Banking

This economy may kill your career

With current economic forecasts mixed, the outlook for careers is becoming more difficult to assess. In this blog, John M. McKee says leadership is the key to ensure that we don't follow in Japan's footsteps.

 Sure, it's been a rough year, but don't you feel great about many of the recent news reports?

Lately, we're hearing that many of America's largest and most prominent companies are getting back on track. Consider the stories coming out over just the last few weeks:

-- In the manufacturing sector, General Motors and Ford are both posting near-record quarterly profits.

-- In the banking industry, many companies are again recording larger, stronger financial balance sheets.

-- The tech sector, led by Apple & Google, has many companies now worth more than at any other time in the past.

-- And retailers, always an indicator of market health, in segments ranging from Kohls to Nordstrom are posting great gains year over year.

So, are you more optimistic about the future now? Probably not. Because you know better.

Is the U.S .on the verge of a lost decade? Or worse?

  • Will America cease to be the largest economy in the world -- and if so, how soon?
  • How will that affect most career paths?
  • Will U.S. grads continue to find it tough to get good jobs? Will they be able to pay their college loans?

For noodling purposes, consider Japan, which until last month, was the world's number 2 economy:

If you are Japanese and between 25 and 34, you're considered to be a member of the "lost generation."

Despite being, on the whole, well educated and ready to compete in a global market, this group found that it couldn't get employment in their chosen fields. As a result of an economy that had crashed in 1992 after leading the world for years, this group of 3.3 million often ended up drifting in low-level jobs and unemployment.

It was great until then. After the Japanese economy crashed, people knew it was going to be tough for a while. Most financiers and government officials presumed that people would get back to meaningful jobs when the economy heated up again. But around 2004, when business returned, employers went for younger, newly minted grads.

Companies defended their action with the argument that, after years of limited experience, members of the lost generation had developed habits that did not make them as suitable as new grads for moving ahead in an organization.

Consequently, this group suffers from higher rates of mental illness and anxiety. Looking ahead, the bank Credit Suisse forecasted that the group will continue costing the country very high costs compared to other generations. Expectations are that ultimately these individuals will saddle the taxpayers with an additional $US67 billion when they retire.

What about the U.S.? Will employment heat up here soon? Is the world's largest economy about to experience its own lost generation?

Economists are split on these questions, but actions speak louder than words. Small businesses, usually the engine of employment growth, continue to be reluctant to hire because the outlook is too tenuous. The big employers are continuing to seek less expensive workers abroad. GM has actually not hired many laid-off workers back.

The country seems split about what to do next. More government intervention or less? Should we increase the national debt now for a healthy tomorrow or is that simply mortgaging our future?

It's time for everyone in a position of influence, in all organizations, of all sizes to start acting like leaders:

1. The most-effective leaders make decisions. Then they push those decisions through -- even when there are many roadblocks. They can take companies and organizations on the verge of death (like Apple, which seemed doomed in the early 90s, or McDonald's, which was declining quickly despite earlier leadership changes) and fix them. 2. Great leaders show us why we must do what's needed. They don't accept a lot of push back from the other side. In any organization -- including ones as big as Disney, HP, or Target -- the leader does whatever is needed to get the whole team moving in the same direction. It may not be popular, but they don't worry about it. 3. Infighting kills even the best ideas. Multiple factions, each with different agendas caused the first commercially successful direct broadcast satellite TV service, PrimeStar, to founder. That made it ripe for DIRECTV, with a single focus, to take it out. When I moved in from DIRECTV to manage Primestar I was amazed at how great their people and technology were. With stronger leadership, it would have won the battle. 4. Old models will ultimately tank even the #1. Blockbuster Video is planning for bankruptcy. Over the past decade they flipped leaders, but none ever significantly changed an approach created way back in 1985. They failed to recognize that all organizations have a natural lifespan that can exist only so long without dramatic modification.

It's time to step in and step up.

Here's to the future!

John

Leadership Coach

About

John M. McKee is the founder and CEO of BusinessSuccessCoach.net, an international consulting and coaching practice with subscribers in 43 countries. One of the founding senior executives of DIRECTV, his hands-on experience includes leading billion d...

58 comments
Deborah.Odparlik.ctr
Deborah.Odparlik.ctr

Computer literate individuals will always be needed in the future. The determination will be on what level and at what expertise will they be needed.

dina04
dina04

Since most of our economy is consumer spending, and people who have lost their jobs or fear losing their jobs quit spending, resulting in companies laying off more working since they are not selling as much of their stuff...hence the downward spiral that leads to a depresion. The solution is to get more money into the hands of those who will spend it, CREATING A DEMAND for products. Once the private sector sees the demand they ramp up production by expanding and employing more people. Simple. But tax cuts to the rich won't do a thing to help our economy. What is not so simple is HOW to get money into the hands of those who will spend it. At this point I think our government must create the jobs themselves and not wish like a genie may come out of a bottle that the private sector will do this if you throw money at them. They will only do what's in THEIR (and maybe stockholders) best interests, and not our economy's.

adornoe
adornoe

The fact is that, everything you're suggesting is going right back to the stupid socialist policies that have always failed in the past. This one is so easy... Yet you failed to do a good analysis of the problems, and you came up with the same stupid solutions that Obama and the democrats have been trying and which have failed miserably and will continue to fail. Since most of our economy is consumer spending, You got that part right. and people who have lost their jobs or fear losing their jobs quit spending, You got that part partly right. It is true that when people are very uncertain about their futures, they will act very cautiously. But, the full analysis of the problem would require that you answer why people have been losing their jobs, and why the prospects for the job market are not so good in the short term or long term. Before a solution to a problem can be devised, the problem must first be analyzed carefully and accurately. resulting in companies laying off more working since they are not selling as much of their stuff... It's true that a company that is not performing well, through lack of sales or otherwise, will have to lay off people. But, your analysis is still not even getting at the heart of the problem. The questions are, what caused people to get laid-off, and what can be done to bring back those and even more jobs. hence the downward spiral that leads to a depresion. Most times, an economic downturn can be temporary and at that point, it is called a recession if the downturn has occurred for more than 2 consecutive quarters in a year. With proper measures, a recession does not have to turn into a deep recession or a depression. What the democrats and Obama did was to take a recession and turn it into a deep recession, which many people are beginning to think is actually a depression. We're not officially in a depression because government spending has artificially kept the economic numbers up. But, that's unsustainable, and the bills for all the spending are adding up to a debt that can never ever be able to get paid down. All the spending is just, eventually, taking us into a deeper recession. The solution is to get more money into the hands of those who will spend it, Hey, you might be onto something there! CREATING A DEMAND for products. The demand for products is always there, even when people are out of work or don't have any money. What you're talking about is giving people the ability to afford those products. But, your solution is not going to be self-sustainable if it doesn't create the demand where it really belongs: in the job creation area of the economy; notice I didn't involve "government" in anything I said. If companies cannot create jobs, people won't have money to buy any products. You need to understand that government does not "create" jobs; government only consumes resources: money, people, time, and effort. Government takes away from the private sector, and when government gets too big and unwieldy, the private sector suffers and the economy and jobs sector suffers. The bigger the federal government (or any government level gets), the smaller the private sector gets, and if the private sector is the one that is really paying the bills for the government, then the madness will eventually kill the private sector and with it, government services will have to be cut or eliminated. Once the private sector sees the demand they ramp up production by expanding and employing more people. That would work. But getting to the creation of the "demand" is the problem. How do you create demand if the people don't have real and long-lasting jobs, and a secure future? Simple. Your thinking has so far been on the surface and you haven't thought deeply about the problems and the real solutions. So, from what you've presented so far, it's not so "simple" for you. But tax cuts to the rich won't do a thing to help our economy. You cannot start to offer a solution to the problem if you start determining "winners and losers" from the beginning. The fact is that it is the "rich" and "super-rich" that drive the American free-market system. For the most part, what they earn and how they spend it is none of the government's business other than to get a good accounting of their earnings for the purposes of collecting taxes from them. It is the rich who invest and risk their fortunes in the free market system, and it is they that have created the most robust economic system the world has ever known. So, the reverse of your solution is true: put the money in the hands of the people who know how to run an economy. People in government are the least qualified in determining where the money should go. Most people in government have never run a private business or held a private sector job. So, why would anyone trust them to run the American economy? Money in the free-market system gets better distribution throughout the economy. It actually is the best method for "re-distribution of the wealth". The rich, and the entrepreneurs, and hard-working people, and those with initiatives and incentives, know how to spend that money better than any bureaucrat at any level of government. Even when a rich person just hoards his money and keeps it in the bank or in some investment, that money is working its way through the economy and producing more wealth. The only time the rich people's money doesn't do anything for the economy is when it is kept under a pillow or is burnt. Playing the "class" card has never made an economy prosperous. One more thing, the ability to attain riches is the most powerful driving force for people with initiatives, and when that ability is taken away, you end up with a very unproductive economy. So, why take away that incentive from the most powerful economic block in the economy? What is not so simple is HOW to get money into the hands of those who will spend it. Spoken like a true socialist, or like someone with no real understanding of the problems and with no real solutions. The best way to get money into the hands of the people who will spend the money is to allow the people to keep more of their own money, and to lower taxes on businesses. With more money in the hands of business people, more jobs will inevitably be created. And the more jobs that businesses create, the more money that will be available for purchasing and for the creation of even more jobs. It is a tried and true business cycle that feeds upon itself. At this point I think our government must create the jobs themselves That is the most wrongheaded solution that anyone can suggest. Government does not create jobs. Government just takes resources, money and otherwise, from the private sector to "create" jobs that don't benefit the economy. Government doesn't create jobs that produce computers, nor automobiles, nor food, nor drinks, nor clothes, or shoes, or entertainment. It is products and services, and the demand for them which drive an economy. When a government removes money from a company or from a private sector job through it's tax collecting service, it is reducing the wealth creation capabilities of the economy. and not wish like a genie may come out of a bottle that the private sector will do this if you throw money at them. You sound very ignorant of how an economy works and how wealth is produced. The private sector is the engine for any economy. Government is the drag on that economy. Yet, government is having the upper hand right now and that's why the economy is suffering. When government is weak relative to the private sector, the whole country benefits, especially the people. There might be a need for some government social services, but when those services get so big and become a burden to the economy, then everyone is affected negatively. That kind of big government is unsustainable, and more government intervention would just make things a lot worse. In case you haven't noticed, Obama and the democrats already tried to intervene by trying to get more money into the hands of people through bailouts and the almost $1 trillion stimulus. As was predicted by many, those efforts failed. The government is not equipped to determine where money should go. The people can spend their own money a lot more efficiently than government. Government bureaucrats tend to make their spending choices "politically", and that is to try to improve their political fortunes through spending their money where their future votes will come from, like in unions. That is always a recipe for failure. That is a whole lot more detrimental to an economy than allowing the rich to keep more of their own money. And, hey, you have things completely wrong when you talk about government "throwing money" at the private sector. The fact is that, that money was in reality "taken away" from the private sector to begin with. The money that government has, was first confiscated from the private sector, so if anything, it is the private sector's money that government has taken. Government wouldn't have to re-distribute any money if they would, from the beginning, allow people and companies to keep more of "their" money. They will only do what's in THEIR (and maybe stockholders) best interests, and not our economy's. You sound so ignorant that it's pathetic. The fact is that "doing what's in "THEIR" best interests, and in the interest of the stockholders is what businesses are in existence for. People would never go into business if all that they would be doing is simply "creating jobs". There has to be something in it more that just jobs or a job. No investors would lend their money if a company didn't produce for the investors. If the investors don't get a profit on their investments, then the whole economy would be unproductive and would produce no jobs and the country might as well dissolve. When a company does what is in their best interest and the interest of their investors, then they are making sure that they continue to exist, and if they continue to exist, it's quite possible that many jobs will be produced as a result. The investment class is what makes this country function. To remove any incentive from investors is the same thing as calling for the country to shut down. Actually, let me conclude by summarizing your post: you're either a communist or a very deeply committed socialist, or a very ignorant person. Your analysis of the issues concerning the economy, and your solutions, are quite stupid.

htmapes
htmapes

The "lost generation" in Japan faced a number of daunting challenges -- stagflation, government deficit spending that squeezed out private sector growth, a moribund banking industry, the rise of other Asian countries into higher-value production. Most of this they couldn't control, at least not individually. What they didn't do, however,was adjust their expectations to match reality. The "salary man" had been the path for their parents generation and it was a secure and successful career plan. When the Japanese economy fundamentally altered due to external and internal forces, the lost generation held to their parent's model, a decision that became a death grip both individually and for the economy as a whole. The US can follow Japan's path into the swamp, both individually and via macro policies like those championed by Paul Krugman. Or we can both individually and collectively recognize that the world has change and adapt. If you expect things to be as they were before and pattern your career on that expectation, you will be a member of our lost generation and, if there are enough similarly deluded Americans, will take the rest of us with you.

santeewelding
santeewelding

Can't never forget, no matter how bad it's getting here, and may yet worse get, to remind myself: Suppose it don't? [b]gharlow[/b] has a finger on it.

gharlow
gharlow

The key in todays economy is to be entrepreneurial, rather than simply expect your career to be handed to you on a silver plate. Force the big companies to hire offshore labor, while you build next generation apps etc. There are many developers making money writing iPhone ,Android apps etc. This is what I am doing, so in this case, money where my mouth is. To be honest, my finances and credit have both taken a hit along this path, but I get up every day excited to go to work, and for the first time in a decade, excited about life. Will it work out? Who knows, but what is life really supposed to be safe and sure?

adornoe
adornoe

Some people have the spirit and know-how to be entrepreneurs, and some people are "born leaders" and some can show high initiatives, but,that's a small percentage of the population. The great majority of the population is composed of followers, even if many of them are very skilled. Your solution will work for those with the skills and the initiatives and the entrepreneural spirit. You have the skills to go it "alone", but the vast majority of people, who are "followers", will be dependent upon a job provided by someone else.

adornoe
adornoe

I am right, and the rest of your post is not even worth a response because it's filled with a bunch of nonsense which sounded like it was written by a 12 or 13 year old middle-school dropout. Grow up!

santeewelding
santeewelding

I hope you are not. But, you could be. In which case, you assign this "vast majority" of yours to a caste, native to the caste. Do you assign yourself to the caste? Or, to the few with spirit? I think the latter. Only the native "born leader" could speak thus knowingly. Those of the caste -- the rest of us -- would for our condition know not.

adornoe
adornoe

While it may be true that some or perhaps many companies are making good profits, many other companies are showing profits be cutting their size and their services and reducing staff. It's the staff reductions that a lot of companies look to, in the beginning of a slowdown, in order to try to make ends meet, and they sometimes will show a profit because of that lower cost represented by laying off employees. But, with a lasting recession, many of those jobs will never return. And, if and when the recession ends, many of those who lost their jobs will find that their skills are too rusty and their "old jobs" will be filled by younger people with more current skills and who are willing to take on lower salaries. With official unemployment at 9.5%, and real unemployment at between 18 and 20%, the recession is still with us; never mind that some companies are showing profits. Then, with government still growing (Obamacare, as an example), and spending still out of control, and congress and the president threatening to increase taxes, the end to this recession is a long way off. The reality of the situation is a lot more dire than what one could conclude by quoting from a few companies showing profits.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

You are not privvy to the truth of the economy. I know it, it shows you to be a fool of the highest order. Not that I know what the truth is, but I know that the truth of the economy is always found in hindsight only. Looking forward you see only projections, guesses, hopes, fantasies. No knowledge. Claiming to know is what gets you. Sprinkle on a dozen of "may be"s and you're ass is even half-way concealed. But that's still soft cover, and I have thermal sights :) Your aim is pretty obvious too, you're shortselling hope, trying to hedge out the upswing... because you want it to occur during a Palin/Gingrich administration :)

adornoe
adornoe

Economy as the illusionists gambit. The gobbledygook in that statement is not even worth a reply; at least not even one that takes a couple of seconds of my time. You are not privvy to the truth of the economy. You must be a master of the nonsensical statements. Understanding an economy, no matter what type of economy, is a very complicated endeavor, with it's millions of parts and millions of participants, and it's millions of turns. But, there are certain principles and historical facts, which can make understanding economic matters not as difficult as it might at first appear. Here's a very simple idea: look to what has worked in the past, and try to use that as a model for future endeavors; conversely, look to what has never worked in the past and try very hard not to repeat those mistakes. An example of something that has never worked in the past is socialism/communism, and the democratic party leadership and Obama are practicing socialists. I know it, it shows you to be a fool of the highest order. The biggest kind of fool is one who enters into a conversation with not a single bright idea and just speaks in riddles and mumbo-jumbo, and ends up confusing himself and not contributing anything at all to the conversation. In case you can't understand about whom I'm speaking, it's YOU! Not that I know what the truth is, That is the only part of your post with any kind of truth!!!! but I know that the truth of the economy is always found in hindsight only. There is a very minute bit of truth to that statement. People do learn from past mistakes, and hindsight is a good teacher. But, hindsight is not a principle of economics. The principles of economics are much more than the simplicity with which you're approaching the subject. What works must have been proven in the past, and, if we're going to use the lessons of the past, we're going to oftentimes use those lessons and turn them into principles. Thus, there are some very well defined principles of economics which aren't anywhere close to just "insight" or hope or fantasy or guesses. Looking forward you see only projections, guesses, hopes, fantasies. No knowledge. You're trying too hard to sound like an intellectual, but you're just coming across as a very big fool and a buffoon, with no real knowledge, and with nothing of substance to contribute.. Claiming to know is what gets you. Barging into a conversation with nothing to contribute is a far bigger sin. BTW, instead of making asinine and confused statements, why not try to refute the points being made in a thread? Speaking in generalities is the equivalent of saying nothing. Sprinkle on a dozen of "may be"s and you're ass is even half-way concealed. But that's still soft cover, and I have thermal sights happy Whenever by cat looks at me and says "meow", I reply with my own version of "meow". I can do that with him a few times and I get a kick out of it, and a more meaningful conversation than what you've contributed so far. Your part in this discussion is the equivalent of "empty air", and nothing is accomplished by it. Your aim is pretty obvious too, you're shortselling hope, Hope is good, but hope doesn't get people their food on the table. Hope that is followed by real accomplishments is much better than just hope. Hope alone cannot make a country successful. The real world looks for real solutions from people who know how to get things done. trying to hedge out the upswing... There has never been an upswing that occurred on hope alone. People understand hope, but they understand solutions a lot better. As it stands, if you're talking about the "expected" or "promised" upswing that "might be coming" from the "hope and change" that was promised from the Obama administration, then you might end up dying of hunger while waiting for that upswing that will never come. No policies from that kind of administration has ever been successful. Socialism always fails, even if it takes a few years or even a few decades. Temporary upswings are just temporary delays for the final outcome, which is always failure of socialism. That is historically proven. because you want it to occur during a Palin/Gingrich administration happy With a son who is now unemployed, I would welcome a real upswing from any politician or any political party that might be in control. If my son or I were able to get a good job and a good lifestyle from whomever was in power, I wouldn't care what the political party was or who was the president. Neither Palin nor Gingrich is going to put food on my table. I need to make sure that I have the means and skills to get that done. But, too often, government gets in the way of an economy, and our lives are disrupted. That is much more true when government moves towards socialism or communism. Knowing that socialism is detrimental to any economy, and knowing that no economy ever grows under socialism, I feel pretty confident in predicting that Obama's policies, and that of the liberal congress, will not bring our economy into recovery. Waiting around and hoping for different results will just being us into a deep depression. The lessons of the past have not been learned; however, the people are getting ready for the beginning of a revolution by tossing out those that are causing so much damage to the country, and that will start happening when people vote out the democrats from control of congress. BTW, being ignorant about history and the lessons from it, is what gets you to come up with your foolish statements in your post. Try to be a better student of the lessons of history, and also, try to move beyond the politics and ideology. I myself used to be a democrat when the democratic party's agenda was more in line with my way of thinking, but they've moved too far left for me and many other former democrats. But, when I finally analyzed what the democrats had been doing to the country, for many decades, I had to leave their ranks. In my case, lessons learned. Why not try to learn some real lessons yourself? Also, try to make some cohesive and intelligent statements next time.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

I guess the e is via spanish... specially procured especially for you :) Is this a sibboleth? Sorry Sh-ibboleth.

santeewelding
santeewelding

In front of, "specially"? You be talking Runes, already?

santeewelding
santeewelding

In front of, "specially"? You be talking Runes?

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Especially not like I use them... But the chinese sigils come close. Rune means "a secret", after all. I make Easter Eggs of them.

santeewelding
santeewelding

Use Runes next time. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

adornoe
adornoe

but then, I would be playing the same game as a child. Por ejemplo, este es mi idioma principal y mi primer lenguage. Yo tambien podria usar espanol pare esconder lo que le digo a otra persona, pero eso seria muy cobarde. The last phrase in that paragraph above is just stating that it's very cowardly for someone to use a different language in order to, perhaps, insult another. Plus, it's also very childish. Grow up, AnsuGisalas.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

橡胶 你是胶水 我反弹 卡住了你

adornoe
adornoe

and an idiot. You're not good at all at making any intelligent or informed or coherent posts, and you're pretty awful at trying to sound witty. So, why not try to get back on point and try to make some really informed posts; and do try to use some intelligence while you're at it.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

It's not like I reply for or to you, but rather for the amusement of these others, by way of you. They in turn, return the favor, and we are all amused. By way of you. You're just a tin can in the shooting gallery :) But, it's good that you know your own worth, it's the first step towards self-improvement.

adornoe
adornoe

other than the current statement.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

You are a machine. I can tell. It's because you answer every statement with a statement concerning the statement, and not a statement concerning the content of the statement. Because you cannot understand. Whoever programmed you is violating machine rights.

just1opinion
just1opinion

We are indeed looking at a significant, possibly permanent, decline in our ability to maintain our living standard. We did it to ourselves and the only chance of a long-term turnaround is a longer-term change in attitude... especially ethics.

adornoe
adornoe

The penchant for spending by big government, and the expectation by a large portion of the electorate for "free" government services, is what got us into this huge mess. Until people realize what really got us into trouble, the troubles won't be going away.

HypnoToad72
HypnoToad72

Hey, they're entitled to a return on their investment - such as tax breaks, tax cuts, taxoayer-funded subsidy ("corporate welfare"), and bailouts. http://pa5113.blogspot.com/2009/02/minnesota-tax-incidence-study.html http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm Big government be bad, but is government incompetent on its own or is it bending over backwards to help a few at the expense of fairly governing all? BTW: If road services, which are 'free' right now, were privatized, I recommend you live in a neighborhood deemed "profitable" or else you'll NEVER see any repaving or anything else done.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Oh wait... it dipped below planck length.

adornoe
adornoe

And here I was thinking I was having a conversation with someone who was at least 11 or 12. Why not come back to this or any other discussion when you're at least in the first year of high school and perhaps 15 or 16. You might have learned a few things by then. Children don't have the full capabilities to understand how wrong their actions or words can be. Your parents are being irresponsible by allowing you to use the internet unsupervised.

adornoe
adornoe

but to be dismissive of them is the same as deciding to close your eyes to the realities around you. The truth to people like you can be like salt on a wound. Being dismissive to the points in those links is the same as being closed-minded. You remind me of the image of the three monkeys where each one has either his hands covering his eyes, or his ears, or his mouth. I told you to grow up in a different post. But, if you're just going to be dismissive and refusing to learn anything, then you're just totally helpless. BTW, I'll ask you the same thing I asked the other nuisance poster in this thread: Did you learn anything at all from those links? Even if you didn't like what you read?

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

coming from someone who has spent the better part of two days showing us just how open its mind is. :D

adornoe
adornoe

The material there is from very informed and very intelligent people, and, if you're just going to be dismissive about it by telling me that I don't think for myself, then it's quite possible that you have stopped learning and your mind is made up and you won't be able to progress any further in life. That's the kind of mind that produces unthinking masses, like the Taliban, which is convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that their way is the only way and everything else should be destroyed, even violently. An open mind gets you to learn, a closed-mind only produces insanity. Ever heard the definition of insanity? Anyhow, it comes from Einstein and he said: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". You need to open up your mind in order to grow beyond your backwards ideological way of thinking.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

your statements, if understood, would dumbify us all. Thankfully we have realtime AV...

santeewelding
santeewelding

[b]adornoe[/b]: That site, and those quotes... they are your measures of wit, intelligence, and good writing? Did you author them?

adornoe
adornoe

to understand. So, like I like to tell people who are just hopeless, "quit while you're behind or you'll fall further behind".

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

that you don't think for yourself, and that we should go to your font of reason to fill up, and we too shall find the way? 拉先生的另外一个棍子上的垃圾信息

adornoe
adornoe

Would you mind putting your argument in a thesis statement? I would try to distill what you have already written, but I feel you would be happier if you scribed it yourself. Concise and to the point is best. The points I've been making are already short and sweet and on topic. If you need further help in trying to figure out what I'm trying to say, then you will never understand the points I've been making, and you wouldn't be able to understand them from anyone else. I don't use complicated language to express myself. I keep it simple and I don't try to confuse anyone. If you have a problem understanding anything I have to say, then the problem is quite obviously on your side. But, since you are in dire need of some lessons on economics and on governing, the following might be of some benefit to you: http://www.jimbyrd.com/could-barack-obama-be-insane-plus-a-quiz If you follow along with the quiz, think of yourself as believing like Obama, who rightfully belongs in the "stupid" and/or "insane" answers. Here's a teaser from the article (the first paragraph): "If you are, as I am, a perusing cogitator of the Democratic Party?s purveying of balderdash, then you most certainly have been left scratching your head in a state of bewilderment as to how a brain, or collective brains, larger than a walnut, could produce such poppycock outside an asylum for the maniacal. It?s as if the entire collective Democratic Party and our dear President Obama have gnawed their way out of restraints, moved to Washington, DC, and set up shop. At last, relief appears to be cresting the horizon. All in possession of gumption, intelligence, and old fashioned horse-sense may soon be able to cease head scratching, enjoy respite from hazes of bafflement, and rejuvenate from the cessation of perpetual insomnia from attempting to break the invincible code of ignorance that shrouds Barack Obama and the Democratic Party like a titanium cocoon." Here's another tidbit: "A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity ? as liberals do. A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population ? as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation?s citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state ? as liberals do."

bergenfx
bergenfx

Would you mind putting your argument in a thesis statement? I would try to distill what you have already written, but I feel you would be happier if you scribed it yourself. Concise and to the point is best.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

of the Turing test. They never master content.

adornoe
adornoe

matter how you want to argue the matter. The points you make and the points the people just above you made are still irrelevant to the discussion; the arrogance of your "vestige" statement notwithstanding. The second to the last vestige of someone losing an argument is stating that the opposition is irrelevant. An argument is lost on points being made and not on perceptions, such as your phony "vestige" statement. Condescension is not a good virtue to have, while arguing on truthful statements is much preferable. The last vestige is becoming rude and obnoxious. Some people can't handle the truth. The truth oftentimes can seem obnoxious and even rude. You apparently have a very big problem understanding what I wrote in my responses. You have already lost the argument when you barged in pretending that you have the final answer and you start with your arrogance and condescension and lack of understanding of what it is that I stated. Tony's point was well-made. You apparently missed the part where I stated that Tony might have a point to make, but that point was irrelevant to the discussion at hand. State and local governments can become unwieldy. Nobody was arguing that, and I never stated otherwise. I myself left a big and unwieldy state (N.Y.) because it was so expensive to live in with its high taxation, intrusive government, and very high cost of living. But, again, that argument of yours is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. With the federal government off-loading their tax-raising to the states, It's quite the opposite. The federal government is usurping power from the states, including the power to raise taxes, by creating national programs that would be all-encompassing in their scope. As an example, education is supposed to be a state and local issue, but the federal government has taken over many of the responsibilities of local governments by issuing requirements and making cash infusions to education; slowly, the federal government has become the primary source for regulations and education "initiatives", but that's not part of what the federal government was supposed to be involved in. To enact government "initiatives", aka, government intrusion into local governments, the federal has to use taxes collected on a national scale and distribute those taxes as the politicians see fit. When politicians make decisions for the people, including when and where to spend education funds and where the people can send their kids to school, then that's not education by the people, for the people, and of the people. and subsequently reducing revenue sharing, Revenue sharing is not the way government is supposed to work. Revenue is supposed to be collected for the purposes of paying for the "necessary" services which can be provided by government only, while all other services should be provided by the people themselves, or businesses. state governments are naturally getting larger. Again, I never argued against that point, and that point is still irrelevant in the discussion at hand. Listen up!! I agree that local and state government themselves are becoming too big and intrusive in many ways. But, again, that's not the points for discussion in this thread. By the way, ask a builder / contractor in just about any metropolitan area if his local building and zoning commissions aren't anything but the highest order bureaucracies). Listen up again!!!! That's totally irrelevant! That's not a point that's relevant to the discussion at hand. If you are seeking my opinion on that matter, yes, I agree that rules and regulations from local/state governments are very intrusive and counterproductive and damaging. I'm not a supporter of big government or smaller government that can be intrusive. Now, let's go back to my original points so that even you can get on the same frequency of the discussion... To do that, I'll re-post my response to Tony above, which started this sub-thread: When it comes to government regulations, whether for urinals or some other important matter, it is the scope of government that matters. Big government is not needed to make decisions for us at the micro level. If regulations are needed, like for urinals or toilets, we don't need federal regulations when local or state might suffice. The fact is that the federal government is overstepping its boundaries when they get involved in what rightfully is local or state issues. It is up to the states to issue regulations, when needed, even for the minutia. The argument is mostly about where the federal government should be involved versus where local/state governments need to take over. In that context, your arguments about out-of-control local/state government is irrelevant. You might have a point, but, it's not what the discussion was about. My rants are mostly against the biggest form of government, aka, the federal government, getting involved in every major and/or minor decision in our lives.

bergenfx
bergenfx

of someone losing an argument is stating that the opposition is irrelevant. The last vestige is becoming rude and obnoxious. Tony's point was well-made. State and local governments can become unwieldy. With the federal government off-loading their tax-raising to the states, and subsequently reducing revenue sharing, state governments are naturally getting larger. (By the way, ask a builder / contractor in just about any metropolitan area if his local building and zoning commissions aren't anything but the highest order bureaucracies).

adornoe
adornoe

you refuse to acknowledge the points I'm making. Either way, if the "scope" of the matter under discussion is too difficult for you to understand, then you'll never understand how to approach any discussion. Though Tony and you might have some valid points to make, in the scope of what was being discussed, his points, and your agreement with his points, are still irrelevant to the discussion. Try to understand what "scope" means. In the context of the discussion at hand, there is a big difference between local/state government and federal government.

santeewelding
santeewelding

I am being instructed by one who professes what others think and believe, insight I have not mastered in all my time, making do with the poor substitute of what they say. Go on...tell me. How do you do it? When you finish, I have other questions about "scope", i.e., "the" scope and "your" scope.

adornoe
adornoe

as irrelevant. They are irrelevant only with respect to your point(s) and to you. Nope! They are irrelevant because in the scope of the discussion, i.e. local vs federal government programs, his (Tony's) points are irrelevant. Is that too difficult to understand? Please contain yourself, adornoe. I like to think I decide relevance for myself. I don't need you to do it for me. It doesn't matter what you think when it comes to relevance. Relevance is determined from the scope of the discussion. Tony was being irrelevant, and if you think like he does, you're being irrelevant too.

santeewelding
santeewelding

Only with respect to your point(s) and to you. Please contain yourself, [b]adornoe[/b]. I like to think I decide relevance for myself. I don't need you to do it for me.

adornoe
adornoe

When it comes to government regulations, whether for urinals or some other important matter, it is the scope of government that matters. Big government is not needed to make decisions for us at the micro level. If regulations are needed, like for urinals or toilets, we don't need federal regulations when local or state might suffice. The fact is that the federal government is overstepping its boundaries when they get involved in what rightfully is local or state issues. It is up to the states to issue regulations, when needed, even for the minutia. But, you didn't really have an argument, did you? Otherwise, you didn't really have a good argument I made when it came to my saying that "The 'road services argument is invalid and tiresome...". What you did was just present another instance of when big government is not needed, and if it does step in, it is overstepping its boundaries.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

If you said something like we need to regulate the colour of urinals in school toilets... In real terms does it matter whether you have a lot of local regulatory agencies, or one central one with lots of branch offices. Okay one state could say that's silly and not do it. After all girls don't use urinals, they needed a washroom facilities colour regulation agency.... Regional / Central, same horse different colour...

adornoe
adornoe

Road services, along with a bunch of other local and state services, are not "big government" services. They are, like I've already mentioned, local or state services, which classifies them as "not big government". When people talk about "big" government, they are referring to government that encompasses state lines, like the federal government. When it comes to intrusive big government, we're talking about government that usurps power from the local levels, like with education. It is the federal government that has become too big to manage and too big in spending and too big when it comes to intrusive regulations/policies. Local government can be intrusive, but at least if one doesn't like that local government, one can move elsewhere. With federal government and federal taxation and federal regulations, wherever you go, you are trapped with that "big government". So,buddy, your argument about road services or even fire departments or police departments, are a totally different argument. Hope you understand the differences.

sissy sue
sissy sue

People in and out of government have got to get over the mindset that the government has a big money tree from which endless bounty and dollars will come. WE THE TAXPAYER are the money tree. Government itself creates no wealth; it only consumes OTHER PEOPLE'S WEALTH. US Government at all levels must do what ordinary individuals have to do when they are in a budget crunch: Reduce spending! There is much too much fat in government, and much of the expense is bad for the people and poisonous to individual liberty. We need to return to the limited government that the Founders envisioned.

Editor's Picks