Obama Creates Jobs? No!

[FunkyTown]

FunkyTown,

Feel free to address me directly--and not through a-train. However, as this is the first time that someone has really addressed what I wrote, I thank you for that. I will have more time later to respond to your specific critiques but I thought I would clarify your last one (since it's the quickest).

Here is the OP, written by me:

"I don't mean this to be shameless self-promotion but, since there has been discussion of Obama on this forum, I am curious as to what readers think of this article:"

The "shameless self-promotion" bit was meant to signify that I wrote it by myself, not someone else. I thought that was clear.

And you're right. That's why it was a toss-off at the end rather than one of my main complaints. It's possible some would be confused without it stated expressly because it neatly fits your views. For most, it would be fine, but it's usually something to be stated explicitly.

[a-train]

Let's see if that's the case with Dictionary.com's version of Investment:

1. the investing of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.

He could have claimed it was a stupid idea that wouldn't work, but instead chose to use -this- as the definition for Investment:

"Investment signifies an accumulation of savings through lower present consumption, which will then be used to achieve (potential) profitable returns in the future."

He added 'Accumulation of savings through lower present consumption', which does not exist in any dictionary on earth. Ironically, he was the one engaging in Orwellian doublespeak.

Although the dictionary said that investment is: "the investing of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value", we are left to ask: "What is capital"? Dictionary.com includes the following defintions of Capital:

1. the wealth, whether in money or property, owned or employed in business by an individual, firm, corporation, etc.

2. an accumulated stock of such wealth

3. any form of wealth employed or capable of being employed in the production of more wealth

4. Accounting: assets remaining after deduction of liabilities; the net worth of a business

Both the second definition I've quoted and the 4th fall well in line with "Accumulation of savings through lower present consumption". We could replace one of these definitions for the word 'capital' in the definition of 'investment': "The investing of money or 'assets remaining after deduction of liabilities' in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value." Austro-lib's "accumulation of savings through lower present consumption" is his definition for capital and it is indeed a good one. For even borrowed money is someone's savings (unless of course it is borrowed from our modern banking system which creates the 'money' out of thin air).

Austro-lib is right. When trying to sell the taxpayers more services, the services have to be dressed up and made to appear to be a good thing for the taxpayer. "Investment" sounds nice, like the taxpayer is getting a return on the taxes. It certainly sounds a lot better than: "You can pay to train the employees for big businesses so they can pocket better profits".

-a-train

[FunkyTown]

Although the dictionary said that investment is: "the investing of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value", we are left to ask: "What is capital"? Dictionary.com includes the following defintions of Capital:

Both the second definition I've quoted and the 4th fall well in line with "Accumulation of savings through lower present consumption". We could replace one of these definitions for the word 'capital' in the definition of 'investment': "The investing of money or 'assets remaining after deduction of liabilities' in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value." Austro-lib's "accumulation of savings through lower present consumption" is his definition for capital and it is indeed a good one. For even borrowed money is someone's savings (unless of course it is borrowed from our modern banking system which creates the 'money' out of thin air).

Austro-lib is right. When trying to sell the taxpayers more services, the services have to be dressed up and made to appear to be a good thing for the taxpayer. "Investment" sounds nice, like the taxpayer is getting a return on the taxes. It certainly sounds a lot better than: "You can pay to train the employees for big businesses so they can pocket better profits".

-a-train

Defining investment the way Austro was suggesting eliminates numerous real life examples of investors:

Investment Bankers, Margin Buyers and Stock Brokers.

All three of them take money from some other group and put those funds somewhere else in the hopes of getting a commission on them. That's simple fact - It happens. You could argue that those people are stupid or dangerous, but that was not his argument with that. His argument was that saying it was an investment was simply wrong. That is incorrect A-train. I respect your opinion, but in this he was simply playing misdirection with his wording and trying to demonize a group he disagrees with. What he -should- have said was "I disagree with this policy because -" and not "These people are Orwellian."

Now, I agree with government training programs - Apprenticeship programs, student loans, the works. I think it's important to help even disadvantaged children to be able to go to school. However, I believe that this system Obama is creating is simply a system of make-work like Hoover's was. It's the last ditch effort for a group that feels the economy is failing.

I understand that. I also feel that a better way of handling this would be to invest generically in -education- so that those who -want- to better themselves have the opportunity, rather than make-work programs that force people to learn a trade they will never do well because they don't care.

However, none of these arguments were what Austro discussed. Instead, he simply played misdirection with words and worked like an attack dog(Attacking without reason, merely because it was outside of his mode of thought. For examples, please see my more in-depth post on his article).

Actually, A-train, as an aside, I do have a question for you: Given the rising unemployment and lack of skilled tradespeople in the US for the jobs that -do- need people, what would you suggest is an appropriate response? Do you feel the free market would fix that, or merely allow those with low expectations to live their lives the way they want to?

[austro-libertarian]

Defining investment the way Austro was suggesting eliminates numerous real life examples of investors:

Investment Bankers, Margin Buyers and Stock Brokers.

All three of them take money from some other group and put those funds somewhere else in the hopes of getting a commission on them. That's simple fact - It happens. You could argue that those people are stupid or dangerous, but that was not his argument with that. His argument was that saying it was an investment was simply wrong. That is incorrect A-train. I respect your opinion, but in this he was simply playing misdirection with his wording and trying to demonize a group he disagrees with. What he -should- have said was "I disagree with this policy because -" and not "These people are Orwellian."

The first thing to realize is the context, in terms of the intended audience of this article: economists. I was defining investment in a way that economists do. This would have been like saying two plus two equals four to them--there was no confusion to that audience. Defining "investment" this way is within a proper economics framework. The wikipedia entry on investment is most clear:

Investment or investing is a term with several closely-related meanings in business management, finance and economics, related to saving or deferring consumption.

Investment is the choice by the individual to risk his savings with the hope of gain. Rather than store the good produced, or its money equivalent, the investor chooses to use that good either to create a durable consumer or producer good, or to lend the original saved good to another in exchange for either interest or a share of the profits. (Emphasis added.)

Now, defining investment as I did exactly clarifies the real-life examples you gave; you have it the other way around. I will try and make it real simple (not b/c I think you need it--on the contrary--but b/c for some reason it's not getting through).

Investment bankers, margin buyers, stock brokers, and others do not "take money," (your words) from other people, at least not in the sense that govt. does. To say they are the same is where the Orwellianism comes in.

It works like this with true investment, which means a delay in consumption, i.e., savings is necessary:

1. People save their own money.

2. They lend their money to an investment banker to invest their money in stocks, bonds, or some asset, hoping to earn more than the rate of interest on their money.

3. They wait and see if it makes a loss or a gain.

On the other hand, here is govt's "investment," and why it is truly consumption, or spending:

1. Govt. takes money from its citizens through taxes, i.e., there is no savings involved.

2. Govt. spends, or consumes, the money on certain projects, e.g., education, roads, war.

There is no way to say govt. investing money by taking it from others is the same as people who voluntarily save their money. To do so is to destroy the word. And govt. doing so is Orwellian. Orwellian, in at least one meaning, is "the political manipulation of language, by obfuscation, e.g. WAR IS PEACE. Using language to obfuscate meaning or to reduce and eliminate ideas and their meanings that are deemed dangerous to its authority." Government calling spending "investment" is exactly that. SPENDING IS INVESTMENT is just like WAR IS PEACE.

As far as any ad hominem attacks, I blamed govt., not Obama. I appreciate you reading my article (seriously) but I did not say, "these people are Orwellian." I am criticizing Obama's policies to show that they will not work as he is planning them to. I like Obama as a person, he's a great speaker, he's great in the sense that foreigners may not hate the US govt as much (although they should), etc. I am trying to criticize the idea, the "love the sinner, hate the sin" position. I do not hate Obama, just policies that will harm people, and propagandizing it as something good is very deceptive. That I do hate.

For some unfortunate reason the default assumption becomes that I hate all democrats. I would have criticized John McCain's policies, much likely more so than Obama's. I am with anyone who stands for liberty and freedom. So come one, come all if you're for freedom, democrat, republican, etc.

[austro-libertarian]

And you're right. That's why it was a toss-off at the end rather than one of my main complaints. It's possible some would be confused without it stated expressly because it neatly fits your views. For most, it would be fine, but it's usually something to be stated explicitly.

There is no need to dwell on this and I don't want to detract from the real discussion, but "shameless self-promotion"--to me--signifies that I wrote it. The article has my picture on it, the same one as on this forum. I will be even more explicit next time, but I certainly wasn't trying to hide anything--it was "self-promotion" for heaven's sake.

In fact, the third response to the original post, from "Moshka," said, "Alright! Our own Austo-Libertarian wrote the article." Perhaps not everyone was as confused as you were.

[Elphaba]

All the mud washed away, this whole thread comes down to this question:

Is it a good idea for the federal government to spend more tax-payer money on tuition for those designated by the federal government as worthy of such benefits?

The day FedEx, UPS, Bayer, etc., agree to consistently hire every single person in the nation who sincerely wants an education, the federal government can step back.

In the meantime, companies that cannot afford to provide their employees the education benefits FedEx does, will continue to partner with the ATCs to develop the training programs the company needs. When done correctly, it's a win win.

Apparently I wasn't clear that the companies do pay for the employees' training, depending on how much it can afford. But just like FedEx, these companies will never pay the entire cost of the program development.

And then, yes, your tax dollars pay the difference, just as they do with FedEx.

Is this successful every single time? Of course not, and it would folly to expect them to.

But I've developed these programs. I've implemented them. I've tweaked them where there were problems. I've updated them as a company's processes change, which happens frequently as they strive for better quality and increased production. It is not a "simple" process, nor is it done frivolously. Unless the programs are market driven, we wouldn't bother.

You can trvialize that all you want with simplistic analogies like trench coats, which can never address all of the aspects of developing training programs, including analyzing the data to make sure they are market driven.

But just like it did the time the local UPS processing plant partnered with us to develop a training program that would certify its employees in workplace skills, I've seen it work, first hand and on the ground.

Elphaba

Note: It was easier to write this as if I still work for the ATCs. I do not and haven't since 2002.

[FunkyTown]

The first thing to realize is the context, in terms of the intended audience of this article: economists. I was defining investment in a way that economists do. This would have been like saying two plus two equals four to them--there was no confusion to that audience. Defining "investment" this way is within a proper economics framework. The wikipedia entry on investment is most clear:

Now, defining investment as I did exactly clarifies the real-life examples you gave; you have it the other way around. I will try and make it real simple (not b/c I think you need it--on the contrary--but b/c for some reason it's not getting through).

Investment bankers, margin buyers, stock brokers, and others do not "take money," (your words) from other people, at least not in the sense that govt. does. To say they are the same is where the Orwellianism comes in.

It works like this with true investment, which means a delay in consumption, i.e., savings is necessary:

1. People save their own money.

2. They lend their money to an investment banker to invest their money in stocks, bonds, or some asset, hoping to earn more than the rate of interest on their money.

3. They wait and see if it makes a loss or a gain.

On the other hand, here is govt's "investment," and why it is truly consumption, or spending:

1. Govt. takes money from its citizens through taxes, i.e., there is no savings involved.

2. Govt. spends, or consumes, the money on certain projects, e.g., education, roads, war.

There is no way to say govt. investing money by taking it from others is the same as people who voluntarily save their money. To do so is to destroy the word. And govt. doing so is Orwellian. Orwellian, in at least one meaning, is "the political manipulation of language, by obfuscation, e.g. WAR IS PEACE. Using language to obfuscate meaning or to reduce and eliminate ideas and their meanings that are deemed dangerous to its authority." Government calling spending "investment" is exactly that. SPENDING IS INVESTMENT is just like WAR IS PEACE.

As far as any ad hominem attacks, I blamed govt., not Obama. I appreciate you reading my article (seriously) but I did not say, "these people are Orwellian." I am criticizing Obama's policies to show that they will not work as he is planning them to. I like Obama as a person, he's a great speaker, he's great in the sense that foreigners may not hate the US govt as much (although they should), etc. I am trying to criticize the idea, the "love the sinner, hate the sin" position. I do not hate Obama, just policies that will harm people, and propagandizing it as something good is very deceptive. That I do hate.

For some unfortunate reason the default assumption becomes that I hate all democrats. I would have criticized John McCain's policies, much likely more so than Obama's. I am with anyone who stands for liberty and freedom. So come one, come all if you're for freedom, democrat, republican, etc.

I'm honestly sorry, Austro. I had planned a big, acidic response to this and you didn't deserve that. So - Deep breath on my part - Here is basically where my concerns lie:

1) You say you didn't accuse him of being Orwellian. You used the word Orwellian to describe something he said. Describing the act as Orwellian while not defining the person as Orwellian is a fine line I disagree with.

2) Governments have been investing money since the dawn of time - Every time the government in the past put grain in silos - Even grain taken as tax - That was an investment to the future. Claiming that he's doing something radically different is, I believe, a Chicken Little scenario.

3) Training -can be- viewed as an investment under the current welfare system. If a man is on welfare, he costs the government(And ergo the tax-payers) money. By training him, you could theoretically take him off welfare and free up those funds for other things - In the same way that buying new energy saving windows is an investment, so could those people be. I'm not saying you're wrong that it won't work - Workfare very rarely does - I'm saying that the dark picture you're painting him in during the current economic crisis seems fanatical rather than driven by logic. To paint it in conspiratorial terms is to miss the real reasons behind it.

Ultimately, I feel that the divisive language used by both the left and right(As a centrist) is damaging to the US. What needs to happen is for plain, simple answers that will satisfy our needs to come to the fore. If you believe that no government must exist, come forth - Propose how people will be guaranteed not to lose their jobs or, if they do, their livelihood. Propose how we can be both a humble and caring society while fixing our economic woes. Spell out what the answer is and what both the drawbacks are and positive parts are. I always feel the need to point out the drawbacks to the Libertarian stance because when one listens to the economic standpoint, they seem to indicate that there is no downfall.

That is clearly not the case. I also disagree with communist governments, who swing the entire other way.

[Elphaba]

In the interest of family unity on this Thanksgiving, I offer the following:

YouTube - Across The universe - Let It Be

Elphaba

[austro-libertarian]

Thanks for the reply. Here are my responses to your individual comments:

I'm honestly sorry, Austro. I had planned a big, acidic response to this and you didn't deserve that. So - Deep breath on my part - Here is basically where my concerns lie:

1) You say you didn't accuse him of being Orwellian. You used the word Orwellian to describe something he said. Describing the act as Orwellian while not defining the person as Orwellian is a fine line I disagree with.

You are right--I say I did not accuse him of being Orwellian in general, but I see what you are saying. It is the actual behavior I am talking about. When someone says something that fits the description and definition of Orwellian, then what they are saying is Orwellian. While this may seem like a tautology it still tells us something. I am not saying Obama is always Orwellian or anything else. If I say that when Obama smokes he is a smoker, that merely defines what a smoker is. If he quits smoking, he will no longer be a smoker, because of a change in behavior. I see this, however, as not fundamental, relative to our other discussion points.

2) Governments have been investing money since the dawn of time - Every time the government in the past put grain in silos - Even grain taken as tax - That was an investment to the future. Claiming that he's doing something radically different is, I believe, a Chicken Little scenario.

I am not saying he is doing anything radically different; even if he were it would be a difference of degree, not kind. And, of course, history and tradition, as the Book of Mormon shows, do not mean something is right, or true. I am still saying, no matter who does it, George Bush, Obama, or the Cookie Monster--meaning calling government consumption investment--it is still wrong, by definition. The fact that governments have been doing this for a long time, to me, only proves how evil governments can be, and how much govt. propaganda is out there.

Govts have been degrading language for a long time. The use of the word "inflation" is a great example. Inflation used to mean, and still technically means, according to most economists--an increase in the money supply. But now most people think of inflation as an increase in prices. An increase in the money supply, ceteris paribus, leads to an increase in prices. And govts are in charge of the money supply, hence they do no want people to think they are the cause.

3) Training -can be- viewed as an investment under the current welfare system. If a man is on welfare, he costs the government(And ergo the tax-payers) money. By training him, you could theoretically take him off welfare and free up those funds for other things - In the same way that buying new energy saving windows is an investment, so could those people be. I'm not saying you're wrong that it won't work - Workfare very rarely does - I'm saying that the dark picture you're painting him in during the current economic crisis seems fanatical rather than driven by logic. To paint it in conspiratorial terms is to miss the real reasons behind it.

I stick by my original arguments and feel this has been discussed. I must admit, I am perplexed about this fanatical/logical (false) dichotomy you refer to. I guess I am passionate about the idea of freedom, and about the Gospel. I would not say I am sensationalist or fanatical, in the derogatory sense.

I will have to answer the other comments (if a-train doesn't get to it first) later as it is Thursday evening here in OZ, and we are going to celebrate Thanksgiving!

[WANDERER]

Um Libertarian makes me think of the Hutt River Province and various other secessions within Oz...the whole micro-state/nation/sovereign state phenomenon. You know, to what polarities do we go for freedom? And how does freedom of individuals impinge on the freedoms of other individuals? And...what if people don't want that version of freedom?

So yeah, how is a libertarian viewpoint libertarian exactly?

Also the word investment...Investment is the choice by the individual to risk his savings with the hope of gain.

So when we vote we invest and risk our money on the odds of the government generating a national profit or loss.

The economic crisis does make that link crystal clear.

So can we say Obama represents *the individual people* as the investor on their behalf?

An investment is not always going to be money up front...that profit or loss value may be determined by other things.

So...

we train these people and they are not employed and we end up supporting them through welfare and working till we're eighty cause we have no workforce to replace the current one therefore everything costs more and taxes are higher but hey we don't care because it was never our problem: LOSS leading to economic crisis.

We train these people and they end up employed and with an income and we get to retire and not have our superannuation eroded due to bad economic planning and management: PROFIT leading to economic growth.

At least that's my understanding of it...

Edited November 27, 2008 by WANDERER

[a-train]

Defining investment the way Austro was suggesting eliminates numerous real life examples of investors:

Investment Bankers, Margin Buyers and Stock Brokers.

All three of them take money from some other group and put those funds somewhere else in the hopes of getting a commission on them. That's simple fact - It happens.

Where does the capital come from in those situations? Someone, somewhere, saved it or brought it into exisitence through a debt contract only to be repaid by future savings. His definition does not eliminate Investment Bankers, Margin Buyers or Stock Brockers.

You could argue that those people are stupid or dangerous, but that was not his argument with that. His argument was that saying it was an investment was simply wrong.

So if I take your money and tell you it is an investment, it really is? You have nothing invested, I just took your money. You never get anything in return. That is not an investment. The only benefactors for this program are businesses that avail themselves of tax-payer funded training for their employees. The taxpayers, get nothing.

Actually, A-train, as an aside, I do have a question for you: Given the rising unemployment and lack of skilled tradespeople in the US for the jobs that -do- need people, what would you suggest is an appropriate response? Do you feel the free market would fix that, or merely allow those with low expectations to live their lives the way they want to?

I think the market demands that these people be trained. But the problem right now is the very opposite of a low supply of skilled workers. There are well educated and trained workers taking jobs that require much lower skills. There are plenty of skilled workers, just not enough business to hire them all. That is why you have lay-offs and closures and rising unemployment: there is not enough business, demand is down. This is the opposite of a shortage of skilled workers.

If there ARE sectors that have high demands for new skilled workers, then they will have the funds to train them. Why do they need these workers so bad? Because whatever they do is in high demand. They have the business to support the training and hiring of new workers. In this case, the workers have an advantage in securing better pay and benefits from an employer who has nowhere to turn to replace them.

Charging the tax-payers to pay for the training of these workers is just another play into the hands of an already economically advantaged group and a breaking down of the advantage of the workers. It is the businesses who are the beneficiaries of the subsidy. They only wish us to believe it is the employees who are better off, but those are the ones most shamelessly being exploited by the marriage of big business and big government.

I say all this because I have every bit of feeling of compassion on and interest in the welfare of the workers who are to receive training. The companies who hire these workers are at a tremendous advantage if there is a strong supply of these workers. Will the workers be likely to receive a wage or benefit increase when the company can easily replace them? Are they more or less likely to lose their job when there are many waiting in the wings to replace them? In this case, the individual worker has pressure from below and above to work for less and to do more for their employer in order to maintain their position.

The employer is then able to hire more hands for the same amount of money and thus get a nicer bottom line, all at the expense of the tax-payer and the workers.

So, how do I believe we should respond to a situation of a shortage of skilled workers in a given sector? Let the workers take advantage of the companies and let the companies pay the higher wages, benefits, and even fund the training of new workers.

-a-train

[FunkyTown]

You raise a good point, A-train: Subsidizing workers training when companies desperately need them seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse: Clearly the companies should be paying for them since they're the ones benefitting the most from their involvement.

And, actually, if I were to be completely honest, the subsidized training that Doctors receive in Canada has resulted in many getting trained here only to be poached away by the US because they pay higher salaries. Doing this doesn't guarantee you get workers, which is why Canada has a dearth of Doctors despite training many.

However, the downside to this lies in my own situation: My company is paying 15000 US to relocate me because it would cost them twice as much to train someone to take over my position and they would have someone with no experience on their side. Since North America tends to have high standards of living for those with skills, people flock here if they have a skill.

So the downside of government interference is that there's no guarantee of the country having a position filled and taxes will be wasted. The downside of -not- having training is that many companies will simply import their talent, leaving the same people underpriviledged and underpaid.

You've given me something to think about, A-train. I'm going to consider this and see if there's a solution.

[a-train]

You raise a good point, A-train: Subsidizing workers training when companies desperately need them seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse: Clearly the companies should be paying for them since they're the ones benefitting the most from their involvement.

And, actually, if I were to be completely honest, the subsidized training that Doctors receive in Canada has resulted in many getting trained here only to be poached away by the US because they pay higher salaries. Doing this doesn't guarantee you get workers, which is why Canada has a dearth of Doctors despite training many.

However, the downside to this lies in my own situation: My company is paying 15000 US to relocate me because it would cost them twice as much to train someone to take over my position and they would have someone with no experience on their side. Since North America tends to have high standards of living for those with skills, people flock here if they have a skill.

So the downside of government interference is that there's no guarantee of the country having a position filled and taxes will be wasted. The downside of -not- having training is that many companies will simply import their talent, leaving the same people underpriviledged and underpaid.

You've given me something to think about, A-train. I'm going to consider this and see if there's a solution.

You know, in my last response I almost mentioned something, but I didn't because I don't like a thread to go too far away from the subject. But here it is:

There are some who would say that if our government doesn't train these workers, then the employers will be encouraged to outsource these jobs to a country that DOES train the workers leading to more domestic unemployment.

Those making this argument will also say that the lower unemployment will lead to further strain on the economy and thus lead to even greater unemployment. The image is an endless spiral toward a total collapse of all domestic commerce.

The problem with this argument is that it does not take into account the buyers on the front end of the business and the effect this downward spiral will have on them. To whom is this employer selling these goods produced over seas? If indeed this leads to domestic economic recession, won't domestic demand for this product also decrease? This would lead to lower prices. Thus, the savings gained by the employer would ultimately be passed on to the consumer.

Now many would instantly cry: "Oh there is no way those big business guys are going to pass the savings on to the consumer!" But the reality is that they will have no choice. They have built up a tremendous supply source and their demand source has decreased, this means lower prices whether you like it or not. As these products sit on shelves, retailers start slashing prices and wholesale orders start dwindling. How do they maintain volume? Lower wholesale pricing. It is inevitable. No business is safe from this.

So with the lower prices on that particular product or industry, what do the unemployed locals do? They have to move to a different product or industry, one that they have an advantage in. What is that? Well, the first place they should look is within their interests. I can tell you that the government bureaucrats certainly have no clue, regardless of what we are told.

Now this may seem harsh, but it is not avoidable. Imagine every possible government intervention and they all end the same. Perhaps the government could disallow the outsourcing of these jobs, but if they didn't prevent a foreign competitor from importation, these businesses will be uncompetitive in the market and the jobs will be ultimately lost anyway.

Imagine the government does both, the domestic public as a whole pays higher prices for this given product than much of the rest of the world, which makes them less competitive in the global economy. This approach really only spreads the problem to the rest of the domestic economy. It may also only speed the obsolescence of the product or service they offer as it becomes unaffordable in contrast with other products and services.

I have a friend who is here in Kansas City at the dental school on a program from his home state of Hawaii. If he returns to Hawaii and practices dentistry for so many years, he pays back only a small portion of his student loan. If he practices outside of Hawaii, he will be compelled to pay back the whole loan. The difference is almost $200,000.

He was telling me that a friend of his who is back in Hawaii having passed through school is still paying the total amount because he could not find work as a dentist there. He said that it is too competitive. There are too many dentists!

My friend wants to return to Hawaii because he loves the location and his family, and he will probably do so regardless of his work situation there. If he really wants to be a dentist and be economically successful, he will have to go to a place where the dentistry market is not so saturated, just like the doctors leaving Canada. Otherwise, he should have gone into a field that was not in such supply in Hawaii.

The argument is made that dentistry in Hawaii is more affordable now because of all the competition. But the reality is that the taxpayers are already paying for the difference in subsidizing all the education. In fact, dentistry can only be discounted so much until the service is unsustainable, therefore the taxpayers may be paying even more for the services because the cost of the wasted education may outweigh the available discounts.

Without the subsidy, you would first have higher prices as there is a shortage of dentists, but eventually the few offices will need more hands and thus either fund the education of those hands or pay them such a high wage that they can afford the education (which is just the same).

In that scenario, students would pay off loans easily when entering a lucrative position. But because of the government subsidies, the opposite is happening. The students graduate and then find it difficult to pay off the student loans in a saturated market.

Austrian economists refer to misdirected efforts or investment as 'malinvestment'. As government gives heavy incentive to invest the time in dental school, the student does so under a skewed perception of the market. They are under the false impression that there is strong demand for dentists and see the subsidy as a great blessing. Perhaps they even graduate to find a great position waiting for them. But as more and more dentists flood the market, all of them begin to feel the pain of the malinvestment.

What this sort of subsidy does is brings many people into the market that otherwise would not be there. Many of them don't really have much love for dentistry, but are there because of the subsidy and the tremendous promise of a great income. The whole thing is sold to them on that premise. They are told that demand for dentists is so high that the government has to step in to supply it.

Now those locals who lose their job to skilled workers immigrating to their area are not in such a bad position as we are told. If indeed there are people coming into an area who will earn higher wages and take part in a lucrative business based there, the overall economy there will see a sustainable improvement. This is good for the locals, no matter what.

They will work in positions that require less training, but these positions will be in more demand and pay more. Few city governments will ever discourage an importation of persons of higher skills and income than what is already common in the city.

Workers will be able to live and save on the available wages in their area. Their decisions about what field to enter or to seek training in should be based on their interests, not government subsidies.

The market is like the ocean, it has many different currents. We can either waste ourselves trying to redirect them, or simply ride the currents.

