• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Are we doing it wrong?

RoperAB

Well-known member
Was watching a show last night about the German Jews that were so useful to us in WW2. It really got me thinking.
Correct me if im wrong because I could be. I dont know much about persian culture.
Okay Jorden, Saudi Arabia, United Emerites, etc. These countrys are sunni controled and are friendly. Its basically the shiites that are causeing us problems. Example Iran,Lebanon have smaller populations of sunnies. Syria is sunni for the most part but when the US put trade sanctions on them it kind of forced them to look to Iran for an allie.Isnt it the minority shiites in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq that are causeing all the problems?
Maybe we should turn this into a holy war? What would happen if we looked to all sunnies as allies and started a crusade against the shiites and impowered the sunnies?
Would this pi$$ off Iran? Im thinking it would! :D Think about it. My understanding is the shiites hate the sunnies more than they do the jews or the west. Reason being they figgure other arabs should know better.
Maybe the shiites in Iraq should not be allowed to vote?
Like the nations that are our friends now in the region would like us even more if we made this a crusade against shiites. Since most of the region excpt Iran is sunni for the most part maybe this way Iran could be totally isolated?
Like I said before I dont know a whole lot on islam or Persian culture. Maybe im wrong? Maybe this whole plan is stupid? What are your thoughts?
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
Was watching a show last night about the German Jews that were so useful to us in WW2. It really got me thinking.

I almost hate to ask, but please explain to me how the Jews were so "useful" to us in WWII?

Correct me if im wrong because I could be. I dont know much about persian culture.

Don't let a little thing like a lack of knowledge stop you.

Okay Jorden, Saudi Arabia, United Emerites, etc. These countrys are sunni controled and are friendly. Its basically the shiites that are causeing us problems. Example Iran,Lebanon have smaller populations of sunnies. Syria is sunni for the most part but when the US put trade sanctions on them it kind of forced them to look to Iran for an allie.Isnt it the minority shiites in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq that are causeing all the problems?
Maybe we should turn this into a holy war? What would happen if we looked to all sunnies as allies and started a crusade against the shiites and impowered the sunnies?

You do know that Saddam Hussein is a Sunni? That he built his regine on killing Shiites? The US supplied him with weapons and technology in a long drawn out war with Iran? Your arrogance is amazing: "...basically the shiites that are causing us problems." What problem have they caused us? In Iraq the Shiites are our best buddies. But they're also killing Sunnis as fast as they can.

Would this pi$$ off Iran? Im thinking it would! :D Think about it. My understanding is the shiites hate the sunnies more than they do the jews or the west. Reason being they figgure other arabs should know better.

Iran hates us anyway. What difference would this make? The Shiites don't hate anyone more than they hate the Jews. The only thing the Iraqi government has agreed on is to condemn Israel for going into Lebanon. And thats the Sunnis and the Shiites. The invasion of Lebanon has united the Arab world in a way it hasn't been in years. And Bush has sat by and let it happen. Don't kid yourself, Hezbollah is stronger today than it was before Israel kicked its' butt.

Maybe the shiites in Iraq should not be allowed to vote?

Amazing. That's what Saddam thought about the Shiites. :shock: Maybe you should suggest to George W. Bush that his shining beacon of democracy in Iraq should not allow certain religious groups to vote. :lol:

Like the nations that are our friends now in the region would like us even more if we made this a crusade against shiites. Since most of the region excpt Iran is sunni for the most part maybe this way Iran could be totally isolated?

Our "friends" in the region are scared to death of a war. When it comes down to the nut cutting, the leaders of the majority of Arab countries will side with whoever is against Israel. If the King of Saudia Arabia came out and fought for Israel or a friend of Israel, he'd have an uprising on his hands. The same for Jordan. That's the reason they haven't come into Iraq, because the US is there. They are afraid to be seen possibly helping a friend of Israel, the US. You have no clue how bad this situation is and getting worse. And the Bush Bunch seems to be incapable of handling it.

