Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: New person  (Read 8314 times)

Kuzyma

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
Re: New person
« Reply #30 on: May 19, 2009, 06:11:14 pm »

Hello to all of ya,

I have a few questions in regards of proposed liberation. (it's going to be a free state, right?)
Why 20 000 people?
When we get free from US where do we get our infrastructure? Inherited from US?
What will be the status of state? Army, Law enforcement, education?
What about Free State Constitution?
Power, buildings, water supplies, roads, etc....

If these aren't really answered already or will be what are we free FROM?
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: New person
« Reply #31 on: May 19, 2009, 09:33:52 pm »

Hello!

Why 20 000 people?

That was the number of activists originally proposed that would have a positive effect on a small state. I'm sure better explanations are out there.

When we get free from US where do we get our infrastructure? Inherited from US?

The Free State Project does not intend to "get a state free" from of the United States.

What will be the status of state? Army, Law enforcement, education?

I don't understand the question. Please rephrase. :)

What about Free State Constitution?

The Free State Project selected New Hampshire as its destination. New Hampshire already has a written constitution. You can read it here.

Power, buildings, water supplies, roads, etc....

The Free State Project has nothing to do with power, buildings, water supplies, roads, etc. If this is a question, please rephrase.

If these aren't really answered already or will be what are we free FROM?

I don't quite understand the question.

The Free State Project is an effort to find people who believe and will work to create "a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property." I suppose what they would be "free from" is anything inconsistent with the Statement of Intent. What's exactly covered by the Statement of Intent seems to be the subject of great debate!
Logged

Kuzyma

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
Re: New person
« Reply #32 on: May 20, 2009, 09:49:18 am »

Sorry, I was in a hurry to clarify some of the most important things to me.
The "Free State" statement is confused me with different intent.
Now I see that "free state" will simply try to reduce the government ruling and remain as a New Hampshire state with no secede in mind.

Well here I have my thoughts on freedom in US in general and in capitalism in particular.

The main reason why our current president is setting up so many "overlooking" committees in addition to existing ones is bc there a lot of groups of people and businesses needs to be protected, helped, supported in order to sustain. Whenever help comes from higher authority people begin to tag it as socialism intervention. Let's see...

In capitalism successful businesses will grow (expand) and either push away from market niche or consume they competitors. For as long as I remember there were mantras of free enterprise in place, loaded in public heads to support that. And surely successful business runners certainly ok with that.

Yes, in a beginning it will work and as soon as there an opportunity - business will emerge. But after while, with great help of technology, lesser and lesser small businesses are needed. Most of them (if not all) will be consumed or forced to close by larger counterparts. Examples are in our daily life and everyone here is mature enough to understand it. It's just a nature of process.

Sooner or later unsuccessful or weak business will be closed, and it's employees are going to be laid-off. In order to keep those folks alive SOMEONE needs to pay them to sustain in their habitat, right? Yes, there State unemployment insurance. But it is bare minimum and short.
When in places such as NH some big name will shot their doors forever a few hundreds will go out and in any market condition they will either relocate to keep their professions or re-trained in order to stay in their homes bc OTHER spots with their skill sets are FILLED already.
And the same statement goes with production of everything other then short-life consumables and food.

Plus there overseas outsourcing, economy collapses, an overall uncertainty with rapid change in technology in some fields make people UNPROTECTED.
There HAS TO BE social minded solution in place!
Unsuccessful, weak, sick, unable to catch-up with incoming trends folks are OUR citizens too, and their part is dynamically changing due to economical stretches and expansion. Look in today’s market in IT, aviation, consumer electronics, automobile manufacturing, etc. …
That’s why in ideal situation every citizen needs to work only certain amount of hours to prevent OVERPRODUCTION. And when EVERY part of economy comes to such conclusion and carefully measured their development in conjunction with EVERYONE – we can more-less safely moves towards “progress”. And there comes term: PLANNING.
We do not have that much of undeveloped “emptiness” anymore to grow and expand with no limits, as it was in 19th Century.

Look at situation with energy and ecology. Global worming is the main outcome from our “free enterprise” development.
Yes, there are lots of people on this planet with no car or plasma tv, or iPhone. Does that mean that we are HAVE to and ABLE to provide such things to everyone without major collapse?
In order to buy iPhone and service for it poor guys in Paraguay have to produce their share for the world. But there are countries who are already claim that spot decades ago.

What I am saying that Government HAS to step in and protect, control and regulate capitalism (your lovely free enterprise) in ANY given country.

Now, how much of protection and regulation do we need?
Consider Joe Smith working at local IBM office and makes $70K’s annually. IBM outsource their business to Mexico (India, Ukraine, whatever) and Joe Smith is unable to get anything in that range locally. Tried CA, FL, MA, etc.. Already taken!!

So Joe Smith saves some money, trying to get into fields and after 4-XX month his savings run-out. Still cannot get anything. Joe receiving $1300/month of Unemployment Ins. Bonus for up to 6 month and things are not that bad.

Then he found a job for $30K’s and start struggling to keep up with his house, car and insurance payments. He purchased all of that in his time of glory, don’t forget human factor of “rush to have”.
So at the same time, state universities and colleges and trade/business schools are cookie-cutting IT “Joe’s” like crazy.

IBM (pick any brand) really enjoying overseas production and development and all of a sadden NH state will have 20-Xx of “Joe’s” in IT fields competing for ONE job.

We surely cannot blame IBM or anyone else for outsourcing, can we? It’s free enterprise and they need to protect their profits any way possible.

Another case is Jill. She borrowed from Sally Mae $60G’s for a helicopter pilot certificate, get into the field for year or two and due to unforeseen circumstances now she is laid-off.
The helicopter school produces a few “Jills” and keeps doing it for as long as there willingness to dump money in from participants. Don’t tell me that I have no rights to pursue my happiness by my way. How many HS graduates have $60-120G’s in their savings now? So we’re BORROW.

Answer me, how will Government protect me, Joe and Jill and a few millions of “unfortunate, weak, sick and not-up-to-date-educated” in this situation with “minimal” involvement”? Send you a letter of suggestions to sell ur kidney, ear, eye, a couple of fingers? Property was mortgaged long ago, so there is no source. How?

When I, Joe and Jill ask to re-train us to plug back into society, where the state government will be able to pull their funds? And we have to re-think our dreams and willingness, happiness as well?
I have to go for HVAC installer, Joe will probably make to PC Repair Tech, and Jill will certainly get HR position in local Win Dixie, right? But we all have to continue to pay our darn student loans, right? And do not forget about another few millions, thousands locally, who will send their resumes for the same positions.
I know it is hypothetical but it is around us today.

When government takes control it is somewhat with socialism in mind, depending on intention.


Logged

time4liberty

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 922
Re: New person
« Reply #33 on: May 20, 2009, 10:15:00 am »

There is no reason for there to be any permanent unemployment whatsoever. The key is scarcity. This means that people will always want more goods and services. If people are fed, they will want homes, if they have homes, they will want furniture, etc. Except for the very most severely disabled, everyone can be productive on some level. Scarcity guarantees that there will be someone interested in consuming what is produced.
 
Fixed costs, however, like minimum wage, and regulations, can produce long term unemployment, if a person's productivity is lower than those costs. For example, if a person's productivity is worth $5 an hour, but minimum wage is $6 an hour, the person may be indefinitely unemployed.
 
As an example, consider a world with only farmers, and clothes manufacturers. It takes everyone's full time effort just to meet everyone's food and clothing needs, so there is full employment. Now, suppose some innovation increases efficiency -- say the combine is invented. Suddenly, half of the farmers can supply everyone's food needs, so the other half of the farmers find themselves unemployed. Is this a disaster for these farmers, resulting in long term unemployment and privation? No, the farmers will simply find something else people need or want -- which the law of scarcity guarantees does exist.
 
So, the farmers decide people may be tired of sleeping on the ground all the time, and busy themselves erecting more permanent shelters and homes. In exchange for these homes, the farmers recieve food and clothing. Now, we're back to full employment, but instead of everyone only having food and clothing, everyone has food, clothing, and homes.
 
This is what we've experienced throughout our history. Did the invention of the steam shovel, the efficiencies of automated production, or the combine cause massive economic devestation? Just the opposite.
 
Suppose we banned all such technology or innovations of efficiency -- no more steam shovels, since it puts construction workers out of work -- everyone must use shovels, or better yet, their bare hands. No more e-mail, everyone must send letters. We would immediately have 100% full employment, because we would be spending all day carrying water from the local pond (assuming buckets are allowed), tending our farms by hand, and spinning our own cloth. We would be fully employed, and empoverished.
 
So, unemployment in a free market is a temporary effect while people shift from unproductive jobs -- in our example above, farming -- to productive jobs -- housing. For this transiton to be as painless as possible, it should be as quick as possible. What do you think would have happened in our example above, if the government, horrified at the great numbers of unemployed farmers, decided to start destrying crops, as Roosevelt did in the great depression? Would this speed up the transition, or slow it down? Would this increase people's poverty, or reduce it?
 
What if there were a large number of regulations, requiring new homebuilds to wade through mountains of red tape, which could take months or years? Would this speed up the transition, or ensure that people are unemployed for longer? What if the government redistributed a great deal of the resources from the spinners, in order to prop up crop prices, so that the farmers remained employed? Would that increase wealth, or decrease it? The answers are obvious.
 
High unemployment only endures when the government uses force to prevent the necessary transitions from occuring. We NEED less housing, so we should be builing less houses. We NEED fewer investment banks, so there should be fewer bankers. By propping housing up, or bailing out bankers, the government only delays the inevitable, lengthens unemployment, and impoverishes us all, by keeping people employed unproductively.
 
The government is the only organization in the country which is allowed to operate on the routine basis of initiating force and threatening violence. That's the difference -- if it had to fund itself through voluntary means, it would be a charity, or a business. In a voluntary exchange, both parties believe they benefit, or they would not do it. In a forcible exchange, only one party benefits, at the expense of another. These kinds of actions always have unintended consequences, and no person or collection of beaurocrats is smart or wise enough to reshape society to fit their will -- nor do they have the right to trample on the lives and choices of others to do so.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2009, 10:16:59 am by ttie »
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: New person
« Reply #34 on: May 20, 2009, 10:25:16 am »

In capitalism successful businesses will grow (expand) and either push away from market niche or consume they competitors. For as long as I remember there were mantras of free enterprise in place, loaded in public heads to support that. And surely successful business runners certainly ok with that.

Yes, in a beginning it will work and as soon as there an opportunity - business will emerge. But after while, with great help of technology, lesser and lesser small businesses are needed. Most of them (if not all) will be consumed or forced to close by larger counterparts. Examples are in our daily life and everyone here is mature enough to understand it. It's just a nature of process.

You are conflating the current system, known as Corporatism (a form of socialism) with Capitalism, which is the polar opposite.  Corporatism does lead to the creation of large corporations, as a result of a government that grants them privileges and punishes smaller companies.  Capitalism is based upon the doctrine of "laissez-faire," which translates roughly as "leave alone" - the basis of all true capitalism is that the government cannot intervene to create special privileges or such.  Large corporations don't have the agility to survive in a free market economy, and will quickly be broken down into smaller units to be able to compete.

Sooner or later unsuccessful or weak business will be closed, and it's employees are going to be laid-off. In order to keep those folks alive SOMEONE needs to pay them to sustain in their habitat, right?

If there was a market for the goods/services supplied by that business, someone else will start a business in the same field, and hopefully learn from the mistakes of the previous business, and do things smarter.  If the business failed because it was trying to sell something that no one wanted enough to buy, obviously they wanted something else, more.  The workers can go to work for the businesses that are making the thing that folks actually want.

That’s why in ideal situation every citizen needs to work only certain amount of hours to prevent OVERPRODUCTION. And when EVERY part of economy comes to such conclusion and carefully measured their development in conjunction with EVERYONE – we can more-less safely moves towards “progress”. And there comes term: PLANNING.

You do realize that you're not going to find any takers, here, right?  Most folks here have studied economics in some level of depth, and it doesn't take much depth at all to destroy the myth that overproduction is anything more than a complaint in search of a problem.  Central planning has been an utter disaster in every single instance in which it has been tried.  Without exception.

Look at situation with energy and ecology. Global worming is the main outcome from our “free enterprise” development.

Anthropogenic global warming is a myth.  There is no more science behind it than there was behind "global cooling," a few years ago.  It's just a scare tactic to excuse oppression.

Answer me, how will Government protect me, Joe and Jill and a few millions of “unfortunate, weak, sick and not-up-to-date-educated” in this situation with “minimal” involvement”? Send you a letter of suggestions to sell ur kidney, ear, eye, a couple of fingers? Property was mortgaged long ago, so there is no source. How?

The government won't protect you.  The government caused the situation.  It is the purpose of governments to create poverty.  It's a science, down to calculating the perfect level of unemployment.  That's fact - do some research on Keynesian economic theory, which is what they use.  They actually calculate where they want the unemployment rate to be, in order to keep wages down, to increase the bottom line of their corporate partners.

In a capitalist economy, there is no long-term unemployment.  Workers are in demand, and they set the wages they are willing to accept, as companies compete for their labor.

I know it is hypothetical but it is around us today.

Yes, in the current, socialist system.  It doesn't happen in a capitalist economy.  The more capitalism you inject, the less it happens.  NH was chosen in large part because its economy is less-socialist than most other US states.  Despite the depression that the socialists have put this country into, even the small amount of capitalism that NH has, has buffered the effect to a substantial extent.  Unemployment isn't as bad here as many other places.  The markets for houses and other goods/services have not dropped as much as they have, elsewhere.  If we tossed aside all the socialism, we'd turn this thing around in a matter of months.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: New person
« Reply #35 on: May 20, 2009, 10:59:05 am »

The main reason why our current president is setting up so many "overlooking" committees in addition to existing ones is bc there a lot of groups of people and businesses needs to be protected, helped, supported in order to sustain.

Like pets?

What if I don't want to take care of the president's "pet citizens"? Do I still have to pay to do it?

There HAS TO BE social minded solution in place!

Why is that? Are these people completely paralyzed to make decisions for themselves?

That’s why in ideal situation every citizen needs to work only certain amount of hours to prevent OVERPRODUCTION. And when EVERY part of economy comes to such conclusion and carefully measured their development in conjunction with EVERYONE – we can more-less safely moves towards “progress”. And there comes term: PLANNING.

There is no such thing as "overproduction". "Overproduction" assumes a shared optimal level of production. Which there is not.

What I am saying that Government HAS to step in and protect, control and regulate capitalism (your lovely free enterprise) in ANY given country.

You've said it. But why exactly? "Government has to give me money." Don't make it true!

Consider Joe Smith working at local IBM office and makes $70K’s annually. IBM outsource their business to Mexico (India, Ukraine, whatever) and Joe Smith is unable to get anything in that range locally. Tried CA, FL, MA, etc.. Already taken!!

So Joe Smith saves some money, trying to get into fields and after 4-XX month his savings run-out. Still cannot get anything. Joe receiving $1300/month of Unemployment Ins. Bonus for up to 6 month and things are not that bad.

Bad for Joe. Then again, if he was earning over twice the average national income and his job is easily replaceable by someone in Mexico, he should expect to be replaced at some point. If he does not take steps to protect himself from a shifting job market, that is his own fault. There are plenty of job-less insurance programs out there to protect your wages. Buy a policy.

That system is bad for everyone. Because--to pay for Smith's unemployment insurance--every employer must pay a 6.2% tax* on their employee's wages. Which means everyone gets paid less than they otherwise would.

In essence, if you don't protect yourself from unemployment when you're making $70K/year--twice the national wage paid--and then I have to continue to pay for you when you lose your job? There's just something wrong about that.

Answer me, how will Government protect me, Joe and Jill and a few millions of “unfortunate, weak, sick and not-up-to-date-educated” in this situation with “minimal” involvement”?

