The libetarian dream...

[crockett]

Man who helped save family from a crashed car gets billed $150 bucks because the paramedics checked his pulse and gave him a bottle of water..

Calif. man helps save trapped family, gets $143 bill - CBS News

This is the libertarian dream come true, no free rides you have to pay for everything!!! Bravo this should teach other heroes there are no free rides on the tax payers dime!! This libertarian dream is seconded only to that fire dept that watched a house bUrn down because the owner didn't pay a $200 fee ahead of time..

It's time people stop feeling entitled to free emergency care on the tax payers dime!

[Hannes]

people are trying to profit on death... this is sad.

[MiamiBoyz]

Take care of yourself and your own and don't expect the government or anyone else to give a fuck.

[galleryseek]

Originally Posted by crockett

Man who helped save family from a crashed car gets billed $150 bucks because the paramedics checked his pulse and gave him a bottle of water..

Calif. man helps save trapped family, gets $143 bill - CBS News

This is the libertarian dream come true, no free rides you have to pay for everything!!! Bravo this should teach other heroes there are no free rides on the tax payers dime!! This libertarian dream is seconded only to that fire dept that watched a house bUrn down because the owner didn't pay a $200 fee ahead of time..

It's time people stop feeling entitled to free emergency care on the tax payers dime!

Listen up statist..

First, only the state (government) could get away with charging $150 for a quick drive, bottle of water, and pulse-checking because of that whole state-protected monopoly thing they have going on. You know how monopolies are bad? Yeah, all of fucking government and their services are monopolies.

Absent of the state, we'd have competition, therefore much cheaper prices and better service / quality.

That's why government is synonymous with inefficient, corrupt, and wasteful.


Second, your snarky tone seems to suggest that you believe you're entitled to the property of others just because you may get yourself in a jam. Well listen up, kiddo, life shouldn't have to change for you because you think other people owe you something.

Your decisions are yours to own, not the rest of society.

Third, in a stateless society, all of the various insurances you're whining about would be absolutely dirt cheap, to the point at which the most poor could afford them. It wouldn't be an issue like you're making it out to be. Right now, under your beloved state/nation-state, we can't have that because of the millions of laws, regulations, red tape, cronyism and state-protected monopolies.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Our fire department charges $500.00 to the property owner if they have to answer a fire call now. As a municipal operating unit they have the right to lien your property (like for the water and/or sewerage bills) so eventually they get paid.

$150 is reasonable actually ... How much do you think 2 paramedics and a EMS truck cost per run?

My property taxes are bad enough without paying for every trivial thing. Do you pay property taxes? If you are a renter your monthly rental reflects the cost of the property taxes your landlord pays.

The taxpayer has to pay for the indigents -- we all get stuck with the bill.

[woj]

he would have paid the $150 (and much more) through taxes or rent anyway... libertarian way, you pay only for what services you need and use... what's wrong with that?

when for example some idiot 20 blocks away from you plays with fireworks and sets his house on fire... why should you pay the bill? shouldn't the person that fucked up pay the bill?

[galleryseek]

Originally Posted by woj

he would have paid the $150 (and much more) through taxes or rent anyway... libertarian way, you pay only for what services you need and use... what's wrong with that?

when for example some idiot 20 blocks away from you plays with fireworks and sets his house on fire... why should you pay the bill? shouldn't the person that fucked up pay the bill?

Oh no, we can't have that. Statists (I say statists instead of liberals, because conservatives are very similar, except for different things like police and military) -- statists, they're all humanitarians.

They *really* worry about the weak and the poor. But only to the extent of forcing other people to help. You'll very rarely see them helping these people themselves, through charity and donation. They'd rather go to a voting booth to steal from their neighbors by proxy. They're so humanitarian and thoughtful.

[woj]

Originally Posted by galleryseek

Oh no, we can't have that. Statists (I say statists instead of liberals, because conservatives are very similar, except for different things like police and military) -- statists, they're all humanitarians.

They *really* worry about the weak and the poor. But only to the extent of forcing other people to help. You'll very rarely see them helping these people themselves, through charity and donation. They'd rather go to a voting booth to steal from their neighbors by proxy. They're so humanitarian and thoughtful.

here is a thought experiment that illustrates what you said:

imagine that when filing your taxes you could pay for example 15% tax rate... but there was a checkbox "I want to participate in all the cool social programs"... which would make your tax rate 30%.... how many would select that checkbox? I would wager, nearly everyone would not...

so why is it that everyone is forced to participate in socialism, even though if given the choice they wouldn't?

[Barry-xlovecam]

You are missing my point really -- if he was a taxpayer in that community has he already paying for the services or not?

Our property taxes are about 1.58%? per/annum of the FMV of residential property and maybe 2.5% per/annum on commercial property.

My neighbor called the police because someone was driving an ORV 3 wheeler over my lawn -- 2 police cars arrived in a few minutes. So, we do get service for our money. If we were the in Libertarian Fallacy you idealize I would have gotten a loaded weapon from the house and dealt with the matter myself -- a proscribed anarchist action now -- I guess that is the Libertarian way -- take care of my own shit -- no thank you sir.

I would rather pay the bill I can afford to.

[SuckOnThis]

Originally Posted by galleryseek

First, only the state (government) could get away with charging $150 for a quick drive, bottle of water, and pulse-checking because of that whole state-protected monopoly thing they have going on. You know how monopolies are bad? Yeah, all of fucking government and their services are monopolies.

Not sure how old you are but hospitals get away with it all the time. But apparently charging $700 for a $1 bag of saline is ok cause they are corporations.

[galleryseek]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

Not sure how old you are but hospitals get away with it all the time. But apparently charging $700 for a $1 bag of saline is ok cause they are corporations.

Hospitals and the state of healthcare is not at all indicative of capitalism or free markets. They've been weighed down with so much red tape, some of it they lobbied for, some not, that it costs $700 for a $1 bag of saline.

Back when government was much, much smaller -- around the 1900's, healthcare was very affordable, even to the most poor through lodge practice.

How Government Solved

Today, we are constantly being told, the United States faces a health care crisis. Medical costs are too high, and health insurance is out of reach of the poor. The cause of this crisis is never made very clear, but the cure is obvious to nearly everybody: government must step in to solve the problem.

Eighty years ago, Americans were also told that their nation was facing a health care crisis. Then, however, the complaint was that medical costs were too low, and that health insurance was too accessible. But in that era, too, government stepped forward to solve the problem. And boy, did it solve it!

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, one of the primary sources of health care and health insurance for the working poor in Britain, Australia, and the United States was the fraternal society. Fraternal societies (called "friendly societies" in Britain and Australia) were voluntary mutual-aid associations. Their descendants survive among us today in the form of the Shriners, Elks, Masons, and similar organizations, but these no longer play the central role in American life they formerly did. As recently as 1920, over one-quarter of all adult Americans were members of fraternal societies. (The figure was still higher in Britain and Australia.) Fraternal societies were particularly popular among blacks and immigrants. (Indeed, Teddy Roosevelt's famous attack on "hyphenated Americans" was motivated in part by hostility to the immigrants' fraternal societies; he and other Progressives sought to "Americanize" immigrants by making them dependent for support on the democratic state, rather than on their own independent ethnic communities.)

The principle behind the fraternal societies was simple. A group of working-class people would form an association (or join a local branch, or "lodge," of an existing association) and pay monthly fees into the association's treasury; individual members would then be able to draw on the pooled resources in time of need. The fraternal societies thus operated as a form of self-help insurance company.

Turn-of-the-century America offered a dizzying array of fraternal societies to choose from. Some catered to a particular ethnic or religious group; others did not. Many offered entertainment and social life to their members, or engaged in community service. Some "fraternal" societies were run entirely by and for women. The kinds of services from which members could choose often varied as well, though the most commonly offered were life insurance, disability insurance, and "lodge practice."

"Lodge practice" refers to an arrangement, reminiscent of today's HMOs, whereby a particular society or lodge would contract with a doctor to provide medical care to its members. The doctor received a regular salary on a retainer basis, rather than charging per item; members would pay a yearly fee and then call on the doctor's services as needed. If medical services were found unsatisfactory, the doctor would be penalized, and the contract might not be renewed. Lodge members reportedly enjoyed the degree of customer control this system afforded them. And the tendency to overuse the physician's services was kept in check by the fraternal society's own "self-policing"; lodge members who wanted to avoid future increases in premiums were motivated to make sure that their fellow members were not abusing the system.

