From: Brent P on
In article <1179426246.584816.114760(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On May 15, 2:26 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
><tributyltinpa...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> His comments don't make any sense. Even money that buys oil from the
>> Middle East isn't promoting terrorism. Imagine how pissed off Arabs
>> would be if the oil money was stopped. As it is, Saudi Arabia is
>> moderating its population by buying them off with its increased oil
>> revenues.
>
> The world's insatiable thirst for oil does contribute to terrorism.
> Saudi Arabia buys off troublemakers which is a bad policy in the long
> run, it is essentially giving in to blackmail and their troublemakers
> are quite wealthy and powerful as a result. Iran is a terrorism
> sponsor using oil money. Individuals in the middle east have gotten
> rich through oil and pass along their money to terrorist groups.

Iran would have been a much different nation today if wasn't for UK and
US interference in the 1950s that overthrew their government. And why did
the UK and US do that? Because Iran's government was cutting into oil
company profits intending to use it to build Iran.

The US keeps supporting the status-quo that has kept these nations from
evolving towards liberty. This in turn gives the radical ilsamic elements
exactly the conditions they need to grow.


From: Brent P on
In article <1179427123.321229.149360(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> As to the minimum wage, there is no debate about having it. Rather,
> the debate is about the amount. There is no denial that the minimum
> wage results in some loss of jobs. But there also is no denial that
> the minimum wage increases wages for many people above and beyond what
> the free market would pay.

And prices some people too high for the lowest rung of the job market,
leaving them as dependents of the government (taxpayer).


From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on


Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>>>>Eeyore wrote:
> >>>>>>"Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>But, of course, many jobs pay more than minimum wage anyway.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>That's not why it exists though is it ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Why minimum wage exists? No one can explain why that exists except due
> >>>>>to some misguided altruism at other's expense.
> >>>>
> >>>>Just because YOU can't understand the explanation, Bill...
> >>>
> >>>The explanation is organized labor.
> >>
> >>Well, organized labor explains wide American prosperity and the growth
> >>of the middle class, anyway. But you'd prefer something Malthusian, I
> >>suppose?
> >
> > It's an infringement on the employer and employee relationship. It is
> > also monopolistic when it is across entire industries. You wouldn't let
> > a company control everything without oversight but you'd let a union.
>
> Not entirely, but your system didn't have a very good track record. An
> infringement of the employer's ability to exploit the employee isn't a
> bad thing.
>
What does "exploit" mean? For some definitions of that, there is
"exploitation" even if you pay someone $30 an hour, say if the CEO makes
millions. Don't Communists think that if you don't get the entire value
of your labour, you are being exploited?




--
"There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed
and drug into buses in the middle of the night."
"How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.",
George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"
From: Rudy Canoza on
On May 17, 11:39 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <1179426246.584816.114...(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, hanco...(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > On May 15, 2:26 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> ><tributyltinpa...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> His comments don't make any sense. Even money that buys oil from the
> >> Middle East isn't promoting terrorism. Imagine how pissed off Arabs
> >> would be if the oil money was stopped. As it is, Saudi Arabia is
> >> moderating its population by buying them off with its increased oil
> >> revenues.
>
> > The world's insatiable thirst for oil does contribute to terrorism.
> > Saudi Arabia buys off troublemakers which is a bad policy in the long
> > run, it is essentially giving in to blackmail and their troublemakers
> > are quite wealthy and powerful as a result. Iran is a terrorism
> > sponsor using oil money. Individuals in the middle east have gotten
> > rich through oil and pass along their money to terrorist groups.
>
> Iran would have been a much different nation today if wasn't for UK and
> US interference in the 1950s that overthrew their government. And why did
> the UK and US do that? Because Iran's government was cutting into oil
> company profits intending to use it to build Iran.
>
> The US keeps supporting the status-quo that has kept these nations from
> evolving towards liberty.

These nations *never* have been "evolving towards liberty". As a
matter of culture, including religion, the people of these nations are
inclined *against* liberal democracy.

From: Rudy Canoza on
On May 17, 12:47 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpa...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> > >>Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > >>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> > >>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > >>>>>Eeyore wrote:
> > >>>>>>"Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>But, of course, many jobs pay more than minimum wage anyway.
>
> > >>>>>>That's not why it exists though is it ?
>
> > >>>>>Why minimum wage exists? No one can explain why that exists except due
> > >>>>>to some misguided altruism at other's expense.
>
> > >>>>Just because YOU can't understand the explanation, Bill...
>
> > >>>The explanation is organized labor.
>
> > >>Well, organized labor explains wide American prosperity and the growth
> > >>of the middle class, anyway. But you'd prefer something Malthusian, I
> > >>suppose?
>
> > > It's an infringement on the employer and employee relationship. It is
> > > also monopolistic when it is across entire industries. You wouldn't let
> > > a company control everything without oversight but you'd let a union.
>
> > Not entirely, but your system didn't have a very good track record. An
> > infringement of the employer's ability to exploit the employee isn't a
> > bad thing.
>
> What does "exploit" mean?

It means jeffy is a plodding sophomoric ideologue, stuck in the past.


> For some definitions of that, there is
> "exploitation" even if you pay someone $30 an hour, say if the CEO makes
> millions. Don't Communists think that if you don't get the entire value
> of your labour, you are being exploited?
>
> --
> "There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed
> and drug into buses in the middle of the night."
> "How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.",
> George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -