rather than the Iraqi security situation.

Heh, and who do you think the largest shareholders are?

I bet it isn't Ma and Pa Jones over on Main St....

There is not one thing prevening Ma an Pa Jones from buying shares of WalMart, or any other publically traded corporation, but their decision not to buy shares.


That's the most asinine definition of "rich" I've ever heard...and you well know it.

How do you define rich?

Having more money that other people?
Having more money than is needed to survive(that seems to be a common definition for socialists)?
Being in the top 5% of earnings? Very very small number of people then.

Rich, for the most part, is relative. So is poverty.

I can show you pictures of rich people in Africa living in mud huts. They are rich for their tribe or culture.
I can show you people here, who are living in poverty(my best friend for example), who has a DVD player, Xbox, tons of consumer junk everywhere. Washer and drying in her apartment. Central heating and air.

Poverty is relative, it is figured and defined by comparing one set against another set.

But you just said...most people would labor for free. Well, just said meaning sometime last week, obviously.

Rich people employ other people(poor people).
With their money that they have earned.

If there are no rich people, then poor people would not get paid.

Rich people pay poor people to work.
With no rich people, poor people would still do work, just no one would pay them for it.

We would all be subsistence hunter gathers with no merchantilism or trade.

Or like slaves in a Russian gulag style commune farm camp.

I don't know why you hate rich people so much. They pay people to work, I think that is a pretty good deal. Because the alternatives kinda fcking suck.

Being paid to work is superior to working without pay.

But none of that addresses my point that you quoted.

There is not one thing prevening Ma an Pa Jones from buying shares of WalMart, or any other publically traded corporation, but their decision not to buy shares.

And, perhaps, the financial wherewithal to do so...you can't buy shares without money. One of my good friends growing up (and to this day) is by all accounts rich...his grandfather started a company and his father's share of th e company was worth roughly 20 million when he passed away about 5 years ago.

His father once made a statement which stuck with me: "Its making the 1st million which is difficult...the millions after that are easy". A concept also known by the statement "It takes money to make money", which is why the wealthy in America simply continue to get wealthier, while the other 4/5th of the nation scrabble for the 16% of our wealth which is left.

Oh, and for the record, the Walton family still directly owns roughly 1/3rd of the stock of Wal-Mart (either individually or through Walton Enterprises) which essentially means they call the shots, since no other "entity" can even come close to that percentage. Ma and Pa Jones can buy all the stock they want...they will never have a a chance of affecting change.



How do you define rich?

Having more money that other people?
Having more money than is needed to survive(that seems to be a common definition for socialists)?
Being in the top 5% of earnings? Very very small number of people then.

Rich, for the most part, is relative. So is poverty.

I can show you pictures of rich people in Africa living in mud huts. They are rich for their tribe or culture.
I can show you people here, who are living in poverty(my best friend for example), who has a DVD player, Xbox, tons of consumer junk everywhere. Washer and drying in her apartment. Central heating and air.

Poverty is relative, it is figured and defined by comparing one set against another set.


It is very relative...but your measure of relativity is foolish. Reasonable men can agree, for instance, that just because someone is making more than I am, it doesn't make them rich. I don't make that much money.

I would suggest, however, that being within the top 20% of American's based on wealth (and thus being in that elite group which controls 84% of America's wealth) would well qualify a person as being "rich", as a rough measure.

aking 50k a year, doesn't make a person rich, just because I make 40, though.

Rich people employ other people(poor people).
With their money that they have earned.

An alternate (and more valid) view coudl be that Rich people require other people to labor. Rich people are not just giving their employee's money out of the kindness of their heart. It is not some great benevolence which compells them to hire labor. Somehow, American's have gotten this idea that employer's are doing some great favor by employing people...

If there are no rich people, then poor people would not get paid.

Rich people pay poor people to work.
With no rich people, poor people would still do work, just no one would pay them for it.

