Free Markets for Everyone

By: sebastianjer , 12:59 PM GMT en Abril 09, 2012

Share this Blog
0
+


Free Markets for Everyone
The other day on Twitter I saw a comment which unfortunately I did not bookmark and so I do not remember who to attribute it to. It was in the context of a discussion and the comment was in response to something someone else had said and again I can not recall either party, though I do believe it was between to conservative columnist. But the comment was so perceptive that it has stuck with me, it was this:


If liberals really understood markets they could not remain liberals


Mostly people think of markets in the economic aspect, which is its predominate useage in society. However the market has a much wider context as well, best defined in the first sentence of its Wikipedia's definition:


A market is one of many varieties of systems, institutions, procedures, social relations and infrastructures whereby parties engage in exchange.


Markets, in essence, are about exchanges between individuals or other institutions or entities comprising people. This is we come to have such expressions as the "the marketplace of ideas." Also from Wikipedia


The "marketplace of ideas" belief holds that the truth or the best policy arises out of the competition of widely various ideas in free, transparent public discourse, an important part of liberal democracy.


The idea of free markets whether it be in ideas or commerce is that ultimately "the best wins out". Some, particularly on the left, would have you believe that free markets which is the essence of capitalism is nothing more than "survival of the fittest" and that the ultimate outcome is that the weak are "put upon" by the strong. This is not only a perverted view, it is not even close to how markets work because for markets to work they depend on individuals making choices not choices being made for individuals. Once choices are made for individuals then it ceases to be a "free" market and the only entity with the power to "game" markets is the government. Governments are the only player in commerce than can compel individuals or corporations to operate outside of true free market principles. This is why subsidies and mandates are so egregious, they distort the marketplace.

Here is a more accurate description of how free markets work.  People left with only their own self interest as a compass will inevitably choose the product, service or idea which is most beneficial to their circumstances. The cumulative decisions of individual choices will ultimately determine the degree of success or failure of any product, service or idea. So in the end it is not the survival of the fittest than wins, but the success of the best that survives.

A free market allows individual choices to determine what becomes popular and successful. It is not perfect but what is? I might love a particular brand of cereal but for whatever reason it does not catch on with the rest of the the cereal eating public, so it is discontinued. It may have nothing to do with the cereal itself, perhaps the manufacturer did not have sufficient resources to "market" the product so it never received the notice I think it deserved, that's Life, which by the way is one of my favorite cereals.


People may not like free markets in commerce or in ideas, but what is the alternative? And more importantly why wouldn't they? There is really only one alternative to free markets, that is allowing someone else to determine for us what is best for us. And there is really only one reason for someone to oppose the free market concept, they believe they know what is best for the rest of us.

Can you think of any other reason or any other motive in not allowing free people exercising their own choices to determine what is best?  Only the extremely arrogant or the weakest among us would want to create a system where a select few would determine what is best for the rest of society. Do we wish the narcissistic colluding with those of limited ability or motivation to be the guiding forces in societal evolution?

When free markets are allowed to work they create amazing benefits to the greatest number of people simply because the greatest number of people are allowed to determine what is best. Despite a leftist narrative that sees capitalism as a system of exploitation for the most part the opposite is true, it has worked to the benefit of the greatest number of people. True visionaries have always recognized that what is best for the most, is also what is best for themselves. This is in line with the simple truth that if you put the individuals rights above all else you protect the rights of everyone including yourself.

Here are a couple examples to understanding the importance of how free markets actually work rather than how the left would have you believe they work.

One of the most innovative examples of ingenuity (American or otherwise) that I have ever heard of has to do whith one of the most ingenious men that ever lived, Henry Ford. This particular example of Ford's ingenuity has to do with the early manufacture of the Model T. which revolutionized transportation. It is reported that Ford specified that shipping crates of certain suppliers use wood cut to a certain thickness. He did this so that the packing crate material could be reused in certain components of the Model T.

This story may or may not be true but what is true is that Henry Ford used every trick he could think of to drive down the cost of manufacturing his cars. The reason for this was not so that he could "pocket" the savings as some people might have you believe of "evil capitalist" but on the contrary his purpose in saving money in the manufacturing process was so that he could sell his product cheaper to the public. Henry Ford famously said "I will build a motor car for the great multitude." This business model,now popularly employed across many industries, Of driving down prices to increase market, was not all that popular at the time particularly in the automobile industry where owning an auto was considered a status symbol. Another example of this cost cutting mania was the reason Ford changed the paint color on Model T's to black only, they originally came in other colors, he did this because black paint dried faster and this sped up production time, thus saving costs which were passed on the the consumer. In 1913 the base price of a Model T was $850 by 1925 the price was $300!

Henry Ford was not alone nor the first in understanding that the key to success was to provide products efficiently which resulted in lower prices for everyone. Consider that "Robber Barron", John D Rockefeller who not only made the second stage of the industrial revolution possible, he saved the whales.


In 1865, when Rockefeller’s market share was still minuscule, a gallon of kerosene cost 58 cents. In 1870, Standard’s market share was 4%, and a gallon cost 26 cents. By 1880, when Standard’s market share had skyrocketed to 90%, a gallon cost only 9 cents — and a decade later, with Standard’s market share still at 90%, the price was 7 cents. These data point to the real cause of Standard Oil’s success — its ability to charge the lowest prices by producing kerosene with unparalleled efficiency.

John D. Rockefeller had a rare business mind. He was at once a visionary, foreseeing a world in which his kerosene illuminated millions of homes, and an accountant obsessed with day-to-day penny-pinching. Upon buying his first refinery in 1863 at the age of 23, Rockefeller started optimizing every part of his business, from his storage facilities to his refining methods to the number of non-kerosene-refined products (waxes, lubricants, etc.) that could be squeezed from every barrel.

In pursuit of efficiency, Rockefeller employed then-rare business strategies such as vertical integration and economies of scale. For example, by purchasing his own forest and producing his own barrels, Rockefeller lowered per-barrel costs from $3 to $1 while increasing reliability and quality. To transport oil, Rockefeller obtained large rebates from railroads, not through corrupt conspiracies (the typical explanation) but by dramatically lowering the railroads’ costs. Where others offered railroads unreliable, highly variable traffic, Rockefeller offered guaranteed daily fleets of Standard-owned tank cars, loaded and unloaded by Standard-provided facilities, for straight-line trips from Cleveland to New York. The Lake Shore Railroad’s James Devereux testified that Standard Oil lowered transport costs from $900,000 to $300,000 a trip.


Despite leftist lore, these are but two examples of how free markets actually work for the benefit of all. Yes Ford and Rockefeller became rich beyond most of our wildest dreams, but their contribution to society on so many levels is incalculable. They helped create the source of America's strength the "middle class". They along with countless other "capitalist" expanded the economy creating an every growing economic pie for American's and the rest of mankind to eat from.


This is the great misunderstanding, With free market capitalism there is no reason to "redistribute" wealth to create equity, growing wealth is the natural bi product from which everyone ultimately benefits. A rising tide does indeed raise all boats and a growing economy naturally increases everyone's well being.

