Hi. My name is... Robert Smith

Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 7 months ago to The Gulch: Introductions
585 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I'm very happy to have landed in the Gulch... I hope to get some insights for when I watch and discuss the movie.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 7 months ago
    Conclusion part 2:

    Some questions:
    What equality of bargaining do you gain when negotiating with a sole proprietor over a representative of a corporation? What power does a corporation, which is nothing more than a group of people have over the market wages that a sole proprietor does not have? Don’t corporations compete against one another, just as sole proprietors do?

    How is acting as a union, mob or collective gain equality at the bargaining table? Doesn’t it gain more than equality since it gains the power of intimidation/force? Can’t the unions’ shutdown the business possibly bankrupting it while the corporations are tied up negotiating and can’t use force to employ anyone?

    What power does a corporation, unless protected by government cronies, have to nullify competition?

    Why is a collective of workers granted the use of intimidation, force/ strikes the power to destroy a business? Why is a poor person willing to take a job at a lesser remuneration intimidated at the picket line and called a scab? Is the union worker simply by belonging to a union the best candidate for the job and doesn’t the employer have the right to hire whoever they wish? Don’t many unions protect the slackers and thus burden the company with competitive disadvantage?


    Why should anyone consider entry level jobs paying what the market offers as anything more than a rung on the ladder? Why is flipping burgers a career? Why should we consider flipping burgers or any low skilled job to be a career rather than an opportunity to build work experience and learn something that leads to a career?

    Why should we believe that every low skilled job should provide a living wage? What jobs if any are in your estimation undeserving? What about the kid who needs a part time job after school, shovels sidewalks or mows a few lawns? Where does it end? What about the kid with the lemonade stand?

    In my estimation the problem is not that some businesses pay too little. It is that so many good paying jobs have been destroyed or moved offshore by non market forces, that people now look at every entry level job as if it is all they can find or aspire to. That is the individuals’ mistake. This is the land of opportunity. This is of course exacerbated by the government policies, union policies and the misdirection from same.

    So far I have never seen anyone forced to accept a job at McDonalds, yet they continue to find willing workers. You may say, “that is all the workers can find.” To which I say “nonsense.” One of my most successful friends ( a guy who is dyslexic and barely passed high school) started mowing lawns with a push mower and built a successful landscaping business over time without a bit of capital or having to borrow a dime. I have run a successful high tech machine shop for longer and he will retire first. His overhead was low and his risk was also.

    If people are stuck in dead end jobs, it is because they aren’t taking advantage of all the opportunities available, (albeit those opportunities are not what they once were due to poor governance) or they are not capable of improving their skills. Isn’t it better to have some jobs for those who need only a starting point for work experience, something to put on their resume, and what about opportunities for the mentally challenged? If I can pay someone who is mentally handicapped $10 per hour because that is his production level or $20 per hour to someone who is capable of double the production shouldn’t there be room for both?

    Now this is all straight from my experience, memory and understanding of business and economics. I have not simply repeated other’s talking points and I could quote many great economists, but I think I would be remiss if I didn’t point to a certain school of economics, namely Austrian Economics which over time has demonstrated and predicted quite accurately the conditions we continue to experience. Unfortunately the Keynesians have been too influential… People are all too happy to blame other’s for their circumstances and believe it is the “man” who is holding them back; that the rich get rich at the expense of the poor; that all workers are offering fair exchange while corporations are all prospering at the workers expense, and that make work and simply printing money is sustainable.

    The only entities that universally prosper (and do not offer fair exchange) at the expense of the workers are the government and the unions.

    I do not wish to argue with you. You seem quite immovable in your union support despite the contrary facts and perspectives offered to you. I will be happy to provide book titles and authors who can elaborate and make the case better than I, if you so desire.

    Thanks for shaking things up. :)

    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
      Excellent post. The part that seems to be bothersome is the notion that folks who can be pushed around should be without any recourse. Unions aren't just about $$$... It also has to do with safety, working conditions, etc.

      Rob
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 7 months ago
        Hello Rob,
        As long as the courts can award damages and the science, facts, and law are on the side of the plaintiff, there is recourse. I cannot dispute that once there was certain need for unions. There was a time when people were knowingly asked to work in conditions detrimental to their health, without proper safety measures. However, in our litigious society today things have swung the opposite direction just as often and employers are paying just to make lawsuits go away or workman's comp claims that are fraudulent.
        It is not in the self interest of any employer to bear the cost of injured workers.
        O.A.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
          From O.A.: "It is not in the self interest of any employer to bear the cost of injured workers."

          Another good reason for universal health care. Workers shouldn't be dependent upon employers when they get sick. It's another hold corporations have over workers.

          Rob
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by havefaithwwjd 10 years, 7 months ago
            But I think it is in the best interest of any employer to bear the cost of injured workers because if the worker gets sick he or she cannot work. If they cannot work they get fired and that would make the worker angry. The worker would tell all his or her friends about how they got fired because their employer wouldn't provide health care. After this happens a few times the word would spread and then people wouldn't want to work their because they had heard about 'some other guys problem'. After a time the company goes under because they cannot get anyone to work for them.
            Not to mention that rather than it being another hold corporations have over workers it would be another hold the gov. has over the people.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 7 months ago
              Greetings havefaithwwjd,
              I see what you are saying, but I'm sure you would agree, it is truly in the employers best interest to avoid the injuries in the first place by preventive measures. Restated: The employer has an incentive to avoid the scenario you have described by providing a healthy, safe environment.
              Respectfully,
              O.A.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 7 months ago
            I wouldn't go that far. :)
            I like the idea of universal health care. It is a compassionate ideal. Unfortunately I have zero faith in a system instituted and managed by our Federal gov't. History is a good teacher. In the end it will be more expensive, add to the national debt, invade your privacy, will not be universal, will provide worse care, be fraught with fraud and hasten the next economic collapse.
            It is much cheaper for an employer to provide safe conditions and avoid injuries because of lawsuits, absenteeism and training etc. Whether you buy your own insurance because your employer pays you enough to handle it yourself, your employer offers you his choice of health care options, or the government provides it, is not a factor in regards to employer costs related to unsafe working conditions.
            O.A.




            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
              "Unfortunately I have zero faith in a system instituted and managed by our Federal gov't."

              Ahhhhh, so might one conclude that your "faith" is put in some fat cat in a limo who has given instructions to someone without a medical degree to tell your doctor what they can do for you?

              What a system.

              Rob
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago
                "fat cat" or 3500 hundred pages. hmmmm
                because both control the doctor patient relationship
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
                  Diference:

                  Fat cat sucks all he can for himself, his cronies, and the stockholders.

                  Civil servant is pretty much on a fixed salary, and under little pressure to "make money." There is little personal incentive for them to deny care.

                  Rob

                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 7 months ago
                    Investigate the IPAB.
                    http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/hea...
                    It is a board of directors that will decide just the same , only you will not be able to sue the gov't like you could an insurance company. If you do not like the policies of the insurance company or trust them to pay what you think is deserved you can find a competitor. The gov't has no equal.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
                      "If you do not like the policies of the insurance company or trust them to pay what you think is deserved you can find a competitor."

                      Doesn't work for those who work for an employer. They are all pretty much the same. It's just another link in the chain that ties individuals to corporations.

                      "The gov't has no equal."

                      Law suits can be originated against the government. Happens all the time with the most obvious being police brutality.

                      However, government had a huge advantage over insurance companies in that they can track outcomes and understand what works for most people, not what can minimize costs, although usually early intervention will be a huge help in mitigating costs.

                      Nothing is ever going to be perfect. Insurance companies will squirm to get out of paying, and some folks will cheat the government.

                      Overall, as was pointed out by another poster, is what is the best deal for all Americans.

                      Rob
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 7 months ago
                        Hello Rob,
                        Where is the government run organization that a private sector couldn't run more efficaciously? This is not to say that there are no extraordinary constitutionally enumerated responsibilities which only the government can operate. Insurance is not one. The government does not have the same restraints as the private sector. The private sector must remain solvent, while the government can print money or overtax and in so doing bankrupt the nation with each successive program.

                        If your employer doesn't offer insurance to your satisfaction, find another job, negotiate with your employer for more pay in lieu of insurance and purchase your own, or accept the insurance your employer provides and purchase supplemental policies to cover the gaps you perceive. You are free.

                        When the insurance companies deal with you unfairly you have the government to appeal to if it is operating as designed. If the government tells you your mother is too old to justify that knee replacement, who will you appeal to? You will have to appeal to the only institution with no superior…no competition... the institution which by virtue of forcing and enforcing the institution of this policy against the will of a huge portion of the American citizens is committing tyranny and calling it democracy. The end result is the elimination of choices and competition, a loss of innovation, freedom and opportunity.

                        What is best for Americans is congruent with what is best for the individual. I am not concerned with what is best for all Americans, when equal opportunity is the best man can hope for. Equal outcome is folly. Even if you believe that universal coverage could and should be accomplished, why couldn't something be done for the 15% who were uninsured without upsetting the apple cart for the 85%? What is moral about penalizing/impacting those who have already done their duty to themselves and others by taking care of themselves and not being a burden on their fellow citizens?

                        You seem to have faith that the government is made of incorruptible people while all insurance companies are run by crooks...

                        “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?” Frederic Bastiat

                        O.A.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
                          From O.A.: "If the government tells you your mother is too old to justify that knee replacement, who will you appeal to?"

                          At 82 & 83 mother-in-law got a double knee replacement (each a year apart).

                          At 86 she died of congestive heart failure that was diagnosed before her knee problems.

                          Medicare / Medicaid gave her a higher quality of life.

                          The false "death panels" are an outright lie.

                          Rob
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 7 months ago
                            Rob,

                            Foreign nations with national healthcare are no panacea. They have many problems you are overlooking, like the long and often life threatening/ death sentence, waiting periods for critical tests like MRIs. The destruction of the capitalist medical system we now have will result in less advancement of medicine. The other nations with national systems are not innovators; they ride upon our coattails without investment in R&D.

                            If medicaid is so wonderful, then why didn’t the government just make it available to those in need and leave the rest of us alone?
                            Max Baucus, the author of the plan is calling it a train wreck.
                            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17...
                            Obama’s hometown paper, The Chicago Tribune is now recognizing the folly.
                            http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-...
                            The IPAB is a bureaucratic death panel. They will decide who shall receive benefits and who shall not. Even many democratic leaders are in recognition of this. http://www.lifenews.com/2013/08/08/democ...
                            When you have choice and are not coerced /forced you have choice and competition in your insurance/healthcare needs.
                            “… an attempt to achieve the good by physical force is a monstrous contradiction which negates morality at its root by destroying a man’s capacity to recognize the good, i.e., his capacity to value. Force invalidates and paralyzes a man’s judgment, demanding that he act against it, thus rendering him morally impotent. A value which one is forced to accept at the price of surrendering one’s mind, is not a value to anyone; the forcibly mindless can neither judge nor choose nor value. An attempt to achieve the good by force is like an attempt to provide a man with a picture gallery at the price of cutting out his eyes. Values cannot exist (cannot be valued) outside the full context of man’s life, needs, goals, and knowledge.” CUI “What Is Capitalism” p. 23.
                            O.A.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
                              Obama care ain't perfect, but it's better than the mess we have now.

                              My Doctor still has to call the insurance company for approval of some treatments. How is that different from your ALLEGED death panels?

                              Rob
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 7 months ago
                                You say it is better, but how do you know until you have suffered it. If your insurance company does not approve of your treatment you have a chance at legal recourse. You may even have picked the wrong insurance co./coverage. Your odds against the government vs. your odds against the insurance company with the possible assistance of your government... Insurance companies are highly regulated. Who will watch the watchers? Our POTUS will not even be regulated by the Constitution...
                                When our federal government has a record of bankrupt programs,malfeasance and corruption why would you entrust them with your health... your most valuable asset?
                                There are market solutions, but the power seekers are not served by these options.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                                • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
                                  How can you make predictions when ALREADY other countries are enjoying success?

                                  Scare tactics are wearing thin. Look what we got out of hysteria: Patriot Act.

                                  Rob
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • khalling replied 10 years, 7 months ago
                                  • ObjectiveAnalyst replied 10 years, 7 months ago
                          • Posted by Rocky_Road 10 years, 7 months ago
                            They are a necessary part of the Affordable Care Act, and will be all too apparent when (or, if) the Act ever gets into full swing.

                            More patients...fewer doctors...budget in the 'red'...Medicare cuts...government flash flood of paperwork.

                            Stay tuned, sports fans!
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • -1
                              Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
                              ROFL.... You should read "True Believers" by Eric Hoffer.

                              Please try to learn something besides the screeches from the extreme right wing.

                              Rob
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by Rocky_Road 10 years, 7 months ago
                        " "If you do not like the policies of the insurance company or trust them to pay what you think is deserved you can find a competitor." "

                        "Doesn't work for those who work for an employer."

                        You have always had the right to shop for an insurance plan, outside of your employer's benefits. No one has ever tried to stop you....

                        Ironically, under ObamaCare the above stated 'rights' will all but disappear. Obama has publicly stated that he expected our health care system to become his "single payer" dream within 10 years. You will have seen another of your freedoms to choose gone forever.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
                          Nope. I've chosen Obamacare as the provider for America. So have millions of others, and more millions in other countries are succeeding with less expensive and better health care.

                          Don't like it? YOU choose someplace else. I don't have to choose options just to please you. You have choices too.

                          Rob
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
                          I can't "choose" now with in and out of plan doctors.

                          And, if it works out our health care will improve and cost less as it has in other countries. Yup, a most competitive notion. Cost less and work better.

                          Why are you opposed to that when it's already demonstrated in other countries?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ Tap2Golf 10 years, 7 months ago
                            You get what you pay for. Should you have a medical problem, have you considered how long you might have to wait for a surgery? The wait is common under socialized medicine. Check into it. What's the good of good medicine if you die waiting? You would be ready to pay your last $$ while you are waiting. That's not allowed. Please get all your facts together before you evaluate. http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/op...
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by Rocky_Road 10 years, 7 months ago
                            As of today, you can go to ANY doctor that you want...if they are accepting new patients.

                            All of your claims of being unable to choose your own doctor, really amount to your not willing to foot the bill.

                            Not the same argument, is it?
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by LetsShrug 10 years, 7 months ago
                            Because my healthcare is none of the gov's business...the gov isn't supposed to force people to pay for a product or service that they do not want....and MY healthcare shouldn't be YOUR problem...and vise versa! Why doesn't it bother you that the friggin' gov will have a say in your health?? What is wrong with you? (Besides the delusional stuff I mean.)
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • -1
                              Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
                              Lets says: "Because my healthcare is none of the gov's business..."

                              Sure is, particularly if you have HIV or TB.

                              "the gov isn't supposed to force people to pay for a product or service that they do not want...."

                              Sure can. I didn't want a war in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya. But, I was forced to pay for it.

                              "and MY healthcare shouldn't be YOUR problem..."

                              It is when you can spread something. It is when you can sue and sue and sue for injuries that would otherwise be covered. That's particularly if you are involved in an accident with some part of government. They I have to pay for your health. (Punitive damages are different.)

                              Question asked: "Why doesn't it bother you that the friggin' gov will have a say in your health??"

                              Never said it didn't bother me. Please quit making stuff up. It simply bothers me less than some greedy fat cat scrimping on my care so he can get a bigger car, or a flashier uniform for his chuffer.

                              Rob
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago
                                I don't care for the either/or argument. If we actually followed the rule of law, an insurance exec decision to sell your information would land you in jail. Universal healthcare as written in Obamacare would have been overturned by the Supreme Court. We are not supposed to be a Democracy. Why oh why do you NEVER mention the Constitution, Rob?
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by LetsShrug 10 years, 7 months ago
                                For his chuffer??
                                Not everyone has a communicable disease...you're wearing out that argument...put contagion aside and explain why your health record is the gov's business? Why? You're the one arguing in favor of it so you must be okay with it...otherwise you're conflicted.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                                • -1
                                  Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
                                  Not "conflicted." Just sure that information about my health care isn't in better or worse hands than it is now with private health carriers.

                                  Don't you understand just how screwed up the current system you arguing for is? Don't you understand that other countries have succeeded in lowering health care costs AND they are offering better health care?

                                  If you want better from competition then it's demonstrated by bunches of governments that universal health care is better.

                                  Rob
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LarryT 10 years, 7 months ago
    Rand is the US Constitution - in less detail. the most important rights are property and contract. WE want the equality of opportunity, not the equality of results. The latter would be socialism, and not good for anyone, morally, intellectually, philosophically, or economically. If you want to join a union, fine, but Right to Work Laws make sense. Let everyone bargain. Unfortunately, with the rest of the World 'catching up" economically, this does mean you had better have super skills or your wages do fall. There is no solution except get the skills or come up with a new idea for a business, or, leave with lower wages. For many of us, money does not mean everything. For others, striving for wealth is important. Both are just fine. Read the Constitution. Read Barnett's "Restoring the Lost Constitution...". Best, LarryT
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 7 months ago
      That was perfect Larry. I'm surprised no one else has given this a point or at least commented on it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LetsShrug 10 years, 7 months ago
        I think it got lost in the BoboRob shuffle of things. Thanks for pointing it out. :)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Rocky_Road 10 years, 7 months ago
          Daniel Boone would have got lost in here!

          Thanks for sending up the flare, Rozar!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
            Actually many would argue about what "rights" are important. Some like freedom of speech (a particular favorite of mine), the Second Amendment is important to many, and of course many will want freedom of and from religion.

            The key thing to remember is that we don't live in a monotheistic (in the context of what / who we look up to) but many people are driven by things besides Ayn Rand.

            Rob
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LarryT 10 years, 7 months ago
    Ayn Rand is the US Constitution - and that's just fine. She and the Constitution make it simple: the most important rights are property and contract, and we want equality of opportunity, but could never, ever get equality of results - nor would we want to: where would the incentive be to be entrepreneurial? To be anything? To be everything we can be? Right to Work Laws make sense, because everyone should have the right to join or not join an organization - or take a position. Yes, the 14th Amendment was necessary, but, we have it already. Another great Book: Barnett's 'Restoring the Lost Constitution...". I actually read Rand first, but she talks the basics of the Constitution. Also, get Cato's copy of the Constitution and study the Preface. Ten "reads" and you'll be an expert. Also, know the meaning of a republic versus a democracy. This is very important, also. Best, Larry.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rick1217 10 years, 7 months ago
    This was stated very far down this dialogue: Do you want America to compete in a far market in the auto industry? Great. Then you should be a strong advocate for universal health care administered by Uncle Sam.

    Why? BECAUSE the Japanese, Canadian, England, and the rest of the manufacturers don't have to dangle heath insurance (and those expenses) to assure their employees are healthy.

    Consequently they can sell their cars at a more competitive price. AND THERE'S MORE! Because their economy spends less on Health Care per person than we do they get a lot more bang for their buck.

    Rob
    This simply is not true. ALL Honda products from motorcycles to cars and trucks are made in Marysville OH and EXPORTED to Japan. Toyota builds and then exports the Cami in Georgetown KY; Subaru in IN, Mercedes in Alabama; BMW in SC, Lexus north of Toronto, Suzuki in IN, Mitsubishi in Illinois, All Japanese design centers are on the West Coast. All Nissans in TN. And this is not just in the last 10 years. Honda came to Marysville OH some 25 years ago to build motorcycles. I spent 35 years of my life working with each of these companies plus the once American Big 3. In my between college semester days I was a UAW member--had to be in order to get a job at this factory. The stupidity, "get-away with", "get around the system" of Unions is found in their members work ethic (little to none. I have seen 12 men assigned by shear Union force to a work station for ONE. So while the ONE works, many sleep in the racks or spend the day in the breakroom or as most do leave and go to their "real 40 hour job" and are checked out by buddies. It happened far too many times in Buick City (Flint MI--and we know that Flint is as violent and dead as Detroit for Buick is gone). Any unionized company cannot make a profit when the UNION leadership and members have no work ethic, greed, mooching. Working my way up to Executive and negotiating many contracts, running a Union plant is easy when Management demands that the rules of the contract be carried out. Far too often, the contract is simply not followed by the membership and/or the leadership; but when management reads from the contract, the Union has lost its bark and bite. When that happens it has been my experience that the end result of management using the contract will actually create a mutual respect attitude and production happens. Moochers then become Producers and at least in my companies, once that culture is established, and it does not take long, then management will ignore the contract in one vital area: pay. Because production bonuses, performance measurements rewards, profit rewards are then introduced and soon everybody profits and is rewarded for their own ability--but always as a team. This is the glue of efficient production, quality improvement and cost reduction: a group of individuals working together for the benefit for each other. The rewards go to the individual who contributed to the result made by the Team. In short, everybody wins including the stockholders and consumers. Greatest thing I have ever seen; the free-enterprise system. Rand is correct in her from the clouds view with strong dividing lines never changing. Everything changes. Rand taught how to avoid; Milton Friedman taught me how to make money without greed or embarrassment. What we have today in companies is pure greed. Can you imagine what the dividends could be in any company if their management staff did not take almost 5-10% of revenue in salary, bonuses, pension, personal expenses, and perks. Today, very few people understand (for the majority do not know of Atlas nor Milton) what is ultimate end will be. Willie leaning against the Comet with its light shining into the darkness of nothing crying, Don't let it go! When it was all gone! One thing about Atlas that I have believed for 35 years, the end is the opposite of the book. For who is going to re-build: John Galt. Whose morals and values will you have to except: Mine (from the speech). Whose ethic: Mine. You will praise ME for what you did not praise me for 12 years ago (implied). I will not live under any ONE or selected elite VALUES, MORALS or ETHIC. Nor will I live under an oligarchy; nor socialist. I chose Freedom and will die for it. Somebody also mentioned the Declaration in his response using it has a justification for whatever. No where in the Constitution, which is Law NOT the Declaration, does it say anything that the Reasons for Revolution stated in the Declaration. Did the Founders understand the principle of life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness (no guarantees--this was the magic that was America, you could pursue happiness defined by YOU not others), of course, they did. Thus comes from whence cometh the Power---The People. Is it perfect? Almost but where it was weak amendments made it strong; and where it was strong, other amendments betrayed it. And so it goes, August 15, 2013.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 7 months ago
    Hello Boborobdos,

    Wow!
    You sure have made a big entrance!

    Consider the notion that this is a site where people are dedicated to the premise that collectivism and communism are taboo. Unions are a form of both.

    You are looking for answers, but you do not seem to fully appreciate the benefit and power of the market. Unions and government manipulations (special interest regulations and cronyism) are contrary to market forces. They are thus destined to ultimate failure. The market always wins eventually.

    In making the argument that McDonalds should pay more, you are negating the market and their competition. McDonalds must compete for business against other fast food chains. If the wages are raised it will have to come from somewhere. The owners may raise prices if they think it will not adversely impact sales or they may in fact take a hit if they feel the profit is still sufficient. The franchise owner or corporation representative will decide how and where, like it or not. If the wages demanded are beyond the point where the investors/owners feel the return is too small they will close shop. So much for the jobs the workers priced themselves out of.

    Likewise, the businesses owners must compete for workers. If there were not enough people willing to work for the wages offered, all like businesses would be forced to raise wages. This is how the wages are set. The market wins. If the wages offered are too low then some other business offering better wages will attract the better workers and prosper while the business offering low wages will suffer and likely fail if enough good workers are not willing to accept the terms. The market works.

    If you believe that all fast food restaurants are colluding to set the wages/ prices then you have a lawsuit, if you can prove it.

    If prices are raised unnaturally by unions instead of market forces then the poor will suffer the most as those prices adversely impact them to greater degree than the affluent. They need cheap food options. The poor will also have fewer entry level jobs available as fewer workers will move on leaving openings for new trainees, and the management struggling under the greater burden will do all it can to reduce costs by hiring more part time workers or reducing staff through automation and any other way they can conceive of. Additionally anyone contemplating the investment in more of these types of businesses will evaporate once the profit margin is diminished.

    If one truly believes that the market will bear higher prices in the face of the other franchises competition, in this country, you are free to start your own business and compete. If you are right you will win and put McDonalds out of business. This is the reality that every fast food chain (for that matter any business) lives within. At any moment if they do not keep their prices and wages in line with the market they risk failure. They price and pay in recognition that at any moment some other competitor new or old may try to squeeze them out.

    End part 1.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    point for the last part. actually we do have stats. and for those countries, wait times for time sensitive treatments are lengthy. Often patients with means plan vacations to other countries to get treatments/procedures quickly. Long wait times, medication shortages, talent shortages.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -1
      Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
      You got it backwards, khalling... Folks are LEAVING America for treatment. Only the extremely wealthy foreigners are forgoing treatment in their home countries in favor of America.

      "Once only something done by the incredibly wealthy, medical tourism is "really turning into something people understand," said Josef Woodman, CEO of Patients Beyond Borders, which produces guidebooks on medical travel. The organization estimates that in 2012, 600,000 people will travel abroad (from America) for treatment -- a number anticipated to grow 15 to 20 percent annually as boomers age."

      Folks around here seem to like the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/04...

      Rob
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago
        Yes, US citizens are taking advantage of medical travel. But again, a not insignificant part of the cost is due to government regulation and intervention. Their decision is COST based. I disagree that only the very wealthy citizens of a socialized medicine country leave for treatment. It is a common practice in Canada, for example. In this case it is care OPTIONS and TIMELY delivery of medical services. apples and oranges
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
          Show me a chart like the AARP had for the number of folks you claim are coming to America because their system isn't satisfactory. Don't just claim it. That is getting very old.

          Rob
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago
            I can't ever decide if you are worth giving research to, Rob. Here is the average wait times 92 compared with 2010 in Canada:
            http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedF...
            :here are oncology drug approvals comparing can v US vs EU:
            http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-...
            You can also find the info supporting the AARP graphs at Fraser Institute. What is crucial here and supports my statement- it is not how often Canadians cross to US for care, it is how CRITICAL the time and Talent issues are. 50K coming over for critical care or serious operations is different from only 50K coming over for statin drugs.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
              And how many Americans go to India and Canada for their treatment and drugs?

              BTW, the care is still there, it's just that some folks are more willing to PAY extra to jump the line. If you can afford it you are welcome.

              Rob
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago
                yes. for COST! You want to give absolutely 0 credit to the fact that the overwhelming science and technology originate here! why not Canada, Europe, GB, Switzerland? sure, some driving tech comes from other places-but overwhelming HERE. well, in the US. I'm not there.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
                  From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Scie...

                  "Israel has led the world in stem-cell research papers per capita since 2000.[339] In addition, Israeli universities are among 100 top world universities in mathematics (Hebrew University, TAU and Technion), physics (TAU, Hebrew University and Weizmann Institute of Science), chemistry (Technion and Weizmann Institute of Science), computer science (Weizmann Institute of Science, Technion, Hebrew University, TAU and BIU) and economics (Hebrew University and TAU).[340]"

                  Rob
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
                    And the others have also been making advances. America doesn't have an exclusive on excellence anymore.

                    Rob
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago
                      agreed. that is because we are less free. For example, on stem cell research the US decided to make that a big political hot button. so universities who are dependent on govt funding, nudged away from that area during the last decade.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
                        Yup, another government failing is the issue of medical pot. It is certainly cheaper than many pharmaceuticals, it's literally a weed, yet government insists we pay more. I'll bet that when they have to finance it they will start looking at cost effective alternatives like other countries have done.

                        Dr. Gupta: "Most frightening to me is that someone dies in the United States every 19 minutes from a prescription drug overdose, mostly accidental. Every 19 minutes. It is a horrifying statistic. As much as I searched, I could not find a documented case of death from marijuana overdose."

                        http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gup...

                        Less expensive & better.

                        Isn't that what Ayn Rand is about?

                        Rob
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 7 months ago
                          It's exactly what she is about, and stop using her name as if we have to agree with everything she said, I form my own opinions. But you can't call it a government failing just because you understand it and the majority doesn't. From what I gather your philosophy dictates that you're a part of this society and as such if you don't like the anti marijuana laws move somewhere else. Right? This is the problem with your basic premise that right and wrong have degrees.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
              And the comparisons to the way it is today in America?

              Rob
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago
                I have not suggested our healthcare is unbroken. I am trying to figure out how to tie one end of the bungee cord around your...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • -1
                  Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
                  Meanwhile you continue to fall.

                  Open your eyes and see the light. America needs universal health care just like the other civilized countries have found out.

                  Either that or you can choose to opt out of America. If you are so superior with your pure beliefs I'm sure you can succeed elsewhere. If not, at least America won't be bothered by you and your selfish misunderstood beliefs.

                  Rob
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago
                    If I am anything at all, it must first be to myself. "My life and love of it"
                    open my eyes and see the light? truly, bring the snakes out and sing to them in gibberish
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ kathywiso 10 years, 7 months ago
                    There can be no compromise between freedom and government controls. To accept "just a few controls' is to surrender the principle of inalienable individual rights and to substitute for it the principle of the government's unlimited, arbitrary power, thus delivering oneself into gradual enslavement. As an example of this process, observe the present domestic policy of the United States.