Again, you bring up this idea that people will be willing to work for free...if that's the case, then there would be no need to charge people for the results of that free labor, and we'll be living in a communist utopia where money no longer exists and people labor for the good of the whole....

The fact is, rich people cannot become rich people without employee's. I don't care how brilliant you are, you rapidly reach a point where you can no longer expand on the back of your own personal labor...and so you agree to pay someone to help you with that labor. It is supposed to be an arrangement of equals...and yet people like yourself seem to hold the opinion that the Bourgeoisie are bestowing a great gift upon the plebians in permitting them the honor of working and employees should be grateful for having a job.

Entrepenuers cannot make their money without their employees.

We would all be subsistence hunter gathers with no merchantilism or trade.



Or like slaves in a Russian gulag style commune farm camp.

Heh...no, not really, no. I can point, for instance, to the Kibbutzim of Israel...commune farms where everyone worked for the good of the community (some have, since, begun to expand Kibbutzim in to various industrial and tech fields, as agriculture becomes a less sustainable resource for some Kibbutzim).

However, the flaw in Communism lies in the innate flaw found in virtually all socio-economic structures as the population involved grows to a point where people cannot be personally held responsible by his neighbors, for his actions.

I don't know why you hate rich people so much. They pay people to work, I think that is a pretty good deal. Because the alternatives kinda fcking suck.

I don't know why you seem to think that the wealthy somehow deserve their unfair stranglehold on the overwhelming majority of America's wealth. They've created a system of, essentially, indentured servitude where they can keep 80% of America fighting over the 16% of the wealth the wealthy do not control...and thus are able to promulgate this tragic idea that the workers should be grateful for having a job at all, and thus should work for a pittance in order to buy the goods priced so that the wealthy become wealthier, at the expense of the rest of America.

Being paid to work is superior to working without pay.

Again...employers require labor. This is why strikes work, when the playing field is fair.

But none of that addresses my point that you quoted.

Yes it does...you seem to think people would be willing to work for free...but when people labor for free...its called communism. Free People have never worked for free. Before the industrial revolution, a man worked for himself. He owned the products of his labor. Prior to the industrial revolution, the only time the common man worked to produce goods for someone else was during fuedalism (serfdom).

Free people, do not labor for free. They always labor towards a goal.

As an example, lets take a small town with dirty streets. The towns people, essentially, have three choices: The townsfolk can pool their resources to pay a person to sweep the streets. They can individually pay a person to sweep the particular streets which are offensive to them. They can group together, as a community, and work out a system where they all help sweeping the streets.

Noone is going to go sweep your street for free, just because you've decided, as an employer, that you no longer wish to employ people with your streetsweeping company.

you seem to think people would be willing to work for free.
You misunderstood me.

I did not saying 'willing'. I did not mean 'willing'.

If no one got paid people would still work. People still worked before anyone paid them to work.

People working and not getting paid for doing that work came long before anyone saved up enough clam shells or obsidian or whatever the currency happened to be beyond their own needs to trade to people to work for them.

Entrepenuers cannot make their money without their employees.

Entrepreneurs saved up their own money from their own labor before they hire their first employee.

Or alternately, they convince others, who have saved up money from their own labor to invest in their venture.

Or alternately, they convince a bank, which has by proxy saved money from others, to invest in their venture.

It is all saved up money after expenses, that is to say profit, which allows that first employee to be hired, in any company.

The entrepreneur still is the source of the job, and source of the labor need, and source of the paycheck. But the entrepreneur wants to produce his or her product faster than what one person can produce it at...and hence they hire those to work in their stead.

However, the flaw in Communism lies in the innate flaw found in virtually all socio-economic structures as the population involved grows to a point where people cannot be personally held responsible by his neighbors, for his actions.

Absolutely true.

As soon as a recipient of this system can not see those working for them. As soon as a worker can not see those they are working for,,,the whole thing will fall apart.

I am sure that the reason why the ideal of this system is so reasonable to many people on the planet is that it is because we spent a huge part of our prehistory in clans which practiced this very thing.

It is not a practical system after you reach a group of say, 400 or so people. A clan or normal tribe size. And a clan is usually a huge extended family, most people are related to the others in some way. Which is to say they all have a vested interest in each other.

Now the problem with implementing that now, with the population sizes we have is, my family is completely spread out. And I don't actually like or particularly care about the neighbors next door or across the street.

As an example, lets take a small town with dirty streets. The towns people, essentially, have three choices: The townsfolk can pool their resources to pay a person to sweep the streets. They can individually pay a person to sweep the particular streets which are offensive to them. They can group together, as a community, and work out a system where they all help sweeping the streets.
Exactly, someone will step up and say, "I will sweep the streets for x amount".

Noone is going to go sweep your street for free, just because you've decided, as an employer, that you no longer wish to employ people with your streetsweeping company.
And if that someone does that job efficiently, they will inevitably become the owner of that streetsweeping company. That guy in the beginning, who stepped up to sweep the street, saved up enough money doing it, that he is now able to hire people to do the work for him.

Of course no one is going to sweep the street for free, unless they are forced to, like in our commie scenario.

The streetsweeping company, more often than not, had been started by a normal poor streetsweeper who was just very good at it(better than his competitors).

He earned up enough of his labor, put it away, or invested in more productive equipment, or whatever....such that he is now able to hire his first employee. And then second, third, and so on.

And then pass the business to their heirs. I don't know about you, but my town was founded on companies with names like Johnson and Sons and Henderson Bros and Graffigna and Sons. There was always the intention of making it easier for kin or descendents to not have to work as hard as the first people did. That was one of the main reasons why they started up the businesses in the first place.

Exactly, someone will step up and say, "I will sweep the streets for x amount".

Correct...but that person will find himself limited in how many streets he can sweep, eventually, unless he hires help. That he has hired help does not grant him lofty status above the person he hired...


And if that someone does that job efficiently, they will inevitably become the owner of that streetsweeping company. That guy in the beginning, who stepped up to sweep the street, saved up enough money doing it, that he is now able to hire people to do the work for him.

And, indeed, he must hire people to do some of the work for him...because part of how he was able to afford to hire an employee was a contract to sweep an additional 12 streets...which he does not have the ability to do himself.

Of course no one is going to sweep the street for free, unless they are forced to, like in our commie scenario.

The streetsweeping company, more often than not, had been started by a normal poor streetsweeper who was just very good at it(better than his competitors).

He earned up enough of his labor, put it away, or invested in more productive equipment, or whatever....such that he is now able to hire his first employee. And then second, third, and so on.

Except, these modern days, John the Streetsweeper, who employed another 10 people to help him sweep the streets will find himself forced out of business by Acme Street Sweeping, Inc. a public corporation who hires illegal aliens at pennies on the dollar to sweep the streets (while locking them in their street sweeping machines at night to sleep), and further reduces their price to consistantly be below the price John is able to do it for...because Acme can eat the loss in Sweepersville, because they've already cornered the market in Sweeperston, Sweep City, and Sweepvania. John the Streetsweeper, who was an average small business owner and most likely did not qualify as "rich", will be put out of business (and the 10 employee's he had hired will find themselves out of work, as well, mind you) because the Board of Acme decided to drive him out of business...and vote themselves another million dollar bonus.

And then pass the business to their heirs. I don't know about you, but my town was founded on companies with names like Johnson and Sons and Henderson Bros and Graffigna and Sons. There was always the intention of making it easier for kin or descendents to not have to work as hard as the first people did. That was one of the main reasons why they started up the businesses in the first place.

...I fail to see what bearing this has on the discussion at hand, honestly.

...I fail to see what bearing this has on the discussion at hand, honestly.

Because it preaddresses a typical liberal class-envyist objection. That is why I included it.

Correct...but that person will find himself limited in how many streets he can sweep, eventually, unless he hires help. That he has hired help does not grant him lofty status above the person he hired...
Not lofty, of course not. But at least more deserving than for you to crap on his head. He is providing a job for someone else, and paying them to work for him.

