CNN says: Angry White People, at Tea Parties.

[Adam]

Racism goes both ways and it's ugly no matter the direction. Again, I'll submit that everyone want to be equal to one another unless there's a benefit not to be. We're on this kick at our company to bring more women into management... in an industry that's not at all equal in gender. Suddenly, many of the women are quite content being treated as a unique group with their own different set of rules,requirements, and expectation.

I'll differ with Bill (maybe, depending on his point) in that I think that this is a great comment. The example is not towards racism, but it's the same thing. I've seen it time and time again. Can you blame someone, though? Who doesn't want a leg up on the competition? If it would help me to be a white male, I'd use it.

In regards to equality at work - I'm a white male, but I assure you that doesn't get me preferential treatment in my profession at my company. Quite the contrary. If I were a minority in my profession, then I'd fall under the category of "diversity" and be considered more valuable. My ideas are diverse from those of my manager (which is what diversity is supposed to be about), but I just get smacked down as some sort of trouble maker because I don't agree. I would be treated much, much differently if I weren't a white male. Women have left my department for the same reasons as men (better job offer, spouse is relocating, and so on), but when women leave, my manager gets dinged because he's losing diversity. If a male leaves, then it's just business as usual.

Now, I have no idea what it's like in general to not be a white male. Perhaps I have been extended priviledges that I wouldn't have gotten otherwise. I'm going to guess that I have. However, funding for college and career growth are not two of them because we are in a period of time in this country that the government is trying to institute equality by making funding and hiring practices based upon race and sex. That is probably necessary until we really have a fair playing field, IMO. I do, however, believe that it should apply only to companies that receive funding from a group trying to enforce that type of practice (such as a state or federal government). Private companies should be completely exempt from government quotas on hiring if they do no business for the government. If I had my own business and wanted to hire my brother instead of someone else, I should have every legal right to do that regardless of any checklist of qualifications.

Ought oh...I made a real post in a political thread. This could be a slippery slope.

 

[itschris]

PM's will not be necessary and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but your view on Racism surely differs, from mine! As for the argument of being impartial the fact that you're a libertarian is enough for me!
PS: here's an good analogy.... if your a Yankee fan you'll never support the Red sox's and don't give me that left and right arguement.

I'm sure racism is a 2 way street. However people of colour deal with what you've experienced, as well, as the colour barrier.




Chris your much to smart for that using that example. Its not about racism but equality and IMO that is a entirely different issue.

In my mind, it's about discrimination. I think the word racism is way overused and is a word used for power plays. I know it does exist, but to the extent that people site it is just plain wrong. Discrimination is another issue altogether. It spans race, gender, age, sexual orientation, many things.

This is an interesting story:
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/SCOTUS/story?id=7307213&page=1

 

[highfigh]

That's EXACTLY a free market! They are free to employ who they want for whatever cost they want to serve whatever purpose they want!!!



Regulation and reform = public or governmental intervention != FREE MARKET.

What you want, and what people WITHOUT power and money want, is a regulated market with rules of conduct to ensure that the practices of companies are in line with the best interests of the public. That is NOT a free market! The free market means that companies can act in the best interests of their owners, and the public can bugger off for all they care as long as they turn a profit.

Yes, it COULD work, as soon as those with money and power don't use it solely for personal gain without the public interest in mind. That my friend is the truest example of a pipe dream.

As long as those employees aren't in government, it's fine but government should not be in business and government shouldn't be influenced by business, other than situations where the country's best interests are at risk. Product dumping, ignoring intellectual property rights and security violations are a few of the exceptions.

 

[Nemo128]

As long as those employees aren't in government, it's fine but government should not be in business and government shouldn't be influenced by business, other than situations where the country's best interests are at risk. Product dumping, ignoring intellectual property rights and security violations are a few of the exceptions.

Again, you should try to understand from a classically trained and educated economist's viewpoint what a free market really is. No, I'm not one by far, but I have suggestions as far as books and significant people go. I try to keep my interests in these types of subjects as far away from modern day profitable media as possible, because someone always has something to gain from putting their own perspective on things. Don't take it as an insult, and I'm not assuming anything about your interests or knowledge. Simply advocating a broadening of materials to inspect.

People try to tailor the definition of it to better fit today's world, but isn't that the same thing that, for example, religions do to keep their followers? Get with the times, so to speak? I greatly admire Mill, but he was so wrong when he maintained the belief that men are rational creatures.

 

[Seth=L]

Seth, if the OP's motive was regarding that protest I would've had no problem with! However he brought up race in his next post and that is why I took offense! BTW he's brought up that issue on other occasions and IMO RACISM is not a word that should be taken lightly! Now if you follow his points further in the thread you'll see what I'm alluding to and where he headed.

Regards, Bill
PS: I enjoy this forum too much to get myself into hot water, but if you follow certain peoples comments you'll see a trend and for me thats disheartening.

Sorry, I will attempt to retract what's been done. I misunderstood what you where directing that toward. You have to admit, your post was a bit vague.

 

[billy p]

That story hits close to home

In my mind, it's about discrimination. I think the word racism is way overused and is a word used for power plays. I know it does exist, but to the extent that people site it is just plain wrong. Discrimination is another issue altogether. It spans race, gender, age, sexual orientation, many things.

This is an interesting story:
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/SCOTUS/story?id=7307213&page=1

I've worked at the same job since 1981 and have trained dozens of people through the years. AAMOF(colour having no bearing here because in the end I trained them) some have gone up the organizational ladder to become lower/mid level mgm and one has even aspired to become a director and I'm still stuck in the mud. Having all this unfold before my eyes it played havoc on my emotions for years, even effecting my life at home. Needless to say that was a long time ago and now I hate work for other reasons... but I have my wife to thank for helping me get over it.

Hum...I never once thought about in terms of discrimination, maybe it was?

Regards, Bill

 

[Davemcc]

Its not about racism but equality and IMO that is a entirely different issue.

Really, it's not about equality at all. It's about equity. Equity has nothing to do with equality and comes with it's own set of rules and (double) standards.

 

[billy p]

A quick note to the individual who anonymously negatively repped me " but your a ****ing coward. Be a man... post your name.

keep firing away because I'm at 1248 pts, last time I looked and you're an A..hole...

Regards, Bill

This will now be my new sig!! Thanks for that and if you identify yourself I'll give you some love, but your still an A..hole

 

[billy p]

Really, it's not about equality at all. It's about equity. Equity has nothing to do with equality and comes with it's own set of rules and (double) standards.

We just went through a pay equity adjustment at work. Your right it had nothing to do with equailty but it was created to level the playing field.

 

[markw]

Late response - I must have missed this.

I wonder, are you one of the people that say the free market will work itself out? Curious.

I really think our "free market" days are pretty much over. For quite some time we've been seeing the wealth slowly gravitating to those that control the money and away from those that do the actual work in creating it in the first place. Jersey, and a good part of this economy does not derive from maki ng product: It revolves around shuffling papers that represent money.

You're from Jersey. You know this state is controlled by the unions. Between Corzine's main squeeze and her CWA and the teacher's unions, the common taxpayer doesn't have a chance.

I won't even get into the UAW and their part in sucking the life out of their own companies, not that the executives are blameless. They both played a part. Hyundai, Toyota, and other foreign auto manufacturers can run shops here at a profit so whatever their problems are, they can be overcome if they really, really want. Also, please note that GM is doing gangbusters business overseas where the UAW has no say in matters.

But, think that unions in general are about to be thrown under the bus, and few will be too vocal in opposing it. FWIW, I was a steelworker from '78 to '81 and saw, first hand, that union slice it's own wrists.

In the country in general, more breaks have been given to financial institutions and, in fact, they have been ordered by the government to make sub-prime loans under penalty if they don't. This resulted in much jubilation as those shaky securities were sold and the financial people reaped massive bonus' for foisting those toxic deals on unsuspecting buyers.

As you can see, that resulted in a gigantic bubble where people counted on values going up and, when that bubble burst in their faces and their fortunes were about to be lost, they got a bailout. They are too big to fail.

The financial institutions were able to continue their way of life, with bonus' and their fine way of life. Take a drive out by Bernardsville, Mendham and the rest of the horse country and check out all the new construction there.

The only thing I can see that trickled down to the common man from the bailout of the financial institutions was a raising of credit card rates for him.

So, as the saying goes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Our elected representatives see to that. Remember, we're a republic, not a democracy. They are SUPPOSED to do what's best for us but there's no guarantee they will and most people are too fat, happy and dumb to realize what's happening.

Remember Rickster's analogy about boiling a frog? Is it just me, or is it getting warm in here?

I think the word we're looking for here is "oligarchy".

 

[highfigh]

Again, you should try to understand from a classically trained and educated economist's viewpoint what a free market really is. No, I'm not one by far, but I have suggestions as far as books and significant people go. I try to keep my interests in these types of subjects as far away from modern day profitable media as possible, because someone always has something to gain from putting their own perspective on things. Don't take it as an insult, and I'm not assuming anything about your interests or knowledge. Simply advocating a broadening of materials to inspect.

People try to tailor the definition of it to better fit today's world, but isn't that the same thing that, for example, religions do to keep their followers? Get with the times, so to speak? I greatly admire Mill, but he was so wrong when he maintained the belief that men are rational creatures.

Here's a definition of Free Market Economy, from the link:
http://canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/freemarket.html

:A free market economy is one where scarcities are resolved through changes in relative prices rather than through regulation."

It coincides with the definition I learned in Econ 101 and really doesn't change much.

How am I doing so far?

This is econ, not religion, although some people have deified money and possessions as if they were, oh I don't know, the Golden Calf. Free market is basically the same as it has been but people in government being paid to manipulate the markets makes it something other than free, by definition.

 

[markw]

Here's a definition of Free Market Economy, from the link:
http://canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/freemarket.html

:A free market economy is one where scarcities are resolved through changes in relative prices rather than through regulation."

It coincides with the definition I learned in Econ 101 and really doesn't change much.

How am I doing so far?

This is econ, not religion, although some people have deified money and possessions as if they were, oh I don't know, the Golden Calf. Free market is basically the same as it has been but people in government being paid to manipulate the markets makes it something other than free, by definition.

The government forcing lending institutions to make toxic loans is a perfect example of this. That the financial institutions made a profit from this simply worsened this situation, and a sort of financial feedback started, at least until they wound up holding the hot potatoe.

 

[Davemcc]

people in government being paid to manipulate the markets makes it something other than free, by definition.

'Nuff said.

 

[bandphan]

 

[highfigh]

The government forcing lending institutions to make toxic loans is a perfect example of this. That the financial institutions made a profit from this simply worsened this situation, and a sort of financial feedback started, at least until they wound up holding the hot potatoe.

That's right and a good example of how interference by government screws things up. The Great Depression is another good example.

 

[Adam]

That's right and a good example of how interference by government screws things up. The Great Depression is another good example.

Really? I never thought that the government was involved in me running out of beer two weeks ago, but now that you mention it...

[Sorry, I just had to redeem myself after posting something vaguely related to the topic earlier. ]

 

[itschris]

keep firing away because I'm at 1248 pts, last time I looked and you're an A..hole...

Regards, Bill

This will now be my new sig!! Thanks for that and if you identify yourself I'll give you some love, but your still an A..hole

Billy Boy... if you got negative rep... it did not come from me. I've given one red chicklet my entire tenure here to someone who absolutely deserved it for being a rude **********... not because of his opinion... AND I signed my name.

Believe this... I'm not shy. I'm not at all timid. If I feel I need to make some sort of point to you, you'll know it's me. Understand?

 

[Adam]

Billy Boy...

After I read his post a couple of times, I got the impression that he quoted you for reference and was directing his comments at the (perhaps same) anonymous chickleteer. That was my take, anyway.

 

[Nemo128]

Free market is basically the same as it has been but people in government being paid to manipulate the markets makes it something other than free, by definition.

highfigh, you kind jumped into the exchange with Matt and maybe you took something I said out of context when you quoted me. Below is what I referred to:

We haven't had a true free market in quite some time. Politicians simply trade roles with corporate players in Washington. Once they are ousted out of office they can become a lobbyist for a major corporation and if they work for a major corporation, they can have a job on the Hill.

Yes, politicians, career representatives I believe it was called, being paid by corporations for special interests and favoritism is absolutely wrong. However, the exchange was regarding those "outsted out of office" and how they "become a lobbyist for a major corporation" when the fact is, that is a free market. Someone's former profession would not prevent them from being employed by a corporation later, even if that person can use connections for business purposes. All's fair in love, war, and a true free market.

Also, pocketing politicians is far beyond the scope of simply an economic discussion. That's flat out governmental corruption.

Now if anyone would rather, for example, GM just close up shop, have their execs walk away with hundreds of millions like the CEO of Lehman Brothers did, and watch GM's nearly 250k employees go unemployed overnight along with the hundreds of thousands of employees holding jobs at various parts suppliers and dealerships and materials manufacturers around the world...

Monopoly is a great game on a dining table, where every person starts off with the opportunities to allow the most savvy player to prevail. Not so much in real life. When 2% of the population controls 85% of the money, the remaining 98% have to take whatever they are given. This is the most important aspect of the US industrial revolution.

 

[Davemcc]

Yes, politicians, career representatives I believe it was called, being paid by corporations for special interests and favoritism is absolutely wrong. However, the exchange was regarding those "outsted out of office" and how they "become a lobbyist for a major corporation" when the fact is, that is a free market. Someone's former profession would not prevent them from being employed by a corporation later, even if that person can use connections for business purposes. All's fair in love, war, and a true free market.

Also, pocketing politicians is far beyond the scope of simply an economic discussion. That's flat out governmental corruption.

There is a curious dichotomy in this post that I don't quite get unless there is sarcasm involved. While you say that bought politicians and gov't corruption is wrong, you seem to equate that with "a true free market". Nothing could be further from the truth. A true free market is free from the influence of politicians, conscientious or corrupt. That politicians have taken for themselves the power to influence the minute and intricate details of the market is a sign in itself that the market is not free. That power that they've taken for themselves is what makes them susceptible to the avaricious interests of lobbyists at the expense of the citizens.

The solution to this is to remove gov't interloping in the market, reduce the incentive for politicians to crumble to private interests and leave the average citizen alone in his daily transactions. Unfortunately, America is moving in the opposite direction and will suffer to the extent that it follows that direction.

When 2% of the population controls 85% of the money, the remaining 98% have to take whatever they are given. This is the most important aspect of the US industrial revolution.

Forgive me for saying this, but that's a load of crap. Bill Gates didn't just take what he was given. Neither did Warren Buffett. Or Oprah, Will Smith, Steve Jobs, Donald Trump or thousands of other successful people that rose from modest means by hard work, intelligence and ambition. The American experience actually disproves the defeatist, determinist statements like these.