Most remarkable was the low cost at which these medical services were provided. At the turn of the century, the average cost of "lodge practice" to an individual member was between one and two dollars a year. A day's wage would pay for a year's worth of medical care. By contrast, the average cost of medical service on the regular market was between one and two dollars per visit. Yet licensed physicians, particularly those who did not come from "big name" medical schools, competed vigorously for lodge contracts, perhaps because of the security they offered; and this competition continued to keep costs low.

The response of the medical establishment, both in America and in Britain, was one of outrage; the institution of lodge practice was denounced in harsh language and apocalyptic tones. Such low fees, many doctors charged, were bankrupting the medical profession. Moreover, many saw it as a blow to the dignity of the profession that trained physicians should be eagerly bidding for the chance to serve as the hirelings of lower-class tradesmen. It was particularly detestable that such uneducated and socially inferior people should be permitted to set fees for the physicians' services, or to sit in judgment on professionals to determine whether their services had been satisfactory. The government, they demanded, must do something.

And so it did. In Britain, the state put an end to the "evil" of lodge practice by bringing health care under political control. Physicians' fees would now be determined by panels of trained professionals (i.e., the physicians themselves) rather than by ignorant patients. State-financed medical care edged out lodge practice; those who were being forced to pay taxes for "free" health care whether they wanted it or not had little incentive to pay extra for health care through the fraternal societies, rather than using the government care they had already paid for.

In America, it took longer for the nation's health care system to be socialized, so the medical establishment had to achieve its ends more indirectly; but the essential result was the same. Medical societies like the AMA imposed sanctions on doctors who dared to sign lodge practice contracts. This might have been less effective if such medical societies had not had access to government power; but in fact, thanks to governmental grants of privilege, they controlled the medical licensure procedure, thus ensuring that those in their disfavor would be denied the right to practice medicine.

Such licensure laws also offered the medical establishment a less overt way of combating lodge practice. It was during this period that the AMA made the requirements for medical licensure far more strict than they had previously been. Their reason, they claimed, was to raise the quality of medical care. But the result was that the number of physicians fell, competition dwindled, and medical fees rose; the vast pool of physicians bidding for lodge practice contracts had been abolished. As with any market good, artifical restrictions on supply created higher prices — a particular hardship for the working-class members of fraternal societies.

The final death blow to lodge practice was struck by the fraternal societies themselves. The National Fraternal Congress — attempting, like the AMA, to reap the benefits of cartelization — lobbied for laws decreeing a legal minimum on the rates fraternal societies could charge. Unfortunately for the lobbyists, the lobbying effort was successful; the unintended consequence was that the minimum rates laws made the services of fraternal societies no longer competitive. Thus the National Fraternal Congress' lobbying efforts, rather than creating a formidable mutual-aid cartel, simply destroyed the fraternal societies' market niche — and with it the opportunity for low-cost health care for the working poor.

Why do we have a crisis in health care costs today? Because government "solved" the last one.

[BlackCrayon]

Originally Posted by woj

here is a thought experiment that illustrates what you said:

imagine that when filing your taxes you could pay for example 15% tax rate... but there was a checkbox "I want to participate in all the cool social programs"... which would make your tax rate 30%.... how many would select that checkbox? I would wager, nearly everyone would not...

so why is it that everyone is forced to participate in socialism, even though if given the choice they wouldn't?

because otherwise the country would be full of shanty towns.

[BlackCrayon]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Our fire department charges $500.00 to the property owner if they have to answer a fire call now. As a municipal operating unit they have the right to lien your property (like for the water and/or sewerage bills) so eventually they get paid.

$150 is reasonable actually ... How much do you think 2 paramedics and a EMS truck cost per run?

My property taxes are bad enough without paying for every trivial thing. Do you pay property taxes? If you are a renter your monthly rental reflects the cost of the property taxes your landlord pays.

The taxpayer has to pay for the indigents -- we all get stuck with the bill.

as reasonable or not as it might be, i bet no one informed him that those services were associated with such a cost. people should be made aware that they are going to be charged with approximate prices beforehand.

[galleryseek]

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

because otherwise the country would be full of shanty towns.

Oh, you mean like Detroit, one of the biggest socialist leaning cities.. Gotcha.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

because otherwise the country would be full of shanty towns.

