StrangeSox

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 03:33 PM) That is appeasement. Why exactly are we obligated to care how those people feel about American flags? They're visitors here. They can suck it up or leave. Pastoor is just trying to kiss ass. As if being nice to them and bowing to all of their perceived sensitivities will make them like us more or something. You call it what you want. I'll call it appeasement. Appeasement of what? I think you're misunderstanding his view here. It's not that people would be offended by the presence of the American flag. It's going to be all over the place this weekend and probably a few weeks afterwards. There were numerous other events planned on campus without issue that will presumably feature a lot of pro-America patriotism. His point is that if you're going to commemorate the individual victims of 9/11, don't ignore who these people actually were. Representing them with an American flag just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

He did answer your original question, you kinda shifted it later. Please note that there is not a single topic that ss2k5 and I agree on.

Profits aren't generated without consequences. Sometimes those consequences are literally death. to be fair I don't really know what rex meant with that comment.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 03:14 PM) Call it what you want. But al-Qaeda didn't set out that day saying, "hey, we're gonna go murder a Bermudan today!" They set out to murder Americans. And that's what they did. And they murdered 247 non-Americans whose lives are worth no less than the Americans killed. No one was saying don't commemorate Americans or put out the American flag, just that if you're going to put out flags for every individual, at least get their nationality right.

your original question was when was the last time money was spent rebuilding roads, to which ss2k5 correctly responded "all the time always" whether that's an adequate amount is anotehr question.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 03:07 PM) That profit needs a "consequence" said a lot, as if it were murder or something. Negative externalities.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 03:08 PM) That is a complete change of subject. We pay that bill every time we go to the gas pump or go through a toll booth. Partially, the gas tax seriously underfunds road construction and maintenance costs.

The dismissal of the lives of non-Americans as "collateral" is pretty insulting, too.

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 02:25 PM) So a web site is more of "source" than a book? And since both of those books are on my Kindle, I can't give you a page #.. Fernald, J. G. (1999). "Roads to Prosperity? Assessing the Link Between Pubic Capital and Productivity." American Economic Review 89(3): 619-638.

If the flags are meant to represent the individual victims, wouldn't it make sense to represent them with a flag of their own nationality? I mean, just from a respect for the actual victims perspective that seems like it should be non-controversial to me. If you were killed in the 7-7-05 attacks in London, wouldn't you rather be remembered with an American flag instead of the union jack?

The assumption I am talking about is that the "risk takers" are entitled to all profits and that labor is only entitled to whatever wage they can negotiate, not the actual profits of their labor. Liberty is tied in strongly with economic freedom and agency, as well.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 01:09 PM) Which is my whole problem with the discussion. Whether or not you think it's actually a problem is a separate issue from "what caused the change." Something obviously did. That assumption cuts both ways.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 01:05 PM) I'm not the one trying claim no one has taken any risk since Jimmy Carter left office. No one's said that. I've asked what's materially different about risk in 1950 and 1990 if you're going to use "risk" as your explanation for the stagnation of wages. You've just kept repeating "risk" and then gave a moral justification for business owners to do as they please with all profits, which still doesn't really address the question of why wages stagnated.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 01:04 PM) I'm saying it doesn't matter what caused the shift. It is immaterial to my point, which is why are you obligated to someone else's risk. The discussion was about what caused the shift, not moral justification for it.

You still haven't actually answered the question: what caused the shift in the 80's? You keep saying "risk" without explaining what actually changed.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 12:56 PM) Was someone holding a gun to their head when they bought a Hyundai instead of a Pontiac? Then yes, it is their fault. NAFTA: the fault of the middle class

idk I was just saying it took almost zero effort to find it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 12:54 PM) Why should you? Why are you entitled to someone else's risk taking? You haven't explained where the additional risk is coming in that means I should get even less of a share of profits than I was before.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 12:51 PM) Both of which are mostly their own damned faults for not supporting industries which use high priced labor. If people really believed in that stuff, they would put their money where their mouths are. Globalization of labor and supply markets are the "fault" of the American lower and middle class? Huh?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 12:50 PM) That's just it. They aren't entitled to it. They pay a wage to obtain it, just like they pay for any of the machines that provide them productivity. Ok, so, why has the wage not increased with productivity? If I'm generating more profits for the corporation, why should I not be entitled to a share? Why should I get even less of a share of the profits generated from my labor than I was the year before?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 12:25 PM) Not to mention the consumers have benefited from lower prices from most technologies. at the expense of their own jobs and exploding household debt!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 12:23 PM) Where was it ever written that risk takers are obligated to share their rewards? I still don't understand the sense of entitlement to someone else's risk's payoffs, when the reality is if that person hadn't taken their risk you'd have nothing. I don't understand the sense of entitlement to someone else's labor because you own a thing they use, when the reality is that you'd have nothing if that person hadn't worked! your post completely ignored my question, though. What's inherently different about the "risks" of buying an employee a computer in 2000 instead of, say, a typewriter in 1940?

come on guys this took me about 5 seconds to open a new tab and search! http://www.un.org/esa/policy/backgroundpap...rodriguez_1.pdf the cite: Fernald, J. G. (1999). "Roads to Prosperity? Assessing the Link Between Pubic Capital and Productivity." American Economic Review 89(3): 619-638.

See, meaningful discussion! Seriously, I appreciate the elaboration here. I guess the common theme there points back to "lack of bargaining power," then, at least for unskilled or low-skills labor.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 11:22 AM) You already know the answer to this...but aren't acknowledging it. What changed? We went from a local "American" economy to a world economy with world competition. That's what changed. That's a completely different explanation from your "jobs got easier thanks to computers/other tech" answer offered up earlier, though. World competition in labor markets may be an answer, but I think that graph looks specifically at American productivity gains. I guess the implication would be that our productivity gains are the only things keeping us employed; were it not for them, we'd have to compete with third-world wages on the same level?