.

This whole thing is unreal. One of the worst natural disasters in the history of the United States. =\

The latest news is, people who live in New Orleans will not be able to return to their homes for at least TWO TO THREE MONTHS

I've read up to four.

Btw, is Matt Patterson and his friends and family okay? I know he doesn't live in New Orleans, but in Baton Rouge, but it's possible for him to have loved ones from that area.

He says he's in Houston.

The only "law" that exists in New Orleans right now is "The law of the jungle". In my opinion, it's time for the Governor of Louisianna to declare martial law.

Not for a moment am I denying the fact that there are a lot of people out there taking advantage, but you do have to wonder how many people are looting and raiding stores simply because they have no other way of getting food or clean water. It would be hard if hungry folk whose only other choice was to starve were shot trying to feed their families.

John, *no one* in Louisiana is capable of declaring martial law, because no such term exists in Louisiana law. One can declare a state of emergency, which Governor Blanco did days ago, which confers similar, but not the same, powers on state and military authorities.

Martial law---"No such term exists in Louisiana law"---Matthew Patterson

WHAT?!?! I never heard such a thing. Who's the idiot that made that possible?

All I gotta say is, they'd better make martial law "exist" soon before things get any worse.

Today I heard about shootings, fist-fights and RAPES at the Superdome.

That's just plain ridiculous!

Callie,
Not for a moment am I denying the fact that there are a lot of people out there taking advantage, but you do have to wonder how many people are looting and raiding stores simply because they have no other way of getting food or clean water. It would be hard if hungry folk whose only other choice was to starve were shot trying to feed their families.

That's what I heard on the news, too: all the people who listened and did what the official authorities said, by coming to the appointed meeting places, have now been without food or water for four days, in a hot, humid city, with corpses lying around. They also showed how hospital patients are parked outside, without being cared for.

The really incredible thing is how badly organized all this is, given the amount of advance warning, and the previous experiences with hurricanes and tornadoes in other states.

constanze,

This is slightly different. The city of New Orleans has essentially been wiped off the map. A bit more extreme than previous experiences. As I understand it, the disaster is not because of the hurricane, per se, but because the levees broke. New Orleans is normally below sea level. Think of it as the equivalent of the dikes in the Netherlands failing.

One of the worst natural disasters in the history of the United States.

here is the Straight Dope on natural disasters.

John A. Lang, please read the rest of my post, where you will see that a parallel institution is in fact in place, and do attempt to keep the panic-mongering to a minimum.

ScottN,

the US is one of the richest, industrialized nations on the Earth, with a big army & a national guard (meaning logistics) and other disasters to learn from about organzing things. If people are told to go to a certain place, and neither food nor water are given at this place for 4 days!; if ships with relief and to carry away refugees only start *now*, the fourth day; if hospitals aren't ready (staff and provisions) to treat patients - then this is bad organisation.

Yes, the Netherlands are below sea level - but they care about their dams, and have things organized. A few years ago, Eastern Germany, Poland and the Netherlands had devastating floods (and we saw the effects of poorly coordinated efforts at local level, although Germany at least has still some networks from the cold-war-era left over).

And the situation isn't only so bad because the dikes broke (and I wonder if there was a problem with not enough money to care about them regularly...), but that 30.000 people couldn't afford to leave the city and therefore went to the Superdome, making the problem worse. That people can't afford evacuation - and the state doesn't provide buses or similar - is a shame for one of the richest nations. At least from my perspective.

To quote from Bill Barnes (at Overdue Media:

..We can't stop hurricanes, but we're supposed to have the scientific and civil expertise to shuffle people out of harm's way and return them safely afterwards. We're supposed to have the engineering brawn to keep a city from going under water. We're supposed to have the manpower to swiftly rescue refugees even when everything else goes wrong. ...

Re: Matt patterson: I'm sorry I misunderstood your post & I apologize if I seem to be panicking. I'm not---I'm angry.

It just seems that "A state of emergency" methods are doing very little to stop what's going on.

My God. This is what the hurricane looked like.

Amazing picture, makes you realise how insignificant we are to the forces of nature.

Images of the aftermath of hurricane Katrina raise a lot a different issues. Coming monthes after the Asian tsumani, and days after the European floods, how does this situation compare to those. The death and destruction of the tsumani were far greater with around 250,000 people killed. One thing absent from the scenes of that were looting rampages, arson, and rapes. Why? It's interesting that Evangelicals are always claiming that "Christian" America is morally superior to other countries. Really? Poverty, misery, and destruction were far worse in those mainly Muslim countries affected by the tsumani. I see no moral superiority in the behavior of Americans. Of course, the rampant materialism drummed into Americans' heads every day does create a different mindset. But wait, Japan is a modern capitalist democracy like America. In '95 when a massive quake caused devastation in Kobe, there wasn't a single report of looting. Are Buddists different? Bern, Switzerland was left under water by last week's floods. Why weren't there any looting rampages there?

As for the federal response to the flood, the incompetence of the Bush administration is not only pathetic, it's a call for change. Five days to get food and water to people? That's a disgrace. Bush wasn't even initially concerned with the destruction. He was partying away (glad I didn't have to hear his guitar playing). His advisors probably see another 9/11-like opportunity to try improve his dwindling public approval numbers. His photo-ops of hugging flood victims were pure politics. I was very touched when the Mayor of New Orleans broke down and resorted to profanity when addressing the issue of the Bush administration's response.

Listening to talk radio has also revealed how racist a lot of Americans are. In looking at images of looting, they saw how "black" New Orleaners acted. Sorry, but the majority of the people were in the Super Dome and were actually well behaved. The looters, rapists, and arsonists were out of control because... where was our National Guard. Oops, most of it is in Iraq. The National Guard wasn't primarily set up to substitute for our Army and Marines. Once more, the Bush administration has bungled things. Incompetent fools; Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Chertoff, and on and on. The people got what they elected, imcompetence. The fish rots from the head down.

I agree--the relief efforts were terribly coordinated and seemed to start very late.

The racism question, I think, is something of a dodge of the real issue, which is more of economic discrimination than skin-color racism (I realize the two are rather intertwined). Many low-income and poverty-stricken people were basically left to face the hurricane on their own without help getting out or organization. Most of them happen to be black because 2/3 of New Orleans is black. I also don't think race-mongering, as I some individuals doing, helps the situation at all.

... Bern, Switzerland was left under water by last week's floods. Why weren't there any looting rampages there?

There may be lots of reasons for that, but I doubt it's related to religion. After all, most of Central Europe has a christian heritage. I'd like to attribute it more to a comibnation of factors, like advanced warnings and proper evacuation (not leaving the poor people behind), the knowledge that disaster organisation will work, so there's no need to get food and water on your own; adequate insurance coverage; and maybe even the fact that there's more of a social peace over here because our state intervenes to catch people from falling all the way to the bottom with a social security net (which americans seem to consider either socialist/communist, or call a security hanging mat).
If the people have to endure a hurricane because they can't afford to leave work or get a bus ticket, and know they don't have any chance to get stuff during normal times, it's understandable that a certain small percentage is tempted to help themselves when the opportunity is there.

And for those who tell that everything was better in the old days because of better morals, less liberal and more conservative... in the blackout in NY in the 60s, there was alos looting. And duriing WWII in Europe, when bombers destroyed the cities, people who'd lost their homes helped themselves, too, with no thought for the community, or sticking together (so martial law was instituted.)

As for the govt.: it's interesting to notice how New Orleans is different from Florida (where Jeb Bush rules), or other parts of the country: no rabid christians that voted for Bush in the last election (most of the pro-Bush votes came from the coutnry, not the big cities); and a lot of poor people, who often don't vote at all (since there's no party who represents their interests).

As I suspected, it was a problem of not enough money to prevent the levies from failing, of not bothering to evacuate everybody before, and not coordinating things after Links and quotes with details here

Mark also points out the dismal light this catastrophe - well predicted as possibility before - throws on the ability to deal with terrorist attacks: the US is apparently neither ready nor capable to do so, partly because the current administrating isn't willing to do sth. effectively.

The disaster was predicted almost a year ago.

Nothing psychic, or anything. Just common sense knowledge of what a hurricane could do to the city and the nation.

Make that NINE predictions dating from December 2001 to June 2005.

Rona,

about the looting:

As a guy named Hunter blogged on dailykos:
[...] The lawlessness is rampant. It's important to note, however, that the lawlessness wasn't rampant on Monday. It wasn't rampant on Tuesday. We heard only twinges of it on Wednesday. Today, from the sounds of the reports, a city devoid of all hope devolved into absolute chaos.

and Mark's comment on this:

On the bright side, at least the New Orleans looters had ready access to guns#. Thank the NRA that Americans could express their God-given right to shoot at the people trying to rescue them! (Both from my above link)

I wouldn't call this looting, then, but "fringsen"*.

* In the years after WWII, before the monetary reform, the Archbishop of Cologne, Frings, said in sermon that taking things to make sure your family can survive - people were stealing coals from the train for heating, or to trade for food - isn't breaking the commandment of "Thou shalt not steal". The population immediately called this activity "fringsen" instead of stealing.

# Even if there had been trouble with looters in Bern or the Netherlands or other flood areas in Europe, people wouldn't start shooting wildly, since they have no guns.

I mean, in the blackout in NY in the 60s, some poor people used the opportunity to get TVs and other expensive stuff from stores.
But in New Orleans, I absolutely understand people getting food, drinking water and the like themselves if they're left alone.

Looting for food is one thing, I don't understand why there is so much violence and rape being reported (even in the domes). Apparently the British women had to be encircled by men (don't know if they were British or American) for protection the threat was so strong.

the national gaurd ordered a guy to stop looting and he yelled these are mine and he got shot to death

thats what I heard anyways

Actually, there weren't many reports of looting in the November 1965 blackout. It was the summer, 1977 New York City blackout that spawned a lot of looting.

Rona wrote above: The people got what they elected, imcompetence.

Wasn't Bush not elected, but appointed by the Supreme Court? Particularly the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist and de facto Chief Justice Antonin Scalia?

Wasn't funding for the Army Corps of Engineers to shore up the levee systems in New Orleans cut? And, wasn't former Senate Majority Leader Trent "Hair Helmet" Lott instrumental in the cutting of funds for this? And, wasn't Lott's Mississippi home trashed in the hurricane? This may seem a bit heartless, but that's just desserts, AFAIC. But, he can afford to rebuild. My heart goes out to those who can't.

Wasn't Bush not elected, but appointed by the Supreme Court? Particularly the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist and de facto Chief Justice Antonin Scalia?

No. The election was too close to call, and SOMEONE had to call it. That someone was SCOTUS. And in 2004, Bush was elected. No doubt.

Disclaimer: I did not vote for any of Bush, Gore, or Kerry.

on The Monterey Peninsula we had the 2 floods of 95 did the prez show up for us?

also, how about the quake of 89 in Ca did the prez even showed up for us those days?


--------------------------------------------
isnt this the second vacation Bush cancelled because of Mother Nature?

President Bush did visit California after Loma Prieta in '89.

Don't remember if Clinton showed up after the '94 Northridge quake.

However, Maxine Waters called racism that all the money was going to the Valley instead of South-Central. Duh! That's where all the damage was...

If you have followed news reports about Michael Brown, head of FEMA, you would understand what I mean about imcompetence. Brown was another one of those 'political favor' appointees who was totally unqualified for the job. Both Democratic and Republican politicians are demanding an investigation into FEMA and other organizations' responses. Bush said he would be glad to head up an investigation. What a joke! Look how he responded to Rumsfeld's incompetence...by doing nothing.

As for the race question, the Mayor of New Orleans,the NAACP, and even some popular rappers have called for looking into the racial aspects of the disaster responses. The specific racist reaction on the radio I was talking about wasn't subtle: after complaining about 'black' looters, the caller ended with a plea to look up "David Duke.Com". His rant sounded much like other callers who complained about black looting. It is truly beyond disgusting that some are using this disaster to spread their racist ideas. It's no surprise that Duke is a Republican.

And then to the question of budget priorities. Louisiana politicians have pleaded for federal funds to strengthen the levees for years. Bush wasn't interested.

David Duke has been a Democrat, a Populist, and a Republican. In 1989, both George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan campaigned for his opponent in Duke's race for Congress. He received an official reprove from the Republican party later.

Later, he said he received no Republican party support and endorsed the Reform Party. On his website, he describes how he is against the current Bush administration. The man is vaguely loony and pretty racist. But I wouldn't describe him as a Republican.

Nobody wants Duke, Rona.

And to be honest, I suspect the issues were actually more class-based than race-based, though in N.O., apparently, the class division closely mirrors the racial division.

Also, Rona,

Because some random Klansman whacko calls into talk radio, the entire N.O. disaster is a racist thing?

Or did I misinterpret your post. If so, my apologies.

Much of the blame for the slovenliness and ineffectiveness of the relief efforts should not only go to President Nero Bush (who rode his horses while New Orleans drowned) but to FEMA director Michael Brown. He's a totaly unqualified political hack, whose apparent qualification for the job is that he's a loyal Republican. Actually, partisan politics seems to be the best qualification for any top job in any administration, Democrat or Republican.

I have some high school friends from the 70s who live in the hurricane zone. Hope they made it.

one kid stayed on his roof for 5 days lost his parents and his dog and they voted for Bushy

Yeah, because we all know that Bush causes hurricanes.

No, that's my jurisdiction. Bwa-ha-ha!

It was inexcusable when NBC cut off rapper K. West when he said "Bush doesn't care for black people". We all know he doesn't.

On the other hand, Bush is excited that millionare Trent Lott will build an even grander home.

Snide Commentary: Yeah, because we all know that Bush causes hurricanes.
Luigi Novi: No, we all know that Bush's job is to respond to the crises caused by them.

Rona: It was inexcusable when NBC cut off rapper K. West when he said "Bush doesn't care for black people". We all know he doesn't.
Luigi Novi: This is just my opinion, but I think West's commments were inappropriate---not because I disagree with him mind you----but because there's a time and place for everything, and the purpose of fundraising efforts is just that: to raise money. Not point the finger. By using his airtime not to plea for support from sympathetic fellow Americans, not only was he shifting the focus away from the salient point of the telethon, but he was possibly alienating that Republican/conservative segment of the country that voted for and likes Bush, his current approval rating notwithstanding.

If you want to raise money for this cause, you should try casting as wide a net as possible, and alienating a significant portion of Americans is counterproductive to that. I am reminded of that recent commercial on TV for that AIDS charity featuring various diverse celebrities from Al Pacino to Dennis Hopper each reciting a small portion of the speech. I was surprised that Pat Robertson was part of that, because you don't usually associate Robertson with other celebrities or with charities that are popular with Hollywood, like AIDS. But while it might've been tempting to write off his involvement, given all the offensive things he's said over the years, there's something to be said for getting people who would normally be strong opponents in other areas to participate together in a common worthy cause, and who employing such diverse spokespeople may cut across various sociopolitical boundaries to attract donators from differents walks of life.

I am also reminded of an email I received last May from a friend suggesting motorists not to buy oil from companies that import oil from countries that have in some way condoned or supported terrorism, and encouraged readers to forward the email to others. Unfortunately, the email also contained a reference to Arabs as “rag heads,” so I responded that using such a term was not only offensive and unnecessary, but potentially counterproductive, since some of people he wanted to reach may be of Arab or Eastern or Muslim descent themselves, making it harder for them to jump on board with him.

I can’t think of anyone who could disagree with someone asking for help for Katrina victims. But I can’t say the same thing when that someone starts attacking politicians, even if the criticism is justified, because that will only divide those he’s trying to attract support from. Bottom line for me: There’s a time and place for everything, and a telethon is not the place to attack people.

I also think Kayne West had a good point about racism and people's views on black people, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people tuned him out when he started attacking Bush.

EXCELLENT Peter David blog entry.

Yeah, the Daily Show had something similar to that.

My feeling is that saying "We're not going to play the blame game" is fine and dandy...but then don't play it. Sean Hannity kept saying last night how it wasn't good to blame anyone right now (okay), but then he kept ragging on the mayor of NO and governor of LA. Alan Colmes said the right is basically saying it's not okay to blame anyone but whom we choose to blame.

Disclaimer: I think there is actually a good deal of blame to go around on a local and federal level.

As for Hannity playing the "blame game"...on his Aug 30 radio program, he complained about "liberal protesters" (outside a VA hospital) who wanted American soldiers in Iraq to die for "America's social misdeeds". Actually the protesters were the good old gang from the Phelp's Kansas church. They were protesting that American soldiers were being killed in Iraq because God was punishing America for homosexual practices. There was nothing ambiguous about who they were or their message. It's a good example of how Hannity flat-out lies. It's misrepresentation of the worst kind. Hannity has zero journalistic credibility in my opinion (there's good reason Franken names him as a crass liar). But the whole FOX News gang has been that way lately. A couple of days ago, O'Reilly was carrying on about how extraordinary Bush was in preparing for Katrina.

The Rove response team has responded by coming up with another pathetic catch phrase to divert attention. Just have everyone in the administration say "Don't play the blame game".

This just in: WASHINGTON - Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Michael Brown is being relieved of his command of the Bush administration's Hurricane Katrina onsite relief efforts, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced Friday. He will be replaced by Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad W. Allen, who was overseeing New Orleans relief and rescue efforts, Chertoff said.

Sounds like they might not want to play the blame game but found someone to blame anyhow.

I'm envisioning Chertoff as Tom Hagen and Brown as Frankie Five Angels.

If you want to see where the "compassionate conservative" gets it from, consider the remarks of his mother.

Barbara Bush, after touring the Astrodome where many evacuees are being housed:
"What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this, this is working very well for them."

Bill Maher was very accurate when he said "The moron doesn't fall very far from the tree."

Kenye West's remark about Bush not caring for black people has generated a lot of talk in the media. Bush has never cared for any poor people (whether black or white). Kitty Kelley described in her book (on the Bushes) how G.W's college classmates were disgusted by how openly contemptuous Bush was of poor people. Considering how the Bush family and its interests have profited from Saudi money, they're quite a charity case themselves. Why should blacks trust Republicans, especially after RNC head Ken Mehlman recently apologised to the NAACP for the Republican party practising racist policies.

Also, a bit of history:
Three years ago, the director of the Army Corps of Engineers testified on Capitol Hill that Bush-mandated budget cuts would hamper the corp's ability to maintain that portion of the nation's infrastructure in its charge, he was given 30 minutes to resign or be fired.

Anybody see Chris Rock's take on Bush last night, at the "Shelter from the Storm" concert? He quips "George Bush hates midgets."

Bush committed one of the biggest foot-in-mouth gaffes of his presidency when he mentioned that he couldn't wait to sit on the front porch of Trent Lott's future new house. People in the Gulf were left homeless, entire cities and towns were laid waste, and he talks about Trent Lott's house. He's so completely clueless, it boggles my mind.

