Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

You lost yet again! LOL. That didn't address anything I said. It makes no valid points at all. Has nothing to do with anything being discussed.

You lose again sir.

Pro-Debating Hint: Posting stuff that doesn't have anything at all to do with the topic, proves you lost the argument. Because if you had a point, you would make it. The fact you are just spewing random crap, proves you can't make a point.

Every single time you post random crap, that doesn't contradict, address, or make any kind of a counter point, I'm going to call you out on it, and let you know you lost the argument. Because that's what you are proving, by making pointless unrelated posts.

You said this:
"Oh please. If we didn't buy their oil they'd be more poor and impoverished that than they are now."
Remember?
I countered with a documented example of the misery inflicted upon millions of innocent civilians as a result of O-I-L

"What the US government was calling the Iraq War before they realized the title was more appropriate than it should have been (Operation Iraqi Liberation – O.I.L.). This is not an urban legend made up by leftists; check the official whitehouse press release..."

Perhaps you should spend some time learning to read before imagining yourself capable of rational debate?

What did I just tell you? If you have to change topics because you can't make a valid point, that only proves you lost the argument.

Do you want to talk about oil? Or do you want to talk about war? Two different topics. We didn't go to Iraq for oil. Name one oil field we own, in Iraq? Name the oil tanker of oil from Iraq, that we didn't buy from them on the market?

In fact it was because of people like you, that Iraq signed servicing contracts with China, instead of the US. China richer, US poorer, and all thanks to people like you, saying we went there for oil. Now US companies, with US employees, paying US taxes, are NOT working in Iraqi oil fields.

If we didn't buy their legally sold resources, they would simply be poorer.

You want to talk about Operation Iraqi Liberation, a war? Fine. War sucks. People die. Avoid it as much as possible, but not when a madman in Iraq gives us no choice.

Nevertheless, that topic, is not the topic we were talking about, meaning you lost the argument again. You lost again man. If you can't argue the points brought up, and have no valid counter points, and all you can do is change topics.... that shows you lost the argument.

The topic has always been how capitalism guarantees rising inequality.
If you can't connect the dots between war and oil in the capitalist universe, get help with your learning disabilities or find another thread to troll.

 

[georgephillip]

It's hard to imagine a more pathological version of centralized power than private corporations

Seriously?

Then I'd suggest you have limited imagination. Or perhaps no knowledge of history. Consider a fascist government in action.

"Italian Fascism promoted a corporatist economic system whereby employer and employee syndicates are linked together in associations to collectively represent the nation's economic producers and work alongside the state to set national economic policy.[3]

"It promoted corporatism as an alternative to capitalism and Marxism, which it regarded as 'obsolete doctrines'".[citation needed]

How do you imagine we can limit the power of today's corporate fascists in the US by diminishing the power of democratically elected state representatives?

Italian Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dblack]

It's hard to imagine a more pathological version of centralized power than private corporations

Seriously?

Then I'd suggest you have limited imagination. Or perhaps no knowledge of history. Consider a fascist government in action.

"Italian Fascism promoted a corporatist economic system whereby employer and employee syndicates are linked together in associations to collectively represent the nation's economic producers and work alongside the state to set national economic policy.[3]

"It promoted corporatism as an alternative to capitalism and Marxism, which it regarded as 'obsolete doctrines'".[citation needed]

How do you imagine we can limit the power of today's corporate fascists in the US by diminishing the power of democratically elected state representatives?

Italian Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diminishing the power of government is the only way we can limit fascist corporatism.

You need to actually read that article. And be sure to follow the links on corporatism. It's a form of government, not a private enterprise. It can't exist without the coercive power of the state.

 

[gnarlylove]

Diminishing the power of government is the only way we can limit fascist corporatism.

You need to actually read that article. And be sure to follow the links on corporatism. It's a form of government, not a private enterprise. It can't exist without the coercive power of the state.

Since you're clearly opposed to "government" then how do you explain your idea of economic decisions being decided by an elite group of the B&B?

The government is not different from private corporations in kind, only by degree.

What I mean is that governments and corporations/private sector business exercise authority. The only difference is how much. Our government has less influence than international businesses like Google and JP Morgan except when it comes genuine combat. The difference is we tend to think the military is an outgrowth of government (and it was originally). What happens when government is in cahoots with corporations? A secret alliance where corporations can pressure the US into certain military campaigns for profit. We saw this in the last decade very openly.

According to George's link to the blog, this tangled web of private sector and the government are ontological necessities born from such massive concentrations of power and wealth.

When action arises from government, you say it's coercive.

When action arises out of the private sector, you call it reality.

They are hardly different in our 21st century yet you insist government is bad and private sector is natural and desirable. And I tend to agree with the blog: when you allow elites to make decisions with such centralized wealth, corruption is a necessary result. Regardless of how bright one is, absolute power (exemplified by the Kochs) is absolutely corrupting.

 

[georgephillip]

Seriously?

Then I'd suggest you have limited imagination. Or perhaps no knowledge of history. Consider a fascist government in action.

"Italian Fascism promoted a corporatist economic system whereby employer and employee syndicates are linked together in associations to collectively represent the nation's economic producers and work alongside the state to set national economic policy.[3]

"It promoted corporatism as an alternative to capitalism and Marxism, which it regarded as 'obsolete doctrines'".[citation needed]

How do you imagine we can limit the power of today's corporate fascists in the US by diminishing the power of democratically elected state representatives?

Italian Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diminishing the power of government is the only way we can limit fascist corporatism.

You need to actually read that article. And be sure to follow the links on corporatism. It's a form of government, not a private enterprise. It can't exist without the coercive power of the state.

Why can it not exist without the coercive power of the state?
If you shrink the state sufficiently to drown it in Grover's bathtub, will Goldman Sachs or Blackwater or Lockheed Martin magically disappear?

 

[dblack]

Diminishing the power of government is the only way we can limit fascist corporatism.

You need to actually read that article. And be sure to follow the links on corporatism. It's a form of government, not a private enterprise. It can't exist without the coercive power of the state.

Since you're clearly opposed to "government" then how do you explain your idea of economic decisions being decided by an elite group of the B&B?

The government is not different from private corporations in kind, only by degree.

Yes, it is. Quite radically. That's what I've been trying to communicate to you. The government operates by brute force. Private corporations don't. That's a huge difference, and the failure to recognize that is the great failure of modern liberalism.

What happens when government is in major cahoots with corporations? An secret alliance where corporations can pressure the US into certain military campaigns for profit.

According to George's link to the blog, this tangled web of private sector and the government are ontological necessities born from such massive concentrations of power and wealth.

I tend to agree. Much of the excessive concentration of wealth today is a result of corporate/government collusion. That collusion depends on the misguided attempts of reformers to 'regulate' markets with government. Unscrupulous players step in an steer that to their own ends. Witness ACA.

When action arises from government, you say it's coercive.

When action arises out of the private sector, you call it reality.

That's a fact. Private business can only coerce their customers by getting in bed with government.

FWIW, I don't think government is bad - I think government government that fails to provide equal protection is bad.

 

[dblack]

"Italian Fascism promoted a corporatist economic system whereby employer and employee syndicates are linked together in associations to collectively represent the nation's economic producers and work alongside the state to set national economic policy.[3]

"It promoted corporatism as an alternative to capitalism and Marxism, which it regarded as 'obsolete doctrines'".[citation needed]

How do you imagine we can limit the power of today's corporate fascists in the US by diminishing the power of democratically elected state representatives?

Italian Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diminishing the power of government is the only way we can limit fascist corporatism.

You need to actually read that article. And be sure to follow the links on corporatism. It's a form of government, not a private enterprise. It can't exist without the coercive power of the state.

Why can it not exist without the coercive power of the state?
If you shrink the state sufficiently to drown it in Grover's bathtub, will Goldman Sachs or Blackwater or Lockheed Martin magically disappear?

Yes. The corporate charter is a government decree. Corporations (businesses) have exactly no coercive power of their own.

In any case, you're conflating corporatism with incorporated business colluding with government. It's not the same thing. Read the wiki article. Corporatism is a form of government. You're probably thinking of 'Corporatocracy'.

 

[gnarlylove]

"This pathology is not the result of individual psychology or character; it is the result of centralized, concentrated power itself."

Guest Post: The Dark Heart Of Centralized Power | Zero Hedge

Unlike emperors, dictators, and CEOs, a "democratically" elected president would seem to offer some measure of protection for the majority of citizens from the many sociopaths who end up in positions of power.

"[T]hose with the authority are never exposed to the consequences of their authority, nor do they have any responsibility for the consequences."

This is a eloquent summary of why current rates of inequality have become tolerable, nay, necessary.

Those who are on USMB are not eating out of trash cans and so are entirely unaware any American is doing so. Like myself, a large population of homeless have marketable skills or at least can work in fast food but cannot do so because of the consequences closing low income housing for condos and trickle down policies that simply don't work. I know the consequences because I lived them myself and talked with those suffering from them.

 

[RKMBrown]

"This pathology is not the result of individual psychology or character; it is the result of centralized, concentrated power itself."

Guest Post: The Dark Heart Of Centralized Power | Zero Hedge

Unlike emperors, dictators, and CEOs, a "democratically" elected president would seem to offer some measure of protection for the majority of citizens from the many sociopaths who end up in positions of power.

"[T]hose with the authority are never exposed to the consequences of their authority, nor do they have any responsibility for the consequences."

This is a eloquent summary of why current rates of inequality have become tolerable, nay, necessary.

Those who are on USMB are not eating out of trash cans and so are entirely unaware any American is doing so. Like myself, a large population of homeless have marketable skills or at least can work in fast food but cannot do so because of the consequences closing low income housing for condos and trickle down policies that simply don't work. I know the consequences because I lived them myself and talked with those suffering from them.

Yet here you are on the internet on a computer...

 

[georgephillip]

Actually, it's the Dumbocrats who love off-shoring. That's why they keep punishing business with high taxes, costly crushing regulations, and greedy extortion unions - to force business overseas.

It's not rocket science - whoever welcomes businesses gets the businesses. Whoever demonizes and punishes them, loses them. Sadly, Dumbocrats are just too fuck'n stupid to figure out even something this basic....

Actually Democrats hate off-shoring.......... they are just too stupid to figure out they are causing it.

Hey Leftists........... Which car companies declared bankruptcy?

GM and Chrysler? Or was it Toyota and Honda?

Let me ask it another way....

Was it Unionized GM and Chrysler? Or non-Union Toyota and Honda?

Funny how the first question get's an easy response, and the second get's blank stares.

The left is who is driving out business, with regulations, mandates, taxes, and red tape.

Actually US capitalists hate democracy and embrace a race to the bottom in order to maintain increasing economic inequality in America.

Ask Roger (and Me) and Jessica about how German labor unions with voting members sitting on the boards of directors of the corporations they work for reverse that effect:

"In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million.

"At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour.

"Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, Daimler (Mercedes-Benz ), and Volkswagen—are very profitable.

"There are 'two overlapping sets of institutions' in Germany that guarantee high wages and good working conditions for autoworkers.

"The first is IG Metall, the country’s equivalent of the United Automobile Workers.

"Virtually all Germany’s car workers are members, and though they have the right to strike, they 'hardly use it, because there is an elaborate system of conflict resolution that regularly is used to come to some sort of compromise that is acceptable to all parties,' according to Horst Mund, an IG Metall executive.

"The second institution is the German constitution, which allows for 'works councils' in every factory, where management and employees work together on matters like shop floor conditions and work life.

"Mund says this guarantees cooperation, 'where you don’t always wear your management pin or your union pin.'”

How Germany Builds Twice As Many Cars As The U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice As Much - Forbes

See, only those totally blinded by the ideology of American Exceptionalism fail to see how corrupt union officials and Wall Street parasites, like Mitt, destroyed much of the US auto industry.

 

[gnarlylove]

Those who are on USMB are not eating out of trash cans

Yet here you are on the internet on a computer...

What's your point?

Let me take a stab at it: you want to distract attention away from the fact that you have no point.

Much of 2012 I have had to eat from dumpsters during the night out of necessity. Yet your Republican friends think they know what's its like to be poor in America. They think it's some smorgasbord of indulgence and no responsibility despite the fact they've never once even driven by the city mission let alone spent a night there. I can tell you there is nothing to be considered "comforting" or great about being in America and being homeless. I preferred to sleep on the street when it was snowing instead of spending a night in the city mission for good reason.

I want to be clear, I don't give a fuck about having been homeless myself and I know I will be again (hopefully sooner than later). MY point is no one living on the street or in city mission is thinking to themselves, "Boy America sure is grand! I'm so glad to be homeless in America." The conditions they live are by no standards well-off. It's just some idiotic wishful thinking that the homeless in America are like the middle class in some foreign country.

 

[LibertyLemming]

lol people think corporatism is capitalism lol

 

[georgephillip]

Wall St doesn't hypocritically claim to be in favor of socialism. HollyWood does. You people on the left, start practicing what you preach first. Then if that works, maybe the rest of us will follow. Otherwise.... just shut up. Go preach at a Scientology church or something.

Wall Street's actions prove it's hypocritically in favor of socialism for the rich, as the Goldman Sachs bailouts prove beyond any reasonable doubt:

"Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night.

"Goldman Sachs disclosed the list of companies to the Senate Finance Committee after a threat of subpoena from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia..."

"Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday's report.

"Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government's bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world's largest insurance company.

"Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG's collapse.

"Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.

"Shouldn't Goldman Sachs be expected to collect from those institutions "before they collect the taxpayers' dollars?" Grassley asked. "It's a little bit like a farmer, if you got crop insurance, you shouldn't be getting disaster aid."

"Goldman had not disclosed the names of the counterparties it paid in late 2008 until Friday, despite repeated requests from Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel."

Goldman reveals where bailout cash went - USATODAY.com

Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.
You people on the right should learn to think logically.
In your case, Scientology might actually improve your reasoning.

Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG.

Bull. Goldman received money from AIG for these CDS, not from the taxpayer.

Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.

What costs do you feel were socialized by Goldman? Be specific.

Right after you start supplying links for your Bull.

 

[Contumacious]

Actually, it's the Dumbocrats who love off-shoring. That's why they keep punishing business with high taxes, costly crushing regulations, and greedy extortion unions - to force business overseas.

It's not rocket science - whoever welcomes businesses gets the businesses. Whoever demonizes and punishes them, loses them. Sadly, Dumbocrats are just too fuck'n stupid to figure out even something this basic....

Actually Democrats hate off-shoring.......... they are just too stupid to figure out they are causing it.

Hey Leftists........... Which car companies declared bankruptcy?

GM and Chrysler? Or was it Toyota and Honda?

Let me ask it another way....

Was it Unionized GM and Chrysler? Or non-Union Toyota and Honda?

Funny how the first question get's an easy response, and the second get's blank stares.

The left is who is driving out business, with regulations, mandates, taxes, and red tape.

Actually US capitalists hate democracy and embrace a race to the bottom in order to maintain increasing economic inequality in America.

Really?

Identify one such "capitalist".

.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Wall Street's actions prove it's hypocritically in favor of socialism for the rich, as the Goldman Sachs bailouts prove beyond any reasonable doubt:

"Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night.

"Goldman Sachs disclosed the list of companies to the Senate Finance Committee after a threat of subpoena from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia..."

"Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday's report.

"Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government's bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world's largest insurance company.

"Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG's collapse.

"Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.

"Shouldn't Goldman Sachs be expected to collect from those institutions "before they collect the taxpayers' dollars?" Grassley asked. "It's a little bit like a farmer, if you got crop insurance, you shouldn't be getting disaster aid."

"Goldman had not disclosed the names of the counterparties it paid in late 2008 until Friday, despite repeated requests from Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel."

Goldman reveals where bailout cash went - USATODAY.com

Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.
You people on the right should learn to think logically.
In your case, Scientology might actually improve your reasoning.

Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG.

Bull. Goldman received money from AIG for these CDS, not from the taxpayer.

Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.

What costs do you feel were socialized by Goldman? Be specific.

Right after you start supplying links for your Bull.

Are people citing Goldman Sachs as examples of capitalism ? Because if so that is RETARDED. Do you understand how regulations and licensing and zoning and shit like that works? It all benefits certain corporations. This is corporatism or cronyism, not capitalism. Capitalism is free markets not arbitrarily regulated markets. You should be complaining about the government not capitalism.

 

[gnarlylove]

The only free market approach was allowing Lehman Bros to collapse. The rest was socialism for the wealthy upon the backs of taxpayers. That includes Goldman, AIG, and a host of some 20 banks that flubbed up the international market and brought systemic risk to the WHOLE SYSTEM. Indeed, if it wasn't for socialism, we wouldn't be talking about a puny recession, we'd be talking about an overhaul of the global economy.

 

[georgephillip]

"This pathology is not the result of individual psychology or character; it is the result of centralized, concentrated power itself."

Guest Post: The Dark Heart Of Centralized Power | Zero Hedge

Unlike emperors, dictators, and CEOs, a "democratically" elected president would seem to offer some measure of protection for the majority of citizens from the many sociopaths who end up in positions of power.

"[T]hose with the authority are never exposed to the consequences of their authority, nor do they have any responsibility for the consequences."

This is a eloquent summary of why current rates of inequality have become tolerable, nay, necessary.

Those who are on USMB are not eating out of trash cans and so are entirely unaware any American is doing so. Like myself, a large population of homeless have marketable skills or at least can work in fast food but cannot do so because of the consequences closing low income housing for condos and trickle down policies that simply don't work. I know the consequences because I lived them myself and talked with those suffering from them.

There are "retired" seniors working part-time at the non-profit Senior Center where I volunteer who can not afford to work full time because of the losses they would suffer from losing Medicaid and affordable housing benefits.

Since Los Angeles is one of eight counties in California scheduled for a Medicaid "reform" experiment, it's likely many of the seniors will see the quality of their medical care decline when HMOs get involved.

I'm sure the investor class appreciates the sacrifice.

 

[History]

"This pathology is not the result of individual psychology or character; it is the result of centralized, concentrated power itself."

Guest Post: The Dark Heart Of Centralized Power | Zero Hedge

Unlike emperors, dictators, and CEOs, a "democratically" elected president would seem to offer some measure of protection for the majority of citizens from the many sociopaths who end up in positions of power.

"[T]hose with the authority are never exposed to the consequences of their authority, nor do they have any responsibility for the consequences."

This is a eloquent summary of why current rates of inequality have become tolerable, nay, necessary.

Those who are on USMB are not eating out of trash cans and so are entirely unaware any American is doing so. Like myself, a large population of homeless have marketable skills or at least can work in fast food but cannot do so because of the consequences closing low income housing for condos and trickle down policies that simply don't work. I know the consequences because I lived them myself and talked with those suffering from them.

There are "retired" seniors working part-time at the non-profit Senior Center where I volunteer who can not afford to work full time because of the losses they would suffer from losing Medicaid and affordable housing benefits.

Since Los Angeles is one of eight counties in California scheduled for a Medicaid "reform" experiment, it's likely many of the seniors will see the quality of their medical care decline when HMOs get involved.

I'm sure the investor class appreciates the sacrifice.

Okay, so if they knew that they would have to eventually retire, the question is why didn't they save enough Money for Retirement??

 

[thereisnospoon]

Government should only step in to make the market more efficient or based on some other objective like public safety or health. The government can also pursue long term goals that the private sector wouldn't.

Yep, without government we don't have collective pursuits unless it benefits the capitalist class, which usually just centers around generating profits instead of well being.

"Having a market society automatically carries with it an undermining of solidarity. For example, in the market system you have a choice: You can buy a Toyota or you can buy a Ford, but you can’t buy a subway because that’s not offered. Market systems don’t offer common goods; they offer private consumption. If you want a subway, you’re going to have to get together with other people and make a collective decision. Otherwise, it’s simply not an option within the market system, and as democracy is increasingly undermined, it’s less and less of an option within the public system. All of these things converge, and they’re all part of general class war."

Noam Chomsky: America Hates Its Poor | Alternet

Market systems don’t offer common goods; they offer private consumption.
Why should they?
This is all very fascinating. But it's just one guy's theory. If you want to hang your hat on that, fine.

 

[thereisnospoon]

First of all, you misread. I didn't say we have the best and brightest making the most important decisions, I said that's what we want - which I contend that, unless you're willing to disagree, is a truism (it's plenty falsifiable if you do, in fact, disagree. But I can't imagine why you would.) The problem is in figuring out who the best and brightest are. We'll never be able to do that perfectly, but I contend that the free-form system will do that better, and be more responsive to the needs of consumers, than a state mandated system ever could. Again, we're talking about the narrow realm of economic decisions. I'm not suggesting rich people should run government, or society.

It is a truism and you are right to assume I agree.

But they way you describe the operation of society relies on current consumerism. This is different than the meeting of supply and demand, which is more hypothetical. I think if we aligned supply with demand ideally it would result in no inequality. Well, at least inequality that everyone is happy with--some people are satisfied naturally with less than others. So I see you conflating ideals with how society operates or the a priori with the a posteriori

Consumerism (and Economics) asserts itself over the fact we don't only consider our own interests everytime. This is a result of the language of economics which sees people as agents who maximize their welfare, always. But we know this isn't how humanity tends to operate. We operate based on responding to our surroundings and our principles (which gets in the way of maximization of welfare, profit, whatever).

So this idea of keeping up consumerism is just a fad. At no time in history has society depended so crucially on the incessant exchange of goods. Don't you think our society ought to depend on the harmony between humanity and nature (instead of infinite consumption) for global stability?

Again, it seems you and I agree on the hypothetical scenarios. But we know these don't play out like we hope. So we need innovative technologies and policies overcoming mass human error (that results from lack of maximization) OR we need to have entrance exams into society. Those who fail the exam remain in the current system of cyclical consumption, those who pass enter the best and brightest society ever designed.

For this new society do we need 100% of policy figured out in advance? No. These things are impossible. Humans are extremely adaptive (we live in every possible oxygen-rich climate) and it's no different when it comes to cooperation and governance. I think having a general set of axioms can carry us into the applied ethics of society.

"Don't you think our society ought to depend on the harmony between humanity and nature"?
No....Our economy is built on commerce.
In the future, please reference the material you are posting on here.
Now....What is YOUR solution.
Use you own words. No blogs. No opinion pieces. No regurgitation of lessons from leftist professors.
Because I for one and getting sick and tired of reading the incessant complaining. yet nary a solution from any of you.
One thing is clear.You have whining down pat.