Liberal States Losing People, $

[Craig Read]

Cali and NY - poster states for the post modern man ! Look, behold, men wearing red pumps, kissing in public, and waxing themselves ! Nary an opinion to be found ! Social spending on all issues so that equality and relativity are assured ! As long as it does not contravene the sacred principle that Western civilisation is evil, destructive and American values inimical to true morality ! Behold the people voting with their feet as they flee Liberal bastions of hypocritical, slanderous, anti-Westernism !

==========

According to a report out this month from the U.S. Census Bureau, an astounding 2,204,500 Californians threw in the towel from 1995 to 2000 and highballed it out of the "Golden State." The state's net migration figure for the period is -755,536, and would be worse if Latin American immigrants didn't still drop in for a look. This is the first time the net migration number for California has ever gone negative.

We in New York should be so lucky to have a chance to recall our profligate pols. The Census figures make those of us staying in the "Empire State" look like the nation's biggest saps: Some 1,600,725 shrewd subjects of Albany's empire saw in the late 1990s that the pols were blowing the revenue surge out the window and escaped ahead of the recent tax hikes passed to close the inevitable deficit. Because so many former New Yorkers understood the meaning of present-discounted non-value, the state took first place in net migration loss: -874,248. The bureau says New Yorkers fled to every state in the Union except Nebraska and the District of Columbia. Don't expect this datum to show up in the welcoming speeches by George Pataki and Mike Bloomberg when the GOP holds its weirdly inappropriate convention in Manhattan next year.

------

[WSJ Aug 29]

[Neal.F.]

A brain drain, as happens everywhere anything left of center is tried.

so called "moderate" Republicans are little better than Dumbocruds.

I really dislike the way the media used the term "moderate" to describe any Reublican who takes Liberal positions on socialissues... It is an underhanded way of implying that those on the pro-life, anti-gay side are dangerous radicals.... From the perspective of the unborn, the so-called moderates are the dangerous ones.

[Lost in Manitoba]

Of course you'll look at it how you wish, but maybe the cause is just wanting to get out of such densley populated areas. Crime Rate, Fear, Effects of Congestion. There's plenty of reasons to leave NY. I will jump to conclusions, as you two have done, and say that a PoMo liberal might actually be more likely to leave such places because they want better quality of living (enviro/safety), whereas the capitalist hardcore will stay where the action is, being greedy of course.

[Craig Read]

Get serious.

California under the Dumbocruds have hiked taxes, regulations, premiums and assorted anti-job programs, whilst paying swivel snivel servants and politicos more money.

Hey sounds like Canada !!!

In the past year 300.000!! have left California. Many businesses can't leave due to location, product or contract commitments. If they could leave, they would head for the Nevada hills.

Ditto for NY. Tax and spend moderate Republican Bloomberg is a democrat [he was a long time supporter of the Dumbocruds and switched to the Reps to follow Giuliani and get the Mayorship], and is doing what worked so well for Cali - more taxes, more debt , less reform.

Buying votes under any banner is socialised liberalism and people vote with their feet.

40.000 Cdns leave South bound each year. No more than a handful is flowing the other way. [usually to access socialised health care btw.]

Lie-beralism is a failure. Much like Isn't-lam.

[SirRiff]

40.000 Cdns leave South bound each year. No more than a handful is flowing the other way. [usually to access socialised health care btw.]

well for the last 10 years the US has had a very strong economy, so people from all over the world came to make money.

when things settle down or terror concerns arise or conservative policies come about, you may find more people hesitant to run to the US. but still, money is money, and the US is best for rampant capitalism.

SirRiff

[Craig Read]

First the US is not as liberal - or free market based as people think. Gov't has always played a huge role in US economic development from the times of Hamiltonian mercantilism to selective NAFTA in which only certain industries, already cross border in nature, are affected.

The US maintains a plethora of regulations, taxation levels and constraints against 'capitalism.' Sarbanes Oxley is just the latest set of regulatory impositions that constrain governance and private sector action.

Having said that the US is freer than other economies - less onerous gov't and tax levels and more capital accumulation. The depth of US capital markets and the high rates of return ensure that the US will be the world's pre-eminent power for the coming 100 years. China notwithstanding.

Productivity is higher in the states, so are profit levels and so is 'creative destruction'.

Canada and the EU bank on security and risk aversion.

The US banks on innovation and getting ahead.

This is why their standard of living is higher than Canada.

Being a proud Canadian should not obscure the facts of reality. Canada is poorer.

