Wow, indeed. I hope this is shown all over American tv's.

Wow is right. Thanks for showing this.

Perfect, except for having too many females in the lecture class.

RACISM!!!

Sadly accurate...

Black Mamba nailed it. That'll be the leftie spin. What else can they say?
Great spot, beautifully shot and ... powerful.

I like it when I see what I've been saying for years up on TV.

the end result of Obozonomics.

The irony of a black American being the one responsible for selling Americans into economic bondage is simple extreme.

Heh- and yet, the Chinese for the USA is 'mei kuo' or 'beautiful/admirable, good' nation.

But it's a great ad; let's see it do its work.

Brilliant!!

Yep, now we OWN YOU! and they do...

ET - Chinese people love America! They reserve their enmity for the Japanese. Who do the Japanese hate? The Chinese, of course. And where is South Korea in all of this? They hate Japan! Oh, SE Asia...

A good kick in the stones to irresponsible spenders from those on the right feathering the nests of their masters "back home", to those on the left trying to destroy capitalism through debasing the currency.

The U.S. government isn't the only problem; U.S. (and Canadian) households have also bee racking up enourmous debt to buy cars, tv's, etc. usually made in China. But hey, interest rates are low so why not seems to be mood.

The Finacial Post ran an article today showing Canadian debt to disposable income for households increased from about 50% in the early 1980's to about 150% today (and it's still rising). The U.S. isn't much different.

See also: The Rise of Consumer Debt in America
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/debt/review.pdf

Hmmm. Better get crackin' on those Mandarin lessons. What's the number for Rosetta Stone again?

There's still hope for the USA. The people are organizing against the government takeover. They want to put a stop to the social engineering, tax and spend policies.

The time to worry is when the country has riots when you try to take them away. Its been a blessing that Europe has collapsed under these ideas just as Obama started down that road.

A good kick in the stones to irresponsible spenders from those on the right feathering the nests of their masters "back home", to those on the left trying to destroy capitalism through debasing the currency.

Excellent.

Perfect!!

So maybe they should cut back on their retardedly massive military? They currently outspend China by a factor of 10, and basically, all it does is cause them grief, since they make everyone else feel like they should be spending money on weapons to keep the Americans at bay.

And incidentally... let's consider what leaders spent the most over the past few terms, shall we?

Ol' Ronny loved to spend. So did Bush Sr. and young George.... oh how he loved to spend. He ran the debt up like there was no tomorrow, and there wasn't even a recession on.

No, conservatives haven't the foggiest idea as to how to conserve, or spend money wisely. They just know how to give more money to the rich who are more than happy to spend a little money here and there to convince the numbnuts on the right to support them, even if it's not in their interest.

John, Ok lets cut the US military spending from current levels to 1999 levels when we had President Clinton in office, $494 Billion to $298 Billion. I just cut the deficit from $1.3 Trillion to 1.1 Trillion. Now which other programs do you propose cutting to balance the budget?

Even if you cut the entire US military budget, you still would have a $800 billion deficit. Something else has to give.

So maybe they should cut back on their retardedly massive military? They currently outspend China by a factor of 10

Says who?
U.S. military spending is a matter of public record, ChiCom military spending...nobody knows what it is.

What you're going to believe the government of a communist nation that lied about a little girl's age in the last Olympics?

The way its going. America will have to sell Women to the Chinese since they killed off by abortion 30% of their females.
It won't be a problem though is by that time Sharia Law with slavery will be an everyday occurrence in the: Land of the Broke. The home of the debtor.
The house of greed socialism built, can only collapse. As it has done in EVERY Nation on Earth so far who falls for the Utopian fascist filth.
JMO

I just realized the great weakness of this particular add.
It will only reach the people who can read the subtitles.
Too bad.

And what made China "great" was killing swathes of its population and having its fingers in a lot of pies.
Whose bright idea was it to open up China, anyway?

(and DON'T say the Vulcans)

Perfect political ad for our time. But it does get one thing wrong - it should be an indians, not chinese.

"What you're going to believe the government of a communist nation that lied about a little girl's age in the last Olympics?"

No more than I would believe a country that has lied about torturing people, or about the death of a football star turned soldier who was killed in a friendly fire incident, but they didn't want people to know, because he was such a great tool for recruitment.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/09/16/the-pat-tillman-story

Next time google before you write.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

Note that the info on China's military comes from the US Department of Defense. (of course, those boobs are frequently wrong, so take it with a grain of salt)

It's a great ad.
It won't come true, of course, because China is destined for some major issues demographically and socially by 2030, but the ad is great because it captures the time we are in.

Actually, you could argue that the scene captured in this video is more likely to occur in a North American university than in a Chinese one. Come to U. of Toronto and have a look around our lecture rooms. You will see the future Canadian leadership.

Anyway, I recall saying when 0bama was elected that I thought America was strong enough to withstand 4 years of him, or even 8.

I am still confident about America's future. the success of the Tea Party people has heartened me. But if the Tea Party idealogy is crushed or corrupted and never reaches its potential, and Americans don't get their act together before 2020, then truly America the great will fade into the great mass of other ordinary countries.

Whose bright idea was it to open up China, anyway?

Richard M. Nixon.
He thought "my enemie's enemy* is my friend."

*Ruskies

John, disinformation is a Communist's most powerful weapon.
Anything they say is not to be believed, especially about their military spending and capabilities.

When in doubt, invoke the Red Scare. Of course you all love this ad.

But how many of you have the guts to go to work/school tomorrow, and play this for your Chinese/Asian co-workers/peers?

Brian, I've been studying Mandarin for a few years:
我们吃你的午餐
nuff said...

John - Imagine 2 countries, each with a one man army. One country pays their soldier $1000 per year, and equips him with a $50 dollar rifle. The other country pays their one soldier $20,000 per year, and equips him with a $1000 dollar rifle.

The second country outspends the first by a factor of 20.

Question: Which country has the larger army?

The point is, the relevant comparison to be made is not budgetary figures, but in military equipment and personnel.

In the history of conflict, it is the larger army that almost always emerge the victor, if both sides have equal resolve to fight.

In key areas, China is building massive military power, and is approaching parity with the US. They may already be there, in the geographic area of Taiwan.

By the way, talk about spendthrifts: Obama has borrowed $3 trillion so far, far outstripping in 2 years what any of the others you mention borrowed in 8.

By the way, when/how did ol' Ronny GIVE money to the rich? Be specific. You are confused, or very careless with your words.

Old Ronny considered government the problem. Remember government? That "we the people" thing that is supposed to keep kings and would be kings in check? Well he thought it was the enemy, as do all conservatives who oppose regulation. Remember regulation? It's the thing that gave us clean water to drink. A living wage. The freaking weekend. These are the enemy of the wealthy, because it costs them money.

