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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul V. who wrote (171200)	8/1/2014 8:59:10 AM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224755

Kenneth, if loco's following post is correct, To which post does this make reference?

To: Paul V. who wrote (171200)	8/1/2014 2:45:32 PM
From: TideGlider	Respond to of 224755

For the second time could you please add context to your post? To what post does the highlighted text make reference? *Kenneth, if loco's following post is correct*

To: Paul V. who wrote (171200)	8/1/2014 6:20:43 PM
From: Joe Btfsplk	11 Recommendations Recommended By Charlie_R dave rose FJB Follies jlallen and 6 more members Respond to of 224755

Pure capitalism which becomes greedy ultimately will fall from mass disobedience when individuals basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare are not met. What an appallingly stupid statement. Captalism has been the instrument that's been lifting people out of poverty for centuries, the purer the better. A mere thirty five years ago the Chinese were piss poor and without a pot. Unable to ignore the glaring success of Hong Kong and Singapore their leadership goons allowed some measure of capitalism. Now they have at prosperous middle class. Same for India starting a mere fifteen or so years past. Wherever capitalism prevails, happiness ensues. Where not, not. What in God's name is wrong with people like you?

To: Paul V. who wrote (171200)	8/1/2014 9:50:49 PM
From: longnshort	6 Recommendations Recommended By dave rose FJB locogringo lorne Sedohr Nod and 1 more member Respond to of 224755

yeah cuba is working great for the average person and they are great inventors on new technologies, they are up to the 1950's with car designs, oh wait they didn't even invent those via commism, never met a smart union guy, you continue the trend

To: Paul V. who wrote (171200)	8/5/2014 10:49:10 AM
From: locogringo	3 Recommendations Recommended By FJB Honey_Bee TideGlider Respond to of 224755

New Study Shows The Effects of Unionism That We All Suspected Was The Case All Along You’ve seen the bumper sticker: “live better, work union.” But is it true? According to a new report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the answer is a resounding no. Especially when states or the nation as a whole is taken into consideration. The study analyzed income and union labor trends from 1964 to 2011. The key findings: Unions raise the cost of labor in unionized industries, decreasing the number of jobs available in those industries. In other words, those that actually get and keep union jobs do better, if you just look at those jobs and nowhere else. Unions increase the supply of labor for non-union jobs, driving those wages down. This results in an increase to the natural rate of unemployment and imposes a deadweight loss of economic output on the economy. Increases in productivity are the key to overall job and economic growth, not artificial increases in labor prices. Over the last 50 years, the net cumulative reduction in overall wages is about 15%, which translates to about a 10% reduction in Gross Domestic Product over that time. In other words, our economy is doing 90% of what it could be doing without the lingering effects of union-impacted employment and wages. This effect can be measured within every state in the nation. For example, take a look at Michigan, the most affected state, and South Carolina, the least affected state. Michigan: Even though Michigan’s unionization has dropped significantly, and its per-capita income has decreased, the huge percentage of union workers within that state over the time period contributed to a likely 23.1% loss in income. A word like “catastrophic” comes to mind. South Carolina: Note that in South Carolina, its high-point of unionization was half of the low-point of Michigan. Even so, the trend of income rising as unionization decreased can still be seen. Furthermore, even here the amount of income lost can be calculated, although it’s not a very large number. The remainder of the 48 states fall between these two. The overall conclusion is so crystal clear, only politicians whose financial bread is buttered by unions can avoid it; the majority of that butter, by the way, goes on the bread of Democrats. Collective bargaining inhibits growth, and the less a state is impacted by unions, the better off its citizens will be.

To: Paul V. who wrote (171200)	8/11/2014 12:01:33 PM
From: locogringo	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB Honey_Bee Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224755

Can't those overweight UNION THUGS in St Louis help these poor people out? It doesn't seem like they are getting enough free stuff to make ends meet, and they need some flat screens and personal ATM's I betcha a few even looked like one of obama's mythical sons. The chickens are coming home to roost. Violence erupts after black teen shot by police in Missouri... TV van attacked... LOOTING... ATM STOLEN FROM QUICKTRIP; STORE TORCHED; TANKS BROUGHT IN... Men stand guard outside their liquor store... Trayvon Martin attorney to represent slain teen...