With everyone having to sit on their porch with a loaded shotgun to protect their property

[BlackCrayon]

Originally Posted by galleryseek

Oh, you mean like Detroit, one of the biggest socialist leaning cities.. Gotcha.

no, worse..much worse. think no electricity, no running water, no garbage collection no services whatsoever.

i hate paying for leeches as much as anyone and i would love it if everyone would pay their own way as it should be but its just never going to happen and if we don't take care of these losers to some degree we will end up in even worse shit, in my opinion.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by galleryseek

Oh, you mean like Detroit, one of the biggest socialist leaning cities.. Gotcha.

I live 75 (120km+-) miles from downtown Detroit -- you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Detroit is a Libertarian's Dream! Everyone has to protect themselves and their own property -- usually with firearms -- the government services are near a collapse. Afghanistan is a Libertarian dream. You sound more racist and state's rights advocate to me.

Yesterday, I visited the Libertarian party's website and read 3/4 of the way through their platform until I got tired of reading and could stomach no more of that horseshit. There are 7.4 billion people living on the earth now and one quarter of them want to kill another quarter of them and take their shit for themselves. The Marxist Manifesto is dribble also.

Raw capitalism was my grandfather's world 100 years ago. There were 92 million people in the USA and a man's life expectancy was 49 at birth. Sounds like fuckin' Afghanistan (*or Detroit) to me ...

There has to be some Socialism in a modern society. There are just too many of us trying to live.

[DraX]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

With everyone having to sit on their porch with a loaded shotgun to protect their property

An image explains it so much better...

[Barry-xlovecam]

Walden Pond with a 12 gauge pump -- yep!

[woj]

good job with that slippery slope argument...

no one is suggesting pure libertarianism, all we are suggesting is that when deciding policies individual freedom of choice, individual judgment, individual responsibility, etc should be favored...

the direction we are heading in is exactly the opposite of that... we are beginning to live in "dindu nuffin" society, where everything is someone else's fault, in society where government decides what's best for us, etc...

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by galleryseek

Oh, you mean like Detroit, one of the biggest socialist leaning cities.. Gotcha.

heads up: detroit is an example of failed capitalism, not socialism.

[Barry-xlovecam]

I am rather disgusted with the Democrats and the Republicans so I went to look at the Libertarian party's Platform and the Green party's Platform both were unrealistic too.

There is no realistic side only a compromise. And I don't like paying the price of the compromise either really -- it's just that the alternatives are much worse. Adapt or die ...

If life is expensive you have to make more money. Being a low-life is not a viable option for me as long as I can work and avoid that lifestyle. I grew up on a survivor's Veteran and SSI benefit when my father died when I was 11 -- that sucked -- I know from experience. People with initiative find a way to better their lives. People that don't try just gripe and complain with their hand out -- that is the real world.

I would rather give *them* food stamps than have *them* breaking into my house to steal just to eat -- some grief can be avoided by feeding and keeping the lowest of society off the streets. We don't practice euthanasia killings but rather attempt euthenics in a fair society -- that is the real ugly alternative that has to be dealt with

Ronald Reagan ended union domination of many employment sectors -- Bill Clinton in the *grand compromise* revised welfare eligibility. By 2007 when the bubble economy when bust a giant underclass had developed in the USA. Debt slaves and hardcore welfare dependent generations.

We got what we wanted -- didn't we
US society is guilty of the problems with US society that it creates for itself.
We are swimming in our own shit and bitchin' about it.

[trevesty]

Originally Posted by galleryseek

Listen up statist..

First, only the state (government) could get away with charging $150 for a quick drive, bottle of water, and pulse-checking because of that whole state-protected monopoly thing they have going on. You know how monopolies are bad? Yeah, all of fucking government and their services are monopolies.

Absent of the state, we'd have competition, therefore much cheaper prices and better service / quality.

That's why government is synonymous with inefficient, corrupt, and wasteful.


Second, your snarky tone seems to suggest that you believe you're entitled to the property of others just because you may get yourself in a jam. Well listen up, kiddo, life shouldn't have to change for you because you think other people owe you something.

Your decisions are yours to own, not the rest of society.

Third, in a stateless society, all of the various insurances you're whining about would be absolutely dirt cheap, to the point at which the most poor could afford them. It wouldn't be an issue like you're making it out to be. Right now, under your beloved state/nation-state, we can't have that because of the millions of laws, regulations, red tape, cronyism and state-protected monopolies.

Sounds like Somalia. You got a home there?

[trevesty]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

heads up: detroit is an example of failed capitalism, not socialism.

That's pretty much most of that area... Toledo, Detroit, etc.

[galleryseek]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

heads up: detroit is an example of failed capitalism, not socialism.

Explain how exactly.

And heads up: Democrats have been in power there for the last 30 years.

[galleryseek]

Originally Posted by trevesty

Sounds like Somalia. You got a home there?

Funny, I just read a retort to this silly argument earlier today. Enjoy...

"If you think you'd be better off without any government, you should try living a year or so in the ungoverned parts of Somalia, Yemen, or Iraq."

It's been too long since I've encountered the "If you like Anarchy move to Somalia" fallacy so I'm delighted to entertain it.

1) The irony of citing war torn or economically unstable regions due to corrupt government ruling classes and sociopathic dictators cannot be overstated. In order to understand the solution one must first understand basic definitions. A State is a monopoly on violence over a given geographical region financed by the theft of taxation and legitimized by the belief in authority. Man made law is an opinion backed by a gun. Politicians are sociopathic megalomaniacs with an insatiable appetite to control peaceful people. Legality is diametrically opposed to morality. Regulations strangulate voluntary peaceful interactions. The chaos you are referring to can only result from the violent centrally planning of the State, or abrupt lack thereof.

"The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name." Confucius

2) Anarchy and Voluntaryism are firmly rooted in principles of universal morality and self responsibility. Just as murdering all the bishops, cardinals, and priests in a theocratic state will not produce a population who philosophically understand atheism; so too simply removing or murdering all the politicians and bureaucrats will not produce a population who philosophically understand Voluntaryism and Anarchy. The focus must always be on educating the minds of the people. They must abandon their delusions that putting the very worst scum into positions of great power will yield positive results. That which can only be achieved through coercion is morally wretched and is already destined for miserable failure. Good ideas do not require force. Thoughts are several magnitudes more powerful than guns or tanks.

"You need power only when you want to do something harmful, otherwise love is enough to get everything done." Charlie Chapin

3) It claims that the gang of liars, thieves, and murderers that comprise the U.S. Federal government legitimately own the entire geographical region known as the United States of America. To my knowledge, property can be acquired one of four ways; Homesteading model, Economic model, Inheritance Model, and the Mafia model. The Homesteading model indicates mixing one's labor with the land or delineating one's ownership by means of a border that one can successfully defend. This often is associated with being the first person to use the land. The Economic model is purchasing a piece of land through voluntary trade that was previously owned by someone else. The Inheritance model is being gifted the land by the previous owner. The Mafia model is acquired through theft, coercion, and the threat of violence. Which model do you think the State uses?

"All legit property is private. If property isn't private it's stolen." Gustave de Molinari

[MK Ultra]

Originally Posted by crockett

Man who helped save family from a crashed car gets billed $150 bucks because the paramedics checked his pulse and gave him a bottle of water..

Calif. man helps save trapped family, gets $143 bill - CBS News

This is the libertarian dream come true, no free rides you have to pay for everything!!! Bravo this should teach other heroes there are no free rides on the tax payers dime!! This libertarian dream is seconded only to that fire dept that watched a house bUrn down because the owner didn't pay a $200 fee ahead of time..

It's time people stop feeling entitled to free emergency care on the tax payers dime!

LOL at Crockett Science
Paying a second time for a service that was supposedly already paid for through taxation = Liberatarianism
That sounds more like typical government-run incompetence and corruption to me.



I would much rather pay as needed instead of paying for everybody else.
I would much rather pay a fire company for coverage that I could sue if they don't respond in a timely manner instead of paying the taxes to cover the inefficient and mismanaged government-run fire departments where I don't have any recourse in cases of incompetence.

[SuckOnThis]

Originally Posted by galleryseek

Explain how exactly.

And heads up: Democrats have been in power there for the last 30 years.

That's because just about every major city in the US is under democratic control.

You may want every city to be like Birmingham, Alabama, I prefer San Fran, NYC, LA, Seattle, Denver, etc.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by galleryseek

Explain how exactly.

And heads up: Democrats have been in power there for the last 30 years.

The Republican takes over, first thing he does is gives big corps a $1 billion windfall, then saved money by knowingly poisoning the poor with lead water for two years. And he is still in charge!

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

as reasonable or not as it might be, i bet no one informed him that those services were associated with such a cost. people should be made aware that they are going to be charged with approximate prices beforehand.