Again what is the alternative? Put limits on success? Promote the unworthy at the expense of the industrious? Then who will seek to be industrious? Like most arguments from the left, the idea that you can tweak imperfection to make it perfect by compulsion is not only wrongheaded it is by it's very nature a restriction on growth. You can not put chains on men and call them free any more than you can  design societal structures to equalize outcomes and expect growth either economic or in ingenuity and inventiveness.

 The free market is a  dynamic system of wealth creation and is the single greatest source for the elimination of poverty in the history of mankind yet to listen to some on the left they would classify it as evil. The shallowness of their understanding is only matched by the arrogance of their belief that they somehow promote benevolence when in fact their ideology is and has always been the source of tyranny and the enslavement of mankind both in  body and spirit.


If this is not true, if I have somehow misrepresented the obvious, then meet me in the marketplace of ideas and show me your wares. Explain to me the better system, not with theories but with proof, with actual examples of how any system yet tried is superior to the well being and the greater good of mankind than free market capitalism.

************************************************* ****
Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits
Create your own visitor map


()()()()()()()()(()())()()()()()()()()()

The religion of Climate Science


()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()

NOT EXACTLY FRONT PAGE NEWS



***

CONSTITUTION 101

History in Pictures


###
TODAY'S QUOTE

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 54 - 4

Page: 1 | 2Blog Index

54. Ossqss
2:50 AM GMT en Abril 11, 2012
Do we worry about the right things? Perhaps I am off topic again, but this relates to Sky's posts prior on chemical chasing, food production, medical care, and population support.

Do we really have a demographic winter coming?

Think about it, statistically. Out>

Member Since: Junio 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
53. sebastianjer
2:24 AM GMT en Abril 11, 2012
Member Since: Agosto 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
52. Ossqss
2:16 AM GMT en Abril 11, 2012
Quoting theshepherd:


My pleasure,

g'nite mate



One for the ditch :) Gnight all.

I find it a fitting song, from the group Dire Straits, to the album Brothers in Arms, and to the name of the song.......... Ride across the River >

Member Since: Junio 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
51. Ossqss
2:05 AM GMT en Abril 11, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Snip > Ossqss saw this, if he is honest enough to admit to it. < unsnip ...




Well over the last year or so,,,,,, I have viewed your miraculous evolution with respect to writing content, traits, tendencies, and vernacular etc. Forensically, quite amazing :)

Member Since: Junio 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
50. theshepherd
2:04 AM GMT en Abril 11, 2012
Quoting sebastianjer:
Re 48

One of my favorite songs that I had totally forgotten,

Thanks


My pleasure,

g'nite mate

Member Since: Septiembre 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10139
49. sebastianjer
1:49 AM GMT en Abril 11, 2012
Re 48

One of my favorite songs that I had totally forgotten,

Thanks
Member Since: Agosto 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
48. theshepherd
1:41 AM GMT en Abril 11, 2012
Old Arabian Proverb.

If you don't know the Captain, don't wipe your hands on the sails.

Member Since: Septiembre 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10139
47. theshepherd
1:22 AM GMT en Abril 11, 2012
Member Since: Septiembre 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10139
46. theshepherd
1:16 AM GMT en Abril 11, 2012
Quoting sebastianjer:
Yes Shep, been one of the nicest Springs in awhile. Could use a bit more rain, but certainly not complaining. Sounds like you have the life...enjoy

Jer


I figure I earned it :)

You're probably only a few projects behind me.




Member Since: Septiembre 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10139
45. theshepherd
1:07 AM GMT en Abril 11, 2012
A toast to Hemingway



Member Since: Septiembre 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10139
44. sebastianjer
1:04 AM GMT en Abril 11, 2012
Yes Shep, been one of the nicest Springs in awhile. Could use a bit more rain, but certainly not complaining. Sounds like you have the life...enjoy

Jer
Member Since: Agosto 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
43. theshepherd
1:01 AM GMT en Abril 11, 2012
Wonderfull spring weather we're having right now Jerry.
I'm starting to get that Buffett feeling...again :)

Hoping to be easing down to the Wabassa Bridge spoil islands in a couple of weeks.

Start early near the Inlet over by the grass flats netting greenies and then hoping to feed a couple of giant snook and a few big Trout.

I'll retire this summer...just in time for the warm water wars in the Glades and the Keys...Woo Hoo

...uhh?? What was that spathymon???

Member Since: Septiembre 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10139
42. sebastianjer
12:56 AM GMT en Abril 11, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I voted for Ron Paul in the last Presidential election.
I am voting for Ron Paul in the next election.
I know that Ron Paul stands for limited government, but I have never heard Ron Paul say that we should not follow our Constitution. On the contrary, he wants to work strictly within the Constitution.
He wants to eliminate the Feds because the Constitution does not allow for the Feds to ever be in existence. Ron Paul turns to this part of the Constitution to make his case:
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures"
He wants to bring our troops home from all over the world.

Do not ever suggest to me that I do not know what Ron Paul stands for or that I do not support him. You call me a fraud simply because I point out what is in our Constitution and you despise parts of or Constitution. You cannot deny what I have I quoted from our Constitution. You cannot win the debate, so you stop just short of theshepherd's tactics of attacking what you do not like hearing. Either you are interested in the truth or you are only interested in your ideology, above all else. You, sir, have shown that your ideology is more important to you than anything the truth could ever show you.


You are beyond belief, and I said not welcome here. If you indeed vote for Ron Paul you are voting for something you do not believe in. How you can possibly believe that Ron Paul believes in your version or vision of the constitution based on his very well articulated statements which directly contradict yours is beyond me.

Regardless your opinions are no longer welcome here since I doubt that anything you say about yourself is honest because it appears you are incapable of being honest with yourself.

Goodbye any further responses will be erased.
Member Since: Agosto 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
41. Some1Has2BtheRookie
12:47 AM GMT en Abril 11, 2012
Quoting sebastianjer:


Well this exercise has finally achieved something. I have at least learned once and for all that you are not what you say you are. You are not a Ron Paul supporter, if you are you obviously have absolutely no idea what he stands for and therefore you are blind follower which speaks for itself. No person who claims to follow and support what Ron Paul stands for could possibly make the statements you just have (and many more previously) but I wanted to be sure. How do I know this?


Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning the constitutionality of the Obamacare law, focusing on the mandate requiring every American to buy health insurance or pay fines enforced by the IRS. Hopefully the Court will strike down this abomination, but we must recognize that the federal judiciary has an abysmal record when it comes to protecting liberty. It's doubtful the entire law will be struck down. Regardless, the political left will continue its drive toward a single-payer, government run health care system.

The insurance mandate clearly exceeds the federal government%u2019s powers under the interstate commerce clause found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. This is patently obvious: the power to regulate commerce cannot include the power to compel commerce! Those who claim otherwise simply ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution because they don't want to limit federal power in any way.

