New law targets illegal immigrants...

Message boards : Politics : New law targets illegal immigrants...
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5

AuthorMessage
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 676524 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 10:18:20 UTC - in response to Message 676518.  

Oh are you really that blind?

No, not at all.

The market is not so free as you claim it is.

Sure it is. It's as free as the people that participate make it. You want shoes, I sell you shoes. There's no issue at all. If you don't want to pay my price, you don't. If I don't want to accept what you offer, I don't. We are both free to participate or not, and that is the definition of free, and that is the definition of the free market.

Just ask yourself, who decides which goods are imported? The customers? No.

Of course not. The person that decides which goods are imported is the person that believes he can make some money by importing them. He believes that he can find sufficient customers to sell them to and do so.

Of course the customers don't decide directly. Though they could, they could just import what they wished, too. Either for their own consumption, or to sell. Either way is fine.

And who made it impossible to those countries to live independently? It was the Western Economy which made them be dependent on exporting only a few goods and then stopped buying just these goods when the countries wanted to put up their own industry (with borrowed money) besides these mono-cultures. It's not the gov'ts of these countries who made their people poor. It's the Global Capitalism.

Yeah, good luck with that one. Welcome to reality, Thorin. People trade what they have or create. They have no right to a customer because people are not forced to buy anything. The hand plow and buggy makers learned that a long time ago, you should try to catch up.

You should do what a bunch of Somalis and Ethiopians were doing on Saturday: stand outside the British Parliament holding signs and hollering in foreign languages.

I mean, it was hilarious and all, and I'm sure they got to go home feeling better about themselves and all, but oops, the people that are actually in Somalia and Ethiopia are still dying.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 676524 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 676526 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 10:23:30 UTC - in response to Message 676524.  
Last modified: 12 Nov 2007, 10:24:31 UTC

You want shoes, I sell you shoes. There's no issue at all. If you don't want to pay my price, you don't. If I don't want to accept what you offer, I don't. We are both free to participate or not, and that is the definition of free, and that is the definition of the free market.

free market: One man goes without shoes while another man enjoys being an arse... ;)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 676526 · Report as offensive
Profile thorin belvrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 06
Posts: 6418
Credit: 8,893
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 676528 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 10:54:09 UTC - in response to Message 676522.  
Last modified: 12 Nov 2007, 10:58:49 UTC

They want to cut costs? Why don't they begin in the top levels, like CEOs or something?

Because you could divide the entire salary and benefit package of the highest paid 1000 people at a place like GM and everyone else would get a couple of hundred bucks in one paycheck, once. Of course, that wouldn't solve even one problem, wouldn't make the company more competitive, wouldn't pay down debt or change market conditions, or anything else.

It would, however, destroy the company. So, for in exchange for a one-time payment of a few hundred bucks, the people who got paid that get to lose their jobs. Few if any of them are going to make that trade.

Sure it IS possible to create poverty, actually those who create wealth for a few at the costs of others do make those others poor.

Man, then Oprah and Michael Moore must be REALLY REALLY REALLY skrewing people hard. I mean, they make millions more than most CEOs. They must be creating poverty left and right, taking their money right out of the mouths of the poor.
Are they MAKING their millions, or aren't they rather getting paid by their producers, being kind of employed by the media system which sells their shows and DVDs? You don't have to exploit people to become rich. Even if I sold a million copies of a self-produced CD to a price of $0.05 more than the price of blank CDs (which could be afforded by everyone), giving me a win of $0.05 per item (which is little), I'd make 50K bucks without exploiting anyone. But I would get big trouble by the big media industry and their influence to the gov't.

Do you really believe the people in Africa and North Korea have chosen to starve?

Well, you and Waite seem to think that wealth is created out of whole cloth. Yet they aren't doing it. Those out of work UAW workers aren't doing it either. If I were them, I would just choose to create wealth so I could spend it.

I mean, it's just that easy, right?
So you think wealth is created out of nothing? Money makes more money in this capitalistic society. You have to be rich to become richer, else the risk of investing anywhere is just too high.

Do you really believe the majority of Indians chose to live of less than a Dollar per day while some few there don't know which place they shall put their millions?

I think that some people are capable of earning substantially more than others. And that those others will not support them out of hand. Michael Moore for example. Oprah. Babs Streisand. These are exceedingly rich people that will not do as you would have them do.
Oh so you're bringing up some well-paid media persons as example for rich people? Why are you refusing to mention real exploiters like Bill Gates, like the Waltons, like Dassler, Albrecht, Buffet, Cox, Abramovich, etc.?

Do you really think Mexican people leave their families and maybe even their tiny fields heading for the States just for the adventure of it? They have no choice! It's either leaving the family and go where jobs are offered and work there (even illegally) or watch their beloved ones starve while starving themselves.

I think these people seek to make better lives for themselves and it is so miserable where they live that they are smart to leave and try to make a better life for themselves. More power to them. Now, if Oprah and Moore would just quit skrewing them so badly, maybe they'd have a chance.

Capitalism, the system you are so adoring, made them poor enough to take such desperate measures.

This is one of the most stupid things I've ever seen you say. "Capitalism," as you use it there, is the system they are coming to, to find jobs to make their lives better. They are leaving the insanely socialistic Mexico because the socialistic system there destroys wealth. You should be thrilled with that place. All the laws and rules and gov't meddling you could ever want.
Since when is Mexico a socialist country? Only because they try to be more social than the States, the economic system is the same: capitalism.

[snip]

Do you really think that people take up temp jobs or other jobs with substandard wages because they agree with them? They take them because THEY DO HAVE NO CHOICE! I know enough engineers and people with master degrees - even with excellent certificates - who work in temp companies or as burger-flippers or as waiters, just to have a job, just to not live on welfare, because THERE IS no job according to their qualifications here for them.

Then provide it for them Thorin. If you think someone has a right to a job at someone else's expense, then you should be providing it for them. If you think that because someone has some degree that they have a right to a job, what happens when others who disagree with you will not provide those jobs? I mean, you won't, so why should they? Because you think they should?

Don't hold your breath, they don't care what you think.

Oh, so the jobs are at the employers expense? Hell, it's not the worker exploiting the employer, it's the employer exploiting the worker! It's those who refuse to pay the worker what their work is actually WORTH who are responsible that workers have to sacrifice their spare-time to take up a second or third job.

It's like the other broken record you always bring up again: "The market can't bear higher wages". That's the silliest excuse I've ever read.
"The market" can bear millions of CEO salaries, and millions of Dollars as Golden Handshakes when managers move to other companies but not a rise of wages according to the inflation rate?? "The market" can bear rising prices for daily needs and declining prices for luxury articles, but can't bear appropriate wages for those who produce these goods? Forget it.

Account frozen...
ID: 676528 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 676538 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 12:13:35 UTC - in response to Message 676528.  

Are they MAKING their millions, or aren't they rather getting paid by their producers, being kind of employed by the media system which sells their shows and DVDs?

Oprah and Moore negotiate with others to earn what they are paid. Moore negotiates with a publisher or a distribution company, Oprah negotiates with King World Productions, or whoever, just like any CEO or any janitor.

You don't have to exploit people to become rich. Even if I sold a million copies of a self-produced CD to a price of $0.05 more than the price of blank CDs (which could be afforded by everyone), giving me a win of $0.05 per item (which is little), I'd make 50K bucks without exploiting anyone. But I would get big trouble by the big media industry and their influence to the gov't.

In other words, you would be earning a profit. You would be selling your product at more than it cost you to make it. That's what everyone does.

Tell me, why wouldn't you do it if you were to lose $0.05 per item (which is little)?

Oh, and by the way, it's your belief that Sony (or anyone) could care less that you sold some CD and made yourself 50K that is keeping you down. Not some conspiracy.

So you think wealth is created out of nothing? Money makes more money in this capitalistic society. You have to be rich to become richer, else the risk of investing anywhere is just too high.

No, I think creating wealth takes enormous hard work and effort and even greater risk. Many who try, fail. But of those that succeed, they don't give everything they have away for your stupid ideas no matter how much the recipient may need it. Moore certainly hasn't.

Oh so you're bringing up some well-paid media persons as example for rich people? Why are you refusing to mention real exploiters like Bill Gates, like the Waltons, like Dassler, Albrecht, Buffet, Cox, Abramovich, etc.?

