German editorial on Europe

[OSU Sig]

A GERMAN EDITORIAL

If any of you still feel that this war on terror is a mistake, here is an
opinion from an unexpected source. It's fascinating that this should come out of Europe. Mathias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE WELT, Germany’s largest daily paper, against the timid reaction of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat.

This is a must-read by all Americans. History may well certify its correctness.

EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE

(Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, " Europe -your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades; inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, EuropeanAppeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany?

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain’s Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European "Peace in our time".

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians,
directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western
Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great
military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that
cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness. Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for Anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the
truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the
multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an
attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany’s Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional
national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation...Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive".

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands,
frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking
into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement?

Europe, thy name is Cowardice

---God Bless America---

[Another oSu win]

Hear Hear !!

Great post.

[ctaggie]

Positive signs in France with election Sunday of Sarkozy ... right of center ... pro-American ... wanting to reduce taxes and give incentives to work beyond 35 hours a week. "Old Europe" as Rumsfeld put it will gradually change economically to better compete ... become less protectionist. Follows last year's election in Canada with similar traits ... as well as Australia continuing to have very pro-American leader. Merkel in Germany should be an improvement over Schroeder. So there are many positive trends.

[steross]

1. Europe is appeasing its fundamentalist Muslim population. That appears to be true, and a problem.
2. The Kosovo genocide, which he mentions, was stopped by NATO action led by President Clinton. Yet, for some reason he only credits Reagan and Bush.
3. Taking out Saddam at a critical time in the war against the Islamic extremists was a mistake in my opinion. We took our eye off the ball. This guy disagrees with me. The answer to this is what history will certify.
4. This editorial is not the least bit surprising. Axel Springer AG lists on its website the following corporate principles:


1. To uphold liberty and law in Germany, a country belonging to the Western family of nations, and to further the unification of the peoples of Europe.

2. To promote the reconciliation of Jews and Germans and support the vital rights of the State of Israel.

3. To support the Transatlantic Alliance and maintain solidarity with the United States of America in the common values of free nations.

4. To reject all forms of political extremism.

5. To uphold the principles of a free social market economy.

I've got no problem with those principles, but certainly would not be surprised if the leader of such a company wrote the above article.

[OSU Sig]

1. Europe is appeasing its fundamentalist Muslim population. That appears to be true, and a problem.
2. The Kosovo genocide, which he mentions, was stopped by NATO action led by President Clinton. Yet, for some reason he only credits Reagan and Bush.
3. Taking out Saddam at a critical time in the war against the Islamic extremists was a mistake in my opinion. We took our eye off the ball. This guy disagrees with me. The answer to this is what history will certify.
4. This editorial is not the least bit surprising. Axel Springer AG lists on its website the following corporate principles:

I've got no problem with those principles, but certainly would not be surprised if the leader of such a company wrote the above article.

We have some differing opinions for sure and I don't want to get into that too deep but would rather agree to disagree regarding Iraq. I would hope you wouldn't be surprised that he wrote the article, his name is on it.

[OSU Sig]

Positive signs in France with election Sunday of Sarkozy ... right of center ... pro-American ... wanting to reduce taxes and give incentives to work beyond 35 hours a week. "Old Europe" as Rumsfeld put it will gradually change economically to better compete ... become less protectionist. Follows last year's election in Canada with similar traits ... as well as Australia continuing to have very pro-American leader. Merkel in Germany should be an improvement over Schroeder. So there are many positive trends.

What do you anticipate we'll see in England upon Blair's departure? French elections were a good move, as were Germany's. Let's hope we don't lose our best ally through elections in the UK.

[ctaggie]

Oh, I think the Brits will always be as good as any allies we have. Gordon Brown comes more from a finance background I think ... at least the role I believe he's recently served in is geared toward finance. Like all Brits, he'll want to get us going on the Palestinian issue and want us to "step up" to global warming obligations.

Since Thatcher, the Brits have practiced good economics. I don't think that will change. So I've no concerns on economics after the transition. I do think we'll need the Brits, Germans and French in solidarity as we deal with Iran ... and Russia as it relates to being too cozy with the Iranian government. It will be interesting to see how Sarkozy handles the Muslim population in France ... roughly 10% of the total population.

Actually, I'm more optimistic about our foreign-policy situation than I've been since before 911. I think the world is in great economic shape and we're seeing strong support for globalization as witnessed by elections in Canada, Australia, Germany and now France. These are important countries ... and on the military side, we should see more cooperation to build stronger NATO forces ... something that Iran is gradually forcing upon us ... to the recent chagrin of Putin ... who is becoming a bit too aggressive for my tastes in his responses ... where there appear to be some shades of the former cold war on the NATO missile defense issue.

Perhaps I'm a contrarian. When I look at USA, I see way more good than bad. When I look at the world, I see the same. In words of Alfred E. Newman ... what, me worry.

[OSU Sig]

I also prefer to see the glass half full, especially in this country.
I've never been sold on Putin. I don't trust him and still see KGB in his face. Russia's coziness with Iran is vrey troubling to me. I'm sure they have had lots of "advisors" in Iran for a long time and that can't be a good thing for the stability of the middle east.

