Eminent Domain for private enterpriseFollow

I'm just waiting for Gbaji to turn it into a Conservative/Liberal issue though

What did you expect Lefein? Shadow blames Bush when his wheaties get soggy.

Hey! thanks for noticing, yours was good too :)

Best plan when they try to seize your property is to burn it down, collect the insurance and the government payoff. Then move on, the people here in town that held out got less than the original offer when they went to court for the new airport runway UPS needed for it new cargo service.
Only thing that can save you is a historic designation, and then they only pay to move and resettle the house.

I didn't turn it into a conservative/liberal issue. The half dozen posters before me who all argued that it was the "evil" republicans/conservatives who were behind the whole thing did. I just pointed out which party appointed the only 4 justices that opposed the ruling.

ain't got **** onme.
I KNOW they're ALL evil.

They tell me I gotta move, they better bring a bigger gun than I have.

I worked my *** off for this place. Many memories here as well. They can't reimburse me for any of it. Co[/b]cksu[b]ckers.

I think it would be funny if some people destroyed the houses of the justices who voted in favor of this and let them know what it feels like.

No where in my post did I mention Republicans, conservatives or liberals. Quit putting words in my post....

I said "Georgie" = neocon! In my mind, not a true Republican.

And so I got rated down for??????? That's just chicken sh it!

Well, now that they can knock down your house and give it to developers, perhaps more people will actually take an interest in local government.

I'm not getting my hopes up.

Hah. Love that logic! "Ok. So even though in this case, a very basic fundamental tenant of conservativism is the only thing trying to protect me from a corrupt government taking my private property from me, I'm still going to call them evil cause I've been brainwashed that Liberal==Good".

Got it. Riddle me this. If it's only the Republicans/Conservatives that "worship capitalism/corporationism", why is it that it's the Democrats who are giving the government the power to take homes away from people to give them to businesses? Ever think that maybe, just maybe, your pre-assumptions about which party is more likely to ***** over the "little guy" is off just a tad?



Huh!? Sure. Corporations don't have an agenda of "create jobs". They're not a government agency that attempts to give people jobs even when those jobs don't contribute anything. They create jobs when those jobs are needed. That's exactly as it should be.

Let me ask you this. Explain to me exactly how a corporation that got some extra money from a tax cut is going to make more profits out of it *without* resulting in the creation of more jobs? You seem to think that corporations have a magical money generating machine that just gives them money if they put money in. They make money by investing their profits into their business. That means expanding their plants, expanding their research facilities, expanding their testing facilities, and perhaps branching out into new products and areas of business. All of those require the hiring of more labor. There is one relationship that always holds true in business. When a company expands, it hires more workers. When it contracts, it fires/laysoff it's workers. Companies expand only when profits are up (cause they can afford to). There is a direct one to one relationship between the profits of a company this year, and their hiring rate next year. Pretending this doesn't happen because it doesn't match your own personal ideology is silly.

Yes. Labor is a cost. But so is the rent on their buildings. So is the equipment they buy. So is the support contracts they purchase for the equipment they buy. So are the raw materials they purchase to turn into a product. Just saying that labor is an expense is pointless. Everything business does is an expense. But by paying those expenses, they gain profit down the line. So labor, while it's a cost up front, results in profits down the line. Expenses to a business are a form of investment. You pay it with an expectation of a certain amount of positive return later. Labor is no different then any other business expense. You would never suggest that a company with higher profits doesn't buy more factory equipment, or add a wing to a building to expand their business. Why do you insist that they don't also spend more on labor? After all, someone's gotta run that new equipment, and work in that new wing of the building, right?

Silly assumptions. Wrong of course...



And again. Profits don't magically appear. You get profit by buying equipment and hiring labor, and then hoping that the combination produces a product down the line that you can sell for more then the amount you paid for those things. Not sure what your point is. Sure. Corporations don't have a "goal" of creating jobs. But that would be a bad thing. Creating jobs that don't produce more then they cost is counterproductive. It might be great for the people who now have jobs, but your economy as a whole suffers since it's spending more across the board for everything they it should.

