By Neal Boortz
Yesterday the Dow dropped by 419 points. So how far does it drop today? Or do we see some of yesterday’s losses reversed? And --- the big question --- what’s with this effort to make us all believe that this is just “bad luck” brought on by the earthquake in Japan or free subways in Greece? How much longer are the American people going to be expected to swallow that nonsense?
Just what has happened to bring us the worst recovery since the Great Depression? Why can’t our economy get on track? Just last week 408,000 additional American applied for jobless benefits. If you’re not one of them, well then good for you. That’s great. But do you know what it means for many of the 408,000 American wage earners who were just added to our unemployment rolls? How many tens of thousands of additional fathers do we now have who can’t look their wives and children in the eye because they think they have now failed in their primary function of providing for their families? How many working wives do we now have – just in the last week – who now feel an emptiness for not being able to contribute to the family’s struggle to make it through this economy? While hundreds of thousands of Americans are beating a path to the unemployment line, to the food banks, to the thrift stores, and to the bankruptcy courts, Barack the Magnificent is on a bicycle path on Martha’s Vineyard. Ain’t life grand! (Apologies to Widespread Panic)
But not to worry, unemployed Americans! Our Dear Ruler will present us with his final solution – his grand plan for jobs – just a few weeks after he and Michelle make their way back to Washington from Hoi Polloi Land.
Don’t mean to rattle your chains, folks – but it is well past time for you to consider what might have been the unthinkable a few years ago. It’s time for you to consider the possibility that our failure to emerge from the recession into a growing and robust economy is by design rather than just “bad luck,” as Obama would have you believe.
Now I’m about to go on a rant here – and once I get into cruise mode I’m not going to stop to try to drag up specific references, sources, dates and the like. I’m the judge here, and I’m taking judicial notice of many of the following facts. Judicial notice? OK … here’s your definition:
Judicial notice is a rule in the law of evidence that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth of that fact is so notorious or well known that it cannot be refuted.
Well I’m just ever so sorry if you haven’t been reading of the utterances of Barack Obama; of his upbringing; of his past associations and of his very admissions in his own books.
So here’s what I want you to consider. If you can come up with specific and verifiable facts that refute these ideas, then by all means share. You know the number to the show (877-310-2100) and the email address is somewhere on this page. Have at it. If you don’t have specific knowledge that what I’m saying here is untrue, then maybe you should consider the possibility, however remote, that the problem with Obama is much more severe and dangerous than you ever imagined.
Do you remember when, five days prior to the election in 2008, Obama stood in front of a group of supporters and told them that “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America!”? Is it now time for you to pay a bit more attention to that “fundamentally transform” thing? Come on … give me the quick definition for those two words. Or .. just taken this definition from Websters. We know what transform means (after all, it’s not like you’re listening to sports talk), so we’ll take on “fundamental.” It means “of, pertaining to, or affecting the foundation or basis.” So what Obama was saying on that day before the dumb masses of this country made him president was that it was his intention to fundamentally transform the very foundation and basis of this country. Tell me, is that what you were signing up for?
OK … transform from what to what? This is where it gets scary.
Maybe looking at the history of Barack Obama – where he came from – would give you a clue. It’s not very politically correct to say this, but his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, has been described by many as being a Marxist. She attended Mercer Island High School near Seattle, Washington – a high school described by many as a hotbed of communist teachers, administrators and activism. His father, Barack Obama Sr. was widely believed to be a Marxist, I can’t find references to the political philosophy of Lolo Soetoro, Dunham’s second husband and Obama’s step-father, but we do know that he was a practicing Muslim.
After Obama’s mother divorced Soetoro she move back to Hawaii with young Barack. There she took up with (we’ll leave the definition of their relationship there) a dedicated communist by the name of Frank Marshall Davis. Obama references Davis in his books, but only by the name “Frank.” He talks of the profound influence Davis had on his life. Some suggest that Dunham’s relationship with Davis went back to her earlier years in Hawaii and that Davis may, in fact, be Obama’s father. Phuleeeeze. This is another “birther” diversion that means nothing and gets us nowhere. Davis had a profound influence on Obama. That’s enough. The begator is not as important as the begatee.
Is a trend starting to emerge here?
Let’s wrap this up quickly by pointing out that in Obama’s own books he speaks of his gravitation toward Marxist student groups and professors during his undergraduate college years at Occidental. It is there that a man by the name of John Drew (now a PhD political scientist) encountered the young Obama and, according to Drew, convinced him that the communist revolution Obama envisioned would never happen in this country due to the presence of a strong middle class. Drew writes that their conversations resulted in Obama dedicating himself to transforming the United States to a Marxist economy through political activism rather than encouraging a violent overthrow.
There’s that “transform” word again.
Don’t forget also that when Barack Obama made the decision to formally announce his entry into the political world – he chose the warmth and cozy confines of the living room of two dedicated Marxists, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dhorn, as the venue for his political debutant ball.
And this is the guy who spoke of “fundamentally transforming” the United States of America?
So … let’s absorb all that I’ve already told you about Obama’s past, and add to our little mix some of Barack’s greatest hits over the past few years. Again, paraphrasing here because I just don’t have the time to get the exact quotes:
We need to raise taxes because we need to spread the wealth around.
Working for the private sector is “working behind enemy lines.” In other words, the private sector is America’s enemy.
Sometimes you have to just admit that you’re making too much money.
Yes, an increase in capital gains taxes would probably result in a decrease in tax revenue, but we need to do it out of fairness.
Some people just have more money than they need and they should pay more taxes.
If you will go back and read the writings of Barack Obama Sr. you will see a seething animosity toward capitalism. You will see some of the same in the writings of his son. I’m convinced that Obama believes that free enterprise and capitalism are exploitive economic systems wherein people only acquire wealth by plundering others. As you page through volumes of Obama’s speeches and statements over the years you will see a definite dedication to the “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” tenant of Marxism.
Where does that leave us? Is it possible that this leaves us with a President of the United States who is engaged in an intentional and dedicated effort to sabotage and to damage, beyond repair, the capitalist free market economy of The United States? Does this leave us with a president who is joining with his radical leftist friends in the Democrat party to “fundamentally transform” our nation into the very model of a European socialist welfare state with al all-powerful central government planning and implementing every economic step? Does this mean to destroy free enterprise in America? Anti-capitalism is certainly at the core of Obama’s upbringing; does he hope make it his legacy? I understand that these are all very uncomfortable questions when applied to our president, but considering both his background and his actions as president, do we have the luxury of casting those arguments aside as nonsense? Does Obama sees himself as the savior of the oppressed – the man who will bring American free enterprise and (in his mind) it’s history of exploitation to its knees?
I can understand why you would want to reject this scenario out of hand. Simply put, most Americans just can’t bring themselves to believe that the man who occupies the Oval Office could be a Marxist revolutionary dedicated to the destruction of Capitalism. There are dots here, my friends. Many dots. Just connect them. The image you will see isn’t the dollar sign. It looks more like a hammer and sickle.
Have hope though. Obama will present his jobs program a few weeks after his return from vacation. Perhaps as many as a million more Americans will fill out that application for unemployment while we’re waiting. And when the plan does emerge will it be a plan to turn lose the engine of free enterprise? Will the fears of American jobs creators be put to rest? Will consumer confidence soar on Obama’s recognition of the vitality of the private sector and it’s ability to drive America to a new prosperity?
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:
Not sure if I like your use of the words "welfare state" it seems derogatory...
It was merely accurate. Norwegians currently enjoy a very high standard of living, though some social strains are appearing in the wake of it. There are billionaires in Norway: many involved in petroleum production. The Nobel Trust (which issues the well-known prizes) is funded through the estate af an earlier Norwegian/Swedish billionaire who made his vast fortune through the invention and production of smokeless black powder and the subsequent mass production of munitions for the European market in the arms race prior to WWI.
Norway is being very prudent in saving a good deal of the very substantial proceeds from licensing petroleum production offshore. However, they will still face some challenges when the oil runs out. There are also likely valuable minerall reserves in Norway - a very mountainous country. Perhaps that will fund their next economic phase.
@georgeob1,
About 60% of Norway’s petroleum resources are still underground. And since they now discovered some new "oil filed giants", which may hold 500 million to 1.2 billion barrels of recoverable oil ...
They've always got their wealth from natural resources: first timber, then hydropower, now oil and natural gas.
Norway's health and social welfare system, btw, is mainly financed through taxation: all wage earners contribute a fixed percentage of their earnings to the national insurance tax, employers contribute money in the form of a payroll tax.
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
About 60% of Norway’s petroleum resources are still underground. And since they now discovered some new "oil filed giants", which may hold 500 million to 1.2 billion barrels of recoverable oil ...