[Mr Farrius]

Funny how you say all this but ignore the trillion dollar deficit that Bush put America in. But oh no, it was Clinton who made the mess that Bush is trying to repair huh.

[Craig Read]

Nice analysis.

Gee you are so penetrating.

The Congress is split if you did not notice.

You cut taxes and cut spending. Bush could not do both - Congress would not allow it. Why ? Moderate Republicans [ie. Liberals in red ties] and Dumbocruds would not cut program spending.

Non military spending is up 18 % in the past 3 yrs - why ? Politicians refuse to cut fat and pork.

This is the deficit problem, not the tax cuts. As history proves tax cuts increase revenues in the medium term. This will happen and already these tax cuts have stimulated the stock market and business/cap investment.

This means jobs will return faster than if they had not occured.

Basic Economics. Very difficult for most Liberals to comprehend.

[Mr Farrius]

What's really hard for the Republodumbs to comprehend is the fact that it's their fault the American economy is down. You present this nonsense of Congress not allowing Bush to cut spending. Well maybe because it would just do more damage to what the tax cut has done already. You do realize that when Bush presented his silly idea of a tax cut which point was really to benefit the rich only, that over 600 economists in the United States presented a report stating the absurdity of his idea? Maybe liberals don't understand basic economics. But economists surely do.

[FastNed]

Craig, Mr. Farrius has yet to make a contribution to a discussion on this forum. We appear to be having a troll infestation.

[Mr Farrius]

I'm sorry I do not understand. Because I share different views I am trolling??

[Craig Read]

Lib states in in decline. Calif is the ulitmate experiment in Liberal Madness.

When Davis first took office in 1999, the state was flush. As recently as June 2001, California had a $7 billion budget cushion. Then, state revenue plunged along with income-tax payments that had been tied to the stock-market boom of the 1990s. Such payments have fallen by more than two-thirds, to a projected $5.3 billion in the fiscal year that began July 1, from $17.6 billion in the 2000-01 fiscal year.

In other words they were milking the high tech sector to meet bill payments. Not smart.

Unable to agree on either tax increases or deep spending cuts, the legislature and Davis cobbled together a spending plan for the current year that relies heavily on fund transfers and borrowing. Fiscal experts say the state will face a budget gap of at least $8 billion in the year beginning July 1, 2004.

Now, the Field poll has found that 76% of Californians believe the financial condition of state government has worsened in the past year, more than at any time in the 21 years that the group has asked the question. Two-thirds of Californians say they are unhappy with the recently passed state budget.

In an August survey by the Field Research Corp., an independent San Francisco polling group, 83% of Californians said they think the state is in bad economic times, the highest level since 1993. In the poll, 76% of Californians say the state is "seriously off on the wrong track," up from 54% a year ago and also the most negative finding in a decade.

This is why there is a recall and an exodus of 300.000 people out of the State in the past year.

The Dumbocrats and their Left Liberal allies cannot manage a grocery store properly let alone a major economic engine of the world economy.

They should go back and hug their trees from the sidelines while some adults repair the damage.

[nova_satori]

Clinton was far more liberal then Bush.

Do i need to even say ANYTHING about the economies under each president?

[KrustyKidd]

Actually Nova, economic policies enacted by the Federal Government take years to bear fruit. If you have compaints about the economy right now it is Clinton. We have yet to see if Bush is better or worse. BTW, I thought you were a Buddhist or something, are you also a capitalistic type of Buddisht?

A Fiscaluddist? OK, maybe a Baffleboondoggleuddist?

[nova_satori]

Of course. Clinton actually had less than 30% of why the prosperity under him occured. He just had mad luck. However, he managed it well. Unlike someone else we know. But we cannot blame Bush for all of it. Every economic boom will see a economic bust. Simple rythms of economics. However, who gets us out of that quickier is arguably the better economic president. However, we cannot exactly blame clinton either. You cannot expect a boom to extend forever. That will never happen. It was going to crash, when and where, that's a different story. Bush had the luck of getting a down-turning economy. 9/11 didnt help either. However, we are not in a recession, and were not comming out of 2000. A recession is defined as 8 quaters of down profits (?pretty sure about the profits part, but it is defnitely 8 quaters), the US had 7.

But, clinton had 8 years of some of the most, if not thee most prosperous quaters the US has ever seen. That cannot be said for Bush.

Capitalism is unethical. I'm fine with that as long as everyone else understands that as well. However, that shouldn't be the case.

[Hugo]

Capitalism is unethical.