I agree that it was a silly thing to say, but I think his intentions were good--I think he was trying to make an analogy to Lott's house and the entire region. Was it a bad analogy? Yeah, but I don't think there was anything mean-spirited about it.

I don't know. Bush has had little concern with the growing poverty and working poor in this country ever since he came into power. This entire regime has been nothing but for the rich and by the rich.

And speaking of which:WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Companies with ties to the Bush White House and the former head of FEMA are clinching some of the administration's first disaster relief and reconstruction contracts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Just found on Yahoo news.

Well, Mike, Adam didn't say it was mean-spirited, only that it was clueless.

That's true; he didn't. I have heard others say it, though, so I just wanted to make my interpretation known.

Moderator? Since this is in the "They Don't Have a Board" section, how about if we move it to PM, since much of this board's content is political in nature.

In addition, I have a post to make, and although I'm not sure how long the thread will continue, there's a place for it at PM. Perhaps I can name the subtopic "Disaster Relief".

Price-gouging is a GOOD thing, according to John Stossel.

In his weekly email, Stossel printed some of the hate mail he got as a result of the column, and some of the supportive email he got on it.

He also refers to an article that argues how anti-price-gouging laws create shortages.

I have to admit that when I first read his conclusion I was a bit shocked, and even inclined toward being offended; this isn't the first time I've disagreed with Stossel. But I read his article, and some of the concurring emails, and I have to admit, some of it seems reasoned.

Any thoughts?

Oh. my. God. Is the above article the typical thinking and understanding/reasoning of economic relations and government regulations??? Is hoarding the only typical behaviour of the ordinary citizen???

You should really do something to improve your education system, if people can write nonsense like this and have others agree with them.
I don't even know where to start with.

For starters, if people hoard things like water in an emergency, it shows lack of trust in goverment to provide them with these things. That's not charity, but disaster relief is one of the duties of the state. (Oops, I tend to forget: americans don't believe the state should provide anything. Well, over here we think of the state and the citizens having duties and rights.)
Secondly, it's not an either-or question: either the price is 20$ and water's still available, or the price is 1 $, and things are sold out. If the store owner would be compassionate instead of greedy, he could for example limit the amount per person.
Thirdly, raising the price from 1$ to 20$ or 50$ doesn't stop the store from being empty or the water only going to the needy. If the desperate mother has somehow managed to scrounge up 20$ (maybe by raiding somebody else?), then what prevents the store owner selling that bottle to the next rich guy offering 100$? Raising the price simply means more goes to the rich, and the poor are screwed.
And lastly, I bet the writer of that column never was in a position when something he desperately needed was impossible to buy. He doesn't sound like somebody who has any compassion to people who are really poor, and therefore, desperate.

Actually, John Stossel has a reputation for taking on exploitative companies. His big deal is that he is anti big-government, so if you look at it from that perspective, his article does make some sense.

I think I agree with Luigi. I started out not buying the premise at all, but as I read it more and thought about it, I could see his point. It's one of those "I don't like the point, but it's a legitimate point." I think he could have phrased things a little differently--it came off kinda cold-blooded. His basic point is that attempting to have uniform economic regulation in his emergency hamstrings businesses and ultimately hurts the consumers. I agree with that. His other logic is a tad more cynical.

constanze: For starters, if people hoard things like water in an emergency, it shows lack of trust in goverment to provide them with these things. That's not charity, but disaster relief is one of the duties of the state.
Luigi Novi: But obviously, that didn't happen in the case of Katrina, at least not in anything resembling a speedy manner.

constanze: Oops, I tend to forget: americans don't believe the state should provide anything. Well, over here we think of the state and the citizens having duties and rights.
Luigi Novi: Yes, the state should provide some things, and it does have some duties. Libertarians like Stossel believe that government should do what it is appointed to do, and what it does best: Build and maintain roads, defend the country from foreign threats, provide the postal service etc. Stossel has produced many TV specials arguing that government should be small and not interfere with the free market because that makes things worse for us, among other things.

constanze: If the store owner would be compassionate instead of greedy, he could for example limit the amount per person.
Luigi Novi: Who says he didn't? He could do that, and given the number of people in New Orleans who needed water, it might still be sold out by the time the needy mother got to his store, along with every other supply he has, which means the store would be closed. Stossel argues that by raising it, there's at least a chance of there being some for her, whereas in the alternative scenarios, there is none. Again, I admit I'm not happy conceding that he has a point, but he does, and he does this with reason and evidence. No offense intended, but impassioned scenarios about whether he's been in the same situation don't change that.

MikeC,

Actually, John Stossel has a reputation for taking on exploitative companies.

*sarcasm on* Yes, he definitly sounds anti-business in his article... *sarcasm off*

..His big deal is that he is anti big-government, so if you look at it from that perspective, his article does make some sense.

Yes, New Orleans shows why big government isn't necessary *rolling eyes*. Isn't it rather that badly managed government is bad, not the size of it? Yes, it's easier to be ineffective when big, but small isn't automatically more effective.

... I started out not buying the premise at all, but as I read it more and thought about it, I could see his point. It's one of those "I don't like the point, but it's a legitimate point." ...

No, I don't see the point in his illogical argument.

... I think he could have phrased things a little differently--it came off kinda cold-blooded....

If that's just kinda cold-blooded, what is really cold-hearted then? I find it hard to think of a worse example then a mother with a dying child and a water-bottle for 20$.

...His basic point is that attempting to have uniform economic regulation in his emergency hamstrings businesses and ultimately hurts the consumers. I agree with that....

No, it's faulty logic all through. *sarcasm on* But off course, we can't have anything that hurts the god-given rights of the shop-owners to make as many bucks as possible over the health and lives of their fellow humans...* sarcasm off*

Luigi,

but disaster relief is one of the duties of the state.
Luigi Novi: But obviously, that didn't happen in the case of Katrina, at least not in anything resembling a speedy manner.

And so, becaus it didn't happen, Stossels argument is right? Huh? Did I miss something here?

Luigi Novi: Yes, the state should provide some things, and it does have some duties. Libertarians like Stossel believe that government should do what it is appointed to do, and what it does best: Build and maintain roads, defend the country from foreign threats, provide the postal service etc. Stossel has produced many TV specials arguing that government should be small and not interfere with the free market because that makes things worse for us, among other things.

If Stossel's librartarian, that explains things, of course. Just for those who aren't, an info: Between an absolutely free, uncontrolled market and the planned, regulated market that was around in the communist countries, there are many sensible models.
And another info: do you have some kind of consumer protection? Like, honest labeling for people with allergies? Like, ensuring that electrical appliances won't blow up into your face because of cheap materials? Like, a Food control authority, so you don't get peas colored with arsenik, flour stretched with plaster and the like (as in the last century)?
Then your market is regulated.
Do you have some kind of anti-trust law, to prevent monopolies (like in the last century)? Then your market isn't uncontrolled and free.
And if you're shouting now for the libertarians to remove all these barriers: can you imagine how the market would look like for you personally if those laws were removed? Would you have enough power to make sure the food and water you buy is safe and clean?

Besides, while it's generous of Stossel to think that the state should provide roads and armies, I wonder why. After all, roads can be built and maintained by private companies. And the war in Iraq is outsourced to private (free-lance) soldiers at the moment. (The United Fruit Company didn't need an army to mess in Latin America, either, they did it on their own budget.)
So why don't you do away with the whole government? Is it the pomp surrounding the President?

constanze: If the store owner would be compassionate instead of greedy, he could for example limit the amount per person.
Luigi Novi: Who says he didn't? He could do that, and given the number of people in New Orleans who needed water, it might still be sold out by the time the needy mother got to his store, along with every other supply he has, which means the store would be closed. ...

But that's not what Stossel's argument was. He claimed the only way to prevent hoarding and keep supplies for needy people was raising the price (as if that was the reason, and not pure, egoistic greed). The only other method Stossel could think of was govt. regulated prices.
Therefore, I pointed out that things like rationing would work much better. I didn't say that rationing is a 100% fool-proof - during and after WWII, food and other necessities were rationed with stamps, and there was a black market besides the drastic measures. There will always be some criminal people who abuse or trick a system.

Stossel argues that by raising it, there's at least a chance of there being some for her, whereas in the alternative scenarios, there is none. ...

Once again, raising the price doesn't prevent hoarding, it only leaves out the poor. Nothing prevents the rich from hoarding.

Again, I admit I'm not happy conceding that he has a point, but he does, and he does this with reason and evidence....

I don't see his reason. He follows faulty logic by excluding other possible scenarios, only to excuse some greedy shop-keepers.
For example, one of his escuses is that the shopkeeper doesn't have to be there, during that dangerous time. Excuse me while I don't shed any crocodile tears, but what is he doing there, anyway? Water and food during emergencies shouldn't have to be bought, but provided by disaster relief. That's what it's for. That's what emergency relief means. (And if Stossel thinks that'charity, I think that says a lot about how cold-hearted he is.)
The shop-keepers can return with everybody else once order and normal life has returned. But then, price gouging won't be possible anymore, since people can compare prices and shop where it's cheaper.

As for his example of the carpenters etc rebuilding homes: I don't know where he got the idea that somebody would order these people there to rebuild, or that govt. control would be needed or wanted. People who have enough money can pay a bit more to have their houses rebuilt immediately; the rest has to wait. While the state provides emergency housing and shelter. That's how it works in a normal market.
Food and water is something else entirely.

No offense intended, but impassioned scenarios about whether he's been in the same situation don't change that....

I haven't been in any situation like that, either. But I watched the news when the high water struck East and North Germany and Poland a few years back. Nobody would seriously have proposed selling water bottles at 20 Euros at that time. But then, nobody would've left half of a town behind - whenever a town was evacuated, all people were taken away. (Of course, not many people here have firearms to defend their property against helpers by shooting at them.)
But I don't need to be in a bad situation to feel compassion to the victims. Stossel apparently can't think far enough from his own well-off existence. Because he can afford 20$, he thinks everybody else can, and if not, bad luck. I call that cold-hearted.
(To think that my mother thought the suffering of the people in New Orleans would make the americans feel more compassionate towards foreign victims... She just doesn't understand how americans think.)

1. I don't know what Stossel sounds like in this article, but if you look at his record, he has fought exploitative companies and government waste. He has done some very good things.

2. I think his point is logical if you keep in mind the context of the situation he presents. In his context, there is no free, charity disaster relief (as there wasn't for a good deal of the post-Hurricane disaster). Thus, Stossel is arguing, that in that context, it is illogical for a government to impose uniform regulations which could possibly hurt both storeowners and consumers. That's not the ideal situation or a good situation, but in terms of the context presented, it makes sense.

3. I read Stossel's book a while ago, but actually DIDN'T Stossel rail against a lot of the consumer protection stuff as merely scaremongering and attack on consumers' rights? I can't really remember, for sure (note: the article and that point makes a heck of a lot of more sense if you're aware of Stossel's perspective).

4. You say that disaster relief should be bringing supplies, not a shopowner. That's true, but Stossel's argument is in a context WITHOUT disaster relief (as again, there wasn't in real life). In dealing with this context, the storeowner is the only source of help for the consumers, and thus has to accordingly price. Am I saying that's the world I want to live in? No. But that's the way it happens sometimes and in that context, Stossel has a point.

5. "But then, nobody would've left half of a town behind - whenever a town was evacuated, all people were taken away."
In Katrina, people were left behind. Stossel's not talking about a circumstance in which relief and help are right there; he's talking about situations like this.

6. Your last comment is a cheap shot. I don't understand how John Stossel making a somewhat grim but accurate argument translates into Americans being insensitive jerks. From Stossel's perspective, he's trying to find a way to help people that are not being helped.

I don't understand how John Stossel making a somewhat grim but accurate argument translates into Americans being insensitive jerks.

Because not only Stossel making that argument at all, but several people agreeing with his point. I explained his argument - according to the article in Luigis link, since I have no other records about this guy - both to my fiance and my mother, and neither of them could understand it, or agree on it.

And I didn't say "insensitive jerks" - but Stossel's perspective is one without compassion, and if people agree with that....
In no European country do people have to argue, explain and apologize why it is a good idea to help poor people, like in America.
In no European country is "liberal" a bad word next to communist, only in America.

Thus, Stossel is arguing, that in that context, it is illogical for a government to impose uniform regulations which could possibly hurt both storeowners and consumers. That's not the ideal situation or a good situation, but in terms of the context presented, it makes sense.

I still don't see why a badly-handled situation calls for greed instead of better management.

I read Stossel's book a while ago, but actually DIDN'T Stossel rail against a lot of the consumer protection stuff as merely scaremongering and attack on consumers' rights? I can't really remember, for sure (note: the article and that point makes a heck of a lot of more sense if you're aware of Stossel's perspective).

I haven't read his book, but the rich people in Manchester last century were against the state interfering with their business, too, and from their perspective, it too made sense.
Everything makes sense from a certain perspective. That doesn't make it right or good.

I have to say that being of the working poor in an emergency if a store owner tried to charge 20 bucks for a bottle of water i wouldnt be a bit sorry to see him get smacked. That is just robbery and taking advantage of a bad situation.

If you run out of something then that is bad but the pitiful excuse of trying to preserve supplies by pricing things to outrageous levels is a bald faced lie. It is just about trying to line your own pockets and make a bit of coin off the suffering of another.

I do believe in small government and a free market, however that being said. I do also believe that there should be protections against corporate greed and situations like occured after the hurricane and other disasters. Where prices rise without fair reasons. In those instances there should be emergency mandatory price controls implemented. And if a company takes a bit of a loss oh well the megamillionare corporate yuppie jerks can pay for it out of pocket and not get their second mercedes or trip to france.

"Calls for greed instead of better management"

Stossel's point was that it was badly managed and thus the only solution was the extreme one. He would point out that when things happened, the solution is not an ex post facto "We should have had better management!" Yes, that's true, but they didn't, so this was the only solution possible, at least in Stossel's eyes. That is different than saying it is a bad idea to help poor people, which is not what Stossel, myself, or Luigi have been espousing.

I don't think it's a perspective without compassion. It's not a very cheery perspective, but that context doesn't lend itself to cheeriness.

R, normally I agree, but Stossel wasn't talking about multimillionaire corporations but small storeowners.

OK I will give you that one MikeC. And I will agree that this whole thing has pointed out the unpreparedness and mismangement of disaster relief and prepardness in many cities.

As for small store owners they are not immune to trying to make a buck. I will admit that their profit margin is a lot narrower than the megacorps and things are closer in a disaster, but that still does not absolve them of the duty they have to help their fellow citizens, neighbors and humans in a time of crisis. Perhaps rationing would be better to stretch their stores than price gouging.

Also it may be the way i grew up and am living right now that makes me so irritated by people trying to make a buck off of thigns like this or rich people in general. I mena for the dealership I have delivered a new car to carl lindner owner of the reds and his garage is big enough i could put my mobile home in with room left over. I also grew up on a farm and am used to being self reliant. I know in the city you have to depend on others for so much more so that means when the supply chains break down survival becomes a lot more questionable.

On my farm I have 3 potable water sources (only 1 of which requires modern equipment to access)and enough game animals and birds running aorund as well as ground to grow food on that the collapse of civilization might not hurt me too bad. I could probably survive using 1800s or even 1700s tech. I'm used to being self-reliant and prepared for disasters as i live paycheck to paycheck and am basically in survival mode most of my life.I realize that those skills are not very common now and definately uncommon in a large city like New Orleans. That is why I said the people who control the supplies and the supply chain need to take into account the facts that their city lies below sea level, that people would be more dependent upon them for their basic survival needs in a crisis, that while they might not be resupplied quickly they would be more likely to receive supplies as a distribution point (assuming all thigns being equal). All these things taken together mean that small storeownersw as well as megacorps have a higher duty to the people in their neighborhood than their profits as most likely the small storeowners themselves are among the ones devastated and in the same boat (figuratively and literally) and the megacorps store's are there and their public image is on the line.

I hope you can see what I am talking about here. Normally I feel a free market is a great thing. It encourages prices to remain relatively low because people will go somewhere else or do without (or at least reasonable people) rather than pay excessive costs. I mean I use a rotary mower instead of gas for my yard to go to the library which is only 6 miles away i ride my bicycle. As long as a person has two good feet under them they have transportation anywhere they need or want to go.

But during a time of crisis stability and recovery as well as survival are more important than profits and should take priority.

constanze: Yes, New Orleans shows why big government isn't necessary *rolling eyes*. Isn't it rather that badly managed government is bad, not the size of it?
Luigi Novi: Not pertaining to disaster relief specifically, Stossel often argues that the government can’t do what private industry does better, and that it is often incompetent at those other extraneous things which it takes upon itself, which is precisely why it should remain small, and let the private sector handle certain things. Thus, if the government does certain things badly, then a larger government is that much worse.

constanze: No, I don't see the point in his illogical argument…No, it's faulty logic all through. *sarcasm on* But off course, we can't have anything that hurts the god-given rights of the shop-owners to make as many bucks as possible over the health and lives of their fellow humans...* sarcasm off*
Luigi Novi: I think Stossel made his point, and pointed to examples, as did the other article. When the government tries to control the economy, we end up being less safe and more poor. Again, if there is no $20 bottle of water, then what is it? Sell it at a regular price, and that mother still won’t get a bottle for her kid.

constanze: And so, becaus it didn't happen, Stossels argument is right? Huh? Did I miss something here?
Luigi Novi: Stossel’s argument was about price-gouging, not disaster relief.

constanze: And if you're shouting now for the libertarians to remove all these barriers: can you imagine how the market would look like for you personally if those laws were removed? Would you have enough power to make sure the food and water you buy is safe and clean?
Luigi Novi: I don’t recall shouting for anyone to remove “all barriers,” nor do I think Stossel has. Stossel has often argued against the excesses in our society. For example, in his special The Trouble with Lawyers, he started off the program with, “Thank God for lawyers. We need them.” He made this statement as a preface to make the point that lawyers are a tolerated necessity, but that they’ve abused their power and made life through that abuse.

As another recent example, Stossel, who is co-anchor of the venerable ABC newsprogram 20/20 (which until recently he co-hosted with Barbara Walters), did a Gimme a Break segment on suggested serving sizes on food labels. He showed that foods that are marketed as being healthy because they only contain a certain amount of fat, calories, etc., are deceptive because the recommended serving size of those foods is far smaller than what any reasonable person would eat. One example was a muffin whose label called to be split into thirds. And then there was the jar of pickles that recommended a quarter of a pickle as the serving size. So Stossel isn’t all pro-business or anti-regulation.

constanze: Besides, while it's generous of Stossel to think that the state should provide roads and armies, I wonder why. After all, roads can be built and maintained by private companies.
Luigi Novi: True, and indeed in one program on how private industries do some things better, he spotlighted a private road side by side with a government one. The private road, which was clear of traffic, had automatic toll stations to charge motorists electronically for passing, sent two trucks to help out people with car trouble, and even offered a free gallon of gas to those people. The government road right next to it was gridlocked. The way Canada’s air traffic control is so much faster and less gridlocked than America’s was another example.