                    I disagree with you, and if you have read the "Virtue of Selfishness," you know exactly what that means..



                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
                      "Virtue of Selfishness"

                      Is that the one where she proclaims that homosexuals are mutant symptoms of a sick society?

                      Surely outdated.

                      Rob
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago
                        she was not a god-she was a person. Her body of work far outweighs any of these mistakes.Bobby Kennedy offed Marilyn Monroe and you still revere him.
                        Newton experimented with alchemy, Feynman was married three times, Dickens was a racist, Mother Theresa lied about her miracles, Gandhi forgot to eat that time, JFK had multiple affairs, our first black president did too...
                        there's enough of that kinda stuff to liberally hand around. A is still A
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
                          From khalling: "Bobby Kennedy offed Marilyn Monroe and you still revere him."

                          Why do you continue to make stuff up? I haven't posted anything about Kennedy... Any of them.

                          "Newton experimented with alchemy, Feynman was married three times,"

                          So? Why should I care? I'm not quoting them to support my point. You did quote a particular book and I pointed out how outdated it is. You are correct, Ayn was a human being. She should not be taken literally, and many of her words are twisted, as are the words of the christian bible of the right wing.

                          " Dickens was a racist, Mother Theresa lied about her miracles, Gandhi forgot to eat that time,"

                          Sheesh, so?

                          "JFK had multiple affairs" ROFL... It's been confirmed that Kennedy in addition to painful back problems also had Addison's Disease. It's unlikely he had much of a sex life at all. But, again, why should I care?

                          " our first black president did too... " ROFL... Still can't get over Bill Clinton huh? Remember he left Bush a budget surplus that was squandered.

                          Please bring us some relevant facts.

                          Rob
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I've made many calls to my ins. company and never had to deal with India. The ins. co. is NOT the gov...I GIVE the Ins. permission to view my records NOT the gov. What's your definition of a fat cat anyway? Someone who EARNS a good living? How DARE they? And I've never had anything denied either. Both of my sons' lives have been saved by "fat cats" and I'm okay with them having a bigger house and a nicer car than I have. They provided a very valuable service that I can never properly repay them for. And thanks to people who think like you do I will soon have lower level medical personnel to deal with....all the smarter ones will bolt the hell out of bo care. Thanks!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
      Lets says: "....all the smarter ones will bolt the hell out of bo care."

      Again, absolutely false. Take a look at what's actually going on. And as you look at consider all the fine doctors who work for the military, Catholic Health Care, and the Shriners. Why are you so insulting to them for not going out and grubbing what they can? Do you think they are inferior doctors?

      Rob (see below)

      "one inevitably tells me of the doctor he or she knows who ran away from Canada to practice in the United States. Evidently, there’s a general perception that practicing medicine in the United States is much more satisfying than in Canada.

      Problem is, it’s just not so. Consider this chart:"

      And you can find that chart at: http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/gov...

      Where do you get all that misinformation from?

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 7 months ago
    I've just landed here and I've already found some excitement, hoooaah!

    But I'm struck by the number of seemingly inconsistent arguments/beliefs expressed over the last several days in this thread. I didn't imagine a 'Galt's Gulch' page would attract this apparent level of collectivists thought.

    I'm thoroughly familiar with and repulsed by those thought processes from a life spent struggling and even fighting for my personal individual rights and responsibilities and as an employer, for those same rights for my employees. The sheer arrogance of those that would attempt to argue for the right to take from me or to force me into some course of action, for the collective good or the benefit of those that aren't willing to work or study as hard as I, or have the personal integrity to pursue better and smarter ways and means in the face of opposition from unions and government in all directions, is analogous to the class cheater peaking over my shoulder during a test or the mugger on the sidewalk wanting my money and watch.

    The lack of pride and respect in one's self almost strikes me as an insanity. How anyone can find any personal satisfaction in taking from or applying violence to another is beyond me and is so foreign to my belief system, that I wonder how I arrived on this planet.

    I'll continue to watch this site with interest looking for reason and personal confidence.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ldy 10 years, 7 months ago
      Smart people like u are the minority. The majority cannot comprehend a complex science or skill so they are trapped in minimum wage jobs. Even if they studied computer engineering every day hard, they cannot understand snything. Think back in your childhood in your classroom; what percentage of the class was excellent? And what percentage was just dragging their bodies to class without learning anyhhing? And what percentage were just lazy? U cannot beat laziness and that is a fact. I live in Europe and here it is even worse; the parents support their sons and daughters so they dont have to work in low pay jobs. An example that hsppened to a girl friend of mine with astonishing looks she is 26. So she found a secretary position for only 800 dollars a month. When her father learned about it, he told her i will give you the 800 lousy dollars and you will not have on top of it some idiot boss to grab your ass as well! And i am tslking about Greece, that is the country i live in. You cannot beat a mentality like this.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 7 months ago
        Idy: We have a comedian in this country that did a great spiel based on 'You can't fix stupid.' By the way, thanks for assuming that I'm a smart person. I don't know that is as true as much as I'm just a person that loves to learn. There are parts of my life in which I'm lazy, but I'
        ve used that to my advantage as a prod to find smarter and less sweat inducing ways to accomplish things.
        In many ways, I sympathize with the father in your story. But his daughter might well have learned a valuable lesson from her $800/mo job. That of work ethic and also that of the need to better her qualifications for better possibilities.
        But all of that said, you can beat laziness. We did it in the 90's for a short while, by reducing, eliminating, and making it tougher to live on just a welfare basis and income. Large numbers of previous 'welfare' (lazy) families got up and went to work and drastically improved theirs and their families' lives and contributions.
        But the welfare system has gradually crept back in and under Obama it has grown dramatically.
        All of us in the Western World are in the fight of our lives against 'collectivism' and 'socialism'.
        But Atlas and AR can be used to illustrate that we will win eventually. The producers, when driven far enough will find their own Galt's Gulch.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
          "You can't fix stupid," Ron White, part of Jeff Foxworthy's stable of very funny people..

          "Intelligence" is quite interesting, but the most insightful book I've seen is, "The Bell Curve."

          It's also very relative. My dog was a puppy in a Spanish household. He understands Spanish. I struggle with the English I was born into. The dog just picked it up. It isn't conversational, but he does listen and understand commands.

          So, in the context of language is my dog smarter than I am? (Don't need to answer that.)

          In fact I absolutely marvel at folks who speak more than one language, particularly if they learned another language as an adult.

          Rob
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by DragonLady 10 years, 7 months ago
      Welcome to the fray Zen! Pride, sadly, is considered a fault not something to be worked at (as in pride in our work, pride in our success, pride in raising thinking, responsible children, etc.) I agree with you, it's insanity. As for the views expressed, I find the various views and opinions thought provoking, even though I may not agree with all of them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Jb32828 10 years, 7 months ago
    Quote: No we can not agree. Individuals have absolutely zero power in negotiations with corporations. Why do you object to an equal playing field?

    Maybe in the world of unskilled or "experienced" labor. As a high level network engineer I have no problem negotiating pay with any corporation for our mutual benefit. And I typically win. I have never seen anyone who is capable of solving complex problems at extremely high levels who is out of work or underpaid.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
      Shucks Jb, if everyone were like you there wouldn't be a problem.

      Rob
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 7 months ago
        What is stopping anyone? I don't see any real barriers to getting higher education or formal training if one has the attitude. There are a plethora of scholarships and grants for all ages and backgrounds.

        No, the real barrier is the low-skill worker thinking the value of their labor is higher than it actually is and being upset with this reality. So instead of getting better skills, they complain to elected representatives who try to boost the minimum wage, which only ends up putting these very same low-skill workers out of a job in the first place!

        Want to have the power to negotiate your own salary? All that is required is self-discipline and hard work.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Rocky_Road 10 years, 7 months ago
          "No, the real barrier is the low-skill worker thinking the value of their labor is higher than it actually is and being upset with this reality. So instead of getting better skills, they complain to elected representatives who try to boost the minimum wage....!"

          There lies the rub!

          The very representatives that you mention should do an 180, and look instead into the eyes of these unskilled workers, and challenge them to use their opportunities to improve their skills (read: value) and improve their lives.

          Everyone wins!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Rocky_Road 10 years, 7 months ago
        And if you got off of your premise that workers are incapable of thinking for themselves, and are shuffling through their work shifts in ball and chains, you might see that there isn't any problem.

        You give no credit for any degree of self determination to low skilled workers...they have to be 'protected', and coddled by some union boss (who probably plays golf at the same country club that the CEO plays at).

        Your posted impression of the helplessness (and mindlessness) of workers is so antithetical to what Ayn Rand believes, that you can only be here to phish for argument.

        You've met your goal...what next?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by brian 10 years, 7 months ago
    Rob, here in west Texas, McDonald's pays a starting wage of $14 per hour. Walmart is paying around $17 per hour. Why? Because our economy here is booming and employees are hard to come by. Oil field workers are making in the $70K+ range and if you're an experienced driller or consultant then you are making way more than $150k per year. People are moving here by the tens of thousands a year, massive new homes are going up all over the place and daily you see people driving Benz', BMW, and huge, expensive, trucks and SUVs. It is the just reward of a strong, free, economy.

    Trying to force the market into some false premise that they need to pay more because you feel sorry for someone is fallacy. The market will decide. If someone doesn't want to make $10 per hour flipping burgers then they will get some skills and knowledge and find other work that is more lucrative. If you want jobs like McDonald's to be the long-term types of jobs that people retire from someday then you are causing way more damage to those people than anything else would. Jobs like that should be a stepping stone to bigger better things. I know because I worked at McDonald's, Pizza Hut, a gopher for a welder, mowed lawns, a roofer, waited tables and did tech support for granny's in the 90s when they were getting, "on the super highway" of the Internet. I wouldn't trade any one of those jobs or that experience. It taught me so much that is invaluable to me now.