His employees disrespecting that arrangement, would the be the same if he disrespected his customers.

And, indeed, he must hire people to do some of the work for him...because part of how he was able to afford to hire an employee was a contract to sweep an additional 12 streets...which he does not have the ability to do himself.
I don't think you have ever actually had to go out and get a contract signed. Convincing someone that you can do the work is much harder than the actual work for most contractors.

Honestly, in the real world, he would have to hire the 12 extra employees first to prove to his prospective contractees that he was prepared and able to do the work.



Except, these modern days, John the Streetsweeper, who employed another 10 people to help him sweep the streets will find himself forced out of business by Acme Street Sweeping, Inc. a public corporation who hires illegal aliens at pennies on the dollar to sweep the streets (while locking them in their street sweeping machines at night to sleep), and further reduces their price to consistantly be below the price John is able to do it for...because Acme can eat the loss in Sweepersville, because they've already cornered the market in Sweeperston, Sweep City, and Sweepvania. John the Streetsweeper, who was an average small business owner and most likely did not qualify as "rich", will be put out of business (and the 10 employee's he had hired will find themselves out of work, as well, mind you) because the Board of Acme decided to drive him out of business...and vote themselves another million dollar bonus.
That's all fun, I suppose.

Sam Walton was John the Streetsweeper.

Because it preaddresses a typical liberal class-envyist objection. That is why I included it.

I think you'll find that most family small business owners, in America, do not fall in the top 20% of America's wealthy. Indeed, I'd suggest that its probably almost impossible to end up in that 20% without going public, or selling to a company which has gone public.

With few exceptions, America's wealthy are no longer owners of large industry powers, like the Rockefellers of old...but are the people in control of public corporations, who are worse than most any of the old industrialists, in that they have no soul, as it were. They have no concious, no concern for the welfare of the community which it lives off of, but cares only for its almight God:Caesar Profitus Maximus.

Do I agree with estate taxes? (which seems to be part of the gist of that little example, to some degree). Yes, in principle. They need work though.

I don't agree that a family business which changes ownership due to a death and is worth 3 million dollars, should be taxed at all. Part of the problem, there, is that people (conservatives nor liberals) understand that in this era of business, 3 million dollars is bubkis and to tax it at the 60% tax rate or whatever for estate purposes, simply because its a sole proprietorship, rather than a corporation in and of itself, is ridiculous and will destroy the company.

Hell, our office, which is fairly the epitome of a small business size and income wise, runs a 3 million dollar a year operating budget alone. While that may be higher than the norm, for our size, due to having a significant portion of our payroll being persons with professional doctoral level degrees (three attorneys who aren't partners and two partners), the fact remains that Mom and Pop Hardware down on main street is almost certainly worth at least a million dollars when you take into account their equity, inventory, cash reserves, etc. etc. etc. That, by no means whatsoever, puts them into the realm of wealthy.

Not lofty, of course not. But at least more deserving than for you to crap on his head. He is providing a job for someone else, and paying them to work for him.

His employees disrespecting that arrangement, would the be the same if he disrespected his customers.

Too many people seem to think that insisting on fair work practices is "disrespecting", evidently. I'm hugely pro-labor...but I'll be the first to admit, a business which treats its employees well, does not need a union so long as it does so. A personal case in point...my friend who's grandfather started up a successfull company I spoke of before. Their shop is not union...and their workers, so long as I've known the family, have never indicated at all that they wished to unionize...because their pay is on par with union shops in the same industry, the vacation/sick day policies are actually more liberal and forgiving, the benefits are on par and perhaps most importantly morale-wise, they have a decades old policy of issuing across the board bonuses to their non-exempt employees based on how profitable the company was that year (and they publish their earnings for the employees to see, if they wish to). While not the same as if the employee's were stockholders, it does a wonderful job of including the employees and letting them feel that their hard work, while expected, is also appreciated on a real level, with an obvious understanding by the owners/management that the success of the company is directly related to the labor of its employees.


I don't think you have ever actually had to go out and get a contract signed. Convincing someone that you can do the work is much harder than the actual work for most contractors.

Yes, and no. Everytime I've taken an intake call on a new case and gotten them to the point where they are coming in to sign the fee agreement, i've gotten a contract signed, essentially. However, I have the enviable position of being at a place where our success is noted, at large, in our community, and in an industry where...going out and trying to get a contract from a person can, at times, be unethical.

And, yes, while getting the business is often harder than doing the work (especially for a new business), that doesn't change the fact that, eventually, for whatever reason, if there is an employee hired, it is because the employer needs that employee.

Honestly, in the real world, he would have to hire the 12 extra employees first to prove to his prospective contractees that he was prepared and able to do the work.

Yes and no. It depends on the situation. In the real world of a small business, the bottom line is that expanding is very risky. The constant balance of ensuring you have the workforce sufficient for your workload...but not so many that your workload cannot afford to cover the increased costs of the new hires. Its only further compounded when you start adding in issues such as advertising, so that you can expand your market, increasing your cost expenditures immediately, without the commensurate increase in revenue.

In the real world, if he hired the 12 extra employee's before getting the contract, I'd suggest he was foolish, but so much depends on the circumstances. Under an optimal situation, for him, he would be able to win the contract with sufficient time between winning the bid and taking over the duties, that he could then hire appropriately. Further, if he thinks he needs 12 more people to do it...in his position, I'd hire 9 or 10 and pay out overtime pay for a small period, if need be, to ensure that I'm not paying for an employee or two that it turns out I don't need.




That's all fun, I suppose.

Sam Walton was John the Streetsweeper.

And if you see how Sam Walton managed his success, it was through treating some of his employees very well (while consequently engaging in business practices against his competition which some would consider, unethical).

First, Sam Walton wasn't a "bootstrapper", but rather was in a position where his father in law was able to loan him a not insignificant sum of money to start his first store (20k, in '45. Equivilant to roughly 210k in '05 money). He was a very smart businessman, yes, but no small part of his intelligence was in his pioneering the idea of profit sharing for the managers of new stores he'd open.

It should be noted, however, that Wal-Marts true growth from a successful small regional chain to the powerhouse it is today did not come until after it became a publically traded company, thus providing it with the capital base to expand its predatory business practices on a much larger scale. It had the money to negotiate wholesale prices very low and compounded it with the ability to continually undercut competition in the rural, small-town area's where Wal-Marts became what they are today.

Your hero Sam Walton, made his money on the dried husks of mom and pop shops and small business owners ;)

Too many people seem to think that insisting on fair work practices is "disrespecting", evidently. I'm hugely pro-labor...but I'll be the first to admit, a business which treats its employees well, does not need a union so long as it does so. A personal case in point...my friend who's grandfather started up a successfull company I spoke of before. Their shop is not union...and their workers, so long as I've known the family, have never indicated at all that they wished to unionize...because their pay is on par with union shops in the same industry, the vacation/sick day policies are actually more liberal and forgiving, the benefits are on par and perhaps most importantly morale-wise, they have a decades old policy of issuing across the board bonuses to their non-exempt employees based on how profitable the company was that year (and they publish their earnings for the employees to see, if they wish to). While not the same as if the employee's were stockholders, it does a wonderful job of including the employees and letting them feel that their hard work, while expected, is also appreciated on a real level, with an obvious understanding by the owners/management that the success of the company is directly related to the labor of its employees.
Sounds like a great company. They must attract very good and highly skilled workers.

The problem is, that there are companies which do not really need intelligent, or skilled workers. And they don't need to attract the level of labor that your friend's company needs to.

When I worked at WalMart, I moved boxes from one part of the store, to another part of the store. Not a whole lot of skill involved. I was treated with respect from most of the management(save one), I was treated fairly with respect from my coworkers. The customers where about 50 50. I got a fair wage for what I did. I got good healthcare benefits at 6 months.