The key is to match jobs to need. And this really highlights a difference in thought between Liberals and Conservatives. A Liberal, when faced with an unemployment problem, will try to artificially create jobs, with employment for the people being their goal. A Conservative, faced with the same problem, will try to find ways to encourage industry to open up new ventures that will result in the need for more labor. A Liberal would tax the businesses in order to pay for the jobs it will create. A Conservative will reduce taxes (and perhaps even subsidize some business ventures via government contracts and such) in order to create an environment where the businesses will need more labor and will therefore hire more workers.

In my personal opinion, the Liberal approach works great in the short term (and is quicker in the short term as well), but places a heavy long term burden on the entire economy of the nation. You're effectively using the government to hire workers to perform tasks that don't generate as much value as the labor costs. Sure. You give people jobs, but you get yourself in a situation where you are eternally paying people more then they are worth and killing your future economic growth. Worse, since you have to pay for this via taxes on the very businesses that might otherwise have hired that labor, you decrease the ability of those businesses to hire those workers today, and steadily decrease that ability each year from that point onward. The Conservative approach may not immediatly create more jobs, since there's a couple layers of the economy that have to adjust to your changes first. But over the long term, the jobs created will generate more total value to your economy. The Businesses will produce more and better "things" with that labor. The labor will produce value that is greater then the cost of the labor. Over time, the economy will grow at a faster rate because the workforce is operating efficiently (all labor costs tied correctly to the need for that labor).


That's actually kind of a nutshell difference in approach between Conservatives and Liberals in general. Liberals favor the fast and direct solution to a problem. If there's not enough jobs out there for the people who need/want jobs, you just create jobs. Doesn't matter what they are, since the purpose is to keep people employed. Conservatives prefer to fix the causes of a problem and let the solution create itself. If there's not enough jobs for everyone in the job market, we work to expand business so that there is a natural demand for more laborers. That fixes the problem tomorrow, not just today.



You might be right in theory, but that happens more often as a long term result of Liberal economic policies then Conservative ones. A conservative says that businesses should compete with eachother, and laborers should compete in the job market. Thus, your salary is going to be based on your "real" value in the job market. If what you do is valuable to employers, then you'll get paid more. Basically, you salary and benefits will directly parallel the realative value you generate by working. This most certainly does mean that workers performing the least "valuable" jobs are not going to earn much. Let's face it, how much is a conmpany going to be willing to pay you to do a job that any person with 2 arms and 2 legs and basic brain function can do? Not much.

But it's when the Liberals jump in to demand higher pay and benefits that things get out of whack. If, for example, you pass legistlation saying that all workers that work full time must recieve a benefits package of some kind, what do you think will happen? Well, previously the companies may have had lots of full time workers doing very basic tasks that did not generate enough value to merit the cost of a benfits package. Now they'll have to pay for that. This may, in many cases, push the cost for that labor higher then the value that labor generates. The result is going to be one of two things. They'll either lay off a percentage of their workers so they can afford to keep the rest at the new higher cost, or they'll reduce the number of hours each works each week so that they aren't full time anymore.

The effect of that sort of thing over the long term is that the percentage of low wage workers increases. Companies will prefer to hire a large number of minimum wage, part time and/or temp workers to do all the low value jobs. There's less sense or ability for someone to rise within the company, because we've created this artificial range where the worker will cost the company more then he's worth. Wheras before a worker might have started out digging ditches out front, then moved to moving crates around, to operating a forklift, to maybe supervising the whole floor, now they'll just hire a bunch of grunt workers for all the menial stuff, and then pay more for the supervisors and specialized workers (who will get benefits and good pay). There's no upward career path for everyone else, not because the corporation is evil, but because Liberal "pro-worker" programs have created an artificial cost "wall" in the layers of workers, and the companies have simply reacted to that in the only way they can.

Liberal policies tend to ignore how business works when considering changes. That's usually very bad in the long run.


But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong...

It has begun! new york welcomes the citizens of New-New york!
http://www.watleyreview.com/2005/062105-2.html