Good for them. We too have billions of barrels of recoverable petroleum reserves in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska. Unfortunately our idiot government is preventing their development, very likely on environmental grounds, but, in fact, they really haven't said why ... they just continue"to review" the matter.
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
RexRed wrote:
Not sure if I like your use of the words "welfare state" it seems derogatory...
It was merely accurate. Norwegians currently enjoy a very high standard of living, though some social strains are appearing in the wake of it. There are billionaires in Norway: many involved in petroleum production. The Nobel Trust (which issues the well-known prizes) is funded through the estate af an earlier Norwegian/Swedish billionaire who made his vast fortune through the invention and production of smokeless black powder and the subsequent mass production of munitions for the European market in the arms race prior to WWI.
Norway is being very prudent in saving a good deal of the very substantial proceeds from licensing petroleum production offshore. However, they will still face some challenges when the oil runs out. There are also likely valuable minerall reserves in Norway - a very mountainous country. Perhaps that will fund their next economic phase.
We are all going to face challenges when oil runs out but Norway seems to be ahead of the curve.
I see the US as more of a welfare state than Norway... Just because the government cares for its people does not mean it should be labeled as such.
Parents who care for their children till they are adults, this is not considered welfare but simply child care...
Welfare has this associated stigma of being negative as if people are lazy and don't work...
Norwegians can use this state aid to start businesses and other creative ventures. When a bank gives a loan or the government gives a grant they do not call it welfare.
I prefer social security or subsidized living over the word welfare.
When I think of the word "welfare" I think of people with ten kids, not a tooth in their head and gaming the system for anything they can simply to squander it on lottery tickets and booze.
@RexRed,
OK, call it subsidised living. Subsidies reduce competitiveness wherever they are applied. Unfortunately the world is still a competitive place, and a subsidised population isn't likely to cut the mustard for long.
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
OK, call it subsidised living. Subsidies reduce competitiveness wherever they are applied. Unfortunately the world is still a competitive place, and a subsidised population isn't likely to cut the mustard for long.
I tend to think subsidized living can help people over common hurdles that can squelch financial growth and can promote innovative entrepreneurs a chance at fulfilling their dreams. And as for the word security (as in social security) it means exactly what is seems to. Sometimes it only takes a small period of social security and people snap out of their phases of inactivity and become productive citizens. Just consider the opposite, social insecurity, homelessness, helplessness and poor diet do not a good and productive lifestyle make.
Thanks for conceding to my quirk about not liking the words, "welfare state".
An even playing field is not so bad a thing...
@RexRed,
Subsdidies represent the opposite of an even playing field. They are special favors for a select group determined by govewrnment. I agree that in many cases they can have beneficial direct effects. However, these usually don't last long and are almost always overcome by their very negative side effects.
Groups that are the beneficiary of subsidies, ranging from farmers to ethanol producers, manufacturers of solar power panels, to recipients of extended unemployment benefits tend to quickly organize to ensure the continuation of their benefits at all costs - even in the absence of any public benefit from the continued subsidy.
Hence in a world awash in cheap sugar we still have a protective quotas for imnports that guarantees domestic producers a market and raises the price for all consumers.
The facts that corn based ethanol use does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions and shortens engine life of vehicles using it , and that it has significantly increased food prices for everyone have not dented the power of the ethanol lobby to continue milking the public purse.
Subsidized domestic manufacturers of solar panels have not achieved the technical innovations they promised and indeed have lost the competitive market to Chinese producers. Even there the real cost of the power so produced is roughly three times that for conventional sources. It wouldn't exist without a subsidy and we can't affort for it to become more widespread.
European nations including Britain and Germany have found that reducing the duration of unemployment benefits directly reduced the time for workers to find a job. Surprise ! The unhappy fact in a recession is that recovery requires added human efforts to produce more at lower cost to stimulate the recovery needed by everyone. Rigid labor market expectations, fueled by extended government benefits is a proven way to extend the recession and add to the mountain of public debt that will continue to uinhibit economic growth.
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Subsdidies represent the opposite of an even playing field. They are special favors for a select group determined by govewrnment. I agree that in many cases they can have beneficial direct effects. However, these usually don't last long and are almost always overcome by their very negative side effects.
Groups that are the beneficiary of subsidies, ranging from farmers to ethanol producers, manufacturers of solar power panels, to recipients of extended unemployment benefits tend to quickly organize to ensure the continuation of their benefits at all costs - even in the absence of any public benefit from the continued subsidy.
