[quote=CA renter][quote=jstoesz]I have asked this before and I will ask it again, because so far I have gotten no answer from you. What is your affiliation with public-sector workers? Your answers are shallow and tiresome and they reek of self interest!
I just met up with an old friend who graduated with the civil engineering degree. He lost his job recently in the private sector, and just got a job in the public sector. Guess what he’s making more then he did in the private sector, a lot more. He rides around a few days a week in a large 40k 4 x 4 Ford that’s brand-new, thanks Katrina for your levee caused freak out And that’s just salary I’m not talking pension here! Wake up CAR we’re getting fleeced, at least my buddy knows that he is riding the gravy train. That’s all I ask of public sector employees, a little gratitude![/quote]
Quite frankly, it’s none of your business (and I don’t mean that in an unkind way). I always make a point of addressing the topic rather than making personal attacks. You can review my posts over many years and see that I never make a personal attack unless someone else initiates it. Even then, I try to refrain from doing so until the other person has so hopelessly gone off-topic and begun to rant emotionally that I sometimes end up in the gutter with him (so far, it’s never been a female poster).
Perhaps it would be more productive if you could explain why you think my points are “shallow” or “tiresome.” At least then we could have a more productive discussion instead of engaging in childish emotional rants and personal attacks.
The reason I’m defending (public AND private) unions is because I believe that unions protect workers from corporate/financial interests who constantly strive to take an ever-growing share of the value created by workers. If you don’t believe me, check out what happened in the private sector after the demise of the unions:
“A huge share of the nation’s economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244.”
I’ll say it again (and again, and again…because once we cross the line, there is no going back), the people who are behind the attacks on public unions are the very same ones who are behind this growing wealth disparity. They are NOT looking out for Joe Sixpack’s best interests, and they are NOT taxpayer advocates.
Do your research![/quote]
Although asking about a conflict of interest is considered argumentum ad hominem, it is a grey area in terms of whether is a fallacy depending on whether it is relevant. If I weren’t more lazy I would make a Venn diagram to show this. Granted I could have worded me statement much, much more cordially. For that I apologize. I try to keep my comments mostly civil, although it is fun to lob a bomb every once and a while. BTW,you know my conflict of interest (hint, my state tax bill is way too high).
Why are your posts are shallow and tiresome (I should have used kinder words)? It seems to me that your solutions deny gravity, shallow. You tend to label a problem and strong arm a solution with complete disregard for the unintended consequences, leaving the details for the central planners. I think an interaction between you, flu and pri was emblematic. They was asking you to name names of who should have their wealth taken from them directly. What gains were ill gotten and what weren’t. I think I read something to this point on another thread too about whether steve jobs came by his money honestly or through grift. To date I have not seen an answer… probably because it is unanswerable in the specifics, only in the aggregate witch hunt. I especially liked this post from pri…
[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]I’d put Alan Greenspan at the very top of the list. [/quote]
You do know that Alan Greenspan was a public employee?
He almost certainly is drawing a pension.
And what is the Federal Reserve anyway? It’s primary function is to determine interest rates – the price of money.
A group of knowledgeable people deciding what things are worth to society. Where have we heard that idea before?
Lets take a look up-thread:
[quote=CA renter]I am not at all an adherent of the “Efficient Market Hypothesis” […]
Sometimes, we need rational people to monitor and regulate markets — people with the requisite knowledge and understanding of how things work and who fully understand what the consequences of certain actions will be. Call it what you will… [/quote]
So we should have “rational people monitoring and regulating markets,” but if anything goes wrong, we hold them accountable and make them personally compensate for the market losses?
Are you actually suggesting that we hold public employees accountable, and have them bear the cost of financial downturns, just like everyone else?
I think we may be starting to agree after all…[/quote]
Do you think the likes of Greenspan are gone. That government has wised up, or even can wise up? Do you actually think he was trying to actively harm the country (I think that is called treason)? Is Frank Dodd going to fix it for us? There were many bankers who did what they felt would maximize their returns, but do you think they were trying to bring down the banking system? They were just dancing while the music played. If you were a trader, would you ride the sinking ship down once the holes appeared for the good of the country? Or would you short that sucker and bid it adieu?
Assuming anything other than people will always act in their own interest (or the interest of their family/friends), and that we as people are really bad at telling the future (bureaucrats chief among us), will yield to some pretty suboptimum outcomes.
Nobody likes income inequality, but income equality is even more base. A world where everyone gets paid the same is not only an impossible utopian dream, it is evil. People are not born equally capable, efficient, hardworking, or crafty, to equate the outcomes of unequal abilities is a recipe for starvation (not talking metaphorically here).
Oh one more passing thought. Quoting Mother Jones and then imploring me to do my research strikes me a a bit…hmm (I guess I need to leave that alone before I really get into the ad hominem territory)