Like I said before I dont know a whole lot on islam or Persian culture. Maybe im wrong? Maybe this whole plan is stupid? What are your thoughts?

Stupid plan (your words, not mine).

Michael Hirsh had this to say: "If the current situation continues, with America bogged down in Iraq and Israel mired in its fight against Hizbullah, then the presumption of U.S-Israeli military invincibility--which has kept Arab extremists in place for decades--will be exposed as a myth. That could embolden Islamist radicals for a long time to come. Unless he is prepared to spend a lot more on his military, defense analysts say, the president who so badly wanted to project strength will be remembered mainly for projecting weakness."

Link to his column: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14122053/site/newsweek/
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
RoperAB said:
Was watching a show last night about the German Jews that were so useful to us in WW2. It really got me thinking.
Correct me if im wrong because I could be. I dont know much about persian culture.
Okay Jorden, Saudi Arabia, United Emerites, etc. These countrys are sunni controled and are friendly. Its basically the shiites that are causeing us problems. Example Iran,Lebanon have smaller populations of sunnies. Syria is sunni for the most part but when the US put trade sanctions on them it kind of forced them to look to Iran for an allie.Isnt it the minority shiites in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq that are causeing all the problems?
Maybe we should turn this into a holy war? What would happen if we looked to all sunnies as allies and started a crusade against the shiites and impowered the sunnies?
Would this pi$$ off Iran? Im thinking it would! :D Think about it. My understanding is the shiites hate the sunnies more than they do the jews or the west. Reason being they figgure other arabs should know better.
Maybe the shiites in Iraq should not be allowed to vote?
Like the nations that are our friends now in the region would like us even more if we made this a crusade against shiites. Since most of the region excpt Iran is sunni for the most part maybe this way Iran could be totally isolated?
Like I said before I dont know a whole lot on islam or Persian culture. Maybe im wrong? Maybe this whole plan is stupid? What are your thoughts?


al-Qaeda is Sunni. The majority of Muslims are Sunni. The fundamentalist Wahhabis are Sunni. Actually we were more or less allied with the Shi'ites in Iraq. Yes, Hizbollah and Iran are Shi'ite. But the Shah was our friend for decades. I don't think Shi'ite or Sunni are more friendly to the West and to America. Shi'ites were terribly persecuted by Saddam Hussain.

Anyway, I applaud you for learning and thinking but don't personally think what you were contemplating makes sense.

I'm afraid to ask what the "German Jews" analogy is...

I was under the impression that the taliban was shiite. Now your telling me that Al Qaeda is Sunni. LOLs so in other words ones just as bad as the other.
I always thought Saddam was an athiest?
Well im hearing on the news how the shiites and sunnies are killing one another off over there. Im just trying to think of a way to incourage more of this. If there fighting one another thats less of them that we have to worry about.
I guess I should read up on Lawrence of Arabia?
The TV show about the WW2 German Jews gave me the idea because these Jews made great American soldiers. They really, REALLY wanted to get back to Germany to kill Nazies! Like these old vets must be going on 90 years old but when they were talking about Nazi Germany you could see the fire in their eyes. Nobody had to motivate these guys! What great soldiers they must have been.
Anyway lots of Jews from Germany came to North America. The show was about the ones who went to America and joined the army to kill Nazis. They served in all kinds of combat rolls but where they were fluent in German and knew the Nazi mindset they were extremely useful in interagation and propaganda.
The show was interesting as can be. Really comical at times! Learned a bit about interagation. Its not or wasnt really done the way I thought it would be.
Anyway it gave me the idea that there must be some way we can get some of these arabs on our side. I was under the wrong impression apparently that it was mainly the shiites that were evil.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Are you sure this cant work? Ben Ladden/AlQuadi does not seem to be Sunni no more than Joe Clark is a Catholic.
Right now the arabs see this as a American,Jewish / Arab war.
It would be so much better if it was a Sunni/Shiite war.
Isnt America dividing itself by supporting the shiites in Iraq?
Look if America could become best buddies with Syria that would be a terrible thing for Iran and Hezzbullah.
But then again if America has already made comitments to the Shiites I guess its to late. Seems like America is trying to please everybody over there.