Protect you from what? Yourself? If you want government to protect you, that's fine. Just don't make everyone else pay for you.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2009, 11:02:01 am by B.D. Ross »
Logged

Kuzyma

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
Re: New person
« Reply #36 on: May 20, 2009, 11:45:23 am »

As an example, consider a world with only farmers, and clothes manufacturers. It takes everyone's full time effort just to meet everyone's food and clothing needs,

Nope, it wouldn’t.

Because clothes are long-term consumables and farm products are short-life seasonal.
Same as with cars, electronics, shoes and about everything. Plus homes – these are set for a life for longest.


This means that people will always want more goods and services.”
Yes, people WANTS but it does not meant they COULD or able to.

Simple counting in ur prospective. Factory of 12 000 people worldwide makes Hitachi tv sets, audio, video equipment for how many folks? So when they feed these WHO CAN pay should they STOP producing?
Yes, logically they should and turn into testing and innovation development. But HQ of Hitachi (ur name it) decided to take advantage of CREDIT and seduce people to chase newer and newer things all the time, while function of tv were pretty much set back in a few years.
Yes, Japanese have 4 times sharper then currently “standard” High-Def in domestic US but does that mean that there are new businesses had arrived? Hell NO. Hitachi (ur name it) is keep producing them. And same people are standing at line 8 to 5.
So the solution is either electronics has to be a short-term life expectancies (up to 3-4 years) and so do cars (!!!) or someone has to stop the conveyer from time to time.

We would immediately have 100% full employment, because we would be spending all day carrying water from the local pond (assuming buckets are allowed), tending our farms by hand, and spinning our own cloth. We would be fully employed, and empoverished.

Where did people end-up in impoverishment by doing family farming? I thought they were PLACED in that hole by larger contenders with modern tools, machinery, knowledge.
Do you understand how many farmers need today to feed so many people?
My point is: with modern technologies we are going to produce with less input in highest quantity. That is ideal business dream. Every businessman trying to cut their cost of production and reduce their workforce as much as possible. Where do these “temp” people go and how QUICKLY local business will start grow to employ them again?
And is there willingness to jump into this gamble in those who were laid-off, unemployed? Really?

“High unemployment only endures when the government uses force to prevent the necessary transitions from occuring. We NEED less housing, so we should be builing less houses. We NEED fewer investment banks, so there should be fewer bankers. By propping housing up, or bailing out bankers, the government only delays the inevitable, lengthens unemployment, and impoverishes us all, by keeping people employed unproductively.”

You’re just answer what I was saying. Where do people go if all these fields of opportunity are TAKEN? Open another retail electronic shop? Best Buy already there.
Perhaps Joe&Jill diner? Look at ur Main street and tell me if anyone can survive among Wendies and Mac’s.
I am sorry, how the government propping “housing boost” or “banking growth” in any given state?

Don’t you misunderstand me. I am not here to promote our government “stratigury”. I am trying to get a sober idea.

“… or collection of beaurocrats is smart or wise enough to reshape society to fit their will -- nor do they have the right to trample on the lives and choices of others to do so.”

Well, in my opinion it’s exactly what happening.


Corporatism does lead to the creation of large corporations, as a result of a government that grants them privileges and punishes smaller companies.  Capitalism is based upon the doctrine of "laissez-faire," which translates roughly as "leave alone" - the basis of all true capitalism is that the government cannot intervene to create special privileges or such

Well, based on my knowledge “corporatism” is extention of capitalism, not a separate. Bc remember, either way “laissez-faire” or “monopolism/corporatism” they both strive on exploitation of man by other man. Certainly it is not socialism in here, in the US.
The Governement is trying to create that buffer for less fortunate, wrongfully lured, lied, mistreated, exploited, laid-off, etc.

That French idea of “free-runners” will never work.
Workers, laborers will be placed in mercy of employer. History already bypass that once.
Someone has to regulate economy by intervene into every step and write Law for EVERY occasion may occur in free labor trade.

Large corporations don't have the agility to survive in a free market economy, and will quickly be broken down into smaller units to be able to compete.”

Sorry,
How would “Joe&Jill” compete with Wendi’s? How will I compete with power of research labs and manufacturing cost of Merck, Pedigree, SONY, Ford, etc.?
Don’t forget about DoD contractors. They pretty much pushing innovations, not local barber shops.

Yes, small businesses are right here to live and prosper but there has to be HUGE corporations to LEAD innovations and development.

If there was a market for the goods/services supplied by that business,

I just said if the business was outrun by either competitor(s) or weak demand.
Yes, there is market for shoe repair, just not that lucrative anymore bc Nike makes shoes in China for a fraction of repair cost.
I’d like to see more of local “Jillkies” instead of Reebok and Adidas but it just not happening.
How would ONE state protect their market?
If Adidas wants to set their retail shop – it will. According to some Constitution, right? It is free market. Remember “You’ve got mail”?
If you start protecting “Jillkies” – it’s local state protectionism.

Central planning has been an utter disaster in every single instance in which it has been tried.  Without exception.’

Well let’s see. Which auto make will go under in 2010? Pontiac, Saturn? How about Chrysler or Chevy?
Sure, no need planning. Just leave it as is. People will bite the dust and somehow… in a few years they may survive… or so.

The government won't protect you.”

When Saturn plants will go under, Wall Street firms collapses, unameit relocated to Mexico, India, Ukraine, WHO will protect laid-offs?

In a capitalist economy, there is no long-term unemployment.  Workers are in demand, and they set the wages they are willing to accept, as companies compete for their labor.

Yes, I’d agree with you IF there fare start from scratch. 21 000 of Joe’s are building houses, and 12 000 Jill’s are cooking and flipping burgers. But what is going to happen when Joe’s will finish building their houses in 5-6 years? Where do they go? And at some point they surely be out of diners, so a few thousands of Jills will be on their lovely streets. WHERE do they go for their next meal to earn?


Bad for Joe. Then again, if he was earning over twice the average national income and his job is easily replaceable by someone in Mexico, he should expect to be replaced at some point. If he does not take steps to protect himself from a shifting job market, that is his own fault.

Well I’ve just picked one sector of economy. How would you protect yourself if education system still producing Joe’s EVRY YEAR in quantity. Will Joe bag them to stop? Or the “economy”? Then why is this not happening? Why this is not so smartly regulates it? Bc of the Government? Do they order to Uni’s to rush order?

You've said it. But why exactly? "Government has to give me money." Don't make it true!
Nope, that was not my intention.

Government should overlook and step at some point to NOT LET it happen.

Protect you from what? Yourself? If you want government to protect you, that's fine. Just don't make everyone else pay for you.”

Nope, not myself. I did not smack my PM in his face to be laid-off.

So, you’re suggestion is that should be no unemployment protection at all, no workforce for re-train, re-skill, re-educate people?
Or should I magically choose barber profession in very beginning (with all my respect to barbers) bc in any economic situation people needs to shave? Or as soon as I get a job in aircraft pilot pro I should attend local community college for welders, CDL drivers, warehouse management classes just in case there will be laid-offs? Are you kidding me
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: New person
« Reply #37 on: May 20, 2009, 12:42:20 pm »

Well I’ve just picked one sector of economy. How would you protect yourself if education system still producing Joe’s EVRY YEAR in quantity. Will Joe bag them to stop? Or the “economy”? Then why is this not happening? Why this is not so smartly regulates it? Bc of the Government? Do they order to Uni’s to rush order?

I'm not quite sure what you are asking. As you might know, the U.S. government vastly subsidizes higher education and gives preferential treatment to student loan lenders. In terms of market signals, even though the job demand is very low for say, an art history major, high school students are getting the opposite message. The federal student lending system exacerbates the employment problem.

Of course, that doesn't mean that if higher education produces an engineer, that's all the engineer can do. Goodness no... But when you treat students like a fixed commodity, well, I bet it makes it a lot easier to take their money ;)
Logged

Kuzyma

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
Re: New person
« Reply #38 on: May 20, 2009, 03:43:08 pm »

Yes, I do realize that. I am the one who owns a-bit now but cannot fulfill his “destiny” anymore, after 9 years. Yes, may be I am not that good.
What I am trying to say is whoever overlooking stats for educational supplies and demands (as of money in and graduates out) should make a suggestions WHEN number of applicants reaching the bottom line of financial accessibility for given place and time. It is easy. One applied for SM for school such and such, get rejection letter with an explanation that it is "suggested to choose another area of study due to ..."

But unfortunately, our Federal Reserve LLC.  just keeps printing evergreen quality paper to please EVERY application. When Government subsidies student loans and grants it should see proportions.
Students are coming out and some hefty percentage after 2-3 years turning to  … I guess you may see where.
Does that mean that students are making wrong choice? Nope, everyone equally full of … hope. Yes, I agree there are almost always professions in demand, like CDL driver or HVAC technician (??), janitor assassin.

But for example, if I searching and see ads in Careerbuilder I could not get into any of these without re-training.
Firestone is asking for ASE certificates.
How long does it take me to get one? 6-7 month in local community college. How much? Exactly... I am end-up in another several thousands of dept.
 
Imagine I’d be trained for commercial pilot-instructor with 70-80G’s in debt.
And commercial airlines are surely accepting applicants but only with 1000 of solo hours.
How many years do I need to work as pilot-trainer for $30G’s before anyone accepts me for real money? Where’da hell they think I’d get these hours if my instructor has graduated last year?
And as soon as I am out of school annual charges BEGAN.
When some institutions lending money for me don’t they supposed to or better MUST check stats of recent years and possibilities, proportions?

Plus a lot of schools are simply jacking up these stats to engage you to go there.
One says there is huge demand for pilots domestically in 2010 but when I jump into one of their forums pros there are crying out for work (!!!)
And when u get into stats within state government workforce pages these numbers (demand) are scare you off in a blink of an eye.
But what if one were not digging deep enough? And as usual listen to what recruiter says?

Does all of this my fault? If yes, it would be much safer to stay at cashier desk in nearest Publix – they never running out of availabilities in that field. $7/hr is such a dream job, huh?
So if we’re cut the Government from these piles of cash for students in Free State, where and how would one get money for study or training?
Government needs to be in place and kinda overlook for many things but certainly not as in our current stage.
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: New person
« Reply #39 on: May 20, 2009, 04:32:19 pm »

Yes, I do realize that. I am the one who owns a-bit now but cannot fulfill his “destiny” anymore, after 9 years. Yes, may be I am not that good.
What I am trying to say is whoever overlooking stats for educational supplies and demands (as of money in and graduates out) should make a suggestions WHEN number of applicants reaching the bottom line of financial accessibility for given place and time. It is easy. One applied for SM for school such and such, get rejection letter with an explanation that it is "suggested to choose another area of study due to ..."

I'm not sure what you mean. The problem with this approach is that it assumes those people know how many people are needed at all.

Does that mean that students are making wrong choice?

Some are. Some are not.

Plus a lot of schools are simply jacking up these stats to engage you to go there.

Why? Because there's essentially free money to fund it. Where did that money come from? Subsidized education.

Does all of this my fault? If yes, it would be much safer to stay at cashier desk in nearest Publix – they never running out of availabilities in that field. $7/hr is such a dream job, huh?
So if we’re cut the Government from these piles of cash for students in Free State, where and how would one get money for study or training?
Government needs to be in place and kinda overlook for many things but certainly not as in our current stage.

A lot of it is culture and social conditioning. American industry-education has been tending toward the rigid European/Japanese models, where you develop a specific skill-set and you're locked into that--unless you have another piece of paper saying you're qualified to do something else. Which is silly. I know dozens of engineers--hundreds--who don't actually do engineering. I know lawyers who aren't lawyers. Frankly, the notion you must attend a school that costs $30K+/year for both of those is ludicrous. However, those requirements are now fixed by law. But you don't really need to go to school to do either of them.

Employers like to see your paper though. And there are some things that are just hard to do without capital-intensive training. For example, as you point out, I imagine piloting would be difficult (but, I don't actually know).

However--big picture here--if one's response to any obstacle is to remain sitting behind a counter at Publix--when the person has bigger dreams to pursue--then indeed, it would be rather silly to expect to be going somewhere. When you're really just sitting in place.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2009, 04:42:27 pm by B.D. Ross »
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: New person
« Reply #40 on: May 20, 2009, 05:13:32 pm »

Well, based on my knowledge “corporatism” is extention of capitalism, not a separate.

Your "knowledge" is faulty.

Bc remember, either way “laissez-faire” or “monopolism/corporatism” they both strive on exploitation of man by other man.

That's a false claim, too.  Free trade involves free trade.  No one can be exploited if all parties enter into an agreement willingly, by definition.

Certainly it is not socialism in here, in the US.

Yes, it is.  It's a corporatist system, which is a form of socialism.  The National Socialist party of Germany was a big proponent of that system...

The Governement is trying to create that buffer for less fortunate, wrongfully lured, lied, mistreated, exploited, laid-off, etc.

That's just laughable.  Governments are the biggest offenders.  How could they protect anyone?

That French idea of “free-runners” will never work.
Workers, laborers will be placed in mercy of employer. History already bypass that once.
Someone has to regulate economy by intervene into every step and write Law for EVERY occasion may occur in free labor trade.

Someone "has to?"  Why?  Because incompetents want to exploit others?

You know, I was going to keep going, but this such obvious trolling, that it's just not worth it.  You're not even an amusing troll.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

Kuzyma

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
Re: New person
« Reply #41 on: May 20, 2009, 09:05:31 pm »

OK, trolling or not trolling, I have no clue what it means anyway.
You’re obviously never lived in socialism. That’s why you’re getting this “corporatism” idea attached to it.
In socialism there no corporatism, there all government controlled structure. Whether it shoe-making factory or plutonium enrichment facility.

That’s number one.

So corporatism simply CANNOT appear from socialism by nature. No matter what u’ve being reading in Wiki.
Btw, remember Wiki is not a 100% “rightest source of all sources”and never meant to be. That’s number two.

No one can be exploited if all parties enter into an agreement willingly, by definition.

Nope, it is exploitation simply bc not all of the product of a fare trade divided fairly.
Sources of production such as technology and machinery are in owner’s possession. Majority of profit goes to owner. Hired employee has no voice to defend his point of view on his salary. He gets what owner gives. So this is exploitation here: you are HAVE to go and ask for work, not owner asking to come and work for him.
In socialism you’re working and government divided everything: sources of production and intellectual properties and labor payment equally. So citizen in socialism is actually in part owner as well.

Didn’t you learn this in Stanford?
And speaking about fairness. How about 130-300 more times of employee’s salary for the top manager, CEO and such? Does this sounds fair for manual labor, or smart-ass scientists?
In capitalism it is on your owner’s mercy, in socialism its gradation based on experience and knowledge, plus never more then 3 times of based employee’s salary in given industry. Yes, for initiative workers there are bonuses, many different kinds. Depending on achievement you’ll have some or all of it. In capitalism, as well as in your claimed corporatism nobody gives a rat’s ass about how much they can cut from what you produced. Do you want an example?

Yes, it is.  It's a corporatist system, which is a form of socialism.  The National Socialist party of Germany was a big proponent of that system...”

National Socialism in Germany seizes corporate properties and profits for their NATION, not for corporations. Any foreign business who’s agreed to support NSGWP got contracts.
Unfortunately you have very limited knowledge of this subject.
Corporations are supported Hitler, Ernst Julius Röhm, and Gering in party setup.
National Socialist German Workers Party.
So your example is not on the track.

That's just laughable.  Governments are the biggest offenders.  How could they protect anyone?

Who’s oversee how money for pensions, retirement, insurance for low-income were spending? Is it your boss, supervisor, the owner may be?
Who pays you your earned SS benefits? Who pays unemployment now?
And just out of blue, why these trade and labor unions were established?

Why?  Because incompetents want to exploit others?

So if there no Government in your protection against usury and wrongful practices would you be able to stand against rich and powerful business in a court?
Just simply bc you don’t have money power you’ll loose. Do I need to go in historic details?
Yes, every government tend to seize the power and start getting on his own. But every example in History shows that power can be brake by other power only.
Again, I am not asking for socialist party setup here. I just wonder how "free state" concept will protect its own people when Federal influence in minimum?
Example please.
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: New person
« Reply #42 on: May 20, 2009, 09:41:49 pm »

Nope, it is exploitation simply bc not all of the product of a fare trade divided fairly.

"Fair" is pretty subjective. And that's fundamentally the issue. Who should decide what's fair? The workers and the business operating in the free market, or a far-flung government office that has absolutely no understanding of business?

Sources of production such as technology and machinery are in owner’s possession. Majority of profit goes to owner. Hired employee has no voice to defend his point of view on his salary. He gets what owner gives. So this is exploitation here: you are HAVE to go and ask for work, not owner asking to come and work for him.

"Work" is not everyone sitting around a campfire singing kumbayah and just hoping revenue appears. You offer your skill and labor. In exchange, you're paid a wage or salary that you agree to. No one has an obligation to give you work. Or to hire you at the salary you demand. You can always walk your shoes across the street. :)
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: New person
« Reply #43 on: May 21, 2009, 09:08:48 am »

OK, trolling or not trolling, I have no clue what it means anyway.
You’re obviously never lived in socialism. That’s why you’re getting this “corporatism” idea attached to it.
In socialism there no corporatism, there all government controlled structure. Whether it shoe-making factory or plutonium enrichment facility.

Corporations are branches of the government.

Your lack of understanding is amusing, but nonsensical.

Btw, remember Wiki is not a 100% “rightest source of all sources”and never meant to be. That’s number two.

Um, that's my line.  I don't use Wikipedia for any sort of source, since it is edited primarily by socialists with an agenda.

My understanding of economics comes from decades of intense study.

No one can be exploited if all parties enter into an agreement willingly, by definition.

Nope, it is exploitation simply bc not all of the product of a fare trade divided fairly.

Why would I enter into an agreement that was unfair to me?  Unless it was at the point of a socialist's gun, of course...

Sources of production such as technology and machinery are in owner’s possession. Majority of profit goes to owner. Hired employee has no voice to defend his point of view on his salary. He gets what owner gives. So this is exploitation here: you are HAVE to go and ask for work, not owner asking to come and work for him.

I'm a self-employed tradesman.  Don't tell me I need to go beg someone else for a job.

National Socialism in Germany seizes corporate properties and profits for their NATION, not for corporations. Any foreign business who’s agreed to support NSGWP got contracts.
Unfortunately you have very limited knowledge of this subject.
Corporations are supported Hitler, Ernst Julius Röhm, and Gering in party setup.
National Socialist German Workers Party.
So your example is not on the track.

The acronym is "NSDAP," not "NSGWP."

You'd be a lot more credible if you didn't display gross ignorance of the most basic data on the subject.

Who’s oversee how money for pensions, retirement, insurance for low-income were spending? Is it your boss, supervisor, the owner may be?
Who pays you your earned SS benefits? Who pays unemployment now?
And just out of blue, why these trade and labor unions were established?

Are you just listing more and more offenses by the government, for me?

So if there no Government in your protection against usury and wrongful practices would you be able to stand against rich and powerful business in a court?

What court?

Yes, every government tend to seize the power and start getting on his own. But every example in History shows that power can be brake by other power only.

Fight fire with fire?  Doesn't work.  If you don't believe me, set your house on fire and then pour gasoline on it.  It won't put the fire out.

I just wonder how "free state" concept will protect its own people when Federal influence in minimum?
Example please.

I don't want "the State" to "protect" anyone.  Their idea of protection involves attacking the innocent with armed thugs.

You want power centralized in a government run by unaccountable "elites."  The exact system we currently have (and look how well it works!).

We want power to be decentralized, vested in the individuals.  No one can accumulate power and oppress others, if power is fully-distributed.  It's just not practical.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

time4liberty

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 922
Re: New person
« Reply #44 on: May 26, 2009, 02:56:32 am »

As an example, consider a world with only farmers, and clothes manufacturers. It takes everyone's full time effort just to meet everyone's food and clothing needs,

Nope, it wouldn’t.

Because clothes are long-term consumables and farm products are short-life seasonal.
Same as with cars, electronics, shoes and about everything. Plus homes – these are set for a life for longest.


This was a premise, not a conclusion. I was asking you to suppose a world in which our technology is so primitive that it takes everyone's full time effort just to be clothed and fed. It's helpful to consider a simpler example in order to see how things work.

This means that people will always want more goods and services.”
Yes, people WANTS but it does not meant they COULD or able to.

The point of scarcity is only that people will always want more. That implies that there will always be employment available for anyone willing to work, since there will always be someone willing to compensate them for that work.

Simple counting in ur prospective. Factory of 12 000 people worldwide makes Hitachi tv sets, audio, video equipment for how many folks? So when they feed these WHO CAN pay should they STOP producing?
Yes, logically they should and turn into testing and innovation development. But HQ of Hitachi (ur name it) decided to take advantage of CREDIT and seduce people to chase newer and newer things all the time, while function of tv were pretty much set back in a few years.
Yes, Japanese have 4 times sharper then currently “standard” High-Def in domestic US but does that mean that there are new businesses had arrived? Hell NO. Hitachi (ur name it) is keep producing them. And same people are standing at line 8 to 5.
So the solution is either electronics has to be a short-term life expectancies (up to 3-4 years) and so do cars (!!!) or someone has to stop the conveyer from time to time.

You've overly complected the situation beyond what you can understand. That's why I picked a simple situation in the first place. The same principles apply to the situation you describe, but it's better to understand the basics before adding wrinkles.

I encourage you to read Economics in One Lesson, and for information on the credit crisis, try Meltdown, by Tom Woods.

We would immediately have 100% full employment, because we would be spending all day carrying water from the local pond (assuming buckets are allowed), tending our farms by hand, and spinning our own cloth. We would be fully employed, and empoverished.

Where did people end-up in impoverishment by doing family farming? I thought they were PLACED in that hole by larger contenders with modern tools, machinery, knowledge.
Do you understand how many farmers need today to feed so many people?
My point is: with modern technologies we are going to produce with less input in highest quantity. That is ideal business dream. Every businessman trying to cut their cost of production and reduce their workforce as much as possible. Where do these “temp” people go and how QUICKLY local business will start grow to employ them again?
And is there willingness to jump into this gamble in those who were laid-off, unemployed? Really?

The total wealth of a society is the amount it produces. Yes, people were far poorer when each family had to carry their own water, plow by hand, etc. They worked all day for only food, clothing, and shelter, wheras today most of us enjoy a far higher standard of living. The difference is technology. We need fewer farmers because technology allows those few farmers to meet everyone's food needs, leaving the rest of us free to create HDTVs, marble countertops, cars, boats, etc.

Baring shenanigans with government regulations and credit distortions, which are rampant, unemployed people will find work quite quickly. It's simply a matter of identifying what need people have which is not being fulfilled, or is not being fulfilled cheap enough, and the extra labor can go there. Again, please educate yourself on these issues.

Try mises.org for some excellent material, and free audiobooks.

“High unemployment only endures when the government uses force to prevent the necessary transitions from occuring. We NEED less housing, so we should be builing less houses. We NEED fewer investment banks, so there should be fewer bankers. By propping housing up, or bailing out bankers, the government only delays the inevitable, lengthens unemployment, and impoverishes us all, by keeping people employed unproductively.”

You’re just answer what I was saying. Where do people go if all these fields of opportunity are TAKEN? Open another retail electronic shop? Best Buy already there.
Perhaps Joe&Jill diner? Look at ur Main street and tell me if anyone can survive among Wendies and Mac’s.
I am sorry, how the government propping “housing boost” or “banking growth” in any given state?

Don’t you misunderstand me. I am not here to promote our government “stratigury”. I am trying to get a sober idea.

In my view one thing we really need in this country is more manufacturing. Our economy has been distorted by rampant government and private borrowing for consumption, enabled mainly by poor monetary policy. We need to stop consuming so much, and start exporting goods.

Scarcity implies that there will always be work available. The less we distort the market, and prop up bad business, the quicker the proper growth sector will become apparent. Too much borrowing, for example, makes it appear as if this manufacturing is not necessary, and enables a consumption based economy, which is unsustainable.

“… or collection of beaurocrats is smart or wise enough to reshape society to fit their will -- nor do they have the right to trample on the lives and choices of others to do so.”

Well, in my opinion it’s exactly what happening.


Exactly. Which is why I support more liberty, more respect for people's individual choices, and less theft by government -- which is exactly what the bailouts and stimulus are. People can decide what they need, and use it efficiently, much better than government can. What's more, they have a right to decide how they will use the product of their own labor.

Corporatism does lead to the creation of large corporations, as a result of a government that grants them privileges and punishes smaller companies.  Capitalism is based upon the doctrine of "laissez-faire," which translates roughly as "leave alone" - the basis of all true capitalism is that the government cannot intervene to create special privileges or such

Well, based on my knowledge “corporatism” is extention of capitalism, not a separate. Bc remember, either way “laissez-faire” or “monopolism/corporatism” they both strive on exploitation of man by other man. Certainly it is not socialism in here, in the US.
The Governement is trying to create that buffer for less fortunate, wrongfully lured, lied, mistreated, exploited, laid-off, etc.

That French idea of “free-runners” will never work.
Workers, laborers will be placed in mercy of employer. History already bypass that once.
Someone has to regulate economy by intervene into every step and write Law for EVERY occasion may occur in free labor trade.

I do not know how you define capitalism. I support the freedom of people to choose how to use their own lives and money, without outside interference. I believe in helping the less fortunate, but I need to do so myself, not by stealing money from others in order to finance my charity.

By the way, the government helps big business far more than unfortunate individuals. Government power is bought and sold, same as anything else, and big business has the money to buy it. If you think government is looking out for you, you're sadly mistaken.

The government is entirely to blame for the current economic downturn, it has nothing to do with free markets. The banks are so controlled at this point, they might as well be government agencies. The only reason banks are in business is that they are able to get free money from the fed, and loan it out to you at interest. Read Meltdown, by Tom Woods, as I say, for an intro. Government consistently crafts regulations which defends big business from small -- to see why, simply examine the top donors to politicans. It isn't your local mom and pop store, I guarantee it.

Among both McCain and Obama's top 20 donors:
Goldman Sachs
JPMorgan Chase & Co
Citigroup Inc
UBS
Morgan Stanley

And now the bailouts don't seem like such a big surprise.

Consider this quite from Benito Mussolini:
"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."

Sound familiar?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up