-a-train

Edited November 28, 2008 by a-train

[FunkyTown]

The market is like the ocean, it has many different currents. We can either waste ourselves trying to redirect them, or simply ride the currents.

-a-train

I agree with much of what you said, A-train. However, I'm going to bring up economist John Maynard Keynes. He once was used as an argument that, in the long run, the market will always work itself out - Therefore, no government influence in the market is necessary. His response, when people used his arguments to this effect, was "In the long run, we're all dead."

He is also quoted as saying “The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.”

This is what I see when I hear these arguments. You're right, of course: The market will balance itself out in the long run(Barring outside interference). However, wars(Such as in Iraq) and artificial scarcity(For example, see Nike's guerilla marketing of some of their shoe products) will often be used to up the value of an item in a market uncontrolled. Worse, these problems can take generations to fix and often result in first one nation and then another become hit by vast poverty.

Because I don't want to live as one of those generations that are plunged in to poverty, I vote for regulation. Because I know that companies are just as untrustworthy as any other institute of man, I vote for regulation. Because I believe that man itself is not capable of fair trade until the Saviour comes, I vote for regulation.

This requires some thought: What is the right balance between the Machiavellian nature of total free market economics and the tyranny of total government control?

[a-train]

I agree with much of what you said, A-train. However, I'm going to bring up economist John Maynard Keynes. He once was used as an argument that, in the long run, the market will always work itself out - Therefore, no government influence in the market is necessary. His response, when people used his arguments to this effect, was "In the long run, we're all dead."

He is also quoted as saying “The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.”

This is what I see when I hear these arguments. You're right, of course: The market will balance itself out in the long run(Barring outside interference). However, wars(Such as in Iraq) and artificial scarcity(For example, see Nike's guerilla marketing of some of their shoe products) will often be used to up the value of an item in a market uncontrolled. Worse, these problems can take generations to fix and often result in first one nation and then another become hit by vast poverty.

Because I don't want to live as one of those generations that are plunged in to poverty, I vote for regulation. Because I know that companies are just as untrustworthy as any other institute of man, I vote for regulation. Because I believe that man itself is not capable of fair trade until the Saviour comes, I vote for regulation.

This requires some thought: What is the right balance between the Machiavellian nature of total free market economics and the tyranny of total government control?

Keynes was a fabian socialist whose economic teachings were designed to promote state socialism.

Being the owner of one of the three skateboard shops in Missouri that is allowed a Nike SB account, I know all about the Nike marketing and scarcity.

Now the statement about not wanting to be in a generation of poverty speaks volumes. Many great generations impoverished their posterity on that basis.

I once felt all that kind of anger, which a man ought to feel, against the mean principles that are held by the Tories: a noted one, who kept a tavern at Amboy, was standing at his door, with as pretty a child in his hand, about eight or nine years old, as I ever saw, and after speaking his mind as freely as he thought was prudent, finished with this unfatherly expression, "Well! give me peace in my day." Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;" and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty. -Thomas Paine The American Crisis 1780

The intervention we see today in our financial markets claim to take the economic pains away. All these actions do is put the burden and danger on future generations, if not on ourselves in the not-to-distant future. Social Security is a dramatic outgrowth of this ideology. The burden of the costs of the standard of living for one generation is placed on the coming generation without the consent of the rising generation. My generation was never allowed to vote on whether or not we would pay for the retirement of the people currently receiving our money. The first generation got to receive benefits without really paying much in. Ida May Fuller (the first recipient of social security) received 924 times more in benefits than her total contributions.

Of course, you probably already know that I believe the troubles we are currently in are not the result of any natural free-market, but rather the direct result of government intervention sold to the people as a benefit for the poor in the from of "equal housing opportunities" which only benefited the most connected and informed investors at the top of the economic scale while inadvertently (or perhaps purposely) creating a housing price meltdown and helping to trigger recession.

I do believe there must be regulation, but the regulation comes in the protection of private property. Any regulation that compels people to buy products or services regardless of their desire for them or the prices thereof is certainly a violation of property rights.

Everything from the environmental issues that so many are concerned about to the social issues of health care and welfare cannot be treated in absence of property rights. Think long and hard about property rights and it becomes evident that they would solve much of these issues.

A company dumping waste into a water supply has caused damaged to property and should be liable. People unable to afford health insurance may be in such a position because half their income goes to taxes. Meanwhile the price of healthcare rises dramatically because of subsidies and regulations that actually have the effect of raising those prices.

All the concerns about private property result from not understanding it. People assume that the wealthy need do nothing to stay that way and prevent others from becoming so. This is absolutely wrong, without violence. If simply the ownership of vast wealth alone gave a man tremendous power, then what necessity is there for any king to possess an army?

What does it mean: "That market will balance itself out"? Does it mean prices will return to where they used to be? What point in history do we look to as the price at which things must balance back to? What are we talking about?

Today, people may pay a fortune for a coin or a baseball card because of its condition and rarity. Is there something wrong with that? The kid that pays $300 for a quickstrike Nike Dunk is not enslaved or ruined thereby. He has every opportunity to simply not buy it, and a great many take that opportunity. But if he were threatened with jail if he were to withhold his funds and attempt to not purchase those shoes, this would be a certain despotic ruin.

The occupation of Iraq is a definite government intervention with terrible consequences. The whole point of it is to benefit big business types well connected to Washington. Ultimately, we will be unable as a nation to borrow or monetize more debt to fund the occupation. In this case, tremendous amounts of wealth are taken from productive market driven investment and wasted on deadly foolishness that benefits the already wealthy. If the property rights of the people were protected, the occupation of Iraq could not be funded.

Many see our government lacking in regulation. This is true. It does not enforce the protection of private property. That is the real problem the whole matter boils down to.

We are led to believe that free-markets are simply anarchy. This is far from true. A free market has very rigid rules. People are not compelled to buy things and they are not compelled to buy at fixed prices. No one is compelled to give property away and no one is allowed to take property without meeting the demands of the property owner in the purchase thereof. This is not the system we have now. And the problems we have are the result of the failure to protect private property.

When we get back to protecting private property, we will get back to sustainable prosperity.

-a-train

Edited November 28, 2008 by a-train

[Elphaba]

I am really frustrated because I keep explaining there are careers that will always be in demand and that pay good wages. These are the high technologies careers, and manufacturing companies are begging for people with these skills.

But for some reason you're ignoring this. So, I'm going to provide an example of one of these high-technologies so you can see how it works on the ground and in real people's lives. I don't expect it to change your mind, but I do expect it to to help you see these things are not as black and white as you seem to think they are.

Precision CNC Machining: Companies use Controlled Numeric Computers (CNC) to manufacture complex components down to subminiature levels, using the newest technologies.

Graduates of this program are immediately qualified to go on the floor and perform the high-tech skills necessary to program the computers to make the company's product within precise measurements. These skills include programming the computers to use lathes to make components out of various steel alloys, lasers that cut these components precisely, and other machines that use a special kind of light to measure the components to ensure the parts are exactly the right size, weight and shape.

Graduates will also know how to use/read a wide variety of CAD/CAM programs to design and manufacture these components, which are in demand in the aerospace, automotive and consumer industries.

The following are some of the industries a CNC operator can enter upon completion of the program.

Laser Machining

Swiss Micromachining

Ntinol Shape Setting

Electropolishing Nitinol

CNC Milling

Electrochemical Grinding

Metal Finishing

Clean Room Services

In other words, this is not our dads' machine shop.

Every single process is controlled by computers, and in order for the employee to calculate the measurements and other information he needs to input into the computer, he must be fluent in the mathematics necessary to make these calculations. That's because so many of the components must be made perfectly, within millionths of an inch.

And as I’ve explained numerous times now, there will always be a demand for people with these high technology skills. I already gave the example of Parker-Hannifin, who manufactures the hydraulic systems for Boeing Aircraft. The ATC has partnered with Parker numerous times to either develop custom-fit curriculum, or to advise the college on either revised or additional competencies needed in the CNC Machinist program.

Parker can afford to pay the ATC for its services; however, a number of smaller, and start-up companies cannot. So, yes, these companies partnerships with the ATC are partially paid for with your tax dollars.

And contrary to the ideaology, if this partnership is successful, it is a win win for all parties involved. It has invested in the high-tech equipment it needs to manufacture its product, and in a highly trained employee to run those machines, and the result is more profits.

In addition, these technologies are always going to change as they endeavor to raise quality and productivity. To accommodate these improvements, the company will always need to return its employees to the training programs to upgrade their skills, including how to implement these advances in minimal transition time.

This is not a matter of pushing a few different buttons.

The CNC Machinist program is rigorous and demanding. If the student attends full-time, it takes 15 months to complete, at a cost of approximately $3000. The graduate’s starting salary is between $11 and $15/ hour, and once s/he becomes experienced on the job, this wage can go as high as $26/hour.

Along comes a woman who discovers this training program, and who is excited and motivated to enter and complete it.

If she is already employed by a company that requires expertise in this field, the employer will pay her costs to complete the training. That is the scenario you prefer, and I completely agree it is successful.

But what happens if she does not work for such a company? What if her only job experience is menial postitions that only pay minimum wage. Just as is true for a sigificant portion of the ATC's students, she has no skills to bring to an employer that offers these educational benefits.

Since there is no way a company will hire her and pay for her training, how is she going to afford the $3000 tuition to enter and complete the program?

Because she is low-income, she will be eligible to receive financial aid; however, that is funded by the government, so I assume you are against it as well.

What other options does she have? Working part time at the Motel 6 is never going to provide enough money to live on. Additionally, what if she has a family to feed, and is already working two jobs trying to keep up? She cannot work two jobs, be a full-time student, and take care of her children.

One other option would be to get a scholarship. Unfortunately, most sponsors of these scholarships require the student to have already completed a certain number of hours in the program. So that option is not possible either because she cannot afford the tuition it would take to complete the hours necessary to qualify for the scholarship.

I would say close to half of people who come to the ATC for training are in the same position as the woman above. They have no marketable skills, and have come to the Center to acquire them. They are motivated to enter and complete the programs offered, as they know it will improve both their, and their family's quality of life.

But eliminate the government funding, both in the form of financial aid, as well as the funding necessary to develop superior training programs, and far too many people have no way they can pay for the training at all.

When reality hits, and the woman realizes there is no way she can pay the $3000 tuition, that no high-tech company is going to hire her and pay for her training, and there is no financial aid to help her do the same, she realizes her options have just disappeared.

What does she do now?

Elphaba

[austro-libertarian]

FunkyTown,

Will you please respond to my posts? I have answered your below post here. All I got from you was this, saying you were sorry only b/c you were going to write an "acidic response" and didn't, not b/c you were wrong about what you said below:

First, there is the use of the word "investment"—in true government Orwellian fashion—as a euphemism for government spending.

Orwell's use of doublespeak was to take a word that is a positive thing and alter its meaning so that people were more compliant. Let's see if that's the case with Dictionary.com's version of Investment:

1. the investing of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.

1) The government, through taxes, will provide moneys to training agencies.

2) Those training agencies will train people who are currently a drain on the economy and provide them useful skills.

3) Those with useful skills will then provide greater taxes to the government and will provide more to the country itself.

In this case, money is being used to provide hopefully a greater return. He could have claimed it was a stupid idea that wouldn't work, but instead chose to use -this- as the definition for Investment:

"Investment signifies an accumulation of savings through lower present consumption, which will then be used to achieve (potential) profitable returns in the future."

He added 'Accumulation of savings through lower present consumption', which does not exist in any dictionary on earth. Ironically, he was the one engaging in Orwellian doublespeak.

I responded to the above by showing you how investment is defined in economics and finance, using the Wiki entry:

"Investment is a term with several closely-related meanings in business management, finance and economics, related to saving or deferring consumption."

Here is what I said: "Investment signifies an accumulation of savings through lower present consumption . . . " This is where you responded that this does not exist in any dictionary on earth and that I was engaging in doublespeak. The post I linked to shows that I was exactly right, and not only was the use of the term Orwellian justified, but was objective, accurate, precise, and warranted. It has a derogatory meaning, yes, but it was used b/c it exactly fits the description. (The post linked to above should clarify.)

Would you please respond and comment on what you think given my responses to you saying that (1) the definition "which does not exist anywhere on earth" and (2) that I was engaging in Orwellian doublespeak?

Thanks.

(If I have missed your response to this I apologize, but I've looked through the thread a few times now w/o finding it.)

[a-train]

But eliminate the government funding, both in the form of financial aid, as well as the funding necessary to develop superior training programs, and far too many people have no way they can pay for the training at all.

When reality hits, and the woman realizes there is no way she can pay the $3000 tuition, that no high-tech company is going to hire her and pay for her training, and there is no financial aid to help her do the same, she realizes her options have just disappeared.

What does she do now?

Elphaba

Don't be so sure that the elimination of government funding would put this woman in the dog-house. These companies as you have indicated have a very high demand for these new workers. Where will they get them? They will have to pay for them. The woman WILL get the funds for school. Perhaps she could work for someone else with a tuition benefit (like FedEx).

These very profitable companies are getting a free ride on tax-payer dollars and that needs to stop. This woman is not the victim nor the recipient of this issue, she is the smoke-screen.

-a-train

[Elphaba]

Don't be so sure that the elimination of government funding would put this woman in the dog-house. These companies as you have indicated have a very high demand for these new workers. Where will they get them? They will have to pay for them.

They do pay for them. I’ve explained this a number of times now.

By the way, there is absolutely no difference between a student going to school and ending up with a bachelor's degree that makes him more marketable, and a student going to the ATC to finish its CNC program, which makes her more marketable.

Additionally, there is absolutely no difference between FedEx sending its employees to college/university to complete the coursework required for a degree, and Parker Hannifin sending its employees to the ATC to complete the training for the CNC program.

The woman WILL get the funds for school.

How?

Perhaps she could work for someone else with a tuition benefit (like FedEx).

And what if she can’t?

You are under some illusion that people with no marketable skills can waltz into a company, get hired, and off to school they do. That is not reality.

This woman is not the victim nor the recipient of this issue, she is the smoke-screen.

A human being is not a smokescreen.

Again, the day FedEx, Bayer, UPS, and every other like company in the nation, agrees to hire every single person who wants to avail him/herself of its education benefits, is the day the government can stop providing funds to help students pay for their educations.

Until then, this woman is a real person, who needs real financial aid, to afford real training, to make her marketable, in the real job market, where a real company, will hire her for a real job, that ensures a real living wage, and real benefits, and real job security, now.

Elphaba

[a-train]

Again, the day FedEx, Bayer, UPS, and every other like company in the nation, agrees to hire every single person who wants to avail him/herself of its education benefits, is the day the government can stop providing funds to help students pay for their educations.

Now lets think about that for a minute. Are the companies and industries that are not doing this going to start doing it as long as government keeps doing it for them for absolutely free? What is more likely to come first?

Until then, this woman is a real person, who needs real financial aid, to afford real training, to make her marketable, in the real job market, where a real company, will hire her for a real job, that ensures a real living wage, and real benefits, and real job security, now.

Elphaba

Certainly she is and that is why I desire an immediate stop to all the funding of subsidies which threaten her job security. I want to see the end of the government funding that causes the training she has to become less and less valuable in a more and more saturated market, causing her pay and benefits to decline and her position to become less and less secure. I want to see an end to the means by which the companies that employ persons in her field add more and more to their bottom line at the expense of tax-payers and this woman. I want to see true economic freedom for this woman.

-a-train

[FunkyTown]

Keynes was a fabian socialist whose economic teachings were designed to promote state socialism.

I have to call you out on this one. This is clearly an ad hominem attack. If everyone who disagrees with your economic policy is a socialist and you don't listen to socialists, what you're -really- saying is that you don't listen to anybody who disagrees with you. Ad hominem attacks have no place in logical thought. The truth is that economic hardship is not a new idea and very intelligent people have disagreed with your thoughts on it. I could bring up Marx's Das Kapital in sharp relief to your ideals, since he's as far on -his- end of the spectrum as you are on yours. I could also point out that Marxist Communism has never existed in the same way that pure capitalism has never existed, so both of your arguments are purely theoretical in nature.

Now the statement about not wanting to be in a generation of poverty speaks volumes. Many great generations impoverished their posterity on that basis.

Now -this- is an argument with some meat on it! Yes, you're absolutely right: Historical generations borrowed from their children's future, which has resulted in a steadily mounting debt that has essentially just been swept 'under the rug', basically ignoring the fact that future generations will have to pay that off.

Is it selfish to not want to be the generation that suffers crushing poverty due to what essentionally would amount to more than the reparations forced on Germany after World War I? I can empathize with families who would be afraid of that. Overnight, people who saved their whole lives would be thrust in to poverty. People would starve on millions of dollars(Just like what happened after the Treaty of Versailles) and the safety net of government would fall out. This time would make the 30s seem like the 20s(I am exaggerating. Excuse the hyperbole, but it would definitely be worse than the 30s).

However, there is another answer: Get our spending under control. A slow, measured payback, with ourselves being able to entirely eliminate the national deficit, would allow this economic scenario to not happen.

The intervention we see today in our financial markets claim to take the economic pains away. All these actions do is put the burden and danger on future generations, if not on ourselves in the not-to-distant future. Social Security is a dramatic outgrowth of this ideology. The burden of the costs of the standard of living for one generation is placed on the coming generation without the consent of the rising generation. My generation was never allowed to vote on whether or not we would pay for the retirement of the people currently receiving our money. The first generation got to receive benefits without really paying much in. Ida May Fuller (the first recipient of social security) received 924 times more in benefits than her total contributions.

Look at the time when Social Security was developed: Otto Von Bismarck could see the writing on the wall. People were desperate and angry and hungry. They were looking for real answers to painful poverty. Fascism, Communism and a hundred other economic ideas had gotten their start in this desperate time. It wasn't created out of a sense of evil, but rather a pragmatic need to prevent the public from rising up when it couldn't be provided. This was not a new idea: The Romans called for 'Bread and Circuses', knowing that when a people have food and entertainment, they are far less likely to rebel.

Of course, you probably already know that I believe the troubles we are currently in are not the result of any natural free-market, but rather the direct result of government intervention sold to the people as a benefit for the poor in the from of "equal housing opportunities" which only benefited the most connected and informed investors at the top of the economic scale while inadvertently (or perhaps purposely) creating a housing price meltdown and helping to trigger recession.

<SNIP>

I liked what you had to say about sustainable prosperity, because that's ultimately what the concern is now. We know how to have artificial prosperity(Just have another cold war. Everyone wins until the economic meltdown takes place). However, I have been pondering what our essential argument is and I think I have a way of identifying what our core disagreement is. I'm certain you recognize that in a purely libertarian view, much like now, the rich tend to stay rich(Due to the wealthy having enough money to throw around to make investment and to gift to their posterity) and the poor tend to stay poor. You view a more leftist view as hurting the middle class and poor government management results in artificially high prices in the areas government interferes in.

I recognize the argument. Without a safety net, one brought on by taxation, the poor will be desperate, but you are correct that the middle class tends to suffer when taxation is brought in and much higher taxes are required in order to do what basic human decency could accomplish.

I started to consider what this ultimately means. In my gut, I fiercely believe that the middle class should be willing to give up some comforts to ensure that all may survive and have a shot at prospering. My lack of trust for the truly wealthy mirrors your own lack of trust in the government. However, I recognize that there are some similarities between this and the arguments in heaven and, if I'm to be intellectually honest, I have to point out the flaws in my argument.

On the one hand, I'm arguing against self-determination. I'm saying that the government should treat us like idiots, holding our hands to prevent any possible mis-step on our part and to make the playing field -perfectly level-. I'm arguing lowest common denominator.

On the other hand, you're arguing basically hope: That people -will- take in those who are left behind because, after all, without taxation and government interference, there is no safety net.

That's basically where the similarities between our arguments and the War in Heaven end: Whereas God is perfect, the heads of state and industry are deeply flawed men. As it is, they are -not- the rightful Lords of this world.

However, this is very serious. Given the nature of the world economy and given people's passionate stance on things, maybe we should ask the Prophet for a straight answer. It might seem silly that he would answer us directly, but given that this is clearly a difficult time, maybe we could write and ask. I can promise that I would listen to that man.

[Elphaba]

Now lets think about that for a minute. Are the companies and industries that are not doing this going to start doing it as long as government keeps doing it for them for absolutely free? What is more likely to come first?

