Liberal Capitalism

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
I do not want to anger Graham or Keith, so I have started a new thread.

Al,

You say that the words liberal and capitalism are an oxymoron.

Once again you have shown that you have no idea what you are talking about!

Al, this is a list of average income for metropolitan areas. Al, which metropolitan area has the highest median income, this is for the entire Country.

Al, which area is by far the most successful when it comes to Capitalism?

******

Rank Metropolitan Statistical Area Population Median
Household Income
1 San Francisco--Oakland--San Jose, California CMSA 7,239,362 $63,024
2 Washington–Baltimore, District of Columbia–Maryland–Virginia–West Virginia CMSA 7,608,070 $57,291
3 Anchorage, Alaska MSA 260,283 $55,546
4 Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota–Wisconsin MSA 3,368,806 $54,304
5 Boston–Worcester–Lawrence, Massachusetts–New Hampshire–Maine–Connecticut CMSA 5,819,101 $52,792
6 Hartford, Connecticut MSA 1,183,110 $52,188
7 Atlanta, Georgia MSA 4,112,198 $51,948
8 Honolulu, Hawaii MSA 876,156 $51,914
9 Rochester, Minnesota MSA 124,277 $51,316
10 Denver–Boulder–Greeley, Colorado CMSA
 
Last edited:
My statement was made concidering the liberal taste for big government and government regulation, which does not meet the definition of capitalism below.

An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Al,

You did not answer the question. Which area of the country is by far the most successful at Capitalism? I'll make it easy, multiple choice:

(a) Any Arizona area

(b) Any red state area

(c) The land of Nancy Pelosi, the land of "big Government" and stifling regulation, the San Francisco Bay Area,
 
Last edited:

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Code:
Al,

I hope you can understand why I'm tired of the absurd talk from folks about The SF bay area.

You and others often make snide remarks about us, Our politicians and our business killing culture just a bunch of liberal blood sucking hippies. We just blindly follow Nancy Pelosi and Michael Moore down the road to socialism.

That is just a pile of crap.

I do not know what method you use to judge a "shining beacon of Capitalism" but we in the real world use success.

We make more money, pay better wages and pay more taxes, than ANY OTHER AREA by a good margin.

Additionally, for the most part these are not better mouse trap successes, not something pumped from the ground, or mined from big pits, but real, new ideas, new products, new technology, new companies.

Now I know many of these companies came from somewhere else. Face Book just moved to Menlo Park, a little town i grew up in, but most started right here. Companies like HP, Oracle, Apple, Intel.... all started within a few miles from where I am writhing this.

Al if liberals have stifling Big Government regulations, why are these companies so successful and why would companies like face book move here?
 
Last edited:

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Sure it is. More high tech startups and venture capital in that area than just about anywhere.

Plus, you lost me on Liberalism not somehow believing in the things you state in your definition. I've yet to see a liberal President of the US who did not beleieve in market economies and private ownership of goods. The "conservative" tactic of saying liberals don't believe in markets and capitalism is bunk, and designed to paint them as fundamentally unAmerican in some way.

It's also fundamentally wrong, and not very intelligent.

Where the disagreement lies between liberals and conservatives seems to me to be in how to deal with market abuses (monopolies, environmental dumping, etc.) Conservatives believe in the magic of the "free" market (when no market is every truly free because it is oeprated by humans with prejudices, biases, greed, etc.) to fix all of our ills. That works sometimes, and sometimes it does not. Liberals believe in having government exert more of an influence in the market, sometimes just enough and sometimes too much.

But fundamentally, in the US, both sides believe in markets and capitalism.
 
I do not want to anger Graham or Keith, so I have started a new thread.

Al,

You say that the words liberal and capitalism are an oxymoron.

Once again you have shown that you have no idea what you are talking about!

Al, this is a list of average income for metropolitan areas. Al, which metropolitan area has the highest median income, this is for the entire Country.

Al, which area is by far the most successful when it comes to Capitalism?

******

Rank Metropolitan Statistical Area Population Median
Household Income
1 San Francisco--Oakland--San Jose, California CMSA 7,239,362 $63,024
2 Washington–Baltimore, District of Columbia–Maryland–Virginia–West Virginia CMSA 7,608,070 $57,291
3 Anchorage, Alaska MSA 260,283 $55,546
4 Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota–Wisconsin MSA 3,368,806 $54,304
5 Boston–Worcester–Lawrence, Massachusetts–New Hampshire–Maine–Connecticut CMSA 5,819,101 $52,792
6 Hartford, Connecticut MSA 1,183,110 $52,188
7 Atlanta, Georgia MSA 4,112,198 $51,948
8 Honolulu, Hawaii MSA 876,156 $51,914
9 Rochester, Minnesota MSA 124,277 $51,316
10 Denver–Boulder–Greeley, Colorado CMSA
I dont know jim but maybe im missing the point...what does the average middle of the road house cost in Beverly hills vs hayward wisconsin..is there a cost of living difference? are we talking farmers vs buisness men? how bout population? does that play a factor.. Its not all red vs blue..your numbers dont tell the whole tale..but if you look at it in a nut shell, you guys have our unemployment rate as a country through the sky....I dont really care who's in charge, but this time around it happens to be you guys and its a complete failure...Enjoy it you own it>>:thumbsup:
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Craig, of course you are missing the point!

The point is that Al and many others have continually stated that Liberal politics stifle business and that any time that liberals are in charge, business will suffer.

The point is that that is not even close to true.

Al, Craig, please explain how the San Francisco Bay area. Yes the poster child for Liberal areas, the land of Nancy Pelosi, is by far the most sucessful business area in the Country.

How can that be? Why would FaceBook, a new, fast growing high tech company, who could move to any area of the Country, chose to move to Menlo Park? Menlo Park, a very expensive town, burdened by not just Liberals by Nancy Pelosi!

Why would they do that. Why would they shun all the business friendly consevative areas and move here?
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
[QUOTEIts not all red vs blue..your numbers dont tell the whole tale..but if you look at it in a nut shell, you guys have our unemployment rate as a country through the sky....I dont really care who's in charge, but this time around it happens to be you guys and its a complete failure...Enjoy it you own it>>:thumbsup:[/QUOTE]Posted by Craig

Craig, look closely at this chart!
LNS14000000_78639_1317327011319.gif


Craig, the high unemployment rate is all on Republicans, Obama has lowered it slightly, no were near enough, but lowered none the less.

Craig, Al, you must have forgot to answer.

If as you say, liberals make stifling anti business regulations.....................

Why is Nancy Pelosi's area by far the most successful in the country?

Why would FaceBook move to Nancy Pelosi's area?
 
Last edited:
Why is Nancy Pelosi's area by far the most successful in the country?

Why would FaceBook move to Nancy Pelosi's area?

Maybe because of things like this: Nancy Pelosi's brother-in-law given loan bigger than Solyndra for solar plant | Mail Online

What I don't get is the claim that her brother in law got some of the money. He runs one investment firm investing in this solar company, and the gov't is also providing money. Investors aren't paying each other. Maybe this is why the Drudge Report took their headline down saying that the gov't gave $737M to Pelosi's brother in law. In fact, it's no where to be seen on the site.... *sigh*. And the right complains about the liberal media. Looks like they're not doing anything to fix the problem, just continue adding to it.
 
"Unfortunately, the state legislature has responded to this series of events by rejecting most policy proposals that aim to encourage hi-tech and bio-tech job stimulus with the rationale that any tax incentive proposal is too costly due to the state’s budget shortfall."
Silicon Valley Leadership Group.

Silicon Valley Leadership Group
 
A big incentive for business in California has been the green technology hoax.

Now that's being a bit short sited. Should we go back to burning wood? It's called progression. Hoax is a strong word and in this case, I believe, a bit naive. Green technology has saved you some $$$ with lower mileage mandates and more efficient heating and cooling equipment, just to name a few. It also cleaned up the air you breathe. Yeah, sure, companies would have eventually reached that point on their own, but not in your lifetime.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
I guess the $50 musd contract to build a solar farm in Nevada I just worked on, and the $50 MUSD solar contract in Puerto Rico I finalized last Christmas, and the hundreds of millions of dollars (probably billions) being spent on wind and hydro in the US, and the fact that some European countries now operate 20-30% of their grid via green technologies.....

is all a HOAX.
 
Now that's being a bit short sited. Should we go back to burning wood? It's called progression. Hoax is a strong word and in this case, I believe, a bit naive. Green technology has saved you some $$$ with lower mileage mandates and more efficient heating and cooling equipment, just to name a few. It also cleaned up the air you breathe. Yeah, sure, companies would have eventually reached that point on their own, but not in your lifetime.

The hoax being Solyndra, with more to come. The sad tale is that all these green projects save nothing since their extra cost takes the life of the device to break even and needs massive subsidies to come to market.

Heating/air equipment is becoming so large that there are occasions where a crane is needed to hoist a condensing unit over the owners house because they have become so large that they won't fit in between houses. Again the extra cost of all that copper adds up to too much extra cost to make up the difference to a lower seer unit. The owner can't afford the new tech and has the old crap fixed and it won't be taken out until its swept out as rust.

Whatever fantom savings I may have earned, I've lost in my tax money spent on subsidizing technologies that aren't profitable but make me feel good.

However we got to cleaner air, what good does it do when we are competing with countries that laugh at Kyoto and any other treaty. China and India are the big polluters, and nothing is being done. We get Chinese smog in Los Angeles now and yet Kyoto would have us go back to Seventies usage. You know, back before we added 105 million extra people in this country.

And if you think lower mileage mandates are saving me money (and this goes beyond the unrecoupable costs of these vehicles) Take a look at the higher gas prices California pays because of their mandated gasoline blends that aren't available in neighboring states to handle shortages etc. Look at the vital diesel fuel that is literally commerce on wheels and see that it now cost more than premium in California, once again because of the CA mandated diesel blend unavailable anywhere else. What do you think that does for my "savings?"

And then, consider the MTB CA mandated in their gasoline that poisoned our water. Guess who had to pay to clean that up.

And of course, whatever CA legislates eventually shows up in the rest of the country and then the world since its such a huge market. so I wish you luck on that one.
 
I guess the $50 musd contract to build a solar farm in Nevada I just worked on, and the $50 MUSD solar contract in Puerto Rico I finalized last Christmas, and the hundreds of millions of dollars (probably billions) being spent on wind and hydro in the US, and the fact that some European countries now operate 20-30% of their grid via green technologies.....

is all a HOAX.

"Financial arrangements were not disclosed."

Biggest U.S. solar panel farms open in Nevada, Colo | Reuters
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
um, your point?

That wasn't the farm I worked on, but again...

your point?

Did the FauxNewsSuperKnowledgeInjector convince you that all green projects are fraught with FRAUD?
 
um, your point?

That wasn't the farm I worked on, but again...

your point?

Did the FauxNewsSuperKnowledgeInjector convince you that all green projects are fraught with FRAUD?

The point is that whether or not these projects/companies are honest as the day is long, or as corrupt as Solyndra, they are heavily subsidized by government. Meaning, like the Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf, no one wants this crap because its too expensive, and isn't ready for practical, daily use.

BTW, weren't you some kind of a lawyer? What work did you do on this farm? I don't think you'd be pissing time away on forums like this if you were as successful as the Solyndra lawyers.

Lawyers netted millions in solar loan deal - Washington Times
 
The hoax being Solyndra, with more to come. The sad tale is that all these green projects save nothing since their extra cost takes the life of the device to break even and needs massive subsidies to come to market.

Heating/air equipment is becoming so large that there are occasions where a crane is needed to hoist a condensing unit over the owners house because they have become so large that they won't fit in between houses. Again the extra cost of all that copper adds up to too much extra cost to make up the difference to a lower seer unit. The owner can't afford the new tech and has the old crap fixed and it won't be taken out until its swept out as rust.

Whatever fantom savings I may have earned, I've lost in my tax money spent on subsidizing technologies that aren't profitable but make me feel good.