Now the difference is, that I had the mentality, that it was only temporary, and that I was moving up. There are plenty of workers there, where this is really the highest that they will ever attain. That would kill my morale, and it would probably make me hate Walmart more than I do.



Yes, and no. Everytime I've taken an intake call on a new case and gotten them to the point where they are coming in to sign the fee agreement, i've gotten a contract signed, essentially. However, I have the enviable position of being at a place where our success is noted, at large, in our community, and in an industry where...going out and trying to get a contract from a person can, at times, be unethical.
Actually I was thinking about this yesterday. It is probably most like a job interview. You have to prove for every single customer(contractwise) that you have what it takes, the qualifications, the experience, and ability to do the work. And for the right price.

Every single customer I had as a contractor was almost exactly like getting hired by an employer. Where it was different most, was that I usually had a whole bunch of prospective customers lined up, if this job fell through.


And, yes, while getting the business is often harder than doing the work (especially for a new business), that doesn't change the fact that, eventually, for whatever reason, if there is an employee hired, it is because the employer needs that employee.
Any employer who forgets that should be out of business, no doubt. Can you say the same of the employee who does not equally respect the relationship?

Any employer who disrespects his customers, where the money is actually coming from, and is truely the employers 'boss', the way that many employees disrespect their employers, should be out of business. He does not deserve their work. I just feel the same for employees, because the relationship is the same. An employee is not doing an employer any 'favors', as sometimes I get the meaning of or from your writings.



Yes and no. It depends on the situation. In the real world of a small business, the bottom line is that expanding is very risky. The constant balance of ensuring you have the workforce sufficient for your workload...but not so many that your workload cannot afford to cover the increased costs of the new hires. Its only further compounded when you start adding in issues such as advertising, so that you can expand your market, increasing your cost expenditures immediately, without the commensurate increase in revenue.
Yes, you understand. Expanding and having more work does not necessarily imply that one makes more money. There is, at least in the industry that I was in, a huge crevasse between 3 employees and 25. After 25, many in that industry(and contracting in general), there was headway.

In the real world, if he hired the 12 extra employee's before getting the contract, I'd suggest he was foolish, but so much depends on the circumstances. Under an optimal situation, for him, he would be able to win the contract with sufficient time between winning the bid and taking over the duties, that he could then hire appropriately. Further, if he thinks he needs 12 more people to do it...in his position, I'd hire 9 or 10 and pay out overtime pay for a small period, if need be, to ensure that I'm not paying for an employee or two that it turns out I don't need.
Agreed. If all the company is doing is moving dirt from one place to the other. Or moving boxes from one place to another, that would be true.

For me, finding installers, or sales personnel, would have taken me a lot of time. It was a specialized and insular industry.

And if you see how Sam Walton managed his success, it was through treating some of his employees very well (while consequently engaging in business practices against his competition which some would consider, unethical).
I think that 'dumping' should be illegal. But I have not seen them raise their prices after they have wiped their competitors. I have seen Hollywood Video and Blockbuster dump, then raise prices after their competitors died.

That behavior should be punished criminally, in my opinion.

First, Sam Walton wasn't a "bootstrapper", but rather was in a position where his father in law was able to loan him a not insignificant sum of money to start his first store (20k, in '45. Equivilant to roughly 210k in '05 money). He was a very smart businessman, yes, but no small part of his intelligence was in his pioneering the idea of profit sharing for the managers of new stores he'd open.
As Harvey McKay always said, NO ONE is really a bootstrapper. There was always someone to give every one of these 'bootstrappers' a leg up.

But, let me ask you this. Do you have what it takes to ask your father for a 210K investment, now? He had to convince his father for the money, and you will have to agree, that that takes enormous amounts of salesmanship, and proof that you can do what you say you are going to do with it. No?

Actually, I don't think that it was just his father, iirc he made the whole rounds about his family to raise the funds to buy that first store.