The bit about roads was one example, and I’m not sure if it was his, or one mentioned by a senator he interviewed that was nicknamed “Dr. No” because he always votes no when more spending is suggested in Congress.

constanze: So why don't you do away with the whole government? Is it the pomp surrounding the President?
Luigi Novi: Because we need government to do certain things.

Luigi Novi: Who says he didn't? He could do that, and given the number of people in New Orleans who needed water, it might still be sold out by the time the needy mother got to his store, along with every other supply he has, which means the store would be closed. ...

constanze: But that's not what Stossel's argument was.
Luigi Novi: Yes it was. Two passages from his column:

Consider this scenario: You are thirsty -- worried that your baby is going to become dehydrated. You find a store that's open, and the storeowner thinks it's immoral to take advantage of your distress, so he won't charge you a dime more than he charged last week. But you can't buy water from him. It's sold out.

Consider the storeowner's perspective: If he's not going to make a big profit, why open up the store at all? Staying in a disaster area is dangerous and means giving up the opportunity to be with family in order to take care of the needs of strangers. Why take the risk?

And from his weekly email, one reader:

Sookies60656: September 10, 2005 02:09 p.m. "The store owner who charges $20 for water might have the resources to help the woman with the thirsty baby. When prices are controlled, the store owner closes his doors, and the baby dies. When the free market moderates the prices, lower priced water floods into the area in a normal competitive fashion, and the baby gets a drink. Gouging saves lives, hoarding at artificially low prices (set by the truly evil politicians and bureaucrats) kills babys.

constanze: Therefore, I pointed out that things like rationing would work much better.
Luigi Novi: And again, what happens if a storeowner decides to ration the water by selling it at a normal price, and only allowing one bottle to a customer? What then? What happens when people fleeing the area buy it all, and the woman then arrives and it’s all gone? Moreoever, what about the person who needs more than one bottle, say for two or three kids, or an entire family?

constanze: Once again, raising the price doesn't prevent hoarding, it only leaves out the poor. Nothing prevents the rich from hoarding.
Luigi Novi: People willing to pay $20 for a bottle of water are not necessarily “rich.” They’re just those who buy it because they really need it. You say that rationing is not fool-proof. Well, if raising the price doesn’t prevent hoarding, then we can say that it isn’t perfect either.

constanze: I don't see his reason. He follows faulty logic by excluding other possible scenarios, only to excuse some greedy shop-keepers. For example, one of his escuses is that the shopkeeper doesn't have to be there, during that dangerous time. Excuse me while I don't shed any crocodile tears, but what is he doing there, anyway? Water and food during emergencies shouldn't have to be bought, but provided by disaster relief. That's what it's for.
Luigi Novi: What is he doing there? He’s conducting a business. That’s why he’s there. Of course people are going to buy water and food during emergencies. Sure the government should provide those things at those times, but what if they don’t? It’s not the shopkeeper’s fault if the government hasn’t.

constanze: But I don't need to be in a bad situation to feel compassion to the victims. Stossel apparently can't think far enough from his own well-off existence. Because he can afford 20$, he thinks everybody else can, and if not, bad luck.
Luigi Novi: Or, he simply doesn’t think the government should be forcing shopowners how to conduct their business, since government interference can be as harmful, if not moreso, than the gouging you think it should stop.

MikeC: DIDN'T Stossel rail against a lot of the consumer protection stuff as merely scaremongering and attack on consumers' rights?
Luigi Novi: Partially, and partially that focusing on small store-owners or mail-order scam artists missed the larger picture.

constanze: In no European country do people have to argue, explain and apologize why it is a good idea to help poor people, like in America.
Luigi Novi: Actually, Stossel has argued (particularly in his special Greed) that helping the poor is a good thing, but that there’s a good way and a bad way to go about it.

constanze: I still don't see why a badly-handled situation calls for greed instead of better management….I do believe in small government and a free market, however that being said. I do also believe that there should be protections against corporate greed and situations like occured after the hurricane and other disasters. Where prices rise without fair reasons.
Luigi Novi: My problem with this is the idea that the government necessarily knows what management is “better” for a storeowner than the storeowner himself, or that it gets to decide what a “fair reason” is, particularly since governments are notoriously incompetent when it comes to things like “management”.

R: If you run out of something then that is bad but the pitiful excuse of trying to preserve supplies by pricing things to outrageous levels is a bald faced lie. It is just about trying to line your own pockets and make a bit of coin off the suffering of another.
Luigi Novi: Lining their own pockets is the whole reason why storeowners open up and run stores. A product sold at a given price can only be supported if there’s a customer willing to pay for it. If every person who comes in looks at the price and refuses to pay it, then eventually, the storeowner will have to lower it.

R: In those instances there should be emergency mandatory price controls implemented. And if a company takes a bit of a loss oh well the megamillionare corporate yuppie jerks can pay for it out of pocket and not get their second mercedes or trip to france.
Luigi Novi: And by taking a “bit of a loss,” they can decide to recoup it by cutting costs elsewhere, like in laying off or firing part of its workforce, raising prices on other products not affected by the controls, or after the controls are rescinded, closing locations, etc. That “loss” you speak of is eventually passed onto the consumer and taxpayer, and sometimes a worker. And you’re also assuming that all storeowners are necessarily “megamillionaire corporate yuppies” who drive Mercedes or enjoy trips to France.

R: As for small store owners they are not immune to trying to make a buck.
Luigi Novi: Of course they’re not “immune” to it. It’s the entire point of them owning a store. People don’t open stores out of the kindness of their hearts, any more than a customer gives them money for stuff for the same reason. Both storeowners and customers operate entirely out of self-interest. If an economy were made to run on charity, then it would collapse.

R: But during a time of crisis stability and recovery as well as survival are more important than profits and should take priority.
Luigi Novi: To each his own. And if the government wants to provide relief supplies, then it should. But I don’t think it should force others how to sell theirs.

Luigi Novi: And by taking a “bit of a loss,” they can decide to recoup it by cutting costs elsewhere, like in laying off or firing part of its workforce, raising prices on other products not affected by the controls, or after the controls are rescinded, closing locations, etc. That “loss” you speak of is eventually passed onto the consumer and taxpayer, and sometimes a worker.
You are right Luigi instead of doing the honorable thing and not being a greedy megamillionare corporate yuppie scumbag slezeball the leaders of large companies hurt the poor workers instead of not taking another million dollar stock option or otherwise reaping while exploiting the labor force and the public. One can't allow the rich to get hurt to stop the poor from getting reamed./sarcasm So for big companies such as say walmart the ceo can do without his big profits check and take a regular paycheck or even a pay cut instead of the labor force. In most companies all the deadwood resides at the top. But my rant against megacorps and their greedy leadership can be done someplace else, sometime else.

If every person who comes in looks at the price and refuses to pay it, then eventually, the storeowner will have to lower it.
Or close the store and cut their loses. I work at a car dealership. The management says that people will either buy the car at the price we are selling it for or the car can sit there until it rots and we wholesale it to another dealership. I have personally seen a car sitting on our lot for 2 years before it was sold because no one would pay for it and the dealership would not lower the price. Not all store owners are as flexible as you are assuming. (And piece of trivia the owner of the dealergroup we are part of drive a mercedes CL230(I think thats the numbers) kompressor and lives in Indian Hill. (the richest most exclusive part of cincinnati) So its not like he is in touch with people who can barely afford a 500$ POS to get back and forth to work in)

Like I said in my reply to Mike I realize not all store owners are megamillionares. The guy who owns the local minimart isnt a megamillionare. I would classify him as comfortably well off though where he is not living from paycheck to paycheck (and occasionally not even getting that far)like a good deal of people in this country though either.

And there is making a buck and there is price gouging exploitation of a bad situation. I am not sayign that the economy should be run on charity all the time. But during a time of crisis profiteering should not be allowed at the expense of people trying to survive.

R: But during a time of crisis stability and recovery as well as survival are more important than profits and should take priority.
Luigi Novi: To each his own. And if the government wants to provide relief supplies, then it should. But I don’t think it should force others how to sell theirs.
Actually I think that in extremely limited circumstances such as inside a disaster zone like new orleans or mississippi the govt should be able to seize price gouging business inventories and begin distribution of said supplies to refugees/evacuees.

And lets do a little thought exercise here. Luigi you live in NYC (if you dont for the purpose of this exercise lets say you do). In an apartment. You have a decent job, maybe a little bit of money in the bank. All in all a pretty ok life. You have to depend on the city for potable water and sanitation removal, the electric company for your power and the supply chain for your food and supplies.

Now suppose one day a tidal wave comes along and smashes everything. Electricity is gone. Phones are gone. Supply chains are disrupted for the forseeable future so stores only have what is on their shelves. Potable water supplies are contaminated or down and unable to be brought back anytime soon.

With the power gone any money in the bank is unavailable so it doesnt matter how much you had. You are limited to whatever you had on your person when the crash came. The food in your fridge has only so long before it goes bad. What do you do? Do you run out to the store and try and get what they have left paying whatever price they want? Do you honestly think this is the time for the storekeepers to be able to charge whatever they feel like? At what price is it no longer fair or reasonable to charge for a bottle of water? 5$, 10$, 20$ Where do you draw the line?

I favor a well regulated and controlled free market during normal times. During a crisis or disaster (with well specified boundries and definitions) price controls and siezures would be acceptable if there is a definate entrance and exit protocol for govt controls.

Of course the basic thing is everyone should be ready and capable of surviving for a minimum of 72 hrs with no support from any outside sources. Sad to say those skills are very rare for city dwellers. And even rarer for the poor who are concentrating on just trying to survive daily life, let alone any crisis. Now I am not excusing those who misuse or squander their own resources. Focus on what resources you have and what resources you need to survive should be the priority.

R: So for big companies such as say walmart the ceo can do without his big profits check and take a regular paycheck or even a pay cut instead of the labor force.
Luigi Novi: And when you do stuff like this, the company ends up not being able to find a CEO that will get the job done. In his special Greed, John Stossel showed what happened when Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, the founders and owners of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream tried to set a policy whereby the CEO they hired would get paid no more than five times what the lowest paid workers got: It didn’t work. They were satisfied with those who applied (not surprising, because what CEO would want to work for that amount?). They ended up settling for a guy who ended up getting paid fourteen times more than the other workers. But then that guy didn’t work out. So Ben and Jerry ended up paying more for the next CEO.

And do you really want the government to make this a law? Forcing someone to only get paid so much, when his company wants to pay him more, sounds like an aspect of communism.

The fact of the matter is that CEOs who get paid huge salaries do so because they create wealth for others. For the most part, they don’t get those salaries unless they make something that you and I want—a faster car, cheaper food, a better or cheaper way of doing something, whatever. Bill Gates doesn’t have $90 billion unless he creates a software product that both you and I want to buy. Disney CEO Michael Eisner got paid half a billion dollars from Disney because he turned that company from a $2 billion company to a $75 billion company. In doing this, he was creating a lot more money for the company than he was taking home himself. Instances in which CEOs do well even when the company is doing poorly are exceptions.

I also notice that people only level this vitriol at corporate CEOs, but not at Michael Jordan or Tom Cruise, who makes millions on endorsement deals or films, and are good businessmen just like those CEOs.

R: Or close the store and cut their loses. I work at a car dealership. The management says that people will either buy the car at the price we are selling it for or the car can sit there until it rots and we wholesale it to another dealership. I have personally seen a car sitting on our lot for 2 years before it was sold because no one would pay for it and the dealership would not lower the price. Not all store owners are as flexible as you are assuming.
Luigi Novi: Precisely my point. If the storeowner doesn’t have a customer willing to pay the high cost, he’ll have to lower it, or suffer closure. The bottom line remains: The cost can only be raised if there are customers willing to pay for it. If there are, that justifies the price. If not, then the price will come down, or the storeowner will suffer. Either way, the situation will take care of itself. You don’t need the government to come in and tell people what to do.

R: And there is making a buck and there is price gouging exploitation of a bad situation. I am not sayign that the economy should be run on charity all the time. But during a time of crisis profiteering should not be allowed at the expense of people trying to survive….I think that in extremely limited circumstances such as inside a disaster zone like new orleans or mississippi the govt should be able to seize price gouging business inventories and begin distribution of said supplies to refugees/evacuees.
Luigi Novi: And by doing this, you’re infringing on the vendors’ freedom, and reducing the incentive for him to become or remain a vendor in the first place. I don’t think the economy should be run on charity at all. Economist Walter Williams points out that in our country, the areas in life that are motivated by greed or self-interest—FedEx, supermarkets, computers—tend to be the areas in which we are the most satisfied, and those motivated by government control or “charity”—public schools, police services, the DMV, city garbage collection, the post office—tend not to be.

R: (detailed scenario)….Do you honestly think this is the time for the storekeepers to be able to charge whatever they feel like?
Luigi Novi: Yes.

R: At what price is it no longer fair or reasonable to charge for a bottle of water?
Luigi Novi: At the price that no customer is willing to pay for it.

Corrrection: The passage above: They were satisfied with those who applied should read, "They weren't satisfied with those who applied."

I somewhat agree with that and somewhat don't. While a basic economic precept of a free market, there are situations when it becomes difficult to accept. In a hurricane-ravaged situation, being "unwilling to pay" for food and water is no longer an option. In a free market economy, it would be. I understand the logic in raising prices, but I also understand R's point that at some level it becomes exploitation. (I suppose I could loot the place or try to find another store).

And do you really want the government to make this a law? Forcing someone to only get paid so much, when his company wants to pay him more, sounds like an aspect of communism.
yes I actually would like to see this. You say communism like it is a bad thing. Pure and true communism isnt that bad and aspects of it should be incorporated into a countries economy.

Also I ahve heard the arguments you put force about how ceos should be paid more and i find them pure BS. CEos dont do work the people on the bottom of the totem pole work. And just how much of that money trickles back down the totem pole to the people who have actually done the work to make that moeny?

I also notice that people only level this vitriol at corporate CEOs, but not at Michael Jordan or Tom Cruise, who makes millions on endorsement deals or films, and are good businessmen just like those CEOs.
Actually I do say these thigns about the overpaid prima donnas and "sportstars" who make more money in a day than my entire hometown makes in a year. but since we wernt talking about those greedy scums but where talking about the ceo greedy scums i didnt say anythign about them.

As for the pricing you are assuming that the store owner either has the ability or the desire to lower their prices. I have been in stores where the attitude is take our price or do without as they have either a stranglehold on the market or are otherwise specially protected. Or alternatively a small store owner is not able to lower their prices as much as the big chain stores as the losses from one chain store balance or are overwritten by the prifits from another one. And as long as the ceo gets their fat check what does it matter if some clerk in podunk gets their benefits or not.

And your example of being able to not buy something or go someplace else is moot and BS in a crisis. Where supplies are limited, resupply uncertain a person does not have the luxury of being able to go someplace else or wait for the prices to lower. Survival of self and family has to take precedent and superiority to survival of profits. If there is no citizenry or store that survives then there is no need to worry about the profits.

R: And there is making a buck and there is price gouging exploitation of a bad situation. I am not sayign that the economy should be run on charity all the time. But during a time of crisis profiteering should not be allowed at the expense of people trying to survive….I think that in extremely limited circumstances such as inside a disaster zone like new orleans or mississippi the govt should be able to seize price gouging business inventories and begin distribution of said supplies to refugees/evacuees.
Luigi Novi: And by doing this, you’re infringing on the vendors’ freedom, and reducing the incentive for him to become or remain a vendor in the first place. I don’t think the economy should be run on charity at all. Economist Walter Williams points out that in our country, the areas in life that are motivated by greed or self-interest—FedEx, supermarkets, computers—tend to be the areas in which we are the most satisfied, and those motivated by government control or “charity”—public schools, police services, the DMV, city garbage collection, the post office—tend not to be.

I dont see how crisis activated price limits would be a disuader to a person wanting to start a business. It would just be one more thign to take into account when setting up the business and one of the perils of business. Sort of like hoping your business doesnt get blown into the gulf by the next hurricane to come along.

Also in your example I am quite satisfied with the post office, the BMV and the police and fire response. It is walmart, krogers, the big chain stores etc... that i am very upset and grumpy about for various reasons.

Also in my area we do not have municipal garbage pick up. There are only two companies in this area (including all of cincinnati) to pick up everyone's garbage. Rumpke and Waste Management Inc. So everyone is kinda held by the neck by these two companies and have to pay whatever they declare to be the price as you have no options to go anywhere else or wait for them to lower their rates. The only thign that can be done is pack up and move to another town or try and reduce your garbage outflow to nothing.

R: (detailed scenario)….Do you honestly think this is the time for the storekeepers to be able to charge whatever they feel like?
Luigi Novi: Yes.
I feel very sorry for you and hope you never get into a crisis situation.

R: At what price is it no longer fair or reasonable to charge for a bottle of water?
Luigi Novi: At the price that no customer is willing to pay for it.
And if the person NEEDS, not wants, but NEEDS that water or they die but they do not have the money what then? Let them die? Let them drink poisoned or otherwise contaminated water? If so then the storekeeper should be charged with murder and hung from the nearest available high place.

The attitudes you have explained are what led to much of the looting in New Orleans. I would have done the same thing in the same place. There are more poor people in this country than there are rich.

And I am goign to take a slightly different tack here. Look around yourself (if you are not at home wait until you do so) at home.

Look at how much food you have that you could eat without Cooking, nuking or otherwise preparing. Look at how much stuff you have that would be useless in an emergency. Look at how much of your food you could not get into because you lack a basic mechanical can opener. (Don't laugh my exgirlfriend had never seen a crank can opener before she came over to dinner with me and the wife and she lived in columbus her entire life) Look at your form of transportation and your options if you had to evacuate. How far could you get in an hour? In a day? Would you be able to have food and drink for yourself and any family members? look in your wallet and see how much cash you have on hand. I have 2$ in bills in my wallet and about the same in change in my center console. If the banks collapsed and atms died that would be all the money i would have in the world. (actually thats not too far from the total i have until next paycheck as we sit anyhow and yesterday was payday. Ahhh bills.)

Now I realize that my living in a rural area on my own farm lets me have the luxury of being better prepared for many disasters.(i grow my own food and can hunt for meat (deer, groundhog, possum, racoon, rabbit, snake) and have my own well) But just because a person lives in an apartment in a city does not mean they cannot take steps to be prepared for a crisis situation. (Actually beprepared.com is a good company to start with for ideas) As has been shown being prepared to survive does not mena that you are a survivalist nutcase, just someone who wants to take reasonable steps to make sure they will live throuhg a crisis.

Oh and one more thing Luigi. i am very well aware of how a small business owner can sometimes get shafted by bigger chains being able to underbid them because I used to run my own computer tech business.