http://www.juancole.com/2004/12/bin-laden-votes-in-iraq-and-shoots.html
Zarqawi websites have claimed credit for the assassination in 2003 of Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim, a respected Shiite leader,
Bin Laden's intervention in Iraq was hamfisted and clumsy, and will benefit the United States and the Shiites enormously. Most Iraqi Muslims, Sunni or Shiite, dislike the Wahhabi branch of Islam prevalent in Saudi Arabia, and with which Bin Laden is associated.

Bin Laden as much as declared Grand Ayatollah Sistani an infidel. But Sistani is almost universally loved by the 65% of Iraqis who are Shiites, and is widely respected among many Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen, as well. Bin Laden, the Saudi engineer, makes himself look ridiculous trying to give a fatwa against the Grand Ayatollah of Najaf. If anything, to have al-Qaeda menacing the Shiites in this way would tend to strengthen the American-Shiite alliance
 

Econ101

Well-known member
The biggest thing that unites the different muslim sects is a common enemy.

In Isreal they have that.

We have developed an economy that is dependent on the natural resources that is controlled much by the muslim world and we are paying the price for that energy policy (or lack of one) all the time.

Roper, when are those oil sands going to get in high gear and start to produce a substantial supply for this type of energy policy that has been structured by the oil industry under Cheny?

I am quite tired of being held hostage by the middle east.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Roper, when are those oil sands going to get in high gear and start to produce a substantial supply for this type of energy policy that has been structured by the oil industry under Cheny?

I am quite tired of being held hostage by the middle east.

Its not going to happen as long as OPEC can open up the taps and drive the price of crude down to below $15 a barrel just long enough to destroy the investment into Alberta.
So we pay $77 a barrel because of what might happen. Economic warfare :roll:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
Econ101 said:
Roper, when are those oil sands going to get in high gear and start to produce a substantial supply for this type of energy policy that has been structured by the oil industry under Cheny?

I am quite tired of being held hostage by the middle east.

Its not going to happen as long as OPEC can open up the taps and drive the price of crude down to below $15 a barrel just long enough to destroy the investment into Alberta.
So we pay $77 a barrel because of what might happen. Economic warfare :roll:

It seems we are at that point right now, Roper. The thing about excess profits in any industry is the time and investment it takes to get substitutes for the products. Both of these things are barriers to entry. The more inelastic the commodity ie less substitutes, the higher the leverage the barriers create for excess profits. That is exactly what we are seeing in oil.

One of the things that can help alleviate this is a balanced energy policy that recognizes we must have investments in substitutes BEFORE the crisis hits so we are ready for it. That has been one thing we have been lacking in our energy policies up to now. It seems it has been on purpose. While at the same time, we have allowed companies to forgo their royalty payments on public lands that was supposed to go into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We have some congressmen on these committees who dont know how to run the country well or want to run it for their money paying benefactors, not the public.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
No its more simple. Look would you invest billions into a company in AB over several years before you ever could see a profit knowing that you need $15 a barrel prices to make a profit and knowing OPEC could suddenly start producing and flood the market with $5 a barrel oil?
No you would not.
If it ever got to the point where the US was relying solely on AB crude this is what OPEC would do.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
No its more simple. Look would you invest billions into a company in AB over several years before you ever could see a profit knowing that you need $15 a barrel prices to make a profit and knowing OPEC could suddenly start producing and flood the market with $5 a barrel oil?
No you would not.
If it ever got to the point where the US was relying solely on AB crude this is what OPEC would do.
Now your thinking fine we just wont allow OPEC nations to import crude. Then the rest of the world will end up getting $5 a barrel crude while the US is paying $15. This puts the US at a disadvantage when it comes to competing globaly.

Europe handled this a little differently than us. France went to 70% electrical with nuclear and in all the countries, the taxes on fuel encourage fuel efficient vehicles.

There was a time that opec could open the spiggots to get it down to 15 per barrel. I think we are over that time. If they do, there are more places for us to put the oil for strategic or economic reserves. Oil is an inelastic commodity in the short term. That means that as the price goes up 1%, the usage does not go down the same corresponding 1%. The boom and bust cycle of oil has been around a long, long time. I am from Texas and lived through many. The Texas Railroad Commission was formed to help bring production to the market in a more controlled manner so as to even out this cycle.

We haven't had much of an energy policy that takes into account the risks of using so much oil from others. We are paying for it now.

I would have to agree that this time had to come for the alternate sources to kick in economically, but not planning for it or not researching for it until after the prices are way up in light of supply tightening was a big mistake.

Here is a real good link to oil prices that is really informative:

http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

Here is another interesting link on policy

http://zfacts.com/p/196.html
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
What works for Europe will not work here. Those countries over there are two bit countries where you can hop on a bicycle and peddle from one nation to the next in a few minutes. Our distances are to vast in North America.
Right now im paying $1.14 for a liter of gas or about $5 a gallon! We cant sustain this. We need cheaper energy.
Im thinking we <North America> have to come up with a sollution.
Maybe gradually phase out through regulations imported oil from outside of North America. Problem then is would this put us at a disadvantage competing on the world markets? Example if we have $15 a barrel crude and the rest of the world ends up with $5 a barrel crude.
Maybe we should be thinking more in terms of North American trade? We have the resources and you have the markets.
I also think we should be thinking about government owned refineries to compete against the private sector.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
What works for Europe will not work here. Those countries over there are two bit countries where you can hop on a bicycle and peddle from one nation to the next in a few minutes. Our distances are to vast in North America.
Right now im paying $1.14 for a liter of gas or about $5 a gallon! We cant sustain this. We need cheaper energy.
Im thinking we <North America> have to come up with a sollution.
Maybe gradually phase out through regulations imported oil from outside of North America. Problem then is would this put us at a disadvantage competing on the world markets? Example if we have $15 a barrel crude and the rest of the world ends up with $5 a barrel crude.
Maybe we should be thinking more in terms of North American trade? We have the resources and you have the markets.
I also think we should be thinking about government owned refineries to compete against the private sector.

Technology can solve much of the distance problem with higher fuel standards for industry but this has not been a part of the energy policy.

European countries have put their economies at much less risk as to the supply of energy than the U.S. and it probably has come at some economic costs. With good energy policy (which we haven't had in the U.S. despite the top two men in the govt. coming from those industries) we could have less dependence on oil and less money going out to the middle east.

Roper:I also think we should be thinking about government owned refineries to compete against the private sector.

Econ: I am not into going the socialist route, I am for capitalism, but with good government oversight. Right now we are losing both with industry concentration.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
RoperAB said:
What works for Europe will not work here. Those countries over there are two bit countries where you can hop on a bicycle and peddle from one nation to the next in a few minutes. Our distances are to vast in North America.
Right now im paying $1.14 for a liter of gas or about $5 a gallon! We cant sustain this. We need cheaper energy.
Im thinking we <North America> have to come up with a sollution.
Maybe gradually phase out through regulations imported oil from outside of North America. Problem then is would this put us at a disadvantage competing on the world markets? Example if we have $15 a barrel crude and the rest of the world ends up with $5 a barrel crude.
Maybe we should be thinking more in terms of North American trade? We have the resources and you have the markets.
I also think we should be thinking about government owned refineries to compete against the private sector.

Technology can solve much of the distance problem with higher fuel standards for industry but this has not been a part of the energy policy.

European countries have put their economies at much less risk as to the supply of energy than the U.S. and it probably has come at some economic costs. With good energy policy (which we haven't had in the U.S. despite the top two men in the govt. coming from those industries) we could have less dependence on oil and less money going out to the middle east.

Roper:I also think we should be thinking about government owned refineries to compete against the private sector.

Econ: I am not into going the socialist route, I am for capitalism, but with good government oversight. Right now we are losing both with industry concentration.

Haha Well thats good that your not going the socialist route! But I dont think having a government owned corporation that would compete on the open market with private companies,as a far out socialist thing :wink:

I dont see how we can improve fuel consumption. Okay your a rancher right? It takes x amount of torgue to pull a load. These new gas trucks are not really any better than the old trucks when your pulling a load. If you go the $60,000 diesel route you will save a bit of fuel but gosh almighty not everybody can afford new dually diesel pick ups. Most ranches need more than one truck. Most fleets are old. Who can afford to go out and buy all new diesel trucks?
Look at your irrigation fuel costs, tractor fuel, etc. I dont know how you expect people to cut back?
A car is useless on a ranch. You cant haul anything. Its not like we have public transit or ever will have it.
18 wheelers got 5 MPG 30 years ago. The new diesels are cleaner but really there not much better on fuel than what they were years ago. Really the biggestreason cars are getting better fuel mileage now a days is because they keep making them lighter and lighter. But with vehicles that have to haul or pull weight <heavy loads> you need weight in the vehicle to do this.
Anyway about concentration of the oil/refinery industry. Whats your solution?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Roper
Haha Well thats good that your not going the socialist route! But I dont think having a government owned corporation that would compete on the open market with private companies,as a far out socialist thing

I totally agree with you. Our cities and towns and even states and feds are helping subsidize big business capital operations with lower taxes, more infrastructure, lower electricity, and other goodies. We have the socialist route right now!!!! It is wrong!!! There is nothing free market about it. Companies have found out how to make governments compete for them locating in their areas. They have taken the interstate commerce act, turned on its head, and are turning our country as socialist as it can get----with corporate welfare and public money. This creates barriers of entry against competition and ensures that those recieving these goodies have a more security for their investment.

This is an aberration to free markets and the balance of capital/labor and other resources.

The issues you bring up about producers having enough money to become more efficient is exactly why the producer surplus is important in a market economy. Producers need their fair share of the money in a market and when they are cheated out of it through market power, there is not as an efficient an allocation of resources in the economy any more.

In economics there is the producer surplus and the consumer surplus. In many agricultural commodites there is a middleman trying to increase his share of both. When market power is exerted by these middlemen, they are able to take more of the producer surplus and more of the consumer surplus. In the PSA, there are rules that govern this relationship so that the middlemen can not take more of the producer surplus with market power than they are economically entititled to. When they chop producers up and give producers different prices for the same or equal product, they are stealing part of the producer surplus. This is the problem behind much of concentrated markets where market power is being exerted and was the economic concept in the Pickett case.

The underlying economic argument that the courts have erroneously allowed is that if the middlemen take the producer surplus, and give it to the consumers (this is walmart's invention) then it is okay because society benefits from lower prices. The only problem with this reasoning is that it is the same reasoning that is behind communism and why communism from an economic standpoint failed. The courts are allowing this communistic economic because they are just plain idiots. They are legislating from the bench to do it because they have no regard for the law or even their own place in the system set up by the founding fathers.

This is the reason I say the U.S. has become more like the communist with these court decisions that are so vital to free markets. Ironically, the communists have learned to harness this power and have become more capitalistic. This is what is behind the recent rises in china's economy.

Good thinking, Roper. Sometimes we just need to realize the truth.







[/quote]
 

Mike

Well-known member
Dwayne Andreas (CEO of ADM-Supermarket to the World) quote:


Sitting behind a lunch of soy burgers, soy taco meat, and soy cheese dessert, Andreas announces that global capitalism is a delusion. "There isn't one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this [USA] is a socialist country."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Econ101 said:
I am for capitalism, but with good government oversight.
I think it's possible to skew the whole concept of capitalism with too much government oversight. Doesn't everyone agree? That's what we've done in this country in many cases. Examples such as CAFE standards that burden the auto industry and EPA strangleholds on our energy sector merely take money from the consumer and redistribute it to feel-good ends, in many cases. Granted that sometimes those ends translate into more jobs in new industries, but it is still redistribution of consumer dollars via government mandate.

Government oversight can easily turn into a behemoth industry of it's own. An industry that determines it's own net worth by the volumes of paperwork and idiotic rules and regulations for itself to administer. This behemoth industry called government quickly loses sight of the principles of capitalism and responsiveness to the desires of it's shareholders. Instead of an industry beholden to shareholders and beholden to consumers, this 1400 pound gorilla called government oversight blunders along blindly on the 'principle' that thicker files and more paperwork must be indicative of better job performance, therefore more money for itself. Money for itself that is picked from the pockets of taxpayers.

I vote for less of that crap, not more.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
X said:
Econ101 said:
I am for capitalism, but with good government oversight.
I think it's possible to skew the whole concept of capitalism with too much government oversight. Doesn't everyone agree? That's what we've done in this country in many cases. Examples such as CAFE standards that burden the auto industry and EPA strangleholds on our energy sector merely take money from the consumer and redistribute it to feel-good ends, in many cases. Granted that sometimes those ends translate into more jobs in new industries, but it is still redistribution of consumer dollars via government mandate.

Government oversight can easily turn into a behemoth industry of it's own. An industry that determines it's own net worth by the volumes of paperwork and idiotic rules and regulations for itself to administer. This behemoth industry called government quickly loses sight of the principles of capitalism and responsiveness to the desires of it's shareholders. Instead of an industry beholden to shareholders and beholden to consumers, this 1400 pound gorilla called government oversight blunders along blindly on the 'principle' that thicker files and more paperwork must be indicative of better job performance, therefore more money for itself. Money for itself that is picked from the pockets of taxpayers.

I vote for less of that crap, not more.

I totally agree with you here, X. The problem is that there is no accountability when government officials are incompetent or corrupt.

Take this industry for example. When a person is harmed by market power abuses and reports those abuses to the regulating agency, the Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards (GIPSA) the regulators do nothing (as evidenced in the recent OIG--Office of Inspecter General). Then the regulator bureaucrats claim they need more regulations to handle that particular type of fraud so they know can do something about it (never mind groups telling them of the problem beforehand). It causes rules to be written because incompetence abounds. It becomes a merry-go-round of inability to regulate efficiently.

Simple rules to handle specific type situations outside of regulations would allow for accountability so they are not made. Then the excuse is that since there is no rule, nothing can be done.

JoAnn Waterfield (former head of GIPSA) left her job over these type of gross incompetencies when the OIG report came out exposing this at GIPSA. Then to compound the corruption and incompetence, the USDA decided not to get to the bottom of it with her and hold her accountable, despite all her previous rhetoric before Congress and the lies she had told.

When there is no accountability in government, there has to be new rules to make accountabilty.

It is a vicious cycle we have seen played out in our industry. The people who should really be held accountable are the oversight committee leaders in the Senate and in the House. Unfortunately, under this administration, campaign contributions by the industry triumphs over the competency of the regulatory agency.

The USDA is not alone in these type of frauds on the public. That is one reason Congressmen as a whole are held with such low regard as to their profession. They can not effectively govern.

Right now it is the republicans, but sometimes it is the democrats (it was Pres. Clinton for Tyson when he was Pres.). It is the power of money's corrupting nature on influencing government competence.

Tom Delay and the Abramoff affair was just the tip of the iceberg.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
X said:
Instead of an industry beholden to shareholders and beholden to consumers, this 1400 pound gorilla called government oversight blunders along blindly on the 'principle' that thicker files and more paperwork must be indicative of better job performance, therefore more money for itself. Money for itself that is picked from the pockets of taxpayers.

I vote for less of that crap, not more.

X and Econ
Well yes and no. Example you just described WC and the Canadian Wheat board. But these beauracracies do not compete with anybody in the private sector.
The best example that I can give you is the Alberta Treaury Bank. We hated the eastern<Quebec and Ontario> private banks. Nobody in the private sector had the capital to start there own bank in Alberta. So the Alberta Provincial government started the Alberta Treasury Bank that competes with the eastern banks in an open market.
The Treasury bank has been nothing but a success. It actually makes money!
Its the same deal with the UFA<United Farmers of Alberta>. This is a chain of ranch hardware stores that was started by the provincial government.Now UFA is a regular CO/OP.
But the key to each of these examples of government corporations is that they compete with private industry.
It can be done. ATB proves it!
I believe that a government owned corporation can really help tweak the free market in certain cases. Example oil refineries or even packing plants.
Please give me an example of why this wouldnt work. Or what your concerns are. The key is that it will compete with private corporations.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
If the govt. corporations don't "cheat" and the private ones are allowed to, the govt. ones are going to be at a comparative disadvantage.

If we had a just system, when one of the "bad" guys cheated, they would go bankrupt and you would get a lot of smaller ones competing again.

Tyson got out of their financial responsibility of market manipulation of the Pickett case through a corrupt and or incompetent court system and a regulatory agency, GIPSA, that is incompetent or corrupt also.

We have a system to deal with these problems but politicians who are interested in keeping their jobs by industry buying their jobs for them are in the way.

This includes the chairmen of the House and Senate Agriculture and Ag. Appropriations Committees as well as the Judiciary Committee and their corresponding support groups.

Roper, what happened to Big C?
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
If the govt. corporations don't "cheat" and the private ones are allowed to, the govt. ones are going to be at a comparative disadvantage.

If we had a just system, when one of the "bad" guys cheated, they would go bankrupt and you would get a lot of smaller ones competing again.

Tyson got out of their financial responsibility of market manipulation of the Pickett case through a corrupt and or incompetent court system and a regulatory agency, GIPSA, that is incompetent or corrupt also.

We have a system to deal with these problems but politicians who are interested in keeping their jobs by industry buying their jobs for them are in the way.

This includes the chairmen of the House and Senate Agriculture and Ag. Appropriations Committees as well as the Judiciary Committee and their corresponding support groups.

Roper, what happened to Big C?

You mean as in a small "C" conservative? Alberta has a history of grass roots prairie "populism" which is sort of like American Libertarian I guess.
We are very conservative but we believe the government can do more than issue currency and defend the borders.
With the UFA and ATB I just gave you two very successful examples of prarie populism.
Another example is of government bridgeing the gap between the private corporate world and communities by helping and encourageing the formations of CO/OPs. There are all kinds of success stories like this.
Preston Manning wrote a book that explains a lot about prairie populism called "A New Canada". There are also lot of books out there on former AB premier John Brownlee <1926 to 1934>and the U. F.A. movement of populism in AB.
Government does not have to just represent multi national corporations and or unions.
Crown corporations competeing in the private sector will break up monopolys and insure a fair market where a few private companies cannot cheat. This gives producers and consumers a better deal and more choices.
We need governments that represent the silent majority. Not corporations,unions and special interest groups.
Another thing that would help is that instead of limiting fund raising you should limit the amount of money that political partys can spend on elections. The mayor of New York City spent more money on his campain than what our Prime Minister<President> did in the last election.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Disagreeable said:
RoperAB said:
Was watching a show last night about the German Jews that were so useful to us in WW2. It really got me thinking.

I almost hate to ask, but please explain to me how the Jews were so "useful" to us in WWII?

Correct me if im wrong because I could be. I dont know much about persian culture.

Don't let a little thing like a lack of knowledge stop you.

Okay Jorden, Saudi Arabia, United Emerites, etc. These countrys are sunni controled and are friendly. Its basically the shiites that are causeing us problems. Example Iran,Lebanon have smaller populations of sunnies. Syria is sunni for the most part but when the US put trade sanctions on them it kind of forced them to look to Iran for an allie.Isnt it the minority shiites in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq that are causeing all the problems?
Maybe we should turn this into a holy war? What would happen if we looked to all sunnies as allies and started a crusade against the shiites and impowered the sunnies?

You do know that Saddam Hussein is a Sunni? That he built his regine on killing Shiites? The US supplied him with weapons and technology in a long drawn out war with Iran? Your arrogance is amazing: "...basically the shiites that are causing us problems." What problem have they caused us? In Iraq the Shiites are our best buddies. But they're also killing Sunnis as fast as they can.

Would this pi$$ off Iran? Im thinking it would! :D Think about it. My understanding is the shiites hate the sunnies more than they do the jews or the west. Reason being they figgure other arabs should know better.

Iran hates us anyway. What difference would this make? The Shiites don't hate anyone more than they hate the Jews. The only thing the Iraqi government has agreed on is to condemn Israel for going into Lebanon. And thats the Sunnis and the Shiites. The invasion of Lebanon has united the Arab world in a way it hasn't been in years. And Bush has sat by and let it happen. Don't kid yourself, Hezbollah is stronger today than it was before Israel kicked its' butt.

Maybe the shiites in Iraq should not be allowed to vote?

Amazing. That's what Saddam thought about the Shiites. :shock: Maybe you should suggest to George W. Bush that his shining beacon of democracy in Iraq should not allow certain religious groups to vote. :lol:

Like the nations that are our friends now in the region would like us even more if we made this a crusade against shiites. Since most of the region excpt Iran is sunni for the most part maybe this way Iran could be totally isolated?


Like I said before I dont know a whole lot on islam or Persian culture. Maybe im wrong? Maybe this whole plan is stupid? What are your thoughts?

Stupid plan (your words, not mine).

Michael Hirsh had this to say: "If the current situation continues, with America bogged down in Iraq and Israel mired in its fight against Hizbullah, then the presumption of U.S-Israeli military invincibility--which has kept Arab extremists in place for decades--will be exposed as a myth. That could embolden Islamist radicals for a long time to come. Unless he is prepared to spend a lot more on his military, defense analysts say, the president who so badly wanted to project strength will be remembered mainly for projecting weakness."

Link to his column: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14122053/site/newsweek/
Disagreeable said:
The largest one ever, they say. Did the Iraqis rally to thank Americans for their freedom? Did they rally in appreciation of 2700+ Americans who have died for their freedom? Did they rally because our president has put our country dangerously into debt to support them? No. :shock: The rally called for "Death to Americans". They walked on and burned American flags. Several members of the elected Iraqi government even attended the rally. These people don't want us there; bring our troops home now. Link below; my emphasis.

"“Hundreds of thousands of Shiites chanting "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" marched through the streets of Baghdad's biggest Shiite district Friday in a show of support for Hezbollah militants battling Israeli troops in Lebanon.
No violence was reported during the rally in the Sadr City neighborhood. But at least 26 people were killed elsewhere in Iraq, most of them in a car bombing and gunbattle in the northern city of Mosul.
The demonstration was the biggest in the Middle East in support of Hezbollah since the Israeli army launched an offensive July 12 after a guerrilla raid on northern Israel. The protest was organized by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose political movement built around the Mahdi Army militia has been modeled after Hezbollah."


http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/9629830/detail.html

So not only are you Shiites the problem but you also mislead us about Saddam being a Sunni because we all know he was an athiest. Not hard to see what side your on.
 
Top