Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (139597)	9/19/2005 8:33:29 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Respond to of 794391

shouldn't have to explain this on a thread full of capitalists and conservatives nope, you really should not... (but excellent explanation nonetheless) it does appear at least in part capitalist conservatism tends to fade depending on whose provincial 'ox' is potentially being gored

To: Lane3 who wrote (139597)	9/19/2005 8:48:06 PM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 794391

Much of the proposal is in fact AGAINST the interest of Cleveland. If the Feds are going to institute preferential tax and regulatory policies to ATTRACT hard working opportunity seekers, from WHERE are they going to be attracted? This is portrayed as a conservative proposal. It is not. It is a zero sum game of convincing people to move to the anointed region from other regions which will be impoverished by their absence. Now if Mr. Bush wants to make these reforms applicable nation wide, I'm on board.

To: Lane3 who wrote (139597)	9/19/2005 11:07:49 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794391

Who's talking about socialism? There are a few things government does best such as national defense, public infrastructure, disaster relief, etc., or do want to privatize them, too? Yes, calamities are rare. Their lack of everydayness is inherent in the sense of the word. Each is sui generis as the response should be. About those dockworkers...I got a kick out of your comment. Ports, like anything else which is market driven, are competitive. The things you suggest will raise costs and drive cargo elsewhere. You might find the history of the banana trade instructive. Hint: NO no longer discharges Central American bananas. You don't see the public interest argument? Ever hear of LOOP? The SPR? The tremendous oil infrastructure in So. La? The shipbuilding, much of it for military purposes.....send it elsewhere, hope the skilled workers follow. I suppose we'll have to bus all the workers who make oil work, too. Actually, a lot of the workers who make GOM oil work live elsewhere, but a great many don't. The history? Ooops, sorry, that is in the past and preserving it serves no useful purpose. Let's not forget the families who live in NO.....ship 'em out to Cleveland. Let the fabric of generations become atomized, strewn to the winds. No public interest there, I suppose, unless you are displaced. The public interest in rebuilding NO is as plain as the nose on your face. I'm really surprised that you don't see it, but I do detect a whiff of peevishness in your argument, so perhaps you are purposefully ignoring it. Bush was exactly right, these kinds of calamities are affordable. It was I am sure hideously expensive to build SF after 1906, Chicago after the fire, and we all know about the cost of 9/11, which included the cost of getting rid of the Taliban. Bush was exactly right, too, when he said that an America without NO was unimaginable. I see the arguments against rebuilding below sea level, which is perfectly doable, and I fear something else is at work, something Puritanical, cold. I think it may have to do with a disapproval of the joyful way we live, that we are somehow not deserving of reconstruction because we don't toe the line like the rest of America would like us to, that, in fact, we are not America, but Catholic, African, Creole, French, not like the rest of you and therefore disposable. We are a bit of an embarrasssment, and deserve harsher treatment. I think there's more than a nugget of truth in that, but no one, and certainly not anyone here, will ever admit it. Reconstruction from a calamity typically involves an attempt to fix the reason why it happened in the first place. If levees able to withstand a cat. 4 hurricane are built, why not build below sea level? What we had before served us well for a very long time; an improved system is likely to do the same.

To: Lane3 who wrote (139597)	9/19/2005 11:08:15 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794391

Who's talking about socialism? There are a few things government does best such as national defense, public infrastructure, disaster relief, etc., or do want to privatize them, too? Yes, calamities are rare. Their lack of everydayness is inherent in the sense of the word. Each is sui generis as the response should be. About those dockworkers...I got a kick out of your comment. Ports, like anything else which is market driven, are competitive. The things you suggest will raise costs and drive cargo elsewhere. You might find the history of the banana trade instructive. Hint: NO no longer discharges Central American bananas. You don't see the public interest argument? Ever hear of LOOP? The SPR? The tremendous oil infrastructure in So. La? The shipbuilding, much of it for military purposes.....send it elsewhere, hope the skilled workers follow. I suppose we'll have to bus all the workers who make oil work, too. Actually, a lot of the workers who make GOM oil work live elsewhere, but a great many don't. The history? Ooops, sorry, that is in the past and preserving it serves no useful purpose. Let's not forget the families who live in NO.....ship 'em out to Cleveland. Let the fabric of generations become atomized, strewn to the winds. No public interest there, I suppose, unless you are displaced. The public interest in rebuilding NO is as plain as the nose on your face. I'm really surprised that you don't see it, but I do detect a whiff of peevishness in your argument, so perhaps you are purposefully ignoring it. Bush was exactly right, these kinds of calamities are affordable. It was I am sure hideously expensive to build SF after 1906, Chicago after the fire, and we all know about the cost of 9/11, which included the cost of getting rid of the Taliban. Bush was exactly right, too, when he said that an America without NO was unimaginable. I see the arguments against rebuilding below sea level, which is perfectly doable, and I fear something else is at work, something Puritanical, cold. I think it may have to do with a disapproval of the joyful way we live, that we are somehow not deserving of reconstruction because we don't toe the line like the rest of America would like us to, that, in fact, we are not America, but Catholic, African, Creole, French, not like the rest of you and therefore disposable. We are a bit of an embarrasssment, and deserve harsher treatment. I think there's more than a nugget of truth in that, but no one, and certainly not anyone here, will ever admit it. Reconstruction from a calamity typically involves an attempt to fix the reason why it happened in the first place. If levees able to withstand a cat. 4 hurricane are built, why not build below sea level? What we had before served us well for a very long time; an improved system is likely to do the same.

To: Lane3 who wrote (139597)	9/19/2005 11:10:38 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 794391

Who's talking about socialism? There are a few things government does best such as national defense, public infrastructure, disaster relief, etc., or do want to privatize them, too? Yes, calamities are rare. Their lack of everydayness is inherent in the sense of the word. Each is sui generis as the response should be. About those dockworkers...I got a kick out of your comment. Ports, like anything else which is market driven, are competitive. The things you suggest will raise costs and drive cargo elsewhere. You might find the history of the banana trade instructive. Hint: NO no longer discharges Central American bananas. You don't see the public interest argument? Ever hear of LOOP? The SPR? The tremendous oil infrastructure in So. La? The shipbuilding, much of it for military purposes.....send it elsewhere, hope the skilled workers follow. I suppose we'll have to bus all the workers who make oil work, too. Actually, a lot of the workers who make GOM oil work live elsewhere, but a great many don't. The history? Ooops, sorry, that is in the past and preserving it serves no useful purpose. Let's not forget the families who live in NO.....ship 'em out to Cleveland. Let the fabric of generations become atomized, strewn to the winds. No public interest there, I suppose, unless you are displaced. The public interest in rebuilding NO is as plain as the nose on your face. I'm really surprised that you don't see it, but I do detect a whiff of peevishness in your argument, so perhaps you are purposefully ignoring it. Bush was exactly right, these kinds of calamities are affordable. It was I am sure hideously expensive to build SF after 1906, Chicago after the fire, and we all know about the cost of 9/11, which included the cost of getting rid of the Taliban. Bush was exactly right, too, when he said that an America without NO was unimaginable. I see the arguments against rebuilding below sea level, which is perfectly doable, and I fear something else is at work, something Puritanical, cold. I think it may have to do with a disapproval of the joyful way we live, that we are somehow not deserving of reconstruction because we don't toe the line like the rest of America would like us to, that, in fact, we are not America, but Catholic, African, Creole, French, not like the rest of you and therefore disposable. We are a bit of an embarrasssment, and deserve harsher treatment. I think there's more than a nugget of truth in that, but no one, and certainly not anyone here, will ever admit it. Reconstruction from a calamity typically involves an attempt to fix the reason why it happened in the first place. If levees able to withstand a cat. 4 hurricane are built, why not build below sea level? What we had before served us well for a very long time; an improved system is likely to do the same.

To: Lane3 who wrote (139597)	9/19/2005 11:10:49 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794391

Who's talking about socialism? There are a few things government does best such as national defense, public infrastructure, disaster relief, etc., or do want to privatize them, too? Yes, calamities are rare. Their lack of everydayness is inherent in the sense of the word. Each is sui generis as the response should be. About those dockworkers...I got a kick out of your comment. Ports, like anything else which is market driven, are competitive. The things you suggest will raise costs and drive cargo elsewhere. You might find the history of the banana trade instructive. Hint: NO no longer discharges Central American bananas. You don't see the public interest argument? Ever hear of LOOP? The SPR? The tremendous oil infrastructure in So. La? The shipbuilding, much of it for military purposes.....send it elsewhere, hope the skilled workers follow. I suppose we'll have to bus all the workers who make oil work, too. Actually, a lot of the workers who make GOM oil work live elsewhere, but a great many don't. The history? Ooops, sorry, that is in the past and preserving it serves no useful purpose. Let's not forget the families who live in NO.....ship 'em out to Cleveland. Let the fabric of generations become atomized, strewn to the winds. No public interest there, I suppose, unless you are displaced. The public interest in rebuilding NO is as plain as the nose on your face. I'm really surprised that you don't see it, but I do detect a whiff of peevishness in your argument, so perhaps you are purposefully ignoring it. Bush was exactly right, these kinds of calamities are affordable. It was I am sure hideously expensive to build SF after 1906, Chicago after the fire, and we all know about the cost of 9/11, which included the cost of getting rid of the Taliban. Bush was exactly right, too, when he said that an America without NO was unimaginable. I see the arguments against rebuilding below sea level, which is perfectly doable, and I fear something else is at work, something Puritanical, cold. I think it may have to do with a disapproval of the joyful way we live, that we are somehow not deserving of reconstruction because we don't toe the line like the rest of America would like us to, that, in fact, we are not America, but Catholic, African, Creole, French, not like the rest of you and therefore disposable. We are a bit of an embarrasssment, and deserve harsher treatment. I think there's more than a nugget of truth in that, but no one, and certainly not anyone here, will ever admit it. Reconstruction from a calamity typically involves an attempt to fix the reason why it happened in the first place. If levees able to withstand a cat. 4 hurricane are built, why not build below sea level? What we had before served us well for a very long time; an improved system is likely to do the same.

To: Lane3 who wrote (139597)	9/20/2005 10:03:37 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Respond to of 794391

Socialism, OTOH, hasn't worked very well. Socialism has been a disaster in Russia and Cuba, but it has not been that bad in some northern european countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc). Capitalism of course works better. In the US, we worker harder and longer hours. Our standard of living is very high. The best example of capitalism at work was in Hong Kong. The British rulers just got out of the way and in a short period of time the colony was in better shape economically then they were back home. There is in political science a belief that the most efficient form of government would be one that was managed by a benign dictator. However, we do not have too many examples of benign dictators to model future societies after. The point I am trying to make I guess is that it seems clear to me the best form of government is government that is absent of corruption and managed by competent people. Hong Kong can work, but so can Singapore where they have very strong leadership (almost dictatorial), Similarly, people in northern European country seem to be happy and prosperous - even when their wealthiest people are taxed over 90% of their income. Purity of ideology may not be the best route to good government. It may require a blend of a lot things that work - but the key in any situation is good and competent people willing to serve.