And yeah, sucked that obama spent 3 trillion. But hey... he was cleaning up the biggest economic mess in 70 years left by your boy george, and all of the failed economic policies that started with Ronny.

Orlin of Marquette that was good! I confess I cheated and had to use a translator:

"We eat your lunch" is at least close I hope.

how did ol' Ronny GIVE money to the rich? Be specific. You are confused, or very careless with your words.
~small c conservative

Hahaa.
Trick question there small c.

In a progressive's little mind, all of the money is the government's.
Therefore, because Reagan let the captains of industry keep more of their own money through tax cuts, that translates into giving money to the rich in the mind of a progressive.

It's a trick because "not confiscating through taxation" means the same as "giving" to facists and they can't figure out the difference.

All this excessive borrowing/spending by government is really nothing other than an elaborately complex Ponzi scheme designed to push fundamental structural problems into the future. At some point the Ponzi scheme will collapse, and your kids, or your grandkids, will suffer.

Davenport asks: "But how many of you have the guts to go to work/school tomorrow, and play this for your Chinese/Asian co-workers/peers?"

I do. In fact, I'm going to e-mail this sucker to a Chinese friend of mine right now. He's going to laugh his @ss off.

By the way Davenport, did you know that women are killing themselves regularly in the Chicom factory that makes that iPhone in your pocket? Apparently the fact that Apple runs one of the nicest factories in China isn't enough to keep these girls from jumping off the roof every couple months.

Only idiots think Communists aren't scary.

John, what colour is the sky on your planet? Barry has so far borrowed and spent more money that every president of the USA -combined- since 1776. He's not fixing the economy, he's breaking it.

John, Davenport, there are Chinese and Koreans who know how bloody rotten China and its vassal state, North Korea, are. They are glad to be in Canada- an infinitely more free country than China- where they study hard and work their butts off. The Chinese I've spoken to have no intention of returning to China so save the sanctimonious dribbling.
Damn Nixon.

Talk about beating a dead horse but here goes round #14123232...

The American public is the largest owner of US debt. China is the largest foreign owner of debt, and Japan is right behind them. China owns about $800 Billion worth of debt, about 7%.

John - I have a few questions about your statements.

First - you said: "conservatives haven't the foggiest idea as to how to conserve, or spend money wisely." This is your opinion; what is your data base to substantiate this opinion? No data base? Just your opinion??

Second - you said: "They just know how to give more money to the rich". Could you explain how 'conservatives' give money to the rich???

Third - what are you talking about - lying about a little girl's age? Evidence?

Fourth- could you provide proof that all the failed economic problems were due to Reagan, and/or Bush? Are you aware of Clinton, of Frank and Dodd's Mortgages-to-All? Do you know about this?

Fifth - could you provide evidence that Obama's 3 trillion debt has helped?

Sixth - are you aware of the difference between limited government and welfare-nanny state modes of government? Why are you ignoring the difference? People aren't rejecting government per se; they are rejecting the latter type of intrusive all-embracing govt in favour of limited government. Do you know the difference?

Oh - and could you explain why clean water is derided by the wealthy?

Thanks. Opinions without substantiation belong in the coffee shop.

@Phantom

I don't think it's fair to blame communism for the iSuicide factory. The fact is that their labor is so abundant that life is cheap. I mean working conditions in England and the US when they were building up were terrible too and strikes were resolved by armed stockades or the military. It's just that we're now rich enough to be willing to spend more to buy things that are made from happy productive workers instead of disposable miserable ones. Well that is until we signed chinese labor contracts :P

john

"""And yeah, sucked that obama spent 3 trillion. But hey... he was cleaning up the biggest economic mess in 70 years left by your boy george, and all of the failed economic policies that started with Ronny.""""

pretty elaborate way of stating you ain't got a clue

the money mess has several components, most of which are either "lefty" manufactured and/or perpetuated

and did you know that the "money" industry is largely populated by lefties, and that these same "stalwarts" are the ones who drove financial the bus into the ditch

The Phantom: "By the way Davenport, did you know that women are killing themselves regularly in the Chicom factory that makes that iPhone in your pocket? Apparently the fact that Apple runs one of the nicest factories in China isn't enough to keep these girls from jumping off the roof every couple months."

Yes, it's obviously still much better to work in a US/Canadian factory, where there are government regulations and union-negotiated contracts that ensure a safe workplace, reasonable hours, and a basic wage. Of course, all those legislated and otherwise hard-fought employee safeguards increase the cost of doing business for employers, but I think that's a fair price to pay to prevent girls from jumping off roofs, don't you agree?

Now wouldn't it be terrible if you or I or anyone else here were to support, out of blind allegiance to a certain political and economic philosophy, economic policies that enabled said employers, for the sole purpose of increasing profit at the expense of their US/Canadian employees' livelihoods, to move those US/Canadian factory jobs overseas, where similar government regulations and union-negotiated contracts don't exist, and hence labour is cheaper? That would be a shame indeed.

John;

Presidents can't spend money. Only Congress can. Since the Dems controlled Congress from roughly the end of WW2 until Gingrich and the Republicans took over in 1994, you're comments about Reagan and Bush the older are way off the mark.

Learn a little about American government. It'll help your arguments.

Opening up China was a great idea. Now we trade with them. We get great products like iPods and more. We have a huge market for cars and other products.

Any loser who doesn't think he can compete, such as a member of a union or a liberal, can be against opening up China out their own anti-Asian racism, but most Americans believe in capitalism and free-trade and are happy to do business anywhere in the world.

If you don't want China to be open, I suppose you can join Obama and the SEIU in trying to start a trade war. We'll see whose side America is on, but most Americans are against the failed policies of Obama and the SEIU.

Opening up China was rotten idea. We've empowered an octopus. North Korea, Hong Kong, Tibet, southeast Asia- all have China's little vassal states. Who supplied the ammunition used to kill Sudanese? The Chinese did. Industrial espionage, outsourcing North American jobs, debt, infanticide, support of Iran and North Korea- these are China's legacies.

By the way, did anybody bother to look up Citizens Against Government Waste? They're not so much "citizens" as they are "corporate lobbyists". Ever wonder how many taxpayer dollars they've managed to funnel to their private interests?

And did anyone bother to stop and think about the content of this brilliant ad? The ridiculousness of using the "Chinese" to critique the US over "enormous" stimulus spending (China spent $586 billion on their own stimulus package), massive changes to health care (China has been embarking on their own healthcare reforms since WWII, and accelerating them in the past few decades), and government takeover of private industries (China...well, it goes without saying)?

No, at the end of the day, this ad has little to do with US economic policy, or with foreign holdings of federal debt, or even with repudiating Obama's efforts to date. This ad is about what US corporate elites do best: selling fear to the eager, easily dupable conservative masses.

Osumashi you will soon be able to add propping up corruption in Africa to China's legacy as well.

Most people don't even have a clue as to what China is up to in Africa.

Why does this video only have 313 views on Youtube?

Seems fishy to me.

No, at the end of the day, this ad has little to do with US economic policy, or with foreign holdings of federal debt, or even with repudiating Obama's efforts to date. This ad is about what US corporate elites do best: selling fear to the eager, easily dupable conservative masses.
So, Davenport, easily dupable conservative masses believe, incorrectly, that there is enormous government debt, economy declined, jobless rate went sky-high and Obama economic policies worsen the crisis instead of improving. And they should not fear worsening of recession if present economic policies should continue.
Am I correct?

empires crumble because they over-extend themselves. With the Romans and British it was geographic. With America it is economic(welfare state).

At some point, they all hit a wall. Enough citizens stop working, or spending, or just stop paying the necessary taxes. Russia, India, etc. The pattern repeats. You can't force slavery indefinitely.

Yes, it's obviously still much better to work in a US/Canadian factory,
agreed
where there are government regulations and union-negotiated contracts that ensure a safe workplace, reasonable hours, and a basic wage.
True, but in China there are government regulations, too. And there are unions in each and every big company/business, even in that factory which produces iPods .
Of course, all those legislated and otherwise hard-fought employee safeguards increase the cost of doing business for employers
But in China everything also is legislated and communist party watches over the workers.
but I think that's a fair price to pay to prevent girls from jumping off roofs, don't you agree?
Do you?
****
Frankly Davenport I am shocked, just shocked that you did not know that in ALL major factories in China there are unions, and workers belong to the unions. Even in the western-owned factories. Because, you see, CCP set that condition. Not to mention that many of cheaper household products are made in laogai - gulags in English - and there are ard 5 mln people now working hard for PRC in these factories.

Ol' Ronny loved to spend. So did Bush Sr. and young George

- John,

Obama has more than TRIPLED that.

Obama has made it a historical first.

Obama has DWARFED what those three conservatives spent - combined.

Oh yeah and today on PBS they said that FannieMae and FreddieMack will cost twice what was expected as far as bailouts are concerned.

Snap out of it and face reality.

Obama is the biggest spender in US history.

Obama has spent more than the cost of the Afghan , Iraq wars and Katrina COMBINED.

Wake up!!!

Davenport, you are a poor student of history as you are a spectator of current events.

China- since Mao- has been extending its reach around the globe. It is estimated seventy million people died in the great famine while Mao was still alive. Much of China is still a Third World country. It's filthy. China also has a horrible infant mortality rate (there goes your healthcare idea- that is, if Mao didn't shake your belief first):

http://www.indexmundi.com/china/infant_mortality_rate.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

Any North Korean caught in China is returned. North Korean women are sold into sexual slavery. Their children are stateless.

Whatever your beef is with the US or capitalism, it can't hold a candle to how horrid China is.

John and Davenport.....please don't let your brains wander anymore.They are to little to be out on their own.

small c conservative
[......In the history of conflict, it is the larger army that almost always emerge the victor, if both sides have equal resolve to fight.....]

You are referring to Alexander at Gagamela...
or Napolean at Austerlitz....
or the 101st airborne at Bastogne....

Georgi Zukov:
Quantity has a quality all it's own....
Darius might disagree....

"It's not the size of the dog in the fight but rather the size of the fight in the dog".
Sir Winston Churchill

.....especailly if that dog is vectored by radar....

Way back when, the Americans thought there was "a red under every bed". It wasn't absolutely every bed, just a lot of them.

These days, the left claims that there is "a racist under every bed".

Personally I think China is overrated as an economic powerhouse, although that doesn't mean it always will be. But the solution for the U.S. is to ditch Big Government, pretty much the same solution as for anywhere else.

Davenport said: "Now wouldn't it be terrible if you or I or anyone else here were to support, out of blind allegiance to a certain political and economic philosophy, economic policies that enabled said employers, for the sole purpose of increasing profit at the expense of their US/Canadian employees' livelihoods, to move those US/Canadian factory jobs overseas, where similar government regulations and union-negotiated contracts don't exist, and hence labour is cheaper?"

Wouldn't it be a shame if, out of blind hatred and class warfare, if governments made it -impossible- for companies to stay in business without moving their entire operation off-shore? Say by double taxing overseas income at a rate of 35%?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html

Wouldn't it be a shame if Intel put their super new factory in Arizona because they couldn't trust the Chicoms with it, but that factory cost them FOUR TIMES what it would have in China? Intel did just that, their CEO was on Bloomberg radio telling all about it. The difference in labour cost was less than 2% of the total cost differential incidentally, the rest was TAX and paperwork and regulation and more TAX.

Do you know why Intel built their factory in far away Phoenix AZ instead of Silicon Valley, Davenport? They really, really wanted it in Silicon Valley because that's where all the big Intel poobahs live. But its in Arizona. Because, as the CEO said, there was literally no amount of money in the world that could get that factory built in California. They couldn't get it built no matter what they did. So they finally said "f- it" and left the state.

Wouldn't it be a shame if an unholy alliance of trade unions, public sector unions, corrupt politicians, greenies, COMMUNISTS and assorted NIMBY useful idiots made it -impossible- to do business in the USA? Or closer to home, Ontario?

Cheap labour doesn't count for sh1t unless you're making something mindless and repetitive, like jeans. High tech car parts, labor doesn't count for much because there's not much labor involved. Robot CNC machines required -skilled- labor. Why is Government Motors sourcing car parts out of China, Davenport? Like all the guts of the Chevy Volt ferinstance. Its not because its cheaper. It ain't cheaper. Its because they CAN'T GET IT DONE here. Not won't, can't. Regulations, taxes, unions.

Can't because of you and your fellow hate-the-rich travelers, ducky. Next time you use that iphone, think about how your mindless nattering is getting girlies killed in Chicomland.

By the way, you know how much an iphone would cost if by a miracle Apple could legally build it here? Five. Thousand. Dollars. Most of it in regulations, pension funds, union inefficiency, health insurance and TAX. You going to buy an iphone for five grand Davenport?

Jason @ 4:29, you are right. History keeps repeating itself.

Listen up, I've got a news flash. China has a huge growing middle class. The cost of products in China have risen to the same level as here in NA. There's more new millionaires being created in China than anywhere else on the planet. They are the World's fastest growing economy. They are the World's number one manufacturer of consumer goods. China's government may be Communist but the people are independent and very capitalist. They love the West (take a trip and see with your own lying eyes) and are becoming more "Westernized" every day.

The main threat to the West's inability to compete industrially is directly tied to the West's growing inability to work. It's an internal sickness but we're all too busy trying to blame an external source.

There's a much worse scenario than China besting the West at capitalism. They could have decided to be a North Korea instead.

It's interesting, isn't it, that Davenport's basic problem with China seems to be that it isn't socialist enough for her.

ella: "easily dupable conservative masses believe, incorrectly, that there is enormous government debt, economy declined, jobless rate went sky-high and Obama economic policies worsen the crisis instead of improving...Am I correct?"

No, you're not. Those things are all true, but you seem to believe that they are entirely the fault of "Big Government." Maybe you should dig a bit deeper, and ask why all those jobs (primarily in the manufacturing sector) have disappeared, and why the US government -- along with every other major government in the world -- found itself having to bail out the economy. Maybe you should ask why the US government was willing, as the cliche goes, to bail out "Wall Street" but less so "Main Street" (hint: it's not just because the Democrats are corrupt).

"And they should not fear worsening of recession if present economic policies should continue."

You can fear whatever you like. Just be aware that the fear that you're experiencing is being fomented and channelled by powerful groups whose economic interests are very likely diametrically opposite to yours.

"But in China everything also is legislated and communist party watches over the workers."

Please tell me you're being sarcastic, because surely you can't be this naive. Just to be clear, I'm not sympathetic to communism, or the Chinese government, or their domestic or foreign policies. I'm saying that it's equally offensive for conservative lobbyists -- masquarading as a grassroots "citizens" group -- to invoke the Scary Red China stereotype for its own ends.

"Frankly Davenport I am shocked, just shocked that you did not know that in ALL major factories in China there are unions, and workers belong to the unions. Even in the western-owned factories. Because, you see, CCP set that condition."

Oh, I'm aware of the ACFTU. Are you aware that it mostly functions as a shill for the CCP, and that most international observers do not consider the ACFTU to be a truly independent trade union organization that speaks for its working members' interests? And if they're not independent, then they can't really serve the functions of a union, can they?

Osumashi Kinyobe: "China also has a horrible infant mortality rate (there goes your healthcare idea- that is, if Mao didn't shake your belief first)"

I never said that China's healthcare reforms were a model for the world, or that they were even working. I'm just saying that anyone who bothers to think about the ad for its content would realize that it lacks even internal narrative logic. Why would it portray the "Chinese" as mocking the US over "massive changes to health care" (as though healthcare reform in itself is a bad thing) when China has also been undertaking massive changes to ITS healthcare system.

I'll tell you why: because the CAGW neither needs nor wants you to think that deeply about the content. It knows that just by tapping into those emotional parts of your brain that automatically go (1) from CHINA to COMMUNISTS to BAD and (2) from CHINA to NEW SUPERPOWER to THREAT, it can get you to vote for the Republican Party, who if anything are even stronger supporters than federal Democrats of policies that will accelerate China's global economic ascendance.

"Whatever your beef is with the US or capitalism, it can't hold a candle to how horrid China is."

I agree. From which of my previous comments did you get any idea otherwise?

Davenport - 'Why would it portray the "Chinese" as mocking the US over "massive changes to health care" (as though healthcare reform in itself is a bad thing) when China has also been undertaking massive changes to ITS healthcare system.'

Because it's a one minute ad, set 20 years in an imagined future. Say America goes down into a tailspin as an immediate result of the Obama presidency (yannow, like is the point of the ad); do you think Obamacare might come to be emblematic of what went wrong?

Why do you assume Canadian conservatives/libertarians/neo-cons/limbic-brained troglodytes have any love for the Republicans? I've never met one who had anything good to say about them other than "they're not Democrats".

As for: "...(asking) why all those jobs (primarily in the manufacturing sector) have disappeared..." - didn't Phantom cover that in a certain amount of detail?

Audit the Federal Reserve... for starters...
The rot really started during the Woodrow Wilson Regime...
Everything wrong with America is Regressive policy based...

Social justice is a disease... A KKK cornerstone belief...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Social Justice types must abolish these beautiful words in the minds of their potential subjects...

Commies hate the internet... Free flow of facts kills their lies...
=======

China is an evil country (not the people, they are victims)...

As long as Communism and State "Capitalism" is the rule in China, China is a threat to the whole world...

Davenport...lol. Funny guy.

Jobs left the USA because of increased regulation, epa, taxation, and uncooperative unions. Simple. There are many other countries where it's easier to run a company.

John:

young George.... oh how he loved to spend. He ran the debt up like there was no tomorrow, and there wasn't even a recession on.

Nice try at revisionism, but you are, of course, completely wrong. George W. had TWO recessions to deal with in his 8 years, the first caused by the dot.com bubble bursting (the 9/11 attacks were not the cause of the recession, but they didn't help the recovery), and the second the mortgage/derivative blow-up we're still living through. That started in fall 2007, with W. still having about 15 months to go in his term. But by all means, believe what your silly little head wants; just don't believe that there's any correlation between your fantasy world and the real thing.

Chester Field:

By the way, did anybody bother to look up Citizens Against Government Waste? They're not so much "citizens" as they are "corporate lobbyists".

By the way, did you bother to look up argument "ad hominem circumstantial"? And are you also saying that acting as a corporate lobbyist negates one's citizenship? Or do you just throw words around without regard to meaning?

johnboy: "Jobs left the USA because of increased regulation, epa, taxation, and uncooperative unions. Simple. There are many other countries where it's easier to run a company."

To be more precise, I think what you mean is that there are many other countries where it's easier to for a company to manufacture its products. On balance, major US corporations still prefer to base their headquarters in the US (as with other Western companies in other Western nations).

Why is that? Here's one reason: the highly educated, well-paid, white-collar, middle- and upper-class folks who run these companies enjoy, on a personal day-to-day basis, for themselves and their families, the high societal standard of living that results, not entire but in no small part, from "regulation, epa, taxation" (e.g., safe drinking water, clean air, decent infrastructure, decent public services, etc.). They care less, however, about these things for those who work for them, which is why they're happy to ship their companies' lower-level jobs overseas, where operating costs (and lives) are cheaper.

I think we can agree that private companies rightly operate according to the profit motive, meaning they'll do whatever they can within the confines of the law to maximize profits. Right now, for many Western companies, that means moving their manufacturing jobs to China, where cheaper costs are offered at the expense of local working conditions. According to your logic, though, if the reason costs are cheaper is because China doesn't have the same "regulation, epa, taxation" as the US, and the US should slash its "regulation, epa, taxation" in order to become more competitive and re-direct the flow of manufacturing jobs back to the US, then how can this be achieved without the US allowing its overall working conditions to decline to roughly the level as that of China. Your (and the Phantom's) solution seems to be a race to the bottom -- great for the folks who run the companies, less so for the folks who work for them.

Nice post Phantom. Definitely a parallax view on the matter at hand. I hadn't focused on the problem quite like you've laid it out.

Black Mamba said: "As for: "...(asking) why all those jobs (primarily in the manufacturing sector) have disappeared..." - didn't Phantom cover that in a certain amount of detail?"

Why yes, I believe I did thank yew ma'am. ~:D

The thing about Davenport is, she's committed to the fiction that Conservatives are conservative because we are gullible, uninformed and/or stupid. We are -dupes-, useful idiots manipulated by evil overlords for filthy, filthy profit [boo hiss].

So when some ignorant, gullible redneck house painter jams a plateful of inconvenient truths in front of her, she has to fall back on some of the other, less effective Lefty arguing techniques. Like move the goalposts, change the subject, hey look over there!, you're so shallow and unsophisticated, etc. At least she hasn't gone for the Lefty classics, character assassination and homosexual slurs. Those are boring.

At any rate Mamba, your point about the Republicans is extremely well taken. The Tea Party is not primarily a threat to the DemocRats. It does not affect their base, nor their hard core of committed partisans.

The Tea Party is an uprising against -Republicans-. 70% of America is telling the Republicans they are no longer willing to get along with incremental socialism, and if the Republican Party does not get the hell out of the way they are going to get run over.

Davenport at base doesn't have a clue what she's talking about, she most likely hasn't ever been in the USA for longer than a holiday.

Americans are simultaneously appalled, enraged and terrified by the events in their country since about 1992. They are spontaneously putting up ads like the one on display in this thread because they are not willing to cooperate with collectivism and political correctness any more. They are now going on the attack to dismantle the Leftist bureaucratic and social threat to their freedom and their very lives.

Do you guys realize that even American car magazines and woodworking magazines have regular political columns now? Two more aggressively apolitical topics cannot be imagined, but Prime Media magazines pulled out all the stops and ran special election issues with titles like "Can They Ban Hot Rodding?" and "Will They Outlaw Your Street Machine?"

Because yes, they ARE trying to ban your hot rod or race car, your motorcycle, your jeep, your outboard motor, your rifle, you name it and its under attack from greenies and other Lefties. People are not willing to let it happen any more. They are fighting it.

Republicans are going to be the big losers if they don't step up.

KevinB: "And are you also saying that acting as a corporate lobbyist negates one's citizenship?"

Obviously no, but if you're employed or otherwise engaged with a political organization (as the CAGW clearly is) in order to represent and/or further your corporate interests, then it's a little misleading, to say the least, to position said organization as a grassroots-style citizens' group.

Take a look at the CAGW's founders and board of directors, see who's steering the ship -- a lot of corporate bigwigs and establishment types, not a single Average Joe.

The Phantom: "So when some ignorant, gullible redneck house painter jams a plateful of inconvenient truths in front of her..."

FYI, Phantom, putting forth an argument in one comment, and then immediately turning around and boasting to your pals in another comment about how your awesome your first comment was (if you do say so yourself!), doesn't say much about (a) your argument, (b) your self-confidence, and (c) your non-douchebag-ness.

"Americans are simultaneously appalled, enraged and terrified by the events in their country since about 1992. They are spontaneously putting up ads like the one on display in this thread..."

Yeah, average Americans (cagw.org/about-us/staff). Simple, working-class folks (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Peter_Grace). No deeper financial interests at play here; just love of country and love of freedom.

"...but Prime Media magazines pulled out all the stops and ran special election issues with titles like "Can They Ban Hot Rodding?" and "Will They Outlaw Your Street Machine?" Because yes, they ARE trying to ban your hot rod or race car, your motorcycle, your jeep, your outboard motor, your rifle, you name it and its under attack from greenies and other Lefties."

Like I said, "selling fear."

My final comment on this thread:

Maybe I'm a bit older than most posters here (at least, I feel that way!), but I remember similar concerns about Japan back in the 80's. The Japanese were running a mercantilist policy, restricting imports for any and all reasons (e.g. California rice "wasn't suitable for Japanese diets"), while exporting as much as they could to the rest of the world. They built up huge surpluses, bought Rockefeller Center in New York and Pebble Beach golf club in California, and the Imperial Palace in Tokyo was worth more (nominally) than all the real estate in Texas. Every other management book was about the wonders of Japanese manufacturing (ironically, almost all of which was based on the principles of Deming, an American quality specialist). Shintaro Ishihara, a Japanese politician, and Sony head Akio Morita co-authored a book "The Japan That Can Say No" in 1989, where they asserted that Japan was now the holder of the tech "balance of power", and that America might have the missiles, but they can't fly straight without Japanese chips. People were worried that Japan was going to buy up all of America.

Of course, hubris being what it is, in less than 2 years, the Nikkei had crumbled and Japan's long, slow recession had begun. Despite 20 years of near-zero interest rates, annual trade surpluses, and growing local markets in Asia, Japan continues to poke along at nearly stagnant growth year after year. It's interesting to note that Japan's GDP increased by 7 times from 1950 to 1980; from 1990 to 2007, it's gone from 430 T yen to 513T, or 1.2 times. (Just for comparison, Canada's GDP from 1990 to 2005 increased by 50%; both comparisons made at constant 1990 Y/$)

Eventually, the Japanese sold Rockefeller Center and Pebble Beach (the latter to a group including Clint Eastwood). The "Japan That Can Say No" is now the Japan saying WTF?! They are having a demographic collapse of legendary proportions, which will foreshadow a similar one in China. Young Japanese women, who saw their mothers left alone to raise families while fathers worked 60 hours a week (and drank another 15) before coming home late and expecting to be waited on hand and foot, have decided not to have children. As a result, the Japanese birth rate is now 1/3rd what it was in 1950, and it has been under the death rate for the last few years. Japan is slowly shrinking.

China will see many of the same problems in the next fifty years. The Chinese have glorified sons over daughters for millennia; with the advent of "1 family, 1 child", easy abortion, and ultrasound, the numbers of boys born compared to girls is much higher than normal. (You think "don't ask, don't tell" is a problem for the US military? Wait until you have an army of 10 million with almost no women..). At the same time, modernizing health care has resulted in greater longevity, with the same crushing pension and health care costs that face the West. So, when you combine an ever-aging population, relatively few women of child bearing age (and an increasing number who reject motherhood altogether), and a huge cohort of young men who can't find a girlfriend, let alone a wife.. well, I'll let you speculate on the domestic political outcome. I don't think it's going to be pretty.