They're just examples of people that pay lip service to your silly beliefs and STILL don't do as you wish.

Bill Gates makes money the same way Moore does. He offers them the opportunity to buy his product and they take it. He often acts to protect and defend that product, just as Moore does to protect his. Sam Walton provides millions of jobs to people who aren't going to be applying to CEO positions and he raises the standard of living for them and many others by supplying goods and services at a cheaper price than anyone else can.

This is the free market. If you don't like Bill's operating system, don't use it, build your own computer and use Mac's. Use Linux. Or anything else you want. Write your own if you wish. Avoid eeeevil corporations and buy the parts on eBay. You can do this for any reason you wish, including the fact that you don't like how Bill runs Microsoft. He can't force you to use it, he can't force you to buy it, but he can act aggressively to protect it. See, it's a free market because you don't have to participate.

You can do the same with Wal-mart. Don't shop there if you don't want to. Go pay more money somewhere else if you wish. But millions and millions of people disagree with you. They value their hard earned money (just like Bill and Sam and Opie do) and they want to pay LESS for the goods and services they buy. Because they do, they go to Wal-mart. Since again, it is a free market, they are free to do so for whatever reason they wish to, just as you are free to not go to Wal-mart for whatever reason you wish not to.

But you obviously missed the point. You asked whether I believed "that the majority of Indians chose to live of less than a Dollar per day while some few there don't know which place they shall put their millions," and I replied that I think that some people are capable of earning substantially more than others. And that those others will not support them out of hand. Michael Moore for example. Oprah. Babs Streisand. These are exceedingly rich people that will not do as you would have them do. The examples didn't matter.

Since when is Mexico a socialist country? Only because they try to be more social than the States, the economic system is the same: capitalism.

Ummmm, by that standard EVERY country is capitalist because cars aren't built by laws stating that they must be built. Some countries just have far fewer restrictions than others. But regardless, the point remains the same, these people are flocking FROM the country with massive and intrusive regulations, TO the country with far less, and to use your words "to go where the jobs are offered." They go from the more socialist country to the more capitalist country because capitalism didn't cause the problems in Mexico, massive and intrusive gov't regulation did. That interference makes it difficult to do business in Mexico and therefore those people do not have jobs and they come to the U.S.

Oh, so the jobs are at the employers expense? Hell, it's not the worker exploiting the employer, it's the employer exploiting the worker! It's those who refuse to pay the worker what their work is actually WORTH who are responsible that workers have to sacrifice their spare-time to take up a second or third job.

Thorin, you say this nearly every time and you STILL can't understand one very simple point which I'll repeat for the 1000th time: These people that are actually providing jobs (you know, GM, Gates, Walton, whoever) don't care what you think. They only provide jobs at what those jobs are worth to them. Not to you, they don't listen to you or care what the Daily Worker thinks.

If jobs are just a matter of providing them, then do it. Provide it for them, Thorin. If you think someone has a right to a job at someone else's expense, then you should be providing it for them. If you think that because someone has some degree that they have a right to a job, what happens when others who disagree with you will not provide those jobs? I mean, you won't, so why should they? Because you think they should?

It's like the other broken record you always bring up again: "The market can't bear higher wages". That's the silliest excuse I've ever read.

It's a testament to your incompetence that you would put quotes around something I've never said, and it's further evidence that you are simply incapable of understanding most of this stuff.

I've never said that the market can't bear higher wages. I've said that those that offer jobs pay what the job is worth, subject to the market, but they don't pay much, if anything, more than the job it worth to them. That's all.

In fact, if you actually started paying people salaries that were a lot higher than the job was worth, your competitors would have to do so as well because the best people would come to work for you. So, if you think that is the best plan, do it. No one is stopping you.

"The market" can bear millions of CEO salaries, and millions of Dollars as Golden Handshakes when managers move to other companies but not a rise of wages according to the inflation rate?? "The market" can bear rising prices for daily needs and declining prices for luxury articles, but can't bear appropriate wages for those who produce these goods? Forget it.

I told you why the market can bear CEO salaries and "Golden Handshakes" (sic) because they are nearly negligible as a matter of costs. You could divide the entire salary and benefit package of the highest paid 1000 people at a place like GM and everyone else would get a couple of hundred bucks in one paycheck, once. Of course, that wouldn't solve even one problem, wouldn't make the company more competitive, wouldn't pay down debt or change market conditions, or anything else.