If you are bleeding in the street you will say OK do me the best you can.

50/50 he ever pays the bill -- if he doesn't pay guess who does. Medical emergencies work the same way in the USA. No insurance -- no problem society gets to pay most of the time. They don't demand cash up front in the hospital emergency room so long as you sign a promise to pay admission form -- you promise to pay your own way. So, if they bring you in from a car crash or other trauma injury you are not denied surgery to put you back together -- guess who pays 90% of the time?

Whether, US Americans pay for Universal Healthcare by taxation or by regulation makes little difference -- with regards to the indigent -- the *indigent* get emergency care and the doctor and hospitals are reimbursed the Medicare rates by the state government -- that is the law here.

Don't fool yourself ...

Capitalism does not work for things that are basic needs of citizens as human beings.

Go live in a shack by the river and be self sufficient ... See how long that lasts ...

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by galleryseek

Explain how exactly.

And heads up: Democrats have been in power there for the last 30 years.

in a nutshell: auto manufacturers destroyed Detroit economy. not politicians. and that's been and took longer than the last 30 years.

[woj]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

in a nutshell: auto manufacturers destroyed Detroit economy. not politicians. and that's been and took longer than the last 30 years.

how did auto manufacturers destroy Detroit economy?

[galleryseek]

Originally Posted by woj

how did auto manufacturers destroy Detroit economy?

yeah, I'd love to hear this one.

[Barry-xlovecam]

The information age killed the industrial age for one thing. The other reason was that the domestic automakers globalized because of he racism and greed among the working population of Detroit and most of America is what I saw.

After the race riots in 1967 Motown started to die. White people, and the property base moved to the suburban counties. The core city got racially and economically segregated. The whole city became a ghetto. Detroit was never rebuilt -- they just moved the ghetto to a new location > most of the City of Detroit. The upwardly mobile Black people moved to the inner ring of suburbs so the Black middle classes deserted the city also. This left the mainly the down-and-out population to survive.

The American worker was becoming a pain-in-the-ass. Why pay a UAW autoworker $60/hr with benefits when a Mexican auto worker will kiss your ring for $20 a day?

There are still domestic assembly assembly plants in the USA but the auto parts industry -- that is where the Detroit area workers (office and clerical too -- what's a typing pool today?) and businesses made a lot of the automotive industrial revenue, is a shadow of what it once was. There once were hundreds of smaller non-union and unionized job shops building tooling for auto assembly lines. More work that was done by semi-skilled labor is done better by automation machinery now also. The machine tooling industry needed less skilled workers like millwrights and machine builders. The computer age came and there were new generation jobs for electronics techs and engineers.

The ''conservatives'' wanted to ''conserve'' their old industrial jobs and refused to learn new post industrial vocations. So, the jobs moved and the smart people did too or learned to work apart from the auto industry. If they didn't; they get food stamps and flip burgers at McDonalds or work at Walmarts. They conserved themselves into poverty -- they and their children are the new underclass.

If auto production was 100% USA parts and labor produced from machinery made in the USA a Chevy truck might cost $75,000 new. A new Cadillac might cost $200K. The Automakers would price themselves out of the market. The McJobs bunch would never be able to buy a used car -- sort of like a down and out Somalian I guess.

Bottom line -- Detroit fucked itself with its own greed I lived in the City of Detroit 1955 to 1974 I watched it dying then GFO.

[galleryseek]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

The information age killed the industrial age for one thing. The other reason was that the domestic automakers globalized because of he racism and greed among the working population of Detroit and most of America is what I saw.

Let's not get things confused here...

The auto industry didn't up n' leave because they're racist, or they don't like the US. They left because like you already eluded to, it became too fucking expensive.

Why? Because (a) government regulation and (b) unions clinging onto some preconceived notion of how much they *should* be paid.

So instead of blaming (a) and (b), you're going to blame the auto industry? Laughable, if that's the case. And if it is the case, do you run a business? Are you fine with paying employees 2x or 3x the amount that you could have someone else do it for? Personally, I sleep perfectly fucking fine at night with my VA.

[Barry-xlovecam]

OPEC oil shocks in 1973 and 1979 were the kiss of death too -- Detroit could not adapt and it died.



The 'Big 3' made POS cars with famous nameplates and imploded.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

in a nutshell: auto manufacturers destroyed Detroit economy. not politicians. and that's been and took longer than the last 30 years.