It was similar to PC on Call in that i would go to a person's home or business and work on their computer (set it up, repair it, reinstall software, write some software) for them and they would pay me. I had a few businesses as well as people in my area. Unfortunately a few competitors came into play which made the market a bit more difficult but still comfortable as each of us had our own niche. then PC on Call came into the area. They underbid all our contracts to such a point that fringe people like me where unable to cut our prices and fees without takign a loss on every contract. That ended my brief foray into owning my own busines and I do not ever intended to try again. That is more of a disuader than any price controls. At least to me.

Actually thinking about what i just said a minute ago. If you are at work go ahead and take a look around there as to survivability. What if a crisis hit where you are right now? Could you get home? Would there be transporatation or routes available or would you have to get creative? If you had to stay would you have food? Water? Shelter? Would there be a defensive position? (a consideration if civil order breaks down) How long could you stay there before things got untenable? Would sanitation be available? Depending on how many people you work with that could become a big issue rather quickly.

These are all thigns that people do not usually think about anymore. Life has lulled people into a flase sense of security and luxury in their own mccocoons of ipod induced bliss. The world is still a very dangerous place and it makes sense to respect it and prepare for a crisis. Technology has come a long way in making humans more capable of taming the elements and having warnings of approaching danger. But not all danger gives a warning, not all plans work, not all technologies are fool proof. The only thing a person can totally and absolutely count on in a crisis is themselves and their own preparedness, mentally, physically and yes spiritually. By spiritually i am not saying put it all in whatever deities hands but more have the frame of mind and attitude that heaven helps those that help themselves and want to stay alive and well.

R: You say communism like it is a bad thing.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, I’m funny that way. I think large governments controlling too much leads to poverty, stifled innovation, less safety and less freedom.

R: Pure and true communism isnt that bad….
Luigi Novi: Yeah, aside from the fact that the previous century and this one showed that it doesn’t work, and that those living under it don’t enjoy freedom.

R: Also I ahve heard the arguments you put force about how ceos should be paid more and i find them pure BS.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say CEO’s should be paid more. I said they only get paid what they get if they generate something that benefits the company.

R: CEos dont do work the people on the bottom of the totem pole work.
Luigi Novi: Of course not. They do the work that creates innovation and new ideas, and keeps companies growing, and that manages the company.

R: And just how much of that money trickles back down the totem pole to the people who have actually done the work to make that moeny?
Luigi Novi: Obviously, that varies company to company.

R: Actually I do say these thigns about the overpaid prima donnas and "sportstars" who make more money in a day than my entire hometown makes in a year. but since we wernt talking about those greedy scums but where talking about the ceo greedy scums i didnt say anythign about them.
Luigi Novi: The fact that we “weren’t talking about them” is precisely why I bring them up. Generally, people do not regard them as “greedy scums,” but as heroes. And why are they “greedy scums”? If an actor can guarantee that a movie makes $100 -$200 million at the box office, why should he not get about $20 million of that? They deserve to make a sizable chunk of all the money that their name on the marquee guarantees. That’s not greed. It’s business, plain and simple. What should actors do, just give their work away for a pittance out of a sense of charity to the studios? It is this idea that anyone who has achieved the American dream and makes millions of dollars doing what they love is somehow “greedy” that is “B.S.”

R: As for the pricing you are assuming that the store owner either has the ability or the desire to lower their prices. I have been in stores where the attitude is take our price or do without as they have either a stranglehold on the market or are otherwise specially protected. Or alternatively a small store owner is not able to lower their prices as much as the big chain stores as the losses from one chain store balance or are overwritten by the prifits from another one. And as long as the ceo gets their fat check what does it matter if some clerk in podunk gets their benefits or not.
Luigi Novi: But the point is, he can choose to lower prices if he wants to try it. He can’t do so if the government forces him how to price his products.

R: And your example of being able to not buy something or go someplace else is moot and BS in a crisis. Where supplies are limited, resupply uncertain a person does not have the luxury of being able to go someplace else or wait for the prices to lower. Survival of self and family has to take precedent and superiority to survival of profits.
Luigi Novi: Not if it means using force of law to tell someone how to sell their goods, IMO. The government can provide for survival of self and family. It’s wrong to force storeowners to become charities. You also hit the nail on the head about resupply being uncertain. That same uncertainty of resupply means that if you force the owner to sell all his water bottles for a buck, then they’ll be sold out immediately, and he won’t be able to restock them.

R: If there is no citizenry or store that survives then there is no need to worry about the profits.
Luigi Novi: Whether the owner worries about profits is for him to decide. Not me, not you, and certainly not the government.

R: Also in your example I am quite satisfied with the post office, the BMV and the police and fire response. It is walmart, krogers, the big chain stores etc... that i am very upset and grumpy about for various reasons.
Luigi Novi: Williams was speaking about the areas in which most people are satisfied or unsatisfied. Not just one guy in Ohio, or one guy in Jersey.

R: And if the person NEEDS, not wants, but NEEDS that water or they die but they do not have the money what then?
Luigi Novi: As one reader wrote in an email Stossel printed in his weekly email, the storeowner might choose to give up the bottle. An anti-gouging law, on the other hand, may lead to there being no water left at all by the time the mother gets there.

R: Let them die? Let them drink poisoned or otherwise contaminated water? If so then the storekeeper should be charged with murder and hung from the nearest available high place.
Luigi Novi: That’s silly. Murder requires deliberate intent to end someone’s life. Not a refusal to help someone in need.

R: The attitudes you have explained are what led to much of the looting in New Orleans.
Luigi Novi: No, poor planning and relief management on the part of the various levels of government led to the looting.

R: Actually thinking about what i just said a minute ago. If you are at work go ahead and take a look around there as to survivability. What if a crisis hit where you are right now? Could you get home? Would there be transporatation or routes available or would you have to get creative? If you had to stay would you have food? Water? Shelter? Would there be a defensive position? (a consideration if civil order breaks down) How long could you stay there before things got untenable? Would sanitation be available? Depending on how many people you work with that could become a big issue rather quickly.
Luigi Novi: Well, my Mom was trapped in New York City on 9/11, and ended up staying overnight with a friend. This occurred because her friend chose to put her up for the night. But I wouldn’t want the government forcing her friend to take her in. When someone forces you to do something, then it’s not charity.

Ok I'll lump mostg of the communism things together as follows: Most of that wasn't true COMMUNEism. It was more of a socialism. True communism (think more john lennon than ivan lenin) is where everyone chooses to help and work together and give what they can and take only what they need. Sad to say though I do recognize that true communism would probably not work on a national scale a large village or county maybe. Which is why I have said that aspects of communism should be taken into a countries economic plans.

CEO's take the credit for the innovations and new ideas that come from their workers. Very few new or ground breaking ideas come from that high up. And the few times I have been priviledged enough to meet someone that high up the totem pole they seemed to be compleately out of touch with what the common worker goes through. (People I have met carl lindner, marge schott, a couple of the bengals (I dont recall who they where other than they where big and played defense), the ceo of the dealer group i work for, senior vp for sprint pcs when i worked there..)

A lot of people who are "comfortable" or comfortably rich are out of touch with what the people a few rungs down on the socio-economic ladder are going through. Partly because of not having to deal with tough choices such as put food on the table or pay bills, and partly becuase they hide themselves away in swanky subdivisions or apartment complexes away from such rifraff.

It is this idea that anyone who has achieved the American dream and makes millions of dollars doing what they love is somehow “greedy” that is “B.S.”
There is making the american dream and there is being an ostentatiuos big mouthed rich arrogant pig jerk. (aka tom cruise, paris hilton, other mega "stars" who have more money than some small countries.) No I don't think they should just give away their talent (or in the case of hilton one trick (lousy)) for free or charity's sake. But do they really need to make more money than the GNP of canada? Just how much money does a person need? I mean its is very disgusting to see these people wearing a 500$ shirt with a 200$ tie and going to a restraunt that charges a hundred bucks a plate when there are people lucky to have a 10$ shirt from walmart and get a 1.00 banquet tv dinner from krogers. And don't get me started on the American Dream. The "American Dream" is a lie and a joke. Once a person gets below a certain level on the socio-economic ladder they are stuck there by many factors beyond their control as well as those within their control.

Luigi Novi: But the point is, he can choose to lower prices if he wants to try it. He can’t do so if the government forces him how to price his products.
No the point is that a small store owner is not as able to lower his prices as the chain stores as his profit margin is a lot closer and less able to be played with as a chain store's. So it is actually less likely for a small store owner to lower their prices as it is for a high volume, high profit chain store to do so.

The government can provide for survival of self and family Yes the government has such an excellent record of this and is providing a wonderful example in the gulf as we speak.

That same uncertainty of resupply means that if you force the owner to sell all his water bottles for a buck, then they’ll be sold out immediately, and he won’t be able to restock them.An anti-gouging law, on the other hand, may lead to there being no water left at all by the time the mother gets there. I put these two together as they form one coherent thought with my response. Which is why as part of any anti gouging laws there must be rationing. WWII had rationing. In today's gluttony induced greedy gimmie society the thought of limiting how much someone can have or do is considered quite treasonous and dangerous but it would be necesary to control people panic hoarding (which the richer a person is the more capable they are) and buying everything out before our hypothetical mother arrives at the store.

R: Let them die? Let them drink poisoned or otherwise contaminated water? If so then the storekeeper should be charged with murder and hung from the nearest available high place.
Luigi Novi: That’s silly. Murder requires deliberate intent to end someone’s life. Not a refusal to help someone in need. Ok true I'll give you this one, I got on a bit of an emotional roll there. Murder involves intent to do harm. Not caring would be more of a manslaughter thing.

R: The attitudes you have explained are what led to much of the looting in New Orleans.
Luigi Novi: No, poor planning and relief management on the part of the various levels of government led to the looting
Actually they all probably had a bit of a hand in things.

Luigi Novi: Well, my Mom was trapped in New York City on 9/11, and ended up staying overnight with a friend. This occurred because her friend chose to put her up for the night. But I wouldn’t want the government forcing her friend to take her in. When someone forces you to do something, then it’s not charity.

I'm glad for you and your mother. I do too dislike governmental forcing of things and people's actions. I would like to imagine the government as small as possible but with a limited and powerful set of laws setting the boundries for business and social behavior with the boundries being far apart for social and narrower for business.

And now in closing please don't take what I'm about to say the wrong way or as an insult. More of an observation Luigi. I somehow suspect that you and I move in rather different social and economic circles. Most of the people I know and run with are the working-poor class who live from paycheck to paycheck with very little hope of acheiving this "American Dream" you speak of. All they (and I) am hoping to do is survive long enough to be comfortable. Poverty is not always the fault of the poor. There are many stumbling blocks on the path to this "american Dream" One of them is the greed of the American Megacorp doing all it can to squeeze every last bit of work out of its employees without rewarding them or enabling them to crawl out of the rut. All the while paying attention to the

I grew up in a poor rural farming region. I was taught that if you had enough money to keep your bills, a home, and bit of extra you had acheived the "american dream". Then the age of excess comes along. Where attitudes like yours where people don't see anything wrong with a person who doesn't do "work" like a CEO or a sportstar or an actor deserve to make so much more money than someone whose talents are truely more deserving and work. The mixed up attitude where more expensive must automatically mean better and cheaper means inferior. (Little anecdote from work, we had two absolutely identical cars on our lot once. Same make model year and everythign right down to the color. We priced one higher than the other and it sold within a week. It took the other one about a month to sell.)

R: Also I ahve heard the arguments you put force about how ceos should be paid more and i find them pure BS.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say CEO’s should be paid more. I said they only get paid what they get if they generate something that benefits the company.


That has happened before. When Lee Iacocca came onboard a failing Chrysler motors he he worked for $1 all year in 1981 than he gave the top execs a %10 pay cut and got the unions to agree to paycuts as well. The showed the workers and everyone that times were touch all around and everyone was going to have to make sacrafices. A far cry from that idiot from Delta airlines who said paid an $8 million bonus for leaving after running the airline into the ground. Or those Enron guys who screwed up the workers 401 Ks so that they could cash out before the company went belly up.

Luigi say that you mother couldn't have gotten in touch with anyone she knew in NY when that happened. Shouldn't she be able to know that she can get some water without being charged $20 bucks? Seems to me that rationing the important stuff would be a better solution.

The problem I have with price-gouging to keep the supplys from running out is that in practice what it leads to is the rich being able to get what they need and the poor often having to resort to theft.

R: Ok I'll lump mostg of the communism things together as follows: Most of that wasn't true COMMUNEism. It was more of a socialism. True communism (think more john lennon than ivan lenin) is where everyone chooses to help and work together and give what they can and take only what they need.
Luigi Novi: I don’t see how that’s much different from communism, or why John Lennon is suddenly seen as the originator of an entire way to govern people’s lives. Who decides what one “needs’? And what happens with that which you make and earn but don’t necessarily “need”? Who gets that? That’s anti-freedom, plain and simple, and pretty inconsistent with how John Lennon lived his life, given that he was a multimillionaire. Or do you think that that apartment at the Dakota that he lived in (which Yoko still owns today) was a tenement? (Or does the answer to this lie in the part where you say it wouldn’t work on a national scale?)

The idea that I should only allowed to possess what I “need”, and that someone else should be allowed to take away the rest is an awful idea. It’s legalized theft, and removes the incentive to innovate, to create, and to build.

R: Sad to say though I do recognize that true communism would probably not work on a national scale a large village or county maybe. Which is why I have said that aspects of communism should be taken into a countries economic plans.
Luigi Novi: Okay. Which aspects?

R: CEO's take the credit for the innovations and new ideas that come from their workers.
Luigi Novi: Which workers? Bill Gates created Microsoft himself. Ditto for T.J. Rodgers and Cyprus. And in instances where companies’ R & D divisions come up with new ideas, the CEO doesn’t take “credit” for it, they simply manufacture and market them, which the setup that the guy working in R&D knew he was in from the start. Where and when has a CEO taken credit for something one his R&D guys came up with?

Luigi Novi: It is this idea that anyone who has achieved the American dream and makes millions of dollars doing what they love is somehow “greedy” that is “B.S.”

R: There is making the american dream and there is being an ostentatiuos big mouthed rich arrogant pig jerk. (aka tom cruise, paris hilton, other mega "stars" who have more money than some small countries.)
Luigi Novi: Again, in what way are those people “greedy”?

R: No I don't think they should just give away their talent (or in the case of hilton one trick (lousy)) for free or charity's sake. But do they really need to make more money than the GNP of canada?
Luigi Novi: No, they deserve to make an amount of money that is commensurate with the amount of money the movie will make as a result of their name on the marquee. If a movie profits $100 million because Cruise is in it, how much should he make? Only $1 million?

R: Just how much money does a person need?
Luigi Novi: Who cares? That’s for them to decide. They made it, they’re making big bucks, so good for them. Let them decide what they want or need. Who says you should only be allowed to purchase something if you need it? If you’ve made the American dream, and are making millions of dollars making a product that the public wants to pay for, and you pay taxes on it, then you’ve earned the right to do whatever you want with it. It’s not like actors like Cruise don’t give to charity, is it? Who are you to decide what another person “needs” to do with their own money? If you suddenly make big bucks, are you going to give away all but what you “need” to charity?

R: And don't get me started on the American Dream. The "American Dream" is a lie and a joke. Once a person gets below a certain level on the socio-economic ladder they are stuck there by many factors beyond their control as well as those within their control.
Luigi Novi: I disagree. And even if it were true, it does not justify a government stealing someone’s money when they’ve made it for themselves.

Luigi Novi: But the point is, he can choose to lower prices if he wants to try it. He can’t do so if the government forces him how to price his products.

R: No the point is that a small store owner is not as able to lower his prices as the chain stores as his profit margin is a lot closer and less able to be played with as a chain store's. So it is actually less likely for a small store owner to lower their prices as it is for a high volume, high profit chain store to do so.
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about “less likely,” and I really don’t care if a chain store makes it harder for him. The point is that the storeowner is robbed of his choice entirely by force of law if the government takes that choice away from him.

R: WWII had rationing.
Luigi Novi: Except that we’re not at war, and the water in the store was already paid for by the owner.

R: In today's gluttony induced greedy gimmie society the thought of limiting how much someone can have or do is considered quite treasonous and dangerous but it would be necesary to control people panic hoarding (which the richer a person is the more capable they are) and buying everything out before our hypothetical mother arrives at the store.
Luigi Novi: Again, someone going to a store for water is not “rich.” Someone who’s “rich” would’ve left town a long time ago.

R: Ok true I'll give you this one, I got on a bit of an emotional roll there. Murder involves intent to do harm. Not caring would be more of a manslaughter thing.
Luigi Novi: Not even. No storeowner is going to be charged with anything for merely not giving someone water, even if it leads to someone’s death.

R: Actually they all probably had a bit of a hand in things.
Luigi Novi: How exactly did price-gouging lead to looting? Didn’t looters target stores that were abandoned?

R: And now in closing please don't take what I'm about to say the wrong way or as an insult. More of an observation Luigi. I somehow suspect that you and I move in rather different social and economic circles. Most of the people I know and run with are the working-poor class who live from paycheck to paycheck with very little hope of acheiving this "American Dream" you speak of.
Luigi Novi: I live paycheck-to-paycheck. I have a few thousand in credit card bills, and make far below the average yearly income. I have only a crappy part-time job in which I have to try and invite strangers to see movie screenings, who often treat me like something under their shoe, and unless the screening is at a Loews Theater near Kips Bay (the only theater that lets me recruit inside the lobby in NYC), I have to do so outside, which in the winter, can be tough. I’m not an actor, athlete or CEO, and I don’t like what I do. So I’m not sure if you’re under the impression that I’m well-to-do, or in the exact niche in life that I wanted, but if so, that couldn’t be farther from the truth.

And I still believe everything I stated here.

R: Then the age of excess comes along. Where attitudes like yours where people don't see anything wrong with a person who doesn't do "work" like a CEO or a sportstar or an actor deserve to make so much more money than someone whose talents are truely more deserving and work.
Luigi Novi: All of those people most certainly do “work.” And many, if not most of them, probably started out dirt poor before they made it. The idea that actors, athletes and CEO’s don’t have talent or are not deserving or that they don’t do work is simply insulting, and possibly the most offensive thing said on this board. Try living in their shoes for a week or a month, or better yet, living the life they lived before they hit it big, and see if you come away feeling the same way. I don’t pretend that those lives don’t come with great fringe benefits and perks, but then again, they earned them, and since I’ve never walked a mile in their moccasins, I don’t presume to judge them.

R: The mixed up attitude where more expensive must automatically mean better and cheaper means inferior. (Little anecdote from work, we had two absolutely identical cars on our lot once. Same make model year and everythign right down to the color. We priced one higher than the other and it sold within a week. It took the other one about a month to sell.)
Luigi Novi: I hear ya. And I agree.

But that has nothing to do with the subject of government control or price gouging.