It would, however, destroy the company. So, for in exchange for a one-time payment of a few hundred bucks, the people who got paid that get to lose their jobs. Few if any of them are going to make that trade. That Oprah makes 1000 times the guy that cleans her bathroom has no bearing because he is paid what the work is worth, very little.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 676538 · Report as offensive
Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1772
Credit: 384,573
RAC: 0
United States
Message 676540 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 12:15:56 UTC - in response to Message 676473.  

did you just set higher goals for yourself and make sacrifices in order to achieve those goals?

Like avoiding military service and passing out food stamps for a living... ;)


If you consider choosing college "avoiding" military service, then yeah, I "avoided" military service, and of all people here, you should know that HUD does not distribute food stamps, it provides housing for those who "avoid" work.


ID: 676540 · Report as offensive
Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1772
Credit: 384,573
RAC: 0
United States
Message 676545 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 12:20:56 UTC - in response to Message 676514.  


They want to cut costs? Why don't they begin in the top levels, like CEOs or something?


When you punish people for being successful, you remove all incentive for being successful.

Why go to medical school for 8 years when your earnings are equal to that of a high school dropout hauling garbage?


ID: 676545 · Report as offensive
Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1772
Credit: 384,573
RAC: 0
United States
Message 676548 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 12:22:59 UTC - in response to Message 676523.  

"Capitalism," as you use it there, is the system they are coming to, to find jobs to make their lives better.

But when they get here, they find out that it's nothing but a sham... ;)


That's funny considering lot's of illegals have been caught multiple times...but don't let the facts get in the way of your anti-American propaganda.


ID: 676548 · Report as offensive
Profile thorin belvrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 06
Posts: 6418
Credit: 8,893
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 676554 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 12:34:26 UTC - in response to Message 676545.  
Last modified: 12 Nov 2007, 12:34:42 UTC


They want to cut costs? Why don't they begin in the top levels, like CEOs or something?


When you punish people for being successful, you remove all incentive for being successful.

I won't punish people for being successful - I'd punish them for exploiting others.
Why go to medical school for 8 years when your earnings are equal to that of a high school dropout hauling garbage?
Other question: Why go to business school for several years learning how to exploit others instead of doing something useful like trying to WORK?

Account frozen...
ID: 676554 · Report as offensive
Profile Fuzzy Hollynoodles
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 9659
Credit: 251,998
RAC: 0
Message 676628 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 15:54:49 UTC - in response to Message 676455.  


I thought everyone knew that us people who have children get resentful of all those people who have never had children but still expect other people's children to subsidise them through their taxes when they get old.


What about another side to that coin....
I am single, no children. But I still have to pay to support the public school systems every year when I pay my property taxes!


Yes, well said. I don't have children and I have paid income taxes and taxes of interests all my grown up life to support the public daycare, the public schools, the public after-school care, the free educations. I even support the welfare mothers who have several children without having a job to support themselves and their children. I support the subsidies handed out to all families with children under 18, subsidies all families with children are entitled to get, fixed by law, no matter how high their income is, and I support the grants given to all children living at home, the socalled Cafe money, which they are entitled to get no matter how high an income their parents have, a substantial amount of money these young people can go and spend on what they want, clothes, cd's, Friday and Saturday nights out, etc.

I don't think I owe anything to those children who will pay for my very little public retirement pension. Old-age pensioners have less money per month to spend on necessities than the Cafe money for those home living teenagers and post teenagers.

Oh, and I also support the health care system where parents can take their children with the slightest sneeze to have them examined by a doctor just to be told that their child is suffering from a common cold. Not to mention all the infertility treatments couples get here to be able to have children ...


"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

ID: 676628 · Report as offensive
Profile thorin belvrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 06
Posts: 6418
Credit: 8,893
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 676630 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 15:57:34 UTC

Wow - what community-friendly folks we have here... ;)
Account frozen...
ID: 676630 · Report as offensive
Profile Hev
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Jun 05
Posts: 1118
Credit: 598,303
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 676636 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 16:18:44 UTC - in response to Message 676628.  


I thought everyone knew that us people who have children get resentful of all those people who have never had children but still expect other people's children to subsidise them through their taxes when they get old.


What about another side to that coin....
I am single, no children. But I still have to pay to support the public school systems every year when I pay my property taxes!


Yes, well said. I don't have children and I have paid income taxes and taxes of interests all my grown up life to support the public daycare, the public schools, the public after-school care, the free educations. I even support the welfare mothers who have several children without having a job to support themselves and their children. I support the subsidies handed out to all families with children under 18, subsidies all families with children are entitled to get, fixed by law, no matter how high their income is, and I support the grants given to all children living at home, the socalled Cafe money, which they are entitled to get no matter how high an income their parents have, a substantial amount of money these young people can go and spend on what they want, clothes, cd's, Friday and Saturday nights out, etc.

I don't think I owe anything to those children who will pay for my very little public retirement pension. Old-age pensioners have less money per month to spend on necessities than the Cafe money for those home living teenagers and post teenagers.

Oh, and I also support the health care system where parents can take their children with the slightest sneeze to have them examined by a doctor just to be told that their child is suffering from a common cold. Not to mention all the infertility treatments couples get here to be able to have children ...



Presumably you were a child once Fuzzy. Other tax payers will have paid for whatever was necessary for you to grow up, as well as your own family. After all many people believe that "it takes a village to raise a child"
ID: 676636 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 676692 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 17:52:34 UTC - in response to Message 676455.  


I thought everyone knew that us people who have children get resentful of all those people who have never had children but still expect other people's children to subsidise them through their taxes when they get old.


What about another side to that coin....
I am single, no children. But I still have to pay to support the public school systems every year when I pay my property taxes!

..and of course you benefit indirectly from that. Would you really like to live in a society full of uneducated people? Where would the vets come from who look after your kitties? Children are everyone's responsibility whether you chose to have them or not. They are what the world you will live in will become.

It's my generation that you paid for to become your doctors and your nurses, your vets, your pet food makers, you kitty bed designers..and so on...and you need the next generation as well to keep things going when you are no longer able to do things for yourself. Money well spent if you ask me.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 676692 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 676693 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 17:53:59 UTC - in response to Message 676630.  
Last modified: 12 Nov 2007, 17:55:57 UTC

Wow - what community-friendly folks we have here... ;)

Just thank Darwin that it will come out in the wash. ;)
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 676693 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51469
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 676700 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 18:02:28 UTC - in response to Message 676692.  


I thought everyone knew that us people who have children get resentful of all those people who have never had children but still expect other people's children to subsidise them through their taxes when they get old.


What about another side to that coin....
I am single, no children. But I still have to pay to support the public school systems every year when I pay my property taxes!

..and of course you benefit indirectly from that. Would you really like to live in a society full of uneducated people? Where would the vets come from who look after your kitties? Children are everyone's responsibility whether you chose to have them or not. They are what the world you will live in will become.

It's my generation that you paid for to become your doctors and your nurses, your vets, your pet food makers, you kitty bed designers..and so on...and you need the next generation as well to keep things going when you are no longer able to do things for yourself. Money well spent if you ask me.

True enough. I guess the shoe was on the other foot when I was a child, and when I went to work and bought my own home, it was my turn to pay for those behind me. Gotta make sure we have a new generation of properly trained kitty bed designers!!


"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 676700 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 676708 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 18:18:32 UTC - in response to Message 676700.  

True enough. I guess the shoe was on the other foot when I was a child, and when I went to work and bought my own home, it was my turn to pay for those behind me. Gotta make sure we have a new generation of properly trained kitty bed designers!!


*confused* I am not used to people just agreeing with me like that...
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 676708 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 676716 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 18:35:21 UTC - in response to Message 676712.  

*confused* I am not used to people just agreeing with me like that...


He he, you need to get out more...

I am going to have to go and lie down. I feel strange.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 676716 · Report as offensive
Profile Darth Dogbytes™
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 03
Posts: 7512
Credit: 2,021,148
RAC: 0
United States
Message 676718 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 18:39:13 UTC


Account frozen...
ID: 676718 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5

Message boards : Politics : New law targets illegal immigrants...


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.