It should be noted, however, that Wal-Marts true growth from a successful small regional chain to the powerhouse it is today did not come until after it became a publically traded company, thus providing it with the capital base to expand its predatory business practices on a much larger scale. It had the money to negotiate wholesale prices very low and compounded it with the ability to continually undercut competition in the rural, small-town area's where Wal-Marts became what they are today.
It should be noted, that anyone can be an owner of WalMart.

Your hero Sam Walton, made his money on the dried husks of mom and pop shops and small business owners ;)
Who were overcharging their communities for the products that they were selling.

And guess what happens, consumers now have extra money left over, and those mom and pop coffee shops are now cafes. Bars are now clubs. Empty lot is not a 12 theater cinema. Woolworths is now a Brew Pub/Restaurant with 8 high end specialty shops. We even have a martini bar/restaurant downtown now, which was a shoe store.

People can afford for extra service and luxury items now, when before they spent that money on mom and pop staples.

But then in my town our only bookstore was downtown, and our town back then could not even afford to patronize it to keep it open, it closed 3 years before WalMart came to town.

Sounds like a great company. They must attract very good and highly skilled workers.

The problem is, that there are companies which do not really need intelligent, or skilled workers. And they don't need to attract the level of labor that your friend's company needs to.

When I worked at WalMart, I moved boxes from one part of the store, to another part of the store. Not a whole lot of skill involved. I was treated with respect from most of the management(save one), I was treated fairly with respect from my coworkers. The customers where about 50 50. I got a fair wage for what I did. I got good healthcare benefits at 6 months.

Now the difference is, that I had the mentality, that it was only temporary, and that I was moving up. There are plenty of workers there, where this is really the highest that they will ever attain. That would kill my morale, and it would probably make me hate Walmart more than I do.

Indeed, I find it difficult to falt a person for feeling bitter and not being inspired to work with great diligence if they are aware that regardless of how hard they work for the company, they will almost certainly get no extra benefit from it. This is especially true in public companies where regardless of how hard you work in the mailroom...it is still highly unlikely, barring a great deal of pure luck, that you will ever make it to the board room, simply because your managers don't have the authority to provide the incentives or make the allowances required for such advancement.


Any employer who forgets that should be out of business, no doubt. Can you say the same of the employee who does not equally respect the relationship?

Any employer who disrespects his customers, where the money is actually coming from, and is truely the employers 'boss', the way that many employees disrespect their employers, should be out of business. He does not deserve their work. I just feel the same for employees, because the relationship is the same. An employee is not doing an employer any 'favors', as sometimes I get the meaning of or from your writings.

The employer-employee relationship should be a relationship of equals...and unfortunately, all too often (especially when working for a larger corporation) employee's instead feel like they are treated as children. Stiff impersonal policies focused on lowest common denominator and set up so the company can find cause to fire just about anyone without having to pay unemployment. It can make a worker feel as if he's viewed as that lowest common denominator and breeds a sense of ennui. When a company is run by impersonal policies, it frequently quickly becomes apparent (at least for non-exempt employees) that no matter how well or how hard they work, they will inevitably be treated virtually the same as the guy who is just barely scraping by. There will be no increased bonus, or loosening in policies, and the chance of advancement is slim and a long time away.

As with Communism (and, somewhat ironically, one of the reasons Marx lists as causing problems), when the decision and policy makers become so distant from the laborers that they no longer view them as people, but as statistical drones, the fair capitalist labor system breaks down, creating draconian policies with little or no leeway permitted, and breeding a sense of dissatisfaction in the work force.



Yes, you understand. Expanding and having more work does not necessarily imply that one makes more money. There is, at least in the industry that I was in, a huge crevasse between 3 employees and 25. After 25, many in that industry(and contracting in general), there was headway.


Agreed. If all the company is doing is moving dirt from one place to the other. Or moving boxes from one place to another, that would be true.

For me, finding installers, or sales personnel, would have taken me a lot of time. It was a specialized and insular industry.