Brian Fitzgerald: Luigi say that you mother couldn't have gotten in touch with anyone she knew in NY when that happened. Shouldn't she be able to know that she can get some water without being charged $20 bucks?
Luigi Novi: Are we still talking about 9/11? She works in the Fashion District, which is not too far from Times Square, which is far north of Ground Zero. While a Starbucks near Ground Zero charged rescue workers $130 for three cases of water, I don't think this was an issue for those in the Fashion District.

If, however, you're proposing a hypothetical scenario in which this was the case, I'd say that sure, I'd want her to be able to get a bottle of water, but I'm skeptical of letting the government step in and forcing shopowners to sell it at a certain price.

Brian Fitzgerald: Seems to me that rationing the important stuff would be a better solution.
Luigi Novi: Fill me in regarding rationing: When something is rationed, that means that the stores themselves are limited in what they can buy wholesale before selling it retail to customers, right? But what about the stuff that they already have by the time of the disaster? As far as I'm concerned, that's there's to sell as they wish. If you want to ration in times of a national crisis like a war, so that storeowners themselves are limited in what they can buy, that's fine. But that's not the same thing as what happened in New Orleans.

I don't believe that being wealthy is inherently wrong or makes one greedy. I think that this gives you a sense of responsibility (and many rich people DO donate extensively to charities), but I don't understand how Tom Cruise asking for percentages of a movie's gross makes him greedy and a bad person. People are willing, effectively, to pay his salary by seeing his movies. The studio is willing to give him the money. I don't see the problem per se.

OK rather than try and go through point by point Luigi I'll repspond by this. I was using John Lennon as a humoourous comparison between the soviet socialist Lenin and the Hippie COMMUNEist Lennon. Even though John had quite a bit higher lifestation than most hippies.

I have said that I agree with a free market economy (within reasonable and firm boundries and controls) during nominal times. During times of crisis such as natural disasters, military incursions, disruption of civil order, the free market economy should be more tightly controlled so as to avoid the opportunistic price gouging that is too common during these events. And I am sorry but if a storeowner knowingly keeps water from a person and that person dies because of it then that store owner has maybe not committed a legal crime but has committed a moral crime and should be punished. I know that it would be hazardous to a person's health to get between somethign my family needed to survive in a crisis and myself.

As for Bill Gates he is not as well respected in as many circles as you might think. And as for him being the lone geek in a garage founding microsoft that makes great PR but it isnt as true as he would like to make it out to be. Google for him. I am out of the computer world so I don't have the same sources I used to. But Microsoft is a joke a monopoly and should be broken up.

As for the rich movie actors. Fine whatever I don't care about them one bit and they are not what makes me what to go see a movie. Every last one of the big name stars could be replaced with someone off the street and if they have even the slightest bit of talent and a good story can do just as good as cruise. (Hell my dog could do a better acting job than that hilton hack) Greedy may not be the right word for them. Indecently rich. Obnoxious with their wealth. Being richer means you have a higher responsibility to help those below you on the social ladder. And those that do I respect as much as I respect anyone like that.

Like I tried to say I grew up in a world where everyone was poor, if you didnt work for somethign you didn't get something. Hard work was (and is) admirable and a person who was rich enough to laze around or throw their money around was not to be respected as they are throwing away and disrespecting the hard work of those who either helped get them there or their forbears who worked hard to get the wealth that they just waltzed into and inherited.

But there is a definate upper limit on just how much hard work can get you in america. Unles syou are really lucky or have connection the rich will not allow a person into their exclusive club.

And as for me if I suddenly started making big bucks or hit the mega millions I wouldn't change my lifestyle very much, my friends would suddenly have their lifestyles elevated a bit too. But then thats me If I do well the people in my circle do well.

As for ceo's and athletes and actors working. What they do may be called "work" but it isnt working. Sitting around in an office all day barking orders and "looking at the big picture" is not work. Goign out and playing a sport for a few hours is not work. It may be strenuous but it isnt work. Learnign a few lines and getting pampered and your face plastered all over tv and movies isnt work. Farming, landscaping, clerking at a store, nursing, painting houses, teachers, mechanics, these thigns are work and are much more admirable than a lazy good for n othing desk jocky ceo who may not even be at his desk all day but out on the links hitting his balls around.

And as for the actors or ceos I'd love to spend a week in their no doubt comfy shoes and I'd love it. I could do a ceo's job blindfolded drunk and hanging upside down. And if they where poor and struggling before they made it big then fine and good for them. They shouldn't have forgotton the work ethics that made them what they are and they shouldn't be so ugly about their wealth and flaunt it over those who cannot get out of the class their in.

As for rationing in a crisis. The inventory on the store shelves becomes worth more than the money in the bank. Not in actual monetary value but in real value. When lives depend upon it the profit and loss margins of a store are moot as you cannot put a value on human life. Human life takes precedence and rationing and price controls should be there to ensure that the most people benefit from the water available to them. If need be the store should be seized and rationed out as part of the disaster recovery plan for a crisis. In a situation like your mothers I would want to know that the people I care about will be able to have access to mission critical supplies regardless of the greed or attitudes of the store owners in a crisis. Even if that means that the store owner has to be smacked down. Speaking of which when I heard about the starbucks that charged 130$ for the water I felt like that person should have been tarred and feather and run out of town on a rail. That kind of greedy abuse of the system deserves to be punished.

As far as you are concerned the stuff on the store shelves is the store owners to do with as they wish. Well as far as I am concerned the stuff in the disaster zone that is readily available becomes public property to be distributed , equally and fairly to all survivors.

So you are one of us Luigi? I am sorry for the mistaken impression that you where better off than you are. Some of your statements and the way you so vehmently defend the upper crust elite of america gave me that impression. Sort of like my defense of GLBT rights has made a few people think I was Homosexual. But the fact is there are more poor people in america who are beat down than there are truely rich. There are social classes in this country even if peolpe don't like to admit it. And there are road blocks to moving upwards but nothing to keep a person from sliding down. The rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer and that is disgusting.

I don't know what else to say on this. I hope that people are not just paying attention to this aspect of what I've said but have also looked at the survival questions I posted and concidered them. Maybe a survival or emergency prepardness board would be a good idea.

I understand your point, but I completely disagree with this notion that an office/desk job is not work. Many CEOs are not "lazy" and "good for nothing," but put in many, many hours attempting to steer their companies and corporations in the right direction. Many also rose through the corporate ranks and spent years working in lower classification jobs. Athletes have an incredibly grueling schedule and only the upper strata of the pro players qualify for the stereotype of being outrageously well paid. There are plenty of unemployed and just-hanging-on actors. Are they lazy just because that is their profession (and I assure you, having done acting work, it is NOT fluffing around in makeup and saying lines)?

In a free market economy, some people will end up with more money than others. That is not inherently wrong and does not make you a "lazy" and "greedy" person. Are there greedy CEOs and actors and such? Sure. There are greedy bums. There are greedy 7-11 employees. There are greedy teachers. Like I said, most of these CEOs and actors and athletes give thousands and thousands of dollars to charities and foundations.

R: And I am sorry but if a storeowner knowingly keeps water from a person and that person dies because of it then that store owner has maybe not committed a legal crime but has committed a moral crime and should be punished.
Luigi Novi: How do you apply punishment if he hasn’t committed a legal crime?

R: As for Bill Gates he is not as well respected in as many circles as you might think. And as for him being the lone geek in a garage founding microsoft that makes great PR but it isnt as true as he would like to make it out to be.
Luigi Novi: I don’t recall saying that he was “respected” or that he was the “lone” person to found Microsoft. I am well aware that he wrote the original Altair BASIC interpreter for the Altair 8800 and co-founded Microsoft with Paul Allen. My only statements regarding Bill Gates were that A. He gets the money he has only because he convinces people to voluntarily give to him because he created a product they want, and B. that he does not “take the credit for the innovations and new ideas that come from their workers,” but that Microsoft was started on the basis of his own ideas. By this I was not arguing that he didn’t have a partner; only that the assertion that he or other CEOs take credit for the work of others is false. The phrases “himself” or “his own” were not intended with respect to partnership, but with respect to taking credit for the work of others.

R: But Microsoft is a joke a monopoly and should be broken up.
Luigi Novi: Why?

R: As for the rich movie actors. Fine whatever I don't care about them one bit and they are not what makes me what to go see a movie. Every last one of the big name stars could be replaced with someone off the street and if they have even the slightest bit of talent and a good story can do just as good as cruise.
Luigi Novi: That isn’t the issue. The issue is whether they deserve the money they get for their performances, which is an obvious yes, by virtue of the fact that most other people most certainly do care about them being in a film. Whether they deserve to get a respectable percentage of box office revenues depends on whether they bring in those revenues. Not whether one person in Ohio thinks they’re talented or not. The fact that there are so many other moviegoers who generate those revenues is the criterion on which the paychecks of actors and directors should be judged.

R: Greedy may not be the right word for them. Indecently rich. Obnoxious with their wealth. Being richer means you have a higher responsibility to help those below you on the social ladder. And those that do I respect as much as I respect anyone like that.
Luigi Novi: So in one sentence you refer to “them” as indecently rich or obnoxious, and assert that the rich have a responsibility to help those in need—without establishing that they don’t—but then you tack on the qualifer at the end about “those who do”? If you acknowledge that many (if not most) do, then who are we talking about? You’re saying Tom Cruise doesn’t help those in need?

R: But there is a definate upper limit on just how much hard work can get you in america. Unles syou are really lucky or have connection the rich will not allow a person into their exclusive club.
Luigi Novi: The rich don’t “allow” anything. What you describe is more in line with Eastern or Third World life, wherein “birth is destiny.” In economically free societies, rich people don’t have the authority to “allow” or “disallow” you to do a darn thing. Yeah, luck and connections help. But the bottom line is that most of where you get to in life is up to you and how hard you choose to work. The only limits on that are those you impose upon yourself. Our society is filled with stories of people who started with nothing, and built empires. No one had the power to not “allow” them to do anything.

R: As for ceo's and athletes and actors working. What they do may be called "work" but it isnt working. Sitting around in an office all day barking orders and "looking at the big picture" is not work. Goign out and playing a sport for a few hours is not work. It may be strenuous but it isnt work. Learnign a few lines and getting pampered and your face plastered all over tv and movies isnt work. Farming, landscaping, clerking at a store, nursing, painting houses, teachers, mechanics, these thigns are work and are much more admirable than a lazy good for n othing desk jocky ceo who may not even be at his desk all day but out on the links hitting his balls around.
Luigi Novi: The idea that CEOs simply “sit around barking orders or hitting balls” or that actors merely “learn a few lines” is so irrational that it barely qualifies as caricature, let alone a serious, informed, well-balanced discussion of economic freedom or wealth. Actors most certainly work hard. Many of them enter the profession out of a genuine love of the craft, and those whose names you’re familiar with account for only 10% of the Screen Actors Guild. The rest toil away in thankless jobs, lucky to get any meaningful parts, let along recognition. But it’s ludicrous to say that even those who are successful, who often work 12-16 hour days, take on special training in certain skills for certain roles, need to maintain a good physical appearance, deal with every thing from crazed fans to unscrupulous paparazzi to the inability to hold stable relationships with loved ones, do nothing more than “learn a few lines.” Similarly, it’s silly to say that the skills and work that CEOs bring to their companies consist of merely sitting around and barking orders. MikeC refuted this notion nicely himself, but this accusation against entire groups of people you don’t know is so blatantly prejudicial and hate-filled that one can only guess as to the subconscious motives and biases for making it.

R: If need be the store should be seized and rationed out as part of the disaster recovery plan for a crisis……As far as you are concerned the stuff on the store shelves is the store owners to do with as they wish. Well as far as I am concerned the stuff in the disaster zone that is readily available becomes public property to be distributed , equally and fairly to all survivors.
Luigi Novi: In other words….theft.

R: In a situation like your mothers I would want to know that the people I care about will be able to have access to mission critical supplies regardless of the greed or attitudes of the store owners in a crisis. Even if that means that the store owner has to be smacked down.
Luigi Novi: To each his own. Me, I don’t believe in physical violence as a way to react to a crisis.

R: So you are one of us Luigi? I am sorry for the mistaken impression that you where better off than you are. Some of your statements and the way you so vehmently defend the upper crust elite of america gave me that impression.
Luigi Novi: I have never defended the upper crust elite, for the simply reason neither they nor I need to. I have merely stated my sociopolitical viewpoint, which is steeped in freedom, not only of speech and religion, but also economic freedom, as well as a smaller government that does not unduly interfere with that freedom, because the societies that boast those things are more free, happier, safer, and richer. In this way, I am not “one of you.” I’m one of me.

We're OT here, but:

R: But Microsoft is a joke a monopoly and should be broken up.
Luigi Novi: Why

See Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact in the US v. Microsoft case.

MikeC I am gld you are seeing my point at least. What I am thinking I am trying to get across is that why do ceos, athletes ,and actors deserve to make so much more than other people who do work harder and do more real work? I mena the person behind the register at mcdonalds has to deal with people get orders and take •••• all day while the ceo of mcdonalds sits in a big office tower someplace and goes to meetings and sometimes stumbles into an idea that matches what the general public want from mcdonalds and he makes like 200 times or even 100 times (i dont have the exact nbumbers available so whatever they are they are too far apart i am sure) more than the front line employee. somehow that just doesnt sit well with me and seem right or fair.

Also the exgirlfriend was an actor and did a couple of local community college plays and i hung out backstage and helped out a bit. From what i saw it didnt look that hard. Not too much different than my old d&d game sessions. And the statement that they deserve to be paid for their skills is kinda watered down by the no talent ugly braindead retarded hacks like paris hilton who are paid mondo money for their "talent".

As for athletes so they can pass the ball and play well. Does this make them worth a billion dollars? Not really to me. I mena what do they really do that requires all that much specialness. You can go to any schoolyard or playground in america and find someone to replace any superstar athlete in a day.

Now on to Luigi.

*sigh*
Luigi Novi: How do you apply punishment if he hasn’t committed a legal crime?
By commiting an illegal punishment ;-) A little street justice if you will.

Luigi Novi: The rich don’t “allow” anything. What you describe is more in line with Eastern or Third World life, wherein “birth is destiny.” In economically free societies, rich people don’t have the authority to “allow” or “disallow” you to do a darn thing. Yeah, luck and connections help. But the bottom line is that most of where you get to in life is up to you and how hard you choose to work. The only limits on that are those you impose upon yourself. Our society is filled with stories of people who started with nothing, and built empires. No one had the power to not “allow” them to do anything.

Yeah right, Bullseeet! The fairy tale of work hard, keep your nose clean and you will be rewarded by being able to get rich and live the american dream is just that, a dream. There are hundreds if not thousands of good honest hard working wage slaves who are trapped in poverty. Working jobs that keep them from being tossed on the street but not making enough to get off public assistance or make any headway in their struggle. Since the government is bought and paid for by the rich with their donations and their hundred dollar a plate special interest dinners and speaking of special interest groups and their bribes, er contributions, it is not surprising that laws do and will always favor big business and their priveledged owners and ceos.

I will not wuote your comments about CEos. but I will tell you this the few ceos and power people i have been around definately seem to meet the stereotype. I mean the ceo of our dealership group just runs around in his neato mercedes kompressor and usually hits the golf links by 2 or 3pm each day. meanwhile he does very little actual work just kinda strolling into the dealership looking around and hanging out with the manager then leaving.

R: If need be the store should be seized and rationed out as part of the disaster recovery plan for a crisis……As far as you are concerned the stuff on the store shelves is the store owners to do with as they wish. Well as far as I am concerned the stuff in the disaster zone that is readily available becomes public property to be distributed , equally and fairly to all survivors.
Luigi Novi: In other words….theft.
You say theft I say redistribution of necessary and useful assets that can be better utilized keeping people alive than helping line the pockets of someone else. Either you open you r doors and your sotres and share and help each other rebuild or you hinder and stand in the way and get punished for your evil.

Luigi Novi: To each his own. Me, I don’t believe in physical violence as a way to react to a crisis.
Well i do. The proper application of force can be a useful tool in the right hands and at the right time. As well as for the right reasons.

As for me I believe that the governmet should be kept small yet strong. Kept out of the lives of the general private populace but a strong controlling influence on business to keep them honest. And it is not government that keeps and makes a people free but the people that make the government free and keep it honest. The American Empire is forgetting that fact as are its people. But a little revolution now and again helps keep things honest.

And Thank you ScottN for pointing out Judge Jackson's findings for me. (Which basically explains what i meant and answers your questions there Luigi)

Yeah, luck and connections help. But the bottom line is that most of where you get to in life is up to you and how hard you choose to work. The only limits on that are those you impose upon yourself. Our society is filled with stories of people who started with nothing, and built empires. No one had the power to not “allow” them to do anything.

I agree and disagree at the same time. There are any numbers of factors which determine where you go in life. Those include (but are not limited) the way you're raised, the way your brain is wired (as in, your thought patterns and such), where and when you grew up, the quality of your education, your intellgence, other people arround you (as in influence your friends can have on you. Say one friend was a good influence and taught you wisdom and ways of thinking that led to one thing, which led to another and so forth until you achieved something great. However, one that's a bad influence may have led you to negative things or done a real number on you) and any number of other things that are all part of who we are. Some we have no control over at all, some we have some control over.

There is also things like connections ones parents and friends have.

I mena the person behind the register at mcdonalds has to deal with people get orders and take •••• all day while the ceo of mcdonalds sits in a big office tower someplace and goes to meetings and sometimes stumbles into an idea that matches what the general public want from mcdonalds and he makes like 200 times or even 100 times (i dont have the exact nbumbers available so whatever they are they are too far apart i am sure) more than the front line employee. somehow that just doesnt sit well with me and seem right or fair.

This has always bothered me, however then I realised the logic of it. How many CEO's vs clerks are there out there? Logically, the company cannot afford to pay each and every clerk CEO pay (unless you want them to charge $20 for each of their meals).

While I do agree that a lot of these clerical jobs are underpaid, the general idea is one does not spend their entire career in such a position.

These CEO's probably worked their way up through the ranks over years of hard work and dedication. I can understand how you'd be upset if it were some 21 year old that had a CEO job handed to him and he's sitting with other CEOs who are in their forties and worked their way up to that for 20 years starting at the bottom with some lousy min wage position.

R: See Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact in the US v. Microsoft case.
Luigi Novi: I was asking R why he felt Microsoft was a “joke,” and why it was a “monopoly.”

As for Jackson’s findings, I have read about them. It seems to me that Microsoft simply made a better product that people wanted. Jackson’s ruling was overturned on several independent grounds, including the fact that he had failed to hold evidentiary hearings and that interviews he gave to the news media during the case demonstrated a bias against Microsoft.

