OT Neighbor (rant)

[HeyBub]

That's accurate, but not precise.

[HeyBub]

Sounds like the Canadian dude who recently started with a paper clip and kept trading up 'til he got a house.

[Kurt Ullman]

How about governments (or at least legislatures) who exist only to enrich themselves. Think buildings, roads, etc., named after them, campaign and other contributions, power and other enrichments. At least with public corporations I have the opportunity (through stock ownership and dividends) to siphon off some of that enrichment. I always thought the America Love it or Leave it campaign was stupid, nothing changed my mind here.

[Stormin Mormon]

When a corporation decides to change policy, such as raise prices. you can usually go some where else. Don't like Walmart? Buy at Target, instead.

When a government decides to raise taxes, there is little you can do about it. Governments also have men with guns who will put you in handcuffs, and take you to jail for non payment.

I'd rather have runaway corporations.

[Stormin Mormon]

Goodwin was a good for nothing Nazi.

(Don't thank me; I'm a professional at this.)

[Phisherman]

When my neighbors found out I can repair computers, networks, or software I got several requests. I don't mind helping out, but nothing more than an hour. For $30 to mow is cheap, but for that particular neighbor there would be a $50 bench charge to look at their computer (other neighbors are free). I have said more than once, "I don't loan tools, but maybe you can check at Home Depot or Lowes." They usually don't ask again. My father painted all his tools bright pink and nobody asked to borrow them.

[Bill]

I was going to say just that^

I get amused by these people they are so self centered these days. I have a young friend who wanted to borrow an instructional video from me. He wanted me to bring it to him! Out of curiosity I did so. I said he could borrow it for 2 weeks only as I needed it. 3 months later he finally called and said I COULD COME PICK UP MY VIDEO as he was done using it!

Then another one frequently calls me because I have a truck and wants me to pick up stuff which will fit in their Suburban. They don't want to get their vehicle dirty. They NEVER offer to pay me for gas or my time. Then I have spent all day at their house helping them with projects (free) and they NEVER offer me anything to drink or eat.

Anyway I'm learning the meaning of the phrase "You have to give to receive".

These people are doing absolutely no giving and the receiving part has come to an end!

[trader4]

The real question is, why do you keep doing it? Sounds like you need each other.

[HeyBub]

Private enterprise creates wealth; governments destroy wealth.

The commercial mindset depends upon voluntary contracts and eschews force. Unfortunately, governments must exist to compel compliance with these voluntary contracts - as such, governments are a cost of doing business (like giving away paper bags). The only private business that has the wherewithal to compel compliance is the Mafia.

As for corporations enriching themselves, they don't. They don't take the money and put it in a mattress or destroy it, they use it to create jobs and more wealth. It is governments that do the equivalent of burning money.

There is almost nothing that private enterprise can't do cheaper than a government. Military? Most wars have been fought by mercenaries or militias. If we need an army, we could hire one. Police? There are FAR more private security guards in my city than cops. Fire protection? 85% of America's fire fighters are volunteers. And what has any branch of government ever done regarding bubble-baths or bee-bites?

Even Walmart (according to one study funded by Walmart) has done more to improve the standard of living for lower and middle-class people than all the government programs combined (food stamps, AFDC, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.). "...Wal-Mart saved American consumers $236 billion in 2004, or $2,239 for the average American household..."

Heck, just today, a study was released showing the presence of a Walmart reduces obesity among its patrons! No, as George Will once said: "Government should protect the borders and deliver the mail. When they prove competent at those tasks, we might trust them with something else."

[Eric]

Unfortunately,

as such, governments

business that has the

money and put it in a

governments that do the

government. Military? Most

hire one. Police?

protection? 85% of America's

improve the standard of

combined (food stamps,

consumers $236

reduces obesity among its

deliver the mail. When

And I am a space alien from planet Zorgon!

Typing something in a usenet* forum does not automatically make it true.

EL

*Usenet, running over the Internet, which evolved from ARPANET, which was created at the request of, and funded by... the US government.

[Jon Danniken]

Actually, as long as the fence doesn't move about once it is set, it will be perfectly precise.

You are, however, correct that the cut may not be accurate, if it is indeed "impossible to align".

Jon

[George]

So you like the "share the wealth idea" where some really smart people in government will look out for you and control every aspect of society? You might want to check into this but I believe it has been tried before and imploded in the 90's

[George]

That would be all cute and nice except for all of the pirates in the banking/investment sector who recently demonstrated what greed due to lack of regulation can do.

And it is ironic that most of the people who need to "save money at walmart" need to do so because walmart was a major player in the loss of their previous good jobs because they demanded lower and lower prices from their suppliers causing most to go off shore.

[Kurt Ullman]

I'd expand it according to the PJ Principle. "Politics should be limited in its scope to war, protection of property, and the occasional precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."

-P.J. O'Rourke

[George]

One might ask why you continue to respond to "one way" ** people? Just learn how to politely blow them off.

** "one way" is a name some friends gave to someone we know. He will never ever do anything for anyone but will never hesitate to ask everyone to do stuff for him.

[RicodJour]

Operative phrase being "as long as the fence doesn't move about". How many cheap tablesaws have you encountered with good fences? In my ute I'd dick around with the adjustment and the thing would still move. You can't adjust a bad design and cheap construction to be quality.

But you already know that.

R

[Ryan P]

Of course, all those banks that were handing out mortgages to people who couldn't afford them were doing so because the Government told them to.

Again, follow the train a bit further... things are cheaper to produce overseas because the US government makes it more expensive to do business here.

Why do you think GM failed? GM's profit margin is so much smaller than the competitions because of government regulation. And that's before you even get into the price impact that unions have.

[Kurt Ullman]

I would submit that the greed involved was very much government-induced. The great increases in executive (total) pay (and interestingly enough many of the more serious scandals) began around

1993 and the passage of that year's Ombinus Budget Reconciliation Act. One of the elements of this, according to the legislative record in Congress, was an attempt to make executive more performance related (anybody heard a call for that recently>????). OBRA '93 made changes in the tax law that capped deductibility for executive SALARY at $1 million, yet made it tax advantaged to the company to give stock options and other similar "performance based" measures that would bring executive's interests more in line with the interests of the stock holders (heard that mantra again recently??) According to a Congressional Research Service report, median CEO total pay began its rise in 2003 (gee why is that an important date?). However the rise wasn't all up and up, as median CEO pay fell around the time of the tech bubble and resultant stock fall. Between '95 and '05 medial salary increased only from $0.7 million to $1 million (the deductible amount) while pay for performance (options, bonuses, etc.) more than quadrupled. What all of this boils down to is that the government had decided that the majority of your pay will be related to performance, rational economic behavior will be to maximize that part of your pay. The cover originally given to the executives when the Congress made the changes in tax law "to make the interests of the executives more in line with the shareholders" gave some of those who might not have fudged the books the rationalization to do so. It wasn't greed so much as people doing exactly what the Congressional policy told them to do.

[Eric]

couldn't afford them

More Republican lies. The government regulations say the banks have to demonstrate that they are willing to write loans for "disadvantaged groups" (minorities etc.) as much as for non-disadvantaged groups. They had two options to do this: write more high-risk loans to members of disadvantaged groups, or write fewer loans to members of non-disadvantaged groups. Because the first option was more profitable (short-term), that's what they chose, and now we've seen the results.

overseas because the US

competitions because

impact that unions have. Wa-huh? Sorry, I call BS on this one too. Most of GM's competitors (Toyota, Honda, Nissan...) have factories and offices in the USA and therefore are subject to exactly the SAME regulations as the "domestic" makes. That is of course in addition to the vehicles they sell having to meet all the same regulatory standards such as safety, emissions, and MPG. So in that way, the playing field is completely level.

The unions, which HAVE had a crippling effect on the domestic auto industry, of course are not part of the government. It's not hard to see that if the industry had been more regulated by the government, the unions would not have gained as much power and the picture might be very different right now.

EL

[Kurt Ullman]

So, in otherwords, they followed the government's instructions and got beat up for it. Seems like same outcome to me.

The competitors most have US ASSEMBLY plants. Much of the parts that constitute the actual manufacturing are done outside the US and outside of the regulations.

Which alternative universe are you living in?