The commerce clause was intended simply to give Congress the power to regulate foreign trade, and also to prevent states from imposing tariffs on interstate goods. In Federalist Paper No. 22, Alexander Hamilton makes it clear the simple intent behind the clause was to prevent states from placing tolls or tariffs on goods as they passed through each state-- a practice that had proven particularly destructive across the many principalities of the German empire.

But the Supreme Court has utterly abused the commerce clause for decades, at least since the infamous 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn. In that instance the Court decided that a farmer growing wheat for purely personal use still affected interstate commerce--presumably by not participating in it! As economist Thomas Sowell explains in a recent article, the Wickard case marked the final death of federalism: if the federal government can regulate anything with any potential effect on interstate commerce, the 10th Amendment%u2019s limitations on the power of the federal government virtually disappeared.

It is precisely this lawless usurpation of federalism that liberty-minded Americans must oppose. Why should a single swing vote on the Supreme Court decide if our entire nation is saddled with Obamacare? The doctrine of judicial review, which is nowhere to be found in Article III of the Constitution, has done nothing to defend liberty against extra-constitutional excesses by government. It is federalism and states rights that should protect our liberty, not nine individuals on a godlike Supreme Court.

Ron Paul


How you can continue this absolute farce that you are either a Ron Paul supporter or a constitutionlist is beyond me but is obvious to me that you are a man of little or no honor to so misrepresent yourself. and you are no longer welcome here. At least the progressives that come here espouse ideals that they believe in.

You sir are a fraud

goodbye


I voted for Ron Paul in the last Presidential election.
I am voting for Ron Paul in the next election.
I know that Ron Paul stands for limited government, but I have never heard Ron Paul say that we should not follow our Constitution. On the contrary, he wants to work strictly within the Constitution.
He wants to eliminate the Feds because the Constitution does not allow for the Feds to ever be in existence. Ron Paul turns to this part of the Constitution to make his case:
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures"
He wants to bring our troops home from all over the world.

Do not ever suggest to me that I do not know what Ron Paul stands for or that I do not support him. You call me a fraud simply because I point out what is in our Constitution and you despise parts of or Constitution. You cannot deny what I have I quoted from our Constitution. You cannot win the debate, so you stop just short of theshepherd's tactics of attacking what you do not like hearing. Either you are interested in the truth or you are only interested in your ideology, above all else. You, sir, have shown that your ideology is more important to you than anything the truth could ever show you.
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
40. sebastianjer
12:28 AM GMT en Abril 11, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Take a breath, Jer. I wanted to post Section 8, in its entirety for you. I did not have time to do so earlier.

Should you be referring to the commerce clause written in our Constitution - Article 1, Section 8:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

This is stated clearly and precisely.

Then the answer is, yes. Congress has unlimited powers to regulate commerce. There were no qualifiers or prerequisites placed on this duty by our forefathers. I do not see anything there that restricts Congress's power to regulate commerce. Do you?


Well this exercise has finally achieved something. I have at least learned once and for all that you are not what you say you are. You are not a Ron Paul supporter, if you are you obviously have absolutely no idea what he stands for and therefore you are blind follower which speaks for itself. No person who claims to follow and support what Ron Paul stands for could possibly make the statements you just have (and many more previously) but I wanted to be sure. How do I know this?


Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning the constitutionality of the Obamacare law, focusing on the mandate requiring every American to buy health insurance or pay fines enforced by the IRS. Hopefully the Court will strike down this abomination, but we must recognize that the federal judiciary has an abysmal record when it comes to protecting liberty. It's doubtful the entire law will be struck down. Regardless, the political left will continue its drive toward a single-payer, government run health care system.

The insurance mandate clearly exceeds the federal government's powers under the interstate commerce clause found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. This is patently obvious: the power to regulate commerce cannot include the power to compel commerce! Those who claim otherwise simply ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution because they don't want to limit federal power in any way.

The commerce clause was intended simply to give Congress the power to regulate foreign trade, and also to prevent states from imposing tariffs on interstate goods. In Federalist Paper No. 22, Alexander Hamilton makes it clear the simple intent behind the clause was to prevent states from placing tolls or tariffs on goods as they passed through each state-- a practice that had proven particularly destructive across the many principalities of the German empire.

But the Supreme Court has utterly abused the commerce clause for decades, at least since the infamous 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn. In that instance the Court decided that a farmer growing wheat for purely personal use still affected interstate commerce--presumably by not participating in it! As economist Thomas Sowell explains in a recent article, the Wickard case marked the final death of federalism: if the federal government can regulate anything with any potential effect on interstate commerce, the 10th Amendments limitations on the power of the federal government virtually disappeared.

It is precisely this lawless usurpation of federalism that liberty-minded Americans must oppose. Why should a single swing vote on the Supreme Court decide if our entire nation is saddled with Obamacare? The doctrine of judicial review, which is nowhere to be found in Article III of the Constitution, has done nothing to defend liberty against extra-constitutional excesses by government. It is federalism and states rights that should protect our liberty, not nine individuals on a godlike Supreme Court.

Ron Paul


How you can continue this absolute farce that you are either a Ron Paul supporter or a constitutionlist is beyond me but is obvious to me that you are a man of little or no honor to so misrepresent yourself. and you are no longer welcome here. At least the progressives that come here espouse ideals that they believe in.

You sir are a fraud

goodbye
Member Since: Agosto 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
39. Some1Has2BtheRookie
12:09 AM GMT en Abril 11, 2012
Quoting sebastianjer:


Well it should be a simple yes or no answer but I shall await your answer with baited breath :)


Take a breath, Jer. I wanted to post Section 8, in its entirety for you. I did not have time to do so earlier.

Should you be referring to the commerce clause written in our Constitution - Article 1, Section 8:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

This is stated clearly and precisely.

Then the answer is, yes. Congress has unlimited powers to regulate commerce. There were no qualifiers or prerequisites placed on this duty by our forefathers. I do not see anything there that restricts Congress's power to regulate commerce. Do you?

Article 1 deals with the Legislative Branch of government.
Section 8 deals with The Powers of Congress.

Here is Section 8, in its entirety:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Where do you read that any of these powers are limited or outside the control of Congress? ... As you earlier stated, you cannot pick and choose which parts of our Constitution you wish to support and which parts you wish to discard.

Even if The President of The United States of America wants to set up a trade agreement with another nation, Congress must first approve it. You should know this already, Jer. Why do you think the last several Presidents have complained about Congress not fast tracking trade agreements they wanted to make with other countries? If they could have done it without Congress, they would have. What is so unclear about this, to you?
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
38. theshepherd
12:00 AM GMT en Abril 11, 2012
Quoting latitude25:
Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence

HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.

""We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.""

Link


Thanks
I think I'll borrow that :)
Member Since: Septiembre 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10139
37. sebastianjer
10:23 PM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


That is a fair question. I am about to head home. Give me a bit to get back to you.

Thanks, Jer.


Well it should be a simple yes or no answer but I shall await your answer with baited breath :)
Member Since: Agosto 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
36. latitude25
10:10 PM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence

HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.

""We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.""

Link
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3654
35. Some1Has2BtheRookie
9:59 PM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
Quoting sebastianjer:
Re 32

Because I don't know how much further I want to take this I simply want to ask what you think.

