Flat Earthers and other regressions

[Annoyed]

GM's downfall was much more than union problems. The management of the company itself is what caused GM to fail.

1- they didn't respond when the Japanese invaded the market in the 80s

2- big corps like GM usually do more money from finance than actual sales, they sat on their ass while the market evolved and changed a lot in the 90s

3- and last two critical mistake, they rushed in the pickup/SUV "goldrush" of the 90s and neglected cars and expended into Europe prematurely when GM acquired Saab

Well, just to nuke one point for now... that pickup/SUV gold rush continues to this day.

https://autoweek.com/article/car-new...d-69-us-market

That's 69% of the US auto market. That's not a passing fad or gold rush as you put it. More like a gold mine.

Whether you want to admit it or not, US drivers are not comfortable in those tiny little excuses for cars that the enlightened elites want us to drive. (while they themselves travel in SUV motorcades and private jets) The left, with the help of the govt., has been trying to push us into them for decades, but that isn't what people want to drive. Cars were shrunk, so they started buying light trucks/SUV's.

[jelgate]

You need to reread the article. You are severly distorting the 69% number to support your POV and ignoring others

[P-90_177]

I find your lack of support or public sector unions to be hypocritical. You say you don't trust governments with more power and size than is strictly necessary but would deny public sector workers a key part of their representation that allows them to keep governments and bureaucracy held accountable. Unions keeps bosses honest no matter what the sector. Now I admit there can be issues when unions become too powerful but that is the case no matter who has power. Too much power to governments and they become Soviet or Nazi style. Too much power to corporations and you get the worst excesses of Victorian Britain and the modern day mega corporations that eliminate competition by out-spending smaller rivals and artificially manipulating the market. No matter who has power there is a chance that you will get an imbalance that simply does not work. That is the situation we have now with modern capitalism where company bosses don't just have power over business but unwarranted political clout too. It's not sustainable. And it is collapsing nations just as surely as Soviet styled communism collapsed.

[Annoyed]

I find your lack of support or public sector unions to be hypocritical. You say you don't trust governments with more power and size than is strictly necessary but would deny public sector workers a key part of their representation that allows them to keep governments and bureaucracy held accountable. Unions keeps bosses honest no matter what the sector. Now I admit there can be issues when unions become too powerful but that is the case no matter who has power. Too much power to governments and they become Soviet or Nazi style. Too much power to corporations and you get the worst excesses of Victorian Britain and the modern day mega corporations that eliminate competition by out-spending smaller rivals and artificially manipulating the market. No matter who has power there is a chance that you will get an imbalance that simply does not work. That is the situation we have now with modern capitalism where company bosses don't just have power over business but unwarranted political clout too. It's not sustainable. And it is collapsing nations just as surely as Soviet styled communism collapsed.

My primary opposition to public sector unions is as I stated; I can't go elsewhere to get that product like I can from a private sector company. They've got a lock on the market. Therefore, there is no market-drivien resistance to union demands. Another way to look at it is that they don't have to compete against anyone else in the marketplace.

The other natural braking effect on their demands, the legislators and politicians who are their management are notoriously generous when dealing with them. After all, what better way to guarantee a sizable number of votes in the next election?

Yes, I know, that sounds nuts. It is. But before you dismiss it, do some research on how state employees in deep blue states like NY do with their contracts.

But anyway, since there is no effective counter to govt. union demands, I don't think they should be allowed to unionize.

As far as the latter half, well, I don't care what system you have, you will have people on the top, the middle and the lower rungs of that society. The only difference is what determines your place in the pecking order. Capitalism has the advantage of giving the individual the best chance of moving up the ladder by their own efforts.

[Gatefan1976]

My primary opposition to public sector unions is as I stated; I can't go elsewhere to get that product like I can from a private sector company. They've got a lock on the market. Therefore, there is no market-drivien resistance to union demands. Another way to look at it is that they don't have to compete against anyone else in the marketplace.

total bull****.
Public schooling deals with private sector NGO's ALL the time. Catholic schools, non standard schools and private schools.
There Are options besides the public sector, and they compete for students.
You have an option, but what the hell would you know about that?
What there was 40 years ago when you were a kid?
Public schools, but now they are bad, because, they are bad and have unions.
Grow up kid, you understand NOTHING about school, have no point of reference, and just say "bad, cause bad"
Back your crap up, but you can't. More just self important crap from a petty self caring person.

The other natural braking effect on their demands, the legislators and politicians who are their management are notoriously generous when dealing with them. After all, what better way to guarantee a sizable number of votes in the next election?

Like promising a wall that cannot be built?
You really are the short end of the stick.

Yes, I know, that sounds nuts. It is. But before you dismiss it, do some research on how state employees in deep blue states like NY do with their contracts.

You mean, people work togeather?
They act as a union?
Go to one of your red states you collosal coward rather than get all the benefits of people you like to piss on.
Go on, move to WVA, or Alabama, get paid less, not have a home, live in a trailer and when you die of a preventable disease because you can't afford healthcare, consider it a win for "conservatism"

But anyway, since there is no effective counter to govt. union demands, I don't think they should be allowed to unionize.

Denying free speech?
Yeah, you don't understand your constitution, at all.

As far as the latter half, well, I don't care what system you have, you will have people on the top, the middle and the lower rungs of that society. The only difference is what determines your place in the pecking order. Capitalism has the advantage of giving the individual the best chance of moving up the ladder by their own efforts.

You have been sold a dream, a dream that is no longer real, yet you believe in it.
will there always be "levels" of society?
Yes.
Can we fix that?
Yes.
You believe otherwise, and you are wrong.
You learned nothing from Star Trek, and it was the 60's way to be progressive.
You want regression.

[Chaka-Z0]

Well, just to nuke one point for now... that pickup/SUV gold rush continues to this day.

https://autoweek.com/article/car-new...d-69-us-market

Yes SUV sales are sky rocketing I know that's not the angle I took see below.

That's 69% of the US auto market. That's not a passing fad or gold rush as you put it. More like a gold mine.

I'm not criticizing the choice but the execution. You can't invest most of your assets in an entire new line of production before having a healthy income / money cow well established. They were loosing ground nationally to the new, better suited to consumer's needs cars.

You're a mechanic so you know what I'm talking about when I say it's so much easier to work on a Japanese car than an American. Everything is easily accessible and interchangeable whereas I've seen old American boats with an oil filter located on the back end of the car. My buddy's 92 Civic hatchback was killed and revived 3-4 times on budget parts.

[aretood2]

putting media hype and frenzy aside, the VA works pretty well. Not as well as the Military medical system when I was active duty, but they do ok.

the biggest problems i have seen over the last 15 yrs, is when the bureaucrats in the VA do a 'knee jerk' reaction to bad press

like "veterans are dying in line". actually, you cant just go to the VA when you get sick, you need to apply and get in the system before hand. there is no go to the head of the line because you were stupid and didn't listen to your SGT's before you got out and get signed up with the VA as soon as you got out. then wait till you are sick and say it's 'broken"?

and the opioid issue. first the va tended to overprescribe when the media was reporting on how so many vets were living without their pain needs addressed

so they got more liberal with the rx's

then it was 'vets are dying of narcotic overdoes. so then the va cranked back the levels of rx's.

they will now send people to acupuncture outside of the va, massage therapy (legit one's that is) and yoga

other than that, i have had no issues with the va. i also can use my insurance from my army retirement as well, so i got it pretty well covered.

So that basically destroys the argument that Government can't manage healthcare and if it tries the US will become a Nazi communist state?

My primary opposition to public sector unions is as I stated; I can't go elsewhere to get that product like I can from a private sector company. They've got a lock on the market. Therefore, there is no market-drivien resistance to union demands. Another way to look at it is that they don't have to compete against anyone else in the marketplace.

The other natural braking effect on their demands, the legislators and politicians who are their management are notoriously generous when dealing with them. After all, what better way to guarantee a sizable number of votes in the next election?

Yes, I know, that sounds nuts. It is. But before you dismiss it, do some research on how state employees in deep blue states like NY do with their contracts.

But anyway, since there is no effective counter to govt. union demands, I don't think they should be allowed to unionize.

As far as the latter half, well, I don't care what system you have, you will have people on the top, the middle and the lower rungs of that society. The only difference is what determines your place in the pecking order. Capitalism has the advantage of giving the individual the best chance of moving up the ladder by their own efforts.

In essence, your opposition to public sector unions is based on purely theoretical grounds.

[magi877]

That is really not the case. You could go region to region pointing out all the ways this is wrong, but a lot of it simply boils down to the fact that feudalism/serfdom was in every practical sense slavery, where illness and high mortality rates were expected, and compensated for (on a capital level) by the bottom classes having an extremely high birth rate to maintain the labour pool. What's that? You don't have enough surviving sons to keep working my land? Get off my land and get out of my sight, before I have my knights run you through with a spear.

Landed aristocracy had (and has) no interest in the welfare and safety of their subjects at all. Which is exactly why labour movements got rolling in the first place--to protect the working classes from the wealthy.

Unfortunately, for the last few decades, the wealthy have been winning the messaging war against unions and labour movements; those precious tools that people literally died for, in order to ensure the end of child labour, a 40 hour work week, paid time off, sick days, safe working conditions etc. Some of that ire is undoubtedly earned (I'm looking at you, auto unions), but as a society (particularly in North America) we seem to have collectively forgotten the importance of banding together to protect ourselves from the excesses of the rich.

without the people that worked their land, the aristocracy had no power. no people = no armies, no one to grow the food to feed the armies

yes, they benefited much greater then the people, but the people also were dependent on the lords for protection, justice (as it was) and land organization/use/distribution

labor movements built their ideology on what they knew and had been in place for a long time

and there is clear line of descent from the late roman period in western europe where "roman" land owners and local officials would allow german tribesmen to settle on their lands in return for their allegiance to Rome and the local land owner

the romans of gaul could no longer count on either the legions for protection or a continued flow of roman colonists as a workforce

they did what people with money and power always do, they befriended and hired what people were at hand for what seemed to both sides, a mutual benefit

in turn, medieval europe built the fuedal system on what they knew-the old roman villa/latifundia system

[magi877]

So that basically destroys the argument that Government can't manage healthcare and if it tries the US will become a Nazi communist state?

NO it does not

while very large both the VA and the military's TRICARE system (for active duty, family members and retirees) is still small in comparison to the total population in any potential govt run health care system for everyone in the US

and, both VA and military doctors work in an environment where the costs and procedures (as in if they are done or not due to what an insurance company will allow) are not administered by a system that is for profit. where procedures and testings are done for profit and where the more costly and less likely to be covered by insurance, procedures are not done because the ins wont pay.

the VA and military dr's are paid well and they do not have the burden on student loan or med school debt over their heads any longer. the military and i believe the va, pay off these loans once a dr or nurse or other med professional joins their systems

I am not opposed, in general, to a govt run system, i just dont think our govt is capable of doing it due to the overwhelming reach and influence that insurance companies and other lobbyists have into our govt

if you want a idea of how a national health care for all govt run system would work, look to either the Bureau of Indian affairs' Indian Health system or the federal bureau of prisons med system

[Annoyed]

In essence, your opposition to public sector unions is based on purely theoretical grounds.

Is it a theory that I can't go anywhere else to obtain govt. services from another source? No.
Is there competition between different parties to offer those services? No.
Do those employees have a lock on the market for their services? Yes.

Hardly theoretical. These are facts.

Oh, and here's a nice little piece regarding govt. employee union behavior:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/john...st-janus-world

What do unions do with the dues ?

The proof is in the numbers. AFSCME spent just 17 cents of every dollar on representing workers in 2018. The rest went to overhead, politics and other leadership priorities.

Other things of note in that article is that the union tries to control information presented to the workers, to benefit itself.

After the Janus decision came down, government unions in Illinois were quick to pursue a far-reaching legislative agenda. And with willing partners in the governor’s mansion and general assembly, government unions attempted to shepherd through bills that would compromise their members’ privacy while at the same time preventing members from receiving information from anyone other than the union. Another proposal would allow AFSCME to give “orientations” to all new government hires. None of these efforts are meant to empower workers, but rather to keep them in the dark about their Janus rights.

Oh, and isn't this nice:

AFSCME has also used its muscle to wield political control. After years of deadlock between former Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner and AFSCME over the union’s exorbitant demands, Gov. J.B. Pritzker immediately boosted their contract by $3.6 billion – which includes 11.5 percent raises over four years.

Illinois state workers are already among the highest-paid in the country and make significantly more than the average taxpayer responsible for supporting them.

Yes, I know, you will disregard this, as it's from Fox, rather than some leftie site. That doesn't change the information.

[Falcon Horus]

Scenario two was all the men getting call to arms and getting slaughtered by the thousands equipped with pitchfork and leather cap against armored knights and men-at-arms.

So it's a gamble, could always go for scenario 2. Tough choice.

I give you the Battle of the Golden Spurs -- 11th of July 1302.
It's a holiday in Flanders.

without the people that worked their land, the aristocracy had no power. no people = no armies, no one to grow the food to feed the armies

Without people working the lord's lands, the lord had no army, you mean.

and there is clear line of descent from the late roman period in western europe where "roman" land owners and local officials would allow german tribesmen to settle on their lands in return for their allegiance to Rome and the local land owner

Question: where did you learn European history?

Feudalism, also called feudal system or feudality, French féodalité, historiographic construct designating the social, economic, and political conditions in western Europe during the early Middle Ages, the long stretch of time between the 5th and 12th centuries. Feudalism and the related term feudal system are labels invented long after the period to which they were applied. They refer to what those who invented them perceived as the most significant and distinctive characteristics of the early and central Middle Ages. Continue reading.

[Chaka-Z0]

And then a few Kings figured feodalism didn't work that well and decided to have huge trained armies instead with decent living conditions then crushed the minor rival Lords and Kings.

And after that came the plate armor which changed everything on the battlefield, sword became useless.

[Chaka-Z0]

Oh and don't mess with the Weaver's Guild seriously.

[aretood2]

Is it a theory that I can't go anywhere else to obtain govt. services from another source? No.
Is there competition between different parties to offer those services? No.
Do those employees have a lock on the market for their services? Yes.

Hardly theoretical. These are facts.

Oh, and here's a nice little piece regarding govt. employee union behavior:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/john...st-janus-world

What do unions do with the dues ?



Other things of note in that article is that the union tries to control information presented to the workers, to benefit itself.



Oh, and isn't this nice:



Yes, I know, you will disregard this, as it's from Fox, rather than some leftie site. That doesn't change the information.

Since when am I a liberal? For your information I do read Fox News (I just don't care much for their abundant opinion pieces). I also read the National Review and National Interest, both being right wing sources, among others. I have never rejected Fox News as a source and if you are thinking about that stupid white supremacist (anti)immigration group then even then you are mistaken as I never just discarded that information. I actually read it and pointed out where in the methodology they have erred and provided a libertarian source (CATO, as in not liberal/left wing) to counter illustrate my concerns.

I don't watch MSNBC, don't care for it and much what they say and I am not an avid CNN viewer (Don't care for many of their opinion sources). I am basically what you would consider "big foot", the thing you either can't or refuse to see or otherwise don't realize exists. I am a moderate (right of center in many cases).

That said, I don't like arguing with people who operate only in strawman arguments. If you have something to say to other people, quote their posts and respond to their arguments and don't pretend that their arguments are mine. If you quote me, respond to me. I am not going to defend what you think I am versus what I actually am. That is the difference between good faith and bad faith arguments. And yours is one done in bad faith. If you want me to discuss the link and information you posted, make a new post and actually speak to me, based on what I believe, and arguments I have made and drop the strawman arguments and I'll respond. Until then, I'm not responding to the information you posted. Let the liberals here do that since that is who you made that post to.

[aretood2]

NO it does not

while very large both the VA and the military's TRICARE system (for active duty, family members and retirees) is still small in comparison to the total population in any potential govt run health care system for everyone in the US

and, both VA and military doctors work in an environment where the costs and procedures (as in if they are done or not due to what an insurance company will allow) are not administered by a system that is for profit. where procedures and testings are done for profit and where the more costly and less likely to be covered by insurance, procedures are not done because the ins wont pay.

the VA and military dr's are paid well and they do not have the burden on student loan or med school debt over their heads any longer. the military and i believe the va, pay off these loans once a dr or nurse or other med professional joins their systems

I am not opposed, in general, to a govt run system, i just dont think our govt is capable of doing it due to the overwhelming reach and influence that insurance companies and other lobbyists have into our govt

if you want a idea of how a national health care for all govt run system would work, look to either the Bureau of Indian affairs' Indian Health system or the federal bureau of prisons med system

So what makes the US government different from the governments of the other advanced nations who seem to be able to pull it off? Couldn't we explore other models than just the 1 payer system? How about limited universal insurance? Competing government founded companies with budget attached to number insured and privately paid "premium" services/packages? Or at least a regulated private system similar to the level of regulation car insurance companies get?