Why? Justify yourself.

[nova_satori]

"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: The Truth About Corporate Cons, Globalization and High-Finance Fraudsters," by Greg Palast

Read it.

[Hugo]

I honestly believe that's the only book you've actually read. It's the only one you'll cite.

Now, please prove to me that you not only read it but actually understood it, and tell me in your own words why capitalism is unethical.

[SirRiff]

Now, please prove to me that you not only read it but actually understood it, and tell me in your own words why capitalism is unethical.

well one could argue in its truest form it encourages not talking what you need, but to take everything in sight, with no thought about the consequences. thus you have a few people taking the vast amount of resources leaving others to suffer disproportionately for no real practical reason.

when you take this up to the level of corperations like majors banks and oil companies and so on and so on, you have oganizations designed and operated specifically to take as much as humanly possible indefinately.

so yeah, i think you could call that unethical, since ethically, i dont think you can justify taking as many resources at teh expense of others. especially when the richest dont need or make much practical use of most of their resources.

SirRiff

[Hugo]

In it's "truest" form as you put it, and I understand you to mean capitalism unfettered by law or morality, yes, that would probably be the case. However, nobody, not even Adam Smith, wants total and anarchic capitalism, or what the Russians call "wild capitalism."

All capitalists agree that capitalism must be tempered by law and justice, just as individual freedom cannot be allowed to run rampant lest those who wish to murder and rape could do as they will. Their freedom must be curtailed by law and justice too.

A capitalist society tempered by just law and democracy will produce the optimum combination of living standards, material wealth (for all, not just for a few) and individual freedoms. A capitalist but tyrannical society can't offer that, and a socialist society never can, no matter what it's political mode.

[nova_satori]

First of all, why do we have LAWS governing business?

If capitalism wasn't unethical, why would we need to enforce laws?

If capitalism wasn't unethical, why isn't everything deregulated?

Monopoly.

Enron.

IMF.

Reliant Energy.

London Eletric.

Capitalism is making yourself as rich as possible in any way.

Companies are willing to cut anyoen from their management to cut costs. Dump anywhere. Destroy the environment, screw customers any possible way,

If you think I'm such an idiot, why is capitalism ethnical?

After all, capitalism's god is the bottom line. Worshipping that bottom line means to increase the size of the bottom line.

I'd rather live in a tyrannical society with a benevolent ruler then the representitive plutocracy with a capitalistic way of life.

[SirRiff]

In it's "truest" form as you put it, and I understand you to mean capitalism unfettered by law or morality,

the modern day utopica of capitalism, the US, is eyeball deep in laws and regulations, but that doesnt stop the wealth disparity, nor the corruption, not the worsening problems of society. so even in this not so true form, this push to accumulate far beyond reasonable needs is unethical by design and consequence.

it constantly needs to be tempered by laws that keep society from collapsing under gross injustice but the laws can never keep up.

SirRiff

[KrustyKidd]

First of all, why do we have LAWS governing business?

If capitalism wasn't unethical, why would we need to enforce laws?

If capitalism wasn't unethical, why isn't everything deregulated?

Monopoly.

Enron.

IMF.

Reliant Energy.

London Eletric.

Capitalism is making yourself as rich as possible in any way.

Companies are willing to cut anyoen from their management to cut costs. Dump anywhere. Destroy the environment, screw customers any possible way,

If you think I'm such an idiot, why is capitalism ethnical?

After all, capitalism's god is the bottom line. Worshipping that bottom line means to increase the size of the bottom line.

I'd rather live in a tyrannical society with a benevolent ruler then the representitive plutocracy with a capitalistic way of life.

I have to confess Nova that while a businessman by chance I am not one by nature. That said to me capitalism is simply a way of keeping score. For example, if you live next door to me and have to go somewhere but don't have time to mow your lawn, you ask me if I could. I say yes and do it. Given the generous nature of our relationship I don't think about you returning the favor and it is a given that if I need something from you it will be provided.

You go to town, you remember you need milk but don't know the grocery store owner. He knows me and also know that sometimes I mow his lawn and he would do something for me so mention that to him and he gives you the milk. You get what I'm saying so far right? You then go to New York and need a hotel room but the desk clerk knows you not and knows me not, you pull out a piece of paper with a picture of me and my lawnmower and tell him that in return for a room your friend will mow his sidewalk for him. Unimpressed he turfs you.