    Unions are now a cancer, mostly because they are completely abused by the union management, example: Detroit. I have never once in my life worked for a union. My brother has and it nearly kills him every time the union decides to go on strike so he might see an additional $137 per year raise. It's absolutely not necessary in this day and age of travel capability making today's workforce massively mobile. I'd much rather be able to walk into my boss' office and explain that I have another offer somewhere else for $10,000 a year more and let him match or better it. It's the way the market should work. And better yet, start your own business, put in the blood, sweat and tears and build something of your own, along with your own wealth.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
      brian says: "Trying to force the market into some false premise that they need to pay more because you feel sorry for someone is fallacy."

      When people are bullied into low paying jobs, either by their own numbers or corporate greed, yes, I do think it's wrong.

      Seems to me that you are saying corporations are entitled to maximize profits, but workers have to go along with what the employer wants.

      Rob
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 7 months ago
        Actually, maximizing profits is the entire purpose of business. Charity is not the point of business - one of Ayn Rand's points. The things is that you seem to think that is wrong because profits are derived solely through unscrupulous means - where one of the trading partners gets taken advantage of. On the contrary, that is how government works. In the free market, you only stay in business if you have a quality product that the consumer values. Like them or not, Apple is a great example of this. They haven't colluded with anyone to put out arguably the best personal computing device in decades - they simply did it and reaped the rewards as millions of consumers valued their products enough to purchase them over and over. Did Apple profit? Handsomely. Did the consumers get taken for a ride? No. Contrast that with government spending to see my point.

        You also arrive at the mistaken conclusion that workers themselves have no power. Workers have as much power as their skills and training (and the market) allows and that power directly translates to earning potential and demand. There is a huge difference in earning power between a burger flipper and a doctor. The burger flipper has skills that will earn him/her about $8.50 in the market, while a doctor's skills will earn them 10x that much. Unions actually inhibit the free movement of labor and capital by artificially controlling the cost and mobility of labor - especially low-skilled labor.

        Where the system doesn't work and people are being exploited, it isn't in a free market. Government rules and regulations and unions are the two biggest inhibitors of the free market and incur costs to everyone with their interference. Look at any example and you can ferret out the hand of government - either in reinforcing a monopoly or throwing up artificial barriers to the free flow of capital, goods, or services.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by brian 10 years, 7 months ago
          That's exactly where we have gone wrong. We don't have pure capitalism anymore, we have crony capitalism. Government intervention in the form of contacts, tax breaks and regulations have created a system where the government picks the winners and losers, and the winners are usually the ones with the "relationships" to Washington.

          Well said.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by brian 10 years, 7 months ago
        That's not what I was saying. It's a free market. From both sides, the employee and the employer. Employers should be able to pay what they can/will and employees should be free to work where they want and require what wages they want. Nobody bullied me into working at McDonald's. I was there for two weeks when I decided I'd rather work at Pizza Hut making $1 more per hour, and I was getting paid to drive around town in my own vehicle. No body is forcing anyone to work anywhere. It's your choice and always should be. If enough people chose to work elsewhere and there was a drought of employees, McDonald's would start paying more to attract employees. That's how the free market should work, and will if you leave it alone.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
          Yup, it should work as you say in a perfect environment. However, it ain't a perfect world and suggesting that employees shouldn't work together for better circumstances impinges upon their freedom.

          Rob
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by brian 10 years, 7 months ago
            The employee-employer relationship is symbiotic. They both need each other. If a person can't stand up on their own two feet and personally discuss issues they have with their employer, wage, conditions, etc., then what's the point? Joining a union now a days limits your possibilities infinitely. Instead of being able to individually express your displeasure about said wage, conditions, etc., you will rely on a third party that you are essentially paying to represent you. And on the inverse, if you want to excel in your career but are unionized then you are instantly limited because everything is done through a community union contract negotiation. You could be the smartest cookie out there and it won't matter because you are bound by the union. Unionization has essentially become a new career and a boon for the union boss' while it essentially wraps chains around the union members.

            No one is restricting anything from an employee standpoint. If an employee wants to discuss something with their employer they can try. If they do not get satisfactory results, well then they always have the option of leaving.

            However, in some union situations a contract is required, and bullying tactics such as open vote and auto union joining are only enslaving another generation of union workers.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Mattwahl 10 years, 7 months ago
        "Seems to me that you are saying corporations are entitled to maximize profits, but workers have to go along with what the employer wants"


        Yes and yes.

        Without union thugs and government coercion the people would go to the highest bidder and the abusive corporation would shut down. and the corporations would have no choice but to meet the demands of the workers.

        As it is now , the companies are forced to accept unskilled workers and pay heavily for laziness. Everyone loses.

        Without coercion from the government. Everyone wins.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rocky_Road 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually, the answer doesn't matter, since we have numerous accounts of what can happen in both cases:

    If B&J's isn't using union labor...and the company hits upon hard times...the owners have to find a way to cut costs.

    The traditional (and responsible) response is to cut the overhead, in an effort to save the business (and the subsequent jobs).

    One of the obvious cuts would be in pay, and/or hours. The workers would either understand the crisis and accept this...or they can freely take a 'walk'.

    Now: same scenario, but throw in a unionized work force.

    Now you have a work force that can't voluntarily join in the restructuring effort on an individual basis, but has to depend on the response of their union leaders.

    Too often, the union leaders will refuse to accept any less than they have already won, up to the point that the business (and the jobs) will die an unnatural death.

    Eastern Airlines is a prime example of this, and GM (and Dodge) would have done the same, except for the unnatural interference of the Federal government, spending taxpayers money without our authorization.

    P.S. I submit that unions have NO LEGITIMATE PLACE in the government (read: public sector) workplace.

    The paycheck writers (the taxpayers) have no representation at the bargaining table, and are screwed from the get go. They have no chance of 'winning'....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 10 years, 7 months ago
      Hostess immediately comes to mind where the union didn't budge in the face of a crisis. Thus the business folded and everybody lost. Unions are the greediest bunch of looting moochers as have ever walked the face of the earth. I would like nothing better than to see them ground to dust.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Rocky_Road 10 years, 7 months ago
        So right!

        Hostess is back, and without the union albatross around their neck.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostess_Bra...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 10 years, 7 months ago
          Isn't that awesome?!?!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Rocky_Road 10 years, 7 months ago
            Twinkies rule!

            Makes you wonder what could have been if GM had chosen the same bankruptcy court route...?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 10 years, 7 months ago
              The interference by our govt with respect to the automotive industry bailouts is inexcusable. They should have been left alone to fail or succeed on their own. I wanted no part of it. It's not my business to have a say in how a business is run unless I'm a shareholder in a public company.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by MaxCasey 10 years, 7 months ago
                While I agree with this, I'm curious what was to become of those who were drawing pensions? If the business fails, are they SOL because they picked a stupid company that ran themselves to the ground? I'm inclined to think yes, but then what becomes of their indigent carcas? In a perfect world it would be their problem to figure out, but in a world of idiot bleeding heart liberals, who will no doubt saddle the rest of us with the burden of care for them, might there be a way that would cost you and I less in the long run? I mean we must deal with reality, and reality says that the hypocrit liberals will enslave us with some sort of support for the Auto company, so shouldn't we make our decisions based on a proper decision analysis about what would rape us the least?

                Personally I think it would have been cheapest if they kept the companies afloat, but only after busting the unions and all stupid business practices that ran them to the ground in the first place, but only because it would be cheaper than supporting all their pension recipients. I mean we have to pick the best choice right? And telling them all to kiss the tuchas wasn't an option.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Rocky_Road 10 years, 7 months ago
                  When Pan Am folded, the pilot's pension fund went with it. There was no government 'relief' effort as I recall...not even the demand for one.

                  The retired autoworkers have Social Security to fall back on, and it is theirs for the taking. None of them would be destitute. There would probably be some adjustments in their lifestyles, but who doesn't make necessary changes when they end their working life?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by MaxCasey 10 years, 7 months ago
                    Thats funny :) Social Security to fall back on. Again in premise, I believe if you make a deal with the debil, you suffer the consequences of your choices, but as I said, the reality is that we live in a country of moochers, who as soon as amnesty gets passed, will forever own the federal elections, voting themselves more and more of what they haven't earned, while the government borrows to pay for it, which is an actual tax on wealth in and of itself.

                    So we have on one hand the choice of "going Galt" and on the other hand dealing with what creates the least burden on us. Considering that Objectivists have almost no perceptible voice or sway in the political arena and the country is too far gone to try to save now, what is our next move? Is it possible to check out of the system by using something like bitcoin or a decentralized currency that can't be tracked by "The Man" or do we have to hide in a valley somewhere and start over?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
        Let the looting begin...

        Is Dow Jones a suitable source for you?

        "DJ Creditors Say Hostess May Have 'Manipulated' Executive Pay

        By Rachel Feintzeig
        Of DOW JONES DAILY BANKRUPTCY REVIEW

        Unsecured creditors suspect that Hostess Brands Inc. may have "manipulated" its executives' pay--sending its former chief executive's salary, in particular, skyrocketing- in the months leading up to its Chapter 11 filing, in an effort to dodge the Bankruptcy Code's compensation requirements, according to a redacted court filing reviewed by Dow Jones."

        Rob
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 10 years, 7 months ago
          I read up on that and it was proven not to be the case.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
            I tend to rely on Dow Jones.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Bobthefirst 10 years, 7 months ago
              Read the text of the article that you posted, and you will find that it was all speculation. "... creditors SUSPECT..." "...MAY HAVE "manipulated"...". Furthermore, the speculation was not instigated by Dow Jones, but by the unions, as other posters have informed you. The text you posted says so in the last line - "according to a redacted court filing REVIEWED by Dow Jones."

              There was rampant speculation by the Union. The speculation was reported by Dow Jones, but that does not translate to Dow Jones believing that Hostess did anything wrong, they are simply reporting the fact that the Union is hurling accusations - that were proven baseless - at Hostess executives.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -1
      Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
      Rocky_Road says: "Eastern Airlines is a prime example of this, and GM (and Dodge) would have done the same, except for the unnatural interference of the Federal government, spending taxpayers money without our authorization."

      Ford did OK, even with a boycott from the American Family Association. They have unions the same as GM. It appears that jet setting GM executives were themselves more into personal perks than actual negotiation like Ford was.

      More: "P.S. I submit that unions have NO LEGITIMATE PLACE in the government (read: public sector) workplace."

      Really... Why is "take it or leave it" treating someone with respect? I do agree that many municipalities are quite fair, but some are also rather bad. I am opposed to double dipping though.

      And finally: "The paycheck writers (the taxpayers) have no representation at the bargaining table, and are screwed from the get go. They have no chance of 'winning'.... "

      Sadly as long as we have a no compromise balls to the wall screamers like the Tea Party you are absolutely correct. Extremists rarely get the job done.

      Rob
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Bobthefirst 10 years, 7 months ago
        You seem to place an awful lot of emphasis on compromise. Do you not realize that compromise is the enemy of principles? If I tell you that 2+2=4 but you insist that 2+2=6, why should I compromise with you and agree that 2+2=5? Then we are BOTH wrong.

        Do you really believe that taxpayers are adequately represented at the bargaining table in negotiations with public unions? Let's try an experiment: next time you want to buy a car, send someone on your behalf to do your negotiating and see if you walk away feeling like you got the best deal possible. When negotiating with someone else's money and there is no financial harm for doing a bad job, there is quite literally zero incentive to pursue the best deal. The point has been thoroughly demonstrated - public sector unions negotiating against politicians over taxpayer money serves to benefit everyone BUT the taxpayer.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Morry 10 years, 7 months ago
        Tho I agree with much that you say, I have to disagree EXTREMELY with your idea that "EXTREMISTS rarely get the job done."

        Virtually every important "job" of human history was accomplished by extremists.

        The Founding Fathers of this nation, which was the first to put certain genuinely radical, “extremist” new ideas of political and moral philosophy into practice, would have been called extremists today, and indeed were opposed by a MAJORITY of the colonists at first, not just by King George.

        Galileo, who proved the earth was not flat *along with many other important things), was considered a heretic not merely by the Church, but by his peers (and competitors?) in academia. Indeed, history erroneously assigns to the Church most of the blame for Galileo's persecution when the Church really didn't give two hoots about him UNTIL a huge contingent of academia kept push, push, pushing the Church hierarchy to act against him. These academics would have no more qualifications to teach their students than the students did to teach them if Galileo's new theories were permitted to obsolete every bit of "expert" knowledge the current academics could claim as "expertise" in an area that others should be willing to pay them for imparting. Given the Church's power in those days, the academics were the equivalent of modern day “establishment, status quo” lobbyists using their great power and influence in an aggressive way to influence the political power-holders (Church authorities) to protect the lobbyists’ interests by persecuting an individual with an obviously superior product in order to prevent him from competing with them. In accord with Rob’s expressed view or philosophy, they managed to do quite a bit of damage to a real “extremist” hero of history, enabling them to continue their (now proven false) "advertising" until, finally, history gave credit where it was due. But that was long after Rob’s philosophy had inflicted massive, unmitigated injustice on yet another brilliant extremist who had nothing but good to offer mankind, while delaying and obstruction the delivery of something valuable to mankind’s progress. Galileo’s was just one more amongst many similar chapters in the long history of mankind's attempt to make progress despite obstruction by so many people who see the world the way Rob does..

        You probably know several people (virtually everyone does, even infants) who are alive today (whether they or you realize it or not) only because of the work of Nobel Chemistry winner Dr. Bruce Merrifield, recently deceased. A true "extremist" maverick, ALL of whose peers not only disagreed with him, but actually ridiculed him. He was the first man to figure out how to synthesize an enzyme, and he "followed his truth" to win the Nobel.

        Everyone knew there'd be a Nobel for whoever accomplished this feat, and all the major pharmaceutical and other biochemical research firms had TEAMS of TOP PhD research chemists 'round the world working on the problem, including previous Nobel winners. Merrifield was a true scientist, humble before nature, and respectful of the logic of truth and the truth of logic. Almost childlike in his trust of everyone he met, he actually TOLD anyone who asked, at conferences and in correspondence, exactly how he thought the feat could be accomplished -- and everyone laughed. But he continued despite the whole world laughing at him and he eventually succeeded.

        Because of the specific characteristics of the new idea(s) Dr Merrifield had to invent to accomplish his feat, he (both directly and incidentally) opened up (ie, gave birth to) about 8 ENTIRELY SEPARATE branches of biochemistry research which the various aspects of the techniques he invented had made possible. Much of the outpouring of knowledge in recent decades about the details of various processes INSIDE our living cell tissues was made possible by Dr Merrifield’s EXTREME convictions and commitment to his own conclusions about what was right and wrong – and BY HIS REFUSAL TO COMPROMISE WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS RIGHT, WITH WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS WRONG, NO MATTER HOW MANY OTHERS DISAGREED. Things like EXACTLY how various nutrients work in the body, and the ratification of or disproof of much of the previous "common wisdom" about COUNTLESS aspects of nutrition, of diseases etc -- and this is from only ONE of the several DIFFERENT entirely new FIELDS of inquiry at new frontiers of knowledge which Dr Merrifield's accomplishment made possible.

        This extremist not only got the job done, but he got COUNTLESS jobs done, while the non-extremists of the status quo of current thinking were NOT ONLY total failures at accomplishing even one of the thousands of invaluable tasks the extremist performed, but they actually rejected the solution that Dr Merrifield had freely handed them on a silver platter.

        So much for the extremists versus the compromisers of the status quo.

        Study history. Such stories are not unusual, but actually closer to the norm in the case of the most fundamental and most valuable contributions to mankind throughout history.

        MOST of the greatest advances in MOST fields of endeavor in human history have been made by "extremist" individuals with views opposed to the views then currently popular amongst the status quo of "recognized experts" of the day. At any specific time in human history, there existed a particular state of human knowledge, technological capabilities, etc. ALMOST BY DEFINITION, it REQUIRED an extremist to come along and lift mankind upward to the next rung on the ladder of progress. Progress is an advance from the previous state of things, and if the knowledge to move to the next higher rung had been common wisdom, that step would already have been attained. The fact that it was a new addition to the status quo, means that someone somewhere had to come up with something that was DIFFERENT from what EVERYONE else was thinking or using or doing. A man with a “maverick” idea. A man who stood apart from everyone else on earth for a moment in history, regarding a certain piece of knowledge that he alone had uncovered or developed. He was, in at least some small respect, EXTREMELY alone and unique amongst men, for at least a while.

        This applies not only to technological advances but in politics, moral philosophy, and every other area of human endeavor. For instance: as Barry Goldwater said in his acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican convention: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Even in political and moral philosophy, extremism is often the highest virtue, and the ONLY means for getting the job done right..

        INTEGRITY is nothing more than an EXTREMELY principled, uncompromising, and incorruptible commitment to ones own beliefs about what's right, or about what is the right way to act.

        INTEGRITY, in other words, is the result of applying extremism to human character.

        Perhaps the reason we seem to see such an abject LACK of integrity so much more often in public leaders, business, and throughout our culture today than in the not-too-long-past decades of our history, is the introduction of the idea that "extremism" per se is bad, which became a fad slogan about 2 or 3 generations ago amongst those who obviously (see below) were either incapable of using their own thought processes correctly, or who unfortunately did not possess even reasonable facsimiles of HUMAN brains. In fact, it was during the Goldwater campaign for the Presidency in 1964 that the use of “extremism” was first used by the moderates of the Republican party to discredit Goldwater in the public’s eyes. His ideas were overtaking their lack of anything but the monotonous, tried and failed ones of the moderates, and they were unable to answer them with better ideas OR with reasoned refutations. So they adopted “extremism,” as a smear worthy of the most unscrupulous debater who is out to win rather than to find the right answer. There were reasonable, common sense, rational arguments to explain and justify each of the Goldwater positions which were twisted by his desperate political opponents to make them appear fanatical and extremely dangerous. He was nominated anyway, but “extremism” was then adopted successfully by the opposing party in the election itself to unjustly demonize Goldwater and instill fear of him in the eyes of the electorate.

        Any statement that puts a negative evaluation of any kind on "extremism" QUA EXTREMISM (IE, on extremism, per se) necessarily labels the person who consciously utters it as someone with a fatal flaw in his ability to think. That's because such a statement is automatically and irrefutably self-contradictory, so the assertion of it marks the person saying it as one whose thinking process is content to operate while consciously holding contradictions, and whose thinking and conclusions are therefore probably loaded with them, and/or follow from contradictory ideas. Why? Because such a statement places a negative EVALUATION on extremism, when extremism per se CANNOT BE EVALUATED ABSENT THE ISSUE TO WHICH IT IS BEING APPLIED. To make this self contradiction absolutely clear:

        “Extremism” is ITSELF an evaluation – of SOMETHING (a thing, an idea, an action, a feeling, or a category of things, ideas, actions or feelings). It LITERALLY and ACTUALLY means that whatever it’s referring to contains an UNUSUALLY large or small degree or quantity of something, far from the typical or average or commonly found amount or degree of that quality or trait or substance. But the IMPLIED meaning of “extremist” when used as Rob uses it, is that it’s TOO much or TOO little to “to the job” or to “be acceptable” or to “be appropriate for its intended purpose” or … similar. IE, thatt it’s BEYOND any REASONABLE or ACCEPABLE limits which define a range of “what’s good” or “what’s right or proper.”