This is very true...and we've had problems before with hiring attorneys for a high work load which ended up being unsustainable, leaving us paying for expensive personnel we had no use for any longer.

y opinion (and lord knows I'm not master of business), is simply that growth must be heavily moderated and done slowly, so that you are not faced with situations where you have to hire large numbers of people for a particular skill set, in order to expand or sustain. If you have a contract which is worth alot of money...but requires you to find and hire a dozen specialized personnel before you can fulfill it, as much as it pains you, it is most likely safer to turn down that contract at that time. Of course, many would suggest that you have to take that exact risk to garner that contract if you want to truly grow into the big time, as it were. This is probably true...but its a great risk, and is perhaps a major reason why so many small businesses fail, trying to make that jump from small business to big business.


I think that 'dumping' should be illegal. But I have not seen them raise their prices after they have wiped their competitors. I have seen Hollywood Video and Blockbuster dump, then raise prices after their competitors died.

That behavior should be punished criminally, in my opinion.


As Harvey McKay always said, NO ONE is really a bootstrapper. There was always someone to give every one of these 'bootstrappers' a leg up.

But, let me ask you this. Do you have what it takes to ask your father for a 210K investment, now? He had to convince his father for the money, and you will have to agree, that that takes enormous amounts of salesmanship, and proof that you can do what you say you are going to do with it. No?

Actually, I don't think that it was just his father, iirc he made the whole rounds about his family to raise the funds to buy that first store.

Without a doubt Sam Walton was well qualified to ask for that loan from his father in law (which is my understanding...it was a loan from his wife's father, not an entire family thing), he was a collegian and former military officer. However, that doesn't change the fact that he was in the position to get a loan from his family. A great many, if not most, Americans are not in a position where their family could possibly loan them that kind of money. So while, in theory, anyone could be a Sam Walton, the reality is very few people are actually in such a position.

Sam Walton was also (like most entrepenuers who make it very big) in the right place at the right time with the right idea. So much of success at that sort of level is nothing more than luck. This is not a suggestion that Sam Walton didn't work hard, and wasn't smart and good at what he did. It is merely an acknowledgement that, despite popular belief, I firmly retain faith that the majority of Americans are able and willing to work just as hard, but that hard work alone is no sufficient for the American dream.

We like to delude ourselves, as a nation, into thinking that all a person has to do is work hard, and they will get a fat slice of the American Pie...this isn't so, and probably never has been.

I defy anyone to suggest that, for instance, the coal miners of America are not hard working men and women...hard workers who literally sell their bodies and health on the cheap. The small farmer of America (who is an endangered species, in America), almost certainly worked as hard, or harder, as any tycoon entrepeneur, and yet they barely made ends meet and eventually all of their hard work was for nought as people who just happened to have sufficient money, created large Aggro Companies to drive the small farmer out of business.

ost of America works hard. We are the hardest working nation in the 1st world, working more hours per week, on average, than any other nation (yes, even Japan). Hard work, alone, has never and will never guarantee a person their slice of the dream. Even hard work, smarts, and skill is no guarantee. You have to be lucky, very very lucky, and that is why I do not hold that fabulously wealthy in America deserve every penny they have and that the rest of America deserves only what they are able to make.

The difference between a Michael Dell or whoever owned Alienware...and the guys trying to make it over at FalconWare is more likely than not, nothing but luck and timing.



It should be noted, that anyone can be an owner of WalMart.

Who were overcharging their communities for the products that they were selling.

And guess what happens, consumers now have extra money left over, and those mom and pop coffee shops are now cafes. Bars are now clubs. Empty lot is not a 12 theater cinema. Woolworths is now a Brew Pub/Restaurant with 8 high end specialty shops. We even have a martini bar/restaurant downtown now, which was a shoe store.

People can afford for extra service and luxury items now, when before they spent that money on mom and pop staples.

But then in my town our only bookstore was downtown, and our town back then could not even afford to patronize it to keep it open, it closed 3 years before WalMart came to town.[/QUOTE]