How the world views the USA.

Just to perplex my US friends here I'd like to mention that our National Minimum Wage is just one of our regulated wages. We have hundred of award wages for different professions. We have them for clerks, bar attendants, truck drivers, scientists, farm hands and many more. I do have a problem agreeing with "I just don't agree that what constitutes an appropriate wage is best set by government. Let the employee and employer decide between them. Their individual solutions will work best for them.".
Two reasons there to cause me to disagree. Firstly it is not an even negotiating field if one party is a rich multinational, and the other is a father trying to feed his family and pay off his mortgage. Guess who gets screwed?
Second reason is that I've been an employer on a number of occasions, and have paid over the minimum Award for someone with skills in demand that I wanted to retain. However more often the situation is when I would have thought "Gee, Fred is a great bloke but his skills are a dime a dozen, should I pay him over the odds just because I like him, or should I pay the legal minimum and put the money saved aside for my kid's education, if he leaves I'll just get another?". This is ok in our system because his minimum is probably $30 an hour, but not ok if it is $7.45.

That doesn't work if your $30 an hour job gets outsourced to China for $3 an hour.

If I wanted to address the 1% getting richer and the decline of the middle class rather than start with the minimum wage, the very first 2 things I would do would be:

To reduce the top. Flat tax with a floor and no deductions (or minimal deductions) allowed. That would address the problem with the rich structuring their income as capital gains as well as address the problem of all of the secret deductions they have managed to sneak through congress over the years.

To enhance the middle class. Address the international business laws and regulations which make it so easy to export jobs overseas to low wage markets. Especially the higher paying jobs. This is a lot easier said than done and extreme care must be taken not to cause unintended consequences.


Then I would work on:

Addressing the compliance burden caused by overregulation. It would take years but go through each and every government department and remove regulations that are ineffective and/or outdated. In some cases junk the entire regulatory mess and start over with simple, easy to follow regulations. Pay particular attention to regulations which give big business an advantage over small business.

Get serious about trust busting. To big to fail is to big to exist. And don't just look at the financial sector, we have oversized corporations in every sector. And once they get to that size, they cease being entrepreneurial and transform into crony capitalists getting their new friends in Washington (and in governments around the world) to pass all kinds of regulations that stifle the competition. Address this internationally as well since newly smaller corporations may have a more difficult time competing with their larger rivals headquartered in other countries (which is the main excuse given as to why we can't trust bust). The US is a big economy with lots of clout, structure international business regulations to discourage international to big to fail companies.

While we're at it we need to trust bust some of the unions as well. The big unions are as bad as big business (or worse since they are supposed to be on the side of the worker so there is an element of betrayal here.) While there is some element of strength through numbers, there is a point at which unions get to big to be in touch with the needs of their average worker.

Not sure how to fix crony capitalism and the overpayment of C suite employees but I'm sure someone can come up with some good ideas.

Oh my God!

You are Channeling Governor Palin!!

She often uses the phrase "Crony Capitalism."

Seriously; many TEA Party conservatives would agree on a lot of this.

You might recall that it was Governor Palin who finallyforced Exxon to pay up on theValdez oil spill.

Gov Palin was the one who reclaimed oil leases from BP for refusing to develop resources rather than just tie them up cheap.

Gov Palin was kicking BP's ass for the maintenance failures thatvallowed the Alaska pipeline to rupture at a time when Obama's mineral resource regulators were approving a well plan that they either knew orb should have known would fail.

It was Obama who made a big show of extorting billions from BPnthen gave the money toBrazil to subsidize BP operations there.

biochem wrote:If I wanted to address the 1% getting richer and the decline of the middle class rather than start with the minimum wage, the very first 2 things I would do would be:

To reduce the top. Flat tax with a floor and no deductions (or minimal deductions) allowed. That would address the problem with the rich structuring their income as capital gains as well as address the problem of all of the secret deductions they have managed to sneak through congress over the years.