I can't tell if you're actually reading what I'm writing, or not.

In three previous posts, I clearly explained the high “profit” companies DO PAY for the training:

Post #56 “Apparently I wasn't clear that the companies do pay for the employees' training. . . .”

Post #66: “Parker can afford to pay the ATC for its services [and it does], . . . "

Post #69: “They do pay for them. I’ve explained this a number of times now.“ (emphasis mine)

Any company that can afford to pay for the ATC’s services pays for them.

It is the smaller/start up manufacturers that often cannot pay the entire cost of developing the training programs and implementing them. So the ATC partners with these companies to develop effective training programs, which then allow them to compete in the manufacturing marketplace.

I want to see the end of the government funding that causes the training she has to become less and less valuable in a more and more saturated market,

You keep telling me what you want to happen, and I keep telling you what is happening.

How is her specific training in the high technology equipments, which is essential to the manufaturing market, going to be less and less valuable? How is her specific market going to be saturated?

I gave you one example of the high technologies I am talking about, the “Controlled Numeric Computer” (CNC).

causing her pay and benefits to decline and her position to become less and less secure.

Upon completion of the training program, with few exceptions, her benefits are never going to decline, and her position will always be secure. That is because there is always going to be a market for people trained in the high technologies.

I have clearly demonstrated there are numerous lucrative job opportunities for someone trained to run the high-tech equipments. I used the example of the “Controlled Numeric Computer,” (CNC) as an example of only one of these equipments, as the training program includes much more high-tech training.

Because she is trained to use the high-tech equipments, and because companies are begging for people who can use these equipments, she will become indispensable to the company she chooses to work for.

Consequently, her benefits are not going to decline, nor is her position going to less secure. Rather, the opposite is true.

I want to see an end to the means by which the companies that employ persons in her field add more and more to their bottom line at the expense of tax-payers

Once again, unless the emloyer cannot afford the entire cost of the training, the employers pay for the training programs.

and this I want to see true economic freedom for this woman.

And again, you’re telling me what you want, and I’m telling you how it is.

The only way this woman will have true economic freedom is if she gets a job that pays a good wage, provide good benefits, and finally, and true job security. If she completes the high-technology training program, she will have all of that, with no cost to the taxpayers.’

Finally, It would be very helpful to me if you would respond to the real-life examples I give. For example, why would a company reduce the benefits and job security of a woman who knows how to use a CNC?

Elphaba

[a-train]

I have to call you out on this one. This is clearly an ad hominem attack. If everyone who disagrees with your economic policy is a socialist and you don't listen to socialists, what you're -really- saying is that you don't listen to anybody who disagrees with you. Ad hominem attacks have no place in logical thought. The truth is that economic hardship is not a new idea and very intelligent people have disagreed with your thoughts on it. I could bring up Marx's Das Kapital in sharp relief to your ideals, since he's as far on -his- end of the spectrum as you are on yours. I could also point out that Marxist Communism has never existed in the same way that pure capitalism has never existed, so both of your arguments are purely theoretical in nature.

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?

Now -this- is an argument with some meat on it! Yes, you're absolutely right: Historical generations borrowed from their children's future, which has resulted in a steadily mounting debt that has essentially just been swept 'under the rug', basically ignoring the fact that future generations will have to pay that off.

Is it selfish to not want to be the generation that suffers crushing poverty due to what essentionally would amount to more than the reparations forced on Germany after World War I? I can empathize with families who would be afraid of that. Overnight, people who saved their whole lives would be thrust in to poverty. People would starve on millions of dollars(Just like what happened after the Treaty of Versailles) and the safety net of government would fall out. This time would make the 30s seem like the 20s(I am exaggerating. Excuse the hyperbole, but it would definitely be worse than the 30s).

I'll be honest, I'm not quite sure what we are talking about here. I am certainly not advocating poverty.

However, there is another answer: Get our spending under control. A slow, measured payback, with ourselves being able to entirely eliminate the national deficit, would allow this economic scenario to not happen.

This sounds a lot like what I propose we do about national debt.

I liked what you had to say about sustainable prosperity, because that's ultimately what the concern is now. We know how to have artificial prosperity(Just have another cold war. Everyone wins until the economic meltdown takes place). However, I have been pondering what our essential argument is and I think I have a way of identifying what our core disagreement is. I'm certain you recognize that in a purely libertarian view, much like now, the rich tend to stay rich(Due to the wealthy having enough money to throw around to make investment and to gift to their posterity) and the poor tend to stay poor. You view a more leftist view as hurting the middle class and poor government management results in artificially high prices in the areas government interferes in.

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.

I recognize the argument. Without a safety net, one brought on by taxation, the poor will be desperate, but you are correct that the middle class tends to suffer when taxation is brought in and much higher taxes are required in order to do what basic human decency could accomplish.

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.

I started to consider what this ultimately means. In my gut, I fiercely believe that the middle class should be willing to give up some comforts to ensure that all may survive and have a shot at prospering. My lack of trust for the truly wealthy mirrors your own lack of trust in the government. However, I recognize that there are some similarities between this and the arguments in heaven and, if I'm to be intellectually honest, I have to point out the flaws in my argument.

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.

On the one hand, I'm arguing against self-determination. I'm saying that the government should treat us like idiots, holding our hands to prevent any possible mis-step on our part and to make the playing field -perfectly level-. I'm arguing lowest common denominator.

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.

However, this is very serious. Given the nature of the world economy and given people's passionate stance on things, maybe we should ask the Prophet for a straight answer. It might seem silly that he would answer us directly, but given that this is clearly a difficult time, maybe we could write and ask. I can promise that I would listen to that man.

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

Edited November 30, 2008 by a-train

[StrawberryFields]

Here in the state of Utah, apparently it isn't even an requirement whether employers train their employees or not. All they need to do is have workers compensation insurance and they are "good to go". Edited November 30, 2008 by StrawberryFields

[a-train]

I can't tell if you're actually reading what I'm writing, or not.

Any company that can afford to pay for the ATC’s services pays for them.

Elph, I got it. I'm not taking any issue with that.

How is her specific training in the high technology equipments, which is essential to the manufaturing market, going to be less and less valuable? How is her specific market going to be saturated?

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!

I gave you one example of the high technologies I am talking about, the “Controlled Numeric Computer” (CNC).

Upon completion of the training program, with few exceptions, her benefits are never going to decline, and her position will always be secure. That is because there is always going to be a market for people trained in the high technologies.

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.

I have clearly demonstrated there are numerous lucrative job opportunities for someone trained to run the high-tech equipments. I used the example of the “Controlled Numeric Computer,” (CNC) as an example of only one of these equipments, as the training program includes much more high-tech training.

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.

Finally, It would be very helpful to me if you would respond to the real-life examples I give. For example, why would a company reduce the benefits and job security of a woman who knows how to use a CNC?

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

Edited December 1, 2008 by a-train