Finally, the video ends "Now they work for us". That's only if America decides 1) to honour, and 2) not to inflate their way out of, their debt. Helicopter Ben is deathly afraid of deflation, so to suspect that QEII (and III, and IV) are not on the horizon is Pollyanna-ish in my view. Eventually, the T-bonds owned by China will be worthless (which is why they are trying to diversify and convert those bonds into real assets, quietly and quickly). If Americans ever really felt they were being bossed around by China, those pieces of paper would be.. pieces of paper. And while America could never invade China, likewise, China could never invade America. Stalemate or Armageddon are the only foreseeable choices, and I suspect cooler heads will choose the former, although North Korea or Iran remain wild cards.

Davenport said: "Your (and the Phantom's) solution seems to be a race to the bottom -- great for the folks who run the companies, less so for the folks who work for them."

Would it be safe to say that you believe it is government that makes Canada great then, Davenport? And without strong controls Capitalists would turn Canada into a Dickensian dystopia of factories and child labor?

The Phantom: "Would it be safe to say that you believe it is government that makes Canada great then, Davenport?

No, not government alone, or per se. But in my view, Canada, along with many other advanced Western democracies, does on the whole strike a better (if far from perfect) balance -- and a balance is necessary -- between the role of the state and the role of the private sector than often does the US (which in turn is still better than many other nation-states around the world).

"And without strong controls Capitalists would turn Canada into a Dickensian dystopia of factories and child labor?"

No, can't turn the clock that far back. But we do know that the factory conditions and child labour practices of the 18th and 19th centuries didn't improve themselves over time as a result of the spontaneous benevolence of the factory owners and supervisors. Technology played a big role, as did economic changes and social norms, but legislation is what made those improvements permanent and universal. And we'd be kidding ourselves if we pretended that capitalists were at the forefront of this historical labour movement; by and large, they were dragged along kicking and screaming.

The Phantom: "Wouldn't it be a shame if, out of blind hatred and class warfare, if governments made it -impossible- for companies to stay in business without moving their entire operation off-shore?"

I wrote a response to this earlier comment of yours, Phantom, but it's sitting the filter right now.

Just as a quick rebuttal: did you even read the article? Google (3Q profits up 32%) hasn't moved its entire operations off-shore, it's funnelled its profits off-shore (and back on-shore again) by exploiting tax loopholes. Mr. Page and Mr. Brin, their well-paid employees, and their stockholders are all doing just fine.

"Wouldn't it be a shame if Intel put their super new factory in Arizona because they couldn't trust the Chicoms with it, but that factory cost them FOUR TIMES what it would have in China?"

Again, Intel just posted $11B in 3Q revenue and $3B in 3Q profit. They too are doing fine, pricey AZ factory and all.

Oh, and two years after they broke ground in AZ, they also decided to build a chip factory in Dalian. Which is in China.

"By the way, you know how much an iphone would cost if by a miracle Apple could legally build it here? Five. Thousand. Dollars. Most of it in regulations, pension funds, union inefficiency, health insurance and TAX."

If that's the market price for an Apple product that ensures that its employees were paid a livable wage, worked in safe conditions, and received fair benefits, then perhaps it's too expensive to come to market. Or said another way, if Apple can produce its products at a price that the market can bear ONLY by using underpaid, poorly treated labour (wherever it happens to be found), then that is a damning indictment of the flaws in our current global economic system.

"...legislation is what made those improvements permanent and universal."

Would you agree then that without being controlled by government, capitalists would generally behave badly and we'd all be much worse off? Poorer, less healthy?

Davenport @11:32, shorter version: It's cheaper to live/do business in a third-world cr@ph*le.

"...the factory conditions and child labour practices of the 18th and 19th centuries didn't improve themselves over time as a result of the spontaneous benevolence of the factory owners and supervisors. Technology played a big role, as did economic changes and social norms, but legislation is what made those improvements permanent and universal."

As if legislation occurred in a vacuum, hauling morals and economics up behind it. Davenport, the industrial revolution, which was horrible for its victims (as most of life has been horrible, by our standards, for most people throughout history), made society way, way, way richer than it ever had been before. Because of the industrial revolution society could afford to have a big, entitled, sentimental middle-class; people like me, people like you, people who have the time and interest to agitate for other people's kids to go to school and not down the mine.

KevinB - I know you said you were done with this thread, but can you recommend any macro-economics primers? - as it is I'm going a bit cold when you say "growing local markets" and "eventually, the T-bonds owned by China will be worthless." I know Sowell's Basic Economics is meant to be good.

And I'll mix metaphors and/or drinks if I want to thankyouverymuch.

First - you said: "conservatives haven't the foggiest idea as to how to conserve, or spend money wisely." This is your opinion; what is your data base to substantiate this opinion? No data base?

Reagan ran up the debt. So did both Bush boys. Take note of this handy chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Second - you said: "They just know how to give more money to the rich". Could you explain how 'conservatives' give money to the rich???

Tax cuts aimed at the hyper rich. These are the people who make loads of money on the backs of us. These are the people who hate the middle class, and fought tooth and nail against every single progressive piece of legislation aimed at making the lives of working people easier.

Third - what are you talking about - lying about a little girl's age? Evidence?

Some other dude said that. Not me. It was in reference to China using a cute little ringer in place of an ugly kid with a beautiful voice at the olympics.

Fourth- could you provide proof that all the failed economic problems were due to Reagan, and/or Bush? Are you aware of Clinton, of Frank and Dodd's Mortgages-to-All? Do you know about this?

Clinton did make it easier for people to get mortgages. He didn't force banks to loan to people. They did that because they are greedy twits who couldn't give a rats ass about anything but their own personal profit. As for the economy tanking... it tanked on GWB's watch after he'd been in power for 7 years. He was holding the bag dude, and it was him and his cronies who supported massive deregulation of the banking system.

Fifth - could you provide evidence that Obama's 3 trillion debt has helped?

We're in a recession. Not a depression. And don't forget that Bush and many Republicans also supported a stimulus package, because you'd have to be a complete idiot to not see how it was necessary. You don't agree with this, because you are a free market zealot.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/09/fiscal_policy_5

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/07/AR2009020702159.html?nav=rss_email/components

Sixth - are you aware of the difference between limited government and welfare-nanny state modes of government? Why are you ignoring the difference? People aren't rejecting government per se; they are rejecting the latter type of intrusive all-embracing govt in favour of limited government. Do you know the difference?

And yet these same conservatives who claim they reject the concept of a nanny state welcome the growth of watchdog agencies such at DHS which spy on citizens. They support drug laws which do nothing but restrict citizens from making their own choices. And they would tell people who they can and cannot marry. Yeah... conservatives are really into leaving people be when they're not telling them how to live their lives.

Oh - and could you explain why clean water is derided by the wealthy?

Because industry, which is owned by very wealthy people, fought against any attempts to create regulation which would force them to spent more money to ensure that they weren't poluting our lakes and rivers. That was an old fight. The current fight is that they want to keep on dumping CO2 into the atmosphere despite the fact that the laws of physics tell us this will warm up the planet. Oh, and here is a story on how the Bush White House attempted to cut back on clean water legislation:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2003/2003-11-26-10.html

@Phantom, "controlled by government" is the wrong phrase, though it does suggest the nature of the trap that you're obviously trying to lead me into.

Why don't you go ahead and clarify what you're getting at, complete with the inevitable "Gotcha!" question that you've been planning all along, and then I might bother to reply.

Black Mamba: "As if legislation occurred in a vacuum, hauling morals and economics up behind it."

I'm sorry if that's the impression you got, but my point was that government action played as much a role as societal change (technology, economics, social norms, etc.). I never said that one led the other(s), though I did say that one group certainty tried its best to hinder progress and change.

"Because of the industrial revolution society could afford to have a big, entitled, sentimental middle-class; people like me, people like you, people who have the time and interest to agitate for other people's kids to go to school and not down the mine."

Sure, and now society is far better off. Unfortunately, "better off" also means "more expensive to do business in." Which I would think is a fair price to pay, considering how much better off you and I agree we all are. Except that a fair number of large and hugely successful companies don't agree, and have moved their operations to countries that actually do still send kids down mines. And rather than condemn the decisions of these companies, you'd rather condemn that laws and regulations that have made everyone's lives better but which these companies now seek to avoid?

China has a communist government, full stop. Would we be exploiting the labour of a free people? I don't think so.

"I never said that one led the other(s), though I did say that one group certainty tried its best to hinder progress and change." - you're right, I missed all that. Which group, and can you give examples? I'm not just trying to needle you, I'll read anything you recommend (within reason. Articles, no Chomsky tomes).

Aside from that, as Kate says, this isn't a debating society, so I'll back off. Go play with the cat (bourgeois indulgence that he is! I love him) or something.

Black Mamba:

Because you asked nicely!

Honestly, there's probably not a better first book than Samuelson's "Economics", and since it's been in print for the better part of 60 years, you can probably find a cheap copy at any used book store. He goes into both macro and micro at an accessible level, without a whole lot of complex math. He gives you a good base to understand the terms of basic Keynesianism; after that, you can get lost following the arguments of monetarists, the Austrians, neo-Keynesians, neo-cons, socialists, communists, dirigistes, etc., etc.

The most difficult thing to understand is central banking; they want it that way, since central bankers' job is to create money out of thin air without anyone realizing it. Once you've understood the lessons of "The Emperor's New Clothes", central banking becomes easier to fathom.

As to my two points of confusion:

"growing local markets" - in the 1960's until the 1980's, Japan's markets were the developed West (Europe, North American, Australia). However, as the smaller Asian countries started to grow, Japan started to sell more to countries that were in their own backyard, so to speak. My point was that while South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, etc. have been growing like gangbusters, and despite Japan's advantages in selling to them, Japan is still not experiencing solid growth.

"China's T-bonds will eventually become worthless" - Governments issue all kinds of debt. Just as doctors have to call a kneecap a "patella", Wall/Bay St. have their own lingo to describe the various kinds. Debts that mature in less than a year are referred to as "bills" (T-bills) - usually of 30 to 360 days. Debts that mature from 1 to 5 years are usually called "notes". Debts of over 5 years are called "bonds". In particular, the US 30-year bond is often referred to as the "long bond", as the US doesn't issue anything (yet!) with a longer maturity. The 10-year US bond is often referred to as the "benchmark", since many interest rates of other debts offered by governments and companies alike are set with reference to this rate (e.g. you'll hear the "spread" between the Canadian and US 10-year is "120 basis points" - if the US bond is trading at 2.5%, the Canadian would be trading at 3.7%. A basis point is 1/100th of a percent of interest, and is just another insider term to confuse people.)

What I meant by saying that the Chinese bonds would become worthless (which is an exaggeration on my part; apologies) is that the US will either devalue their currency (the US$ will fall against other currencies), US interest rates will rise, or some combination of both. Either one reduces the "net present value" (NPV) of a US bond. NPV is a powerful tool; you could look it up for a better understanding, as it would take more time than I have to give you the complete picture here. But for a quicky example: imagine you bought a US 30-year bond worth $1,000 US in 1999, when the Canadian $ was $0.66 US. That bond cost you $1,500 CDN. Today, that bond is only worth about $1,020 CDN because the loonie has been so strong, so you've lost almost $500 less whatever interest payments you've received each year. The US is constantly pushing China to "revalue" (i.e. increase) the value of their currency; doing so would reduce the value of all the US bonds that China has. I believe that a combination of inflation in the US and a revaluation of the Chinese currency will eventually reduce the value of US bonds held by the Chinese significantly.

Davenport fears the pit trap.

Well lets take an example then. Would the main stream media be improved by government regulation, to ensure fairness and objectivity in coverage of events? If not, why not? (Its rhetorical, we all know why not.)

Did extensive regulation help keep the US mortgage business in check? Would more regulation do it better? (Also rhetorical, obviously not.)

And do you really think that we would let Apple build a factory in Caledonia, beat up the workers, use kids to clean the machines and dump their waste chemistry straight into the Grand River in this day and age, even if there was no law to prevent it? Come on.

You seem to be arguing that people will just run amok without the government to kick them into line, and we need more of it. I'm saying the government has run amok and needs to be reduced in size and scope by about three quarters. Possibly more. The only things government does well are roads, war and enforcing contracts. Pretty much everything else can be done better privately.

By the way, my Chinese friend thought the video was funny as hell. His parents escaped Mao, so he has a special perspective on Chicoms.

I didn't think it would need to be said, Davenport, but there's a difference between regulation, and over-regulation. Now, there can be some honest disagreement to some level on this point, discussions worth having.

But, I would defy you to find any conservative derisive of clean water regulations. Such a suggestion is not only a red herring, it's pretty insulting. What you will find conservatives lamenting is a two-inch fish being more important than human food production in California's bread basket.

The former is sane regulation. The latter...not so much.

Davenport, it is not a stretch to go from China to evil empire.
The mention of the US' new and unsustainable healthcare project was to show how it would sink the US further into debt.
Why did you bring up Chinese healthcare if you knew it was a sore point in your argument?
As for these grassroots groups and their (as you say) dubious intentions, I don't have to listen to them but a Chinese citizen has no choice but to live a heavily filtered existence.

Thank you, KevinB. :-)

Yup. The Chinese must rub their hands in glee every time our governments pass some new regulation - or our courts make a union-friendly decision - that destroys our productivity.

No need for economic sabotage in The West...we're taking care of things ourselves.

"he was cleaning up the biggest economic mess in 70 years left by your boy george.."

you have simply got to be joking..?? no? here is a guy that idolized his Kenyan anti-colonial marxist father and he was cleaning up an economic mess..?? really.?

Seems to me this guy knows jack about economics and tons about far left socialism with a good smakering of keneysian economic policy.

But like most left wing nutbars, that love to spend our money...they have no clue on what it takes to create a job. none whatsoever.

I liken America to Rome AD 200-300 or so, give the people entertainment (lions & christians) and give em a loaf of bread when they come to the colliseum. Eerily familiar when I look at television today with all the crap reality shows etc. while an empire quickly deteriorates in a hi speed, fast-forward decline.

OBAMA is an unqualified disaster...and if you think Americas fall will not affect Canada...think again my friends..get ready the S**t is gonna hit the Fan.

Black Mamba: "Which group, and can you give examples? I'm not just trying to needle you, I'll read anything you recommend"

Since you asked, no surprise - factory owners and employers were at the forefront of opposition. Unfortunately, examples are scattered, and found mostly in books. As a start, you could look up "The world of child labor: an historical and regional survey" in Google Books (relevant coverage of US industries start around p. 466 or so).

There's also "Children for hire: the perils of child labor in the United States" (ch. 2 covers the early history of child labour reform).

There's also this: - xroads.virginia.edu/~ma01/davis/photography/reform/progressive_era.html

And this blurb from this paper (www-siepr.stanford.edu/papers/pdf/01-36.pdf):

Proponents of child labor legislation encountered strong opposition. According to Perrin, “Society was divided into sects and classes, not all of which espoused the course of popular education. Some indeed antagonized such a system” (1896 in Bagnall). This opposition came primarily from the owners of production who used child laborers and from poor parents who needed their income as evidenced from the following quote: “Reports of the factory inspectors in state after state that working children born in the United States were frequently unable to read and write increased the demand for more schools, compulsory attendance laws, and child labor legislation. But there was stubborn opposition to this program, especially from those who employed the children and from poverty-stricken parents who thought the sacrifice of their children necessary.” (Abbott, 1938)"

And also just for fun, even though these are cherry-picked and entirely one-sided: tnr.com/article/politics/the-rise-republican-nihilism

john - your answers to my questions are as ambiguous and unsubstantiated as your original opinions. They remain specious opinions. Might I also suggest that you refrain from derogatory names for the ideas and groups that you disdain? Stick to the issues.

Your claim that conservatives don't know how to manage money wisely is not substantiated by your examples of Reagan or Bush. Running up debt is not indicative of not managing money wisely. The debt can be paid off - and the 'wiseness' is how much, where from and how long. Investing is, after all, a form of debt.

Your next example of tax cuts to the rich is not an example of 'giving money to the rich'. Nor is there any proof that the wealthy, who ARE the middle class, 'hate the middle class. Nor is there any validity that wealth is 'off the backs of the rest of us'. You don't seem to understand how an economy works.

Wealth is a necessary result of work. Understand wealth as 'surplus' and every economy requires surplus production..otherwise you live hand-to-mouth.

Don't be naive; wealth is not hidden in socks or just used, as the Saudi wealthy do, for personal high living. Wealth is invested. Wealth enables people to build more industries, factories, hire more people, invest, set up foundations, do research and come up with inventions and new businesses. No society can live without wealth production. Nor did the upper middle class fight 'tooth and nail' against various worker legislation. You provide no evidence.

Your example of the Chinese girl - besides not being evidence of 'lying about her age' shows your ignorance of Chinese culture. In China, it is perfectly acceptable for two 'experts' to work as one team. The one who looks beautiful and the one who sings beautifully work together. Neither child feels there is anything wrong with this, for they are both valued for their contribution to the whole. This notion of co-existence in Oneness goes back to Confucianism.

Kindly remember that the Clinton administration and the US Democratic controlled congress DID insist that banks give mortgages to those who couldn't afford them. They were the ones who started it. Bush tried to stop them but Congress was controlled by the Democrats.Again, check out Franks and Dodds.

So what if it's a recession and not a depression. I asked you for evidence that Obama's stimulus worked. You provided nothing.

And you haven't provided any evidence that the wealthy reject clean water. Your argument that 'industries pollute, and industries are owned by wealthy and therefore the wealthy pollute' is logically invalid. Your error is, if you are interested, 'the existential fallacy'. The poor pollute - flinging untreated waste into rivers, no responsibility for their garbage which is simply left all around...or are you unaware of this? Hmmm?

Your examples of drug regulations are specious. Do you seriously support heroin and codeine use and put addiction down to simply 'making your own choices'? Do you understand chemical addiction?

And yes, all societies define the nature of marriage since humans emerged on this planet - nothing to do with being conservative or 'leftist'. And nothing to do with the government; these are decided by the people.

I think your opinions are empty and without foundation. However, they are yours and I leave you to your enjoyment of them.

ET: "Investing is, after all, a form of debt."

Not to get in between this lovely exchange between yourself and john, but I'm fairly sure this statement is wrong.

Davenport - then, if your opinion is that my comment is wrong - provide an argument. Not just a statement.

It is common to borrow money to invest in an enterprise. The borrowing can be from a bank, from a set of private shareholders, from a grant-giving enterprise. This is your debt, which your work then seeks to pay off. Whether it be the construction of a railroad, a factory, a housing project - that's how the free enterprise system works. Why? Because this is a more rapid and efficient means of development than if one person works at a job, saves any extra money...for 30 years...until they can get enough to ahhh...build that railroad? Get it?

ET: "It is common to borrow money to invest in an enterprise."

Yes, that's true, but then your statement should have been "Investment, after all, often involves going into debt."

"Investing is, after all, a form of debt" implies that all investing is a form of debt. Not so -- investing one's existing capital (e.g., personal savings) in, say, a GIC, mutual fund or, indeed, the construction of a railroad, factory, or housing project would come with no additional debt.

For heaven's sake, davenport - think. The railroad company is 'in debt' to you because they are using your money towards their construction of a new railroad. Got it? That company is in debt to you. Think. Just because you are not in debt doesn't mean that your investment isn't operating as a debt mode. Look at the whole picture not the linear line.

ET: "The railroad company is 'in debt' to you because they are using your money towards their construction of a new railroad. Got it? That company is in debt to you. Just because you are not in debt doesn't mean that your investment isn't operating as a debt mode."

Yes, that's true, but then your statement should have been "Investing, after all, involves someone going into debt."

The investee does not actually do any investing. Rather, they are invested in, in which case they are indebted to their investor(s).

Got it? =)