To enhance the middle class. Address the international business laws and regulations which make it so easy to export jobs overseas to low wage markets. Especially the higher paying jobs. This is a lot easier said than done and extreme care must be taken not to cause unintended consequences.


Then I would work on:

Addressing the compliance burden caused by overregulation. It would take years but go through each and every government department and remove regulations that are ineffective and/or outdated. In some cases junk the entire regulatory mess and start over with simple, easy to follow regulations. Pay particular attention to regulations which give big business an advantage over small business.

Get serious about trust busting. To big to fail is to big to exist. And don't just look at the financial sector, we have oversized corporations in every sector. And once they get to that size, they cease being entrepreneurial and transform into crony capitalists getting their new friends in Washington (and in governments around the world) to pass all kinds of regulations that stifle the competition. Address this internationally as well since newly smaller corporations may have a more difficult time competing with their larger rivals headquartered in other countries (which is the main excuse given as to why we can't trust bust). The US is a big economy with lots of clout, structure international business regulations to discourage international to big to fail companies.

While we're at it we need to trust bust some of the unions as well. The big unions are as bad as big business (or worse since they are supposed to be on the side of the worker so there is an element of betrayal here.) While there is some element of strength through numbers, there is a point at which unions get to big to be in touch with the needs of their average worker.

Not sure how to fix crony capitalism and the overpayment of C suite employees but I'm sure someone can come up with some good ideas.

You are Channeling Governor Palin!!

She often uses the phrase "Crony Capitalism."

I like the term as well. It is a very succinct description of the problem.

Is this just used in the US or is it used worldwide? If just in the US, Wikipedia has a good definition.

Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of dirigisme.[1] Crony capitalism is believed to arise when political cronyism spills over into the business world; self-serving friendships and family ties between businessmen and the government influence the economy and society to the extent that it corrupts public-serving economic and political ideals.

The term "crony capitalism" made a significant impact in the public arena as an explanation of the Asian financial crisis.[2] It is also used world wide to describe virtually any governmental decisions favoring "cronies" of governmental officials. In many cases, the term is used interchangeably with corporate welfare; to the extent that there is a difference, the latter might be restricted only to direct government subsidies of major corporations, excluding tax loopholes and all manner of regulatory and trade decisions, which in practice could be much larger than any direct subsidies.

Daryl wrote:Funny how different people can see the same facts and come to totally different conclusions. I agree that fundamentalist islam is not a good thing, and I too worry about them getting nuclear weapons. I don't see the likelihood "that the demographic transition from a secularized, native European population to dominance by a radicalized Islamic minority will become intensely violent, even genocidal. It is probable that the nuclear armed Islamic states will intervene in Europe's transformation" is remotely plausible. Travel around Europe and you will see that this Caliphate is only really in the minds of two groups; the relatively small number of fundamentalist muslims, and the Christian right conspiracy theorists. In Australia only 2.2% of people identify as muslims, with most being excellent citizens, yet our right wing shock jocks would have us believe that sharia law is imminent. In the continent of Europe the percentage is 6%, while in the European Union it is 3.8%. Of those I'm sure that the very much greater percentage are normal decent people who just want to get through life without hassle as we all do. Impossible to know what the percentage of hard line muslims in the EU is, but it has to be miniscule. A miniscule percentage of that many people could still be thousands, who could well commit significant terrorism atrocities, but a long way from making an impact at the ballot box.

Living in Berlin/Kreuzberg I can attest to this.

We have a much higher percentage of immigrant families here in Kreuzberg than in nearly any other part of Germany yet the 'Muslim Menace' is nowhere in sight.

In fact people here a less frightened by immigrants compared to people in parts of the country who have no - or only very few - immigrants.

One tends to fear what one doesn't know. The opposite is true as well: Increased contact leads to trust.

The immigrants didn't come here to start a reverse crusade or commit terrorist attacks or anything. Their motivation was quite simple: They wanted to improve their economic situation. They want to eat, to live, to raise their kids in peace. Like neary everyone else on the planet.

That doesn't mean everything is nice and rosy of course!

Integration of different cultures isn't easy. It takes hard work - from both sides. Like anything worth having needs work.
Yet in the end we seem to manage.
The country isn't going down. It isn't getting conquered by malicious hordes from the Russan steppes or subverted from within by the 5th column.
No - the country is changing, adapting to the modern world which is changing around it.
Nothing more nothing less.

That takes hard work. That demands sacrifices. That isn't easy. It is life. Like life has always been.

Don't be so afraid.

Have any of you people ever been to Beirut?

Lebanon was once considered the "Sitzerland of the Middle East."

Churchil had intentionally drawn the borders of Lebanon to create a country that would be predominantly Christain and therefore a safe place for Christains. Unfortunately; the Muslims outbred the Christains and Assad Sr expelled the PLO to Lebanon after an attempted coup.

You also might consider the ongoing purge of Christains from the middle east as a forewarning.

Bruno Behrends wrote:

Daryl wrote:Funny how different people can see the same facts and come to totally different conclusions. I agree that fundamentalist islam is not a good thing, and I too worry about them getting nuclear weapons. I don't see the likelihood "that the demographic transition from a secularized, native European population to dominance by a radicalized Islamic minority will become intensely violent, even genocidal. It is probable that the nuclear armed Islamic states will intervene in Europe's transformation" is remotely plausible. Travel around Europe and you will see that this Caliphate is only really in the minds of two groups; the relatively small number of fundamentalist muslims, and the Christian right conspiracy theorists. In Australia only 2.2% of people identify as muslims, with most being excellent citizens, yet our right wing shock jocks would have us believe that sharia law is imminent. In the continent of Europe the percentage is 6%, while in the European Union it is 3.8%. Of those I'm sure that the very much greater percentage are normal decent people who just want to get through life without hassle as we all do. Impossible to know what the percentage of hard line muslims in the EU is, but it has to be miniscule. A miniscule percentage of that many people could still be thousands, who could well commit significant terrorism atrocities, but a long way from making an impact at the ballot box.

Living in Berlin/Kreuzberg I can attest to this.

We have a much higher percentage of immigrant families here in Kreuzberg than in nearly any other part of Germany yet the 'Muslim Menace' is nowhere in sight.

In fact people here a less frightened by immigrants compared to people in parts of the country who have no - or only very few - immigrants.

One tends to fear what one doesn't know. The opposite is true as well: Increased contact leads to trust.

The immigrants didn't come here to start a reverse crusade or commit terrorist attacks or anything. Their motivation was quite simple: They wanted to improve their economic situation. They want to eat, to live, to raise their kids in peace. Like neary everyone else on the planet.

That doesn't mean everything is nice and rosy of course!

Integration of different cultures isn't easy. It takes hard work - from both sides. Like anything worth having needs work.
Yet in the end we seem to manage.
The country isn't going down. It isn't getting conquered by malicious hordes from the Russan steppes or subverted from within by the 5th column.
No - the country is changing, adapting to the modern world which is changing around it.
Nothing more nothing less.

That takes hard work. That demands sacrifices. That isn't easy. It is life. Like life has always been.

Don't be so afraid.

Lebanon was under French administration, not British, Churchill had nothing to do with it AFAIK.

Also, Lebanon was sufficiently multisectarian from the start for Muslims and Christians to get quotas in the Parliament's seats and to divide the heads of the state by denomination (Christian president, Sunni PM and Shia Speakr.

namelessfly wrote:Have any of you people ever been to Beirut?

Lebanon was once considered the "Sitzerland of the Middle East."

Churchil had intentionally drawn the borders of Lebanon to create a country that would be predominantly Christain and therefore a safe place for Christains. Unfortunately; the Muslims outbred the Christains and Assad Sr expelled the PLO to Lebanon after an attempted coup.

