CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Prime rate cut to 4.75%
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Prime rate cut to 4.75% - Page 2

post #51 of 57
10/3/07 at 3:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
Disaster. We discussed this idea in depth in another thread, and I think we have a good understanding of one another’s position here. I’ll quickly reiterate by stating that not only does this condescend to the governments of foreign nations, it kills American global competitiveness. In the global economy, labor, ideas, and goods flow smoothly among nations. Those nations that harness the flow profit from it, while those that refuse do without. We can no longer pretend that we’re exceptional – we’ve got to duke it out, and that means harnessing, not trying to block, the flow.
I think as a nation, we are selling our soul to attain riches beyond wildest imaginings for a handful of CEOs. Also, I don't think we'll ever agree on this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Bernie Sanders
Since Bush has been president:

* over 5 million people have slipped into poverty;
* nearly 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance;
* median household income has gone down by nearly $1,300;
* three million manufacturing jobs have been lost;
* three million American workers have lost their pensions;
* home foreclosures are now the highest on record;
* the personal savings rate is below zero - which hasn’t happened since the great depression;
* the real earnings of college graduates have gone down by about 5% in the last few years;
* entry level wages for male and female high school graduates have fallen by over 3%;
* wages and salaries are now at the lowest share of GDP since 1929.
From here via here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
Ask the American airline industry about the benevolence of unions and their ability to act as good stewards of the long-term best interests of their constituents. Regarding a WPA-style program, I fail to see how the USG would be more effective than the private contractors that USG currently hires to get work done. You want better infrastructure? Let more contracts. The contractors will hire more people. Oh, yeah, but you’ve got to pay for it. No matter which way you slice it.
I'd rather pay for a program like WPA than Halliburton to fix our infrastructure, which is falling apart. I also believe in unions and always will. You believe in the self-determination of the entrepreneur, I believe in the self-determination of the aggregate of individuals with less power who create power in numbers. Sure, corruption is possible, as it is anywhere. That doesn't mean unions aren't a positive thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
There are no media monopolies. There are media conglomerates, and I wholeheartedly agree they aren’t good for America (I don’t believe that you could constitutionally dissolve them, but that’s another matter.). While I do not believe that Corporate Mainstream Media (bum bum bummmm) is inherently evil, I do believe that competition is good and that they’re bad for competition.
But, again, aren't these "conglomerates" the result of "pro-business" legislation? Does that mean breaking them up would be considered "anti-business"? I do think they are inherently evil. It's not an accident that these concentrations of media power have a conservative bent. That didn't just happen. This is the result of a concerted effort to acquire media companies to "control the message."

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
I’m a recent convert to universal healthcare, a conversion we’ve discussed in another thread. I don’t think that we should remove business from the health care business, however – the profit motive is a powerful force, and a powerful motivator toward the innovation that we think of as one of the hallmarks of our system. I don’t know what universal healthcare should look like, but I think it would be good for America because it would free the American entrepreneur to roll the dice on his dream without putting his family at risk.
Even though so much research is paid for by taxpayer money, you still think that the profit motive has encouraged innovation? Someone I know recently died of cancer because she could not continue the revolutionary treatment she received in Germany here because her healthcare provider recognized the treatment but not for the type of cancer she had. Did you know that healthcare organizations will pay for expensive operations only if their insured will go to Thailand or some other cheaper country to have them performed? The profit motive is a double-edged sword.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
I can live with both of these. I have ideas about how to do the former, but I have no idea how to do the latter.
Me neither, but both should be on the table.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
Part one is an easy applause line for democratic politicians, but it doesn’t really mean anything. I assume you’re not advocating a switch to a command economy (Are you? If so, then we have a whole other conversation ahead of us!), so DoD must do business with businesses who meet its needs. The Department is already staffed with hard-working, conscientious people who do the best they can, and yet waste happens. Within the confines of a human system run and staffed by humans, I just can’t imagine how to make things better. If DoD writes me a big enough check, however, I’ll be happy to pull together a staff and try. ☺ Now, about removing the profit element, I’m not sure how you do that. Again, assuming you aren’t talking about a command economy, DoD must do business with corporations who bid contracts in an attempt to make money. Clearly, it’s in the interest of these organizations for their clients to want to solicit more bids, so unless you eliminate the human desire to compete economically, how to you not make conflict a good thing for American Bullet Mfg, Inc?
Except that the nature of the beast seems to facilitate and even encourage favoritism, no bid contracts, mutual back-scratching, and yes, putting people in harm's way to keep the defense industry on what Quint would call "a paying basis." Something is wrong with this endless-war scenario, don't you agree? Americans want to be secure - we don't want to pay for the defense industry's self-fulfilling prophesy with money and blood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
So family real estate development is ok? As long as the Bluths are taken care of, I’m ok. This is a county-level issue, but let’s talk about how we’d like our counties to handle things. I think my county should demand that developers should pay, up front, for the infrastructure required by new development. That includes sewer systems, water treatment plants, schools, fire houses, roads and mass transit, you name it. This would keep county residents from having to pay so more people could clog up their roads, keep county budgets in line, and, encourage redevelopment.
I agree with all of that, but again, counties don't always stop development because of that old friend, human nature, wherein corruption thrives bacteria-like everywhere, from the smallest village church to the largest multinational corporation. And in the meantime, all of the costs you mention are racking up, and our country is being consumed by sprawl.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
Ah, I forget Zimbabwe. I think it had something to do with planned economies. Now, I have to get out of this Panera before I float away.
Thank YOU for your thoughtful response, FC. I somehow feel that through dialog with you I will eventually come to understand a reasonable person's approach to policies that, for me, are incomprehensible.
Reply
post #52 of 57
10/3/07 at 6:50pm
Re: the numbers on the economy

How much do you think that is due to the natural cyclicity of the economy, and the war? (I'm not saying the war is great, but if we eliminated the war and devaluation of the dollar, how much would that change things?)
Reply
post #53 of 57
10/4/07 at 2:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali Mohamed
Another difference: we are facing an obesity and nutritional crisis, with our poorest citizens forced to eat the worst of the worst due to their financial straits which in turn leads to distressingly bad health rates (across the board) compared to our more wealthier citizens. This is something that our government needs to tackle aggresively and is not something that should be taken lightly.
This is a good point. There's a product called "kid cuisine" that advertises on Nickelodeon. My son pointed out one of their commercials, asking if we could buy the stuff the cute kids and cartoon character were joyfully scarfing down. "Son," I said, "Look at what they're doing - they're squeezing a tube of extra fat onto the fat already on their plates. That cartoon character is not your friend. He's your enemy, and he's trying to kill you."
Reply
post #54 of 57
10/4/07 at 2:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
But purely free market "pro-business" policies should allow the energy industry to profit to the maximum degree - that means we stick to fossil fuels. Even if it kills us, at least those businesses will remain "successful." Right?
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson

Quote:
You grew up in the '60s and '70s, right? So did I (and trust me, it was no cakewalk). What we grew up with is not what kids are facing today. Maybe you don't see it where you live, but extreme poverty is on the rise, and it's far worse than "modified food habits."
Y'know, yt, I just don't see it. I visit some pretty poor countries from time to time, and I know what extreme poverty looks like. I don't see shantytowns and favelas springing up all over America.
Reply
post #55 of 57
10/4/07 at 2:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
But, again, aren't these "conglomerates" the result of "pro-business" legislation? Does that mean breaking them up would be considered "anti-business"?
"I am large. I contain multitudes."
-- Walt Whitman

Quote:
Even though so much research is paid for by taxpayer money, you still think that the profit motive has encouraged innovation? Someone I know recently died of cancer because she could not continue the revolutionary treatment she received in Germany here because her healthcare provider recognized the treatment but not for the type of cancer she had. Did you know that healthcare organizations will pay for expensive operations only if their insured will go to Thailand or some other cheaper country to have them performed? The profit motive is a double-edged sword.
Yes, I do believe that the profit motive encourages innovation. This is why NIH went ballistic when USG told its scientists that they could no longer patent and profit from the research they did there. And by the way, one of my sisters-in-law moved to Thailand a few years ago. Her doctor graduated from Harvard Medical School.

Quote:
Except that the nature of the beast seems to facilitate and even encourage favoritism, no bid contracts, mutual back-scratching, and yes, putting people in harm's way to keep the defense industry on what Quint would call "a paying basis."
That's just not true. I've spent enough time bidding contracts to know, first hand, just how rigorous the process is. In fact, in some ways it's too rigorous. DoD so aggressively pursues the lowest possible bid that it often awards contracts to less-capable firms who staff the work with (cheap) recent graduates.

Quote:
Thank YOU for your thoughtful response, FC. I somehow feel that through dialog with you I will eventually come to understand a reasonable person's approach to policies that, for me, are incomprehensible.
It's always a pleasure, yt. Have a great day.
Reply
post #56 of 57
10/5/07 at 2:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
Yes, I do believe that the profit motive encourages innovation. This is why NIH went ballistic when USG told its scientists that they could no longer patent and profit from the research they did there. And by the way, one of my sisters-in-law moved to Thailand a few years ago. Her doctor graduated from Harvard Medical School.
Further to this discussion, the following news story is one component of what I'm talking about. ps. I don't think doctors in Thailand are less qualified by any stretch of the imagination, just that it's pathetic that insurance companies will, in certain cases, only fund necessary operations if they're performed in cheaper countries. Here's the article:

Quote:
Industry wouldn't fund cancer drug, so Alberta town rode to the rescue
Last Updated: Thursday, October 4, 2007 | 10:12 AM ET
CBC News

Even though the drug shrinks cancerous tumours, no pharmaceutical companies wanted to fund human trials because they couldn't make enough money selling it. And that's when Peace River stepped in.

DCA has been in use for decades. But it has recently been shown to fight cancer by attacking the metabolism of malignant tumours in studies on rats.DCA has been in use for decades. But it has recently been shown to fight cancer by attacking the metabolism of malignant tumours in studies on rats.
(CBC)

To date, the town in northwestern Alberta has collected $250,000 — a large chunk of the $800,000 in grants and donations generated worldwide to fund the clinical trial of dichloroacetate, or DCA.

DCA has been in use for decades. But it has recently been shown to fight cancer by attacking the metabolism of malignant tumours in studies on rats.

In January 2007, the academic journal Cancer Cell published a University of Alberta doctor's findings that showed the compound shrinks tumours without damaging healthy cells. But because the drug sells for so little, at $2 a dose, no drug company was willing to support human trials and DCA's patent expired.

So people in Peace River began their fundraising campaign.

"It was a very simple decision for us to do," one of the primary fundraisers in the town, radio station owner Terry Babiy, told CBC News on Wednesday.

The rest is here.
Reply
post #57 of 57
10/7/07 at 11:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by witchesbrew
"She" doesn't consider " herself " so financially astute as to not ask for advice/input. There are many brilliant financial minds on this board, whats the harm in tapping in?
When did they start letting women own property?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Prime rate cut to 4.75%