Hence in a world awash in cheap sugar we still have a protective quotas for imnports that guarantees domestic producers a market and raises the price for all consumers.
The facts that corn based ethanol use does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions and shortens engine life of vehicles using it , and that it has significantly increased food prices for everyone have not dented the power of the ethanol lobby to continue milking the public purse.
Subsidized domestic manufacturers of solar panels have not achieved the technical innovations they promised and indeed have lost the competitive market to Chinese producers. Even there the real cost of the power so produced is roughly three times that for conventional sources. It wouldn't exist without a subsidy and we can't affort for it to become more widespread.
European nations including Britain and Germany have found that reducing the duration of unemployment benefits directly reduced the time for workers to find a job. Surprise ! The unhappy fact in a recession is that recovery requires added human efforts to produce more at lower cost to stimulate the recovery needed by everyone. Rigid labor market expectations, fueled by extended government benefits is a proven way to extend the recession and add to the mountain of public debt that will continue to uinhibit economic growth.
Aren't Chinese manufacturers of solar panels HEAVILY subsidized? Your point seems wanting...
Quote:Response to Chinese Subsidies for Solar Panel Manufacturing
Most of the market for solar photovoltaic panels was artificially created by subsidies and mandates in the United States and way above-market rates paid to generators of solar electricity in places like Germany and Spain (now drastically reduced). Whoever makes such decisions in China noticed this growing market and directed a portion of their industrial machine to making solar panels. They don't install solar panels to any significant extent in China since installation is losing proposition from an economic point of view, and the last thing China wants to do is drive its energy costs up. But selling solar panels to the West is just good business.
Allegedly because of government subsidies and generous loans from state-directed banks and low labor costs, solar panels from China are so much cheaper than those made in the West that sellers of panels who want to stay in business are moving their manufacturing to China. This famously includes the manufacturing which used to be done in a state-subsidized plant in Massachusetts. Few people, even those who are most concerned about carbon emissions, are praising the Chinese for making solar less expensive. Some people think that the US ought to subsidize solar panel manufacturing even more than it does or has to keep the jobs here.
So your logic is we shouldn't subsidize our solar panel industry because the Chinese are already subsidizing theirs...
@RexRed,
It isn't at all clear that the Chinese are subsidizing their manufacture of solar panels at all. Thus your point has a sand foundation. They don't subsidize: they out compete us.
The Chinese are busily at work in this area and others, exploiting abundant cheap (and willing) labor from farmers who want to move to cities to gain dominant positions in growing world markets. They don't need subsidies of any kind as long as their supply of low cost labor by formerly impoverished rural workers lasts. In human terms, the process is good in that it has certainly enriched the lives of many Chinese. We don't have enough money to "compete" by subsidizing domestic manufacturers or building tariff walls.
However, we do ourselves real economic harm by subsidizing renewable power sources like solar and wind power. In the first place we thereby destroy domestic industries, ranging from coal to gas and (emission free) nuclear power by subsidizing one that is intrinsicaslly less efficient and dominated by foreign producers who can easily out compete us. It is really dumb to spend extra money to support demand in industriues in which we have no competitive advantage and thereby destroy others here in which we do.
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
It isn't at all clear that the Chinese are subsidizing their manufacture of solar panels at all. Thus your point has a sand foundation. They don't subsidize: they out compete us.
The Chinese are busily at work in this area and others, exploiting abundant cheap (and willing) labor from farmers who want to move to cities to gain dominant positions in growing world markets. They don't need subsidies of any kind as long as their supply of low cost labor by formerly impoverished rural workers lasts. In human terms, the process is good in that it has certainly enriched the lives of many Chinese. We don't have enough money to "compete" by subsidizing domestic manufacturers or building tariff walls.
However, we do ourselves real economic harm by subsidizing renewable power sources like solar and wind power. In the first place we thereby destroy domestic industries, ranging from coal to gas and (emission free) nuclear power by subsidizing one that is intrinsicaslly less efficient and dominated by foreign producers who can easily out compete us. It is really dumb to spend extra money to support demand in industriues in which we have no competitive advantage and thereby destroy others here in which we do.
