XPost: alt.society.labor-unions, alt.politics.economics, misc.consumers   
   XPost: soc.retirement   
   From: okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com   
      
   "maureen"  wrote in message   
   news:rvp130dghrojv1vl7volkkvs7c3a66m1f3@4ax.com...   
   > On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:33:47 GMT, "Michael Legel"    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   > >   
   > > wrote in message   
   > >news:eoe130pvel4acu83hnn6fon44dptf6ht35@4ax.com...   
   > >> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:02:27 -0800, "Rick"  wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> >   
   > >> >Michael is correct.  The "law" of supply and demand exists   
   > >> >only as a concept inside people's brains, and is used by the   
   > >> >haves as a lame excuse every time they wish to justify stealing   
   > >> >yet again from the have nots.   
   > >> >   
   > >> >Where was the "law" of supply and demand when our   
   > >> >government bailed out the savings and loan industry?  Or   
   > >> >Chrysler?  Seems this immutable "law" applies to some of us   
   > >> >but not others.   
   > >> >   
   > >> >Rick   
   > >> >   
   > >> Rick, the mis-using of gov't to interfere with the rational workings   
   > >> of the market doesn't obviate the efficacy of economic laws and   
   > >> principles.   
   > >>   
   > >> Ain't the truth Beautiful!!   
   > >>   
   > >> Have a Fredrick Hayek kind of day!!   
   > >>   
   > >> Cheerio and Hoo-Raah!!   
   > >>   
   > >> Dennis, Proud America-Loving NEOCON CAPITALIST, Finest Kind Irish   
   > >   
   > >The point is that there are NO rational workings of the market.  It is   
   not   
   > >rational to allow slave, child, and elder labor.  There are no rational   
   > >reasons for human beings to treat each other like animals and excuse the   
   > >behavior by blaming the market.  WE control the market.  Period.  If we   
   > >allowed "the efficacy of economic laws" Attila the Hun would still be   
   > >running the world.  The market says he who has all the gold rules ... do   
   you   
   > >want to live that way.  We are headed back in that direction .. .   
   >   
   > Well said !   A free market means the freedom of corporations to do   
   > whatever they like, and many of them are doing it...  abusing workers'   
   > rights, ignoring the need for safety in the work place, and polluting   
   > the environment. There are no controls.   
   >   
   > But hey, the economy is doing well except there are no jobs.  While   
   > Clinton created 22 million jobs, Bush has lost 2.7 million.  And don't   
   > think there will be any jobs in the future.   
      
   What in the world are you talking about?   Yes, the unemployment rate is   
   high, but the unemployment rate is always high when you have a recession.   
   If you think that Bush caused the recession than I think you need to study   
   how this economy operates.  President's do not have effective control of the   
   economy.  At best they can help the economy or hurt the economy, but they do   
   not control the direction of the economy, the Federal Reserve Bank does by   
   its policies.  To accuse a President, any President for the condition we   
   find ourselves, shows me you don't understand the dynamics at work.   
      
   >   
   > As well as outsourcing middle class jobs, more and more of our imports   
   > are either being made by American and other transnational corporations   
   > who have sweatshops, neo sweatshops or other lower cost facilities in   
   > countries where labor costs are low, low, low.  Dollar stores filled   
   > with cheap foreign goods are growing exponentially. And it's not only   
   > clothing and the small stuff. China is planning to get into the car   
   > market. and the larger electronic stuff.  Soon it will be hard to find   
   > labels with "made in America".   
      
   Once again, any economist will tell you that there are winners and losers   
   regardless of what policies you adopt.  The question that is significant is   
   are there more winners than losers.  Do the advantages outweigh the   
   disadvantages.  We do not live in a Utopian society, and near as I can tell,   
   no one has figured out how to develop a workable Utopian society.   
   >   
   > And the tax system doesn't help the workers.  The tax philosphy has   
   > changed from the old days when it was designed to keep a strong middle   
   > class by distributing enormous wealth from the top echelons of society   
   > to public services that benefit all of society .  Nowadays the tax   
   > cuts are geared to the rich, many of whom have said they don't want   
   > it, e.g. Gates and Buffet.   And the middle class is being eroded   
   > while the bottom echelons are becoming more and more destitute as the   
   > gap between rich and poor gets ever wider.   
   >   
   As a percentage of the population, who pays most of the taxes?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)