Do you believe that the commerce clause as written by the framers and ratified by those states was intended to give the Federal Government unlimited power over commerce of the states and its peoples?


That is a fair question. I am about to head home. Give me a bit to get back to you.

Thanks, Jer.
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
34. sebastianjer
9:35 PM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
Re 32

Because I don't know how much further I want to take this I simply want to ask what you think.

Do you believe that the commerce clause as written by the framers and ratified by those states was intended to give the Federal Government unlimited power over commerce of the states and its peoples?
Member Since: Agosto 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
33. Some1Has2BtheRookie
8:08 PM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
Quoting theshepherd:
26. sebastianjer



See what I mean?


... oozing charm from every pore,

he oils his way across the floor.




Even if that were true, shep, and it is not, I am not the one trying to tilt the floor to initiate a slip. I try to treat all people a little better than they have treated me. This is easily proven by the fact that I have treated you better than you have treated me. I have never shown you a profane laden tirade even though you have done so to me. When you have shown that you cannot win a debate, you will attack with labels, name calling, pigeon holing and, finally, a profanity laden attack. I feel reasonably certain that Professor Rood will acknowledge this fact. Not to mention the others there that saw your tirade. Ossqss saw this, if he is honest enough to admit to it. ... I must admit that you have remained reasonably civil here. Perhaps out of fear that you will be booted from another blog?
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
32. Some1Has2BtheRookie
7:55 PM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
Quoting sebastianjer:
RE 21
From Wikipedia








I am well aware of the Supreme Court's decisions of the 19th century concerning corporations. The 1819 Supreme Court ruling is what gave corporations their first breath as being human.

"How on the one hand can you argue that the Supreme Court is the final word on Constitutionality while simultaneously arguing that well established decisions are not valid?"

Simple. I never claimed that the Supreme Court's decisions were not valid.

"It certainly was not to determine which laws are constitutional because it is not there and everyone recognizes that on all sides of the debate. But it is the precedent that we use so for now that is how it is."

There was a recent Supreme Court case that is under the Court's current review. The constitutionality is being questioned before the Court now on "Obamacare". The Supreme may rule to keep it in its entirety, reject portions of the law or reject "Obamacare" in its entirety based on what the Court determines is the constitutionality of the law. Once the Court has rendered its ruling, that ruling is non negotiable by anyone else. There is one way to overturn a Supreme Court ruling. - The Supreme Court, on a later date, can rehear a case and determine a new ruling. The Supreme Court rarely rehears a case. When it does, it rarely renders a new decision and instead, as you have stated, look at the past ruling as setting a precedent.

No matter what the Supreme Court rules, it will stand as law. I do not care if you get 20,000,000 signatures on a petition to overrule the Supreme Court decision. The ruling will stand regardless. Does that mean that there is no recourse at all? No, Congress can rewrite the law so that it is constitutional under the Supreme Court's ruling. Congress can also set in motion to obtain a constitutional amendment that would allow for the law as originally written. ... Yes, most definitely, the Supreme Court will make determinations based on the constitutionality of a law. That is part of their job, as set up under The Constitution, as being the highest court in the land. How else is the constitutionality of a law determined if not through the Supreme Court? A count of the number of "Happy Meals" sold?

Does this mean that every case heard before the Supreme Court will be based on a Constitutional point? No. Just as with the rights of corporations, there is not anything in the Constitution that addresses this issue. The Supreme Court is then able to make its own determination as long as it is not in violation with any other part of the Constitution.

"If I am an author and I wrote "I went to my grandmother's house." and at some later date someone asked me "did you go to your maternal or your paternal grandmother's house?" and I replied "I went to my maternal grandmother's house." Would you believe me or some other third party that says that "Jerry really did not mean he went to his maternal grandmother's house" or "we can't be sure which of his grandmother's house Jerry went to."

That is the tortured logic people use to explain that what the framers of the Constitution wrote and said about what they wrote use to discount what they clearly meant when they wrote it!"


No, Jer, that entire statement is tortured logic. First off, if you wrote a book, you are protected by The Freedom of the Press. Second, You can write it as a fictional account or as being based on actual events. Third, under The Freedom of Speech, you write anything you want our about our government and our politicians without fear or reprisal from our government. Such a book could be completely void of any facts. As long as you do not make any direct threats, you can say anything you want to say. Will it sell???? Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and others have made a lot of money doing this. You can give it a try. Trust me, The Supreme Court is not going to hear the case and try to determine if it is the law of the land.

"James Madison knew which grandmother's house he went to even if you don't."

James Madison wrote an opinion. He did not write what was on the minds of the other framers of the Constitution. Several of the framers wrote their own opinions. No two opinions were exactly alike. Tell me, what was their collective thought on each of the entities in our Constitution? Enter, stage left, or stage right, The Supreme (sometimes activist) Court. What they decide in their cases becomes the law of the land. You are correct, however, when you say that the Constitution is the law of the land. All the way up until it has been challenged. Then, The Supreme Court will tell us what The Constitution says and what is the law of the land. Flawed? Yes, but still the best plan devised yet.

"It is easy to pick and choose what about our constitution is valid and which is not but it becomes far less so when you actually believe what the authors of it say about it."

I do not pick and choose the parts of the Constitution that I like. I am a firm believer in our Constitution and I fully support it in its entirety. Like anyone else, I am not always happy about every Supreme Court ruling. ... You thought it was tough suing City Hall? Try suing The Supreme Court. ;-)
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
31. theshepherd
7:36 PM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
Yep. The weeds are high where corn don't grow.

And the tangled Liberal webs won't let reason grow.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwwGjOj1clc&featur e=related
Member Since: Septiembre 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10139
30. theshepherd
7:26 PM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
This old shoe fits either foot.

Member Since: Septiembre 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10139
29. theshepherd
6:08 PM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
Santorum has suspended.
Member Since: Septiembre 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10139
28. theshepherd
6:07 PM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
26. sebastianjer



See what I mean?


... oozing charm from every pore,

he oils his way across the floor.


Member Since: Septiembre 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10139
27. theshepherd
6:02 PM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
"Supplemental: I bet Shep's old boots do carry a definitive odor :-)"


eau de crab trap

:)
Member Since: Septiembre 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10139
26. sebastianjer
4:36 PM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
RE 21
From Wikipedia

The Supreme Court of the United States (Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819), recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the Supreme Court recognized corporations as persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a headnote—not part of the opinion—the reporter noted that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."


How on the one hand can you argue that the Supreme Court is the final word on Constitutionality while simultaneously arguing that well established decisions are not valid?

As to the authority of the Supreme Courts' being the final arbiter of the constitution, the Constitution which established the Suprem Court nowhere gives it this authority or power. This is why when discussing "judicial review" it is always discussed in the context of the case Marbury vs Madison rather than any specific provision within the Constitution itself, because that authority is not found there. So when you say "Why do you think our forefathers set up a Supreme Court system in the first place, Jer?!?!?!?!?" It certainly was not to determine which laws are constitutional because it is not there. and everyone recognizes that on all sides of the debate. But it is the precedent that we use so for now that is how it is.

If I am an author and I wrote "I went to my grandmother's house." and at some later date someone asked me "did you go to your maternal or your paternal grandmother's house?" and I replied "I went to my maternal grandmother's house." Would you believe me or some other third party that says that "Jerry really did not mean he went to his maternal grandmother's house" or "we can't be sure which of his grandmother's house Jerry went to."

That is the tortured logic people use to explain that what the framers of the Constitution wrote and said about what they wrote use to discount what they clearly meant when they wrote it!

The reason this is important is that what the framers meant when they wrote the Constitution is "THE LAW OF THE LAND" until such time as it is changed constitutionally by future generations. When you say "Who among us is able to say that they clearly know, without doubt, that they know the exact thinking of our forefathers when they drafted each line of the Constitution?" When they themselves tell us precisely what they meant and did not mean then I suspect we should believe them, shouldn't we?

Now I agree that the Federal Courts often have changed the meaning of what the framers meant by their rulings, that is what we call Judicial Activism. Perhaps your problem with corporate person hood is such a case, it is not a big deal to me and the argument has merit on both sides to me. But as you pointed out "How in the world do you think that corporations became people too? Did our forefathers envision corporations as being people?" I don't believe they addressed this issue so some branch of government for whatever reason had to and the Supreme Court did, rightly or wrongly. But this is a completely different situation than the Commerce Clause which was addressed and on which they clearly expressed their thinking.

It is easy to pick and choose what about our constitution is valid and which is not but it becomes far less so when you actually believe what the authors of it say about it.

James Madison knew which grandmother's house he went to even if you don't.
Member Since: Agosto 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
25. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:59 PM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:


Nonfarm Payroll +120,000, Unemployment Rate Fell .1 to 8.2%, Record 87,897,000 "Not in Labor Force"

"Digging under the surface, the drop in the unemployment rate over the past two years is nothing but a statistical mirage. Things are much worse than the reported numbers indicate."


Personal note:

I would gladly pay more for my shoes to keep a job in America and thus have fewer dependents that I have to take care of through my tax contributions.

Supplemental: I bet Shep's old boots do carry a definitive odor :-)


I believe that a more telling point would be in the number that are probably under employed as opposed to those just not looking for work anymore because they have simply lost hope. That is all in how the unemployment numbers are figured. They only look at the ones that are without a job and are still looking. A common practice across administrations and not limited to any one administration. I have always questioned what the true employment figures are. Due to the high probability of under employment today, as opposed to previous years, then I really become skeptical of the actual numbers. Anytime that unemployment is high, it is an almost certainty that there will be a larger number of under employed as well. ... Any port in a storm, one might say. A poor job is better than no job, in most cases.
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
24. Ossqss
3:34 PM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
Quoting sebastianjer:
When (If) you figure out this chart you will see how bad the unemployment numbers really are and how the numbers have been manipulated to make them look better than they really are.



Nonfarm Payroll +120,000, Unemployment Rate Fell .1 to 8.2%, Record 87,897,000 "Not in Labor Force"

"Digging under the surface, the drop in the unemployment rate over the past two years is nothing but a statistical mirage. Things are much worse than the reported numbers indicate."


Personal note:

I would gladly pay more for my shoes to keep a job in America and thus have fewer dependents that I have to take care of through my tax contributions.

Supplemental: I bet Shep's old boots do carry a definitive odor :-)
Member Since: Junio 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
23. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:23 PM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
Quoting spathy:
Someone

I think you are being a little too sensitive.
I see no attribution to you in Jers words. He even states he didnt know what you intended.

Being that the Commerce Clause has been front and center lately It looks to me like Jer just took the opportunity to opine on the subject.


I suspect that you may be correct, Spathy. I just did not know why such a comment would be made when I had made no comment at all. .. Water under the bridge. You and Jer like to keep things on the up and up. So do I.
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
21. Some1Has2BtheRookie
2:02 PM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
Quoting sebastianjer:


I do not know what you intended to imply by quoting this. But the way that the commerce clause has been abused since the New Deal is certainly is not what was intended by the drafters of the Constitution as is readily available to anyone willing to study the history of the issue and not just rely on leftist talking points. As an example

"Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the nonimporting, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged."
-
James Madison letter to Cabell, February 13, 1829.


The regulation of commerce was always by all parties involved in drafting of the constitution and the states when they ratified it known to mean the regulating of commerce between states. Read Madison in Federalist 22 or Hamilton in Federalist 42 and this is very clear.

The fact that politicians have since and still try to use this clause to give power to the "general" (Federal) government that was never intended does not make it constitutional, it only makes an abortion of the Constitution. Those who promote and push such nonsense show not only their ignorance of the constitution but their disdain for the Constitution and this nation as founded. Or would have you believe that James Madison and those who wrote it did not know what they meant when they wrote it. If you want to study it read

THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE



I am disappointed, Jer. All I did was to take a quote out of our Constitution and it is labeled as leftist talking points? I made no comment on it what so ever. That is certainly an extremely biased comment for you to make. Do you also claim that the Constitution is a leftist document written by a group of leftist?!?!?

Madison wrote an opinion. Many people write opinions. They are opinions, Jer.

The interpretation of the Constitution is left to The Supreme Court and not to any university. "Treason" is the only term defined in our Constitution and any thing that has not been clearly laid out is open for interpretation. You do not believe this? Ask any Supreme Court Justice and they will tell that they are vested with this power under our constitution. How in the world do you think that corporations became people too? Did our forefathers envision corporations as being people? ... Who among us is able to say that they clearly know, without doubt, that they know the exact thinking of our forefathers when they drafted each line of the Constitution? Do you know, Jer? .. Why do you think our forefathers set up a Supreme Court system in the first place, Jer?!?!?!?!? Just to piss off all of us that think we know the Constitution and the minds of our forefathers better than anyone else?!?!?

Leftist thinking? Do you also consider anyone that votes for Ron Paul a leftist? What is rightist thinking for you, Jer? Perhaps you need to explain your version of right wing thinking to me so that I may avoid your claims that I use leftist thinking! Si it just that anyone that does not agree with everything you say considered a leftist?!?!?!? Anyone capable of thinking for themselves is leftist!?!?!? ...Who is the straw man, Jer?
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
20. theshepherd
12:42 PM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
BTW...

Nothing against buying cheap tennis shoes...other than they made my feet stink and offered no protection on the job.

Before I took my tools off and joined the world of commercial construction management, I bought a pair of Redwings. They cost $129. Being all leather, they were not hot, didn't make my feet stink and lasted 5 years.
We couldn't allow tennis shoes on the job. :(
Use to dishearten a lot of the residential boys by demanding hard hats and boots. No shorts or baggy pants either :)

Still love my 25 year old Milwaukee circular saw. I'll put it up against anyone's worm drive any day of the week. At risk of inflaming the Union boys, they love those monstrosities,{why, I dunno} 100 bucks says it ain't the saw, it's the sawyer that cuts a straight line.

And that's a challenge from a 62yoa ol' country boy :)

Member Since: Septiembre 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10139
19. theshepherd
12:22 PM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
Quoting sebastianjer:


I do not know what you intended to imply by quoting this. But the way that the commerce clause has been abused since the New Deal is certainly is not what was intended by the drafters of the Constitution as is readily available to anyone willing to study the history of the issue and not just rely on leftist talking points. As an example

"Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the nonimporting, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged."
-
James Madison letter to Cabell, February 13, 1829.


The regulation of commerce was always by all parties involved in drafting of the constitution and the states when they ratified it known to mean the regulating of commerce between states. Read Madison in Federalist 22 or Hamilton in Federalist 42 and this is very clear.

The fact that politicians have since and still try to use this clause to give power to the "general" (Federal) government that was never intended does not make it constitutional, it only makes an abortion of the Constitution. Those who promote and push such nonsense show not only their ignorance of the constitution but their disdain for the Constitution and this nation as founded. Or would have you believe that James Madison and those who wrote it did not know what they meant when they wrote it. If you want to study it read

THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE



Bump...

"If liberals really understood markets they could not remain liberals"


Member Since: Septiembre 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10139
18. sebastianjer
12:15 PM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


The United States Constitution

Article 1
Section 8
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"


I do not know what you intended to imply by quoting this. But the way that the commerce clause has been abused since the New Deal is certainly is not what was intended by the drafters of the Constitution as is readily available to anyone willing to study the history of the issue and not just rely on leftist talking points. As an example

"Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the nonimporting, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged."
-
James Madison letter to Cabell, February 13, 1829.


The regulation of commerce was always by all parties involved in drafting of the constitution and the states when they ratified it known to mean the regulating of commerce between states. Read Madison in Federalist 22 or Hamilton in Federalist 42 and this is very clear.

The fact that politicians have since and still try to use this clause to give power to the "general" (Federal) government that was never intended does not make it constitutional, it only makes an abortion of the Constitution. Those who promote and push such nonsense show not only their ignorance of the constitution but their disdain for the Constitution and this nation as founded. Or would have you believe that James Madison and those who wrote it did not know what they meant when they wrote it. If you want to study it read

THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE

Member Since: Agosto 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
17. theshepherd
12:08 PM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
"NAFTA promoters - including many of the world’s largest corporations - promised it would create hundreds of thousands of new high-wage U.S. jobs, raise living standards in the U.S., Mexico and Canada, improve environmental conditions and transform Mexico from a poor developing country into a booming new market for U.S. exports."



The only thing that has improved the living standard in Mexico is illegal immigration and Drug Cartels.

Member Since: Septiembre 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10139
15. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:07 AM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
Quoting sebastianjer:
Back

Regarding Free Markets.

I imagine it has been centuries since there was anything like "true" free markets, back before governments got involved in commerce and people dealt in barter.

As to what I believe free markets are in today's world, not too free at all. A true free market would be where individual or institutions reached agreements without any outside (government) interference. This really has never happened as long as there have been governments nor do I believe that there ever could be totally free markets, short of societal collapse and starting from scratch, always a possibility.

I personally believe in order to get out of the mess we are in we need to go back to as close to laissez-faire capitalism as we can get, which given the current political climate and cowardice of politicians won't be too close.

The easiest and fastest way to get back to "freer" markets and what I support would be a move towards strict adherence to the Tenth Amendment. This would necessarily involve dramatic down sizing of the federal government which in itself would allow for freer markets.

I personally am not afraid of globalization, it is where we have to go eventually anyway and in the end it will be the best for the world. I do believe that we need to be tougher in our dealings with other nations when it comes to cheating and such but the fact that nations like China and India have cheap labor doesn't bother me,if I can buy $20 tennis shoes and help lift a Chinese peasant out of crippling poverty it's all to the good.

The problem with the United States isn't outsourcing, it's laziness, we have grown too spoiled and lazy and we are going to pay for it.


The United States Constitution

Article 1
Section 8
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
14. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:01 AM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
Quoting sebastianjer:
Re 4inking and opinion on the matter. I will probably have to come back later for a longer explanation but I did want to say a couple of things about your post

Rookie



"Thank you for your question, I will take some time to answer it, though it will as all things I post unless attributed to others be my own thinking and opinion on the matter. I will probably have to come back later for a longer explanation but I did want to say a couple of things about your post before I went further."

Jer, thank you for taking the time to post a reply. You have already informed me that you work to support your family and that this blog is not a full time job for you. I will not press you for an answer, for I know you have more important things to do. You have always been fair and honest with anyone that posts here, from what I have seen.

"First of all if I have read your previous postings here correctly you are only about 4 years older than me, if that is the case I would say that our memories are not too far off so when you say "you probably do not remember the quality products we use to make here" you are probably not correct in the respect that our time frame is very similar."

I did state the year I was born. I see the picture that you post, but I was not certain that the picture is of you. Yet, it was still wrong for me to say that you do not remember the quality products we use to make here. I will take care to not make such a mistake again. Actually, knowing that you are close to my age will help to make the conversations flow better. We have both seen enough to understand what the other is talking about.

"On that particular subject and believe me you are not alone when I say we probably do not see eye to eye on that."

Oh, for certain, we will not agree on everything, but I am more in agreement with your posts than I willing to say just yet. I will say that we are in agreement on many of the generalities of your topics. Our way of thinking is more apt to drift in different directions when we pop open the hood and start talking about the specifics. Besides, I wish for all sides to be heard, even when I agree with you. Patting each other on the back and saying, "Atta boy!" only strengthens egos and not knowledge.

"I would not for a moment trade the advancements in manufacturing or the cost/benefit of modern day products as compared to past products in almost every respect. It would take far too long to get into it now though it might make a good topic for later. Briefly though I will say I believe that although many items are now of cheaper quality than they used to be, though not so many or so badly as is a common narrative, they are also made cheaper to the consumer."

I have nothing against the improvements in technologies and manufacturing techniques, but we can leave that for a later discussion, as you suggest.

"Years ago I had a very well built Remington typewriter and it probably, if I had kept it, would still be operating today, but to what purpose? So much of the talk of the way we used to build things is just romantic irrelevancies."

I have no problem with products being replaced with newer and better technologies. I have a problem when they do not bring forward the quality of the products the new technology replaces.

"But to compare apples to apples if you will, I owned a brand new 1976 Ford Pinto, worst car I ever owned and it was made right here in the USA. However the absolute best car I ever owned from all stand points was a 2005 Toyota Echo, simply a great functional and reliable car."

And to think that you thought we could not be in complete agreement with each other. OK, I will spot you the U.S. auto industry was not one of our bright spots in manufacturing. However, they were converted into war machinery production during WWII and we certainly smoked the competition then. At least by the end of the war. ;-)

"I have found that when I want to buy something of quality I can find it, but when I need something and I don't have the money to buy the best quality it sure is nice that I can go to Home Depot and buy a $69 circular saw to get me by when I first started out in the business the cheapest was over $100 in 1980 dollars. Now that saw lasted me ten years and today I regret it did because it weighed 3 times more than the "cheaper" ones they came out with a few years later. If that old "high Quality" one had broken down sooner I might not be suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome now."

All true, but while that old Craftsman heavy duty circular saw that I still have weighs more than what is available now, I have found that the old, heavy craftsman is easier to cut with, easier to keep on a straight line and is less subject to kick back. The new technology blades are the biggest improvement on the circular saws and not the saws themselves. Although I must admit that the chop saws and the power miter saws are nice! OK, they are SWEET! They beat a miter saw and a miter box any day!

"Walmart and its "cheap" foreign products is the greatest thing that has happened to low income Americans in a long time. Want proof?"

There are a number of reasons that products are cheaper now and it is not just because many products come from China now. I am sure we can both agree on this.

"Every 6 months I go to WalMart and buy me a pair of $16-20 tennis shoes. I could afford a more expensive pair, but why? I just wear them to work , spill paint on them, mow the lawn in them etc. Why should I waste 100 bucks on a pair of shoes that are just functional even if they last me 3 times longer? Thank God for WalMart so I don't have to pay $15 for a T-shirt I could easily rip the day after I buy it. But the key here is I could go buy $ 100 tennis shoes and $15 T-shirts if I wanted to, but I don't have to because the cheap stuff is out there for me ..."

Agreed. Why pay more for something to kick around in and work in than is what needed. When it is something that I want to keep around longer, I am willing to pay more for the quality. I do pay more for quality, but as we know, paying a higher price does not actually mean that you actually get better quality. That $150-$200 pair of "Air Jordens" should not be an indication that the price is all quality. This brings us back to the ROI for the consumer.

"... like every single one of my wife's minority and more importantly it is out there for those who really can not afford the more expensive sand underprivileged students. They get new stuff every year, ..."

Yes, cheap prices allow for more to participate in things that we were not able to. No arguments there.

"... unlike when I was the son of a widow with five children to raise in the early 60's and got ill fitting hand me downs and patched up "last years"."

Other than my mother was never a widow, we could have lived next door to each other. I had 5 siblings. One of which is no longer with us.

"And they get "new stuff" because of the greatness of free markets like Walmart just like the guy in 1923 could own a car because of the greatness of Henry Ford and free markets."

Well, giving all of the credit to free markets for this is, shall we say, a bit of a stretch. Many, many other factors came into play with this. We can continue that conversation when you have had time to define a free market for me. As I said, I know you are busy and there is no rush to do this.

Take care, Jer. Stay safe on the job.





Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
13. sebastianjer
3:44 AM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
When (If) you figure out this chart you will see how bad the unemployment numbers really are and how the numbers have been manipulated to make them look better than they really are.

Member Since: Agosto 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
12. sebastianjer
3:19 AM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
Back

Regarding Free Markets.

I imagine it has been centuries since there was anything like "true" free markets, back before governments got involved in commerce and people dealt in barter.

As to what I believe free markets are in today's world, not too free at all. A true free market would be where individual or institutions reached agreements without any outside (government) interference. This really has never happened as long as there have been governments nor do I believe that there ever could be totally free markets, short of societal collapse and starting from scratch, always a possibility.

I personally believe in order to get out of the mess we are in we need to go back to as close to laissez-faire capitalism as we can get, which given the current political climate and cowardice of politicians won't be too close.

The easiest and fastest way to get back to "freer" markets and what I support would be a move towards strict adherence to the Tenth Amendment. This would necessarily involve dramatic down sizing of the federal government which in itself would allow for freer markets.

I personally am not afraid of globalization, it is where we have to go eventually anyway and in the end it will be the best for the world. I do believe that we need to be tougher in our dealings with other nations when it comes to cheating and such but the fact that nations like China and India have cheap labor doesn't bother me,if I can buy $20 tennis shoes and help lift a Chinese peasant out of crippling poverty it's all to the good.

The problem with the United States isn't outsourcing, it's laziness, we have grown too spoiled and lazy and we are going to pay for it.
Member Since: Agosto 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
11. theshepherd
2:04 AM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
"But to compare apples to apples if you will, I owned a brand new 1976 Ford Pinto, worst car I ever owned and it was made right here in the USA. However the absolute best car I ever owned from all stand points was a 2005 Toyota Echo, simply a great functional and reliable car.
In my whole life, not until the mid 90's did I ever own a vehicle which I considered a good car. Since the mid 90's I have not owned a vehicle that I did not feel gave me monies worth. I can think of dozens of products that are the same way"
****************************************


My favorite cars were a new 68 Dodge Coronet 500, a new 72 VW Super Beetle convertible and an 87 Cadillac Eldorado Bairritz that I bought when it was 3 years old. Rock solid, comfortable and reliable. Actually I really miss that old 55 Chevy I bought for $35 in 66 :)

I currently drive a 93 4wd Chevy Suburban that I totally rebuilt from scratch. Gets 19.5 mpg and drives like a dream.

As far as outboard engines are concerned, I presently own 2 new Evinrude ETechs. Those are the finest machines I've ever owned a key to.

Member Since: Septiembre 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10139
10. theshepherd
1:36 AM GMT en Abril 10, 2012

1. sebastianjer 9:33 AM EDT on April 09, 2012 +0


Time to Stop Being Intimidated by the Left

"By Steve McCann

Over the past twenty years, the American left has been largely successful in intimidating much of the conservative movement and creating the impression that leftists are much smarter and thus able to stay one step ahead. Things have evolved to the point where every utterance or action by the current titular leader of the left, Barack Obama, is analyzed and dissected by many conservatives as if they were part and parcel of some grand strategy.

In fact, those on the left, including Barack Obama, are not as intelligent as they perceive themselves to be (and often are perceived to be by others), and oftentimes their actions and words are not part of a master plan, but rather symptomatic of either their personal failings or being mind-numbed robots promoting the left-wing agenda."


************************************************* **

That speaks volumes.


Member Since: Septiembre 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10139
9. Ossqss
1:26 AM GMT en Abril 10, 2012

#8 Many often overlook what drives a free market. Think about it. No matter who, if you have any type of retirement account, you care how the free market does, even if you don't know it.

You want better returns on your investments, and know it or not, your managed investments in any government, private or public company, is managed as such. Hence you indirectly, with your retirement money as one example, help the free market work.

You want better value/price, and in today's world obsolescence, ratios on your product purchases too, no? So think about how that imaginary company, you have an investment in, deals with the environment it has been forcibly placed in ?

So, you want better financial performance out of your investments, and yet want the product to be cheaper?

How do you think most companies manage margin squeeze?

Just sayin, we asked for what we have, but it is still far better than our government doing it for us.



Member Since: Junio 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
8. sebastianjer
12:47 AM GMT en Abril 10, 2012
Re 4

Rookie

Thank you for your question, I will take some time to answer it, though it will as all things I post unless attributed to others be my own thinking and opinion on the matter. I will probably have to come back later for a longer explanation but I did want to say a couple of things about your post before I went further.

First of all if I have read your previous postings here correctly you are only about 4 years older than me, if that is the case I would say that our memories are not too far off so when you say "you probably do not remember the quality products we use to make here" you are probably not correct in the respect that our time frame is very similar.

On that particular subject and believe me you are not alone when I say we probably do not see eye to eye on that. I would not for a moment trade the advancements in manufacturing or the cost/benefit of modern day products as compared to past products in almost every respect. It would take far too long to get into it now though it might make a good topic for later. Briefly though I will say I believe that although many items are now of cheaper quality than they used to be, though not so many or so badly as is a common narrative, they are also made cheaper to the consumer.

In some cases,depending on the product, this trade off is a detriment to society but by and large it all has been to the good. Usually however there is no comparison simply because those "well built" products are now obsolete and have been totally replaced by more advanced and more worthwhile products.

Years ago I had a very well built Remington typewriter and it probably, if I had kept it, would still be operating today, but to what purpose? So much of the talk of the way we used to build things is just romantic irrelevancies.

But to compare apples to apples if you will, I owned a brand new 1976 Ford Pinto, worst car I ever owned and it was made right here in the USA. However the absolute best car I ever owned from all stand points was a 2005 Toyota Echo, simply a great functional and reliable car.
In my whole life, not until the mid 90's did I ever own a vehicle which I considered a good car. Since the mid 90's I have not owned a vehicle that I did not feel gave me monies worth. I can think of dozens of products that are the same way.

I work in construction and learned the trade in Virginia which has some of the oldest houses in the nation, and I worked on many of them. I actually lived in a farmhouse that was built prior to the Revolutionary War and lived in another that pre-dated the Civil War. Very fine well built homes (obviously) both of which could not hold a candle to the house I live in today. Perhaps not in craftsmanship but functionality, comfort and affordability.

I have found that when I want to buy something of quality I can find it, but when I need something and I don't have the money to buy the best quality it sure is nice that I can go to Home Depot and buy a $69 circular saw to get me by when I first started out in the business the cheapest was over $100 in 1980 dollars. Now that saw lasted me ten years and today I regret it did because it weighed 3 times more than the "cheaper" ones they came out with a few years later. If that old "high Quality" one had broken down sooner I might not be suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome now.

Walmart and its "cheap" foreign products is the greatest thing that has happened to low income Americans in a long time. Want proof?



Every 6 months I go to WalMart and buy me a pair of $16-20 tennis shoes. I could afford a more expensive pair, but why? I just wear them to work , spill paint on them, mow the lawn in them etc. Why should I waste 100 bucks on a pair of shoes that are just functional even if they last me 3 times longer? Thank God for WalMart so I don't have to pay $15 for a T-shirt I could easily rip the day after I buy it. But the key here is I could go buy $ 100 tennis shoes and $15 T-shirts if I wanted to, but I don't have to because the cheap stuff is out there for me and more importantly it is out there for those who really can not afford the more expensive stuff like every single one of my wife's minority and underprivileged students. They get new stuff every year, unlike when I was the son of a widow with five children to raise in the early 60's and got ill fitting hand me downs and patched up "last years". And they get "new stuff" because of the greatness of free markets like Walmart just like the guy in 1923 could own a car because of the greatness of Henry Ford and free markets.

Gone on too long will answer more of your comment later but you might want to ponder this

Member Since: Agosto 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
7. Some1Has2BtheRookie
9:21 PM GMT en Abril 09, 2012
Quoting theshepherd:
"If liberals really understood markets they could not remain liberals"

Yep. And they wouldn't be playing prepubescent stump the teacher games like, "What is free market". Standing ready with their Huffingtonesque dribble and mental onanism.







I am always impressed with your ability to avoid discussion of any topic by simply inputting your derogatory remarks of others. Should one wish to have an intellectual discussion then all must have an understanding of what is being discussed. Do you suggest that Jer does not know how to define his own topic simply because you do not wish to have it defined? .. Since you seem to be so knowledgeable of all topics, theshepherd, then perhaps you would like to define the term "free market", in its meaning to you, to this prepubescent student? ... Take your best shot at it. I eagerly await your response. You seem to always have a ready answer. Do you not? I seek clarification of the term "free market". This dimwit does not understand its meaning. Who among us can define what is meant by the term, "free market"? Would it be you, shep?
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
6. latitude25
8:43 PM GMT en Abril 09, 2012
#2.....as seen on the internet
"People without ID will be voting for democrats, anyway, so what's the problem?......."
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3654
5. theshepherd
8:08 PM GMT en Abril 09, 2012
"If liberals really understood markets they could not remain liberals"

Yep. And they wouldn't be playing prepubescent stump the teacher games like, "What is free market". Standing ready with their Huffingtonesque dribble and mental onanism.





Member Since: Septiembre 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10139
4. Some1Has2BtheRookie
4:22 PM GMT en Abril 09, 2012
How was your weekend, Jer?

Let me try to stay on topic today. I will deal with the topic of the blog. Markets, or as you extend further, free markets.

"If liberals really understood markets they could not remain liberals."

Here, we are talking about markets and the seeming lack of liberals to understand markets. Perhaps what is truly misunderstood is when people throw in the term, "free", to describe markets. Unless the term, "free", is placed into proper context, then confusion as to what that actually means will cause misunderstandings.

"Here is a more accurate description of how free markets work. People left with only their own self interest as a compass will inevitably choose the product, service or idea which is most beneficial to their circumstances. The cumulative decisions of individual choices will ultimately determine the degree of success or failure of any product, service or idea. So in the end it is not the survival of the fittest than wins, but the success of the best that survives."

I can quickly add that the sentiment of most U.S. citizens is that they would prefer to buy products that are made in the U.S.. Instead, we are given little choice of not buying products made in China. Is this truly a conscious choice of getting the best? No, at best, it is a market choice to buy the cheapest and the long term result has been that product quality has suffered in many areas. Products made in the U.S. almost always cost more than the same products from elsewhere. Where the ROI, for the consumer, came in was the reliability and the longer life expectancy of the products made in the U.S.. With the rush to "cheap" products we have also gained less reliable products that usually exhibit a shorter life span. You may not even be aware that this is true since you probably do not remember the quality products we use to make here. They had a greater up front cost, but the ROI was usually much higher than it is for the planned obsolescence, cheaply made, minimum engineering and nearly non repairable products we are almost certainly forced to purchase now. When I say nearly non repairable, it is in the sense that you are rarely able to buy an individual component and are forced to buy an assembly of components to get the part that you need. This is a major waste of the consumer's funds and of materials. The only ones that benefit from this form of marketing are the marketers.

I could continue, but first I wish to make a request of you. I know that you are busy and your life is not this blog, so please, take your time. I would prefer that you study the question and give a reasoned response. What defines a "free market" to you? More to the point, what do you consider must happen before a market could be considered as a free market? Until we know what you mean by a "free market" then the conversations are destined to become confusing and pointless. You have shown some broad based generalities. I ask that you now give the specifics of what you think a free market is to you.
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758

Viewing: 54 - 4

Page: 1 | 2Blog Index

Top of Page

About sebastianjer

Local Weather

Clear
61 ° F
Despejado