You also might consider the ongoing purge of Christains from the middle east as a forewarning.

I thought that I would post this.

Crunch the numbers for the current TFR of Germans and probable future TFR on what the future population will be.

I understand that Germany refuses to keep separate statistics on birth rates of native Germans verses your Muslim immigrants. However; no one with a brain disputes that the Muslim immigrants have much higher birth rates and TFRs than native Germans. Native Germans also have an older population and thus a smaller percentage of children of child bearing age. A simple walk through your local park to observe who is pushing baby carriages will confirm this.

I will make some reasonable presumptions on relative birth rates and TFRs.

Crunch the numbers for what your future population structure will be in thirty or sixty years if your NATIVE Germans have an average TFR of 1.0 and your Muslim immigrants have a TFR of 3.0. This means successive cohorts of native Germans decreases by half with each generation while the cohort of Muslim immigrant's children increases by fifty percent.

If you think that this population trend is no big deal, go talk to an Australian aborigine or a North American Indian about how wonderful it is to be overwhelmed by immigrants. (You might exclude Latin America because the Spainyards and so eagerly exterminated the Native American males while impregnating the native American woman. However; the culture is extremely European rather than native American. Of course a very large percentage of the few babies born to Native German women are sired by Muslim immigrant men, so may be Latin America is a better model for Germany's future than the US or Canada.)

It seems obvious that you are too politically correct to understand that being a Darwinian failure is a bad thing. However; do you really want the future of the human race to belong to the reactionary mobs that dominate the Middle East. Oh that is right. You think that Christains are no better than Muslims so it does not matter to you.




http://www.apfn.com.pt/Actividades/2008 ... Europe.pdf

Bruno Behrends wrote:

Daryl wrote:Funny how different people can see the same facts and come to totally different conclusions. I agree that fundamentalist islam is not a good thing, and I too worry about them getting nuclear weapons. I don't see the likelihood "that the demographic transition from a secularized, native European population to dominance by a radicalized Islamic minority will become intensely violent, even genocidal. It is probable that the nuclear armed Islamic states will intervene in Europe's transformation" is remotely plausible. Travel around Europe and you will see that this Caliphate is only really in the minds of two groups; the relatively small number of fundamentalist muslims, and the Christian right conspiracy theorists. In Australia only 2.2% of people identify as muslims, with most being excellent citizens, yet our right wing shock jocks would have us believe that sharia law is imminent. In the continent of Europe the percentage is 6%, while in the European Union it is 3.8%. Of those I'm sure that the very much greater percentage are normal decent people who just want to get through life without hassle as we all do. Impossible to know what the percentage of hard line muslims in the EU is, but it has to be miniscule. A miniscule percentage of that many people could still be thousands, who could well commit significant terrorism atrocities, but a long way from making an impact at the ballot box.

Living in Berlin/Kreuzberg I can attest to this.

We have a much higher percentage of immigrant families here in Kreuzberg than in nearly any other part of Germany yet the 'Muslim Menace' is nowhere in sight.

In fact people here a less frightened by immigrants compared to people in parts of the country who have no - or only very few - immigrants.

One tends to fear what one doesn't know. The opposite is true as well: Increased contact leads to trust.

The immigrants didn't come here to start a reverse crusade or commit terrorist attacks or anything. Their motivation was quite simple: They wanted to improve their economic situation. They want to eat, to live, to raise their kids in peace. Like neary everyone else on the planet.

That doesn't mean everything is nice and rosy of course!

Integration of different cultures isn't easy. It takes hard work - from both sides. Like anything worth having needs work.
Yet in the end we seem to manage.
The country isn't going down. It isn't getting conquered by malicious hordes from the Russan steppes or subverted from within by the 5th column.
No - the country is changing, adapting to the modern world which is changing around it.
Nothing more nothing less.

That takes hard work. That demands sacrifices. That isn't easy. It is life. Like life has always been.

Don't be so afraid.

Lebanon was put under French administration after the Ottoman empire after the post World War One partition of the Ottoman Empire. Churchill was instrumental in dictating how the Ottoman empire was partitioned and somewhat influential in determining which of the victors would have jurisdiction over the various fragments. The avowed intention of the European powers was that the various fragments of the Ottoman empire would become independantsuystems, eventually. The borders were an inept attempt to create countries that would be politically viable. Your first point is correct but irrelevant.

Of course Lebanon was a multi-sectarian society. It was predominantly but not overwhelmingly Christain with very large minorities of Sunnis and Shias that collectively had a marginal majority of the population. It was expected that the Sunni-Shia schism would prevent the Christains from being marginalized. The Constitutionally mandated assignments of the President, PM and Speaker was essentially a concession to the racial/religious rivalries that it was hoped would enable stability. This second point is also irrelevant because this attempt to balance the demographic and religious tensions imploded after only one generation because the differential in birth rates altered the population structure so dramatically.

My point remains that NATIVE Germans can embrace the PC fantasy of peaceful coexistence only as long as the immigrant population remains a relatively small minority. However; the differential in birth rates combined with continued immigration (which might decline dramatically as birth rates in the Muslim world continue to decline) is going to change that. Once your Islamic immigrants become a large enough fraction of your population to assert themselves, it is likely that the situation will became very ugly with Native Germans being the biggest losers.

Eyal wrote:Lebanon was under French administration, not British, Churchill had nothing to do with it AFAIK.

Also, Lebanon was sufficiently multisectarian from the start for Muslims and Christians to get quotas in the Parliament's seats and to divide the heads of the state by denomination (Christian president, Sunni PM and Shia Speakr.

namelessfly wrote:Have any of you people ever been to Beirut?

Lebanon was once considered the "Sitzerland of the Middle East."

Churchil had intentionally drawn the borders of Lebanon to create a country that would be predominantly Christain and therefore a safe place for Christains. Unfortunately; the Muslims outbred the Christains and Assad Sr expelled the PLO to Lebanon after an attempted coup.

You also might consider the ongoing purge of Christains from the middle east as a forewarning.

I post the following purely for the reaction. I can neither confirm nor deny that I actually believe any of it.

There is a problem with attempting to extrapolate from past data. I think that this comic describes at least one of the potential pitfalls better than I could. How you extrapolate affects the end result more than what you extrapolate.

As for the whole "outbreeding" concept, gender differentials come into play. With the demand for male children that many cultures have, the ratio of male to female children (normally 105/100) becomes seriously skewed. Some cultures have a worse than 120/100 ratio. This sort of ratio seems to coincide with a rise in societal violence and the suppression of women's rights/liberties/protection (legal and physical). I do not know what/if the correlation is, or even if there is one. After all, it was once believed that thunder caused milk to go sour and they have no causative link whatsoever.

Another factor is that quite a few cultures practice inbreeding via cousin-marriage. It is a statistical anomaly that a certain culture (which I will not name) in the UK that is responsible for less than 3 percent of all births account for over 10 percent of all genetic birth defects. This is because in quite a few of the families, the parents of the newlyweds are cousins as well and the genetic distortion caused by such close relatives having children mounts up through the generations in the absence of new blood. Such an effect will cause more resources of the culture in question to be used in looking after their disabled portion, thus cutting down on the resources available for things like expansion.

Ironically, many of Europe's royal families practiced something similar in order to "preserve the purity of their blood". Since they knew the downsides of inbreeding in the horses they used, one can only speculate why they thought themselves above such trivial things as the laws of nature.

Sheesh.

Finally, if you are worried about other cultures outbreeding yours, just have more kids (preferably with an intelligent spouse as to raise the average IQ of the offspring)! It ain't rocket science!