However we got to cleaner air, what good does it do when we are competing with countries that laugh at Kyoto and any other treaty. China and India are the big polluters, and nothing is being done. We get Chinese smog in Los Angeles now and yet Kyoto would have us go back to Seventies usage. You know, back before we added 105 million extra people in this country.

And if you think lower mileage mandates are saving me money (and this goes beyond the unrecoupable costs of these vehicles) Take a look at the higher gas prices California pays because of their mandated gasoline blends that aren't available in neighboring states to handle shortages etc. Look at the vital diesel fuel that is literally commerce on wheels and see that it now cost more than premium in California, once again because of the CA mandated diesel blend unavailable anywhere else. What do you think that does for my "savings?"

And then, consider the MTB CA mandated in their gasoline that poisoned our water. Guess who had to pay to clean that up.

And of course, whatever CA legislates eventually shows up in the rest of the country and then the world since its such a huge market. so I wish you luck on that one.

Bob, repectfully, you're arguing something else. Besides side tracking into the validity of other mandates, you're trying to argue that the cost savings is lost because of other increases. Well, imagine how much more you'd be spending if those savings weren't there. And I know the cost of a car is affected by the R&D that goes into bringing about those changes. BUT, people forget the other factors that come into play when the gov't mandates things. They mandate for a reason. Companies are not willing to pony up the $ in R&D because, quite frankly, they don't need to, even though they know some day technology will be moving in that direction. They wait for some other outside influence to force them to do it. After the mandate, every company is working on the technology and there is a lot information sharing going on in many forms. The technology actually grows faster. The effort and cost is spread around and the final $ hit to the product is less. And don't take that as an argument to mandate everything. Just don't go there.

In regards to cleaner air, "...what good does it do when we are competing with countries that laugh at Kyoto and any other treaty." ??? Really - so we should breathe dirty air here just because someone else is?
 
Bob, repectfully, you're arguing something else. Besides side tracking into the validity of other mandates, you're trying to argue that the cost savings is lost because of other increases. Well, imagine how much more you'd be spending if those savings weren't there. And I know the cost of a car is affected by the R&D that goes into bringing about those changes. BUT, people forget the other factors that come into play when the gov't mandates things. They mandate for a reason. Companies are not willing to pony up the $ in R&D because, quite frankly, they don't need to, even though they know some day technology will be moving in that direction. They wait for some other outside influence to force them to do it. After the mandate, every company is working on the technology and there is a lot information sharing going on in many forms. The technology actually grows faster. The effort and cost is spread around and the final $ hit to the product is less. And don't take that as an argument to mandate everything. Just don't go there.

In regards to cleaner air, "...what good does it do when we are competing with countries that laugh at Kyoto and any other treaty." ??? Really - so we should breathe dirty air here just because someone else is?

On cost savings, lets take the heating industry as an example. The state of the art furnace has quadrupled the number of parts needed to work. This makes these new units cost considerably more than the lowest efficiency furnace allowed. Even that lower efficiency unit is more complex/expensive than the previous generation unit. Add to that an economy in which buying a unit that is twice as expensive as the old becomes prohibitive. This leads us to lower income people needing a new furnace because the old one is worn out and could kill them. They pray for a mild winter and use it sparingly. I might add that these new units don't last as long due to complexity , and are prone to many problems related to having a CPU so close to extreme heat and humidity.

In the meantime, those new units that are going on line are reducing fuel consumption. Now the utility company is seeing their bottom line drop, so they raise prices. The people who could afford a new unit are paying close to their old bill, and the lower income people are really screwed.

All of this in the name of reducing consumption of fuel, when it is known that the supply of natural gas and heating oil in the US is greater than that in the Arab oil cartel.

As for cleaner air, no mention was made of lowering our air quality. I'm saying that America is the cleanest industrial country in the world, and yet the world wants to penalize the US while giving the true polluters a free pass. Its so bad that Chinese pollution travels with the trade winds to the western states.

How much of California's air pollution comes from China? - China Real Time Report - WSJ
 
Back
Top