Catholicism and Communism (Socialism?)

[sedonaman]

…

I don’t think the sytem is very resrained or else our jobs would not be leaving the country at such a rapid rate.

You are avoiding the scenario I posed in post #82. You never answered my question as to how you would characterize it.

I maintain that a major cause of jobs being exported is just that: having to pay workers the highest wages in the world for doing nothing.

It’s unrestraint that allows them to leave and go to countries with less than favorable labor laws.

So you do want a command economy. You want the government to “restrain” trade. This is what it did when it passed the Smoot-Hawley Act which worsened the Depression. But that’s OK; it was the good intention that counted.

Why do you think that people look to socialism as an ''answer"?

The promise of a free lunch, envy, and the desire to punish those with more money. To illustrate this point, I reference a study about 20 years ago written up in the Wall Street Journal that found that the average taxpayer would be willing to pay more taxes as long as the tax increase hurt the rich. This is the height of stupidity. Who provides the capital to open businesses that hire people? The "rich"! Every dollar taxed away from "the rich" is a dollar that is consumed by government [on such things as federal funding for sandals for gay ex-nuns with a foot-fetish and for counting dogs in Oxnard] instead of being invested. And people who are in favor of punishing "the rich" forget that most of the capital is provided by average investors. They also forget that "the rich" are powerful because they are "rich" and use their power to get their effective tax rates lowered. I call it bribery; members of congress call it “redress of grievances”. And they also forget that they themselves are part of "the rich" because “rich” is a relative term. There’s always someone with less money who considers you part of "the rich" and out to get you.

 

[sedonaman]

I understand that you feel that there are unneccessary requirements in union workplaces but most of them are not as bad a picture as you paint.

I am not against unions. As a supervisor, I once had a grievance filed against me, and during the meeting between me, the worker, and his union, the union took my side! Another union wouldn’t let a particular individual join because they knew he was a troublemaker, and they valued their credibility with management. As a result, that individual couldn’t get hired. Now those are good unions. But these are rare occurrences.

The picture is as bad as I paint, maybe worse. Haven’t you been reading the economic news lately?

I happen to know a retired GM plant manager who explained the situation on his assembly line to the UAW Union using the exact analogy in post #82. Now do you understand why Detroit is failing? Now do you understand how a union can kill an industry?

 

[EnchantedEve]

Y

The promise of a free lunch, envy, and the desire to punish those with more money. To illustrate this point, I reference a study about 20 years ago written up in the Wall Street Journal that found that the average taxpayer would be willing to pay more taxes as long as the tax increase hurt the rich. This is the height of stupidity. Who provides the capital to open businesses that hire people? The "rich"! Every dollar taxed away from "the rich" is a dollar that is consumed by government [on such things as federal funding for sandals for gay ex-nuns with a foot-fetish and for counting dogs in Oxnard] instead of being invested. And people who are in favor of punishing "the rich" forget that most of the capital is provided by average investors. They also forget that "the rich" are powerful because they are "rich" and use their power to get their effective tax rates lowered. I call it bribery; members of congress call it “redress of grievances”. And they also forget that they themselves are part of "the rich" because “rich” is a relative term. There’s always someone with less money who considers you part of "the rich" and out to get you.

This is true, however, it must also be acknowledged that the relatively rich are the originators of many bad regulations and legislation, especially if they are ones that they know will squeeze out smaller competitors due to additional overhead. Contrary to Ayn Rand, big business is not the most persecuted minority in America, and neither is its only social requirement “to make a profit,” as Milton Friedman liked to say. Both of these are moral-free approaches. Corporations have a debt to society, the Church teaches us, because of their special position to help the poor and destitute. Government forcing them to do this would be almost worthless, but social pressure would help. Consumer demand is #1 for business, and it should be in their social policies. The solution is action, not legislation. Write to companies, or organize petitions, but leave the congressman out of it.

By the way: Only fair tax is none at all. Repeal the income tax and the 16th amendment. Everyone can feel good about that! As sedonaman points out, “Soak the rich” is not an admirable position.

 

[sedonaman]

… it must also be acknowledged that the relatively rich are the originators of many bad regulations and legislation, especially if they are ones that they know will squeeze out smaller competitors due to additional overhead.

In his book, Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek calls this “rent-seeking”.

By the way: Only fair tax is none at all. Repeal the income tax and the 16th amendment. Everyone can feel good about that! As sedonaman points out, “Soak the rich” is not an admirable position.

I’m not sure enough would agree with this. Any proposal to lower taxes is referred to as “a gift to the rich.”

 

[human_being]

And again, I emphasize we are definitly not in a free market economy and we definitly have no “free trade.” Over 20,000 pages of regulations and state-defined priviliges, like GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. are not free trade. They are government assured foreign interference. We literally throw out the welcome mat for cheap goods to flood our market. Is the answer to this more intrusive government regulations? More of the same? No. Abolish NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, repeal all tariffs and lift regulations and taxes binding down our companies at home. See my earlier post on this. If we did this for our companies, freed from burdens, would crush foreign competitors, as in days of yore.
:

I agree with this.

 

[EnchantedEve]

I’m not sure enough would agree with this. Any proposal to lower taxes is referred to as “a gift to the rich.”

Yes, but they would be wrong wouldn’t they?

All kidding aside, even if it is a gift to the rich, so what? As long as I get a gift who cares if Johnny got one?

Good point on Hayek, he is one of the greats, though I prefer Mises and Rothbard myself.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Everyone here might find this article interesting:

investorsinsight.com/blogs/profitscore_iq/archive/2009/05/15/why-flat-is-the-new-up.aspx

I just got it in my investment email today.

 

[human_being]

Apples and oranges. The air traffic controllers went on strike ILLEGALLY.

The CEO’s of PRIVATE COMPANIES did not fall under this administrations jurisdiction—if this administation did not flout our laws and Constitution.

There were other federal unions who went on strike “illegally” previous to that strike but were left alone. Reagan did this to avoid an economic crisis just as Obama is doing today. Except this crisis is many times huger. I hink the possibility of a national security problem could be very close at hand if GM were to go under today,especially combined with all of the other people who are already unemployed. Do you not think that the number of unemployed people in this country tends to put us close to some very heavy security problems here at home? I think it’s an issue that he had to deal with in someway quickly(just as Reagan did).I don’t even doubt that some of the nations former security advisors advised him to do something quickly though I have no proof of this. I am not a constitution specialist but as I have been saying I feel that we are at risk of socialist type revolutions if something isn’t done soon, and then we’ll have no constitution holding us together anyway if something isn’t figured out quickly.

 

[human_being]

You are avoiding the scenario I posed in post #82. You never answered my question as to how you would characterize it.

I maintain that a major cause of jobs being exported is just that: having to pay workers the highest wages in the world for doing noth

I do think that if we are to be considered the greatest country in the world that our workers should be paid the best salaries in the world and make no apologies for it. But I do not think that they should be paid it for doing nothing and do not believe the autoworkers get paid to do nothing. I and even some of the outspoken conservatives(Hanitty and Rush) have always bought American cars and do not do so because they are built inferiorly.I believe they are the best and they also support our great country. I believe that unfair trade policies hurt GM more than the union ever could. I believe that the autoworkers at GM are much better than their foreign competitors and the management is probably far brighter because if they could stay in business for this long dealing with all of the rules they deal with and still stay competitive untl now,they have done a fine job.

I deal with freight.The freight has been slow from Maine to Virginia,and Buffalo to NYC and all points in between for over 2 years now. The economic crisis didn't happen overnight. Freight saw it dwindling for awhile now. It's been very scary. Companies have been folding and leaving. We worry for our jobs consistently for we are Teamsters and of course people even look at us as we are the rich although we are far from it. The GM crisis IMHO stems from the high cost of oil and gas for the last 7 years or so. Alot of families only extra money from previous years went to oil and oil only. and normal grocery items which had increased due to oil. Businesses must have had to pay phenomenal heating bills let alone if oil was a part of their business. The whole county's extra money went to oil. Some people were paying $700-$1000/month in heat bills.I can imagine what landlords who included heat in their rent had to pay. I honestly believe that GM's crisis is a result of our involvement in Iraq. Nobody had extra money for cars and most won't buy a new car when they see the companies closing all around them. When there is unrest in the middle east,oil prices soar and did for 7 years.

We watched in the news daily for the cheapest gas prices in town.
I believe a business on which so many in our country rely on for income needed the bailout. It wasn't totally the UAW's fault. I don't doubt that plenty of non-union outfits folded in the last 3-4 years also due to oil impact not union impact.

 

[human_being]

I understand where you are coming from. My grandfather was president of ILWU, but even sometimes he thinks the unions have lost their way. My father belongs to the CA teacher’s union, and while it is not for me (I like the ides of achieving at my own merit, not because of the union, but I also realize this is not a value to everyone), I believe it plays an important role for workers who are not able to defend themselves. Not everyone (myself included!) can be a tough negotiator.

I do believe in limited regulations. Like most free market economists affirm, even in a free market the government would enforce laws against fraud, contract violations, theft, and murder, etc. This is where unions can be a positive for workers in a free market. Because most unions (if not all) operate on contracts, violations of this contract would be enforcable by government, unlike at-will workers who have limited rights. Therefore, unions help working men get assured wages as much as possible, ensuring social justice for families. The government need not a play a large role here. The use of government troops and policemen against unions in the last century was clearly wrong and unjust, and clearly not in the government’s power to do. Just as I do not believe the government should stop unions, so too should they not help. Working men united are strong. If the government gets more involved than this (minimum wages, workplace laws, etc.) than it only harms the economic well being of all, to fix what has proven to be exceptional situations. One-size-fits-all laws, and that is the only kind of law, necessarily harm the worker and all members of society, to their detriment.

That being said, I see way too many union leaders who are proud that they help substandard or flat out lousy workers keep their job. My father was the teacher union rep and had prided himself on helping an awful teacher, who did nothing but smoke at the classroom door, keep his job at taxpayer expense!!! This harms productivity and, in the long wrong, the company and his fellow workers.

We all know the story: military adventures in Central America for United Fruit Co. shameful taking of Hawaii for Dole pineapple interests, Middle Eastern influences for oil interest, strong-arming China and Japan to artificially weaken their currencies, etc. Has not our military adventuring been making the world safe for big corporations? The example you give of the American dollar was a cogent one, because once upon a time not only were we able to improve local people’s live without government interference, we also helped feed the world with our excesses. Not enough space here to explain why that no longer is, but we did once do the things you say. The government did not do it, private investors did. They knew a happy, healthy population was better for long term growth. Now its all about making a quick buck.

And I agree with most if not all of this but apologize that I have been spending too much time on this computer and must go before discussing any further. But will be back maybe tommorrow.

 

[KyivAndrew]

By the way: Only fair tax is none at all. Repeal the income tax and the 16th amendment. Everyone can feel good about that! As sedonaman points out, “Soak the rich” is not an admirable position.

Sorry for jumping in (I last posted 6 pages back) but would not a flat tax be more in keeping with what you are looking for? A tax strictly on consumption may have limitations. Hope I’ve read you right.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Sorry for jumping in (I last posted 6 pages back) but would not a flat tax be more in keeping with what you are looking for? A tax strictly on consumption may have limitations. Hope I’ve read you right.

Thank you for asking.

