Re: 62% >>> 53% {:^) {:^) {:^) {:^) {:^) {:^) {:^)

I guess it depends on your definition of "better". Nobody starves to death in the fiction "Hard Times".

You are equating the boom in Capitalism with the Industrial revolution (close, but not the same). The rough times in England's industrial revolution were not only the products of industrialization and free trade in itself. Work was seasonal (high Winter unemployment), Irish immigration forced down wages, and the government did not plan for the population explosion in the cities (adequate supply of sunlight, food, energy, water, and air, and with the proper disposal of wastes). Worse, they did not know how to manage the industrial explosion. It was new to them. The result was major pollution, industrial waste, and safety problems. They further were not experienced at managing the human factors with large and concentrated workforces.

Overworked, yes, but death by starvation, no. Ultimately, things DID improve over the pre-industrialzation age. In Great Britain, the average worker earned and consumed 50% more in real terms in 1850 than 1770, but prior to that, real wages were actually worse than in 1770. Generally, workers ate somewhat more food of higher nutritional quality as the Industrial Revolution progressed. The government had to pass laws to regulate the conditions that they themselves largely created (as mentioned above).

As far as trickle down, you won't find that happening in the few short years of major economic growth in the Dominican Republic, and whatever progress was made, may now end up in the pockets of the ruling party. But yes, in the few short years I've known Boca Chica, I'd say the average is better off. They have more continuous electricity and water, cleaner streets, safer streets (night lighting), less trash, higher tourism (read - jobs and opportunities), autos on the road are in better condition (safety & noise), and prices were pretty steady until all the new taxes hit (the govt). The price increase due to oil? Well, maybe if everybody had paid market value to begin with, there wouldn't BE this big surprise.

Really, how many locals carried cell phones 5 years ago. That sure beats no phone service at all.

Tickle-down needs to take it's course over decades, not a 2-year period.

Actually, I wasn't equating the two as the same. First came incipient capitalism and then mercantilism. The industrial revolution came later. Nor did I write starvation. I did imply malnutrition from eating poorly. Anyway, Jim, it was an interesting discussion and I thank you for your well thought out responses. I just guess at one certain fundamental level we disagree about the role of the State and its responsibilities to all citizens. I still think that one of the wealthiest nations in the world shouldn't have some of the problems the U.S. does. I also agree with you about the D.R., it is better off over the long term (past 10 years), but the successive Dominican governments have yet to develop a professional attitude towards organization and equal access to benefits to all its citizens irregardless of political affiliation. These are growing pains for democracies. Unfortunately, the present government has so far only shown itself to be terribly inept and as corrupt as the worst of them in the past.

How come the thread is separated?

>>> "Tickle-down needs to take it's course over decades, not a 2 year period." <<<

And I ask, WHY?

Why should it take DECADES for something beneficial to drip on down to the little guy? If the "RICH GUY" gets his up front and has immediate benefit, should not the drones that are responsible for doing all the work get a "piece of the action" early on?

No need "to dumb down" for me Jim, I my be ignorant (because I voted for the WRONG guy but then you said that I wasn't stupid. My use of "pop culture" explanations and phrases is the result of 40 years of associating with the "salt of the earth", the folks in the business of heavy construction. I dare say that my job site conversations were non esoteric in nature. Killing and eating things was quite a popular subject and how to best get sh.. faced while observing some sports event received a lot of attention. Political examinations sort of tended to cause a certain level of derision that was counter productive to a harmonious state in the ol' work place. Kind of reminds you of this forum at times.

Now mind you, personally I have nothing against wealth folks, at some point in time they had to learn to tie their own shoes just like every one else. Hell, Carnegie, Rocker fellow, Melon, Ford, . . . Gates and company have given us some really neat stuff, in particular I remember the library so generously provided by Carnegie, loved to spend Saturday mornings in the stacks. How about that "The Blue Screen of Death" now there's a real present.

What causes me considerable pain is the alliance between certain political *@#! (types and large all powerful corporations that bend and brake ever rule of common decency in the pursuit of the BOTTOM LINE. As an example, the slime ball lawyers and accountants cozy up and decide what a human life is worth in the corporate scheme of things. Dirty bas....s, seems to come to mind. Jim, do you recall from your days of scholastic achievement the story of the Pullman Car strike? Federal troops called in as strike breakers and the slaughter that resulted when they open fire on unarmed civilians. Just one of the all too many times that corporate America (the result of capitalism) has had things their way. Now how does this all tie in with the DR? I don't know but we should be able to demonstrate (point too) some thing, any thing.

Maybe it's this, in a nut shell the explanation Jim's idea of capitalism as expressed! in four words:

"Let them eat Cake".

Regards,

. . . CES

Well said CES! *DC*

"Why should it take DECADES for something beneficial to drip on down to the little guy? If the "RICH GUY" gets his up front and has immediate benefit, should not the drones that are responsible for doing all the work get a "piece of the action" early on?"

The best I can do is give a few examples, but if you really want to know why, you need to study economics and politics. I suggest "Capitalism : The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand.

Just because the airport is improved and new roads are built and the streets are cleaned up and electric power is stabalized and laws are passed to protect property rights or make it easy to obtain foreign investment doesn't mean that overnight, tourism will increase ten-fold, that new businesses will spring up, or that money will suddenly have a great influx into the country. Like education, investment in infrastructure is a long-term investment. The rich don't get rich immediately either, unless they happen to own the company doing the contracting.

In simple terms, you can give someone fish to eat, or teach them to fish. Two very different methods, one that gives immediate and short-sighted benefits, the other that requires patience but delivers long-term benefits.

The previous Dominican government administration made huge investments that only pay off long term. The current administration thus far has taken the short route. Raise taxes and use the money to pay for new jobs for party members.

Likewise, the current American govt. is NOT stepping in to regulate the oil prices (at this time). Good. Let market forces prevail. What's good for business is ULTIMATELY good for everybody (and if you don't believe it, you really need to study up on what capitalism is all about and why it works so well, even for the poor). Unfortunately, our govt. has screwed up so bad in the past and present (regulation, grants, taxes, anti-trust, etc.), it will be a tough road ahead. I don't like the current govt. party in the USA. I just think they are the lesser of evils.

. . . something was fishy about your brand of politics.

>>> "In simple terms, you can give someone fish to eat, or teach them to fish." <<<

When the "gov'ment" is in charge of the fishing instructors many things can happen, some good, some bad. If every thing is good the populace will have lots of fishes to eat, yum yum, and all is well in the sleepy little sea side village. Long comes Captain Big $$ and he sees a way to make some money by doing the very thing that "yola man" was taught to do by the wise ol' fishing instructor from the "Department of Little Guy Fishermen". Time passes Captain Big $$ is making some REAL $$$$ now, but he perceives that he has a problem with the number of fishes in his net, not enough, damn what to do? ? How about going to the "Department of Fishing" and convincing those in charge to look the other way while Captain Veldeis sucks the ocean sea dry of ALL aquatic life. Captan'lisum at its finest, now the "real money" is being made and all is well in the land, oh what happened to "yola man" you ask? It seems that when Captain' when to his buddies in the "Department of Screw the Little Guy" they decided that it wasn't cost effective to teach fishing any longer, and it really wasn't necessary as all the fishes were some where else now. What's that? "Yola man's" children are hungry, . . . "Letm' eat fish cakes". The corner comado has plenty and it just happens they are on sale today, what do you mean, no money? You live by the ocean, why don't you learn to fish?

Regards,

. . . CES

ps . . . notice how I cleverly worked "yola man" into story, must keep up our DR content. . .

pps . . . >>> "I don't like the current govt. party in the USA." <<< Good for you Jim, now were talkn' . . .

A sad story, but that's the system. Should the locals pay $2 for a fish caught by the local fisherman just because it is his livelyhood, when the big boys can catch them more efficiently and sell them for $1? Should the locals have to pay more just to protect the livelyhood of those that can't compete?

Should the big A-I hotels be prevented from offering dirt-cheap vacations because it will put the small hotels and local eateries out of business?

That argument was tried when the automobile came out. And what of all the mom and pop horse-carriage makers? How will they feed their families? It's called progress, and we all must adapt to it.

Protection of the little guy is at the expense of the consumer. Shouldn't the consumer have the right to decide where to spend their money? If they want to spend it on the smaller, more expensive establishments in order to protect said small guys, they will. If not, they won't.

One can never cry "unfair competition" unless somebody is forcing it to be unfair (like govt. subsidies, unequally applied regulations, etc.) Let the market decide. A fundamental of capitalism. It sounds cold, but in the long run, we are all better off. I sure don't want to pay artificially higher prices to protect someone's turf. Others are welcome to do so. That is also part of the market force.

A sad story, but that's the system. Should the locals pay $2 for a fish caught by the local fisherman just because it is his livelyhood, when the big boys can catch them more efficiently and sell them for $1? Should the locals have to pay more just to protect the livelyhood of those that can't compete?

