DUCKRACER Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 It would be interesting to see what percentage of those who claim that the U.S. needs more manufacturing jobs would want their children and grandchildren to grow up to become factory workers or construction workers - as opposed to, say, doctors, lawyers, scientists, university professors, or CPAs, all of which are much-higher paying service-sector jobs. Oh, God, anything but lawyers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 Public schools, State Colleges? We look to the government for lots of things. Safety regs, and "getting on the back" of businessmen with your mind-set who feel they are entitled to do anything they want. The Dream has been scuffed-up for a majority of citizens, who are no better off than they were in the mid-70's. Trim, I sure hope they develop time travel. That way, you could party like it really is 1899. Public education pumps out like-thinking socialist zombies for the government. All education should be privatized, and the "government" and "education" should never be used in the same sentence. Big government kills small business, but big business survives. Big government leads to big corporations. Most "regulations" are put in place to make it impossible for small businesses to compete with large corporations. Large corporations have the money to get their people elected. It doesn't get any cozier than that. People are brainwashed to believe that the opposite is true; that big government is there for the little guy. It isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Critic Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 Public education pumps out like-thinking socialist zombies for the government. All education should be privatized, and the "government" and "education" should never be used in the same sentence. For once I agree with you. Your the perfect example of what a government education can do to people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Oh, God, anything but lawyers! Yeah, everyone hates lawyers... until you need one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Ford Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 (edited) All wealth is derived from labor. However you sound like a text-book economist, and their not too accurate, haven't been for about 100 years and I've been around longer than half that. Real wage growth, the kind that improves a family life has held stagnant and declined for more than the last 10 years. You want to see real wage growth, that happened right after WWII, and that was the Ozzie-Harriet, June-Ward type of home where 1 man could go to work and totally support a growing family with those luxuries of a vacation and a boat Retirment and money for a kids college. Today it requires 2 incomes to even approach that, and also a declining family size. Economist have been wrong about two big things in the past hundred years. 1. That large money supply oscillations have no effect on output. It turns out that they do, as seen by the great depression 2. That inflation reduces unemployment and inereases output. It turns out that this is only a short term relation, and this violates elementary economic rules. Using this assertion, worldwide growth balooned in the 60s then collapsed in the 70s. Economics is a science like any other. It's based on theory supported by observation and is valid because it can support its assertions. Wealth correlates to output per capita, see the attachment (data from US census and BEA). I'd be concerned about wage stagnation if it was an abonormal feature. It isn't. Sit back and relax. Wages will increase just like the economy will recover. Short term pertubations are nothing to be concerned about. Edited May 4, 2009 by V8 Ford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadtrip Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Yeah, everyone hates lawyers... until you need one. "Everyone" is an absolute term. Don't be so defensive! OK, we can say "Everyone minus one." I work with lawyers all the time, mostly with employment law and contract issues. I really enjoy it - learning about all the legal angles from both sides regarding a given complaint. And yes, I will need a lawyer in my personal life at some point. Long story short, I will need a lawyer who specializes in immigration law to facilitate a K-1 visa for my Argentine girlfriend to come to the U.S. And it's gonna cost a lot of money. I thought I could solve this problem by myself - after all, I have an MBA - but after reading through and attempting to decipher all the onerous State Department regulations, documents, requisites, and hurdles, I decided I should just continue to do what I do best (which is to pay attention to my own line of work) and let an immigration attorney do what he does best. This speaks to what is called the "division of labor" or "specialization" - which are extremely important economic concepts that I don't believe have come up in this thread. I don't hate lawyers per se; I just hate lawyers who use the law for their own personal benefit (i.e. trial lawyers who seek large and unreasonable jury awards), highly paid defense lawyers who manipulate the system (i.e. Johnny Cochran, et al), and lawyers who assert absurd ACLU claims to further their own personal political agenda (i.e. the proposed ban on the Pledge of Allegiance by that brilliant constitutional scholar, Michael Newdow). I love the law, the rule of law, and the Constitution. I have meetings with and have lunch with lawyers as a matter of routine, and I enjoy the conversation. I'm not one of those people who hates lawyers. I understand that they perform a necessary function in our society. Of course I would be remiss if I didn't finish this post with a lawyer joke, but I won't. I'm sure you've heard them all! :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Yeah, everyone hates lawyers... until you need one. Evil breeds more evil. Eliminate laws and you will eliminate lawyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 For once I agree with you. Your the perfect example of what a government education can do to people. It can turn them into people who want to eliminate government education? No. I was educated in the 1950s and early 1960s. That was before all of this bullshit started. Much of what I was taught in school was the exact opposite of what is being taught to-day. Other things, like history, mathematics, physics, chemistry, literature, composition, and spelling are not considered as important to-day as socialist brainwashing. They don't want to tax their brains, just fill them with commie crap and keep them dumbed down so they won't be able to see through it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted May 5, 2009 Author Share Posted May 5, 2009 Other things, like history, mathematics, physics, chemistry, literature, composition, and spelling are not considered as important to-day as socialist brainwashing. pfft, you have no idea what you're talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Evil breeds more evil. Eliminate laws and you will eliminate lawyers. Eliminate law and you have anarchy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUCKRACER Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 "Everyone" is an absolute term. Don't be so defensive! OK, we can say "Everyone minus one." I work with lawyers all the time, mostly with employment law and contract issues. I really enjoy it - learning about all the legal angles from both sides regarding a given complaint. And yes, I will need a lawyer in my personal life at some point. Long story short, I will need a lawyer who specializes in immigration law to facilitate a K-1 visa for my Argentine girlfriend to come to the U.S. And it's gonna cost a lot of money. I thought I could solve this problem by myself - after all, I have an MBA - but after reading through and attempting to decipher all the onerous State Department regulations, documents, requisites, and hurdles, I decided I should just continue to do what I do best (which is to pay attention to my own line of work) and