According to Wikipedia:

Many critics of the antitrust proceedings against Microsoft assert that they were an unjustified assault on a business that held a large market share merely by outcompeting its rivals. Some hold that the case against Microsoft was the result of collusion between government and Microsoft's competitors in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage by thwarting the free market through government coercion. Nobel economist Milton Friedman believes that the antitrust case against Microsoft sets a dangerous precedent that foreshadows increasing government regulation of what was formerly an industry that was relatively free of "government intrusion" and that future technological progress in the industry will be impeded as a result. Moreover, Friedman says that antitrust laws do more harm than good and should not exist. Strict free market advocates believe that the only type of monopolies that should be dismantled are coercive monopolies and reject the claim that Microsoft falls in this category.

Jean Louis Gassée, CEO of Be, Inc, which at the time made a competing operating system which eventually folded in the face of Microsoft's dominance provided a series of criticisms against the antitrust suit. These criticisms were levelled at the overemphasis on the "packaging problem". Microsoft wasn't really making any money off the "sales" of Intenet Explorer, and its reason for incorporating it into the operating system was because the consumer expected to have a browser packaged with the operating system. Indeed, BeOS came packaged with its web browser, NetPositive. Instead, he argued, Microsoft's true anticompetitive clout was in the rebates it offered to OEMs preventing other operating systems from getting a foothold in the market.

R: What I am thinking I am trying to get across is that why do ceos, athletes ,and actors deserve to make so much more than other people who do work harder and do more real work?
Luigi Novi: They do do real work, and the reason they get so much money is because they bring in revenues that demand it. I believe I explained this quite plainly above. Didn’t you read it? If an actor being in a film ensures that that film makes tens or hundres of millions of dollars, then how much should that actor make? If athletes fills arenas and make millions for sports teams, should they not be compensated on a commensurate level? They deserve to make so much because they GENERATE so much.

The idea that CEO’s, athletes and actors don’t do “real” work is ridiculous, and one for which you have absolutely no basis.

R: I mena the person behind the register at mcdonalds has to deal with people get orders and take •••• all day while the ceo of mcdonalds sits in a big office tower someplace and goes to meetings and sometimes stumbles into an idea that matches what the general public want from mcdonalds and he makes like 200 times or even 100 times more than the front line employee.
Luigi Novi: It’s a simple question of supply and demand. The number of people who can work the register is extremely high, because it’s a low-skill job. The number of people who can make a film do $100 million, fill a sports arena, or do a CEO’s job, are not. You have not provided any evidence that CEOs merely “sometimes stumble” onto valuable ideas, and even if that were so, they make 100 or 200 times more than the register jockey because that very idea they “stumble” onto makes the company millions. It only stands to reason, therefore, that the guy who came up with it gets paid an amount that’s appropriate.

R: Also the exgirlfriend was an actor and did a couple of local community college plays and i hung out backstage and helped out a bit. From what i saw it didnt look that hard.
Luigi Novi: This statement is so misinformed that it’s difficult to fathom how anyone could say it with a straight face. Anything worth doing (and indeed, acting is worth doing for many people) is difficult. The idea that you can assess the difficulty of doing something like acting just by looking at a community college play is absurd. So is the idea that a community college play is comparable to a big budget movie, or the things actors go through when performing in them. Career actors often go to acting school, spend years toiling in obscurity and poverty, sometimes take on special skills for a role (the major cast members of Saving Private Ryan, for example, with the exception of Matt Damon, all had to go through boot camp), often working 12-16 hour days on shoots, etc.

R: Not too much different than my old d&d game sessions.
Luigi Novi: Please. You could run a D&D session with merely an understanding of the rules, and a modicum of imagination to come up with the scenarios. You don’t need acting at all for D&D.

R: And the statement that they deserve to be paid for their skills is kinda watered down by the no talent ugly braindead retarded hacks like paris hilton who are paid mondo money for their "talent".
Luigi Novi: No, it isn’t watered down at all, since the same principle holds across the board: You ensure a film does great at the b.o, then you get paid great. If your film does moderately well, you get paid moderately well. Your film does lousy, you’ll remain on the D-list. With Paris Hilton, just how much money did she get paid for her last film? I had not heard that she got “mondo money” for that role, and somehow, I doubt she did. Just what did she get paid? In any case, no producer or studio exec is going to pay an actor if they don’t think they can ensure a movie’s b.o. performance that justifies it.

R: As for athletes so they can pass the ball and play well. Does this make them worth a billion dollars? Not really to me.
Luigi Novi: It doesn’t matter what they’re worth “to you.” What matters is that they can fill a sports arena. It’s that there are many other people who do think they’re worth it enough to go to the stadium or arena that ensure a big paycheck for the athlete, and rightfully so. Again, if athletes generate millions or billions for the organizations who they play for, then what should they themselves make?

R: I mena what do they really do that requires all that much specialness. You can go to any schoolyard or playground in america and find someone to replace any superstar athlete in a day.
Luigi Novi: Where you get the idea that athletes of the caliber of say Michael Jordan or Muhammaed Ali exist in every schoolyard or playground, I don’t know, but it’s obviously not true. Anyone at a playground can play a given sport enough to have a good time, but if you go up against someone with an enormous amount of special talent and skill in the game, like someone on a pro team, they won’t do that well. That’s pro players are a thin herd. Your error here is in making a equation between people who can play the game, and the virtuosos who play it spectacularly better than anyone else.

R: By commiting an illegal punishment ;-) A little street justice if you will…. Well i do. The proper application of force can be a useful tool in the right hands and at the right time. As well as for the right reasons.
Luigi Novi: Promoting physical violence and theft hardly lends credence to your sociopolitical views.

R: Yeah right, Bullseeet! The fairy tale of work hard, keep your nose clean and you will be rewarded by being able to get rich and live the american dream is just that, a dream.
Luigi Novi: I agree. Good thing I never said otherwise.

What I said was that the notion that the rich are in a position to “allow” you to be successful or not is false, and one for which you provided zero evidence.

The point I made, R, is that societies with things like economic freedom and relatively limited regulation provide the opportunity to try. No one ever said that hard work alone will necessarily mean that you’ll get rich, and only someone deeply ignorant or too deluded to form coherent logic would argue that it would.

R: I will not wuote your comments about CEos. but I will tell you this the few ceos and power people i have been around definately seem to meet the stereotype.
Luigi Novi: And you were with them when they were on the job in their offices and boardrooms observing them doing their jobs, and did so for enough a period of time to make an accurate assessment that they don’t do real work? Just how much time was this? And how did you happen to have enough free time to do this?

Obviously, “a few CEOs and power people” that you’ve merely “been around” is a hardly a basis for illustrating this idea of yours.

R: I mean the ceo of our dealership group just runs around in his neato mercedes kompressor and usually hits the golf links by 2 or 3pm each day. meanwhile he does very little actual work just kinda strolling into the dealership looking around and hanging out with the manager then leaving.
Luigi Novi: If the CEO of the company spends so little time there, then how do you know what he’s doing when he’s not there. You actually expect the CEO of an entire company to spend time at an actual dealership.

R: You say theft…
Luigi Novi: No, I don’t say theft. The definition of the word theft says theft.

R: But a little revolution now and again helps keep things honest.
Luigi Novi: What does theft or physical violence against a storeowner have to do with “revolution”?

R: And Thank you ScottN for pointing out Judge Jackson's findings for me. (Which basically explains what i meant and answers your questions there Luigi)
Luigi Novi: No it doesn’t. I was asking for your opinion on the matter. Not the judge’s. Why do you feel Microsoft should’ve been broken up? In what way was it a monopoly?

Moderator? I just realized that there is a Governmetn Relief and Generosity Board in PM. This thread would go nicely there. Whaddaya say?

Chris Booton: I agree and disagree at the same time. There are any numbers of factors which determine where you go in life.
Luigi Novi: Oh I agree, obviously. I should’ve qualified this a bit more above, and in my most recent post above, I also included something no one else mentioned—luck. But my point was mainly to address R’s assertion that there are those who “allow” you to be successful. If you have the right combination of circumstances and qualities, you’ll be successful.

As for Jackson’s findings, I have read about them. It seems to me that Microsoft simply made a better product that people wanted. Jackson’s ruling was overturned on several independent grounds, including the fact that he had failed to hold evidentiary hearings and that interviews he gave to the news media during the case demonstrated a bias against Microsoft.

No, his Findings of Fact, that Microsoft held and illegally leveraged a monopoly were not overturned. His *rememdy*, namely the breakup, was overturned.

I did a high school (a high school play, mind you) and it was very difficult. Memorizing lines, sitting through endless practices, learning cues and stage marks--that takes a lot of work, at least as much work as, say, a clerk at McDonald's. Also, very few actors on that level (in fact, none on the school/college level) actually make a living off of this--so on top of this, they're going to school and maybe working at another job too to support their dreams.

I agree with Luigi. People are paid according to the value society places on them, which isn't necessarily fair. Tom Cruise makes millions. But he brings in millions in the box office. If you think he makes too much, stop paying his salary. People say pro athletes make too much. I guarantee you that if attendance dropped and merchandising sales dropped, their salaries would decrease.

Ok To answer you Luigi I'll go through and not do a point by point analysis like you do, but I'll at least try and get most of the important parts.

As for why I feel Microsoft was a monopoly and should have been broken up. Like I said and ScottN said the facts that where presented in the Jackson ruling where not overturned because they are true. Microsoft is held as this marvel of business when all they do is coerce and bully companies into using their products and suppress or steal competing products. And the wikipedia article is nice but definately has a promicrosoft bias as well and the call to remove antitrust regulations is a scary one as i think those laws should be strengthened and given more bite to punish ceos and companies who break them.

So what if the ceo generates a million a hundred million or a billion for the company. What right does he have to that money more than the employees who actually carried out the idea. And I know you say he generated the idea but just how much work does it take to generate an idea? Sorry but not enough to justify a 7 digit salary or compensation package. Personally I think CEOs should be on an hourly wage just like everyone else in the company. A very nice hourly wage to recognize and reward their position and level but still hourly requiring them to be there and be responsible. I mean in the military if a CO acted the way many CEOs do hed be courtsmartialed or fragged. And I am sorry Luigi but I do not see nor probably ever see what CEOs do as real work. I mean when a company gets in trouble who usually suffers? The employees not the ceo. They dont get their pay cut they cut the pay or benefits of an employee, but who usually reaps the benefit of increased income for the company, yep the CEO again.

And as for what CEOS do I doubt you have hung out with them either much. I used to be a security officer for some of the largest corporations in cincy (5/3rd, P&G, Cintas, and Midland Insurance) I controlled the access to the building and was aware of who came and went. Most of the CEO's etc would stroll in around 10 go to lunch around 12 come back around 2 or 3 and leave around 5 if they even came back from lunch ever. Meanwhile security didnt get a lunch and either had to eat at the desk, or at some companies if the front desk had a guard as well as the security office then the desk had to be relieved so they could go eat. At the Midland Building the Ceo has his own sepcial door leading off his own garage and elevator that takes him all the way up to the gilded executive level so he doesnt have to mingle with the peons.

And as for what I know about the ceo of my dealership group The lot techs all communicate and keep track of him when he is own their lot or what. My job as wholesale lot tech takes me to the various lots on occasion so I get to talk to these people. Also I am friends with the sales staff and also overhear quite a bit as wageslaves are just background furniture to folks that high on the totem pole unless you screw up.

And as for some young punk freash out of college getting dropped into a position of power that is sick. People who are with the company long enough to know whats going on and where the bodies are buried are a much better choice than some wet behind the ears kid who has a whole bunch of book learning but no real world experience. A degree from teh school of hard knocks is worth much more than a degree from harvard in my book.

Now as for actors. I guess I didnt think it was that difficult as i learned the play by helping her with her lines and i didnt even put much effort into it. Seems like simple rote memorization and timing etc.. any person with half a brain should be able to do that.

And you need acting skills in d&d if you want the experience points Luigi ;-)

But most of acting looked like show up, know your lines and go stand where the director tells you. Maybe show a bit of emotion or thought as to how the character feels or is thinking. And the only difference between a big budget movie and a community play is the budget. Actors are actors. And the special training such as in saving private ryan you are talking about was teaching them to play soldier so they wouldnt look like morons in a serious war movie. And its not like they actually went through marine corp boot camp, just a special "hollywood" boot camp.

As for athletes whatever you say Luigi. I havent kept up with sports since the heyday of Byrd and Jordan way back when. Hell I dont even follow NASCAR and thats like a law or somethign around here that you have to be a NASCAR fan.Those overpaid primma donnas that i do hear about like rodman just dont look like they play all that much better when i have had to watch a game with my friends.

I will quote you on this:Luigi Novi: Promoting physical violence and theft hardly lends credence to your sociopolitical views.
Hmmm seemed to work for the founding fathers, the peasants of the french revolution, the bolsheveks against the czars,......

As for how to get rich in this country. The laws are stacked against the poor. Business practices are stacked against the poor. You want a whole schooling on this I aint got the time. Look around and look into these things. Go check out other parts of the web than wikipedia for information and see what the aggregate collective is on this.

The straight up is this: The rich control the government, they control the media, they control the business. They like having pathetic little wageslaves do their bidding and want to keep them distracted, happy or at least content and down. The American pie is only so big in their eyes and they don't want to share. And your defense of these people is very confusing as you are just another wage slave like the rest of us. Opportunities are limited in this country. Discrimination not just of sex, orientation or religion or whatever but also of social class exists in america.

And as for theft. In that circumstances that aint theft. That is the fair and equitable redistribution of necessary and essential survival supplies for the greater good. That is not the same thing as me deciding I wanna take a car home off the lot and doing so. That would be theft. Unless in a crisis doing so would be the only way to escape or evacuate in which case I would be behind the wheel and doing what i needed to help people that i could.

Aqnd as for our suggestion to not pay the salaries I dont and havent. Not just because i cannot afford to pay first run movie ticket prices but because I can wait a few months and check them out of my library for free or go spend 2.50 at the dollar saver second run cinemas. usually though I wait for them to come out on video and check em out from the library. Either that or my friends buy the ticket.

And as for the value society places on people. Society needs an enema as it most definately has its head up its collective arse and needs to reevaluate what it values. Athletes, actors and ceos dont deserve their outrageous salaries , cops, firefighters, teachers people who actually work do deserve higher salaries.

PS I am pro union but too many unions have sold out as well so that does make it tough.

Certainly CEOs have different hours and they do get perks that the average person does not.

But, I think you have to ask yourself a couple questions:

1. Do I truly know how much work this person is doing? What decisions involving lots of people are they making? If they screw up, the whole company could go under.

2. How did this person get into this position? While there are some people who inherit companies, many rise up through years of hard work. If I worked years and years and got promoted and became an executive, then yes, I should receive a paycheck and benefits different than that from somebody who has been working a cash register for a year.

3. Learning lines is one of the smallest components of acting. Can you learn your marks and cues? Can you get your appearance right? Do you have the time and patience to go through the practices while balancing that with your schedule? Acting is a lot of work and is certainly as hard (probably harder) than someone who sits at a cash register all day at McDonald's.

4. If you feel you have the skills as Rodman, go ahead and join the NBA if it's that easy. Many, many athletes in college and in minor league organizations put in endless hours and receive very little in terms of money. What, is it like only 10% of minor league baseball players even sniff the major leagues? I don't know if your friends are the Cleveland Cavaliers, but I seriously doubt they have NBA skills.

5. Using the French Revolution (which self-destructed into brutal violence) and the Russian Revolution (ditto) are not the best examples to prove your point. The American Revolution was not a revolution! It was a war for independence--the power structure went from rich British people to rich American people.

6. I agree that cops and teachers deserve higher salaries. But to denigrate actors, athletes, and businessmen does not achieve that point.

1: I'll give you that one I have not had the priviledge of walking the holy executive level ground except at night when they are all gone for the day when i was a security officer. But with great power comes great responsibility. And part of that responsibility is to share their good fortune and wealth with the rest of the people who helped put them and keep them in that position.

2:I'm not saying pay ceos a nice sum or give them cushy perks. I have never said that. What i have said is that take away the golden parachute. They get fired they get nothing but a boot on the butt out the door same as anyone else. Instead of making 100 or 200 times what the frontline employee does 10-20 times is plenty fine. Basically flatten out the pay pyramid so that all the pay doesnt go to the top and all the work stay at the bottom.

3:I guess. Since I have no desire to pursue an acting career I'll give you this one as well. From an outsider's viewpoint it doesnt look all that difficult for someone with half a brain to be able to do. Since I'm no longer dating an actor I'll probably never anything to do with it again.

4: Part of the reason why folks in the minors dont hit the big leagues is there are more minors than there are big leagues, and the guys in the big leagues try and stay around for as long as possible keeping holes and opportunities to a minimum. Dead man's boots. And no my friends are not the cleaveland cavaliers but when we where in our prime we might have been able to take em on. (Certainly would have tried and given a good show at least)

5:True those two examples may not have ended the best, however they did proove the point of their social change to the nobles. (at the point of a sword I'll admit) and the american revolution was a revolution of ideas in that the american power elite wanted to be their own power elite and not pawns of thebritish power elite so they took power, took the british power elite's places and items and formed their own country. Quite revolutionary and different given the history and time period.
Of course the french revolution also shows what can happen if you let too large a gap get between the rich and the poor.

6: If I'm denigrating them then oh well. I do not think nor probably ever will think that those three groups of people do actual real honest work.

R: As for why I feel Microsoft was a monopoly and should have been broken up. Like I said and ScottN said the facts that where presented in the Jackson ruling where not overturned because they are true.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t ask you about Scott or Judge Jackson. I asked you about your opinion of the matter, and the reasoning by which you arrived at those conclusions. You’re not doing that. You’re simply passing the buck to someone else, leading me to wonder if you’ve really examined the case in any detail or depth yourself.

R: Microsoft is held as this marvel of business when all they do is coerce and bully companies into using their products and suppress or steal competing products.
Luigi Novi: In what way have they “bullied” companies into using their products? In what way have they suppressed or stole competing ones? Can you provide at least one example of these serious accusations? Jackson’s findings pertain to the issue of monopolies. Not corporate theft.

R: And the wikipedia article is nice but definately has a promicrosoft bias as well….
Luigi Novi: And your evidence of this is…?

R: and the call to remove antitrust regulations is a scary one as i think those laws should be strengthened and given more bite to punish ceos and companies who break them.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, it’ll punish companies for merely being successful. It’s like holding a running race and then punishing the guy who comes in first by saying he should be forced to share his medal or trophy or ribbon with the guy who came in second or third.

R: So what if the ceo generates a million a hundred million or a billion for the company. What right does he have to that money more than the employees who actually carried out the idea.
Luigi Novi: You just answered your own question. The CEO generates that money for the company and the stockholders by virtue of his leadership, and the ideas and products that he implements. The employees do not. They do a different job that is not comparable.

R: And I know you say he generated the idea but just how much work does it take to generate an idea?
Luigi Novi: It doesn’t matter “how much work” it takes to generate an idea. Ideas stem from the imagination, not physical “work,” and are the source of innovations and products that we like and/or that make our lives better. (And there’s also the fact that how that idea is implemented or marketed helps determine its success or failure.) If you come up with an idea that generates a new product and a lot of money, it only stands to reason that you should benefit from it. If you came up with it, then that idea is yours. Who, then should get the money for it? Others who didn’t come up with the idea? I asked you this more than once before and you still haven’t answered it: If someone comes up with an idea and markets it, and it’s very successful, and it makes a lot of money, why should the money not go to him? If not him, who should the money go to? And what should he get? You said you don’t believe in the American dream, but for the person for whom it does come true, what should he get when his ideas are successful?

R: Sorry but not enough to justify a 7 digit salary or compensation package. Personally I think CEOs should be on an hourly wage just like everyone else in the company. A very nice hourly wage to recognize and reward their position and level but still hourly requiring them to be there and be responsible.
Luigi Novi: Okay. What kind of hourly wage would you recommend for someone who turns a $2 billion company into a $75 billion company? If it’s not commensurate with his accomplishment, then there would not be any incentive for people to take those positions in the first place, and industry would be stagnant, along with the surrounding society. But such companies want to hire people who can do that for them, and the only way they can do that is buying making it worth their while. Telling a company what to do with its money is just plain wrong, as it is not far removed from government-mandated theft. You should be able to spend your own money however you want. Free markets make societies richer, and part of economic freedom is allowing companies to pay their employees what they think they deserve, especially the CEOs.

R: I mean in the military if a CO acted the way many CEOs do hed be courtsmartialed or fragged.
Luigi Novi: And indeed, I heard today that the head of TYCO was sentenced to 8-25 years in prison for stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from that company. So your point holds up well. But you’re not talking about “many” CEOs. You’ve made it clear that you’re talking about all of them.

R: And I am sorry Luigi but I do not see nor probably ever see what CEOs do as real work.
Luigi Novi: Fine. But it’s a shame you could not form that conclusion with facts and reason instead of emotion and bias.

R: I mean when a company gets in trouble who usually suffers? The employees not the ceo. They dont get their pay cut they cut the pay or benefits of an employee, but who usually reaps the benefit of increased income for the company, yep the CEO again.
Luigi Novi: Non-sequitur. The issue of whether what a CEO does is real work and the issue of who suffers when the company is in trouble are two separate matters that have nothing to do with one another.

R: And as for what CEOS do I doubt you have hung out with them either much.
Luigi Novi: Which is precisely why I don’t make broad sweeping, uninformed judgments about them that stem solely from my own biases and resentments.

R: I used to be a security officer for some of the largest corporations in cincy (5/3rd, P&G, Cintas, and Midland Insurance) I controlled the access to the building and was aware of who came and went. Most of the CEO's etc would stroll in around 10 go to lunch around 12 come back around 2 or 3 and leave around 5 if they even came back from lunch ever.
Luigi Novi: You’ll pardon me if I think there’s a bit of hyperbole in these anecdotes, given your biases against those people. Even if there’s any modicum of truth to this, CEOs often travel in their work, and work on the go, during business dinners, on work vacations, on the golf course, etc. I don’t know what those CEOs did in their jobs, and I doubt you do either. If they didn’t do their jobs, the company suffers for it, and thus they won’t be CEOs for long.

R: Meanwhile security didnt get a lunch and either had to eat at the desk, or at some companies if the front desk had a guard as well as the security office then the desk had to be relieved so they could go eat.
Luigi Novi: It is my understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) that the law requires employees be given a break depending on the length of their shift. If what you’re sayingis true, I’d imagine you’d have had grounds to complain or file suit. But this has nothing to do with the work that CEOs do.

R: At the Midland Building the Ceo has his own sepcial door leading off his own garage and elevator that takes him all the way up to the gilded executive level so he doesnt have to mingle with the peons.
Luigi Novi: None of this has anything to do with how much work he does. You are bringing up extraneous matters that have zero bearing on the question of whether he does real work.

R: And as for some young punk freash out of college getting dropped into a position of power that is sick.
Luigi Novi: Um………………who said anything about this?

R: People who are with the company long enough to know whats going on and where the bodies are buried are a much better choice than some wet behind the ears kid who has a whole bunch of book learning but no real world experience.
Luigi Novi: False Either/Or Fallacy. You mention book learning and real world experience as the only qualities worth touching upon, but you omit other things that punk might have, like talent, specially developed skills, ideas, etc., that the one with experience might not have. Sometimes there are those special savants who deserve the opportunities they get, like Dr. Howard A. Zucker, who became an MD at age 22, and was allegedly the inspirtation for Doogie Howser, or Balamurali Ambati, who in 1995 became the world's youngest doctor at the age of 17.

R: A degree from teh school of hard knocks is worth much more than a degree from harvard in my book.
Luigi Novi: And getting results is worth much more than both of those in the book of those who do the hiring.

R: Now as for actors. I guess I didnt think it was that difficult as i learned the play by helping her with her lines and i didnt even put much effort into it. Seems like simple rote memorization and timing etc.. any person with half a brain should be able to do that.
Luigi Novi: Rote memorization only helps you remember the lines. It doesn’t enable you to get into the role or play the part with any conviction. The idea that acting is just memorization, and not talent and hard work, is simply preposterous.

R: And you need acting skills in d&d if you want the experience points Luigi
Luigi Novi: No you don’t. You can come up with scenarios as DungeonMaster, without really getting into the part at all. Some imagination, yes. Acting ability? Fine, but it’s superfluous.

R: But most of acting looked like show up, know your lines and go stand where the director tells you. Maybe show a bit of emotion or thought as to how the character feels or is thinking. And the only difference between a big budget movie and a community play is the budget. Actors are actors.
Luigi Novi: Nonsense. The idea that what Meryl Streep or Anthony Hopkins do is simply “show a little emotion” (as if doing so in way that’s convincing to hundres or millions of people is really all that easy), or that it’s comparable to what actors in a community college play do, is so specious that it barely qualifies as part of a serious discussion.

R: And the special training such as in saving private ryan you are talking about was teaching them to play soldier so they wouldnt look like morons in a serious war movie.
Luigi Novi: No, it was going through boot camp. I made that clear above.

R: And its not like they actually went through marine corp boot camp, just a special "hollywood" boot camp.
Luigi Novi: They went through a real boot camp. Spielberg had them do this, and had Matt Damon abstain from doing so in order to get he actors to be able to convey the resentment that their characters had toward Ryan. You say it was just a “Hollywood” boot camp, but that would’ve defeated this purpose. But if I’m wrong, and you’re right, can you provide a source for this?

R: As for athletes whatever you say Luigi. I havent kept up with sports since the heyday of Byrd and Jordan way back when. Hell I dont even follow NASCAR and thats like a law or somethign around here that you have to be a NASCAR fan.
Luigi Novi: Another non-sequitur. We’re not talking about “keeping up with” sports. We’re talking about the talents and skills needed to play professionally in them. (Why do you keep changing the subject and bringing up irrelevant information?) For the record, I hold the conclusions that I do, despite that fact that I’ve never kept up with them at all, since I’m not into any sports at all, and never have been.

R: Those overpaid primma donnas that i do hear about like rodman just dont look like they play all that much better when i have had to watch a game with my friends.
Luigi Novi: I’ve heard that Rodman is not much better than the next player, and that like people like Brian Bosworth, rose to fame because of the hype/marketing/promotion associated with him and his antics. But obviously, the idea that you could do what Tiger Woods or Wayne Gretsky does just because you play at a playground is flimsy.

Luigi Novi: Promoting physical violence and theft hardly lends credence to your sociopolitical views.

R: Hmmm seemed to work for the founding fathers, the peasants of the french revolution, the bolsheveks against the czars,......
Luigi Novi: Which has nothing to do with violence against a storeowner. Those people fought against the powers that oppressed their rights. Not shopowners.

R: As for how to get rich in this country. The laws are stacked against the poor. Business practices are stacked against the poor. You want a whole schooling on this I aint got the time. Look around and look into these things.
Luigi Novi: I have. And what I see is that the quality of life in countries with economic freedom (as well as civil and religious freedom) and moderate amounts of regulation and government control are richer and more prosperous than those without it. Countries that operate on ideas like the ones you suggest here simply don’t work.

R: Go check out other parts of the web than wikipedia for information and see what the aggregate collective is on this.
Luigi Novi: I have no idea what you mean by “aggregate collective,” but if you want to convince me of your point of view, it might behoove you to provide a modicum of evidence and/or reason that illustrates convincingly. Telling me to simly “check out other parts of the web,” without a single specific reference, does no more to bolster your position than your proposed violence against shopowners, your prejudiced remarks towards those with abilities you don’t have, your promotion of communism, your hatred towards those with more money than you, or your inability to answer some of the important questions I’ve put to you here.

R: The straight up is this: The rich control the government, they control the media, they control the business. They like having pathetic little wageslaves do their bidding and want to keep them distracted, happy or at least content and down.
Luigi Novi: Which has no bearing on your ability to be successful. If you’re a business major in college who wants to be a business person, real estate developer, stockbroker, etc., or someone with a new idea or invention that you want to market, in what way does the alleged manner in which the rich treat their line level workers have to do with you? You’re not one of those workers, so what does one have to do with the other?

R: The American pie is only so big in their eyes and they don't want to share.
Luigi Novi: You should really try getting info on how economics work from sources other than Oliver Stone’s Wall Street. The idea that there’s a fixed amount of wealth, and that someone getting a big slice of the pie results in a small one for you is a myth promoted by ignorance of how free market economics work. The fact of the matter is that new wealth is generated. Again, to use the Microsoft example, they created a product that everyone wanted to buy. Because of this, they were able to expand and hire people. When people get hired, they can buy things. When that happens, and purchases go up, prices do down, and the economy improves. Thus, people like Bill Gates don’t hog a piece of the pie. They simply create new pies. If you don’t like the Gates example, you can use any other example of someone who started a business that became successful, like Dave Thomas, Martha Stewart, Todd McFarlane, Mike Richardson, etc.

R: And your defense of these people is very confusing as you are just another wage slave like the rest of us.
Luigi Novi: There is nothing confusing about my position, and I haven’t defended anyone. I simply state my views, which I base on information that I’m constantly trying to compile for myself, and not on blinding bigotry towards others, and this information leads me to conclude that economically free societies are better than ones with high amounts of government interference and control, even despite the hardships of things like layoffs, downsizing, etc. In the long run, the system used by places like the U.S. or Hong Kong is far preferable to those in places like Cuba, China, or Soviet Russia.

Your fallacy is that you assume that anyone who is not rich should necessarily be playing the blame game instead of trying to pull themselves up from their bootstraps. This is wrong. The only one responsible for where I am—or more to the point, where I am not—is me. Not rich people. Not the government. Not CEOs, actors or athletes, who are only rich because I freely choose to patronize their products. I don’t intend to stay where I am in life, but I don’t intend to excoriate those who have things I don’t. Hence, I’m not “defending” anyone, but merely being consistent with who I am, and not allowing petty biases and financial bigotry to compromise my ability to reason properly.

R: Opportunities are limited in this country.
Luigi Novi: Of course they are. Only one person can win a running race—or two if in the case of a tie. That doesn’t mean those coming in third or last should excoriate those who won, or make up nonsensical statements about their abilities, or propose violence against them, or blame them for their successes. (And the beauty behind the partial inaccuracy of this analogy is that being second or third or fourth in a race carries little prestige or fame, but in industry, even if one company is number one, being number two, three or four isn’t pretty bad financially.)

R: Discrimination not just of sex, orientation or religion or whatever but also of social class exists in america.
Luigi Novi: So does the ability to rise above those things.

R: Athletes, actors and ceos dont deserve their outrageous salaries…
Luigi Novi: One More Time:

If an actor ensures a movie grosses 100 or 200 million dollars, or an athlete helps fill an arena or stadium, then what kind of money should they make?

R: …cops, firefighters, teachers people who actually work do deserve higher salaries.
Luigi Novi: Another false Either/Or Fallacy. The fact that you and I both agree that society needs to place higher value on teachers, cops and firefighters, and pay them better, has absolutely nothing to do with what actors, athletes and CEOs get paid. What actors, athletes and CEOs get paid is tied directly to how much money their work generates. Not what teachers, cops or firemen make. One going up doesn’t make the other go down, or vice versa.

R: I'll give you that one I have not had the priviledge of walking the holy executive level ground except at night when they are all gone for the day when i was a security officer. But with great power comes great responsibility. And part of that responsibility is to share their good fortune and wealth with the rest of the people who helped put them and keep them in that position.
Luigi Novi: You’re changing the subject again. Mike was talking (as was I) about the work CEOs do, and the fact that you’re really unqualified to render the simplistic judgment you have about them. Now you’re bobbing and weaving again, by talking instead about their what they’ve given to charity. As aforementioned, companies, CEOs and rich people in generally usually do give much to charity. Hell, Bill Gates gave a billion dollars to scholarships for inner-city children. Does that not qualify as “sharing fortune” to you?

R: I'm not saying pay ceos a nice sum or give them cushy perks. I have never said that. What i have said is that take away the golden parachute. They get fired they get nothing but a boot on the butt out the door same as anyone else. Instead of making 100 or 200 times what the frontline employee does 10-20 times is plenty fine. Basically flatten out the pay pyramid so that all the pay doesnt go to the top and all the work stay at the bottom.
Luigi Novi: And by doing that, you be impinging on companies’ rights to offer incentives to attract the right CEO, you impinge upon the CEO’s rights to get what everyone else on the Board of Directors feel he deserves, and you lower the incentive for people to become CEOs, which means that leaders with vision will be less likely to seek out such positions, which means that those positions will more likely be occupied by less-qualified people. Thus, the companies will suffer, innovation and industry will suffer, and so will the economy and the country. This sort of Orwellian government control over what private companies can pay their private citizen employees is fundamentally immoral, un-American, and reminiscent of the type of failed communist policies in places like Cuba. And I don’t think the people of this country want to live as the Cubans do, or as the Soviets did.

R: Part of the reason why folks in the minors dont hit the big leagues is there are more minors than there are big leagues, and the guys in the big leagues try and stay around for as long as possible keeping holes and opportunities to a minimum.
Luigi Novi: Sure, R. The team owners, upon seeing a guy in the minors who can pitch a ball through a catcher’s glove or hit a ball out of the park are going to want to not hire the guy, and thus increase ticket sales and TV ratings, but keep them down in the minors and hang onto aging big leaguers. Surrrrrrrrrre.

R: True those two examples may not have ended the best, however they did proove the point of their social change to the nobles. (at the point of a sword I'll admit) and the american revolution was a revolution of ideas in that the american power elite wanted to be their own power elite and not pawns of thebritish power elite so they took power, took the british power elite's places and items and formed their own country. Quite revolutionary and different given the history and time period.
Luigi Novi: And again, really comparable to beating up a shopowner.

R: If I'm denigrating them then oh well. I do not think nor probably ever will think that those three groups of people do actual real honest work.
Luigi Novi: How about a compromise: Instead of ever thinking that they do actual real honest work, how about ever providing a valid basis for that conclusion beyond threadbare and prejudiced anecdotes and false analogies?

Luigi Novi: Okay. What kind of hourly wage would you recommend for someone who turns a $2 billion company into a $75 billion company?

I agree, but let's just say implementing that plan took a lot of hard work for the employees at every level below the CEO. They worked their butts off, put up with a lot of •••• but saw it through because they also agreed it was a good idea. Now, I think that they should stand to gain from their hard work just like the CEO should stand to gain for running the company that well. How would you feel if you were part of that hypothetical example and saw no increase in salary or benifits or anything to compensate you for the fact that your hard work was part of increasing that companies revenue by 37.5 times? Okay, I can understand that they can't increase everyones pay by 37.5 times, but think of how you'd feel if the CEO recieved a pay increase of 10-20 times while you recieved nothing.

Luigi Novi: Um………………who said anything about this?

I believe I did when I said:

---

Quote:

These CEO's probably worked their way up through the ranks over years of hard work and dedication. I can understand how you'd be upset if it were some 21 year old that had a CEO job handed to him and he's sitting with other CEOs who are in their forties and worked their way up to that for 20 years starting at the bottom with some lousy min wage position.

---

Ok Luigi I am not even going to bother and try and disect your mega post point by point as you seem wont to do. I am tired of this exchange and I am tired of you and I am getting very tired of this site and I am getting tired of defending my POV and what I have said against your anal nitpicking.

What I said about microsoft and how I feel can be summed up in Judge Jackson's rulings and ScottN pointed that out before I got a chance to do so. If I am on a discussion board and someone says what I was goign to say or clarifies a point I was trying to make then I thank and recognize that person and let their comments stand as it is what I was goign to say or trying to say anyhow. So thats not passing the buck and if you think it is then screw you. I dont care.

As for defending the rich and the power elite you most certainly have as you have yet to say anything negative about them whatsoever. As a matter of fact you comments all seem to come across as you think and feel that these people deserve to be rewarded for being able to rape, pillage and plunder and exploit the workers that are wage-slaves in the companies they are heads of.

And by saying that poor people are responsible for where they are or are playing the blame game when they complain about things and the system is just being a social bigot just the same only coming down on teh side of the rich elite.Blame should be assigned where it belongs, a person who sits on their arse and does nothing is to blame but a erson who works their arse off is not. When people are working their butts off and cannot make a decent wage to get themselves off public assistance and they have no options available to them how is it their fault? So sorry I get a bit emotional about seeing people exploited. When I said opportunities are limited I meant it. Look at it this way. A person is working 40+ hours a week to just be able to pay the basic essential bills, not just credit cards, but food, rent or loans on their home, electricity etc... When are they going to be able to go to college? How are they going to pay for it as grants and scholoarships are being cut. And if they take out a student loan that just puts them deeper in debt because there is no guarentee they will be able to get a decent enough job to be able to afford to pay the loan back. I owe about 10grand in student loans. I cannot pay them. I cannot afford to do so. But even if i declare bankruptcy student loans are immune to bankruptcy, you could be living in a box under the overpass and they will not excuse your loans. Also on the economic hardship deferrment they only consider your income based on a family size of 2 regardless of how big your family really is. You say that the systems in cuba and soviet russia didnt work. Well I say this system is not working anymore. At least not for the poor, only the rich.

And look around the midwest and see just how much new wealth is generated. Look around the poor inner cities and see how much new wealth is generated. There is a finite amount of wealth available in any market, controlled or free. And I have had enough economics classes back in the day when i was at college and argued with the proffessor about his as well. A controlled and free economy is possible and would be capable of doing just as well without the dangers of corporate greed and monopolies and outright lying or hidden lying like saying a muffin is 100 calories perserving but only if you cut the muffin into 4ths. Companies need to be controlled and kept watch over like small children to keep them, their ceos and their boards of directors honets. The only wealth a ceo generates is for themselves and thats the way they like it.

As for salaries the peons that are so far down the totem pole who do all the work yet reap very little of the rewards deserve the bonus or the increased salary more than the ceo who gets a 20 million dollar golden parachute for getting fired or a 10 million dollar bonus for sitting in his office and thinking of an idea that is then carried out and brought to success by his lowely peons.

And there are many things that are required by law that companies do not do for their wage slaves. The point of calling a person a wage slave is because they are so poor that if they complain then the company can just fire them and get someone else and it is better for the poor person to just tolerate the situation and make do the best they can. I have worked for 3 different security firms and when i told one manager that we where required by law to get a break he said not at this company. And to shut up and do my job or be fired. That company is wackenhut security one of the largest security firms in the country. Which is called by the front line guards whackyournuts due to the treatment the employees receive. At the time i worked there at the one facility we had a 200% turnover rate in guards as people just did not have the tolerance to put up with the BS the company was doing as they felt you where owned by them. or at least that is the way they acted.

And I resent you saying what i may or may not know luigi. I have lived a very full and interesting life moving around and keepign my eyes and ears open and networking with people. It is amazing how much you can learn by doing that. As for bobbing and weaving about the charities. Its all nice and good and sweet that the ceos and rich can give to charities and write it off their taxes but if they would take a paycut and share some of the wealth they line their pockets with and put it back into the economy by raising the wages of their slaves and or investing it then there might not be as much poverty for them to donate to.

And you wanna talk about impinging on the "rights" of companies and ceos I dont think they have rights. They are not people they are companies. they are a thing. things do not have rights people have rights. People have the right to a decent life and to support and take care of themselves and their family. So I'm gonna give you a few terms to look up on wikipedia that i actually think are good and would be an option to consider after the American Empire collapses from the deadweight at the top of the social pyramid.

Guarenteed minimum income,and citizen's dividend. Of course you might also look up working poor and wage slave to better acquaint yourself with them since obviously by your attitudes you don't think about them. Also As for other policies I am sure you will disagree with I feel that companies should be punished for taking jobs overseas, punished to the tune of whatever profits those plants overseas make should be seized and redistributed to the working poor of this country or taken directly from the CEO whose idea it was to fire thousands of american workers and go hire some south asian sweatshop for a few pennies an hour so they can get their payraise and make the profits look good. I think this country should have a federally mandated minimum and maximum wage. ie 5.15 or so for minimum and 15.00 -20 or so for maximum. Totally and absolutely across the board. No exceptions. You want to raise the maximum you have to raise the minimum but the minimum can be raised whenever. Big comapnies can take a pay cut at the top and not pay their ceos millions of dollars and put what they would have paid them into the profits or pay for those who actually work.

As for violence against a store owner. I have said time and time again in a survival situation where it is a life and death crisis. Store owners do not and should not have right to their inventory as it would serve the greater good to seize the inventory and distribute it by rationing to the survivors. Anyone who would stand in that way deserves to be punished and removed from the way by whatever means necessary. If the store owner cooperates and realizes the greater good then nothing happens to them. They rebuild and life goes on. In the balance between profits and human lives. Human Lives will and should ALWAYS!!! win. No amount of money will make up for a human life.

And it was Chris I was responding to about the punk college kid ceo. Personally I wouldnt trust a 17 year old doctor and would run from the er even if i was bleeding to deathas he does not have the skills and real world knowledge. He may be smart as hell and have a lot of book learning which usuallly does not equate out to results. The school of hard knocks graduates are usually the ones who will get you the results. College is a good begining but it doesnt teach you everything you need to know.

Also a little anecdote about the punk college kid. One of my friends worked at a bank for 5 years. he had a 2yr degree in computers. He knew his job, his manager's job inside and out. The manager left the company. So my friend applied for the job thinking he was qualified to do the job. Wrong! Sicne he didnt have a 4yr degree he wasn inelegible for the job but he was eligible to train the punk kid that had just gotton his 4yr degree. He walked out right then and there. Especially since the degree requirement was a change between the old manager and the new one.

Also as for nepotism. The Senior VP is married to the ceo's sister, The manager of this dealership is married to the ceo's daughter.

I don' know what else to say as I am finally loosing steam on this. Sometimes though the trouble with a bad CEO isnt seen until after the iceberg has already been hit. This discussion is over for me. If you wanna try and get the last word in as usual luigi go ahead but it will be a monolougue as I am taking a timeout from this website and possibly the internet in general.

You know, I can understand taking a break and not wanting to continue a discussion. But I dislike how you are painting Luigi as some inhuman monster because he is responding to points that you made on a discussion board! Shall we say that you are obsessed with the last word because you made this final post? I don't get it. If you don't want to discuss, fine. Then don't discuss. But when you throw out statements, be prepared to defend them in the midst of arguments. That's not "anal nitpicking." That's a discussion.

This has been a frequent criticism lately and while sometimes I think there might be merit, other times I just don't see it. This is one of the latter cases. If you want to end the argument, fine. Nobody is pointing a gun at you and demanding that you defend yourself and keep posting and keep going. But statements, especially strong statements, like the ones you made, are going to arouse controversy and discussion.

In fairness to R, I posted this before reading his post elsewhere explaining himself further, which I understand better.

Chris Booton: I agree, but let's just say implementing that plan took a lot of hard work for the employees at every level below the CEO. They worked their butts off, put up with a lot of •••• but saw it through because they also agreed it was a good idea.
Luigi Novi: Who cares if they “agreed” it was a good idea? They’re not the ones responsible for the turnaround. The leaders are. Some guy in a Goofy costume, or some guy doing clean-up work on a piece of animation, doesn’t change the company from a $2 billion one to a $75 billion dollar one. The guy whose leaders or ideas brought about that change is the one who did so. If the workers are responsible for that change, then why did the change only come about when Eisner became CEO? Simple. It’s because his leadership was responsible for it. This underscores why workers are comparatively interchangeable, and CEOs are not. If some worker who was with the company say, several years before Eisner took over, and continued to be with the company for several years after he took over, and the turnaround came as a result of the new policies Eisner instituted, then how is that worker responsible for the turnaround? He was just doing business as usual, but the leader is the one who came in and said “Hey, we’re gonna do things a bit different, and this is what we’re gonna do…” Thus, the turnaround came as a result of the leader, and not the worker.

Arguing that the worker is just as responsible for the turnaround is like saying that every surviving soldier from the American Revolutionary War should’ve gotten exactly what General Washington got, or what the Founding Fathers got. It’s preposterous.

Chris Booton: Now, I think that they should stand to gain from their hard work just like the CEO should stand to gain for running the company that well. How would you feel if you were part of that hypothetical example and saw no increase in salary or benifits or anything to compensate you for the fact that your hard work was part of increasing that companies revenue by 37.5 times?
Luigi Novi: Workers should get salary increases every so often according to the company’s policies on them. But not in connection with the massive billion-dollar turnaround, since one has nothing to do with the other.

Chris Booton: Okay, I can understand that they can't increase everyones pay by 37.5 times, but think of how you'd feel if the CEO recieved a pay increase of 10-20 times while you recieved nothing.
Luigi Novi: I wouldn’t expect such a thing simply for putting cheese on nachos at Disneyland, or handing out the 3-D headsets at Epcot Center. I worked in a number of service industry or food service jobs, and I never tied my salary to the success of the company.

R: I am getting tired of defending my POV and what I have said against your anal nitpicking.
Luigi Novi: Nothing of what I’ve said constitutes nitpicking. What I’ve done is simply refute your arguments. That has nothing to do with nitpicking, which refers to pointing out minute errors, not challenging one’s fundamental conclusions or reasoning.

R: What I said about microsoft and how I feel can be summed up in Judge Jackson's rulings and ScottN pointed that out before I got a chance to do so. If I am on a discussion board and someone says what I was goign to say or clarifies a point I was trying to make then I thank and recognize that person and let their comments stand as it is what I was goign to say or trying to say anyhow.
Luigi Novi: Scott didn’t clarify what you said. He merely referred me to Jackson’s findings without detailing what those findings were. I asked you for your opinion on the subjectd, and you didn’t give it. You said nothing on the subject, and gave every indication that you don’t even know what Jackson’s findings are.

R: So thats not passing the buck and if you think it is then screw you. I dont care.
Luigi Novi: Violating Nitcentral’s rules against flaming or uncivil behavior hardly lends credence to your position.

R: As for defending the rich and the power elite you most certainly have as you have yet to say anything negative about them whatsoever.
Luigi Novi: Actually, I did touch upon the exceptional CEOs who make lots of money even when their companies do poorly, and mentioned the head of Tyco, who was recently sentenced to 8-25 years in jail for stealing hundreds of millions of dollars in my last post. Didn’t you read it?

If I don’t say anything negative about rich people, it’s because I don’t know many, and since I’m not a bigot, I don’t hate entire groups of people I don’t know based on prejudicial information like you do.

But more to the point, this discussion, has been about our political and economic views about capitalism and free markets, and I merely gave my opinions and conclusions on that subject. It was not about how we feel about rich people. I believe in freedom. You don’t. I believe the best systems are the ones that have been proven historically to work. You don’t. Such things are what inform my views, not “negative” or “positive” statements about people in a different financial class than me, which is mere rhetoric.

R: As a matter of fact you comments all seem to come across as you think and feel that these people deserve to be rewarded for being able to rape, pillage and plunder and exploit the workers that are wage-slaves in the companies they are heads of.
Luigi Novi: When you can point to where I said this in any of my posts, let me know.

R: And by saying that poor people are responsible for where they are or are playing the blame game when they complain about things and the system is just being a social bigot just the same only coming down on teh side of the rich elite.
Luigi Novi: So in other words, when I stated above that the only one I hold responsible for not being where I want to be in life is myself, rather than blame others for it, I was expressing bigotry towards………myself?

Yeah, that makes sense.

R: Blame should be assigned where it belongs, a person who sits on their arse and does nothing is to blame but a erson who works their arse off is not.
Luigi Novi: And when you can provide evidence that CEOs do nothing, let me know.

R: When people are working their butts off and cannot make a decent wage to get themselves off public assistance and they have no options available to them how is it their fault?
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say it was their “fault”. Your words. Not mine.

R: You say that the systems in cuba and soviet russia didnt work. Well I say this system is not working anymore. At least not for the poor, only the rich.
Luigi Novi: And yet the country as a whole is still doing better than those countries.

R: And I resent you saying what i may or may not know luigi.
Luigi Novi: I’m sorry you feel that way. I only base my reaction to your statements on their merit, and it’s clear that you have no idea what actors, athletes or CEOs do. Whether you think an anecdotal glance from the sidelines is enough to judge them doesn’t change this.

I would also point out that Mike’s first point in his 9.19. 11:53am post above pretty much indicates the same thing, yet you harbor no “resentment” towards him.

R: I have lived a very full and interesting life moving around and keepign my eyes and ears open and networking with people.
Luigi Novi: “Keeping your eyes and ears open” and “networking” does not give one valid first-hand information on the kind of work that actors, athletes or CEOs do.

R: As for bobbing and weaving about the charities. Its all nice and good and sweet that the ceos and rich can give to charities and write it off their taxes but if they would take a paycut and share some of the wealth they line their pockets with and put it back into the economy by raising the wages of their slaves and or investing it then there might not be as much poverty for them to donate to.
Luigi Novi: You’re still evading the fact that the original point was about how much work they do, not how much they give to charity. By continuing on with this rant about charity, you are continuing to attach a completely different topic to the one you and Mike were discussing when you pointed out that you don’t truly know how much work CEOs do.

But again, If Bill Gates gives a billion dollars to help give scholarships to inner-city kids, what’s the difference between that and a “pay cut”?

And the idea that poverty is caused by what the rich make is unsupported by any fact.

R: And you wanna talk about impinging on the "rights" of companies and ceos I dont think they have rights. They are not people they are companies. they are a thing. things do not have rights people have rights.
Luigi Novi: The people who created them, own them, and run them do. This is America, and the freedom to determine your own destiny by creating a product or company is fundamental.

R: So I'm gonna give you a few terms to look up on wikipedia…Guarenteed minimum income
Luigi Novi: An idea that would result in stealing money from those who make it, cause massive unemployment, would itself cost a lot of money and raise taxes, and would wreck the economy. Didn’t they do this sort of thing in communist countries? Isn’t that why they become poor and tend to fail?

R:…and citizen's dividend.
Luigi Novi: Mostly similar to above, except that citizen’s divdend depends on natural resources. What do people in Afghanistan or Hong Kong do, given that those places don’t have much in the way of natural resources?

R:…Of course you might also look up working poor…
Luigi Novi: From the definition, it sounds like it describes me.

R: …and wage slave to better acquaint yourself with them since obviously by your attitudes you don't think about them.
Luigi Novi: A mostly rhetorical concept derived from anti-capitalist philosophies, which promotes the idea that one should be able to work without a boss or obligation.

No thanks.

R: Also As for other policies I am sure you will disagree with I feel that companies should be punished for taking jobs overseas, punished to the tune of whatever profits those plants overseas make should be seized and redistributed to the working poor of this country or taken directly from the CEO whose idea it was to fire thousands of american workers and go hire some south asian sweatshop for a few pennies an hour so they can get their payraise and make the profits look good.
Luigi Novi: And if you do that, the company stagnates, along with the country and the economy, as seen in countries that subscribe to these theories, and are poor as a result of it. I’ve mentioned things like this in this thread, but you haven’t addressed them.

R: I think this country should have a federally mandated minimum and maximum wage.
Luigi Novi: See above answer.

R: As for violence against a store owner. I have said time and time again in a survival situation where it is a life and death crisis. Store owners do not and should not have right to their inventory as it would serve the greater good to seize the inventory and distribute it by rationing to the survivors. Anyone who would stand in that way deserves to be punished and removed from the way by whatever means necessary. If the store owner cooperates and realizes the greater good then nothing happens to them.
Luigi Novi: Hmm…a political/economic philosophy based on theft and thuggish threats of violence.

No thanks.

R: And it was Chris I was responding to about the punk college kid ceo. Personally I wouldnt trust a 17 year old doctor and would run from the er even if i was bleeding to deathas he does not have the skills and real world knowledge.
Luigi Novi: If he’s a doctor, then he most certainly has the skills, which he learned both in school and on the job, and probably has as much as anyone else who has graduated from med school.

For other thigns see what I said in my farewell address. As for the economic theory etc... Read some heinlein, especially the book For Us The Living. As he goes into an interesting theory that I think would work. Or at least better than the outright capitalism we have now. Maybe a blending of captialistic communism like china has would be better.

But I don't see the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer to be a good thign for this country.

Interesting that you invoke Heinlein, since he definitely had libertarian (small L) leanings in his writings.

Moderator, this is definitely OT for Katrina. I don't know if there's enough interest in continuing this thread to start a new board, or if there's an existing board where it would be more on topic.

I've continued this discussion on the Government Relief Aid & Generosity board in PM.

here is the "Christian" perspective on New Orleans (From Betty Bower).

Landoverbaptist also has a nice article on why people should send Bibles instead of food.

What exactly are those satirizing? Christian organizations like the Red Cross and Salvation Army have done a LOT to help the people under attack from the hurricane.

I dont think those are satires but look like real news articles from real church/"religious" organizations.

Or at least I should say the more radical and extremist organizations of the christian taliban like repentamerica and all. Which is what they would be satirizing if they are satire.

As for the Red Cross and Salvation Army. Those are both still considered "christian" organizatioins? I thought they where more secular now, or at least the red cross was.

The Red Cross is Christian? That's news to me, too. The Cross comes from the Swiss flag originally, not from some church, and in Muslim countries, it's called "Red Halfmoon" because they don't want to be misunderstood as christian, when they're humanitarian.

And R, the "Landoverbaptist" and "Betty Bowers" must be a satire because of the way it's written, and yes, it's uncomfortably close to reality.

I, for example, found it interesting (or disturbing) that while the Astrodome opened for the refugees, a church man next door with a gigantic church didn't. (And they provide a link in the article, so you can check it out yourself.)
And Betty is also right about the peculiar attitude many American Christians have with taking money from the poor, instead of giving to them, since that has been remarked on often on other occasions and websites.

Those are satires; check the rest of the site out.

I was wrong about the Red Cross...but the Salvation Army is definitely Christian; check out their website and their mission statement/beliefs.

Christians make an easy target. Does anyone know that Billy Graham offered his house up for use by hurricane refugees? Sure, there are greedy Christians and jerk Christians. But there are jerk atheists. Jerk Muslims. Jerk Buddhists. Everyone always dumps on the Christians.

Maybe people dump on the Christians because they don't practise what they preach? Or preach what's a corrupted, twisted interpretation of a book in order to further their power and hate? The article wasn't about individual christians being jerks, but what christian (fundamentalist) organisations and public figures have said and done (or not done). Claiming that God sent Katrina to punish people... many non-fundamental christians and many non-christians think that's a twisted thing to say or think.
Talking about love for your neighbor, but not opening your church door, strikes people as wrong. Not criticiszing your leader because ... I don't know why, may strike people as undemocratic, and setting up the next mistake.

I'd guess those are some reasons why "people dump on Christians". And none of these articles (or other criticisms) are directed at the moderate, sensible, tolerant Christians, only at the mad fringe groups.
When you ever get violent fringe groups of Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists in your country with a large influence on the population (enough to swing an election), then they will be dumped on and made fun of, too, I'd expect. (But that leads to the other board "Is there prejudice against Christians"?)

I have only heard a few people say God sent Katrina to punish people and they are very minor organizations/leaders that claim to be Christian. The vast majority of Christians do not believe this and in fact, the churches that I know, donated a lot of money, time, and relief effort to helping people hurt by the hurricane. In no way do the actions of a few individuals reflect Christianity as a whole.

Ok. Like Constanze said they struck a little close to the reality of a bit of the extremist wacko "christians" I've seen, especially since I didn't go in depth on the sites.

This time around MikeC I am not gonna bash on the christian response as it has been very humanitarian and for the most part not an excuse to preach.

Of course it was inevitable...

As shown on the Daily Show's "God Report", Evangelicals are blaming hurricane Katrina on homosexuals. It seems that on the same day Katrina struck, a gay pride parade was planned in New Orleans. Pat Robertson prayed that a hurricane would hit Orlando because of Disney's "Gay Day". We need to put him on the hot spot- did he tell God where to send Katrina. He took credit for diverting hurricane Gloria's path (through his almighty praying). On Larry King, Billy Graham's preacher daughter did say that God was punishing Muslims with last December's tsunami.

In a not unrelated report, Bill O'Reilly's "The Factor" showed "shocking" photos of gays at a San Francisco festival. It's nice to see that the Right Wing has its priorities 'straight'. Even after Katrina, the Right still can't take their minds off gays.

Right-wing churches that preach to evacuees staying in their shelter's "that gays are evil" should not recieve federal assistance according to Rev Barry Lyne. Why should a cold wet lesbian have to be exposed to Evangelical hate, and the government should pay those churches for their hate sermons?

Rosanne Barr recently revealed that she is psychic. She said that there will be many more 'Katrinas' because of global warming.

More like she alleges that she's a psychic.

Me, I'm the opposite of pychic; I dunno what the hell I'm thinking.