j_b

Plutonomy Economic growth that is powered and consumed by the wealthiest upper class of society. Plutonomy refers to a society where the majority of the wealth is controlled by an ever-shrinking minority; as such, the economic growth of that society becomes dependent on the fortunes of that same wealthy minority. This buzz word was initially coined by analysts at Citigroup in 2005 to describe the incredible growth of the U.S. economy during that period despite increasing interest rates, commodity prices and an inflated national debt. Citigroup analysts argued that as such an economy continues to grow in the face of contradictory elements, the more important the society's ultra rich become to maintaining such growth. The analysts also believed that in addition to the U.S., Canada, Great Britain and China are also becoming plutonomies.

JayB is the ultimate dead-ender: for him there is no environmental or social cost to doing business. His model is completely unsustainable not only because ecosystems can't take much more abuse and critical resources are declining as demand keeps increasing, but because people have never stood quietly for very long when subjected to systematic neglect.

If the public sector exists to serve the public, and not vice versa, then the only relevant question when determining compensation is "how much will it cost to staff the position with a qualified person?" The larger metaphysical question of what job X is really "worth" relative to Y in some equally arbitrary perspective is completely irrelevant. nice dodge! JayB still won't discuss the banksters making their get away with the loot. Don't worry pal, I'll keep reminding you, and each time you dodge the issue I'll make a mention of it. M'kay? good to know that a living wage is a metaphysical issue Perhaps it's just a matter of being better at communicating it to the pesky peons. if the employee needs food stamps to make ends meet or to go to the emergency room for regular health care, we don't care because although we are paying the bill, we don't know about it?

JayB believes that gambling with people's pension is much more valuable to society than ferrying people back and forth from work.

the upper 1% of the income brackets has grabbed a wildly disproportionate amount of growth generated over the last 30+ years, while most everybody else's take has stagnated at best. Not only JayB isn't going to argue changing that but he wants the employees who haven't been raped yet to bend over.

what are you talking about? 57k/yr for a veteran metro bus driver doesn't jive with your narrative even if your buddies pay their employees peanuts.

where is the funny part? I mean beside your continual display of blithering stupidity?

You have the political acumen of a stump. I have never argued for anything other than a mixed economy (i.e. the most common economic model in the world today, including that of the US), democracy and republican citizenry.

is there more than one famous Eric Blair? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Political_views

Voters said "jobs", baggers concluded "layoffs" makes sense ..

Nope, you are very poorly informed on multiple counts. Orwell hated Stalinists. What about reading some instead of continually making an ass of yourself? Anyhow, it stands to reason that anyone to the left of joe Lieberman be "extreme left" for a storm-trooper like you.

Classic jackbooted dodge from Attila. Apparently, you don't know that Orwell was a life long left winger.

You are making stuff up per usual. The left refuses the tyranny of the minority (like a 2/3 vote requirement) precisely because it wants the people to be heard. Orwell would be proud of you.

It's the old divide and conquer tactics. Instead of demanding a halt to the race to the bottom, corporate tools incite to hatred against employees who have unions to protect their interests. 1053 is the really scary part. if the court doesn't strike it down as unconstitutional, we are condemned to bankruptcy and dwindling public and social programs like California.

Has anybody seen Fairweather? he has a quizz to take.

More right wing think tank froth to bash public employees while the banksters get away with the loot (that Ennis guy is a WPC stooge). Despite the hyperbolas, veteran metro driver pay is ~$57k per year based on a 40 hour week (average driver pay is $50k), which is hardly too much considering the job. A very small % of drivers makes over a 100k due to overtime, which may be a lot, but it'll hardly make a significant difference to reduce the shortfall.

Here you go, chew on this since you insist so much because you believe that you have found a bone. There will be a quizz so make sure you read it all, lazy bum. One Person, One Vote, One Dollar? Campaign Finance, Elections, and Elite Democratic Theory April, 2010 12 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 1257 Author Stephan Stohler* Journal of Consitutional Law University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law I. Introduction The Supreme Court's "one person, one vote" standard imposes a measure of equality onto any individual's ability to influence an election's outcome. 1 The Court has been reluctant to attach this standard to other election resources, like campaign expenditures, despite the fear that money will bring about the appearance of impropriety in democratic decision making. 2 Recently, the Court reasserted this position in Citizens United v. FEC, 3 upholding a corporation's right to expend resources freely in support of political candidates and issues, but the general proposition dates back to the Court's pronouncement in Buckley v. Valeo, establishing the constitutional framework for contemporary campaign finance regulation. The framework first laid out in Buckley and developed subsequently continues to incur substantial criticism, usually advanced in the name of equality. 4 But equality is a tricky value to maximize; interventions that cause people to become more equal along one dimension frequently have the opposite effect along another dimension. 5 One promising alternative avoids equality and instead recommends campaign finance rules in accordance with democratic principles themselves. This "institutionally bound" approach permits the restriction of speech within the context of democratic and governing institutions, but only to the extent necessary for carrying out the purpose of those institutions. 6 Recognizing that under certain conditions the rights of a speaker may run counter to other democratic values, the institutionally bound approach rejects a categorical solution to speech regulation. [..] One Person, One Vote, One Dollar? Campaign Finance, Elections, and Elite Democratic Theory

How sad that WEA extortion and administrative waste has depleted education dollars to this degree. Someone ought to do something about it--and soon. 'extortion' and 'administrative waste' LOL what a moron! you're certainly a walking billboard for something to be done about the poor state of education

What part of "'one person, one vote' entails political equality between individuals, in particular equality to influence political outcomes" didn't you understand, regressive ignoramus. Once again, we are privy to the vacuousness of your interventions.

What does any of this have to do with one person one vote? Is someone getting extra votes? Are corporations (or unions) now casting votes? Please try to answer the question. It's really not my fault if you are too stupid to understand or ignorant to know/learn that 'one person, one vote' entails political equality between individuals, in particular equality to influence political outcomes. Without political equality, 'one person, one vote' is impossible. Now, I know you don't agree with that, but you don't even agree with the concept of democracy. SO who fucking cares what a goon like you believes?

to enforce one person, one vote is to get rid of big money in politics so that representatives aren't the tools of corporations like they are today. The current system of corrupt politics flooded by corporate money that Fairweather keeps defending like all tea baggers do.

Doesn't it strike anybody funny that 'Libertarians' have no issue with mass propaganda? It's certainly an odd understanding of freedom. [video:youtube]V0OrT-8gXMs

Fairweather is so much for freedom that he supported the only coup d'etat in the western hemisphere this year, in Honduras.

How can a Bush dead-ender like Fairweather claim to be for freedom?

I don't like goons for 'freedom'