LawTalkers
Page 14 of 334 « First 41213 14 15162464114 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=681)

andViolins 06-06-2005 07:38 PM
Huh?
 
Quote:
Originally posted by notcasesensitive
This is how I know I'm not a workoholic. I would not miss it. Not for a minute. If I were independently wealthy, I could walk away from the rat-in-a-maze routine without a single glance back. And I'm pretty sure I could find interesting and fun ways to spend my time for at least 2 years before it even became challenging. I have a few friends who have spent hiatuses from their careers (after collecting a bronze parachute or just saving up and ditching it all for a while) having the best time of their lives. Scuba diving in Costa Rico, exploring New Zealand, etc. Oh, how I'd miss the intellectual pursuits. Yeah, right.

Holy shit. I'm the female Sebby.
GIANT ASS FUCKING 2!

Well, except for the female part.

aV

Sidd Finch 06-06-2005 07:50 PM
Huh?
 
Quote:
Originally posted by notcasesensitive
This is how I know I'm not a workoholic. I would not miss it. Not for a minute. If I were independently wealthy, I could walk away from the rat-in-a-maze routine without a single glance back. And I'm pretty sure I could find interesting and fun ways to spend my time for at least 2 years before it even became challenging. I have a few friends who have spent hiatuses from their careers (after collecting a bronze parachute or just saving up and ditching it all for a while) having the best time of their lives. Scuba diving in Costa Rico, exploring New Zealand, etc. Oh, how I'd miss the intellectual pursuits. Yeah, right.

Holy shit. I'm the female Sebby.

Waitaminnit. Gatti said he'd spend his time at "golf, crappy painting and writing piece-of-shit unpublished novels." That is ever so slightly different from scuba diving in Costa Rica (or her brother, Costa Rico), etc.

I could find plenty of interesting ways to spend my time if I were not working. But they would cost a bit more than sitting in my Gatti-garrett writing the next Great American Downtown Los Angelean Nothing Else To Do Unpublished Novel. (Shit, by the time you say that phrase, the next one probably already got written.)

Gattigap 06-06-2005 07:56 PM
Huh?
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
the next Great American Downtown Los Angelean Nothing Else To Do Unpublished Novel.
Ahem. Down here, those are called "commercials."

notcasesensitive 06-06-2005 08:18 PM
Huh?
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Waitaminnit. Gatti said he'd spend his time at "golf, crappy painting and writing piece-of-shit unpublished novels." That is ever so slightly different from scuba diving in Costa Rica (or her brother, Costa Rico), etc.

I could find plenty of interesting ways to spend my time if I were not working. But they would cost a bit more than sitting in my Gatti-garrett writing the next Great American Downtown Los Angelean Nothing Else To Do Unpublished Novel. (Shit, by the time you say that phrase, the next one probably already got written.)
So I was ignoring the point of your post and instead using it as a jumping off point for my own little rant? Told you I'm the female Sebby.

Spanky 06-06-2005 08:22 PM
Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yes, but the "business community" does very little lobbying -- virtually none compared to the amount done by individual companies and sectors, virtually all of which are happy to have protectionist, anti-growth legislation. If the makers of buggy-whips had had a good lobbyist....
Sidd - this is just wrong. I don't know where you get this. Business organizations and associations are the most signficant lobbyist in State Capitals in the National Capitals for Republicans. Whenver a bill comes up in Sacramento the first thing the Repubicans ask is "where does the chamber stand." You have the Manufacturere Assocition, Tech Net etc.

Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch Lobbyists like the Chamber of Commerce can be pro-growth in a beneficial way. But they can also be anti-tax (i.e., pro-deficit), anti-worker safety, anti-environment, and pro-welfare (i.e., oppose increasing the minimum wage or providing health insurance and let gov't bear the burden) in ways that are very damaging.
Most of the lobbying they do today is anti-competition. Pro-tariffs, ant-flexible hours, limiting the type of businesses that non union companys get into. They were against deregulation of the Arilne Industry, the Phone company. etc.

Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch I agree with you in general about a lot of union lobbying, but I'm sure glad for some of the basic worker safety and safety net legislation that unions helped bring about.

Business lobbyists can also be as hostile to change as unions, because the business community is often very short-sighted. Environmental laws and regs, for example, are seen as a threat to existing business rather than as an opportunity for new businesses to be created. The reason behind seems obvious -- the Chamber of Commerce is funded by existing business, not by those that may be created in the future.
That is nice in theory but it just does not match up to practical application. Since I have been invovled in California State Politics (six years) most bills that effect the economy or business come down to the Chamber v. The Unions. The Unions are always on the side of regulation and restrictions where the Chamber is on the other side. The Unions passed a law that ended flexible hours in the silicon valley (people could not work a four day ten hour workday), they want to stop Costco from selling food, they did not want state government contracts to go to competitive bidding, the wanted to keep the workers compensation system in a state that was strangling business etc.

Spanky 06-06-2005 08:26 PM
Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
"Flexible and dynamic"? You're taking the concept of "wiggle word" to new heights. The only flexible and dynami thing business is doing is figuring out ways to lower costs. Production/revenue hasn't been moving up, so businesses for the last several years have had to "grow" profits by cutting costs. Thats the big lie in the Bush economy. The numbers don't reflect growth - they reflect wringing the same amount of product out of less bodies and machinery.