[steross]

We have some differing opinions for sure and I don't want to get into that too deep but would rather agree to disagree regarding Iraq. I would hope you wouldn't be surprised that he wrote the article, his name is on it.


I was referring to you calling it an "unexpected source" not the signature.

[SoCalPoke]

I have lived in Germany the last year and this article couldn't be more true. But while I agree that we will have to wait for history to judge our war on terror, history has already judged Europe courtesy of the 20th century and sometimes I don't blame them for reacting the way they do. For God's sake Germans won't even cross a cross walk until the little guy turns from red to green that is how complacent they are.

It's funny though, especially out drinking you will always find a drunk German who realizes you are American and begins to thrash Bush (not to single out Germans, this has also happened to me in London and Stockholm). And once I explain that we may have not gotten it right at least we manned up they really have no retort except that Bush is Satan. To which I thank them for cannonizing the individuals who like to fly planes into building and bomb train stations as saints. And guess what, if 9/11 would have occured in Berlin and not New York and Germany plunged itself into war, we would have been following right behind.

Of course those are never really arguments you can win. And the muslim holiday just for the sake of having one - yeah its a freaking joke.

[OSU Sig]

I was referring to you calling it an "unexpected source" not the signature.
Totally my fault. I misread your comment. Thanks for clearing it up.

[MustangPokeFan]

The article is right on the money. I'm sure that politically incorrect truth like this still doesn't play well overall in Germany or in Europe in general. Perhaps with the quietly ongoing Muslim takeover of France and some of the other developments mentioned in the article some folks in Europe are finally realizing this is a "world" problem and not an "American" problem. The recent elections are further indications that this might be the case.

[Rack]

I think the article is also right on the money. Why can't turn on our network news and get a "real" picture of the American direction is beyond me. They are to into looking for the downfall of our President to attempt to gage the American people accurately. The polls they conduct IMHO, are bunk and the painting of the American people to the left is also bunk. We will see in the next election where we stand and will throw the bums right back out of the congress who just won their power majority seats.

Sure we need to FINISH the job in Iraq and bring some of our troops home, but we HAVE TO finish the job! If you don't finish, the sacrifice that was already made was WORTHLESS. Any job started MUST be finished, especially when it was at the cost of human lives. The far left would have us cut and run, quit and lose. This policy, history shows only emboldens our enemies and makes them braver. IT COST lives and it very well could be our own.

[osupistolwhip]

There has been a real upsurge of right-wing nationalism in Europe the past 2-3 years.

Part of that is backlash against too much inclusion in the EU. Despite the economic success of the EU, it still has large public opposition.

However, I think a larger part of it is politicians learning from the campaigns that American conservatives have been running the last 15 years. Base your campaign on intentionally divisive morals and empty nationalistic rhetoric. If anyone asks for details, explain your sound economic strategy - which you may or may not stick to once in office.

This was wildly successful for American politicians right up till the Iraq fallout and has proved to work fairly well in Europe so far. Personally, I see the move towards free market as a benefit, but not enough of one to outweigh the damage caused by all that polarizing moralization and nationalistic saber rattling.

[ctaggie]

Whip, come election time ... here's the candidate for you ... a write-in ... Thomas Frank. Wrote a book about his home state a while back ... same state as your buddy, Brownback ... "What's The Matter With Kansas?".

Sound economic policy ... at least you threw a bone to the conservatives. Except for that part about maybe not sticking to it once in office.

Guess we can get worried about economics when the right goes protectionist on trade issues ... if ever. So far, so good.

[osupistolwhip]

Hey, no denying republicans have the better economic policy. It just comes at too high a price in liberty and humanity.

As for them sticking to their economic plans . . . well just take quick peek at Bush's spending record.

[ctaggie]

True, the spending has been high. But I'll throw a bone to the supply-siders ... as I thought deficits would be higher than they've been the past couple years. If you look at the average since 1970 ... around the time we started playing the perpetual deficit game ... you'll find the recent deficits don't look bad at all.

It's time to worry when the free traders become protectionist. We can live just fine with our relatively small fiscal deficits and our trade deficit. You want a free trader ... Bush is a pretty good example ... so was Clinton.

Here's a newsflash ... SP 500 within 1% of all-time high. Once it goes over the top, every major stock market index will be at all-time high except nasdaq. Not too bad ... 7 years and new highs. Compare that to 1929 Dow Industrials high ... where it took 25 years to make a new high. Compare it to mid-60's high ... 1982 to get new high ... about 18 years.

Plenty of good things going on in the economy.

[Donnyboy]

True, the spending has been high. But I'll throw a bone to the supply-siders ... as I thought deficits would be higher than they've been the past couple years. If you look at the average since 1970 ... around the time we started playing the perpetual deficit game ... you'll find the recent deficits don't look bad at all.

It's time to worry when the free traders become protectionist. We can live just fine with our relatively small fiscal deficits and our trade deficit. You want a free trader ... Bush is a pretty good example ... so was Clinton.

Here's a newsflash ... SP 500 within 1% of all-time high. Once it goes over the top, every major stock market index will be at all-time high except nasdaq. Not too bad ... 7 years and new highs. Compare that to 1929 Dow Industrials high ... where it took 25 years to make a new high. Compare it to mid-60's high ... 1982 to get new high ... about 18 years.

Plenty of good things going on in the economy.

Rubbish.....just ask any Democratic canidate and they'll tell you how bad it is. The "working man" just can't get by anymore with the economy and gas prices and medical care.....I mean there are people in this country without cable TV!

[NZ Poke]

Oh, I think the Brits will always be as good as any allies we have.

I hate to tell you this, but the Brits hate us now, so do the Aussies. I live amongst tons of all of them now. (Wellington is a very international place despite being on the bottom of the world, they have tons of work permits you can get here)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellington

In fact, I've had more anti American comments in my two years here from Brits than Kiwis. (luckily not too many overall, it depends on how you handle yourself and fitting loud american stereotypes, etc....)

But, it's pretty worrying to say the least when the Brits and Aussies hate us.

Luckily most people are generally pretty good at seperating the current government from the American people, and most everyone I've ever met who has actually been to America DID enjoy it....but Bush is public enemy number 1 anywhere on the planet outside the US, including amongst conservative anti-abortion people outside the US.

Crazy, the kneejerk response amongst lots of Americans who haven't left the US recently or ever is to think that anyone who hates us must be a far left winger socialist who wants the Swedish model of government, or is just jealous of the us, but neither is true. Even the various types of right wing people outside the US aren't very happy with us now.....BUT most do realize that we have an election coming up and it can only get better (it definitely can't get any worse!!)

Not to warn anyone from coming to NZ though, the kiwis are an extemely friendly lot, and people aren't going to just jump on you for being American like would happen in Europe (I know I would get tons more sh*t for being American in Europe than I do here.....I seriously have few problems here, though I'm pretty tough to pin down) But you will get asked on occasion what you think of GW. Generally you wouldn't find many(any) fellow yanks here that would say they like him other than maybe the US ambassador haha.

[ctaggie]

Actually, I was speaking to our governments ... not the people you come into contact with in Wellington. Just possibly there might be a difference.

[OSU Sig]

Hey, no denying republicans have the better economic policy. It just comes at too high a price in liberty and humanity.

As for them sticking to their economic plans . . . well just take quick peek at Bush's spending record.

Doesn't spending normally increase substantially during war time?

[OKCPoke]

APPLAUSE!!!!!!!!!! This guy hit the nail right on the head. He's welcome in my home.

[Poke2000]

APPLAUSE!!!!!!!!!! This guy hit the nail right on the head. He's welcome in my home.You forgot to say, "only if he brings lots of beer and brats." ;)

[RxCowboy]

Absolutely, 100% dead-on accurate.

PS Things like this often turn out to be hoaxes. This one is true according to Snopes.com.

[ScooberJake]

Here's a newsflash ... SP 500 within 1% of all-time high. Once it goes over the top, every major stock market index will be at all-time high except nasdaq. Not too bad ... 7 years and new highs. Compare that to 1929 Dow Industrials high ... where it took 25 years to make a new high. Compare it to mid-60's high ... 1982 to get new high ... about 18 years.

Plenty of good things going on in the economy.

Rubbish.....just ask any Democratic canidate and they'll tell you how bad it is. The "working man" just can't get by anymore with the economy and gas prices and medical care...

Well, it seems to me that the economic stats ctaggie quoted show that things are going well for businesses and investors right now. That is certainly one important way to measure how the economy is doing. But it seems like I have heard lots of studies that show this success is not showing up for the average American, whoever he is. Wages are stagnant and buying power is decreasing. Perhaps there is just a lag while things "trickle down?" I hope so. But I think it is far too simplistic to say that "the S&P is up, so the economy is great." The average American is not a CEO and doesn't have much to invest, so the S&P doesn't mean much to him.

[SLVRBK]

I would say that the fortunes of the S&P matter a great deal to more than half of America's households...at least according to this information from 2005.

"Equity Ownership in America, 2005," half of all U.S. households own stocks, either directly or in a mutual fund or retirement plan.

According to the release:

“Despite experiencing a market contraction that was one of the worst bear markets since the Great Depression, the number of individuals in the U.S. owning equities is up 5.2 percent since 2002, and up 14.4 percent since 1999," says Frank Fernandez, Senior Vice President of the Securities Industry Association.

That's 56.9 million households, up from 54.1 million in 2002 and 40 million in 1995.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/wellspent/archives/2005/11/stock_ownership.html

[SLVRBK]

This report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis shows that personal income increased by 6.3% in 2006...http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2007/04%20April/0407_spi_text.pdf

[ScooberJake]

Well, owning some stock doesn't mean much. If you own $1000 in an S&P index fund, you are only making around $100 a year. That's not much. The point I was trying to make is that there are very few people in this country whose income or standard of living go up when the markets do. For almost all Americans this is tied to their salaries or wages. If you are right and personal incomes went up in 2006, then that is certainly good news. I don't have the time or the inclination to dig enough to find out if the report you cited represents a turnaround or a contradiction to the news I had heard earlier.

[Donnyboy]

Well, owning some stock doesn't mean much. If you own $1000 in an S&P index fund, you are only making around $100 a year. That's not much. The point I was trying to make is that there are very few people in this country whose income or standard of living go up when the markets do. For almost all Americans this is tied to their salaries or wages. If you are right and personal incomes went up in 2006, then that is certainly good news. I don't have the time or the inclination to dig enough to find out if the report you cited represents a turnaround or a contradiction to the news I had heard earlier.

But who is at fault.....not the government, not the market, not big buisness.....the individual. America consumes. The average American that has cable... and a cell phone... and 8000 lb SUV to haul around 80 pounds worth of children to expensive little league so they might get a scholarship since mom and dad didn't start a 529...... but doesn't have savings and investments needs to scale back and save more.

I have a friend who is close if not the average Joe you are describing steady hourly job which pays well but not great, she teaches......he and his wife just had baby #1......well the Xterra they were driving was too small now that there is a baby (all 7 lbs) so he went out and bought a Suburban. When I asked how he afforded it all he said he quit contributing to his (matched) 401K because they are young and can save later, then they were off to the mall for more credit card spending.

People in this country have the ability to save and invest, to what level they take advantage of those oppurtunities is a decision they make on their own.

[ctaggie]

The thing that hits home for me ... maybe cause it is/was me ... is that even though somebody might not be getting a lot of benefit today from the overall economy, they might well be able to get that benefit a decade from now and beyond. It's the financial life cycle. Meaning not many people come out of their 20's with much saved. But between 30 and 50, they accumulate wealth and use that wealth in various ways the rest of their lives.

That is what USA is great at ... providing the economic opportunity. Like DB illustrates, it's up to the individual to make financial choices. Some go for the short-term gratification ... some plan more long term.

[SLVRBK]

I don't have the time or the inclination to dig enough to find out if the report you cited represents a turnaround or a contradiction to the news I had heard earlier.

Then why make the first post?

[ScooberJake]

Then why make the first post?

Because I was trying to add relevant information to an intellectual discussion. Was I supposed to know in advance that you would later add information that was contrary to what I said?

Why be an ass?

[OStateMan]

We all know some mistakes have been made by Bush, but in his heart and in my heart I know he's doing what he feels is best for America when it comes to the growing threat of radical Islam.

He's maintained his resolve inspite of Democratic flip-flopping and backpeddling. Bush has backbone and history will hold him up as soon as the Democrats prove to the world what a joke they are.

There is no easy way to peace other than through armed conflict.

Appeasement will not work. It will only embolden Islamic terrorist, as we've seen already.

Eventually, all will recognize the threat is real.

It really hacked me off to watch that Jimmy Carter whimp his way around the Iranians. That weak-kneed show of Democratic whimpiness has caused more problems with Iran than anything.

Osama is right about Americans -- they are too weak to fight and too concerned about their own selves to stand.

[ScooberJake]

People in this country have the ability to save and invest, to what level they take advantage of those oppurtunities is a decision they make on their own.

That is what USA is great at ... providing the economic opportunity. Like DB illustrates, it's up to the individual to make financial choices. Some go for the short-term gratification ... some plan more long term.

Gentlemen, I definitely agree that most Americans seem to make very irresponsible financial decisions, and that is their own fault.

However, if the company I work for is successful, and I am an important part of that success, then I expect to share in it. I would hate to work for a company where my salary is set in stone, and any increase in my income is expected to come from personal investments.

What a person does with his money is his own business. It certainly seems very unwise to me to upgrade to a bigger SUV by cutting 401k contributions, but to each his own. I do not think that the economic policies of this country should focus on generating returns for investors while ignoring wages. That's all I was trying to say. Do you not agree?

[SLVRBK]

Because I was trying to add relevant information to an intellectual discussion. Was I supposed to know in advance that you would later add information that was contrary to what I said?

Why be an ass?

I had a nice reply for you Scoober but have decided to edit it out. I don't see my role here as getting into arguments with the members over something like this. Please continue with your discussion.

[Donnyboy]

Gentlemen, I definitely agree that most Americans seem to make very irresponsible financial decisions, and that is their own fault.

However, if the company I work for is successful, and I am an important part of that success, then I expect to share in it. I would hate to work for a company where my salary is set in stone, and any increase in my income is expected to come from personal investments.

What a person does with his money is his own business. It certainly seems very unwise to me to upgrade to a bigger SUV by cutting 401k contributions, but to each his own. I do not think that the economic policies of this country should focus on generating returns for investors while ignoring wages. That's all I was trying to say. Do you not agree?

How would you expect to share in the success.....perhaps with a SHARE of stock!!!!

To what ostateman said I believe GW will be measured years from now as well. I have disagreed with some of his decisions, I try to be careful when judging actions on the war, as while I don't know the answer I am positive none of us here know a tenth of the data they used to make the calls they did be them wrong or right. I love how some on here will say that people are vain or arrogant to know all that went into a Holder decision on a football schedule but pretend to know the intel used in a war.

I have lived in western Pakistan and have seen the hate that was present before GWB took office. I believe if America truly knew the threat from terrorism at this time we would not approach our lives the same. There is a legimately sized group of well funded people that want to our way of life destroyed. I am not saying that I know what we are doing in Iraq is the answer......but I am glad I don't have to be the one making those calls.

[ScooberJake]

If you have no desire to look into the contrary information than you have no desire to hold an intellectual discussion.

I didn't say I have no desire to consider your information. On the contrary, you can see from my posts that I am willing to assume that perhaps you are correct and I am wrong.

I was saying that I don't have time nor do I care enough to argue with you over who is right. I admit that I am not an expert, and I don't have hours to spend to determine whether what I have heard in the past or the link you provided is more accurate. It could very well be that they are both correct, just that my info is out of date.

I don't understand why you are calling me out. Do we all have to be experts to discuss things around here?

[SLVRBK]

Well Scoober, I guess you were posting as I was editing mine...I am sorry that I did not have it finished prior to your viewing. As I said in my edited post, I don't see my role here as getting into arguments with the members so I will leave it at that.

[ScooberJake]

How would you expect to share in the success.....perhaps with a SHARE of stock!!!!

NO. I expect to share in the success with increased salary compensation. Whether I choose to invest or not is my own decision.

[Donnyboy]

NO. I expect to share in the success with increased salary compensation. Whether I choose to invest or not is my own decision.

Oh I see......

You should be able to do whatever you want with your money but the company that supplies your money should be mandated to spend their money in accordance with your wishes?.......or with the governments based on profits of in the private sector? What about the non employee share holders wishes as they are the ones that own and invest in the company that facilitated the sugar tit of success you are trying to suck?

What if the company has a bad year are you going to take a pay cut? Try floating that past your work force........

[ScooberJake]

Oh I see......

You should be able to do whatever you want with your money but the company that supplies your money should be mandated to spend their money in accordance with your wishes?.......or with the governments based on profits of in the private sector? What about the non employee share holders wishes as they are the ones that own and invest in the company that facilitated the sugar tit of success you are trying to suck?

What if the company has a bad year are you going to take a pay cut? Try floating that past your work force........

Now I didn't say anything about mandated salary increases. I of course wouldn't be in favor of that. The company is free to do whatever it wants with its money. If I don't like how they are paying me, then I can go somewhere else.

But this whole discussion started with how we judge the economy. I maintain that the performance of the markets seems like a very narrow way to view it. Lots of other things need to be considered (inflation, housing prices, unemployment) and one of those things is wages.

If over the next 10 years my salary remained constant but the markets maintained their upward clime, I wouldn't be happy. And what about when the markets correct downward (which they probably ought to at some point over the next couple years)?

I think one of our issues here is a basic difference in philosophy. In my opinion, I am the one facilitating "the sugar tit of success" that those who invest in my company are sucking. If you were to buy shares in the company I work for, I essentially have nothing to gain or lose by you doing so. But, you would have a lot to gain or lose based on how I do my job.

[Donnyboy]

Now I didn't say anything about mandated salary increases. I of course wouldn't be in favor of that. The company is free to do whatever it wants with its money. If I don't like how they are paying me, then I can go somewhere else.

But this whole discussion started with how we judge the economy. I maintain that the performance of the markets seems like a very narrow way to view it. Lots of other things need to be considered (inflation, housing prices, unemployment) and one of those things is wages.

If over the next 10 years my salary remained constant but the markets maintained their upward clime, I wouldn't be happy. And what about when the markets correct downward (which they probably ought to at some point over the next couple years)?

I think one of our issues here is a basic difference in philosophy. In my opinion, I am the one facilitating "the sugar tit of success" that those who invest in my company are sucking. If you were to buy shares in the company I work for, I essentially have nothing to gain or lose by you doing so. But, you would have a lot to gain or lose based on how I do my job.

Of course you are for mandated government control of the private sector like all other hard core socialist....I mean democrats.

I have never known anyone in any position at any level that had the same salary for ten years......has minimum wage even stayed stagnant that long?

I'm sure ctaggie can bring a better view but look at this administrations record on property values, controlling inflation and unemployment......have you seen interest rates.....take a wider view your argument will weaken. Also take a look at personal savings vs. debt within the last two generations compared to their parents who made less and had less investment options in the middle class......it's "our" fault not the markets.

I am not saying the "yous" of the world don't make a difference, but you have obviously never raised cash or pushed a large scale (big capitol) improvement measure. It is a board decision.......a board appointed by share holders.

Oh.....and you didn't answer the question, are you taking a pay cut after a bad year, I mean "you" were the difference......

[OKCPoke]

How would you expect to share in the success.....perhaps with a SHARE of stock!!!!

To what ostateman said I believe GW will be measured years from now as well. I have disagreed with some of his decisions, I try to be careful when judging actions on the war, as while I don't know the answer I am positive none of us here know a tenth of the data they used to make the calls they did be them wrong or right. I love how some on here will say that people are vain or arrogant to know all that went into a Holder decision on a football schedule but pretend to know the intel used in a war.

I have lived in western Pakistan and have seen the hate that was present before GWB took office. I believe if America truly knew the threat from terrorism at this time we would not approach our lives the same. There is a legimately sized group of well funded people that want to our way of life destroyed. I am not saying that I know what we are doing in Iraq is the answer......but I am glad I don't have to be the one making those calls.

I agree, Bush will be shown to be exactly right in what he is and has done in regard to the Muslim terrorists and I totally agree that if these weasels in Washington had any idea about how serious these extremists are, they would all be wearing "Depends" to work because it should scare the **** out of them. These lunatics have shown they will happily cut your head off for no other reason than the shock value and have flown our own aircraft into buildings killing thousands. If that isn't enough to convince these pinheads then I suppose we wil have to suffer through a Democratic term to see just how badly they will handle them. I can tell you, it literally scares the crap out of me knowing that even though Bush has done what he can, should the Dems get control there will be a mass withdrawal leaving the Iraqis open for mass slaughter. I'm sure the Dems will say we gave them every tool to succeed even though with our troops there we still can't quell this mess. Maybe the Dems will also propose a "Muslim Day" to show these lunatics that we want to be friends. Jes, what is going to wake these people up?

[Donnyboy]

I agree, Bush will be shown to be exactly right in what he is and has done in regard to the Muslim terrorists and I totally agree that if these weasels in Washington had any idea about how serious these extremists are, they would all be wearing "Depends" to work because it should scare the **** out of them. These lunatics have shown they will happily cut your head off for no other reason than the shock value and have flown our own aircraft into buildings killing thousands. If that isn't enough to convince these pinheads then I suppose we wil have to suffer through a Democratic term to see just how badly they will handle them. I can tell you, it literally scares the crap out of me knowing that even though Bush has done what he can, should the Dems get control there will be a mass withdrawal leaving the Iraqis open for mass slaughter. I'm sure the Dems will say we gave them every tool to succeed even though with our troops there we still can't quell this mess. Maybe the Dems will also propose a "Muslim Day" to show these lunatics that we want to be friends. Jes, what is going to wake these people up?

I don't know that he will be shown to be exactly right and just as in any war mistakes have been made......but those who say they know why we are there or know exactly what is going on with who are very very naive. The beheading thing is something I can't get out of my mind. You don't reason with people capable of that......I don't know how you deal with them....but it isn't negotiations. When you have family members that were put on death lists for being infadels in Muslim lands.... ie bringing power to an area that didn't have reliable electricity....you have a deeper appreciation for the enemy than do most.

[steross]

I think one of our issues here is a basic difference in philosophy. In my opinion, I am the one facilitating "the sugar tit of success" that those who invest in my company are sucking. If you were to buy shares in the company I work for, I essentially have nothing to gain or lose by you doing so. But, you would have a lot to gain or lose based on how I do my job.

Whoa there Scoober. I usually agree with most of your posts but I think you are off a little on this one. A public company exists as a public company because of shareholders. The shareholder takes the risk, with the promise of possible gain and also the possiblity of complete loss. An employee is paid a certain amount to accomplish a certain job. There is no risk to that. Why on earth would I risk my capital in a company that promises the reward on that capital to the employees instead of the shareholders? If you ran a company that way, you would have no investors. Without investors, you have no capital to execute your business plan. With no capital, you have no business plan execution and hence do not need employees at all. So, in a public company the employee has their job to gain from shareholders, and would lose their job without them. If you want the employees to benefit from gains, make them shareholders. That is exactly what many companies do.

[SLVRBK]

Building on OKCPoke's comments...from Rueters:

Rohan Gunaratna told a security conference at Lloyd's of London insurance market that Iraq, like Afghanistan in the 1990s, would become a "terrorist Disneyland" where al Qaeda could build up its strength unchallenged.

If U.S., British and other coalition troops withdrew from Iraq in the next year, he said, "certainly the scale of attacks that would be mounted inside Iraq, and using Iraq as a launching pad to strike other Western countries -- countries in Europe, North America - would become such that after two or three years, the U.S. forces will have to go back to Iraq."

further into the article:

"Clearly al Qaeda are focusing on Iraq now, and focusing on some sort of propaganda victory over the United States," Sir Richard Dearlove told reporters.

"Whether that's an actual victory or not, if they can claim in the Muslim world that they've done well, then that puts us in a very difficult position. This is really an aspect of withdrawal that hasn't been properly considered. That's why I think we can't just let Iraq go its own way."
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSL1560349920070515?feedType=RSS&rpc=22

[ScooberJake]

Of course you are for mandated government control of the private sector like all other hard core socialist....I mean democrats.

Nice. Telling me what I believe. Donny, would you like to actually have a real discussion with somebody for once, rather than just looking for a fight in every thread? I'm actually fairly conservative when it comes to fiscal policy (at least as far as I understand fiscal policy, which is admittedly not very far).

I have never known anyone in any position at any level that had the same salary for ten years......has minimum wage even stayed stagnant that long?

Yeah, that's why it's called a hypothetical. Many economic reports say that on the whole, wages in this country actually were stagnant for a couple years in the recent past. But what should happen in a healthy economy is that wages increase as companies do well.

I'm sure ctaggie can bring a better view but look at this administrations record on property values, controlling inflation and unemployment......have you seen interest rates.....take a wider view your argument will weaken.

What are you talking about? What arguement? I am the one suggesting that we take a wider view. I am saying that you can't judge the health of the economy just by looking at the markets.

Oh.....and you didn't answer the question, are you taking a pay cut after a bad year, I mean "you" were the difference......

Yes. I recently worked for a company where I took a cut in pay when profits were down. I worked for a small consulting firm (~10 people). A large percentage of my pay was an annual bonus. This isn't just a little something extra when the company does well. Without the bonus, the salaries at this company are nowhere near competitive. The bonus is part of the annual compensation. Most years, when the company made lots of money, I got a large bonus and made a decent salary. When it didn't, my bonus was very small, essentially a pay cut, and my salary sucked.

Why on earth would I risk my capital in a company that promises the reward on that capital to the employees instead of the shareholders?... So, in a public company the employee has their job to gain from shareholders, and would lose their job without them. If you want the employees to benefit from gains, make them shareholders. That is exactly what many companies do.

I am not suggesting that shareholders shouldn't gain from the company's success. But I think I do have a lot to risk as an employee. If the company does poorly and I lose my job, I am not out just, say, $1000. I am out $1000 every week until I find a new job. In a way, I am risking a lot more than most shareholders.



Look the point that I am trying to make is that in a healthy economy, both shareholders and employees gain from a company's success. That's the way it is supposed to work, right? I thought that was a basic element of conservative economic policy (good policy for business, low cap gains taxes, etc.) But you can't say the economy is healthy JUST because the markets are up (i.e. sharholders are making money). I was not suggesting that the economy is not healthy. I was not suggesting that shareholders shouldn't make money.

I WAS suggesting that if employees are NOT benefiting while shareholders, ARE, then maybe something could be amiss. We need to look at more than just the markets. Do you still disagree with that?

[ctaggie]

We're doin' a nice juggle of national security and economic security in this thread. My comments only geared to economic side ... following up on others before.

Cutting to the bottom line ... to the extent that a politician can get credit ... good or bad ... for the economy ... I'd give Bush an A. I'd also give Clinton an A. And I'd give Reagan an A. And I'd come close to flunking LBJ, Nixon and Carter. Ford would get off with a C. Bush 41 ... B or C. Not wanting to explain why ... but I have my reasons ... not just pulling it out of thin air.

Anyway, there's maybe 3 main themes to the economy being addressed here ... wages, wealth and capital allocation. Steross is on point with the capital allocation discussion. It's really important to our economy ... which is pretty much an entrepreneurial-based (smaller business) form of capitalism. But certainly not completely as you've got to admire the way our big companies are kicking butt in the world markets right now. And they are ... if you look at the earnings reports of late.

Behind the scenes there's always a tug of war going on between employees/shareholders/debt holders. And Steross makes a great point that employees are often shareholders in their employer ... mostly thru pension matching, option plans, etc. This has been one of the trends that is counter to unions ... and as ownership by employees has risen, unions have dropped in the private sector.

I don't see much to discuss on stock markets except how it applies to our wealth as a country. Total USA household wealth is about 55 trillion ... about 20 trillion from the stock market. That's big. And that's one of the baselines of the "trickle down" theory. New capital to a fair degree comes from stock market gains ... and this new capital finds its way back into the economy in the form of increased consumer spending, new companies and new jobs.

The third theme is wages. I am always left scratching my head as to why anyone would think politicians should have much involvement in setting wages. It is completely contrary to everything I've discussed to this point. It's not a market-driven allocation of capital and it's income/wealth redistribution as opposed to creation ... meaning it's best viewed as a zero-sum game. But we have a minimum wage law and we have many other layers of laws upon laws that deal with protecting employees' wages/economic well being. So be it, it's there, I accept it ... part of our safety net.

But what I don't understand is why more thought is not given to why we have low wage inflation (that's the positive take as low inflation will keep interest rates low ... the negative take is low wage growth) ... and why we've had low wage inflation for decades now. One of the big reasons is also one of the big reasons we have such a great standard of living in this country (and we do) ... we've embraced globalization ... free trade over the past few decades. And we're way better off for it. Yes, globalization brings more competition into play ... and when Asia comes on line with lower paid workers who can do a sufficient job, as has happened, you will see slower wage growth. It's that simple ... and certainly not anything that any politician is overtly doing to make the rich richer and the low-wage worker poorer. It's just the nature of the beast ... and the beast has been good to us.

So just how has that beast been good to us? Listen close, cause this is something you don't hear nearly enough from the media. We have low interest rates because of globalization. We have low cost of imported goods because of globalization. The former supports the housing market big time ... as well as overall credit for any purchases. The latter benefits each of us as consumers anytime we buy goods imported from Asia or Latin America ... and other places as well. And we have low unemployment ... 4.5% ... just about as low as at anytime in the last 50 years.

Add it up and I can't think of any better economy in my lifetime. I'm real serious about that. I don't think we've had any more opportunity in my lifetime than right now. There is no comparison between the economy of the 70's and the economy of today in this country. We are so much better off now. And the reason is mostly cause we have a great system with more flexibility than our competitors ... freedom of capital flows, solid laws, including bankruptcy laws ... strong property rights, etc. We also have a solid infrastructure that's been built up over decades and more.

These are things too few people see and understand. At least that's what I think every time I hear Lou Dobbs drone on about the "wickedness" of globalization ... or Mike Huckabee refer to the "criminal" side of globalization ... or John Kerry refer to the "Benedict Arnold" corporations ... or anybody with not enough sense to know better parrotting on about the certain calamity to be caused by our trade deficit ... or how our government is too deeply in debt ... or how the "big bad" oil companies are "fixing" the price of gasoline.

I came to the conclusion long ago that bad news sells better than good news ... and people just love to complain. At least that's the best explanation I can give for why this is the kind of stuff you hear so much of.

Bottom line for me, our workers have as much, usually more, opportunity than they've ever had.

[bleedorange]

Well said CT.

It was made even better by my humming "God Bless America" as I read along, ala Oliver Wendell Douglass. :D

[Donnyboy]

Nice. Telling me what I believe. Donny, would you like to actually have a real discussion with somebody for once, rather than just looking for a fight in every thread? I'm actually fairly conservative when it comes to fiscal policy (at least as far as I understand fiscal policy, which is admittedly not very far).



Yeah, that's why it's called a hypothetical. Many economic reports say that on the whole, wages in this country actually were stagnant for a couple years in the recent past. But what should happen in a healthy economy is that wages increase as companies do well.



What are you talking about? What arguement? I am the one suggesting that we take a wider view. I am saying that you can't judge the health of the economy just by looking at the markets.



Yes. I recently worked for a company where I took a cut in pay when profits were down. I worked for a small consulting firm (~10 people). A large percentage of my pay was an annual bonus. This isn't just a little something extra when the company does well. Without the bonus, the salaries at this company are nowhere near competitive. The bonus is part of the annual compensation. Most years, when the company made lots of money, I got a large bonus and made a decent salary. When it didn't, my bonus was very small, essentially a pay cut, and my salary sucked.



I am not suggesting that shareholders shouldn't gain from the company's success. But I think I do have a lot to risk as an employee. If the company does poorly and I lose my job, I am not out just, say, $1000. I am out $1000 every week until I find a new job. In a way, I am risking a lot more than most shareholders.



Look the point that I am trying to make is that in a healthy economy, both shareholders and employees gain from a company's success. That's the way it is supposed to work, right? I thought that was a basic element of conservative economic policy (good policy for business, low cap gains taxes, etc.) But you can't say the economy is healthy JUST because the markets are up (i.e. sharholders are making money). I was not suggesting that the economy is not healthy. I was not suggesting that shareholders shouldn't make money.

I WAS suggesting that if employees are NOT benefiting while shareholders, ARE, then maybe something could be amiss. We need to look at more than just the markets. Do you still disagree with that?

Easy there big fella the socialist comment was tongue in cheek......

Your wage didn't drop......your benefit did. You work for a small consulting firm of <10 which puts you in a small sector of the workforce. How do you that with hourly employees or even salaried ones in large organizations? You mean you got a big fat check in the years you did well like those over paid CEO's with their stock options? Your bonus may have been a large part some years but your weekly check didn't change!!!!

Are you for unions because they say the opposite of what you are.....it is very hard to apply the practice you are speaking to hourly employees, many who don't want to put part of their "sure thing" money at risk with company peformance, it is done in places but not many and rarely if ever in organized labor.

In this healthy economy all employees benefit not only from the market they invest in but also from new buisness offering new oppurtunities thus increasing demand for workers and raising the price......

We have brought up more than the market as indicators......take a look.

[ScooberJake]

In this healthy economy all employees benefit not only from the market they invest in but also from new buisness offering new oppurtunities thus increasing demand for workers and raising the price......

We have brought up more than the market as indicators......take a look.

I agree that in a healthy economy new opportunities do increase the demand for workers and raise the price (i.e. wages and salaries). The whole point I was trying to make was that if wages and salaries are not increasing, then maybe those new opportunities are not there and the overall economy is not as healthy as the markets indicate.

I know that I have heard many times over the past 3-5 years that wages have been stagnant. SLVRBK posted a link showing that they rose in 2006. I don't know if they just started to rise in that year, or if either my information or his is flawed.

[SLVRBK]

That report by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, part of the Department of Commerce, shows personal income rising in 2004, 2005 and 2006. It also shows that the percentage of income available for saving/spending increased as well.

[ScooberJake]

That report by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, part of the Department of Commerce, shows personal income rising in 2004, 2005 and 2006. It also shows that the percentage of income available for saving/spending increased as well.

In that case I retract my statement and appologize for creating such a fuss. I am new to this economics stuff, and there is still a lot that I don't understand. Perhaps incomes have risen, but not as much as inflation, so buying power is down? I don't know. I guess I got confused somewhere along the way.

[SLVRBK]

Perhaps incomes have risen, but not as much as inflation, so buying power is down?

What they show as far as inflation is 2006 and 2005:

2005 personal income up 5.2% vs. inflation of 2.9%
2006 personal income up 6.3% vs. inflation of 2.8%

I should state that I have infered personal income growth for 2004 from the language used in the report where it states that growth in the 3rd and 4th quarter of 2006 was below the average growth for the prior three years. The report does not specifically state the 2004 income grew over 2003.