let an immigration attorney do what he does best. This speaks to what is called the "division of labor" or "specialization" - which are extremely important economic concepts that I don't believe have come up in this thread. I don't hate lawyers per se; I just hate lawyers who use the law for their own personal benefit (i.e. trial lawyers who seek large and unreasonable jury awards), highly paid defense lawyers who manipulate the system (i.e. Johnny Cochran, et al), and lawyers who assert absurd ACLU claims to further their own personal political agenda (i.e. the proposed ban on the Pledge of Allegiance by that brilliant constitutional scholar, Michael Newdow). I love the law, the rule of law, and the Constitution. I have meetings with and have lunch with lawyers as a matter of routine, and I enjoy the conversation. I'm not one of those people who hates lawyers. I understand that they perform a necessary function in our society. Of course I would be remiss if I didn't finish this post with a lawyer joke, but I won't. I'm sure you've heard them all! :D Ok, since I am a lawyer I will tell one. Did you hear that scientific laboratories are using lawyers to conduct experiments now instead of lab rats? They have found that the lab techs don't get attached to them, there are lots of them around and you can get a lawyer to do ANYTHING. BTW I am no fan of the ACLU either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted May 5, 2009 Author Share Posted May 5, 2009 Eliminate law and you have anarchy. Trim doesn't believe that. He thinks that society could function just fine on it's own. He thinks that we wouldn't degrade into something similar to say....Somalia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman100 Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Depends on the degree of anarchy. Everyone knows the legal system is set up primarily to benefit the legal profession - judges, attorney's, etc. The more complicated it is, the more guaranteed income and work is generated. Any "justice" that happens to occur is a necessary byproduct to dupe people into believing a fantasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted May 5, 2009 Author Share Posted May 5, 2009 Everyone knows the legal system is set up primarily to benefit the legal profession - judges, attorney's, etc. The more complicated it is, the more guaranteed income and work is generated. On yes, everyone knows that... :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Critic Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Simple answers require simple observations. "Old West-Law" the kind before a lawman showed up, the kind before a territorial judge showed up to administer a law, whether it was harsh or not. If you want to eliminate law, then the law is what I say it is until someone eliminates me. And then it's what he says until he is eliminated. Trim lives in a fantasy world. Nothing is how he wants it to be. The type that soaks in all known benefits, but bemoans the fact that others are getting a bigger chunk of free government cheese. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Evil breeds more evil. Eliminate laws and you will eliminate lawyers. I thought that the USA was a "nation of laws" and not of men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 I thought that the USA was a "nation of laws" and not of men. I thought it was a protector of rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 I thought it was a protector of rights. It is a nation of laws and a protector of rights. A right without a remedy is meaningless. Laws provide the remedies. With rights come responsibilities. Laws provide enforcement for those responsibilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Trim doesn't believe that. He thinks that society could function just fine on it's own. He thinks that we wouldn't degrade into something similar to say....Somalia. That's right. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be better than living under the near-Totalitarian system that we live under to-day. We have plenty of wealth, if we could pry it away from the government Mafia. There are enough laws that the government could go to a forced labor gulag system if they wanted to. We all are in violation of some law at all times, and subject to arrest. So far, the witch hunts apply mostly to political opponents who are a threat, but that could change. We wouldn't become a bunch of anarchial outlaws. This is what happens when we have to depend on police for protection, which the criminal knows won't happen. If there is nothing preventing you from using any force you want to protect your property or your self, criminality would decline. There would be no reason to steal because there would be plenty of work, and the resulting labor shortage from people opting for the life of leisure, rather than working to pay taxes, would force wages higher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 She looks suspiciously like the "before" picture of Nadia Sulaimon (Octomom) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 She probably has a meter attached to "it" feeding information to the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUCKRACER Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 That's right. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be better than living under the near-Totalitarian system that we live under to-day. We have plenty of wealth, if we could pry it away from the government Mafia. There are enough laws that the government could go to a forced labor gulag system if they wanted to. We all are in violation of some law at all times, and subject to arrest. So far, the witch hunts apply mostly to political opponents who are a threat, but that could change. We wouldn't become a bunch of anarchial outlaws. This is what happens when we have to depend on police for protection, which the criminal knows won't happen. If there is nothing preventing you from using any force you want to protect your property or your self, criminality would decline. There would be no reason to steal because there would be plenty of work, and the resulting labor shortage from people opting for the life of leisure, rather than working to pay taxes, would force wages higher. A long, long time ago I read a story about a small town in the US that made gun ownership mandatory. The crime rate plummeted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 That's right. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be better than living under the near-Totalitarian system that we live under to-day. We have plenty of wealth, if we could pry it away from the government Mafia. There are enough laws that the government could go to a forced labor gulag system if they wanted to. We all are in violation of some law at all times, and subject to arrest. So far, the witch hunts apply mostly to political opponents who are a threat, but that could change. We wouldn't become a bunch of anarchial outlaws. This is what happens when we have to depend on police for protection, which the criminal knows won't happen. If there is nothing preventing you from using any force you want to protect your property or your self, criminality would decline. There would be no reason to steal because there would be plenty of work, and the resulting labor shortage from people opting for the life of leisure, rather than working to pay taxes, would force wages higher. do they tell you what to think in totalitarian Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 do they tell you what to think in totalitarian Canada? No. Trim lives in his own little world, and doesn't see things in quite the same way as the general consensus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 No. Trim lives in his own little world, and doesn't see things in quite the same way as the general consensus. That's right. I am apart from the herd. I have seen enough and been lied to enough to know that if I am being preached to, I am being lied to. I look for the agenda. What do the proponents have to gain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.