The Sarah Palin Thread: 'Controversial Controversy' Edition

[AG1973]

Personally, I think the best way to root out racism is to make them hurt. Racism is still going to thrive when you have laws that force racists to sell their products, if not make it worse.

However, if a racist did discriminate, they would be driven out of business in today's economy. First of all you're completely shutting out a good portion of your potential consumer base. And second, most people have common sense and are going to be disgusted by such a thing. Most of those people are not going to want to give their money to support such a practice. In today's economy where competition is fiercer, it's harder to make up for a lost consumer base, and every dollar counts more and more, a business just cannot afford to be racist in today's economy. In the end, allowing businesses to discriminate would force them to see the error of their ways the hard way.

The thing is in my part of the country and several others there are a large number of people that would not be disgusted if a business discriminated based on color (I don't like to say race because we are all one race human or Terran I guess that's my latent Trekkie). I know that a law cannot root our racism, that's up to us as parents and society as a whole, but laws can prevent and do prevent to a large extent color based discrimination.

 

[StorminNorman]

If the people will not punish a company for racism, why should government?

 

[DACrowe]

Because no one else will. People won't do business with a company that condones or practices racism? That's like all those people saying they would never use BP again after the oil spill. But when that tank gets low and they're charging 4 cents less per gallon than Exxon....

That is why the government steps in on something like racism. Not to mention there are still parts of this country where racism would be openly accepted and practiced. Maybe not against African-Americans anymore. But hispanics? Gays? Muslims? If let you that that become permissible, structural racism can take hold in areas of the country that already distrust those that are different.

It is a bad argument to want to change these laws. So please, let the Tea Partiers make that their next goal (repealing Civil Rights laws) after making sure millionaires keep their 3 percent tax cuts at the cost of $700 billion on their children, that is.

 

[samsnee]

I believe people exist to be people. As such we must give them the freedom to make mistakes. Racism is such a mistake.

Racism isn't a mistake. Locking yourself out the house is a mistake. In the examples given here about not serving people of color, that is an intentional ignorance

 

[Kelly]

Racism isn't a mistake. Locking yourself out the house is a mistake. In the examples given here about not serving people of color, that is an intentional ignorance

"intentional ignorance" isn't ignorance.....it's stupidity.

 

[StorminNorman]

Knowledge is great, and even powerful when you learn how to use it....that will come with age.

I have no problem utilizing my knowledge now. Doesn't change my opinion of Rousseau.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Because no one else will. People won't do business with a company that condones or practices racism? That's like all those people saying they would never use BP again after the oil spill. But when that tank gets low and they're charging 4 cents less per gallon than Exxon....

That is why the government steps in on something like racism. Not to mention there are still parts of this country where racism would be openly accepted and practiced. Maybe not against African-Americans anymore. But hispanics? Gays? Muslims? If let you that that become permissible, structural racism can take hold in areas of the country that already distrust those that are different.

It is a bad argument to want to change these laws. So please, let the Tea Partiers make that their next goal (repealing Civil Rights laws) after making sure millionaires keep their 3 percent tax cuts at the cost of $700 billion on their children, that is.

But that's because people are realising that boycotting BP isn't hurting BP at all, it's hurting local business owners who own the gas station instead. Why hurt people who aren't responsible for the mess that BP created through their negligence?

It's a terrible comparison, most people are not going to support a racist business. Just like how most people are not going to want to hurt local business owners who have done nothing wrong.

 

[StorminNorman]

Because no one else will. People won't do business with a company that condones or practices racism? That's like all those people saying they would never use BP again after the oil spill. But when that tank gets low and they're charging 4 cents less per gallon than Exxon....

That is why the government steps in on something like racism. Not to mention there are still parts of this country where racism would be openly accepted and practiced. Maybe not against African-Americans anymore. But hispanics? Gays? Muslims? If let you that that become permissible, structural racism can take hold in areas of the country that already distrust those that are different.

It is a bad argument to want to change these laws. So please, let the Tea Partiers make that their next goal (repealing Civil Rights laws) after making sure millionaires keep their 3 percent tax cuts at the cost of $700 billion on their children, that is.

I don't think I ever said a word about changing these laws (not that I wouldn't love to do so, but have no interest political destruction), the entire conversation stemmed from the implication that having issues with the CRA is comparable to support Jim Crow - which is obviously and idiotic simplification.

Which reminds me, I am still finding it amazing that you continue to advocate raising taxes during a recession.

 

[Schlosser85]

I find your expectation that people will weed out discrimination in businesses by themselves without any government intervention naive to the extreme.

If it had been left up to "the people" in the 1800s, we would have had slavery for quite a while afterward. And frankly the South may well still have segregation.

If it was up to the much-idealized "American people" people could still be fired from their jobs for no other reason than their sexual orientation, and gays could be denied the right to visit their partner of 30 years in the hospital.

If you are going to run a public business, then that is not your private property. You have declared yourself open to the public, therefore you have to serve the public. And yes, "the public" does include people you don't like.

I don't like having to cater to the welfare leeches who come through my line at K-Mart and try to use their food stamps for things that aren't necessities and that they're not approved for. And half the time they demand a manager, and half the time the manager lets it slide through. As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to try to use food stamps to buy alcohol, then you don't need to eat.

But guess what? It's not up to me.

And there is no reason why I should have to drive twenty miles out of my way, when I might be on a tight schedule, just to get something I could have gotten 5 minutes from my house, just because the store owner is dumber than me and doesn't like that I'm white, or how I'm dressed, or because he thinks I'm gay, or because he's a Martian who doesn't serve humans. He does not have the right to inconvenience me. His business exists to serve me. If it's not willing to do that, it is not fulfilling its purpose.

 

[Marx]

I find your expectation that people will weed out discrimination in businesses by themselves without any government intervention naive to the extreme.

If it had been left up to "the people" in the 1800s, we would have had slavery for quite a while afterward. And frankly the South may well still have segregation.

If it was up to the much-idealized "American people" people could still be fired from their jobs for no other reason than their sexual orientation, and gays could be denied the right to visit their partner of 30 years in the hospital.

If you are going to run a public business, then that is not your private property. You have declared yourself open to the public, therefore you have to serve the public. And yes, "the public" does include people you don't like.

I don't like having to cater to the welfare leeches who come through my line at K-Mart and try to use their food stamps for things that aren't necessities and that they're not approved for. And half the time they demand a manager, and half the time the manager lets it slide through. As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to try to use food stamps to buy alcohol, then you don't need to eat.

But guess what? It's not up to me.

And there is no reason why I should have to drive twenty miles out of my way, when I might be on a tight schedule, just to get something I could have gotten 5 minutes from my house, just because the store owner is dumber than me and doesn't like that I'm white, or how I'm dressed, or because he thinks I'm gay, or because he's a Martian who doesn't serve humans. He does not have the right to inconvenience me. His business exists to serve me. If it's not willing to do that, it is not fulfilling its purpose.

I have to agree. I'm not quite sure where this new-found attitude of trumpeting a completely hands off government and pumping up your own merits came from Norm, but it's a bit off-putting. I have a ton of respect for you, but some of the things you've been pushing lately are just not wise.

The fact of the matter is that the government DOES need to intervene in certain issues. (Whether anyone likes it or not.) This ideallic american public that you speak of does not exist.

 

[StorminNorman]

I find your expectation that people will weed out discrimination in businesses by themselves without any government intervention naive to the extreme.

If it had been left up to "the people" in the 1800s, we would have had slavery for quite a while afterward. And frankly the South may well still have segregation.

If it was up to the much-idealized "American people" people could still be fired from their jobs for no other reason than their sexual orientation, and gays could be denied the right to visit their partner of 30 years in the hospital.

If you are going to run a public business, then that is not your private property. You have declared yourself open to the public, therefore you have to serve the public. And yes, "the public" does include people you don't like.

I don't like having to cater to the welfare leeches who come through my line at K-Mart and try to use their food stamps for things that aren't necessities and that they're not approved for. And half the time they demand a manager, and half the time the manager lets it slide through. As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to try to use food stamps to buy alcohol, then you don't need to eat.

But guess what? It's not up to me.

And there is no reason why I should have to drive twenty miles out of my way, when I might be on a tight schedule, just to get something I could have gotten 5 minutes from my house, just because the store owner is dumber than me and doesn't like that I'm white, or how I'm dressed, or because he thinks I'm gay, or because he's a Martian who doesn't serve humans. He does not have the right to inconvenience me. His business exists to serve me. If it's not willing to do that, it is not fulfilling its purpose.

I will return to this

But I really hope you don't believe that someone's business exists to serve you and not the owner of the business.

I have to agree. I'm not quite sure where this new-found attitude of trumpeting a completely hands off government and pumping up your own merits came from Norm, but it's a bit off-putting. I have a ton of respect for you, but some of the things you've been pushing lately are just not wise.

The fact of the matter is that the government DOES need to intervene in certain issues. (Whether anyone likes it or not.) This ideallic american public that you speak of does not exist.

It stems from a greater understanding of economics, human nature, philosophy, history and taoism.

What began as a shift from conservatism to libertarianism has shifted all aspects of my life. It has shifted my personal philosophy from one of altruism to one of of utilitarian-objectivism, my personal faith from Christian to Deist-Taoism and my economic foundation from ignorance to capitalism.

My passion is freedom, liberty.

America is the nation of freedom. Taoism is the religious form of freedom. Objectivism is the philosophy of freedom. Capitalism is the economic form of freedom. The internet (which I contend is the most important invention since America) is the medium of freedom (it creates a free market of human opinion).

As my knowledge increases, my radicalism increases.

I simply don't confuse "freedom" with utopia. I understand that the brilliance of humanity is the fact that we can be either good or bad. I believe that good is good not simply due to superficial human understandings of good, but a higher natural morality. If you run around killing people, you are more likely to be killed. If you run around being nice to everyone, you are more likely to live a long life.

The same is true in business. If you are an evil businessman, you will get your comeuppence. It's not naive, it's true. Whenever a company has a bad reputation, it's being less successful than it could be (which is not to say it's not successful as is). Nike's profits went down when accused of child sweat shop labor. BP's profits went down when they spilt oil into the gulf. A local restaurant known for treating their workers like **** has less customers than the same food being served at the same location treating their employees well.

To me, this is all common sense. Not simply in how it "should" be, but in how it is.

At least I am aware of the fact I am a far right wing wacko extremist-for-capitalism. Being aware allows for two things: one, I can prevent being extreme from being a political liability and two, more importantly, I am necessarily cautious about being wrong (again, my favorite historical figure and the man who I seek to emulate is Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton, in spite of his talent, brilliance and significance, was wrong. It's the most important personal lesson I have learned - that great men, with great intentions can still be greatly mistaken).

That's why I believe in the practical application of Constitutionalism over "true" Libertarianism. While a Libertarian would advocate against the ability of anyone to regulate industry, a Constitutionalist would allow government to do so if authorized by a "higher law" (meaning a law that is placed beyond typical politics - to better understand the concept, consider the difference in a Constitutional Amendment - which requires bipartisan, national support - compared to your average House bill). In my ideal 21st Century government, if a state like Massachusetts wanted to have their own Civil Rights Act, enact Universal Healthcare and revoke Private Property in exchange for some crazy socialist scheme - I would support their ability to attempt it. I just want a state like New Hampshire to be able to decide for their state that they want a libertarian government. Political competition is the best method to ensure efficiency in government. When the Federal Government has a monopoly on government, we all lose. Seriously lose.

Now my ideal 22th Century government would be Anarco-capitalism, but that's another post for another day

 

[DACrowe]

But that's because people are realising that boycotting BP isn't hurting BP at all, it's hurting local business owners who own the gas station instead. Why hurt people who aren't responsible for the mess that BP created through their negligence?

It's a terrible comparison, most people are not going to support a racist business. Just like how most people are not going to want to hurt local business owners who have done nothing wrong.

Most people care about who has the best prices and will save them the most money. If it is a place that doesn't let in black people...they might take a moral high ground. But that is a might that is more likely a no in parts of the deep South still (parts of: Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina).

But it doesn't just have to be the old American trope of white and black racism. Look at the fervor around the "Ground Zero Mosque." Look at the rabid support for Arizona's law. Look at the 2004 election of rampant homophobia. Look at the 2008 election in California!

Now, if you let businesses discriminate against gays, hispanics, and Muslims huge swaths of this country will applaud. Fox News will list these stores and restaurants as heroes standing up against the tyrannical liberal agenda. Patriotism at its finest.

Racism still exists in this country and bigotry against some minorities is more permissible than others. To think that ending the Civil Rights laws is a good thing or that the markets will end bigotry (like they did between Reconstruction and 1964) is hopelessly naive.

With that said, I hope the Republicans make that a big issue next year. They won't though, because the pendulum would swing back to the left so fast the politicians would get whiplash.

 

[DACrowe]

I don't think I ever said a word about changing these laws (not that I wouldn't love to do so, but have no interest political destruction), the entire conversation stemmed from the implication that having issues with the CRA is comparable to support Jim Crow - which is obviously and idiotic simplification.

Which reminds me, I am still finding it amazing that you continue to advocate raising taxes during a recession.

...I would support a small extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy until the end of 2012. Most economists say double dip has been avoided, but the economy is still very fragile. However, if it is a choice between ending them now or making them permanent? End them now. Over 10 years that is $700 billion. It's still $600 billion if we end them on 1/1/13. If we honestly want to bring down the deficit, we need to increase income and cut spending in some areas (like Defense).

But keeping Bush tax cuts or making them even lower like the commission's report of lowering them to 25 percent by 2075? If we kept them at 39% until then, that extra 3% could pay for the social security shortfall if we left it there. It is asinine to keep them for people who don't need them other than Republicans care about the affluent and powerful in this country and nobody else at all.

 

[StorminNorman]

Lets say the economists were wrong. The economy is still in the tank in 2012. Do you extend them again?

The best way to bring down the deficit is to realize how asinine the current tax code is, but I've already beat that horse to death.

I can't decide if you know that the " It is asinine to keep them for people who don't need them other than Republicans care about the affluent and powerful in this country and nobody else at all" card is a strawman or not. Either you understand that the truly affluent and powerful aren't all that affected by income taxes and use typical class warfare as a nifty political tool of manipulation or are genuinely unaware.

It would please me more if it was the former, I think.

 

[Kelly]

...I would support a small extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy until the end of 2012. Most economists say double dip has been avoided, but the economy is still very fragile. However, if it is a choice between ending them now or making them permanent? End them now. Over 10 years that is $700 billion. It's still $600 billion if we end them on 1/1/13. If we honestly want to bring down the deficit, we need to increase income and cut spending in some areas (like Defense).

But keeping Bush tax cuts or making them even lower like the commission's report of lowering them to 25 percent by 2075? If we kept them at 39% until then, that extra 3% could pay for the social security shortfall if we left it there. It is asinine to keep them for people who don't need them other than Republicans care about the affluent and powerful in this country and nobody else at all.

I agree cut spending for Defense....AAAANNNNDDDD, every entitlement program that is on the books. AAAAANNNNNDDDDD audit EVERY DEPARTMENT, PROGRAM, EXPEDITURE IN OUR GOVERNMENT BEFORE GIVING THEM ONE MORE RED CENT OF MY TAXES...

 

[Schlosser85]

But I really hope you don't believe that someone's business exists to serve you and not the owner of the business.

If it is a public business, then it has a responsibility to serve the public, and does not have the right to turn away a paying customer unless the customer has no money or is causing a disturbance.

If you run around being nice to everyone, you are more likely to live a long life.

The same is true in business. If you are an evil businessman, you will get your comeuppence.

In Disney movies? 'Nice' people get stomped on all the time. And companies like Wal-Mart that do all kinds of shady **** are among the most successful in the world.

 

[StorminNorman]

If it is a public business, then it has a responsibility to serve the public, and does not have the right to turn away a paying customer unless the customer has no money or is causing a disturbance.

What is a public business? A government run business? So you would agree that a private business would be free to choose it's own goals?

In Disney movies? 'Nice' people get stomped on all the time. And companies like Wal-Mart that do all kinds of shady **** are among the most successful in the world.

What does Wal-Mart do that is all kinds of shady? The way I see it they provide products at the lowest prices. The way I see it Wal-Mart does more good for the poor than any government programs.

But I understand that it's possible that Wal-Mart engages in shady business dealings. I don't know about that though. The key then is not that evil companies are successful but that evil companies are successful when people don't know they are evil. If, however, Wal-Mart was all over Fox News, The View and SNL because they engage in slave slabor to keep their practices low - the consumer would naturally change their habit. Think of how many people don't shop at Wal-Mart due to the belief that they destroy local businesses and all the other commonly perceived sins of Wal-Mart.

That's why I favor government regulation in the form of consumer advocate investigators. They have no teeth, no ability to penalize - only inform. Corporations will allow them to have access if they are acting in a responsible matter because the transparency benefits them. If the corporation makes it difficult for these people to do their job, it should be the CONSUMERS that react. If the CONSUMERS don't have the will to influence their purchasing habits on their own, what right does the government have to take it upon itself and do it?