It has nothing to do with the taxes being so high no one wants to own a home there? You can still buy homes there all day long for nothing but who would want it when you have to make a house note in taxes every month to the government..

I bought a investment house in Cincinnati which is not as bad off as Detroit. I've owned it 1.5 years and would have had it remodeled a year ago if it weren't for the city and the fees they want me to pay. I'm not even talking taxes which are high as well.. So instead of jumping through their hoops I've put my money elsewhere and the house sits in ruins..

[Barry-xlovecam]

The only thing stopping you is the government-- we get it.

Move to Somalia send us a post card -- if the post office is open

People fuck themselves --and people are the government -- the government is not aliens in the skies.

You just can't play the game (or haven't learned how to yet).

Don't get me wrong I don't like playing the game either but part of a win is better that all of a loss.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by galleryseek

Let's not get things confused here...

The auto industry didn't up n' leave because they're racist, or they don't like the US. They left because like you already eluded to, it became too fucking expensive.

Why? Because (a) government regulation and (b) unions clinging onto some preconceived notion of how much they *should* be paid.

So instead of blaming (a) and (b), you're going to blame the auto industry? Laughable, if that's the case. And if it is the case, do you run a business? Are you fine with paying employees 2x or 3x the amount that you could have someone else do it for? Personally, I sleep perfectly fucking fine at night with my VA.

A) & B) are a product of corporate human right abuses & negligence.

Unfortunately nowadays A) & B) have become as power hungry and corrupt as the corporations, but unlike the corporations, they can't pick up and move to another country

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by woj

how did auto manufacturers destroy Detroit economy?

you're joking right? if you are not aware of the auto bailout and lowering of wages guaranteed at the same time, along with complete auto manufacturer mismanagement for decades prior to that and the impact of that shit on a wage based economy and ALL the statistics to back up how that completely destroyed the middle class and wiped out the economy all over a period of decades, then some random GFyer named dyna mo is not the guy to explain all of that and the rest to you.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by galleryseek

Let's not get things confused here...

The auto industry didn't up n' leave because they're racist, or they don't like the US. They left because like you already eluded to, it became too fucking expensive.

Why? Because (a) government regulation and (b) unions clinging onto some preconceived notion of how much they *should* be paid.

So instead of blaming (a) and (b), you're going to blame the auto industry? Laughable, if that's the case. And if it is the case, do you run a business? Are you fine with paying employees 2x or 3x the amount that you could have someone else do it for? Personally, I sleep perfectly fucking fine at night with my VA.

completely and absolutely wrong.


detroit worked for several decades for all, and that's including union based wages. auto mismanagement in the wake of fierce foreign competition wiped them out, not high wages.

it's amazing you two are in here trying to argue shit you have no idea about.

[onwebcam]

On the topic of health care. My 20 year old son who was unemployed and uninsured at the time had a motorcycle accident a few months back. It wasn't that bad really primarily serious road rash. He went to the ER. The doctors "believed" he had broken many bones and decided he should undergo a series of body scans. 8 hours later he was sent home with a bag of bandages, ointment and a bill for $30,000+. He will never be able to repay that and I sure the hell won't be so I'm suggesting bankruptcy at 20. BTW they believed he was insured at the time otherwise they wouldn't have done all that they did.

[Barry-xlovecam]

I do very little business in the United States now -- haven't for years. We have offices in the Caribbean, Amsterdam, France and Romania.

I owned a small building contracting company for 13 years.

I have 40 years experience in selling, marketing and business operations.

[woj]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

completely and absolutely wrong.


detroit worked for several decades for all, and that's including union based wages. auto mismanagement in the wake of fierce foreign competition wiped them out, not high wages.

it's amazing you two are in here trying to argue shit you have no idea about.

I agree, it went downhill when foreign competition started... at that time instead of getting their shit together, innovating, etc... auto industry lobbyists got the government to enact quotas on imported cars, causing their prices to rise... this allowed incompetence and lack of innovation to continue...

this protection from the government kept the industry alive for a few more decades, until artificially high wages created by unions combined with lack of innovation finally killed off the Detroit auto industry...

so as galleryseek pointed out, the 2 main contributing factors were government involvement (tariffs/quotas) and unions that created artificially high unsustainable wages...

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by woj

I agree, it went downhill when foreign competition started... at that time instead of getting their shit together, innovating, etc... auto industry lobbyists got the government to enact quotas on imported cars, causing their prices to rise... this allowed incompetence and lack of innovation to continue...

this protection from the government kept the industry alive for a few more decades, until artificially high wages created by unions combined with lack of innovation finally killed off the Detroit auto industry...

that would make sense except you leave out that detroit was working, with union wages. and thriving. it's not fair or accurate to lay the blame of auto manu's failures at the feet of the low guy on the totem pole. the middle class guy screwing the screws didn't screw detroit.

[woj]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

that would make sense except you leave out that detroit was working, with union wages. and thriving. it's not fair or accurate to lay the blame of auto manu's failures at the feet of the low guy on the totem pole. the middle class guy screwing the screws didn't screw detroit.

government involvement through quotas/tariffs screwed Detroit... without government involvement Detroit auto industry would have been forced to get their shit together, to lower wages to sustainable levels, to innovate, etc, decades ago...

there would have been the talk: "look guys, we pay you $50/hr (with benefits and other costs)... Japanese pay their guys $30/hr... either you get a pay cut, or we are out of business, we just can't compete by paying you $20/hr more than the competition"... unions and the government involvement prevented this talk from taking place...

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

completely and absolutely wrong.


detroit worked for several decades for all, and that's including union based wages. auto mismanagement in the wake of fierce foreign competition wiped them out, not high wages.

it's amazing you two are in here trying to argue shit you have no idea about.

Really-- I grew up around the US auto industry and watched it implode and I don't know jack shit about it?

How many people do you know that were involved in the auto industry in America or did you read that bullshit in a book?

GM and Chrysler went bankrupt so they could get out of their debt and union contracts. They were cause and affect. They fucked themselves.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by woj

government involvement through quotas/tariffs screwed Detroit... without government involvement Detroit auto industry would have been forced to get their shit together, to lower wages to sustainable levels, to innovate, etc, decades ago...

there would have been the talk: "look guys, we pay you $50/hr (with benefits and other costs)... Japanese pay their guys $30/hr... either you get a pay cut, or we are out of business, we just can't compete by paying you $20/hr more than the competition"... unions and the government involvement prevented this talk from taking place...

Bullshit -- STRIKE!!! STRIKE!!

Every few years ... UAW workers were unreasonable for years. I think is goes back to the 1920s and 1930s spirit of animosity.

Near the very end the UAW expressed a willingness to compromise -- but only on tier 2 wages and benefits for new hires into the UAW. The Chapter 11 Bankruptcy -- everybody took the loss. Shareholder equity -0- including the workers 401 K money invested back into the company stock, bondholders took a haircut at GM or a loss at Chrysler. The taxpayers invested -- the Treasury did get their money back -- with a profit. Total implosion.

Sad part is US made gasoline autos still lack innovation. Just like a BMW has for less -- the quality is not there. Tesla is innovation. Every one else is playing catch up now. What ever happened to the Hydrogen engine. Cheap oil and big cars again.

[Joshua G]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

On the topic of health care. My 20 year old son who was unemployed and uninsured at the time had a motorcycle accident a few months back. It wasn't that bad really primarily serious road rash. He went to the ER. The doctors "believed" he had broken many bones and decided he should undergo a series of body scans. 8 hours later he was sent home with a bag of bandages, ointment and a bill for $30,000+. He will never be able to repay that and I sure the hell won't be so I'm suggesting bankruptcy at 20. BTW they believed he was insured at the time otherwise they wouldn't have done all that they did.

despite my right-of-center leanings, i believe in single payer exactly because of this...healthcare is defacto a monopoly/oligopoly model, with pointless financing mechanisms like insurers & them making profits for bankrolling a severely price gouged procedure, or drug, just absurd to let the private sector ransack a persons health needs with giant profits. our health system is like the cable TV model on steroids.

one of my big obama letdowns was when he never fought for the public option. shameful, & it was democrats that killed it in the senate...max baucus, specifically.

...gotta get to single payer, with a private mechanism for moneyed people that can pay for primo care.

[Joshua G]

hey OP...

why do you oppose trump when his #2 issue, behind the wall, is ADDING MORE REGULATIONS, AKA ROLLING BACK FREE TRADE, TO PROTECT AMERICAN WORKERS!!!!

bueller? bueller? bueller???