Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 51 of 51

Thread: Length of the working day

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    In reverse order:

    Lets say you are good at raising sheep, and can manage 1000 sheep on your own. That great in a closed system on your own farm, you get to have more sheep and wool that you can possibly use. You are rich in sheep and wool, regardless of what other do.

    As soon as you are in an exchange economy producing those sheep for exchange your productivity becomes relative. If someone can produce sheep a wee bit more efficiently than you, or better sheep, you are completely $#@!ed. Your production capabilities become unprofitable, and thereby worse than useless, they become capital sinks.
    Less-efficient producers get outcompeted and driven out of business by more-efficient producers, yes; but what's the problem?

    It doesn't follow that the less-efficient producer starves to death. He almost certainly finds another, more profitable occupation (either as an employee-shepherd, or in some other sector altogether). And if not, there's nothing to prevent him from continuing as before, producing only for his own consumption. The "market economy" is so named not because people are required to produce for the market, but because virtually everyone chooses to do so when given the opportunity (since it means much higher incomes).

    At equilibrium in a free market with no barriers to entry and so on, one only makes an profit equivalent to the risk rate plus a small premium related to cost of entry. So if an individual wants to create a profit they must create a dislocation. There are bad ways to do this, but the good ways are technology innovation, organisational innovation, market innovation, branding, or anything else that creates a temporary concrete difference between your product and that of everyone else. Either you can make something cheaper, more appropriately, or something new. One can't make a noteworthy profit by doing the same thing as everyone else in a competitive market.
    The entrepreneur can "create dislocations," as you put it, or respond to natural dislocations (e.g. changing consumer preferences).

    This is the blessing and curse of capitalism, a permanent revolution. We tolerate millions being made obsolete en masse, because what they were doing was sub-optimal, and now they can do something better. But maybe they can't, not all of them as individuals, or maybe they all can, maybe they need a boost, maybe they need to be left to become desperate enough to create the next dislocation.
    Sure, some won't be retrainable, but this isn't the "curse of capitalism."

    People who can't feed themselves in the market economy will have ever greater trouble feeding themselves in any other system.

    Capitalism is a welfare system because to make a profit you have to improve the world measurably. In aggregate everyone is better off over time, by a lot, and it doesn't matter why you want that profit. But if you just invested a lot in being able to build canals, you better pray to god you can retool to build railway lines in a hurry.


    It's a welfare system ...because it's a meritocracy?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    It's a welfare system ...because it's a meritocracy?
    That's the beauty of it, and why its moral. Its not even the merit of people, but of their actions, measured objectively, and agnostic about its goal seeking. The point of it is that is better than any other welfare system and even people who are looking out purely for themselves end up benefiting others.

    The upside is it massively increases productivity. The downside is this process isn't necessarily humane. It works out in the global aggregate, but for example whole chunks of the US are only competitively employable at 16 hours @ $2 day if we went entirely deregulated. Now that is working its way up gradually over time.

    Now to go from a safe job to that, does that increase risk tolerance or lower it? Does it increase capital accumulation? Would talent flee to regulated countries?

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The entrepreneur can "create dislocations," as you put it, or respond to natural dislocations (e.g. changing consumer preferences).
    The consumer preferences change for her competitors equally, so that is not a defensible advantage. One may arrange the company so it is faster to notice and respond, but that is organisational innovation for the purpose of going something better or something new. Again if the competition adapts you have to change again.
    Last edited by idiom; 10-15-2018 at 10:07 PM.
    In New Zealand:
    The Coastguard is a Charity
    Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
    The DMV is a private non-profit
    Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
    The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
    5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
    A tax return has 4 fields
    Business licenses aren't even a thing nor are capital gains taxes
    Constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    That's the beauty of it, and why its moral. Its not even the merit of people, but of their actions, measured objectively, and agnostic about its goal seeking. The point of it is that is better than any other welfare system and even people who are looking out purely for themselves end up benefiting others.
    That's all substantively true, though I don't know why you call it a welfare system.

    ...no need to argue over semantics, I suppose.

    The upside is it massively increases productivity. The downside is this process isn't necessarily humane.
    In comparison to what?

    The upside is it massively increases productivity. The downside is this process isn't necessarily humane. It works out in the global aggregate, but for example whole chunks of the US are only competitively employable at 16 hours @ $2 day if we went entirely deregulated. Now that is working its way up gradually over time.