You want solutions? How about an iPhone app that allows you to evaluate the ingredients (as well as where the ingredients came from), allows you to evaluate labor policy, allows you to view all the law suits that have been filed, the history of product-related illnesses and where the owner of the company donated his money in the last election. That's my answer to regulation. And because I understand how this could easily become corrupted by typical government bureaucrat pettyness, heavy penalties for any hanky panky. Minimum 25 years in jail for manipulating reports and heavy fines.

 

[DACrowe]

I agree cut spending for Defense....AAAANNNNDDDD, every entitlement program that is on the books. AAAAANNNNNDDDDD audit EVERY DEPARTMENT, PROGRAM, EXPEDITURE IN OUR GOVERNMENT BEFORE GIVING THEM ONE MORE RED CENT OF MY TAXES...

I would support some form of cuts going into social security and medicare. Not to the extent Republicans want, but we could make some serious efficiency cuts--as well as some tough decisions, like raising the retirement age 2-3 years (4 years seems excessively high)--that will hep bring down the deficit.

But there is no way we can balance the budget without raising taxes. Clinton understood this. Even Reagan understood it, as he raised taxes. Going back to the rates under Reagan would probably benefit this country enormously.

We cannot do that right now because of the economy, but if we're serious about deficit reduction, then tax increases should be on the table. At the very least ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich as they don't do anything but sit in a bank otherwise. That shouldn't even be a tough decision. That is just common sense.

 

[DACrowe]

Lets say the economists were wrong. The economy is still in the tank in 2012. Do you extend them again?

The best way to bring down the deficit is to realize how asinine the current tax code is, but I've already beat that horse to death.

I can't decide if you know that the " It is asinine to keep them for people who don't need them other than Republicans care about the affluent and powerful in this country and nobody else at all" card is a strawman or not. Either you understand that the truly affluent and powerful aren't all that affected by income taxes and use typical class warfare as a nifty political tool of manipulation or are genuinely unaware.

It would please me more if it was the former, I think.

On your last point, I was not saying all Republicans think that or that is your rationale. Sorry, for the broad generalization.

However, most establishment Republicans in Washington are most concerned with the special interests of industry. Whether that industry be healthcare, Wall Street, energy, pharmaceutical, military suppliers, broad finance, etc.

Their interest is in keeping the special interests happy. That is why they are so concerned over Wall Street reform. Not because it will slow Wall Street growth (which is chugging along despite the high unemployment), but because their key campaign donations come from Wall Street and they don't like extra rules and having to trade derivatives in public. That is why Boehner said he would defend them from "these punks" and why when McConnell meets with industry types behind closed doors he always brought Cornyn (the guy in charge of raising money for Republican Senate candidates approved by the establishment) with him.

Cutting taxes for the wealthy has historically failed time and time again to "trickle down." It did not create wealth or growth in the middle class during Reagan, Bush or Bush again. The income gap widens or stagnates while the top puts its extra money in the bank and sends jobs overseas.

But keeping those tax cuts for the top 2 percent (that comprise less than a fifth of small business owners) and protecting millionaires' mansions from the "Death Tax" are their top priorities now. Not creating new jobs. Not reducing the deficit (which these proposals work counter to)...but keeping taxes low on millionaires. "Starving the beast" as it were. Except they don't cut the budget, so all they are doing is running up the deficit. But as Dick Cheney said about not paying for the Bush tax cuts, Medicare Prescription laws, and the Iraq War, "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter."

I was more making a snide remark on the GOP establishment that runs the party as a whole. And the fact that they're more concerned for tax breaks with the rich and dismantling new Wall Street regulation tells me they're still the same party and no Tea Party awakened new creation.

...So were you a straw man there? Yes. But is that an accurate representation of Republican politicians, staffers and lobbyists? I believe so.

 

[enterthemadness]

I seen some of her new show...I feel like high fiving her husband and saying "good job". I can't stand her voice though. Don't let her run for president. Let her make tons of money with books and her show.

 

[Hobgoblin]

If it is a public business, then it has a responsibility to serve the public, and does not have the right to turn away a paying customer unless the customer has no money or is causing a disturbance.




In Disney movies? 'Nice' people get stomped on all the time. And companies like Wal-Mart that do all kinds of shady **** are among the most successful in the world.

Exactly what I was going to say. Back in the 90's Wal-Mart proudly claimed its products were Made in America. Then we found out it was a blatant lie and its things were made in China. Now its one of the most successful companies on earth. It lies to its customers and hurts the American economy by shipping jobs overseas. Yet its a Goliath because its cheap. If a racist store owner had the cheapest food in town, people would come in droves, no matter if he had black patrons dragged out and beaten by the police. Heck, in some places, people might see that as a plus.

 

[StorminNorman]

Wal-Mart doesn't ship American jobs overseas. If Wal-Mart blatantly lied, then such a lie would be demonstrated by my proposed regulation reform and the consequences for their actions would be determined by the free public than government.

If he free public doesn't care, the government shouldn't either. The government serves the will of the people.

The notion that people only act for the cheapest is destroyed everytime someone goes to a restaurant and tips their waiter.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Wal-Mart doesn't ship American jobs overseas. If Wal-Mart blatantly lied, then such a lie would be demonstrated by my proposed regulation reform and the consequences for their actions would be determined by the free public than government.

If he free public doesn't care, the government shouldn't either. The government serves the will of the people.

The notion that people only act for the cheapest is destroyed everytime someone goes to a restaurant and tips their waiter.

Wal-Mart doesnt send jobs to China? Hmmm...
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/reviews/2008-07-07-koppel-capitalism_N.htm

Enlarge image Enlarge Discovery Channel
Koppel, shown with a Chinese coal miner, covers China in four nights.

ABOUT THE SHOW

Koppel on Discovery: The People's Republic of Capitalism
* * * * (out of four)
Discovery, Wednesday-Saturday, 10 ET/PT

* Share
* Yahoo! Buzz
* Add to Mixx
* Facebook
* Twitter

*
More
o Fark
o Digg
o Reddit
o MySpace
o StumbleUpon
o Propeller
o LinkedIn

* Subscribe
* myYahoo
* iGoogle

*
More
o Netvibes
o myAOL

*

By Robert Bianco, USA TODAY
Let one of the world's best journalists tackle one of the world's biggest stories, and we all end up the winner.

Filmed in China over an eight-month stretch, The People's Republic of Capitalism is exactly what you'd expect from Ted Koppel: a well-reasoned, scrupulously reported, endlessly fascinating special, devoid of either fear-driven pessimism or blind-eyed optimism.

More interested in fostering understanding than assigning blame, Koppel spends his four-hour, four-night special attempting to find and explain the links and strains between our two countries — and telling a great story in the process.

There are no easy answers offered, just as there is no easy way of disentangling our complex economic ties. Ask the American worker profiled Wednesday, who lost her job when it was exported to China.

Unemployed, she saves money by shopping for low-cost Chinese-made imports at Wal-Mart. And she does see the bleak humor in the situation.

Rather than encamp in the more familiar Beijing or Shanghai, Koppel and his producers went where that job went: to "the Detroit of China," Chongqing.

From the first shot of the skyline of this enormous metropolis, you'll wonder how such a city could fly under our cultural radar, which is just one of Capitalism's points.

Koppel's curiosity, tenacity and dry humor make the lesson a pleasure. Fascinating moments abound, from the "nostalgic" evening devoted to "the good old days of the Cultural Revolution" to the energetic, pedal-to-the-metal anarchy caused by China's late-blooming embrace of car culture.

By staying put for a prolonged stretch of time, Koppel is able to show us how large social issues play out in the lives of individuals: the dance hostess who becomes a salesgirl, the woman who succumbs to family pressure and stays married to her drunken, lazy husband.

The picture that emerges is of a country with significant economic advantages that faces equally significant stumbling blocks — one that is far from the monolith we sometimes imagine.

And to see that picture more clearly, you merely have to invest four hours in Capitalism.

How can you lose?

 

[StorminNorman]

Wal-Mart isn't what sends jobs to China - it's the markets. In some ways it's influenced by government policy, but other times it's simply a fact that the market dictates that products can be made most effectively in other areas.

If Wal-Mart insisted on using only American-made products, it wouldn't be able to keep prices low.

What I was getting at is that it's not as simple as Wal-Mart deciding to ship a job overseas.

The reality is that some products are better produced in other countries.

 

[Marx]

UPDATE: PALIN TV SHOW BREAKS 'TLC' VIEWING RECORD
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/15/sarah-palins-alaska-ratings-tlc_n_783740.html