Yes they out compete us by turning their citizens into slaves and expecting them to work for practically nothing. Is that really out competing?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6733564947664645042
@RexRed,
Not at all. After decades of tyranny, murder and enforced poverty through Marxist socialism, the Chinese have abandoned all that and liberalized their economy, while granting substantially more freedom to their people. They still have a one party authoritarian government, but it is far less oppressive than in former years. The explosion of the Chinese economy is liberating increasing numbers of their people from the tyranny and slavery associated with the earlier socialist state. It turns out the "slaves", as you call them, are living better every year and are eagerly embracing the new opportunities. As this process continues pressures for higher wages grow rapidly , and this is already happening there.
However, China still has a large and still impoverished rural population that is eager to join the new capitalist party. As long as this supply of cheap labor lasts they will have a strong competitive advasntage in this area. However it is entirely false of you to suggest that their state is turning its people into slaves - it did that fifty years ago under Mao's revolution, but since Deng's transformation of the State starting 25 years ago they have been liberating them from that slavery.
That is the source of the competition we face. And it is real competition.
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Not at all. After decades of tyranny, murder and enforced poverty through Marxist socialism, the Chinese have abandoned all that and liberalized their economy, while granting substantially more freedom to their people. They still have a one party authoritarian government, but it is far less oppressive than in former years. The explosion of the Chinese economy is liberating increasing numbers of their people from the tyranny and slavery associated with the earlier socialist state. It turns out the "slaves", as you call them, are living better every year and are eagerly embracing the new opportunities. As this process continues pressures for higher wages grow rapidly , and this is already happening there.
However, China still has a large and still impoverished rural population that is eager to join the new capitalist party. As long as this supply of cheap labor lasts they will have a strong competitive advasntage in this area. However it is entirely false of you to suggest that their state is turning its people into slaves - it did that fifty years ago under Mao's revolution, but since Deng's transformation of the State starting 25 years ago they have been liberating them from that slavery.
That is the source of the competition we face. And it is real competition.
Apparently you did not watch the documentary... This documentary was filmed merely 5 years ago and there are still sweat shops and fake factories that act as decoys for inspecors... And at what cost to its people has China made a lousy buck? The rich keep stifling unions through political contribution to lawmakers and exploiting the poor much like the republicans want to facilitate in our country and like the greedy corporations have done to vulnerable Mexican immigrants in the US.
I think you are living in a fantasy world.... Maybe Santa should bypass your house this year... This is not real competition! Are you saying minimum wage in China is the same as in the US? THAT is real competition. Tie someone's hands and legs and then expect them to compete in a marathon...
I stick to my word... SLAVES...
If it was real competition then US jobs would not be over there rather than here. The proof is in the pudding. I am not insulting communism or capitalism but I am insulting corporate and state sanctioned greed under whatever banner the choose to fly it under..
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:
Apparently you did not watch the documentary... This documentary was filmed merely 5 years ago and there are still sweat shops and fake factories that act as decoys for inspecors... And at what cost to its people has China made a lousy buck? The rich keep stifling unions through political contribution to lawmakers and exploiting the poor much like the republicans want to facilitate in our country and like the greedy corporations have done to vulnerable Mexican immigrants in the US.
I think you are living in a fantasy world.... Maybe Santa should bypass your house this year... This is not real competition! Are you saying minimum wage in China is the same as in the US? THAT is real competition. Tie someone's hands and legs and then expect them to compete in a marathon...
I stick to my word... SLAVES...
If it was real competition then US jobs would not be over there rather than here. The proof is in the pudding. I am not insulting communism or capitalism but I am insulting corporate and state sanctioned greed under whatever banner the choose to fly it under..
Then you are deluded. Of course there are sweat shops in China. There were sweat shops in Hong Kong, Singapore Taiwan, and Malaysia a decade ago as well. That is how they elevated themselves out of poverty. We did it too. The prosperity we enjoy today was founded on the industrial sweatshops of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
The observable fact is the Chinese are flocking to these factories and improving their lives in the process - they are not slaves at all. Would you deny them that? Their cheap labor is the only lever they have had to elevate themselves out of their previous poverty. As that process has continued, modern standards of living and working are taking hold in their major cities - which in fact compare favorably with our own. However they still have a large rural population, locked in backward poverty, and they are understandably expanding the process to increasingly include them - and that involves a repitition of the process that got their city people to where they are.
The competition the Chinese present is very real indeed. Instead of working hard to out engineer or produce them, we resisted innovation in our historical manufacturing & textile industries. To illustrate - the last strike by the UAW against GM was in 1996 - an effort to preven them from modernizing two large auto assembly plants in Flint Michigan to enable them to compete with automated Toyota plants in Kentucky. The automation and modernization would have reduced employment by about a third, but would have saved the plants and the remaining jobs. The UAW went on strike and won. Two years later GM closed the plants forever. Now our idiot administration is sueing the Boeing company because it dared to build (at its own expense) an aircraft assembly plant in South Carolina - a right to work state that permits labor unions, but protects workers from being forced against their will from joining unions - alleging they are trying to escape the unions in Seattle that prevent them from competing effectively in the international market.
The world is a competitive place. We have no permanent right to a prosperous life style: we have to work for it and earn it.
How would you go about meeting the competitive (substitute you own word if you choose) challenge presented by China - and other nations - to the U.S. economy?
@georgeob1,
George, if you are trying to claim that China is a democracy or that the people their are free as we are you are an idiot. It is a military dictatorship. And if you think it is so great to live there why dont you move there and enjoy the freedom to work 20 hrs a day or starve.
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
George, if you are trying to claim that China is a democracy or that the people their are free as we are you are an idiot. It is a military dictatorship. And if you think it is so great to live there why dont you move there and enjoy the freedom to work 20 hrs a day or starve.
Evidently you don't read very attentively. I made no such claim, instead I stated that their government is one-party and authoritarian. I've travelled fairly extensively in China. The place is much transformed in the past two decades, and, apart from the air pollution, even Bejing is a very nice, clean city. The folks there don't work 20 hours a day at all.
Do you believe our democracy entitles us to a continued prosperity far greater than that enjoyed by 80% of the world's population? If so think again: it doesn't work that way.
All that said,I would be very interested to read your formula for increasing our competitiveness in a still very competitive world, and restoring the power of our declining economy.
well capitilism would better in the US if banks would lend money and are regulated
wall street is trying to break Obama , and therefore republiclicans
being Canadian I look at the US from the outside perspective
@north,
As a Canadian you should recognize the significan improvement in yor country's economic situation created by the Conservatives. It wasn't achieved by increased regulatio - quite the opposite.
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
As a Canadian you should recognize the significan improvement in yor country's economic situation created by the Conservatives. It wasn't achieved by increased regulatio - quite the opposite.
your wrong
it is the regulations that were put in place by Paul Martin of the liberals of the banks that saved Canada from this sub-prime mess
hence no bail outs of our banks
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
RABEL222 wrote:
George, if you are trying to claim that China is a democracy or that the people their are free as we are you are an idiot. It is a military dictatorship. And if you think it is so great to live there why dont you move there and enjoy the freedom to work 20 hrs a day or starve.
Evidently you don't read very attentively. I made no such claim, instead I stated that their government is one-party and authoritarian. I've travelled fairly extensively in China. The place is much transformed in the past two decades, and, apart from the air pollution, even Bejing is a very nice, clean city. The folks there don't work 20 hours a day at all.
Do you believe our democracy entitles us to a continued prosperity far greater than that enjoyed by 80% of the world's population? If so think again: it doesn't work that way.
All that said,I would be very interested to read your formula for increasing our competitiveness in a still very competitive world, and restoring the power of our declining economy.
George your cursory observations and the facts don't seem to be coinciding...
Excerpt:
The biggest difference between Chinese work culture and American work culture is found in the work ethic. I think I'm a pretty hard worker, but the Chinese have a different idea of being a hard worker. They work long hours, often shifts of 12 hours or more. I became friends with a couple of entrepreneurs who started a jewelry business. They claimed to work 12-hour days, seven days a week. I spoke to a few executives at CCTV who laughed when I told them most Americans work Monday thru Friday 9am-5pm. Even some Chinese people I met working in the hospitality industry admitted to working 60+ hours a week on average. And their excessive workloads were confirmed in my experiences with the Olympics. I worked 12-hour shifts every other day, and worked less than anyone in the MPC. My supervisors worked as many as 36 hours straight!
http://3gen.experience.com/2008/09/chinese-work-culture-my-observations.html
Comment:
How can we trust your other observations and far reaching assumptions about who deserves prosperity?
George wrote: Do you believe our democracy entitles us to a continued prosperity far greater than that enjoyed by 80% of the world's population?
Comment:
This seem more like a wish rather than an observation. If other countries want the same prosperity they can do as we have. We also at the time of our so called great prosperity due to, as you say, "american sweat shops" landed into the great depression.