Should the big A-I hotels be prevented from offering dirt-cheap vacations because it will put the small hotels and local eateries out of business?

That argument was tried when the automobile came out. And what of all the mom and pop horse-carriage makers? How will they feed their families? It's called progress, and we all must adapt to it.

Protection of the little guy is at the expense of the consumer. Shouldn't the consumer have the right to decide where to spend their money? If they want to spend it on the smaller, more expensive establishments in order to protect said small guys, they will. If not, they won't.

One can never cry "unfair competition" unless somebody is forcing it to be unfair (like govt. subsidies, unequally applied regulations, etc.) Let the market decide. A fundamental of capitalism. It sounds cold, but in the long run, we are all better off. I sure don't want to pay artificially higher prices to protect someone's turf. Others are welcome to do so. That is also part of the market force.

One being that you are both sorta right and both sorta wrong.
Trickle down will work if there is something to trickle down.
Teaching the yola men to fish is good, but not efficient. Captain Bigbucks will win out in the end...just look at what happened to the peanut farmers...or the small broiler producers.

However, there is one area that neither of you guys touched upon: Population growth!

Given that even in the very mixed-up US of A the gov't is not even close to working efficiently, why are most Americans still confident? Because there IS still enough to go around. (Yes, I am well aware of the myrid exceptions to even this generality).

What I would like to focus on, is that with nearly double digit GDP numbers, no matter how they got them, the populace thought that it was getting some of the pie. Most people in Development Theory feel that a country needs 3 or 4 times the population growth rate in its GDP growth in order to keep the populace fairly content. The idiots in Santo Domingo have not been able to do this dispite the huge increase in their income, and in their spending. Why? To this observer's way of thinking, the Guido Gomez Mazara Mentality has triumphed. All for the party, and nothing for anyone else. Ask any businessman that depends upon local consumption for income: There is no money circulating! This is the universal cry. So, no trickle-down is possible.

And the "why" for Gomez Mazara's demands to his party is encased in the reality that in 2002 they will be taking a bath at the local levels, losing most of the municipalities and Senate races.
And probably dividing a lot of the deputies, depending on how much "gerrymandering" goes on...Hummmm, I wonder if they have studied that in their American History classes...

But of course you can see this in Leonel's proposals and in this new absurdity of the "Public Defender" What a colossal joke on the people.. Are they thinking of a Mark Green?? Oh it is too funny...They already have the Bishops opining, the so-called unions opining and every major entrepreneurial group with its own TV and Newspaper opining...

Isn't this a strange place we live in????????????/

My apologies for the rant...

HB

"IN ALL THOSE things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with the people’s money or their economy or their form of government, be conservative."*

* Dwight D. Eisenhower

"I ask you, is are children learning?"*

* George Dubya Shrub

~~~ Hey, George - pucker up and kiss those moderate Republicans goodbye ~~~

"Moderate Republicans have felt under siege for years now, but for some of them the first hundred days of Bush II have been the last straw."

"But, as Gloria Steinem likes to remind people, conservative Democrats like Jesse Helms and Ronald Reagan vaulted party lines and took over the Republicans, but there are signs of conspicuous slippage. In the last month the president’s unfavorable ratings jumped by double digits among young people, women and especially those who describe themselves as moderates."

"And nearly half didn’t like the president’s plan to open protected parts of the Alaskan wilderness for oil exploration. When the president seemed cavalier about greenhouse gases, carbon-dioxide emissions and arsenic levels in water, conservative advisers may have thought he would anger only the Sierra Club. But in the years since environmentalists were first denigrated as tree huggers, America’s fields have been filled with numbingly identical town-house communities, some towns have come to rely on bottled water for consumption and California is being hit with rolling blackouts. A recent Gallup poll found that a stunning four out of five Americans support tougher pollution standards for industry."

"But it is not just his conservative ideology that has turned moderates against the president." No person of either party can win the presidency without presidency without a substantial number of moderates, who by their own description make up 50 percent, give or take few percentage points, of all Americans."

Read the Article

~ ! ~ Disclaimer ~ ! ~

It seems that lately the "Head Agronomist" has been receiving some bad press every day.

On the other hand it seems that lately the "Bush Lite" has been receiving some bad press every day.

. . . CES

To read the articel click on:

Read the Article

http://www.msnbc.com/news/572629.asp

To read the first post that started the thread click on: > > >