        “Extreme” is an evaluation SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO QUANTITY. It means UNUSUALLY MUCH or UNUSUALLY LITTLE of something. To then place a GENERALLY APPLICABLE evaluation on ANOTHER evaluation which refers ONLY to a quantity of something WITHOUT SPECIFYING THAT SOMETHING, is just a floating assertion unattached to anything real or SPECIFIC. Such a statement can have no possible meaning because it cannot even BE related to anything specific.

        If someone said “Joe’s behavior is bad” and you asked Rob why, he might answer “because it’s extreme” and he would think that’s an OK way to communicate, and that he’s actually given you an answer. But all he’s done is to repeat his original assertion with somewhat different words, which STILL convey NOTHING but an unbacked opinion relevant to NOTHING that provides you any information – other than the fact, repeated twice, that in Rob’s opinion there is something about Joe’s behavior that is not good, because there’s an unusual amount of an UNSPECIFIED SOMETHING in his behavior. What’s logically implied, is that THE MERE FACT THAT SOMETHING’S PRESENT TO AN UNUSUAL DEGREE – REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT IS – IS A LABEL OF UNDESIRABILITY. (In fact, of EXTREME undesirability – another self-contradiction inherent in this fuzzy method of pseudo-thinking.) With this “explanatory” answer to your request for elaboration he has simply added an adjective which is an EVALUATION of the DEGREE of some unspecified thing Joe is doing, WITHOUT EVEN SPECIFYING THE DEGREE OF IT, but just labeling it – whatever it might be – with an UNEXPLAINED ASSERTION that SOMETHING is present in his behavior to an unusual extent.. IE, by using “extreme” and letting it stand isolated on its own, as an implied IRREFUTABLY, SELF-EVIDENT negative merely for being unusual, all he has really said is “I think his behavior is bad because I think there’s something about it which is either too much or too little, and that’s bad in my opinion.” It sounds reasonable when it’s said, which is what’s so insidious about it. We read or hear it, it sounds kinda right, and we absorb the negative conclusion without really thinking it through, though there is almost never a shred of evidence or support for it provided.

        There IS of course a proper way to use “extreme,” but this isn’t it. For instance, he might have answered “Joe spends 18 hours a day at work, which is obviously so extreme that it has many bad consequences. His health has obviously declined from lack of sleep and his moods are destroying his family life and his relations with former friends, and ironically his work is itself actually suffering because of his chronic exhaustion from trying to do good work. He has taken the value of conscientious work to an excessive extreme.” This DOES explain WHAT was extreme, and WHY it was extreme, and WHY its extremism’s consequences were bad. Nothing wrong with this. But to condemn “extreme” just for being extreme, is flat out false and “extremism” has been used to get away with creating false negative impressions in people’s minds ever since this trick was first used in 1964.

        That’s my EXPLANATION of WHY saying “because it’s extreme (or extremist) tells you NOTHING more and is NOT a sentence with any meaning in this example. But you can also see why DIRECTLY by realizing that THE SAME ANSWER COULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN to a request for elaboration on why Joe’s behavior was GOOD:

        I might have said “because it’s extreme,” to elaborate on my assertion that Joe’s behavior was GOOD, and thus say nothing at all just as easily as I did when asked to explain why his behavior was bad. What I might have PROPERLY answered instead, in this OPPOSITE case, might have been “Joe is EXTREMELY attentive in class – he never misses a word the Professor says, and he is EXTREMELY conscientious about asking questions when he doesn’t fully understand. This enables him to get a REALLY GOOD understanding of the subject and to earn REALLY GOOD grades on his tests, and by becoming so thoroughly knowledgeable on the subject, he will probably end up doing a VERY GOOD job in his profession and accomplish a lot of GOOD things for himself and others who deal with him in a professional capacity.”

        In every case where ‘extreme’ is used without a context and/or without specifics, it by itself says nothing about the goodness or badness, or the desirability or undesirability of whatever’s being described as “extreme.” But when you turn it into a PERSONAL statement about someone as an “extremist” it becomes a slur. It is a way to say “he does something unusual, or is somebody unusual” IN A WAY THAT SOUNDS VERY VERY UNDESIRABLE.

        “Extremist” is thus a means for the unscrupulous to instill a very negative impression of someone else without supplying any evidence, or making himself the target of a slander suit. It is a way of convincing the fuzzy thinkers, who will almost always find this word amongst others which are critical, that it is meant to be critical too, and create in their minds an image of a wild man unrestrained by the bounds of normal behavior or thinking – a fanatic, or a bully, or a liar, or a crook, or SOMETHING very EXTREME or OUTSIDE THE NORM which is VERY BAD.

        It is, thus, a handy device for cowards who have no valid criticisms of the person or thing or group or event they wish to criticize or defeat. When I hear “extremist” used to describe someone in politics, my own reaction nowadays is to suspect the person using the word of having some despicable traits with more likelihood than the person he’s trying to label as despicable in such a cowardly and sleazy way.

        So… to say “extremism is good” or “extremism is bad” would be a meaningless statement in either case, conveying zero information UNTIL THE CONTEXT is supplied. “Extremism” is NOT some stand-alone, specific thing which can be absolutely evaluated as being good or bad. It is merely a rough measure of quantity, meaning the presence of a VERY UNUSUAL quantity or degree of something, either a lot MORE than usual or a lot LESS..

        What the sleazy amongst us have tried to do is equate EXTREMISM with FANATICISM in our minds, and erase from our minds any other possible meaning of the word, in order to pull a fast one on vague thinkers or cursory readers. The intent of those who intentionally turned this term into a pejorative one, was to enable them to dismiss out of hand ANYONE who sticks to his guns with INTEGRITY, thereby enabling them to disparage their most vocal, consistent, and impassioned opponents.

        Many people are fuzzy thinkers, or cursory readers, or inattentive listeners, and they go by the vague impression they get from the wording and tone in which words are spoken rather than listening carefully to exactly what they mean. This is what the sleazes amongst us are counting on when they use the term ‘extremist’ to demonize someone whose actual arguments or personality or character are unimpeachable.

        Furthermore, by conflating EXTREME with FANATIC, we lose the use of the REAL concept of “extreme” and gain an UN-NEEDED extra synonym for a concept we already have. We already know what a “fanatic”is. We also know what a man of integrity, or of impassioned ideals, or of committed purpose, is. But these can all be reasonably called UNUSUAL men, or men with VIRTUES at the EXTREME of what we find amongst the population of all men. So . . . we could justifiably call them “extremists” and lump them all together under that label. Then, if we can FOOL people into equating “extremist” with “fanatic,” our job is done. We can now convince people that certain good men who stand in our way are actually bad without having to provide any evidence or reasoned argument, and thereby increase our chances of being able to defeat him in a contest for the approval of a majority of the voters.

        This is possible because fanatics do indeed share some visible traits with the best amongst our species. They are impassioned, they are often “activists.” They are firm believers in what they think is true and seem to be glued inseparably to their beliefs. But fanatics are BIASED and CLOSE MINDED to facts and arguments against their position – their fanatic position is based mostly on emotion, and they hold their beliefs for emotional reasons. They stick to their beliefs NOT from a loyalty to truth, but from an emotional fear of giving them up. The emotions come first for them, and their strong emotional NEED for attachment to their beliefs often appears, visually and vocally, very similar to an impassioned devotion to the truth. . A good scientist or other good man might be just as impassioned and glued to his beliefs, but it’s because he HAS considered all the arguments he could find against his beliefs and has been able to refute them all. He FEELS impassioned because his THINKING has convinced him of how valuable it is to understand the truth of his conclusions. His loyalty is to the truth, and that’s WHY he is impassioned. Should someone call attention to an error, he’ll alter his conclusions accordingly, because he’s devoted to the truth. His “extremism” is a high virtue, and the “demonization” of extremism as extremism, is a vile attempt to discredit such good men and label them in the minds of many as amongst the worst of men. – by those with personal agendas who relegate truth to a lower priority.

        If I believed, as Rob certainly seems to,, that "extremism is ineffective" or that it is "not a good idea" or "to be shunned" then YOU might well say to me, Rob presumably would, by saying "YES!! Extremism is all that you mention. That is an extremely correct and perceptive statement with which I fully agree -- to the utmost extreme." IE, to adopt this statement and view it as accurate and correct, is to negate it, because FULL acceptance of its absolute condemnation of extremism itself, extremism of ANY unspecified nature,, would be itself the most extremist point of view you could have on the issue. IE, it is not a moderate position, but an EXTREMIST position, to claim or to believe that examples of EXTREMISM are ALWAYS AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION UNDESIRABLE AND INEFFECTIVE. Thus, the view that extremism is unremittingly bad, is of necessity ITSELF unremittingly bad, by its OWN admission!!

        In short, the more certain your belief that “extremism” in and of itself, unqualified and out of any specific context, is inherently ineffective and counter-productive, the more you should REJECT YOUR OWN BELIEF, because its own logical advice to you is that you must reject it if you believe it. As your degree of certainty in its correctness approaches 100% absolute certainty, it become closer to its absolute extreme. And extremism in the belief of any supposed truth, is still extremism. And as such, it is to be rejected, shunned, dismissed as less than worthless – as, in effect, fanaticism. (Indeed, your absolute belief in ANYTHING is sufficient reason NOT to believe it, if you accept that “extremism is bad/wrong/ineffective.”).

        THAT is another way of demonstrating the contradiction inherent in the (couldn’t be more wrong) opinion expressed by Rob. I will generously assume he has absorbed, by osmosis, this intentionally flawed self-contradictory slogan whose purpose is to fuzz up people’s thinking and thereby permit the widespread acceptance of the demonizing of others for unscrupulous motives.

        Acceptance of the pseudo-idea associated with this slogan or its variations, is to turn yourself into fodder for the worst charlatans amongst us, a sheep for them to shear, while it simultaneously insulates you from the truth espoused by the best among us: the intelligent men who are impassioned seekers of truth – men who are truly INTELLECTUAL, interested in finding the right IDEAS, and who love the truth so much that they often exhibit their love of it with a passion. Their virtue is what evil men have attempted to turn against them, by altering the common usage of language in such a way as to DESTROY the ability to distinguish INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY from EMOTIONAL FANATICISM in the minds of many people – which means many voters – which means many votes – which means it is an attempt to gain political power by defeating truth and knowledge with larger voting numbers acquired through intentionally induced ignorance.

        "Extremism" is neither an entity NOR an action. It is a MEASURE OF THE DEGREE of an action, whether a physical or mental or emotional one. The degree or extent to which someone does, believes, or feels something cannot be evaluated as an absolute, as inevitably and always good or bad thing, WITHOUT CONTEXT, ie without first considering and evaluating the action, belief, or feeling which is being carried to its extreme degree.

        An extreme dedication to the pursuit of truth (an action), or to the value of knowing the truth (a belief) or to a love for the truth (a feeling) CANNOT be evaluated as good UNLESS/UNITL you have FIRST evaluated "truth" as the good. Extreme behavior in torturing innocent people to death slowly, the idea that one is so superior he has an inherent right to do so, and the pleasurable neurotic or psychotic feelings of positive personal power when inflicting such agony on other human beings, could not be evaluated as bad or evil or wrong, unless/until one FIRST understands that torture of innocents for no end but to satisfy another person's wishes and urges is wrong. IE, YOUR EVALUATION OF THE DEGREE OR AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF A PROCESS IS DEPENDENT ON YOUR EVALUATION OF THE OUTCOME WHICH THAT PROCESS IS EXPECTED TO ACHIEVE. You are not logically entitled to make the former evaluation until you have made the latter one. But this is PRECISELY what is being done with the “extremism is bad” idea.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 7 months ago
        Rob, for a great read on why government employee unions are a huge problem, I encourage you to check out Thomas Sowell (Nobel prize-winning economist) or Dan Mitchell. In a market negotiation, both parties have a value proposition and negotiate to achieve value for their respective side where each has a cost and benefit, The problem with government unions is that the wage negotiation process takes place between the government workers and elected officials, but the taxpayers - who actually foot the bill - are left out! This makes it very easy for the elected officials to collude with the government unions and promise them more money in exchange for votes even though the costs are being born by the unrepresented taxpayer. So I completely agree with Rocky_Road - government unions are a very bad idea.

        One of the best examples of this are charter schools vs public schools. The charter schools are directly funded by the parents of the students and if their performance doesn't match up with the fees, the student goes elsewhere. Not so with public schools - thus the huge backlash in public debate on the issue. The teachers' unions don't want to be accountable for their results and haven't been since their inception - seeking only to guarantee jobs for teachers while ignoring the students' needs. This - and the drop in parental involvement - have directly contributed to the decline in education here in the United States.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Wonky 10 years, 7 months ago
    Intelligent trolls are amazing time sinks.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LetsShrug 10 years, 7 months ago
      Um... what?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Wonky 10 years, 7 months ago
        I can't help but think that very little of what is posted in this thread would ever be discussed in Atlantis. It all looks like typical trollish political provocation followed by reaction and debate, as if something might come of it. Interesting enough, but purposeless to write, let alone read. Is this site for Atlanteans, or for people who like to debate about the nature of Atlanteans?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by LetsShrug 10 years, 7 months ago
          From which planet do you hail? (You're basing your opinion of the Gulch on one thread that you read? And THIS is the thread you chose to read??)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Wonky 10 years, 7 months ago
            Oh no, not the site, the thread. I'm excited to explore the site. I just happened to find it through a link to this thread. I'd say I come from Pluto, but I can't really do that anymore.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
          Interesting... No relevant points about any issues, just nonsense.

          Actually I expected it much earlier, but so it predictably goes.

          Rob
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Wonky 10 years, 7 months ago
            I guess the first relevant point is that this thread is linked from the Atlas Shrugged movie site: http://blog.atlasshruggedmovie.com/2013/...

            Along with the link is the following:
            "Gulch members had some fun recently when new Gulch member 'Boborobdos' introduced himself to the community as an admirer of the book... then proceeded to explain why Ayn Rand had it all wrong.
            "Suffice it to say, things got a little hot."

            Having just finally gotten around to watching part 2, I was searching that site for the release date of part 3, and somehow landed on this thread and wasted a fair amount of time reading through this. The second relevant point is that I'm an idiot for having done so.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
              Actually I never said Ayn Rand had it all wrong. What I started with was that some contemporary followers misinterpret and twist her teachings much like some right wing Christians abuse the Christian bible.

              Rob
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Wonky 10 years, 7 months ago
                "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
                —Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

                Given that this is her basic premise, or "teaching", if you will, along with the presumption that this site is for folks who aspire to live by that premise, what "productive achievements" have come about from all this banter?

                If you would be so kind as to link something particularly useful (perhaps a philosophical gem, or a bit of well integrated reasoning) from within this thread, I would be ever so grateful.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
                  Wish I could, Wonky but I'm relatively new here and don't know all the ropes yet myself.

                  What I'll be doing for awhile is lurking in some of the other threads to see if it's worth hanging out. Much of what goes on is easily thought of as "Dittohead" stuff with a clique patting each other on the back and high fiving.

                  Rob
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    yes, the Supreme Court has been ignoring the Constitution lately. what's your point? There is no rule of law abut we're pretending there is when it sides with us?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rocky_Road 10 years, 7 months ago
      The Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act was actually a new national tax, and on that spurious basis, it was constitutional.

      Never mind that the WH lawyers actually based their argument on it not being a tax, and that Obama publicly swore that there wasn't any new taxes in the Bill, that was the go-around that the Court had to conjure up.

      Hardly a red letter day for the SCOTUS....
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by nomad 10 years, 7 months ago
    Mr. Boborobdos is an example of the chase your tail arguments facing our nation today. In times of capitalistic prosperity these types of entities will gladly feed from the trough as they poison the minds around them. In times of decline under their control they will spin these webs of incoherent rhetoric to attract the feeble mind to support them. The best tactic capitalist should employ is to relegate them to the crumbs of their philosophy of destruction and not give them an ear or voice of any kind. Talk straight to the dumbed down masses. Teach self-reliance and the dangers of modern slavery and what it looks like. Until the day returns when you must qualify to vote as was the case in this nations founding, freedom and liberty will be faced with tyrants manipulating ignorant but otherwise good people, into voting their destruction into power. Once over the precipice, rebuilding from the ashes is the only recourse.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
      From nomad: "Teach self-reliance and the dangers of modern slavery and what it looks like."

      You mean like being indentured to a company because a person can't afford health care without working for one? You mean having to work for a corporation because getting a weekly paycheck really is the best they can do?

      You know, not everyone is able to enjoy the Rand dream. America is made up of all kinds of people.

      So corporations don't simply abuse people they have joined together in unions.

      Rob
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ldy 10 years, 7 months ago
    Actually the only change thru history is the name. They used to call them slaves, now they call them employees. They pay them so little, that they live in holes apartments exactly like the slaves lived in tiny rooms. The only change is that u get to choose your master aka company to be enslaved for.. And it is a big lie that companies need the workers and pay well. Since the western countries import third world countries cheap labor, they can easily choose the cheapest workers.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago
      welcome Idy. If they're paid so little (whoever they are and wherever they word-as yet to be determined-potential straw man here) then it must surely be better to collect assistance. So, "they" must be earning more than assistance, and they must be able to find entry level positions across the country and including locations that are less expensive in which to live. an apt in new york to rent is the same as renting a decent small house in Wichita. Most corporations I know allow the least skilled of their workforce to cross-train (it's beneficial for the corp and the employee). Through cross and other types of training offered, a worker can quickly angle for a more skilled job within the company. Most companies encourage advancement and hire from within first if they can. That is not slavery. To your statement of our govt imports third world countries' cheaper labor. Each country can develop its own immigration policies. That is a govt decision and policy, not a companies'
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 7 months ago
        "That is a govt decision and policy, not a companies"
        The difficulty with that conclusion is that it doesn't include the amount of 'companies' influences on government decision and policy. Just take a look at the Senate's Immigration Bill.

        Other than that, I find a lot to agree with, if I may as a newbie.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago
          welcome Zen. I agree with the murkiness, but again, it is a govt decision and policy. If the govt were out of running the economy, that would be a huge first step. Second,reduce the size and scope of the Federal Budget.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ernie 10 years, 7 months ago
    When I first read the comments by Boborobdos etal
    I decided to also be a gadfly. Robert, do you have any thoughts about corporate law as SCOTUS is
    trying to apply? It took me a while to log in, but I do hope you still read and reply to inquiries.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rocky_Road 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Yup, a fat cat who will sell my information in a heartbeat if he can make a buck on it unless there is some form of government that stops them from doing that."

    They would be breaking one of the most fundamental health record privacy laws: HIPAA.

    Read what you have been missing, right here:
    http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/und...

    You are very misinformed about a great deal
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
      HIPAA. is government mandated... Like I said, without regulations, but fortunately they are in place.

      Rob
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 7 months ago
        It doesn't be have to be regulated. You have the ability to form a contract with your health provider to retain your privacy. If they don't sign than you don't have to do business with them.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by TWOBerry 10 years, 7 months ago
    I'd love to read Boborobdos's ORIGINAL post. Would anyone here be kind enough to provide me with a link to it? And if you could send that link to www.xanga.com/twoberry, that would be extremely appreciated. Then I'd be able to find what you send me. Thank you.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo