Courtesy of the biggest collection of morons in one building. Link.
…………………………………………
Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
~ Denis Diderot
Discussion Forum
Get It All!
UNLIMITED Membership is like taking a master class in woodworking for less than $10 a month.
Start Your Free TrialCategories
Discussion Forum
Digital Plans Library
Member exclusive! – Plans for everyone – from beginners to experts – right at your fingertips.
Highlights
-
Shape Your Skills
when you sign up for our emails
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. -
Shop Talk Live Podcast -
Our favorite articles and videos -
E-Learning Courses from Fine Woodworking
-
-
Replies
Maybe Obama can fix it. He's saving our economy right now ;-)
Lee
Good grief!! Money talks, BS walks. That wooden toy is about as benign as possible!
I have often wondered just what sort of nasties come from China inside all of the "rubber" balls and other air or water filled toys.
Work Safe, Count to 10 when your done for the day !!
Bruce S.
If you have strict enough legislation private enterprise cannot afford to be in business. It will then fall to government to produce the goods and services required by it's citizens. Eventually it will be called a jobs program.
Shakespeare was right. Kill all the lawyers
We get to soon oldt und to late schmart
Agreed, until you really need one of course…<!----><!----><!---->
But if they are ALL gone then no one has them and then you would not need one as we would all be on our own when it comes to that type of stuff.
I do not see how anyone will ever be able to legally sell wood toys any more. This will also me things kill off a lot of the local wood shows, and the local craft festivals as a lot of the people that sell things at these sell things for kids. It may not be the biggest part of what they sell, but I bet a lot of them make enough to justify setting up by selling the toys. People will pay a few bucks for a kids toy faster then they will a few bucks for a new nick nack. Nice to see the government is helping out in this time of bad economy.
Doug M
PS I have a relative that once said he quit practicing law because he wanted to be in a more honest and trusting profession and to help people. So he became a politician. (I kid you not).
If you want to live in a society with laws, you’ll have lawyers otherwise you get Afghanistan. Who would settle contractual problems? Say your hardwood supplier shorted your shipment how are you going to resolve it? Fists, knives, pistols at noon? The rule of law requires professionals in the law or you end up with warlords running your village. And they are not all bad just like every other profession a few bad apples taint the rest.<!----><!----><!---->
We don't have lawyers in Galtonia, nor do we require CPSIA certifications. We use common sense. If two people have a dispute, we gather 'round and listen to their respective complaints, and arrive at a no-BS resolution. If someone has been really bad, we "ball" them. (We got a really good deal on little wooden balls with holes drilled in them from a guy named Jason in Michigan.) ;-)
I was at some of those meetings. Here is some under cover footage ( spy stuff ). I am the one with the big black mustache. There was a shortage of good drivers I remember that. Things were so corrupt I had to go under cover for a while to root out the corruption. They weren't cutting me in. Thats me with the cigar lighter. I decided to play a mute so they didn't recognize me by my voice.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qyce8dQLPo&feature=related
Edited 1/31/2009 5:02 am by roc
And, such a handsome lad you were, Roc. Great haircut, too.
Renaldus Magnus said it best "The most feared words in the english language... I'm from the government and I'm here to help!!!!!!!!!!!"
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it.
And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
This CPSIA legislative train wreck is serious business. Here's another blog that has been covering it extensively.
http://overlawyered.com/2009/01/cpsia-blog-day-3-small-businesses-endangered/
This is classic "we're from the government and we are here to help" stuff but it's also a case study for why we should have a law that prevents Congress from making a law in the wake of a highly publicized consumer "crisis". Just like Sarbanes-Oxley, this is bad law that is creating a much bigger problem than it is solving.
Congress is all tough talk about creating jobs, but here is a concrete example of a law they passed that is actually taking jobs away and killing small businesses.
And best of all we now have a president that believes MORE government is the answer, Lord help us......
And here I thought that we used to have it bad with the leftie Liberal party in Canada all these years.Napie, welcome to the nanny state. :-(
Better life through Zoodles and poutine...
I’ll tell you Peter, I so glad that I am at the backside of my career and not just starting out. The direction it is headed makes me pretty sure that duplicating my experience will become less and less possible. I’m beginning to think “Atlas Shrugged” is looking less and less like fiction. <!----><!----><!---->
Pssst. My real name is John Galt. Want an invite to our secret enclave? ;-)
Do I get cigarettes with gold dollar signs on them? <!----><!----><!---->
Sorry, the press we use for imprinting the papers is a bit flakey - you might say, "Ayn again, off again".
"Lord help us....."
Red kinda said it best, but it may actually happen!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPbIls0iOnI
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Maybe I need to start a testing company - all it takes is a few standards and an ICAP machine, and those, while not cheap, are well within reach of a small business loan.
What I find most interesting about this is that just about any moron could've seen that this would've had some really bad effects on the handmade, small operator market. Congress (at least the elected representatives) don't write this stuff- their staffers do. So either their staffers are the biggest morons on the planet, or there's been some heavy lobbying by major toy manufacturers, who are the only ones that can afford such contract testing.
David,
You opine: "What I find most interesting about this is that just about any moron could've seen that this would've had some really bad effects ......... either their [Congress's] staffers are the biggest morons on the planet, or there's been some heavy lobbying by major toy manufacturers, who are the only ones that can afford such contract testing".
Whilst being more or less ignorant of US politics and the associated bureaucracy I would guess that the situation described is the result of an even worse cause - the Rationalist thinking of modern Western governments and their creatures, which includes civil servants but also endless consultants selling "methods". Notice the capital "R" - the Rationalist is one so taken with his own infallible logic that he has come to believe all traditional practice is best done away with and replaced by a wholly new scheme generated from his unsullied imagination.
There are some difficuties with this approach, as the example posted illustrates:
* There is no infallible process of logic that can predict future social or economic outcomes from current actions in the real world. Rough old chaotic reality interferes with the utopian visions big-time. This is one reason why there is no John Galt nor a succesful Marxist state, for example.
* For every intended effect that may (but usually isn't) realised there are 99 unforseen and unintended effects. Often the unintended effects are exactly opposite to the intended ones.
So, no conspiracy of BigToy perhaps; and the staffers are probably very well educated - but in the modern way of Rationalism. They are not stupid, just the victims of a pervasive and often unexpressed ideology, endemic to a modern Western education, that assumes fundamentally: tradition (evolved institutions and behaviours) - bad; dreaming up novel and over-specified processes - good. They believe in explicit control and don't seem to have grasped the nature of evolution.
Where is Michael Oakeshott when you need him?
Lataxe, who only ever rationalises after the fact (and it's still wrong).
David - Good points, though I do suspect that there may have been some "influence peddling" effects on this legislation. The original intent, of course, was reactionary to lead in paint on toys from China, but as you state, there's always a severe temptation to "fix totally" the problem.
But I have a very hard time believing that some of the legislature's staff did not consider what the effect would be on individual small businesses. Perhaps the drivers of the legislation (generally, non-governmental consumer product safety advocation groups) thought that there was always the "what if" of an individual artisan producing toys with "unsafe" non-food grade finishes.
Your comment about Rationalists is correct, though. We've had so much of this in this country that every bill that passes through Congress is 450+ pages long, and there's multiple ones of those each week. Multiply that by the last 20-30 years, and it creates a situation where anyone may come after you for doing something "illegal" at any time - illegal in the sense that it's in such and such bill, page 682, passed 20 years ago, not illegal in the sense of "You killed my dog".
Lataxe,
You are full of surprises. I had you pegged as one o' them anti traditional Rationalists yourself. Have you seen the error of your ways, and are you about to embark on a Georgian highboy-building spree?
and by the way, who is John Galt?
Did you hear our new Prez the other day proclaim to those evil business-men, "This is not the time for profits."
hahaha,
Ray
Ray,
That Ayn has a holda yer minds, man!
Now, her description of the bureaucratic and totalitarian inclinations of self-serving socialists, syndicalists, businessmen and others who form cabals does ring a bell with one who spent too many years being pestered by multi-levels of "managers" and spurious methodologies that seem to proliferate in any modern, large organisation. In describing these, Ms Rand merely connected her real-life experiences in the dear ole USSR with the events in her novel.
However.....
When the dear old thing began to imagine her "alternative" nirvana in Colorado, populated with heroic figures from the British Raj adventure stories for boys that she doted on as a child, reality got left far behind. She also had the most queer notion of capitalism that I ever read about. Does it bear any resemblance to what real entrepreneurs do in the actual economic and social mileau from which capitalism sprang and in which it now operates? Not one iota.
There are no John Galts and never have been. Rather, there are hordes of clever blokes making money out of nothing (derivatives) or by exploiting the ownership of money (creditcard and mortgage companies). There are a tiny few who make things that are useful. They rarely do it for love; rather they prefer the monopoly and the gigantic profit for profit's sake. Capitalism is no universal socio-economic salve but just a power-system like all the other isms, with some good and some bad effects on those who participate.
But her heroic figures strikes a note with all those seeking certainties and a Great Leader to get them out of their sticky socio-economic situation. "I know the truth/right way and those other evil fools mucking about in the world do not". It's a seductive message to the wishful thinkers. Sadly, this heroism is a delusion. But Ayn is nothing if not forceful. If she can't appeal to one's wild-west frontier mythology, imbibed by us all courtesy of Hollywood, she goes for sheer repetition. Neither makes her heroes any more real.
Lataxe, half-ersed literary critic.
PS I like reason not Rationalism (it's an ism).
PPS Perhaps your new Prez was mindful of excessive profits made from parasitic exploitation of money and people, rather than those generated by Galt-like innovators and their technologies? I believe he's hoping there are some such folk left to develop products that are a viable alternative to burning all that oil you lads are addicted to. A hydrogen Injun!
Lataxe,
I am inclined to agree with you that the John Galt outcome of Ms Rands faery tale is very unlikely. Pres. Obama's wish for alternative energy entrepeneurs motivated by altruism, not the profit motive, is just as unlikely of fulfillment. The utopian society depicted in those horrid "Mad Max" fillums might be nearer to the middle way.
"... heroic figures strikes a note with all those seeking certainties and a Great Leader to get them out of their sticky socio-economic situation. 'I know the truth/right way and those other evil fools mucking about in the world do not'. It's a seductive message to the wishful thinkers. Sadly, this heroism is a delusion."
Are you talking about John Galt, or Barack Obama? It's hard to tell from where I'm sitting.
Ray
Ray,
Altruism - a sticky concept best avoided in favour of "how we socialise".
That other Randian myth - "no one sensible ever does anything except for profit" - is worth thinking about. It might be true, if we include within the definition of "profit" all the desirable outcomes of making a famous invention, product or service.
There are many "profits" besides the financial one. Fame itself, for example, whether of the informal kind (messages of admiration) or the more formal (Nobel prizes and the like). And in the non-Randian world there is the feeling of having done well by your fellow creatures. Here is where the altruism-deniers will insist that there are no such feelings. Well, Ms Rand certainly seemed oblivious to them but perhaps this was just her Asperger's syndrome. Then there are the folk who achieve things for the sake of achieving them. Perhaps their profit is contained entirely within their heads?
And we musn't forget the financial profits which, even in The New Marxist State of America that has allegedly now come about, against all historical trends elsewhere, will remain the main driver for all enterprise. One wonders; what is the alleged means of production that Mr Obama is supposedly going to substitute for capitalism? Point me at a copy of the relevant speech, if you would.
Somehow I can't see your new Prez doing away with capitalism and profit, though. Who would stand still for that in the US of A? And why would he bother, there being few, if any, alternative mechanisms in our current culture for generating production (the USSR model failed, as you may remember). In fact, isn't he a natural fan of the process, albeit not keen on the speculators and other greedy blokes milking us of our savings (are you)?
Of course, there are probably endless recently dis-empowered creatures about who will be getting their hench-journalists to persuade folk that ole Barack is some kind of 5th column Marxist for ..... who? "Bogeyman! Under the bed"!!!
Lataxe, who never believes the jellid opinions offered by newspapers and other such Daily Frighteners.
PS Are the anti-Obamas agin him because he belongs to this political party rather than that, rather than because of what he actually states as his intentions and desired outcomes? I nivvir did take any notice of party-loyalists, as they don't own their own brain.
Lataxe,
You know by now, I am not one of those Heavy Thinkers. So, I cannot answer all those questions of yours. But,
What will our Prez substitute for profits? The speech I'd refer you to is the one where he tells Joe the plumber that people who make Too Much Money, should expect to have to share their wealth. That is, give up hope of profits, for they will be taken away from you. His VP said much the same thing. How, I wonder do they plan to increase the wealth of the country by taking away from some and giving to others? The definition of what constitutes Too Much seems to have been trending downward since just before election day. I'm selfishly concerned about that, as most of my customer base use a portion of those Excess Profits to buy furniture from me. I'm cantankerously refraining from throwing myself onto the bosom of my gov't's largesse, as I've gotten in the habit of earning my own keep, and would regret having to change that.
I had thought that one of the concepts primary to capitalism was that of risk and profit. But with our gov't reaction to the banking crisis in eliminating (or trying to) the consequences of their risky speculative actions, I wonder what will be the outcome of avoiding those natural (seems to me) negative consequences, if they can be avoided. How does a capitalist venture become "too big to fail"? Is it not simultaneously too big not to fail? Boom and bust has been a part of the economic climate up til now, suddenly we can change that? Into what does it change?
Balance is needed in all things, and the concept of opposing political parties is better than of either having control of the machinations of gov't. One can only hope that the pendulum will soon reach its leftward limit, and swing again to the right, while there still exists a right for it to return towards.
The bulk of our journalists seem to have embraced the notion that the new administration is one that can do no wrong, just as the last one could do no right. Let's see how long that lasts.
Cheers,
Ray
The thought that this is not the time for profits is scary, but at the same time so is the profit that Exxon just made, 45.22 Billion US dollars. This may be a bit much, in a time when we are having huge economic issues. I am not sure how much of this came from the US vs over seas sales (Is Exxon in Canada or Mexico?). But I am sure billions of it did. So that is a good example of money that is leaving the average persons hands and is being pulled out of the lower levels of the economy (yes it is getting put back in at high level someplace in the world)
I can understand the idea that this is not the time to go after record levels of profit, some profit is good (and frankly is needed) but to set a world all time record for profit in this day and age is nuts. Exxon/Mobil could very well have played with the numbers it is working with (as it does adjust gas prices pretty much daily) to make a good profit with out going over board. This would also have forced other companies in the market to keep their cost/prices down to compete with Exxon Mobil. So that much I can understand what the Prez is trying to say. The issue is that government of late around the US seams to want to tax the daylites out of everything and profits are the starting point even if we are talking about small businesses making small profits.
To bad no one wants to talk about what the cost of all the government mandates are doing to the economy. For instance this is a fast list of those costs that have hit me or my clients off the top of my head. It cost me something like $2000 for the permits to build my house (one of which was because the back corner of my lot was 396 feet from a small stream, (my back corner of my lot was 100 feet from any thing that I was doing) and dirt may get into the stream. Of course the 396' between my property and the stream are all farm land and one assumes that the dirt from plowing the field would get into the stream also, but that dirt is ok, mine is bad. So that cost a few hundred dollar. Also on the same line, if you take into account the cost increases in the house to meet new codes the cost jumps to thousands more. Multiply that by all the house that are (or at least were being built).
I also have a client that wants to build a store, the cost of getting the landscaping alone to meet the city requirements is a landscape design cost of about $100,000 and because we can not get all the parking the city wants (and that in truth I can not see his ever needing) as well as the road (on his property) to get to the next property to keep drive ways down on the main road, this means we do not have enough room for all the trees the city wants so he is hit with a $35,000 bill for replacing the trees with other trees in the city (not that I remember that city putting in trees anyplace in the last 5 years or so). So just that one smallish store is going to be hit with about $100,000 in landscape costs (some landscape cost I assume would be needed not matter what) This means the store has to pull in an extra $100,000 just to pay off this landscape issue. So of course you will be charge a bit more, and if you will not / can not pay it of course he will close up. But ultimately you will foot the bill or he will go under. And this is just one example of the cost the governments are putting on people.
Another example of this, is a lot of local cities charge enough money for water that they make a profit, then the turn around and spend it on things like new fancy lights for the city. How is this different then a tax (keep in mind that you are required to use city water, and not a well) Only difference between this and property tax is I can take the property tax off my income tax. And I get to vote on taxes but the city can raise the rate for water when ever they want.
I have not proof of this, but I have to believe that all the hidden cost of government, between inspection fees, licensees, hidden charges (like water bills) requirements for permits, and all the rest of the "non tax" cost like stricter/higher code standards, in Michigan for instance we just got a new energy bill requiring more insulation in a building (and thus more cost) and all the rest of these things are doing a good job of raising the cost of everything and thus once again pulling the money out of the lower level economy. And we wonder why we are in the trouble we are in? It is these cost (the same ones that make a child's toy cost $4000) that are at least adding to it. But we blame the big three and the unions and those like them (and yes they helped make the problem also) but we do not talk about the cost of our own government. Around here the city of Detroit is always broke and yet the Mayor has full time body guards (even when not at a public event) and lives in a mansion the city pays for, while driving in a city car, with a driver. What other city gets that? Maybe New York? This is the cost of government that we in the US can no longer afford. And until these costs are fixed, (as well as other issues) we will not get back to a point that we can be the country we were. Yes the problem is big enough to go around but the government is making the mess worse not better.
As the line from an old song goes. "if he can't even run his own live, I'll be damned if he'll run mine" It is time for the government (Federal, state and local) to stop being part of the problem.
The sad part is that while the Prez may be new, this is pretty much the same congress we have had for the last two years. And remember if they have enough congressmen for something they can over ride a veto, so they could have been doing something the last two years. So I do not look forward to much of anything being different when it comes to the government costing jobs, and taking money vs making jobs, and increasing the economy.
Doug M
With a descriptive description like that, I had to click on it! What ever happened to the good ol' days? Over-regulated. Sheesh.
Chris @ www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com
(soon to be www.flairwoodworks.com)
- Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled