Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Spanky]

Poor Brazil just can't catch a break. Brazil finally gets a President that understands economics, has the political clout to push through the necessary reforms (because he pretends to be a socialist) and his friends screw it all up by getting greedy. It is like an Italian opera. Now the specialist interest statists (who pretend to be pro free market) are going to get back into power and the entire Brazilian budget is going to keep going into subsidies and corruption.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

[fynder of fact]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
a culture that celebrates burning the american flag?

Another thing the Islamics have in common with the American liberals.

Bush should make the leftwingers in America an offer, a free mint condition Koran and passage to the Islamic republic of their choice (or France) in exchange for shutting the fuck up and getting the hell out of our country.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Our social security reforms will protect the most vulnerable Americans, just like an umbrella in a hurricane.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Poor Brazil just can't catch a break. Brazil finally gets a President that understands economics, has the political clout to push through the necessary reforms (because he pretends to be a socialist) and his friends screw it all up by getting greedy. It is like an Italian opera. Now the specialist interest statists (who pretend to be pro free market) are going to get back into power and the entire Brazilian budget is going to keep going into subsidies and corruption.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

You're complaining that a capitalist is greedy?

It's the system, man. Think about where you're posting!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky

I don't mind Unions. I just mind it when they influence laws. Every law they seem to support today is antigrowth. If they would just try and stop protecting their jobs through laws (which by definition are anti-competitive) I wouldn't mind them at all. The bottom line is Unions don't create growth, Pensions don't create growth, SEC regulations don't create growth, businesses create growth. It is all about the business climate. You asked me why I am a Republican when economic growth is my objective and I have demonstrated that the Republicans support pro-growth policies. If they didn't, the Chamber wouldn't support them.

If you want a good metric for third world countries that have successfully developed, look to unionization. It's union wages that create the middle class that fuels demand and creates a real economy, instead of a pure export-oriented economy.

So do you mind when capitalists influence the laws?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If there's a problem, it's that med mal claims don't do a good job of compensating the right people. Caps are a bad idea, IMHO -- when you hear about the injuries people suffer, no one in the right mind would accept even the uncapped damages to incur those injuries. But if the system does not whack the right defendants, then it's not doing much to create the right incentives.

Two things need to happen. First, the lawyers and doctors need to stop fighting. The insurers have tricked them into fighting one another when the real enemy is the insurers. If you take a look at the numbers, you'll see that rate increases are huge multiples of the costs incurred by insurers for malpractice claims. The insurers have never been able to show any congruity between their increases and the alleged costs justifying them. The lawyers and doctors should get together and fight the insurers. Once they get together, they can also do the second thing that needs to be done, which is weed lousy lawyers out of the system. Hacks who file junk claims cost good lawyers, doctors and insurers money. I don't just mean lousy PI lawyers, either. There are tons of commercial lawyers and litigants who litigate as a form of doing business. Those scumbags should be forced to pay sanctions for every frivolous action they file. We really ought to move toward a model where the overly litigious are sanctioned, and sanctioned stiffly, for filing junk suits if any kind.

But I guess that would wipe out a whole industry of people who pay tuitions and lease expensive cars.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
If you want a good metric for third world countries that have successfully developed, look to unionization. It's union wages that create the middle class that fuels demand and creates a real economy, instead of a pure export-oriented economy.

So do you mind when capitalists influence the laws?

Thats nice, but it doesn't work when globalization allows your competitor to move his labor costs offshore and sell his competing product (which is usually built much better abroad) cheaper. Unless protectionism is embraced, which it will never be, the unions will continue to wither. BUT, eventually, labor costs abraod will rise, as they are in India, and it will again become profitable to build things domestically. When it becomes profitable enough to build at home and eat the shakedown costs from the unions, the jobs will return. But if you're a worker caught in the in between time, well, you're a market casualty. It happens.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't mind Unions. I just mind it when they influence laws. Every law they seem to support today is antigrowth. If they would just try and stop protecting their jobs through laws (which by definition are anti-competitive) I wouldn't mind them at all. The bottom line is Unions don't create growth, Pensions don't create growth, SEC regulations don't create growth, businesses create growth. It is all about the business climate. You asked me why I am a Republican when economic growth is my objective and I have demonstrated that the Republicans support pro-growth policies. If they didn't, the Chamber wouldn't support them.

1. Dude, the function of a union is to protect jobs of its workers. What would you have them do? Take up expressive dance?

2. Businesses that falsify their numbers don't create growth. They create windfalls for their execs with options and shares. The regs and enforcement you're pissed about aren't a response to unbridled growth - they're a response (probably over-response) to fraud.

3. I view unions as the counterbalance to execs who have no interest but propping the numbers to get their bonus packages. Both are cabals of self serving, solely self interested whores. Together, they ass fuck companies exquisitely.

4. The present GOP is not supporting growth at all. What its doing is shoving short term gains into the pieholes of its biggest contributors. They're stripping the cash out businesses. But they don't care. When the whiplash tax increases of a liberal administration hit, they'll already be retired. Those of us in the middle will pay the tax bills when the unions and the lower middle class have their revenge. Same old story. The loathesome rich fight the loathesome poor, and the rest of us pay the tab for the damage.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
taking names for the ones who are charged with more than a simple mistake?

It's pretty hard not to end up here if you've ever had action taken against you from a licensure organization, a hospital or paid any money on a malpractice claim.

And the appeal process is almost impossible once you're in.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Sure, there are probably a handful of Texans (hi, RT!) who might object to the Govenor signing bills restricting abortion and outlawing gay marriage in a church-run school, but doubtless they're just those "separation of church and state" weenies who don't understand the power of metaphor or of campaign contributions.

Besides, it's efficient: this way, after signing the bills, the Governor can wash in the Blood of the Lamb without even having to get in his car.

*thunk* *thunk* *thunk*

I can't wait for primary season to begin.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Thats nice, but it doesn't work when globalization allows your competitor to move his labor costs offshore and sell his competing product (which is usually built much better abroad) cheaper. Unless protectionism is embraced, which it will never be, the unions will continue to wither. BUT, eventually, labor costs abraod will rise, as they are in India, and it will again become profitable to build things domestically. When it becomes profitable enough to build at home and eat the shakedown costs from the unions, the jobs will return. But if you're a worker caught in the in between time, well, you're a market casualty. It happens.

Missed. Point.

My point related to the countries where the work is being off-shored. If THOSE countries unionize, and their wages go up, you see real growth.

India's an interesting example. Labor costs are skyrocketing there without expanded unionization in the real software services (programming business), but I'm told they are still very low in the call center business.

[Gattigap]

From Mediabistro, the Gannonization of the WH press corps continues.

[ltl/fb]

Why wasn't Andrew Fastow in prison?

"Lea Fastow, 43, exited a federal detention center flanked by her husband, her sister and her lawyers, Mike DeGeurin and Jennifer Ahlen."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050606/...ron_lea_fastow

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Why wasn't Andrew Fastow in prison?

"Lea Fastow, 43, exited a federal detention center flanked by her husband, her sister and her lawyers, Mike DeGeurin and Jennifer Ahlen."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050606/...ron_lea_fastow

Part of the plea agreement. For the sake of the kids, they were going to serve time consecutively rather than concurrently so the kids would have one parent at home. He'll start serving soon.

Her sister was a few classes behind me in high school. Nice girl.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Part of the plea agreement. For the sake of the kids, they were going to serve time consecutively rather than concurrently so the kids would have one parent at home. He'll start serving soon.

Her sister was a few classes behind me in high school. Nice girl.

WTF? Is that common? Do regular people get these kinds of concessions for their kids? I'm sure they are charming children, but their parents are felons. Rich, white, well-educated felons, but felons nonetheless.