Actually, I am opposed to both a national sales tax and a flat tax, although I believe a flat tax would be a step in the right direction. The original constitution had the government funded by certain tariffs and excise taxes only. It was the 16th amendment which gave the federal government the power to directly tax, which is why it too would need to be repealed. If the government was its actual constitutional size, than the taxes above would more than fund it.

 

[EnchantedEve]

I believe a business on which so many in our country rely on for income needed the bailout. It wasn't totally the UAW's fault. I don't doubt that plenty of non-union outfits folded in the last 3-4 years also due to oil impact not union impact.

I agree with much of what was said above, except this part, for a few reasons.

1. 100% unconstitutional.
2. It favors the large companies over small. Unless large companies fail, smaller, more nimble companies have more difficulty entering into, and being more successful, in the market. Think about it: You as a small company are expected to meet all the burdens of government, without its perks and aid? Miracles do happen, but not often and less and less.
3. It rewards unsustainable business practices, and excess overhead was not the only one. Designing was outdated and unoriginal, engine efficiency was not keeping up with foreign competition, and innovation was lacking in numerous areas. Government does not help this, the bailout will only sustain the current situation, which the market cannot sustain. Consumer confidence had declined for more than one reason.
4. Will keep prices artificially high, based on high cost with declining demand.
5. Discourages change and innovation. Sometimes industries have to fail. Polaroid, who had no competition due to its unique patent, never evolved as a company and was eventually pushed out by the digital camera. They made themselves irrelevant without incentive. Unless companies fail, their remaining competitors and potential ones have no incentive to fill a niche that is not yet profitable to fill, and the industry will only further languish until something takes its place. Lets be honest here: how many of you miss the horse and carriage industry? In the market, new industries will always fill the void, and always have. When we impede this, we only put off the inevitable. So let’s let go and let God on the market!

 

[sedonaman]

I agree with much of what was said above, except this part, for a few reasons.

1. 100% unconstitutional.
2. It favors the large companies over small. Unless large companies fail, smaller, more nimble companies have more difficulty entering into, and being more successful, in the market. Think about it: You as a small company are expected to meet all the burdens of government, without its perks and aid? Miracles do happen, but not often and less and less.
3. It rewards unsustainable business practices, and excess overhead was not the only one. Designing was outdated and unoriginal, engine efficiency was not keeping up with foreign competition, and innovation was lacking in numerous areas. Government does not help this, the bailout will only sustain the current situation, which the market cannot sustain. Consumer confidence had declined for more than one reason.
4. Will keep prices artificially high, based on high cost with declining demand.
5. Discourages change and innovation. Sometimes industries have to fail. Polaroid, who had no competition due to its unique patent, never evolved as a company and was eventually pushed out by the digital camera. They made themselves irrelevant without incentive. Unless companies fail, their remaining competitors and potential ones have no incentive to fill a niche that is not yet profitable to fill, and the industry will only further languish until something takes its place. Lets be honest here: how many of you miss the horse and carriage industry? In the market, new industries will always fill the void, and always have. When we impede this, we only put off the inevitable. So let’s let go and let God on the market!

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

There were other federal unions who went on strike “illegally” previous to that strike but were left alone. Reagan did this to avoid an economic crisis just as Obama is doing today. Except this crisis is many times huger. I hink the possibility of a national security problem could be very close at hand if GM were to go under today,especially combined with all of the other people who are already unemployed. Do you not think that the number of unemployed people in this country tends to put us close to some very heavy security problems here at home? I think it’s an issue that he had to deal with in someway quickly(just as Reagan did).I don’t even doubt that some of the nations former security advisors advised him to do something quickly though I have no proof of this. I am not a constitution specialist but as I have been saying I feel that we are at risk of socialist type revolutions if something isn’t done soon, and then we’ll have no constitution holding us together anyway if something isn’t figured out quickly.

Reagan did what he did to avoid having planes collide in mid-air.

The Demoncrats helped cause this economic crisis. They are trying to ‘solve’ it with Chicago thuggery—meaning that more jobs will be lost and more money siphoned out of your pocket, a chunk of which will be used to fund abortions.

None of this is all right with me.

And what on earth is wrong with large companies? I just got back from Wal-Mart. With their buying power, I was able to purchase a duplicate of everything I bought for myself—to donate to our parish ‘free store.’

 

[Psychotheosophy]

It was the son of Theodore Roosevelt who revealed the anti-semitism of little Karl Marx…he wrote in college "on the Jewish question’ this hate term paper was to inspire fellow leftist Adolph Schikelgruber so that he used many sentences intact. The left has hated Archie R.since this exposure…it can be found on the internet search engine…Names of themselves mean very little…The king of France had on his right side the conservatives…fellow counts,dukes,princes, etc the establishment…on his left was a small number of liberals…those who were for individual freedom as opposed to the status quo…in fact look up ‘conservative’ in the diction…and that deft.still holds…so those of us who are anti-collectivist are the true classical liberals…on the right…those couch potatos are in the center while to the left are those who know better what is best for us…we the peasants…or as karl used to say, 'ya gotta luv the masses…drop the m…'then he would smirk. One can always leave the RCC but once one is a member of the establishemt one cannot leave without endangering ones life…read Chambers.Witness etc…all the best,it cant happen here…lets wave the flag and just tolerant all forms of behavior cept those not on the accepted approved list…

The Catholic Church teaches that,
Murder is always wrong,
And
War can be just,
Without contradiction.

How did Marx compare murder and war?

Did he use the same rationale in economics?

Did he follow any principles?

 

[human_being]

Reagan did what he did to avoid having planes collide in mid-air.

And what on earth is wrong with large companies?

I love large companies. I work for a branch of the largest trucking company in the world. I work for the best of the best. But it’s almost over. I’m a Teamster. I work for the best of the best. Our company has been in the top 3 profit/ dollar spent, of the the LTL industry for many years alot of times being #1 even though we are under the Teamster Freighthauler contract. We’ve beaten most non-union carriers in profits/dollar spent many times also. Just because you are in a large union doesn’t mean you can’t beat even lower paying non-union companies.

 Why am I teling you this? On Friday my boss told me that our mother country(who has slowly been destroying us,as they have other companies in the past) has asked for a TARP bailout on wednesday or thursday last week. I am very sick right now. The company I work for was a family run business until a few years before I started working there.  They were the best of the best. There is alot of pride and alot of hard and thorough workers in my company. They used to have a good reputation for very few damages. I don't really want to type the name of my company because our guys search the internet day in and day out for news of the day things change, or news that it's all over.  The man who owned the company wanted to retire and his children didn't want the business so it was sold to Roadwy. Soon after Roadwy was bought by yellow. I work with guys who worked for every major teamster freight company in the Notheast going back a whole lot of years. You wouldn't believe the number of years experience that these guys have. They've seen them all fold and now we're down to 2 left. It's almost over now. The largest union in the world built by Jimmy Hoffa is as close to the end of it's rope as it can be. At least the huge teamster master freight contract is.

yellow bought the largest trucking company in China a couple of years ago. Maybe not even a couple of years ago. Since then the economy really went sour. In January the Teamsters asked us to vote for a 10% wage reduction over the next 4 years. This came very soon after we just signed our latest contract. I think it was just weeks after the company agreed to the new contract. So 40'000 or so voted and we agreed to the 10% pay cut.  A few weeks ago they offerred us property as collateral towards not being able to pay into our pension fund.  I don't here them offerring to sell the chinese company though. It's like we're buying it. I hear rumors that they are selling our companies terminals(which were already paid for ) and having us pay to rent them back. I just hope and pray that they sell us. We're to small to carry them although we have been their only constant profit maker. We only do the northeast.  I wish the gov't would step in and say they had to sell us because they are just chewing us up and spitting us out. It just seems so stupid that a company buys an awesome company and just uses it up until it dies. I've heard it happen to otherbusinesses too. It just seems so very vry wrong. My company doesn't need the bailout. The all-so-knowing mother company does. This is the stuff of the freemarket that really really disgusts me. And I am so very very sick right now. I'm sorry if it bugs anybody,but I had to get this off of my chest. I don't know if I'll be back for awhile. Thank you for listening. God Bless and goodnight.

 

[sedonaman]

I don’t like communism either. I believe I stated that it bothered me that alot of good paying working-class jobs have left this country since Reagan.

If you are concerned about the loss of jobs to overseas, then, according to Janet Napolitano, you are a potential terrorist and need to be watched.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

I love large companies. I work for a branch of the largest trucking company in the world. I work for the best of the best. But it’s almost over. I’m a Teamster. I work for the best of the best. Our company has been in the top 3 profit/ dollar spent, of the the LTL industry for many years alot of times being #1 even though we are under the Teamster Freighthauler contract. We’ve beaten most non-union carriers in profits/dollar spent many times also. Just because you are in a large union doesn’t mean you can’t beat even lower paying non-union companies.

 Why am I teling you this? On Friday my boss told me that our mother country(who has slowly been destroying us,as they have other companies in the past) has asked for a TARP bailout on wednesday or thursday last week. I am very sick right now. The company I work for was a family run business until a few years before I started working there.  They were the best of the best. There is alot of pride and alot of hard and thorough workers in my company. They used to have a good reputation for very few damages. I don't really want to type the name of my company because our guys search the internet day in and day out for news of the day things change, or news that it's all over.  The man who owned the company wanted to retire and his children didn't want the business so it was sold to Roadwy. Soon after Roadwy was bought by yellow. I work with guys who worked for every major teamster freight company in the Notheast going back a whole lot of years. You wouldn't believe the number of years experience that these guys have. They've seen them all fold and now we're down to 2 left. It's almost over now. The largest union in the world built by Jimmy Hoffa is as close to the end of it's rope as it can be. At least the huge teamster master freight contract is.

yellow bought the largest trucking company in China a couple of years ago. Maybe not even a couple of years ago. Since then the economy really went sour. In January the Teamsters asked us to vote for a 10% wage reduction over the next 4 years. This came very soon after we just signed our latest contract. I think it was just weeks after the company agreed to the new contract. So 40'000 or so voted and we agreed to the 10% pay cut.  A few weeks ago they offerred us property as collateral towards not being able to pay into our pension fund.  I don't here them offerring to sell the chinese company though. It's like we're buying it. I hear rumors that they are selling our companies terminals(which were already paid for ) and having us pay to rent them back. I just hope and pray that they sell us. We're to small to carry them although we have been their only constant profit maker. We only do the northeast.  I wish the gov't would step in and say they had to sell us because they are just chewing us up and spitting us out. It just seems so stupid that a company buys an awesome company and just uses it up until it dies. I've heard it happen to otherbusinesses too. It just seems so very vry wrong. My company doesn't need the bailout. The all-so-knowing mother company does. This is the stuff of the freemarket that really really disgusts me. And I am so very very sick right now. I'm sorry if it bugs anybody,but I had to get this off of my chest. I don't know if I'll be back for awhile. Thank you for listening. God Bless and goodnight.

Does anybody know,
Is this how the Socialist ruling class operates?

 

[EnchantedEve]

Does anybody know,
Is this how the Socialist ruling class operates?

Yes, with one difference.

The socialist ruling class may rule with impunity and drag the whole country down with them by force.

A private company, though, if it mistreats its customer base and employees (Hallmark comes to mind) will eventually falter when it loses consumer confidence. It cannot rule with impunity because eventually its cash flow will stop. The only way this does not happen is if it has a government to subsidize and bail it out regardless of how it operates, but this is not a normal market condition and is how government creates monopolies.