    Now to go from a safe job to that, does that increase risk tolerance or lower it? Does it increase capital accumulation? Would talent flee to regulated countries?
    A sudden movement to laissez faire would cause a bust just as at the end of the business cycle. It's exactly the same phenomenon: subsidized enterprises (not justified by consumer demand) will have to liquidate, with the resources they're (mis)using being reallocated to other enterprises (justified by consumer demand). There would be frictional unemployment of production factors, including labor, but this is temporary: just a lot all at once of the creative destruction that's always occurring. Markets would clear soon enough and Bob's your uncle.

    The consumer preferences change for her competitors equally, so that is not a defensible advantage. One may arrange the company so it is faster to notice and respond, but that is organisational innovation for the purpose of going something better or something new. Again if the competition adapts you have to change again.
    The point is that one of the functions of the entrepreneur is to actually bring about those reallocations in response to changing conditions.

    These don't occur by magic. Humans beings must act. Profit is their reward/incentive.

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    A sudden movement to laissez faire would cause a bust just as at the end of the business cycle. It's exactly the same phenomenon: subsidized enterprises (not justified by consumer demand) will have to liquidate, with the resources they're (mis)using being reallocated to other enterprises (justified by consumer demand). There would be frictional unemployment of production factors, including labor, but this is temporary: just a lot all at once of the creative destruction that's always occurring. Markets would clear soon enough and Bob's your uncle.
    Point was that every wave of destruction would trigger massive moves to starvation wages instead of structural unemployment due to the huge disparities between economies suddenly joined with 300 years of economic development separating them.

    If half of Michigan was on $2 a day, 16 hours a day with no hope it would change, the Trumpian anger would be way hotter than it already is.
    In New Zealand:
    The Coastguard is a Charity
    Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
    The DMV is a private non-profit
    Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
    The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
    5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
    A tax return has 4 fields
    Business licenses aren't even a thing nor are capital gains taxes
    Constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    That's all substantively true, though I don't know why you call it a welfare system.

    ...no need to argue over semantics, I suppose.



    In comparison to what?



    A sudden movement to laissez faire would cause a bust just as at the end of the business cycle. It's exactly the same phenomenon: subsidized enterprises (not justified by consumer demand) will have to liquidate, with the resources they're (mis)using being reallocated to other enterprises (justified by consumer demand). There would be frictional unemployment of production factors, including labor, but this is temporary: just a lot all at once of the creative destruction that's always occurring. Markets would clear soon enough and Bob's your uncle.



    The point is that one of the functions of the entrepreneur is to actually bring about those reallocations in response to changing conditions.

    These don't occur by magic. Humans beings must act. Profit is their reward/incentive.
    +rep for correct understanding of economic theory and praxaeology.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    +rep for correct understanding of economic theory and praxaeology.
    So what happens if we shorten the working day to six hours, apart from the 30% loss in wages? How will humans act with a workday synced to the school day?
    In New Zealand:
    The Coastguard is a Charity
    Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
    The DMV is a private non-profit
    Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
    The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
    5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
    A tax return has 4 fields
    Business licenses aren't even a thing nor are capital gains taxes
    Constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    So what happens if we shorten the working day to six hours, apart from the 30% loss in wages? How will humans act with a workday synced to the school day?
    Who is "we"???

    Listen, the workday hours are determined by the employee and the employer. Perhaps a group of employees unionize to collectively bargain the hours with the employer. Whatever the case, it makes no sense to have some uninformed third party getting involved. Markets will always work it out to the maximum possible benefit. Unless some central planner decides he can make decisions better than people he doesn't even know. That's when artificial distortions happen. And while those distortions may help existing employees in some cases, they will always hurt the potential employees that never get considered.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Who is "we"???

    Listen, the workday hours are determined by the employee and the employer. Perhaps a group of employees unionize to collectively bargain the hours with the employer. Whatever the case, it makes no sense to have some uninformed third party getting involved. Markets will always work it out to the maximum possible benefit. Unless some central planner decides he can make decisions better than people he doesn't even know. That's when artificial distortions happen. And while those distortions may help existing employees in some cases, they will always hurt the potential employees that never get considered.
    Pretty much that^^ Also, entrepreneurs' and freelancers' work days are often much longer than 8 hours.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    I meant any papers on it or books. So without state intervention the ideal workday is like 12 or 14 hours? 30 hours?

    Is it just a continuous race to the bottom?

    Say you have to make $100 per day to cover your living costs. You can work 5 hours for $20 per hour. Similar person to you offers to do the same job for $10 per hour as long as they get 10 hours of work.

    Do you try and get 20 hours of work at $5 per hour?

    Or consider it in another form:

    What is the difference between hiring one person to work for 12 hours, or two people to work for 6 each?

    In the first instance the persons minimum bid is spread over 12 hours, in the second each person needs to cover their costs in only six hours.
    An Austrian economist would never say there is an ideal work day. Real economics doesn't prescribe solutions. It merely describes what the processes that occur in the real world are and how they happen. People will work as long as they need to in order to achieve their desired ends. Employers pay workers according to their productivity. Investment in capital goods creates tools and machines that make workers more productive, thereby increasing their real wages.

    Any government activity that diverts investment or regulates this process only impoverishes workers. Any monetary inflation that drives up the cost of inputs does so at the expense of workers. Any monetary inflation that drives up the cost of consumer goods does at the expense of consumers, which are mostly workers.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    Now these days this all still happens, but not in western countries with state imposed maximum workings days and working age laws.

    The question is why?
    Because your premise is wrong. The length of working days in the U.S. fell long before any laws were passed about it. The length of the work day decreases when society becomes wealthier. How does it become wealthier? By companies producing products demanded by the market. The greater the number of products, the cheaper they are to buy, and the wealthier everyone is.

    So the poor countries that have long work days do so because they are not wealthy enough to be able to afford to stay home 16 hours a day. It's the same argument as child labor. Child labor in the U.S. was almost completely gone decades before the government did anything about it. Before then, society wasn't wealthy enough that they could afford the kids not to work. Once it became wealthy enough, the kids didn't work anymore.

    With no regulation on working hours, they would still fall as steadily as the wealth of society would allow.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    8 Employers, 9 labourers.... Its just supply and demand. If supply of labour outstrips employment then you get subsistence wages and a 16 hour working day, and still one unemployed dude.

    If the employers voluntarily restrict the working day, you end up with a shorter working day, workers all still getting their bread, one unemployed dude, but lower productivity at the specific thing the employers are doing. Maybe you end up losing an employer or two and you end up with 5 guys with no bread.

    Point being with a labour surplus, the employers are punished severely for not working labourers as hard as they can as long as they can for as little as they can.

    So its not the employers exploiting the labourers, but competitive forces threatening employers.
    Those competing forces drive up wages too. If a laborer is more productive than subsistence wages, then he will be bid away from the employer paying only that much, because they can give the worker a raise and still make a profit off of them. The process repeats itself until the worker's wage is at or near his productivity.

    Even in your unrealistic scenario, with such a surplus of labor, wages are going to be so cheap that it will create opportunities for companies to arise and hire these people, which starts the competitive process of increasing wages again.

    All of this assumes private property rights and the lack of state interference, of course.

  15. #42
    How about Employees having some ownership or being stakeholders in the Company? At least to have some sway over things like work shifts?

    I think we have a weird system that tosses dividends to mere Stock Holders that have little personal stake in the actual business long term success. I mean yeah they want success in terms of financial return, but that doesn't necessarily equate to success in terms of a positive work culture.

    Employees can either Unionize or we can encourage a system where they are stakeholders that have opinions heard in boardrooms.


  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by VIDEODROME View Post
    How about Employees having some ownership or being stakeholders in the Company? At least to have some sway over things like work shifts?

    I think we have a weird system that tosses dividends to mere Stock Holders that have little personal stake in the actual business long term success. I mean yeah they want success in terms of financial return, but that doesn't necessarily equate to success in terms of a positive work culture.

    Employees can either Unionize or we can encourage a system where they are stakeholders that have opinions heard in boardrooms.
    Again. Who is "We"?!

    Those decisions are between the employees and their employers. The only way "we" should influence those decisions is as consumers choosing which businesses we want to support. Other than that, let it alone!
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  17. #44
    So, here's the thing, folks... Employees have just as much power to dictate their conditions and hours as the employer does. If you disagree with that, it's probably because you are a substandard employee. Sorry to break it to you. I've worked in several industries and have had several employers and it's always the same. If you give extra value to your employer, you will get extra value back. Or you will choose a different buyer for your labor. But if you're good and smart, you hold all the cards.

    The problem isn't with any "system"; it's that the people who get caught up in this line of thinking don't understand their value. (Or they haven't improved their value to the point where this isn't a problem.)
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Sorry to break it to you. I've worked in several industries and have had several employers and it's always the same. If you give extra value to your employer, you will get extra value back.
    Not if you are at a union workplace, where giving extra value gets you exactly nothing; and actually can get you less if your coworkers start to resent it. Such places actively reinforce the work the bare minimum work ethic.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    Not if you are at a union workplace, where giving extra value gets you exactly nothing; and actually can get you less if your coworkers start to resent it. Such places actively reinforce the work the bare minimum work ethic.
    Not my experience. I've worked for 3 unionized companies. The employers either find ways to work around the union or promote their good people into management.

    I worked in one union that had a provision for "merit" increases which they used. Another company used some clever negotiation to promote me into another union position even though there were people with more seniority. In nearly every case, when I asked for some kind of schedule change or other perk, I got it - even if it caused a grievance by some other employee. Generally, though, the easiest way for an employer to keep a good union employee is to give them a non-union position in management somewhere.

    I concede your point that the nature of unionization can limit the individual's success, but that's not who the unions are designed for.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Again. Who is "We"?!

    Those decisions are between the employees and their employers. The only way "we" should influence those decisions is as consumers choosing which businesses we want to support. Other than that, let it alone!

    We as in society or employers and employees creating different working relationships.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    I meant any papers on it or books.
    I take it you've heard of mises.org, yes?



    So without state intervention the ideal workday is like 12 or 14 hours? 30 hours?
    At the bottom of it all, the workday is as long as you decide. If you don't like how long an employer expects you to work, you are free to leave and seek other venues or you can hang your own shingle, which usually means even longer days.

    Also, it all depends on what you want, how much you want it, and what you are willing to do to get it. I do not subscribe to the boilerplate philosophy that is peddled as "entrepreneur's attitude" where one seeks billions in revenues per hour and to destroy all competitors. There are plenty of entrepreneurs out there who run mom and pop shops such as bodegas in NYC, for example. Many of them live quite comfortably, usually with longer-than-employed-people hours, but not automurdering. They seek not to build empires but to have a more relaxed lifestyle where they can afford many good things, though perhaps not a Gulfstream.

    Is it just a continuous race to the bottom?
    This is very reflective of your inner mindset. You might wish to reconsider the base presumption that leads you to even ask such a question. We are not living in red China or soviet Russia... at least, not yet. Therefore, you are free and would presumably remain free to shape your professional life as you pleased, all else equal.

    My annual income used to range between $250K and $500K+. I worked very long hours to bring in that upper limit and can tell you that averaging 102 hours/week for 3 and 4 months at a time isn't that much fun. Therefore, I didn't do it that often. But when I did, the paychecks were enormous. But I also was able to take anywhere from a few weeks off at a time, to months, with corresponding dips in the accounts. The point is that it was largely up to me. I schooled the $#@! out myself with science degrees and then took good advantage of those credentials, as well as my God-given talents and my developed skills precisely because the two years of being a NYC school teacher taught me just how much I didn't want to be one of those and just how little I wanted to work a 2000-hour year for $14K. I liked money. A lot. I still do. So I divined that middle-road where I worked "hard", but not so much so that I had no life of which to speak. I had plenty of time to hang with the friends, hit the dojo faithfully, chase women, do deeply stupid things in aircraft, and get into all manner of other nonsense that I considered worthy of my pursuit.

    I worked for Bell Telephone Laboratories for six years, was miserable, pissed people around me off because I was young, a bit brash, was usually the smartest person in the room, and when my colleagues showed they were men of no vision, I'd rub their noses in it... and all for about $40K. I discovered that THAT was also not what I wanted. That is why I started my own consultancy and did my own thing where my counsel was sought and at least sometimes appreciated, all for $300/hour+ back in a time when we, the brothers of the brass-nutsack, could get away with such extortionate rates.

    It was MY choice. Nobody forced me to do this or not do that. I could have remained in teaching. I'd have eaten a bullet eventually. No thanks - I like women way too much to go out like that and so very much too soon. The same for my tenure at Bell. I make my own deal, wanted bigger bucks than the average Joe, and did what I had to do to see it become real.

    It's all about choice and thank God we live in a land that, while $#@!ed up as all get-out in a thousand ways, is still worlds better than any other place on the planet precisely because we have the prettiest slavery on the planet. I'd rather be less restricted than more, my dreams of true freedom notwithstanding.

    Say you have to make $100 per day to cover your living costs. You can work 5 hours for $20 per hour. Similar person to you offers to do the same job for $10 per hour as long as they get 10 hours of work.

    Do you try and get 20 hours of work at $5 per hour?
    Depends on the job in question, the market conditions, as well as those of the economy in the broader sense.

    Of perhaps you take a stab at doing your own thing. It doesn't have to be anything fancy. You don't have to have an engineering degree. Open a deli. If you work smart and diligently, chances are fair to middling you will meet with success, again all else equal.

    Look at Col. Sanders. He'd failed at business repeatedly until he was 62 when finally Kentucky Fried Chicken took off. He's long gone but his creation survives to this day.

    The good Colonel's secret of success? NEVER GIVE UP.

    Or consider it in another form:

    What is the difference between hiring one person to work for 12 hours, or two people to work for 6 each?
    Because of governmob interference, the difference is likely significant.

    Consider that the salary you are paid is only about 1/3 to 1/2 of the cost your employer must bear in order to employ you. Because of dog-poo regulation, employers are required to pay all manner of additional costs. After the Fed and perhaps mainline religious institutions, it is the biggest scam of all time, places huge drags on the economy (it is a tax, after all, when all is said, done, and the bull$#@! is flushed away), and results in less prosperity for everyone. And we call that FAIL.

    In the first instance the persons minimum bid is spread over 12 hours, in the second each person needs to cover their costs in only six hours.
    Start a business. It's the right answer for people who churn over these questions you have raised. For the rest, punching a time clock is good enough in terms of effort to be put out. Therefore, those people have no basis for issuing the least complaint. The world owes you nothing and your right to life is valid only to the extent that you are able to provide for yourself using morally valid means. That, of course, precludes criminal actions against your fellows such as robbery, theft, and fraud.

    Open that deli. Hell, open a whorehouse. WHAT you do really doesn't matter, that is unless one is of a weakened ego and must be a scientist, doctor, lawyer, etc. in order to feel he is respectable. I respect nobody more than the man who buys a concrete pump and pours and finishes structures needed by his customers. That man is worthy of my respect and praise, dirty, rough hands and all.
    Last edited by osan; 10-27-2018 at 08:32 PM.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    "Itís just interesting to note how constant government oppression can kill peopleís fighting spirit." - Withur We




    Pray for reset.




  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by VIDEODROME View Post
    How about Employees having some ownership or being stakeholders in the Company? At least to have some sway over things like work shifts?
    Equity markets (i.e. markets in ownership interests in businesses), like all markets, tend to put resources into the hands of those who can most productively use them. If, by magic, employees of XCorp woke up tomorrow with 100% ownership of the company, that situation wouldn't last. The average employee would end up selling his shares to someone more capable (whether an especially business-minded fellow employee or a third party), who could run the company more productively. This is why "cooperatives" and so forth are so rare. The only way around this would be a law prohibiting the employees from selling their shares, or some equivalent restrictions, which would be as counterproductive (in tending to retard production) as any other law trying to enforce an unnatural equality.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 11-28-2018 at 07:22 PM.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Equity markets (i.e. markets in ownership interests in businesses), like all markets, tend to put resources into the hands of those who can most productively use them. If, by magic, employees of XCorp woke up tomorrow with 100% ownership of the company, that situation wouldn't last. The average employee would end up selling his shares to someone more capable (whether an especially business-minded fellow employee or a third party), who could run the company more productively. This is why "cooperatives" and so forth are so rare. The only way around this would be a law prohibiting the employees from selling their shares, or some equivalent restrictions, which would be as counterproductive (in tending to retard production) as any other law trying to enforce an unnatural equality.
    Makes me think of Democracy in a way as people's say in the direction of the country are eroded or in other cases people in Congress trade away their authority for financial or political favors.

    Hmm which interests me more? Having a hand on the levers of power steering the direction of the country or some money/power in the short term.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by VIDEODROME View Post
    Makes me think of Democracy in a way as people's say in the direction of the country are eroded or in other cases people in Congress trade away their authority for financial or political favors.

    Hmm which interests me more? Having a hand on the levers of power steering the direction of the country or some money/power in the short term.


    How can we object to democracy (?!?!?); after all, it's produced the status quo..
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Threads

  1. The Length Of Your Finger Says A Lot About Your Personality.
    By Suzanimal in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 05-10-2015, 12:42 PM
  2. Length of US Code
    By ivflight in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 11-17-2011, 09:21 AM
  3. The American Dream Full length - End The Fed
    By DanielGabriel in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-01-2011, 05:13 AM
  4. H.R. 450, the Enumerated Powers Act (Only one page in length!)
    By Knightskye in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-04-2010, 12:51 PM
  5. Wow, I knew they banned Ron Paul, but not to this length.
    By SonicInfinity in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 11-12-2007, 08:16 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •