a-train

See, I knew you'd come around to free-market capitalism at some point. :-a-train

This is called by the anti-trust movement "predatory pricing". The notion is that a company (or group) with some "war chest" of capital, will cut prices to such a low level, that even IT does not profit. This effort is designed to ruin other businesses in order to establish monopoly and monopoly prices (prices much higher than what would exist under natural competitive market conditions)."Muckraker" Ida Tarbell wrote a whole chapter on the subject in her book The History of the Standard Oil Company. The chapter, called "Cutting to Kill", asserted that Standard was engaged in such practices, and made the notion popularly known to the masses. However, this notion is "theoretical nonesense" to economists. (Thomas Dilorenzo) There has yet to be a single demonstrable historical instance of it. Standard Oil was actually losing market share while it continued to drop prices and it never raised them. What Standard Oil actually did, was give America really good oil products for really low prices through efficiency and innovation. It never did any price hikes. The allegations were that it charged less than anyone else, but as high as it could. (Sheesh, that's just terrible!) They were accussed of high and low pricing at the same time. The reality is, that it takes violence to establish a monopoly. The mafia can do it, but not because of price controls, but because of hit-men and wise guys. They literally bury their competition. The only way to do that legally is through government. All the real monopolies were established and maintained through government programs or fiats. -a-train

So you would have them sit at home and make ZERO wages?-a-train

True! True! At least, not in an economic system where the government prevents it by mercantilist policy from being redistributed.This is what is so strange to me. I hear people go on and on about how much they want to see that "wealthy 10%" lose their lofty status and the other "90%" brought economically upward. But then these same people support a government effort that takes money from the "90%" and gives it to the "10%". What gives?!?!? Taking up this current example of GM, the argument for the bailout rests mainly on the livelihood of the 266,000 American workers employed there. But what about the thousands of Americans employed by Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, and others. Is it fair to them? Are we taking tax money from a Toyota worker so that a GM worker can keep working for a tanking company? Perhaps a Toyota family will now not see a wage increase that would have resulted by the new market share with the death of GM. What would happen if GM folded? The product choices of American car buyers would narrow. This would raise market share for the surviving options. This could actually LOWER manufacturing costs in the overall auto market, but the number of people employed does not necessarily have to go down. Especially as overall unit volume increases in the future. Many of these GM people could move over to Toyota, or Hyundai, or somewhere else. A recent NPR article on the Iowa workers who made 20th century GE and Maytag products mentioned how even with three decades of efforts by government to save them from foreign competition they still could not compete. As the number of lay-offs mounted, companies building wind-mill generators moved in and began hiring them. Today that industry is growing and the manufacturing of 40 meter wind-mill blades is not likely to be outsourced in the near future because of the difficulty in shipping them. Yes, the situation of the decline or death of a large employer is troubling, especially to families depending on the income therefrom. But the sooner we admit that we cannot prevent the inevitable, the sooner people will be able to move on to bigger and better things. My father-in-law was laid-off when a competing company bought his employer out. He found another position with a different manufacturer who 5 years later was also bought by that same company which had previously laid him off, whereupon he was laid-off again! In the second lay-off, he received a hefty severance package. He then went to a third employer, who now pays him more than ever. He used the severance to pay off debts. He laughs and shakes his head in awe about his whole situation. On the subject of unions, why do FedEx employees have better pay and benefits than UPS? FedEx is non-union, UPS is union. UPS has had lay-offs in the past, FedEx has had almost none. Why have the FedEx employees not unionized? Take a close look at their benefits and pay and you'll see why. -a-train

I think the media is being influenced to scare the public into support of bail-outs. -a-train

I think we will continue to have global economic shrinkage into 2012 at the least. By that time, there will be big changes in global economic policy as the central banks and world governments collude to produce a new system even more prone to artificial economic stimulation and malinvestment. While this will give special interests great advantages, it will be helpless to stop the spread of free-market thinking and activity.-a-train