You return home and vow to create a common favor/chit system and that's how money is invented. The interesting thing about money is that it is transportable both physically and verbally and it needs no maitainence to remain as it is. I mow lawns in my hometown and you bring me milk and items from all over the world. I never have to get off my mower. As a matter of fact, I feel good so I mow a lot in the summer and when there is five feet of snow on the ground you still bring me milk. One day I have so many markers out that I decide to buy another mower and convince Riff to ride with me. Being a cheap SOB I don't give him much so along comes the chit police to slap me on the side of the head and voila! I pay Riff what he is worth.

Soon I have an empire of mowers and people from all over the world are sending me fruit cakes, frozen food and all sorts of stuff that doesn't keep. I need to get a better way so ask those people to send favor chits in place. They do and I hand them to an unscrupulous banker who pockets some of them because I don't count that well. You suggest a way where if you give me some chits then I can mow better and can set Riff free to do something else in a place he will be needed more so I end up buying a mega mower and poof! He's gone and I make more money.

Being honest I give you your share every day and we are happy and our expirement in capitalism works well. If I am not honest then our experiment in capitalism does not work.

I suppose the point of all this is, that if I were going to steal from you I would do it anyhow. I would steal your shovel, your knife, anything that I could. Money is not evil, it is an object, a return of labor that is transportable. And being an object it is subject to the same fate as a possession. An honest man will not steal it and a dishonest one will. Capitalism is a system, systems work well but can be manipulated by the dishonest. The system itself and the objects at work within it are inanimate and are neither evil nor good. Also, like any system it has to be maintained to change with the times in order to suit present needs. To some who cannot keep up with those times it may seem evil or unmanageable but that is where adaptation is needed.

If to some it is a God then I'd say the problem lies with the individual's sense of reality. Capitalism is a way of getting materials, equipment and manpower to work. It is mobile and can be instantanious and produces equity where none existed before. Without it how would you send food to starving peole half a world away? Why would the pilot leave his family at home to starve so that he could fly the food? If you hand him a large summer sausage maybe he does not eat that. Money and capitalism are the only things that keep this world of 6 billion people alive.

[nova_satori]

Let's have a clear definition before we keep aruging.

(usually it's good to define the term you're argumening over)

Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism

Pronunciation: 'ka-p&-t&l-"iz-&m, 'kap-t&l-, British also k&-'pi-t&l-

Function: noun

Date: 1877

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

How does one lower prices in capitalistic way of business? Often by cutting workers, "illegal" dumping, tax evasion, sweat shops, fuzzy math, bribing officials....

Ask Nike, Enron, many Chemical and oil companies... they are perfect examples of capitalism as a unethical practice.

However, capitalism is neither ethnically correct or ethnically incorrect. We are both wrong. It is simply a system. Communism is a perfect example. True communism under a beneficial leader would make life better for the whole. Soviet communism, well, we all know where that went. It is how the system is manipulated that defines how it looks on a society.

Capitalism under the pre-regulation and pre-major business law America was unethical. Dangerous working conditions, unheathy working hours, massive eradication of wild species, low wages for hard work, bad sanitation, and lots of swindling.

However, today's unethical capitalism is still rampant. One story is of a chemical plant. A breach in a container contamineted a batch of ethylene. Instead of containing and moving it for proper care, the plant simply let it burn. The huge flame blelched huge amounts of smoke visible for hours in the Dallas sky. The amount of contamiants released that day was more than the city's cars pollution output for a month. It was simply easier to harm the population then spend the money to properly dispose of the waste material. Was this legal? Yes, due to the huge amounts of money that the chemical companies poured into one Texas's governer's election fund. He pushed for weak pro-enviromental laws.

Another story: Eletric companies, large donators to the Bush adminstration's election funds no longer have to install cleaning scrubbers on their stacks if renovations cost less than 20% of the plant's worth. The clean air act is being tossed out the window via the Bush Adminstration in favor of the chemical and eletric companies. favors for friends ream the general public. I'd rather spend more money on electricity then breath huge amounts of contaiments and die 20 years earlier. Not to mention medical bills for respirotory problems. Medical costs will skyrocket, as well as insurance.

There are stories like this all over the world via capitalistic companies.

The system itself has no moral or ethical leaning.

[KrustyKidd]

There is nothing inherently wrong with the system. It is however operated by humans who are by nature oppertuneistic. If all men worked equally hare, took equal chances, were equally honest and intelligent then capitalism would resemble socialism. The difference here is that socialism only allows a few to excel and control where capitalism gives everybody the chance.

Evil? To the dumb and lazy sure.