capitalism and poverty are global. You may have not noticed but the "big" surge/push to india, china and other cheap labor markets also brings about slave labor wages and massive work hours for little pay.

My how little you know. The "slaves" are now being paid triple what they were paid before those high paying jobs came into their area. The hours are likely less as well. They are fat and happy. Subsistence existence in the third world is much much worse than you know.

GOD I LOVE Capitalism and I bet xian and Kumar love it to if they could go home instead of being forced to stay at their "work" accomodations. The US had something similar back in the Railroad/coal mining days. they were called labor camps back then too.

Yes, it seems to be the natural order of things. Too hard for most to plan, execute and create. Paralyzed by fear. Much easier to herd and follow. Very safe, but safe means no payout. Risk is payout. Not many alpha's. Yes, the natural order of things.

Why do you think there is imbalance? Job offered, pay stated, take it or leave it. If you don't think the wages are enough for the job, why do you take it? You don't. You make your own opportunity, er I forgot, you can only herd, that's it, you are forced to take it because you herd.

What would you prefer, an auction of labor? Hey, that would set a true fair market price. I'm sure you know it would be far far below a union contract price.

If all you have to offer is the skill to insert tab A into slot B, everyone can do it and there will always be someone willing to do it for less money. However if the skill you offer is to design, plan, build, staff and run a factory, not many can do it so the wage will be much higher.

The job was never worth what the Union milked out of the company. That is why the pension plan is going belly up too.

---

capitalism and poverty are global. You may have not noticed but the "big" surge/push to india, china and other cheap labor markets also brings about slave labor wages and massive work hours for little pay.

My how little you know. The "slaves" are now being paid triple what they were paid before those high paying jobs came into their area. The hours are likely less as well. They are fat and happy. Subsistence existence in the third world is much much worse than you know.

How quickly we forget. For a long time Japan was one of those third world countries due to the damage received as the result of World War II. Much of the low end industry went to Japan first (remember the toys stamped out of old orange juice cans?) followed by larger industry. At first the quality was poor but remember the line from back to the future " Some of the best stuff is made in Japan". Then Japan started playing around with the banking system and bad loans (sounds a little like us) and went into an extended recession. It was capitalism that built Japan up and government that took them down.

---

I don't have time for a full post Barry, but you have implied that conservative are good old boys that want to keep the others down. Educate yourself

Most of the "good" republican people mentioned in this article, are from around 50 to 100 and more years ago, even the facts are stretched on the sixties civil rights issues...

How about some modern examples of pro-civil rights republicans?

Romney, with his alleged college gay-bashing haircutting frenzy? I could go on but it's late and I'm tired.

---

#resist

... Then Japan started playing around with the banking system and bad loans (sounds a little like us) and went into an extended recession. It was capitalism that built Japan up and government that took them down.

Just like what's happened here, I'd argue that it's BIG business, not government, that takes the economies down. Big business and greed...

Half the problem is the government being in the pocket of big business. Unfortunately this is both sides of the isle...

I just feel that, currently the democrats do more to protect people from big business and greed.

---

#resist

Guy, I didn't mean to imply that *conservatives* take that position (though they have generally been resistant to change over the decades.

It isn't the *conservatives* that trouble me as much as what I'd characterize as the *radical* 'conservatives'. That is a major distinction. Barry Goldwater was a conservative -- and as a conservative his views changed significantly over the last two decades of his life to the extent that 'radical conservatives' might well disown many of his views today.

The views of at least nominally conservative Republicans in the 70's, 80's and 90's is an example of the vast chasm between it seems you are characterizing as 'conservatives' today and what seems to be the 'radical conservatism' as they are.

I sense you are hoping to put me (and the voting populace) through some sort of 're-education camp' in order to adjust our thinking. It isn't going to happen.

I don't have time for a full post Barry, but you have implied that conservative are good old boys that want to keep the others down. Educate yourself

Of course one might posit that it is the lack of a pro-union law in other countries that has this effect.

So the result of the pro-union law is that a privileged few get a better wage while the vast majority get an unemployment check. Greed is good. Think about that, greed is good. Where have you heard that before. Investment banks?

[/list]

Make that *try a bit more*. Notwithstanding the canard about Democrats/Obama and socialism, the Democrats do a lot for big business as well and regarding regulations -- well Barney Frank is a Democrat and a fair sized chunk of the mortgage mess is on him.

I just feel that, currently the democrats do more to protect people from big business and greed.

Well, to a degree, we are in agreement - though what we choose to learn and what choose to predict can vary widely. (Some might favor the slave owner agrarian anti-centrist Jefferson to the strong centrist pro-business Hamilton, some, the other way round). I think both of them got some things just right and others not so much AND that many things in the 21st century were beyond their ken.

I too just happen to think I'm less crazy than others. <smile>

No, I'm saying we can learn from history and from that we can predict what's coming in general terms.

Yes, people can interpret history differently, but people can also re-write history to suit justifying the crazy ideas of today. I just happen to think I'm less crazy than others.

... Then Japan started playing around with the banking system and bad loans (sounds a little like us) and went into an extended recession. It was capitalism that built Japan up and government that took them down.

Just like what's happened here, I'd argue that it's BIG business, not government, that takes the economies down. Big business and greed...

Half the problem is the government being in the pocket of big business. Unfortunately this is both sides of the isle...

I just feel that, currently the democrats do more to protect people from big business and greed.

Have you turned on the news lately? Obama has more big business due to the recovery packages marching through the white house that we have had for a long time. General Electric paid no taxes, GM was bailed out and we will lose money on it, Union are getting a bailout on their pension funds which were managed poorly. The green industry gets heavy funding for producing power at 5 times the cost of reglar power plants. What does everybody not on Obama's favored list? We get the bill for all this spending. The government should be for all people or none of the people, not just democrats or republicans (who ever is currently in office).

---

Dena, the Democrats are the party of big business, the Republicans are the party of bigger business and the very wealthy. Things are relative -- in the US the two major parties are very right wing and right of center. To the extent that the very right wing party cries socialism for the right of center party it is rather amusing.

Neither party is inclined to balance a budget - their approaches toward perpetuating the out of balance condition differ though.

Dena, the Democrats are the party of big business, the Republicans are the party of bigger business and the very wealthy. Things are relative -- in the US the two major parties are very right wing and right of center. To the extent that the very right wing party cries socialism for the right of center party it is rather amusing.

Neither party is inclined to balance a budget - their approaches toward perpetuating the out of balance condition differ though.

Currently the Democrats are the party of bigger business and the very wealthy as well. The big mistakes the Republicans made was they thought they could outspend the Democrats. They weren't successful but they managed to make many conservatives very mad at them. This resulted in the tea party that not only goes after Democrats but Republicans as well. The correct name for these Republicans is RINOs (Republican in name only). This is the reason I decline to state a party on my voters registration. I want the Republican to earn my vote by being conservative Republican and I don't want them to get the idea they have my vote locked in because they don't. If you can put up a conservative Democrat, I will consider voting for them. It's not party but the person I am voting for.
On the Budget, I think the Republican may have figured it out but you are right in stating the budgets the Republicans are putting out don't fully balance. On the other hand, the Democrats in the senate haven't put out a budget in 3 years and are not bringing the Republican budget to a vote. The test will come when they vote to raise the debt limit before the next election. If the Republicans have seen the light, we are looking at a government shutdown before the next election. Interesting times await us.

---

Of course one might posit that it is the lack of a pro-union law in other countries that has this effect.

So the result of the pro-union law is that a privileged few get a better wage while the vast majority get an unemployment check. Greed is good. Think about that, greed is good. Where have you heard that before. Investment banks?

I just checked ... it isn't December yet ... the earth is still turning ... and we agree.