If history is any indication, we have the end of religious freedom to look forward to as capitalism is outlawed. That said, don't put on your funeral clothes and start mourning the death of all freedom just yet. la Résistance is building just as fast if not faster than the enemies of all freedom. Daily, men and women the world over join the ranks of freedom in cyberspace.-a-train

I would say more Lenin. He was of mixed heritage and had a connection to a terrorist in his past.-a-train

Ahhh... I didn't catch that this was a reference to Obama. I always thought our new president was George W. Bush and that he is intending not to step down in January.-a-train

?-a-train

Hmmm... Perhaps we imagine the fall of the United States with epic visions of mass destruction. But look at the fall of the U.S.S.R. Did anyone die? What great physical calamity took place? The Berlin wall came down without benefit of nuclear warfare. It was a political collapse. Such is what we are facing in America today. The political system has increasingly been converted to an unsustainable socialist imperialist state, one that will ultimately collapse and the people will again have a chance to return to peace and prosperity if they will resist the temptations to support latter-day Gadiantons in the interest of easy enrichment. God bless the land of the free and the home of the brave and let the tyrants fall into the pits they've digged! -a-train

We are moving into a police state and the sounders of the alarms are called kooks and idiots while the mass media now covers it. -a-train

I did. And I reviewed the Venus Project's site. The whole message amounts to demonetization and the replacement of all government with a sort of neo-technocratic form of communism.They promote a 'resource-based economy' which "utilizes existing resources rather than money and provides an equitable method of distributing these resources in the most efficient manner for the entire population. It is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter, or any other form of debt or servitude." - (Their site) What is this proposed method of distribution which is so efficient? On this, they are silent. Also from the Venus Project's site: Is this anything less than the same communist vision of Marx? Marx called for the end of monetization and the placement of all property in the hands of the people of the world as a whole. Like Marx, the problems the Venus Project decries would be infinitely magnified and perpetuated by its proposals as it requires society to obliterate individual rights. I would agree with that. I would even say that the Zeitgeist movement is a counter-movement to the (Ron Paul Revolution) return to classical liberalism. What a contradictory statement. If the monetary system is so engineered, how capitalist is it? What we are currently seeing is not a falling to the knees of American Capitalism, but that of American Socialism. Now you are talking my language. We are indeed living in a less and less free economic system as regulations and taxations increase. The best way to bring prosperity to all people is to allow free-markets and individual property rights. The Venus Project people make a big deal about the fact that the earth has all the resources to allow all human beings to live a high standard of living, and this is true. The most efficient method of distribution is a free market which upholds property rights. -a-train

I think there is a truth to the notion that people are medicating their kids without any good reason. Now this cannot be turned into a sweeping generalization about the types of medications or the symptoms or what have you. While I respect and wish to preserve the rights of parents and children, I personally make drugs a last resort with my own family and thank God that it has not been necessary thus far and pray also that it won't be. -a-train

Legalize it. -a-train

DHL's last day for domestic U.S. shipping is February 28th, 2009. I guess that monopoly is taking its toll. -a-train

The scaffold objection is simply the idea that redundant complexity can occur and then the redundancy can be eliminated by natural selection. Like a building with a scaffold around it, once the scaffold is no longer needed, it is removed.If applied to Behe's mousetrap, it would mean that the mousetrap started out as something actually more complex which once it began catching mice, it got rid of the redundancy and became nothing but a mousetrap. All the extras that got thrown out acted as a scaffold in the meantime. The survival of the mechanism was thus at one time based on something else before the catching of mice became the ultimate function. What bothers me about this objection is that it would seem to suggest devolution rather than evolution. Although I understand the scientific assertions. John H. McDonald, of the University of Delaware, made this great page dedicated to the evolution of the mousetrap. It's great! Darwin himself believed that the first cell was brought into existance "in a warm little pond". And yes, the scientific community holds no consensus on the orgin of life. What should be understood is that no matter what the future holds for the science of this matter, the believers in God will always be able to say: "and that is just fine, it must be how God commenced the work of creation."-a-train

Elph, I got it. I'm not taking any issue with that. Imagine that the federal government started giving this same training, for free, to hundreds or even thousands of people. They would all be coming out of their government funded training looking for a job. What job? HER JOB! This may be true for her lifetime, but there is no certainty. Take the example I gave above. A dentist does not have work in Hawaii because there are too many dentists. Why? Because of state programs that pay for dental school. There are too many graduates looking to practice dentistry. Yes, I am not arguing with that. What we are talking about is situation wherein the federal government would start taking people off the street and giving them that training for free. This WOULD move toward saturation. How does the government know when to stop training people in a certain area? "The employers will tell them." Right? Wrong! They don't benefit in capping the subsidy, they want unlimited free workers. Imagine if your toothbrush business were told by Uncle Sam: "We are going to give you free toothbrushes to sell until you have an overage, just let us know when you have enough." When would you say you have enough? Most of us would stack those toothbrushes to the ceiling and have our wharehouses bulging to the brim. We would drop the price of toothbrushes to keep our volumes up, after all, they are free for us! It is the same with the subsidized training of workers. The employers have no interest in stopping the subsidy. Because there are a dozen fully trained and capable applicants sitting in the lobby, having all passed through a federally funded program certifying their CNC training and all of them have agreed to do her job at a lower wage and with less benefits.-a-train

Is the point of this thread the message of the Zeitgeist movie? If I have it right, the Zeitgeist message is an atheistic and anarchistic proposal of anti-monetization and the end of private property and the replacement of all world governments with with a utopian world society with a "resource based economy" and technology for its religion. The real call to action of this film is that of rallying support for the Venus Project whose very website asks for donations and sells DVDs and books for the very monetary units they speak so ill of. The message is simply a modern face on a very old concept which we all know well: COMMUNISM. -a-train

The trouble is that 'globalization' is being re-defined as 'world-government' or the 'globalization of monopoly' and thus it is confusing folks. This plays into the hands of those seeking monopoly. The term is too vague. 'Globalization' of what? Is it the globalization of the use of peanut butter? Globalization of free-trade is certainly what is necessary to globalize prosperity and what the maker of the movie in the OP is pushing for. I am in complete agreeance. -a-train

Hmm... If I said that Larry Hunter is a Republican whose economic theories and proposals are designed to support free-markets and individual liberty, would this be ad hominem? I agree with a great many of Mr. Keynes statements, but his advocacy of state socialism and his ideas about state influence in the markets, and certainly his ideas about Eugenics are not things I can agree with. I'm not sure how to respond to the rest of this quote, I can say though that capitalism in my view, does indeed exist and always has. Perhaps we are working with different definitions? I'll be honest, I'm not quite sure what we are talking about here. I am certainly not advocating poverty. This sounds a lot like what I propose we do about national debt. I do NOT believe that free-markets create a situation where the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor because of the economic advantage of the haves over the have-nots. In fact, in my view, free-markets are the best way to keep the haves on their toes and allow the have-nots to gain. The system whereby the haves keep wealth and oppress the have-nots is not natural, it comes through government. Without the government giving them their monopoly, they suffer competition and lose market share. If we are looking to employ the unemployed, the only solution is higher sales. Burger King needs to sell more Burgers in order to hire more workers. And the higher sales need to some from sustainable demand, not a one-time stimulus from government which will ultimately result in a lay-off when the sales drop again. It is not government that I lack such trust in, it is the wealthy which you also distrust. The difference is our view in the means whereby the oppressive self-interested power elitists intend to accomplish their dictatorship over the masses. They don't intend to do it by directly enslaving the people. They are doing it THROUGH the government.They get a politician who is on their side to go before the masses and tell them all how he is going to save them from the big bad corporate elites who have all the advantage due to their wealth. He is going to take some of their wealth away and spend it on education and training for the poor. Thus educated, these people will be able to demand better positions and better pay and thus the wealthy lose some of their advantage. The people support this idea having bought into the notion that it is good for them and bad for the mean old capitalist pigs. The pigs laugh all the way to the bank as the masses actually pay for their own training and education and work for lower wages because of this program. The few who know the difference are unable to abstain from it because it is implemented by the government. Lenin called social democracy "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", and he was right. The Framers understood this well. They wanted a government only powerful enough to protect freedom, not so powerful that any group could rule others through it. Do not misunderstand my position. I certainly advocate non-state efforts to help the poor. It is the self-interested efforts of the elitists packaged as a 'safety net for the poor' that I oppose and sound a warning about. What I am saying is that these efforts which are supposed to 'level the playing field' actually tilt the tables. I honestly believe that our leadership can't be so outspoken as it was 20 years ago. It is simply a battle left to the members to fight. I think many (and many non-LDS folks too) have become apathetic and have decided a world government is simply inevitable. Some even welcome the idea of the tyranny of the Anti-Christ or what have you, simply in the interest of speeding to the point of the end. This is sort of the 'let's just get it all over with' approach.You know, author Larry Abraham (who was not LDS) said, in effect, that the power elite's alignment with the state of Israel my prove their undoing. With the LDS perspective, I look at such a notion with great interest. We know that the world will be at war with them when the Saviour returns. -a-train

Unfortunately, this young father has little experience in that sort of thing. He invested the entire amount with Washington Mutual. I don't know the exact arrangement of it, but he said that his current account value is under $600,000. I know a lot of it is in life insurance. Beyond that, he told me little.-a-train

Absolute Democracy-a-train

I think the issue isn't so much ID, but the discussion of the origin of life. There is the arguments of irreducible complexity and the scaffold objection. The discussion and study of these concepts is indeed science just as much as is the discussion and study of Aristotle's ideas whether proven right or wrong. Certainly a science teacher who puts forth assertions as scientifically validated points which are not so is in need of correction. But it would not be any sin for this teacher to present the various views of various scientists. "What is the origin of life on earth?" is an interesting and wonderful question. Has science answered it? Darwinism is certainly deficient in getting at the actual substance of the question. Science has not effectively yet demonstrated that life on earth came through some process of raising non-living material to life. Perhaps life is uncreated and exists on countless spheres and always has and always will. To me, this would fit our scientific models better and easier than anything I can tell. Raising non-living matter to life is less scientific and more superstitious in my view. If our observations are all we have, then all life comes from life. I see nothing to suggest that there ever was a time without life nor will there ever be. Also, if the bringing of non-living material to life is possible, could not this process have occured in multiple simultaneous events on Earth? Does it seem more likely that under primordial earthly conditions enabling the raising of non-living material to life, that only a single living organism was spawned from non-living material rather than two or more? Common biochemistry and the genetic code of earthly organisms demonstrate common order and make up of life on earth, but how does this prove common descent exactly? If it does NOT prove common descent, a whole new realm of possibilities and questions arise. -a-train

The importance of Sacrament Meeting is the sacrament. All the talks and announcements are really only side-items which pale in comparison to the importance, holiness, and sacredness of the Lord's Supper. This holy ordinance was instituted by the Saviour Himself among His disciples on the night of His prayer in Gethsemane before the day of His crucifixion. It symbolizes the breaking of his body with the breaking of bread and the spilling of his blood with the wine or water. The partaking of these things demonstrate our acknowledgement of His Great Sacrifice and our willingness to take upon us the yoke of Jesus. It is a time of repentance and reflection not availed in any other ordinance and is to be the centerpiece in the habitual ritual worship of Christ in our lives. We are instructed to bring our families together to sit in reflection of the Sacrifice of the Saviour and partake of His flesh and blood in this symbolic manner as often as weekly. It is a very biblical ordinance and I often read of it and the actual events of the crucifixion and prayer in Gethsemane while I partake of the Sacrament. If we do not make this ordinance the reason for coming to the chapel on Sunday, we are going to miss out on the greatest blessings offered in so coming. -a-train