What unions are doing is trying to keep a certain standard wage for their workers. They are necessary. And you're seeing why right now. If allowed, employers will - in fact, they have an obligation to - reduce costs as much as possible. Workers are a cost. The reason so many white collar workers are getting shitty pay and shitty benefits is because they have no bargaining power. They're becoming what the blue collar workers were before unions. Business has no "check" at the moment.

I agree that theoretically, business should be allowed to wipe out as many workers as it likes. The problem is, I'm not sure that society benefits from that arrangement.

Ayn Rand, much as I like her views, was, from a practical perspective, an idiot.
Ayn Rand? Your study of economics may come from Ayn Rand and Norma Rae but not mine. I see the practical effect of what the unions are up to every time I get a call from Sacramento saying "you are not going to guess what the unions are up to now." See my earlier comment on where they stand on regulation, competition, and free trade acts.

Spanky 06-06-2005 08:28 PM
Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This makes no sense from an economic perspective, and it turns out to be false. For example, unions have been key supporters of drilling in the ANWR.
You name one thing and think that trumps every example I have given. Anti-free trade, anti-competitive bidding, anti-flexible working hours, anti every industrial deregulation that has every come up (phone company, arlines industry etc.).

Spanky 06-06-2005 08:30 PM
Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by ltl/fb
What about when the business community is trying to get worker safety laws repealed/modified? Unions are probably quite flexible about how businesses -- other than the one their members are employed -- conduct themselves. ILGW vs. Steelworkers, for example.

You are such a freak about seeing things you don't like as lacking any shades of grey, but being able to appreciate the finer subtleties of what you perceive to be basically on your side.

I'm thinking this is going to be another one of those "you just don't get it" things like your whole higher power crap thing.
Finer subtleties? You are the one lost in theory and lack practical perspective. I am aware of what bills are passing through the California legislature and see where the unions and the Chamber stack up on all these bills.

Spanky 06-06-2005 08:33 PM
Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And while many unions opposed NAFTA, I believe others supported them. NAFTA, after all, was a big benefit to longshoremen and dockworkers.

Imagine that -- unions acting to further the selfish interests of their members. It sounds almost.... like capitalism. No wonder Spanky hates it.
Yes some Unions support free trade just like some African Americans support the Republican party. By far the biggest fudning and most intense lobbying against all the free trade agreements comes from unions. Just like there are some businesses that are against free trade. But the pro-free trade unions and the anti-free trade businesses are both pretty insignificant.

Spanky 06-06-2005 08:34 PM
Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Well, that'll never be cured. Other than providing an inheritancce for their kids, deep down inside, most folks ain't thinking too far beyond their own lifetimes. We're kind of wired that way.
The point you are missing is everyone of those businesses want to grow. They understand a growing economy is the best way to do that.

Spanky 06-06-2005 10:23 PM
Michael Jackson
 
Guilty or not Guilty:

I am guessing guilty

P.S. (if you are not going to make a prediction don't answer this post. You only get to expound if you are willing to take the risk that your B.S. will be shown to be wrong)

Tyrone Slothrop 06-06-2005 10:23 PM
Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
You name one thing and think that trumps every example I have given. Anti-free trade, anti-competitive bidding, anti-flexible working hours, anti every industrial deregulation that has every come up (phone company, arlines industry etc.).
If you're talking about Sacramento, I probably agree with you. I would rather live in a genuine two-party state. So it's notable that I picked an example of federal legislation, while you are talking about Sacto.

jack o' phile 06-06-2005 10:51 PM
Michael Jackson
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Guilty or not Guilty:

I am guessing guilty

P.S. (if you are not going to make a prediction don't answer this post. You only get to expound if you are willing to take the risk that your B.S. will be shown to be wrong)
You are wrong you racist fuck!

MJ said it best in 1993:

"But if I am guilty of anything, it is of giving all that I have to give to help children all over the world. It is of loving children, of all ages and races, it is of gaining sheer joy from seeing children with their innocent and smiling faces. It is of enjoying, through them, the childhood that I missed myself. If I am guilty of anything, it is of believing what God said about children: "Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for such is the kingdom of heaven."

Right on! We love you Michael and we believe in you!

Spanky 06-07-2005 02:36 AM
Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you're talking about Sacramento, I probably agree with you. I would rather live in a genuine two-party state. So it's notable that I picked an example of federal legislation, while you are talking about Sacto.
I am not just talking abouy Sacramento. The ATT breakup and Airline deregulation were done by Congress. When Clinton asked for Fast Track Authority only about ninety Democrat congressman voted for it. The Dems would not even trust this authority in the hands of their own party leader. The rest of the votes he got from Republicans. When Bush asked for Fast Track Authority he got almost no Democrat votes. The only reason why you vote against Fast Track Authority is if you are against Free trade. There is no other excuse. Nafta and the WTO were almost overwhelmingly passed by the Republicans. The Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, Technet and almost every business organization supports CAFTA yet Bush has been told he can't count on a single Dem vote. If you are for free trade, one party clearly needs to be your choice.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 06-07-2005 07:56 AM
Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
If you are for free trade, one party clearly needs to be your choice.
What if you're a steel company, a softwood lumber company, or a sugar company?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:16 PM.
Page 14 of 334 « First 41213 14 15162464114 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com