The point is greed is still greed, whether it comes from the Union Boss or the Investment Banker. Whenever people band together for something, someone else will get hurt.

---

... Then Japan started playing around with the banking system and bad loans (sounds a little like us) and went into an extended recession. It was capitalism that built Japan up and government that took them down.

Just like what's happened here, I'd argue that it's BIG business, not government, that takes the economies down. Big business and greed...

Were it that simple. Both Japan and the USA are in periods of contraction. Long term contraction. Contraction of what you ask? Look at the birth rate.

The number of consumers drives the need for manufacturing capacity. At least I hope you all see that. As the population declines the good blue collar jobs become redundant. As the population ages the amount of stuff they buy goes down. There may be an opportunity for adult diaper manufacturers, but not much else. The boom is where the population has recently exploded. It will last there for a while and then the cycle will repeat.

Americans, get used to this level of an economy. It is the new normal and it will be with us for a couple of decades.

---

The number of consumers drives the need for manufacturing capacity.

Agreed. However, the amount of money in the hands of the consumers is just as big of a driver.
I could make a very easy case of siting examples of the many ways big business and greed has removed all of the money from the hands of the consumers, and keeps it securely in the hands of the wealthy. This also could very well be the cause of contraction, not an effect of.

---

#resist

Dena, with the current Senate rules, NEITHER party could put out a budget there -- this is unfortunate.

The Teapublicans are plumbing for significant reductions in corporate taxes -- that makes them the bigger business party.

The Ryan 'budget' envisions major budget cuts, matched by major revenue cuts -- leaving the budget at least as much in an imbalance as the current budget. The Ryan budget expands the defense budget as well. Further, it simply bails on changes in deductions by leaving those to other committees. Ryan (and the TeaPublicans) KNOW that changes in deductions would simply not pass and so it is a pure revenue cut. In order to make the Ryan budget even slightly credible it should first require passage on the reduction or elimination of deductions and then offset the revenue gain with rate reductions. That would never happen as Teaparty partisans would howl.

As to the Republicans and Democrats and the very wealthy, the differential position regarding taxes should make this distinction reasonably obvious to even the casual observer.

Thanks to democrat created inflation, a million dollars is not that much any more. Try a billion.

Thats true. I remember a longish time ago the definition of a millionaire also included those families with an income of $100,000 per annum.

Well, guess what, if a couple, over 25, both earn just over the average income in full time work, that figure has been reach in 2012.

Hmmm. As a poster from the UK, could that have anything to do with the difference (or former difference) in how we named our larger numbers?

It makes sense there are only two parties

Sorry, I'm gonna challenge you upon that, I think you are wrong. We have that very same problem in the UK in that the Tory and Labour parties play leapfrog and take it in turns to run the country. Most people don't want either of them in power, but what other choice have they got? We don't have a strong enough 3rd party to make a realistic change.

You have the same problem in the USA ......

+1

It makes sense there are only two parties in that you either want MORE government or you want LESS government. There are only two sides to that coin. It's a binary question. Yes, no. Black, white. On, off. One, zero.

Strikes me as a false comparison.
Pay more in taxes to fund Homeland Security to keep the mom who's worried with every new al Qaeda related story.
Or, pay more in taxes for better education.
Either way, you pay the taxes.

So, the natural course is to crash as nations. That's the only way I can see resetting some laws. But by this time, it'll be a pretty scary proposition. Because we won't be reviewing/slashing/burning/revitalizing since 1900, we'll be starting all over again from 1776 but with different circumstances.

Careful, I suggested such a thing and Dena essentially said I'm an idiot.

Speaking of moon colonization, yes, it is sad that Gingrich was mocked for it. Except ... just how close to being CAPABLE of it are we? What's the longest anyone's been able to stay in the ISS? How much more difficult is it going to be to deliver supplies of food, gases (oxygen) and so on to a moon base than to the ISS? And these are just some preliminary questions.