Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Warehouse Wage Slave  
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2057 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2750 times:

I thought this was a pretty good (however long) read:


http://motherjones.com/politics/2012...e-online-shipping-warehouses-labor

Quote:

"Don't take anything that happens to you there personally," the woman at the local chamber of commerce says when I tell her that tomorrow I start working at Amalgamated Product Giant Shipping Worldwide Inc. She winks at me. I stare at her for a second.

"What?" I ask. "Why, is somebody going to be mean to me or something?"

She smiles. "Oh, yeah."

And then, people again wonder "with all the profits these companies are making, can't they afford to treat their workers more humane?" Sure they can, but that's not the issue. In Capitalism, the important point is not whether you make a profit or not, it's how large that profit is. And the investors' money will go to whoever makes the largest profit and can offer the largest return on investment. The true reason those workers suffer is not that their companies couldn't operate otherwise, it's that somebody else would undercut them and make an even larger profit, and that's where the money would go. It was true in 18th century Manchester, and it is still true today.


Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
132 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2728 times:

But, we were told when we give tax breaks to the billionares, it will trickle down and we will all be rich and work in high paying jobs.


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2703 times:

Quoting Rara (Thread starter):
In Capitalism, the important point is not whether you make a profit or not, it's how large that profit is.

  

Quoting Rara (Thread starter):
And the investors' money will go to whoever makes the largest profit and can offer the largest return on investment.

  

Quoting Rara (Thread starter):
The true reason those workers suffer is not that their companies couldn't operate otherwise, it's that somebody else would undercut them and make an even larger profit, and that's where the money would go.

  

I'm missing something here. Is this supposed to be considered a bad thing? Because it isn't.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2057 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2694 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):

I'm missing something here. Is this supposed to be considered a bad thing? Because it isn't.

Tell that to the "wage slaves" who get zapped whenever they touch the shelf..  

It depends on your viewpoint, I'd say - but you're right, it wasn't making the point that it's a "bad thing" as such, it's just a fact of Capitalism. However, it is also a fact that those mechanisms benefit the few, and disadvantage the many. And I don't have the impression that most people are aware of that.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1599 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2666 times:

Quoting Rara (Thread starter):
. It was true in 18th century Manchester, and it is still true today.

I certainly can't see much of a difference between the working conditions of the people in the article and those in factories during the industrial revolution.

And I'm pretty sure there are a few out there who would be more than happy to allow a return of said conditions.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4487 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2665 times:

Not sure what is wrong with this. This is Capatilism at it's finest.

1. There is a steady supply of workers
2. The wage means the job requires skills and has demands.
3. There is nothing stopping someone from walking right out the door. after a one week expose.

If #1 and #2 get out of balance due to #3, then the company will have to adjust.

However currently the company has enough workers to fill the jobs that are in place.

Nothing really wrong here. Those that survive long enough move up and become supervisors.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2618 times:

Why should I listen to you or the author of this piece when neither of you even know what slavery actually is?

The title is obviously intended to inflame, so I would take anything from the article with a boulder of salt to begin with.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2617 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 3):
It depends on your viewpoint, I'd say - but you're right, it wasn't making the point that it's a "bad thing" as such, it's just a fact of Capitalism. However, it is also a fact that those mechanisms benefit the few, and disadvantage the many

No, that is not a fact. The mechanisms of free market capitalism produce vastly better outcomes for people of all income levels than do the mechanisms of centrally planned and heavily regulated economies.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 5):
Nothing really wrong here. Those that survive long enough move up and become supervisors.

And more importantly, anyone who chooses to take an ownership stake can do so.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 1):
But, we were told when we give tax breaks to the billionares, it will trickle down and we will all be rich and work in high paying jobs

And in reality, fiscal liberals consider "billionaires" to be anyone earning $250k household income.  

As a point of historical fact, we know that investors heavily modulate their investing decisions based on capital gains tax rates. Investors know the rates are subject to change, so they will buy/hold/sell accordingly. Jack up the tax rate and people will sit on their investments until the next administration lowers them. We also know that when rates are lower, the total revenue generated by capital gains taxes grows faster than when rates are higher. This trend has been verified through multiple business cycles.

What you sarcastically suggest is that the government should take action that would ultimately make it less effective at collecting revenue for some narrowly-defined appearance of "fairness."


User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2057 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2549 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 6):
Why should I listen to you or the author of this piece when neither of you even know what slavery actually is?

Please. Wage slavery is a long-established concept; if you're not familiar with it, I suggest you look it up.

The conditions described by the article are not a textbook case of wage slavery, but they bear some resemblance, and that's the point the author is trying to make.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 7):

No, that is not a fact. The mechanisms of free market capitalism produce vastly better outcomes for people of all income levels than do the mechanisms of centrally planned and heavily regulated economies.

Well THAT is definitely not a fact.   Unless you somehow define "outcome". If you mean material riches, then you may be correct. But some people may also define a satisfying job that doesn't rob them of their dignity as "better outcome". And jobs that are designed to make people feel bad to maximize their output (at least until a replacement takes their place) don't rank very highly on that.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineGBLKD From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2011, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2543 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 7):
No, that is not a fact. The mechanisms of free market capitalism produce vastly better outcomes for people of all income levels than do the mechanisms of centrally planned and heavily regulated economies.

I think the Chinese and Indian factory workers who live on site, work 12 hour shifts, and "hot bunk" for less pay in a week than I earn in an hour driving a truck just so the developed world can have cheap trinkets would heartily disagree. Free market global capitalism has certainly given them a choice, work in a sweatshop in terrible conditions or your kids starve. If you start to organise and want higher pay and better conditions the factory closes and production moves on to somewhere else with fresh meat to exploit.

Nice.


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7943 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2509 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 7):
The mechanisms of free market capitalism produce vastly better outcomes for people of all income levels than do the mechanisms of centrally planned and heavily regulated economies.

Perhaps we can agree that capitalism improves the material living conditions more effectively in a society characterized by chronic shortages. As far as affluent societies are concerned, evidence doesn't appear to be clear. A capitalist economy is heavily dependent on growth, and it seems that most of the growth necessary can be found outside wealthy states such as the U.S., Canada or most European countries where one company can at best drive a competitor out of the market, which doesn't really qualify as growth.
Besides, when a western economy grows by say: 1 billion Dollars, you'll find that the federal dept has grown by ~ 1 billion Dollars as well. So for every additional Dollar generated by growth we generate ~ 1 Dollar in dept as well. Is that really growth? It is more like a give and take, I dare say, only that wealthy people have disproportionately benefited from the economic growth. You can witness the same effect in basically every industrial nation with the exception of China and other societies where a) workers' rights are poor to non-existent and b) that are generally far less affluent.

Capitalism is dependent on growth. Always. But growth is necessarily limited. You don't need a third freezer, a fifth bicylce, and then there is the environmental factor: Every company, in one way or another, turns natural values into monetary values. Since natural values are limited, economic growth is limited as well.

As a result, we need to reform capitalism by heavily diminishing its dependence on growth but still maintain its free and market driven character.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12345 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2491 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 7):
And in reality, fiscal liberals consider "billionaires" to be anyone earning $250k household income.

I'm not sure what point you are making. According to http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/19/what-percent-are-you/ having a $250k household income puts you in the top 4% of income in the US, definitely on the "have" side of the "have" / "have not" border.

If you consider the definition of middle class to mean at the 50% line, that is all of $43k of family income.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8190 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2464 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 7):
The mechanisms of free market capitalism produce vastly better outcomes for people of all income levels than do the mechanisms of centrally planned and heavily regulated economies.

Which is why the middle class has been shrinking in this century. To build the middle class and increase the buying power of this group will take away from the wealthy.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 7):
As a point of historical fact, we know that investors heavily modulate their investing decisions based on capital gains tax rates

Maybe they need to invest based on corporate performance. Take a look at Apple - they are delivering investment performance without regards to tax rates.

In reality, lower capital gains tax rates simply prop up the shares of companies that are poor performers.

Maybe we need to simply say that income of all types is Income for tax purposes. That will put significant pressures on companies to deliver performance.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 7):
Jack up the tax rate and people will sit on their investments until the next administration lowers them.

Then they are sitting there with their head where the sun doesn't shine. If you can turn stock and make an after tax profit then you should be turning that stock.

In terms of the warehouse jobs, this is not the first time they have been in the news. There was recently a story about the Riverside CA area warehouses. From the articles it seems that pure capitalists need serf level labor in order to be successful. Maybe if we shut those companies down new ones will start up and perform better on the employment side.


User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2458 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 8):
Well THAT is definitely not a fact. Unless you somehow define "outcome". If you mean material riches, then you may be correct. But some people may also define a satisfying job that doesn't rob them of their dignity as "better outcome". And jobs that are designed to make people feel bad to maximize their output (at least until a replacement takes their place) don't rank very highly on that.

Yes it is. This is not an area for reasonable disagreement. You are just dead wrong, period.

Centrally planned and heavily regulated economies diminish opportunities in all areas of life, not just wealth creation. Fulfillment, self-determination, health, well-being, individual liberty, all of that stuff. A market economy creates more choices and more opportunities for people to align their lives to the way they want to live.

The exploitation you describe becomes more wide-spread as regulation/planning increases because worker's opportunity to go elsewhere decreases.

Quoting GBLKD (Reply 9):

I think the Chinese and Indian factory workers who live on site, work 12 hour shifts, and "hot bunk" for less pay in a week than I earn in an hour driving a truck just so the developed world can have cheap trinkets would heartily disagree.

And both the Chinese and Indian economies are characterized by decades of state management and central planning. You are proving my point.

Quoting GBLKD (Reply 9):
Free market global capitalism has certainly given them a choice, work in a sweatshop in terrible conditions or your kids starve.

The choice between work and starvation is just biological. You have to act to sustain yourself.

The Chinese who must choose between working in a sweatshop and starvation are the result of the Chinese state.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 11):
According to http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/19/what-percent-are-you/ having a $250k household income puts you in the top 4% of income in the US, definitely on the "have" side of the "have" / "have not" border.

That's not really for you to decide. I'm "above average" in that I make more than $43K, but I'm not close to the income I eventually want to earn. So I work for it. You could argue that I have enough today and that it is selfish for me to work for more than I absolutely need.

A market-driven economy is defined by the absence of ceilings, which fuels the aspirations of our creative, innovative, and productive class.


User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2448 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12):
Which is why the middle class has been shrinking in this century

You have no perspective. The standard of living for the middle class is orders of magnitude greater than it was a century ago. We hit a recession and a weak recovery and the progressives start talking about the good old days of 1912...  
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12):
To build the middle class and increase the buying power of this group will take away from the wealthy.

False, wealth creation is not a zero sum game. Someone does not have to lose for me to win, and vice versa.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12):
Maybe they need to invest based on corporate performance. Take a look at Apple - they are delivering investment performance without regards to tax rates.

Your infatuation with comparing the entire range of private businesses to AAPL is tiresome. AAPL is a phenomenal company because they are delivering innovative new products into markets that didn't exist before they created them. They grow rapidly because they are expanding into a vacuum.

By that standard, no one should invest in growing an established industry. We would have no power companies, construction companies, insurance providers, clothing companies, etc. Different investors have different objectives, which drives different investment decisions. Not everyone is looking to ride the next hot stock with 50% annual growth.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12):
Maybe we need to simply say that income of all types is Income for tax purposes. That will put significant pressures on companies to deliver performance.

You'll just drive them out of business. People don't work and take risks for the sake of paying taxes.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12):
Then they are sitting there with their head where the sun doesn't shine. If you can turn stock and make an after tax profit then you should be turning that stock.

Not if I can expect a greater return by holding.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2448 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 13):
I'm "above average" in that I make more than $43K, but I'm not close to the income I eventually want to earn. So I work for it. You could argue that I have enough today and that it is selfish for me to work for more than I absolutely need.

And that is great. More power to you. "Liberals" do not hate anyone like that. What "liberals" hate are the people who sit back and wait for money to roll in. Like Romney, Cheney, Bush, et cetera.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 13):
A market-driven economy is defined by the absence of ceilings, which fuels the aspirations of our creative, innovative, and productive class.

But, because of huge tax breaks for the 1%, we do not have a productive class. We have a class that is just scraping by and paying for the few that are getting rich off tax breaks and off-shoring their wealth. It may not look like we have ceilings, but no one can afford to even think about getting to that point. We have to pay for housing, food, and getting to and from work. We can't even afford health care.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2443 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 15):
What "liberals" hate are the people who sit back and wait for money to roll in. Like Romney, Cheney, Bush, et cetera.

Running multi-billion dollar enterprises like a capital management firm, one of the largest oil field services companies, and an MLB franchise is really "sitting back."

That you actually "hate" these people shows derangement.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 15):
We have a class that is just scraping by and paying for the few that are getting rich off tax breaks and off-shoring their wealth.

How does one "get rich" off tax breaks? Think about what you are saying. Tax breaks on what? Oh that's right, a huge income that they earned by doing extremely high-value work. God forbid they keep what they earn. Are you actually more entitled to their work than they are?

And you are most certainly not "paying for the few" as the top 1% of income earners alone contribute 36% of all income tax revenue. The bottom 50% only pays 2.5% of income taxes.


User currently offlinevin2basketball From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2410 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 16):
And you are most certainly not "paying for the few" as the top 1% of income earners alone contribute 36% of all income tax revenue. The bottom 50% only pays 2.5% of income taxes.

While earning 20-22% of the income


User currently offlinevin2basketball From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2408 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12):
Which is why the middle class has been shrinking in this century. To build the middle class and increase the buying power of this group will take away from the wealthy.

Ken777, two things.

Firstly, the middle class has gotten smaller, because more people have moved into the higher income distribution

(Source: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/04/burkhauser_on_t.html)

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/07/...nging-middle-class-stagnation.html

Also from that source, the real purchasing power of the middle class has grown by leaps and bounds over the last 30 years, as has its quality of life. Now this new middle class may not be the same as the old manufacturing based middle class, but it is better off.

[Edited 2012-04-13 19:28:23]

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19415 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2391 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 13):
Centrally planned and heavily regulated economies diminish opportunities in all areas of life, not just wealth creation. Fulfillment, self-determination, health, well-being, individual liberty, all of that stuff. A market economy creates more choices and more opportunities for people to align their lives to the way they want to live.

Likewise, in a fully unregulated environment the same is true. Workers become slaves and have no upward mobility. A caste system forms.

The most prosperous situation for all concerned is a partially free-market economy with reasonable regulation. Europe, and particularly France, is a very good example of how to do it. Yes, Europe has had economic and financial crises, but so have we.

Let's not forget that the root of just about every violent revolution in history has been that the gap between the few "haves" and the many "have nots" got too big. If communism ever comes to America, it will be because capitalism was allowed to go completely out of control.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8190 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2372 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 13):
Centrally planned and heavily regulated economies diminish opportunities in all areas of life

And centrally planned and heavily regulated jobs like those warehouse jobs increase opportunities in all areas of life?

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 13):
Fulfillment, self-determination, health, well-being, individual liberty, all of that stuff.

Unless you have a serf level job in a warehouse.  
Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 13):
A market economy creates more choices and more opportunities for people to align their lives to the way they want to live.

And I'm sure those people in the warehouse serf jobs appreciate that.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 13):
A market-driven economy is defined by the absence of ceilings, which fuels the aspirations of our creative, innovative, and productive class.

The warehouse in the article has enough ceilings for most people. A Serf Economy Company if I ever saw one.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 14):
The standard of living for the middle class is orders of magnitude greater than it was a century ago.

But todays standard of living for the middle class is lower than it was in, say, the Clinton Years. I didn't realize you would have had problems with the comparison i made. Maybe I should have just said "Since Bush & Cheney screwed up the economy, started an unnecessary war, etc.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 14):
Someone does not have to lose for me to win, and vice versa.

No doubt about that.

At the same time we don't need to diminish the middle class in order for the wealthy to continue to grown their wealth.

Nor do we need to allow serf economy jobs.

If someone works a full time job they should earn enough to not need welfare (a good way to cut the debt and tax rates over time).

And companies should not be allowed to cut per hour wages for part time workers. Those part time jobs should actually cost more per hour.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 14):
Your infatuation with comparing the entire range of private businesses to AAPL is tiresome.

I've been comparing companies to Apple for years because of their overall performance. Is your preference a lower level of performance?

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 14):
AAPL is a phenomenal company because they are delivering innovative new products into markets that didn't exist before they created them.

Like computers, MP3 payers, mobile phones, tablets?

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 14):
They grow rapidly because they are expanding into a vacuum.

With computers, MP3 payers, mobile phones, tablets?

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 14):
By that standard, no one should invest in growing an established industry.

The mobile phone industry was pretty well established before Apple released the iPhone. Same with the MP3 industry before the iPod.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 14):
We would have no power companies,

[

Power companies (utilities) are generally monopolies with maximum profit levels allowed, which leaves them to be a stable source of income.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 14):
construction companies

When I look at construction companies my first thoughts are of construction companies I see working on the roads and bridges - via government contracts.

Then there are the construction companies building military projects, like carriers, fighters, war ships, etc.

Also under government contracts.

Then the decent paying jobs from these programs allow people to buy homes and othe stuff that requires construction companies and construction workers.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 14):
Not everyone is looking to ride the next hot stock with 50% annual growth.

Doesn't matter to me either way, as one as they pay their taxes on the income generated. And that includes all income being taxed at the same level.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 14):
You'll just drive them out of business.

And they will be replaced with companies that understand that it is net profit that counts and are able to be successful under that standard.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 14):
People don't work and take risks for the sake of paying taxes.

That's not an excuse for eliminating taxes. You sound like it's better for the taxes to go away and we can just print money instead.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 14):
Not if I can expect a greater return by holding.

Take your chances if you want. Investments go up and down so take your pick (risk) - it's the American way.

But that has nothing to do with our deterioration of the middle class. Unless your investments will grow with a serf economy.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2350 times:

Quoting GBLKD (Reply 9):
Nice.

It is, isn't it.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 10):
As a result, we need to reform capitalism by heavily diminishing its dependence on growth but still maintain its free and market driven character.

We actually need to break down barriers to allow the most free competition and encourage growth.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12):
Maybe if we shut those companies down new ones will start up and perform better on the employment side.

Certainly if you shut those companies down new ones will start up and perform better in Mexico or Malaysia, or any number of other places.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 14):
The standard of living for the middle class is orders of magnitude greater than it was a century ago.

   But, let's take this a step further: what's with the deification of the middle class? Why is that considered the end all be all of American life?

I don't know about anyone else, but screw middle class. I don't want that. I want to be upper class. If I make a million dollars, I want to go for two million.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 15):
What "liberals" hate are the people who sit back and wait for money to roll in.

You mean investors. The very lifeblood of a market economy. Yeah, hate them. They're evil.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
Europe, and particularly France, is a very good example of how to do it.

Their workers have a tendency to not work a whole lot though. Somebody in France is on strike? It must be Thursday.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 20):
Nor do we need to allow serf economy jobs.

You do if you want a strong and complete economy. People complain about losing blue collar jobs, but they only want them with better than blue collar wages. The real problem is that Americans think that simply being alive should punch their ticket for the middle class. The truth is that being uneducated, unskilled labor sucks. It sucks in this society and pretty much every other. The solution is to not be uneducated, unskilled labor.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3942 posts, RR: 28
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2336 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 6):
Why should I listen to you or the author of this piece when neither of you even know what slavery actually is?

You should have stopped as soon as you saw the name "Mother Jones" pop up.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 13):
The exploitation you describe becomes more wide-spread as regulation/planning increases because worker's opportunity to go elsewhere decreases

Not for him I am sure. He is a "social scientist" so I am sure he would be one of the wise annointed bureaucrats in the Politburo telling everyone else how to live. It would suck for those who actually work for a living, though.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 15):
And that is great. More power to you. "Liberals" do not hate anyone like that. What "liberals" hate are the people who sit back and wait for money to roll in. Like Romney, Cheney, Bush, et cetera.

Oh, you mean like book royalties?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
France, is a very good example of how to do it
Yes, if you are an ENA-graduated bureaucrat or part of one of the hundreds of parasitic classes that live off the government (from artists, to "intellectuals", to farmers, etc.) life is great. If you are one of the three people in France that actually produces more than what they take in life sucks. Good thing those people are smart enough to know where the train station is and that London is only two hours away.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2057 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2285 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 13):
You are just dead wrong, period.

Ah this is great.   "Hey Capitalism may not be ideal for everyone at every time." "NO YOU'RE WRONG PERIOD"   Signs of open-mindedness.

You still haven't said how you define "ideal outcome". Do it and we can discuss that. From reading between the lines, I suppose you're talking about quantifiable material riches, but you somehow refuse to say so.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 21):
The truth is that being uneducated, unskilled labor sucks. It sucks in this society and pretty much every other. The solution is to not be uneducated, unskilled labor.

The truth is that the working conditions of the warehouse workers in the article could have been improved easily and without rendering the company unprofitable.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 22):

You should have stopped as soon as you saw the name "Mother Jones" pop up.

Don't know who that is, but I find it amusing that you folks keep advocating not reading the article.   Which I find very reasonable from your side. Because if you religiously believe that a completely unregulated free market is some sort of divine perfection, you better keep your eyes tightly shut from the many ugly consequences it has.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 22):

Not for him I am sure. He is a "social scientist" so I am sure he would be one of the wise annointed bureaucrats in the Politburo telling everyone else how to live. It would suck for those who actually work for a living, though.

And now we arrive at the ad-hominem attacks. Really classy of you to suggest that I don't work for a living. Just FYI, I don't work for the government (I wouldn't see anything wrong with it if I did, I should add). Now if you find it acceptable to construct insults from profile information, I could add that one could also construct something from someone over the age of 26 still labelled a "student", but I'm certain there's a good reason for that, so I'm not going to. Just don't assume from what people have written in their profiles, is the point.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2255 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
Likewise, in a fully unregulated environment the same is true.

   Capitalism is great, no doubt about it. But, like pretty much everything else, let it run amok and you're going to have problems. There's a reason the term "market failure" exists.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 21):
But, let's take this a step further: what's with the deification of the middle class? Why is that considered the end all be all of American life?

I don't know about anyone else, but screw middle class. I don't want that. I want to be upper class. If I make a million dollars, I want to go for two million.

You're basically advocating a caste system, where those who are lucky enough to make it to the upper class live very well, and those who don't get to live off of nothing, with very little mobility between the two. That will eventually lead to a revolution, when there are so many in the lower class who are sick of being stuck there while the rich get richer and richer that they revolt and set up something else.

Not everybody can be upper class - the economy couldn't sustain it. You need some people doing unskilled labor. That doesn't mean you should look down on them, treat them like crap, and then say that it's their own fault.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 21):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
Europe, and particularly France, is a very good example of how to do it.

Their workers have a tendency to not work a whole lot though.

And yet their economy is not in shambles, and they enjoy a high standard of living and a good quality of life.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12345 posts, RR: 25
Reply 25, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2287 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 13):

That's not really for you to decide. I'm "above average" in that I make more than $43K, but I'm not close to the income I eventually want to earn. So I work for it. You could argue that I have enough today and that it is selfish for me to work for more than I absolutely need.

We in the US live in a democracy and so there are a lot of things that others do decide for us, especially when it comes to money and in particular taxes. I'm reminded of this as I pull out my copy of TurboTax, trying to get my taxes done a few days before the deadline, because indeed I spend most of my time working hard on complex software engineering problems as opposed to spending my days shifting money around from place to place to get the most advantage for me.

As much as the wealthy have been able to use their wealth to make it all be about them, they would not be where they are without a whole lot of lower and middle class wage earners. They have relied on nannies, school teachers, professors, gardeners, mechanics, plumbers, construction workers, factory workers, retail workers and countless others, and these people need consideration too.

The debate isn't about cutting you back to what you absolutely need, it's about what is fair up and down the income scale, and about all of us having a say in what that fairness is.

Personally I don't think we are anywhere near the point where the movers and shakers are going to just pack it in just because of taxes. As they say, that's a classy kind of problem to have. The wealthy have gotten historically better tax treatment ever since the days of Reagan/Stockman trickle down economics, yet it hasn't led us anywhere. I think we're much closer to the point where lower or middle class people pack it in because they see no way forward, and that has nothing to do with the tax rate they'll get hit with if/when they're making $250k.

And I will add to the chorus here who are saying there is more to your working life than making the absolute most amount of money and paying the absolute least amount of taxes. Yes, we work to make and keep money, but IMHO the need for money should get balanced against taking advantage of the talents you are given and the enjoyment the use of these talents can bring. I have found that focusing on using my talents has always created plenty of income, and made my life more enjoyable too. Conversely, some of the most miserable people I've met are the ones who are focused just on the money.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 20):
Unless you have a serf level job in a warehouse.

Personally, I don't see much wrong with these warehouse jobs, presuming they are obeying the labor laws.

There's always going to be less desirable jobs, and this just happens to be the kind we have in our current times.

If the work sucks so bad that no one will take the jobs, then the conditions will change.

Of course, the bad publicity these jobs are getting is a key part of that, so I see nothing wrong with complaining about warehouse jobs either.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2057 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2285 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):

Not everybody can be upper class - the economy couldn't sustain it. You need some people doing unskilled labor. That doesn't mean you should look down on them, treat them like crap, and then say that it's their own fault.

My grandfather left school after 9th grade and started working in the metal industry. He never got a high school diploma, let alone a university degree. Yet by working hard, he was able to build a house, support a family of four and send his children to university.

Try that today, they'll laugh in your face.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8190 posts, RR: 8
Reply 27, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2245 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 21):
Certainly if you shut those companies down new ones will start up and perform better in Mexico or Malaysia, or any number of other places.

You might be surprised. Shutting down companies the operate outside the laws and regulations doesn't mean that another, more reputable company can't come in and replace them. Of course, you might have to pay an additional 2¢ for a product shipped from a reputable company.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19415 posts, RR: 58
Reply 28, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2239 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 21):
I don't know about anyone else, but screw middle class. I don't want that. I want to be upper class. If I make a million dollars, I want to go for two million.

Nice to admit that you are purely motivated by greed.

But worry you not, you can't possibly become upper class. The upper class has made that much clear. You will sooner get eaten by a shark while getting struck by lightning.


User currently offlinejohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2223 times:

The difference between an American liberal and conservative is this--
A liberal hates his country but loves its people--"America is the world's bully but we should strive to help all of our fellow Americans".
A conservative loves his country but hates its people--"America can do no wrong and we should spread its system everywhere, even by force. However, if those lazy, dumb lower class people won't work for a pittance, we'll move their jobs overseas and let them starve".


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7943 posts, RR: 12
Reply 30, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2214 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 21):
We actually need to break down barriers to allow the most free competition and encourage growth.

The question remains where, in the long run, growth is supposed to come from.

Let's assume Beiersdorf (Nivea) sells 1 million cans of deodorants in 2012. Next year they need to sell more than 1 million, say: 1.005 million cans and in 2014 even more and in 2015 even more. Sure, they have more in their portfolio, but the fact remains that, should Beiersdorf grow, L'Oreal or Garnier will grow less or not grow at all. Beiersdorf did not generate enough growth to please the shareholders, which is why Beiersdorf is trouble. A shrinking population doesn't exactly help. They look forward to sell more in Brasil and open a plant there, in other words move much of their business to outside of Europe. So how do we generate growth in developed countries like the Netherlands, Germany or the U.S.?
Perhaps Beiersdorf will be fortunate enough to develop something truly expectional (not just the 79th deodorant) and make huge profits. But then Beiersdorf's competitors would be in trouble. I feel we don't generate true growth anymore, but merely move the cake from one place to another.

And then there is the ecological factor of course. We cannot grow bigger than this world allows us to do.

[Edited 2012-04-14 13:36:15]


I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 31, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2206 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
Not everybody can be upper class - the economy couldn't sustain it.

Just like the economy can't sustain itself without $9 per hour warehouse jobs...somewhere.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 27):
Of course, you might have to pay an additional 2¢ for a product shipped from a reputable company.

Why would I do that?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28):
Nice to admit that you are purely motivated by greed.

Of course I am. One could call it ambition, but it's all the same thing really. Greed is a beautiful thing when you think about it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinejohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2169 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 21):
I don't know about anyone else, but screw middle class. I don't want that. I want to be upper class. If I make a million dollars, I want to go for two million.

I see from your profile that you're a student. You need to take some investing and economics classes. One million dollars ain't sh*t. Someone making only $35K can make that amount in less than 30 years. One million invested ain't sh*t, either. That would only give you about $40K annually to live on.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 33, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2145 times:

Quoting johns624 (Reply 32):
You need to take some investing and economics classes. One million dollars ain't sh*t. Someone making only $35K can make that amount in less than 30 years.

Believe me, I know a million isn't much, I was just throwing out a number. I was just having this conversation with my dad, who still thinks that a million is still a lot of money, when in reality, it only entitles one to pay more in taxes and a middle class lifestyle.

Frankly, there is no excuse for any American these days to not retire with less than a million dollars. If you do, chances are you've been mismanaging your money for a long time.

I always say I want to make enough money that I stop caring about money. I have no idea how much that is, but almost certainly well into nine figures.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12345 posts, RR: 25
Reply 34, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2137 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 31):
One could call it ambition, but it's all the same thing really. Greed is a beautiful thing when you think about it.
Ambition: An earnest desire for some type of achievement or distinction, as power, honor, fame, or wealth, and the willingness to strive for its attainment.

Greed: Excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions.


Nope, not the same thing.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinejohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2128 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 33):
I always say I want to make enough money that I stop caring about money. I have no idea how much that is, but almost certainly well into nine figures.

Nine figures??? What line of work are you planning on getting into? With the market just averaging around 4-5% the last decade (if that), that'll be hard to do. Don't forget, having children and paying for their education reduces greatly what you can save for yourself.


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7943 posts, RR: 12
Reply 36, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2123 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 33):
I was just having this conversation with my dad, who still thinks that a million is still a lot of money

Well, your dad is right. And so is Revelation: Ambition and greed are not the same.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 33):
Frankly, there is no excuse for any American these days to not retire with less than a million dollars.

You sound like a spoiled brat here.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 37, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2104 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 8):
Please. Wage slavery is a long-established concept; if you're not familiar with it, I suggest you look it up.

Slavery is a very simple concept: forced labor. Nothing more, nothing less.

Even the COMPLETE absence of a wage does not imply slavery.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12345 posts, RR: 25
Reply 38, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2086 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 37):
Slavery is a very simple concept: forced labor. Nothing more, nothing less.

I guess it's my night to go to dictionary.com:

slavery: the condition of a slave

slave: a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another


So one person could enslave another without ever making them work.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 39, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2082 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 34):
Nope, not the same thing.

Where the rubber meets the road it is. The only meaningful borderline is the line between legal and illegal.

Quoting johns624 (Reply 35):
What line of work are you planning on getting into?

I want to start in aerospace and end up God knows where. It might end up being an industry that hasn't been invented yet.

Of course I know the odds are against me and I'll most likely never reach that plateau. But I don't want it to be for lack of trying. But it's far better to achieve only a fraction of an outlandish goal than to get the entirety of a mundane "American Dream." And then there is the possibility that I could make $100,000,000 and still not be satisfied, which wouldn't be the worst thing. After all, the most important million anybody ever makes is their next million. One always must be looking to push the limits: a little bit further, a little bit faster, a little bit better. What's the point of doing anything if you aren't trying to be the greatest ever?

The truth is I don't lose sleep over the size of the American middle class, or the conditions of Chinese factory workers. I lose sleep wondering how old I'll be when I can afford my first Porsche.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 36):
You sound like a spoiled brat here.

...or just somebody that understands the power of discipline and compound interest.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 40, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2077 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 33):
I always say I want to make enough money that I stop caring about money. I have no idea how much that is, but almost certainly well into nine figures.

You won't make that much money with hard work alone, you need to create something that people want. You could do it the Mitt Romney way as well or get into the black market.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 33):
Frankly, there is no excuse for any American these days to not retire with less than a million dollars. If you do, chances are you've been mismanaging your money for a long time.

I betting not as there are many things in life that will prevent you from saving money at that rate, perhaps someone gets sick or one of their children has a genetic disease that requires constant treatment. There are many things that happen that are beyond the control of others that may have an affect on how much money they can save.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
The truth is I don't lose sleep over the size of the American middle class, or the conditions of Chinese factory workers. I lose sleep wondering how old I'll be when I can afford my first Porsche.

Well if you think that way that is your business but you do have some serious growing up to do because if you do get all the money and toys you desire and in the end no one loves or cares for you then you are not going to be happy no matter how much green you have.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12345 posts, RR: 25
Reply 41, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2060 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
Where the rubber meets the road it is. The only meaningful borderline is the line between legal and illegal.

Maybe for your definition of "meaningful".

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
The truth is I don't lose sleep over the size of the American middle class, or the conditions of Chinese factory workers. I lose sleep wondering how old I'll be when I can afford my first Porsche.
Wikipedia now:

Quote:

Materialism (adj. materialistic) is the excessive desire to consume and acquire material goods. It is often bound up with a value system which regards social status as being determined by affluence (see conspicuous consumption) as well as the perception that happiness can be increased through buying, spending and accumulating material wealth. Positively, materialism might be considered a pragmatic form of enlightened self-interest based on a prudent understanding of the character of capitalist society. Negatively, it is considered a crass, if not false, value system induced by the spell of commodity fetishism and void of more noble and worthy values.

Good luck with that.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 42, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2050 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
What's the point of doing anything if you aren't trying to be the greatest ever?

How exactly can you be the greatest ever at owning a Porsche? Seems like that would be a very hard thing to objectively measure.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinesccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5490 posts, RR: 28
Reply 43, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2033 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 3):
However, it is also a fact that those mechanisms benefit the few, and disadvantage the many. And I don't have the impression that most people are aware of that.

An imperfect system. Just better than any other conceived thus far.

And they've all been tried.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2057 posts, RR: 2
Reply 44, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1990 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 37):

Slavery is a very simple concept: forced labor. Nothing more, nothing less.

Even the COMPLETE absence of a wage does not imply slavery.

I suggested you look up wage slavery, and again you talk about slavery, which in the context we're discussing really isn't particularly relevant. Here's a link then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

Quoting sccutler (Reply 43):

An imperfect system. Just better than any other conceived thus far.

More efficient than any other in allocating resources and in promoting economic growth.

Yet it appears that one could contain some of its negative effects without curbing its efficiency - something that several people on this thread deny.   That's what makes it interesting..



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlinejohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1969 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
I want to start in aerospace and end up God knows where. It might end up being an industry that hasn't been invented yet.

So basically, you have no ideas or talents in any particular area. You just want to make money. Like StarAC17 said, you won't make that money working for someone else.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 46, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1935 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 44):
I suggested you look up wage slavery, and again you talk about slavery, which in the context we're discussing really isn't particularly relevant. Here's a link then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

AGAIN, the term is ridiculous and designed to do nothing more than to inflame. I am perfectly aware of it's definition. And I continue to stick to what I am saying and go further: people who use it should be called out on it EVERY TIME because the analogy this term tries to invoke is illogical and dishonest.

It is nothing but a propaganda term.

[Edited 2012-04-15 07:51:26]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinedarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1347 posts, RR: 3
Reply 47, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1924 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 33):

Frankly, there is no excuse for any American these days to not retire with less than a million dollars. If you do, chances are you've been mismanaging your money for a long time.

Or maybe just having your pension wiped out in the last five years before retirement...



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 48, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1917 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 16):
Running multi-billion dollar enterprises like a capital management firm, one of the largest oil field services companies, and an MLB franchise is really "sitting back."

Actually, it is. Have you paid for a gallon of gas lately? Or gone to a baseball game? Or bought stocks?

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 16):
huge income that they earned by doing extremely high-value work.

That the middle class can not afford. It is only high-value to other wealthy people. For a hated low-income wage slave like me, they are just driving up prices so I can't make any money.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 21):
You mean investors. The very lifeblood of a market economy.

Which has nothing to do with the middle class. Except we give them tons of cash when they crash the markets.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 31):
Greed is a beautiful thing when you think about it.

I believe that was said just before the market crash in 1929, 2008, and the mid-1990s...



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2057 posts, RR: 2
Reply 49, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1908 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 46):

AGAIN, the term is ridiculous and designed to do nothing more than to inflame. I am perfectly aware of it's definition. And I continue to stick to what I am saying and go further: people who use it should be called out on it EVERY TIME because the analogy this term tries to invoke is illogical and dishonest.

It is nothing but a propaganda term.

Do you object to the existence of the term wage slavery in general, or to the use of the term wage slavery in the article that I linked to?

If the latter, can you explain in what way the people in the article weren't subject to wage slavery?

And please, once again, stick to "wage slavery", not "slavery" which is not in discussion here.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 50, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1901 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 49):
Do you object to the existence of the term wage slavery in general, or to the use of the term wage slavery in the article that I linked to?

In general.

Quoting Rara (Reply 49):
And please, once again, stick to "wage slavery", not "slavery" which is not in discussion here.

From the wiki article you linked:

"It is a negatively connoted term used to draw an analogy between slavery and wage labor, and to highlight similarities between owning and employing a person."

Slavery is at the core of the term.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 51, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1885 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 33):
Frankly, there is no excuse for any American these days to not retire with less than a million dollars.
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 36):
You sound like a spoiled brat here.

Do you think it would be "spoiled" to say that there is no excuse for an adult not to maintain a healthy body weight?

$1 million in retirement savings is quite achievable by investing no more $2,500 a year in average mutual funds. That is 10% (or less) of household income for 3 out of 4 Americans. If you can't set aside that kind of money, you are living above your means today. Your personal savings/retirement should be the first bill you pay each month.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 48):
I believe that was said just before the market crash in 1929, 2008, and the mid-1990s...

Markets that recovered each time. Capitalism entails restructuring when bubbles are created by overzealous investments. It is not for the faint of heart, but it leads to faster and more efficient growth than any other system.

--------------

This entire argument ultimately ends when you realize that capitalism is the economic equivalent to representative government. No one wants economic choices made on their behalf any more than they want birth-right monarchy or an unelected authoritarian regime. Market capitalism allows every consumer decision to act as a vote for the enterprises that offer products and services that they prefer. Time-and-time again, state regulated economies fail to offer innovative choices for consumers and prop-up obsolete industries, shoddy goods, inefficient services, etc.


User currently offlinejohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1878 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 51):
$1 million in retirement savings is quite achievable by investing no more $2,500 a year in average mutual funds

I don't believe that that is true anymore. The flat market of the last 10 years has skewed the average return over the life of the market.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9167 posts, RR: 29
Reply 53, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1867 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 44):
Yet it appears that one could contain some of its negative effects without curbing its efficiency - something that several people on this thread deny. That's what makes it interesting..

Now, I did not read all the 40 plus answers here and I read only the first page of that article by the human rights editor.

The working conditions she describes are possibly what reality in Mississippi or other parts of the US are, they are certainly not reality for western Europe.

3PL logistics providers work in a highly competetive field. They submit for contracts and the larger the customer is, the lower the margins of the 3PL provider. Their customers themselves usually work in a highly competetive environment and the beneficiary is the customer who gets good value for money. That is how "capitalism" works. That those who invest in ideas and business must get a decent return on investment goes without saying. More than often it is with borrowed money, in the USA usually on the stock market where the "capitalists" are pension funds and small people who better theoir pensions.

One must not forget that most of the 3PL jobs are unskilled labor which are constantly subject to automatization.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8408 posts, RR: 3
Reply 54, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1862 times:

Quoting Rara (Thread starter):
It was true in 18th century Manchester, and it is still true today.

Thanks to industrial Manchester and American factories, a lot of peace, prosperity and freedom has been gained.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 48):
I believe that was said just before the market crash in 1929, 2008, and the mid-1990s...

Today, we are past the damage from all 3 crashes. People did lose their jobs, but if nobody ever lost a job, this place would be an East German tyrrany pretty fast. Job loss is a fact of life. People need to be ready for that at all times.

There is an alternative. We can have our government protect us from any job loss and sent us a check each month. We can dust off history books about bread lines in the Soviet Union and learn all about that.


User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 55, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1858 times:

Quoting johns624 (Reply 52):
I don't believe that that is true anymore. The flat market of the last 10 years has skewed the average return over the life of the market.

If the rate of return is dampened, it would just mean that more principle is required to achieve your target future value.

The values I provided are correct, even accounting for the weak stock market of the 2000s. We've had weak stock markets last a decade in the past, like the 1970s. And yet, the performance of the S&P 500 from April 1972 through April 2012 is 6.6% CAGR. From April 1982 through April 2012, it's 8.5% CAGR. Keep in mind, lots of mutual funds beat that.

Assuming 7.5% annual growth, entering workforce at 18, retiring at 65, one must contribute $2590 per year. If one is investing a full 10% of their income, that would imply total earnings of $25,900. More than 72% of American households earn $25,000 or more.

Anyway, it's pointless to get caught up in the minor details about whether someone must earn at least $25,000 or $28,000 or if they get a return of 6.6% or 8.5%. Only 1% of American households will reach millionaire status when it should be double-digit percentages. The fact that most households have less than $100K in equities outside their home shows that the vast majority of households don't even try to build wealth. Most people would rather consume today than build toward a better life tomorrow.


User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 56, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1845 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 16):
Running multi-billion dollar enterprises like a capital management firm, one of the largest oil field services companies, and an MLB franchise is really "sitting back."
Quoting seb146 (Reply 48):
Actually, it is. Have you paid for a gallon of gas lately? Or gone to a baseball game? Or bought stocks?

Please elaborate on how this means executives aren't doing work. Because gasoline and baseball games are more expensive than you would like? Because stocks have risk?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 48):
That the middle class can not afford. It is only high-value to other wealthy people.

So the middle class doesn't buy gasoline and natural gas? The middle class doesn't shop at Staples, Dominos Pizza, Dunkin Donuts, Burger King, Sports Authority or the other businesses restructured by Bain Capital? The middle class doesn't attend baseball games?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 48):
Which has nothing to do with the middle class. Except we give them tons of cash when they crash the markets.

You really don't understand economics. Wealth is not transferred when a market crashes, it means the assets in the market have been revalued at a lower price. When the market crashed in 2008, my holdings were not transferred to Mitt Romney, etc.

This is ridiculous as your "middle class pays the upper class nonsense" about tax cuts.


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3942 posts, RR: 28
Reply 57, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1827 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 48):
I believe that was said just before the market crash in 1929, 2008, and the mid-1990s...

Market crashes are corrections and they are good things. And the only reason those corrections happen is because of, yes, greed - because some people are "greedy" enough to study the fundamentals of stocksm understand they are over-valued, and short them, and other people are "greedy" enough to start selling when the market reaches the peak and on the way down to limit their losses. If stock markets didn't crash once in a while, corrections would be all the more violent, and people would still be valuing Pets.com at $10 billion, or Instagram at $1 billion (oh, wait...).

As a quote I once saw (don't remember the source) once said, "the idea that we will ever have regulators able to identify bubbles and stop them in time is ridiculous. If those people existed, you would never be able to afford them". John Paulson saw one and made $6 billion for himself when the sub-prime market crashed. Ben Bernanke had a limitless balance sheet and access to a lot more information than Paulson had - how much money did he make for the Fed?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 48):
Actually, it is. Have you paid for a gallon of gas lately? Or gone to a baseball game? Or bought stocks?

The level of economic illiteracy in this post is so amazing I don't even know where to start... So, because gas costs more than you think it should running an organization of hundreds of thousands of people is not work? How many hours a week do you think an average CEO works, and how many hours do you think they worked on average in the 20+ years it took to get them there? And what the hell do you mean about "bought stocks"? Do you even have any idea of what Private Equity is?

Maybe if you spent less time on spewing your vitriole on the Internet and more on, say, reading up on Wikipedia or on thw WSJ website, you would be in a better economic position and not complain about the big, bad, boogeyman all the time.

Quoting johns624 (Reply 52):
I don't believe that that is true anymore. The flat market of the last 10 years has skewed the average return over the life of the market.

Having Ben Bernanke crank up the printing machine in his never-ending war on savers doesn't help either (it will create another bubble of risk assets, though, but can't wait to see the economically illiterate blame the next one on Wall Street again).

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 53):
More than often it is with borrowed money, in the USA usually on the stock market

What are you talking about? People don't borrow money on the stock market - you go to the stock market for equity (i.e., permanent) capital.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently onlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8697 posts, RR: 43
Reply 58, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1828 times:

God, I love these threads. Doubt the neoliberal belief system, prepare for the wrath of The Free Marketers.   

A right shame that unregulated markets lead to revolution, isn't it? If only those damn hungry and unwashed massed realised that their problems are their and only their own fault.  



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinekric777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 279 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1814 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Can't speak for folks in other countries with different economic systems, but ....having been born and raised in the US, in a blue-collar, Dad-busted-his-ass-in-a-steel-mill-16-hours-a-day environment, it was always pounded into my head that ---

"Nobody owes you anything--you need to work your A$$ off in order to make a living for yourself."

Whether that mindset is right or wrong can be debated elsewhere, but because of it, (and because I'm not a trust-fund brat) when I turned 18, I did indeed work my a$$ off in a horrible job that I hated in order to pay the bills and college tuition for several years. It sucked. Big time. But you know what? ...eventually, I got a degree and landed a job that affords me a pretty nice living that is much better than that of all of my lame-ass friends that chose to just screw off, bar-hop, get high, and have illegitimate children in their 20s. They laughed at me when I was carrying school books around and doing homework instead of partying.

Not patting myself on the back--any number of folks have done the same thing I have. But the point is that the left-wing paradigm that dictates that if you are not born into money, you are hopelessly destined for abject poverty and/or "wage slavery" is complete fiction. Is it easy to make your way in a capitalist society? Hell no! -- a lot of times, it sucks. But it is do-able!


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8190 posts, RR: 8
Reply 60, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1784 times:

Quoting johns624 (Reply 29):
The difference between an American liberal and conservative is this--

You forgot the moderates. Loving our country isn't a problem, not is serving in uniform. We support private enterprise with the same vigor that we support equal right or core health care availability. We also support a strong middle class, home ownership and paying taxes that support good schools.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 30):
So how do we generate growth in developed countries like the Netherlands, Germany or the U.S.?

Ask Apple.         

You can also increase growth in the US by building up the middle class again.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 30):
The question remains where, in the long run, growth is supposed to come from.

Growth from individual companies can come from focusing on the customer. Apple shows that pretty well.

Increasing the middle class, especially in terms of buying power, financial stability, health stability and good educationaly systems also do a pretty good job at corporate growth.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 31):
Why would I do that?

The reality is that you would not even notice it. You buy 50 items and spend an extra buck. Do you really believe you will notice the difference? Or are you the type who will spend 2 hours driving all over town to save 2¢ a gallon on gas?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 31):
Just like the economy can't sustain itself without $9 per hour warehouse jobs...somewhere.

And the economy can do better if those were $15 an hour jobs and we had core Medicare for all.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 31):
Of course I am. One could call it ambition, but it's all the same thing really. Greed is a beautiful thing when you think about it.

Hate to tel you, but there is a difference between ambition and greed. Someone might have the ambition of being a Chief in the Navy - that certainly doesn't fall under Greed. Or maybe they have an ambition to be an outstanding math & science teacher in a small town school system. Don't see much greed there either. How about those folks who's ambition is to become a nurse? How much greed is there in that situation, as opposed to ambition.

Ambition is focused on achievement while greed is simply grabbing as much for yourself as your can. Big difference there. Unfortunately too many Americans seem to have lost an understanding of that difference. Greed has pushed out ambition for too many and the country is poor for it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 33):
I was just having this conversation with my dad, who still thinks that a million is still a lot of money, when in reality, it only entitles one to pay more in taxes and a middle class lifestyle.

With a million a year you can live very well, even after paying your taxes. With a million in investments and an average job you can still live pretty well, as long as you are not obsessed with buying "stuff".

For someone in their 20's or 30's or 40's the reality is that your million dollars can disappear as fast as a nasty medical condition is diagnosed. Our system is, of course, way overprices in comparison to other countries, and our system supports stripping folks of their assets. That million will be a drop in the bucket for many unless, of course, they know how to hide it and can pay for a good bankruptcy lawyer.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 33):
Frankly, there is no excuse for any American these days to not retire with less than a million dollars. If you do, chances are you've been mismanaging your money for a long time.

        

You gotta be kidding. Here you are supporting the lowest wages possible so you won't have to pay an extra 2¢ an item and you expect people in the lower economic classes to retire a millionaire?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 33):
I always say I want to make enough money that I stop caring about money.

That will only happen when you discover that it's important to enjoy living without an obsession over money. Solid middle class can provide that goal, especially if we move to a more intelligent medical payment system that doesn't put your savings and investments at risk.

But if you just have to have that McMansion and a Lexus in the driveway for all drivers in the family then you might have some problems ahead.


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3942 posts, RR: 28
Reply 61, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1771 times:

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 47):
Or maybe just having your pension wiped out in the last five years before retirement...

That is why defined benefit plans (both public and private) should be banned, but every time you see an employer try to switch people to a 401(k) type system you see all the unions throwing up a stink.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2057 posts, RR: 2
Reply 62, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1764 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 50):
Quoting Rara (Reply 49):
Do you object to the existence of the term wage slavery in general, or to the use of the term wage slavery in the article that I linked to?

In general.

Ah OK, then I'm afraid we can't do much about it. It's a term that has been established centuries ago and used by a great number of economists, politicians and writers... if you believe it should never have been invented, then I guess we can only take note of it and move on.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 60):

Hate to tel you, but there is a difference between ambition and greed. Someone might have the ambition of being a Chief in the Navy - that certainly doesn't fall under Greed. Or maybe they have an ambition to be an outstanding math & science teacher in a small town school system. Don't see much greed there either. How about those folks who's ambition is to become a nurse? How much greed is there in that situation, as opposed to ambition.

Ambition is focused on achievement while greed is simply grabbing as much for yourself as your can. Big difference there. Unfortunately too many Americans seem to have lost an understanding of that difference. Greed has pushed out ambition for too many and the country is poor for it.

Well said.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3942 posts, RR: 28
Reply 63, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1753 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 62):
Ah OK, then I'm afraid we can't do much about it. It's a term that has been established centuries ago and used by a great number of economists, politicians and writers... if you believe it should never have been invented, then I guess we can only take note of it and move on.

Maybe in some social "science" class among fellow lefties the term has traction but that does not mean it makes any sense (just like calling East Germany the "Democratic Republic of Germany" did not make it a Democracy). People need to eat to survive - to get food you need to either pick it, grow it, kill it or do something of value to someone so you can get the food or something to exchange for food. If people are subject to "wage slavery" (which would apply to every single person on the planet, btw) then lions are subject to "hunting slavery", or koalas are subject to "eucaliptus slavery".



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2057 posts, RR: 2
Reply 64, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1736 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 63):

Maybe in some social "science" class among fellow lefties the term has traction but that does not mean it makes any sense (just like calling East Germany the "Democratic Republic of Germany" did not make it a Democracy). People need to eat to survive - to get food you need to either pick it, grow it, kill it or do something of value to someone so you can get the food or something to exchange for food. If people are subject to "wage slavery" (which would apply to every single person on the planet, btw) then lions are subject to "hunting slavery", or koalas are subject to "eucaliptus slavery".

Yes, very clever. Why do I get the feeling that you're simply too lazy to do some reading about it.   You describe the dependency on a wage as something that's naturally human, while in fact it's a rather recent phenomenon. Until the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, very few people were employed in a contemporary sense of the word. Most were peasants, craftsmen, hunters, and so on. Some were entrepreneurial, some worked only for their own subsistence. Most, however, owned their means of production. They had to work hard to survive, but in the end if was their own business how much they worked. One notable exception, however, were slaves: they HAD to work for somebody else, and they had no choice.

Now, the Industrial Revolution created a new class of people, commonly called the proletariat, who didn't own their means of production anymore and had only their own labor force to sell. In effect, that meant that they HAD to work for somebody else, and that made them, in the eyes of people back them, similar to slaves in this very significant regard. Hence the term wage slaves.

It appears that the term rubs you in the wrong way since you're so adamantly against it. You may have some reason or other for that, I don't know. Regardless of your feelings, it's simply a historic term that is mostly analytic, not primarily ideological.

By the way, the ability to look at economic issues from an analytic viewpoint and to use descriptive terms without immediately resorting to ideology is something that you could learn in a social science class.   Just as a recommendation.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 65, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1734 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 48):
Which has nothing to do with the middle class. Except we give them tons of cash when they crash the markets.

What middle class people do you know? Pretty much everyone has some money invested with mutual funds, etc. They're all investors and shareholders, not just the evil one-percenters. Granted that doesn't fit with your narrative...

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 60):
The reality is that you would not even notice it.

Considering all the things that people buy, it adds up.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 60):
Someone might have the ambition of being a Chief in the Navy - that certainly doesn't fall under Greed.

Greed doesn't have to be money. Why would someone want to become a Chief? Higher status? Better pay? The chance to lead? Because it's something that they want to do and makes them feel good about themselves? Yep, that is greed.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 60):
Or maybe they have an ambition to be an outstanding math & science teacher in a small town school system. Don't see much greed there either. How about those folks who's ambition is to become a nurse?

Because helping people makes them feel good about themselves.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 60):
Here you are supporting the lowest wages possible so you won't have to pay an extra 2¢ an item and you expect people in the lower economic classes to retire a millionaire?

The difference between a job and a career. If you keep a warehouse job for 40 years at $9 per hour, than you're an idiot for a) not gaining the skills to get a better job or b) sucking at that job enough to not get a promotion for four decades.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 60):
That will only happen when you discover that it's important to enjoy living without an obsession over money.

The desire for money and success is what makes like interesting.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7943 posts, RR: 12
Reply 66, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1734 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 60):
Ask Apple.

You can also increase growth in the US by building up the middle class again.

Right on both accounts, and at the same time a pretty superficial sort of thinking. It does not negate the fact that we will need a market driven economy that can deal with zero growth or near-zero growth in the not so distant future.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently onlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8697 posts, RR: 43
Reply 67, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1727 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 60):
Hate to tel you, but there is a difference between ambition and greed.

Absolutely, there's a reason why greed is one of the mortal sins. I suppose the "problem" here is that ambition is more abstract than greed; it's much easier to lust after status symbols, recognition and the like than it is to find out and accept what your innermost wishes are - because those might not conform to the social norms that you've grown up with. Sadly, those norms often attribute the most value to material wealth.

Once you realise that value is in so much more than possessions, you'll realise that you can live quite a happy and full life without being a millionnaire.  



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12345 posts, RR: 25
Reply 68, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1727 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 60):
Ambition is focused on achievement while greed is simply grabbing as much for yourself as your can. Big difference there. Unfortunately too many Americans seem to have lost an understanding of that difference. Greed has pushed out ambition for too many and the country is poor for it.

And too many seem to think if one questions the income inequity in this country that one must be saying that one supports putting as many people on the dole as possible, when that's not the case.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinejohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1700 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 65):
Because helping people makes them feel good about themselves.

Something that it appears you know nothing about.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 70, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1694 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 62):
It's a term that has been established centuries ago and used by a great number of economists, politicians and writers...

Great, people like Marx? LOL

Quoting Rara (Reply 64):
One notable exception, however, were slaves: they HAD to work for somebody else, and they had no choice.

You speak as if owning the means of production is the only difference between slavery and wage workers. Zero credibility to anyone who thinks that way.

Quoting Rara (Reply 64):
Now, the Industrial Revolution created a new class of people, commonly called the proletariat, who didn't own their means of production anymore and had only their own labor force to sell. In effect, that meant that they HAD to work for somebody else, and that made them, in the eyes of people back them, similar to slaves in this very significant regard. Hence the term wage slaves.

No, they DON'T HAVE to work for anyone else, and this is true to this day. Many, many people choose to work for themselves. And no, you can STILL work for your own subsistence. The fact that few if any still do is because working for your own substance SUCKS and they find the "slave wage" job they were offered to be a better alternative. Not forgetting, of course, that some people out there aren't good managers, so after the industrial revolution they actually have a much better alternative: working for someone else, rather than their own poorly performing or failing operation.

And if you think substance agriculture is a great work environment rather than back-breaking hard work that will probably give you skin cancer, I have a beautiful beach front property in Oklahoma to sell you.

Quoting Rara (Reply 64):
It appears that the term rubs you in the wrong way since you're so adamantly against it. You may have some reason or other for that, I don't know. Regardless of your feelings, it's simply a historic term that is mostly analytic, not primarily ideological.

I do have a reason: it's illogical.

Quoting Rara (Reply 64):
By the way, the ability to look at economic issues from an analytic viewpoint and to use descriptive terms without immediately resorting to ideology is something that you could learn in a social science class.   Just as a recommendation.

Analytics??? This subject of how much a minimum wage should be is ENTIRELY subjective.

The problem with social sciences is, barring a few people, most don't have good grasps of concepts like analytics, subjectivity, abstract concepts, objectivity, etc.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8408 posts, RR: 3
Reply 71, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1688 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 64):
created a new class of people, commonly called the proletariat, who didn't own their means of production anymore

So... it was a middle class, between the peasants and the lords. Most people are very proud that Western history made that phenomenon happen.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 70):
The fact that few if any still do is because working for your own substance SUCKS and they find the "slave wage" job they were offered to be a better alternative.

Exactly. 500 years ago, almost all humans (including my ancestors) were peasants. We can yearn for the authenticity of those days... ignorantly.... without ever having lived as a peasant. It's an idle passtime for some people, people with idle time, people of privilege.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 72, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1675 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 65):
What middle class people do you know?

Cashiers at Wal-Mart, forklift drivers, nurses, bus drivers, mechanics, teachers....



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 73, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1674 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 72):
Cashiers at Wal-Mart, forklift drivers, nurses, bus drivers, mechanics, teachers...

Didn't know that working at Walmart disqualifies one from walking into their local Edward Jones office or the equivalent.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinejohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1675 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 73):
Didn't know that working at Walmart disqualifies one from walking into their local Edward Jones office or the equivalent.

People at WalMart don't have a lot of disposable income to invest. Most of it goes towards things like food, gas, shelter, etc.
What you have to realize is that not all people were born with the same intelligence or physical gifts. My wife works for a nonprofit and helps people with developmental disabilities find work. It's not easy for them and they're never going to save any money and it's not their fault. You may want to look up the definition of a word I know you're not familiar with: "EMPATHY".


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 75, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1665 times:

Quoting johns624 (Reply 74):
My wife works for a nonprofit and helps people with developmental disabilities find work. It's not easy for them and they're never going to save any money and it's not their fault. You may want to look up the definition of a word I know you're not familiar with: "EMPATHY".

Virtue only exists where free choice exists. There is no virtue in the government mandating (i.e., threatening you) to help someone else, no matter how worthy the cause.

Your wife's work is virtuous because she chooses to help others.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinejohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1653 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 65):
The difference between a job and a career. If you keep a warehouse job for 40 years at $9 per hour, than you're an idiot for a) not gaining the skills to get a better job or b) sucking at that job enough to not get a promotion for four decades.
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 75):
Virtue only exists where free choice exists. There is no virtue in the government mandating (i.e., threatening you) to help someone else, no matter how worthy the cause.

You missed my point. I was addressing the above quote by BMI727 where he states that everyone who doesn't succeed and get rich is an idiot or sucks at their job. Some people just aren't capable. I wasn't saying that he had to do what she does, just to have some empathy for other people.


User currently offlinejohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1655 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 60):
You forgot the moderates. Loving our country isn't a problem, not is serving in uniform. We support private enterprise with the same vigor that we support equal right or core health care availability. We also support a strong middle class, home ownership and paying taxes that support good schools.

I didn't forget us. It's just that our leaders try to polarize us to one extreme or the other.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9167 posts, RR: 29
Reply 78, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1612 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 57):
What are you talking about? People don't borrow money on the stock market - you go to the stock market for equity (i.e., permanent) capital.

from an accounting point of view the corporation owes the capital to the investor.

Many start ups are financed with borrowed money. People having ideas not necessaarily have the money as well. .



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2057 posts, RR: 2
Reply 79, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1598 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 70):

Great, people like Marx? LOL

I'm not sure whether Marx used the term himself but even if he did - what's with the LOL?   Marx is one of the great economists along with Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Maynard Keynes etc. If you blame him for the evils committed in the name of Communism, you can as well blame Jesus for the Spanish Inquisition.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 70):

You speak as if owning the means of production is the only difference between slavery and wage workers. Zero credibility to anyone who thinks that way.

Quite the opposite, it's not a difference between them, but a commonality.

Before the Industrial Revolution, people usually manufactured a whole product with means that they owned themselves. A shoemaker would make a whole shoe and sell it. With industrialized processes, workers would start doing only a little part of the job with machinery they didn't own - therefore becoming alienated from their own products. The dildo thing in the article is classic example of that.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 70):

Analytics??? This subject of how much a minimum wage should be is ENTIRELY subjective.

How much it "should" be is subjective, but I'm not particularly interested in that. The question how much it WILL be, however, is quite interesting from an analytical viewpoint. Marx predicted that wages would always go down to subsistence levels, one of the flaws in his economic theory.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 70):

The problem with social sciences is, barring a few people, most don't have good grasps of concepts like analytics, subjectivity, abstract concepts, objectivity, etc.

Well this is certainly true.  
Quoting Flighty (Reply 71):

So... it was a middle class, between the peasants and the lords. Most people are very proud that Western history made that phenomenon happen.

Sure, it was the basis for our industrial societies and our present-day wealth and development.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 71):

Exactly. 500 years ago, almost all humans (including my ancestors) were peasants. We can yearn for the authenticity of those days... ignorantly.... without ever having lived as a peasant. It's an idle passtime for some people, people with idle time, people of privilege.

I don't know anyone who does, to be honest. Still, that doesn't preclude a good look at the inner workings of Capitalist societies, looking at, for instance, how power is distributed, who benefits more and who benefits less, and who bears the external costs of the system. And some people - notably those who have the most to lose - seem downright afraid to tackle these questions.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9167 posts, RR: 29
Reply 80, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1592 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 79):
Marx is one of the great economists along with Adam Smith,

yoiu know the difference between Marx and Adam Smith?

Adam Smith's theory works.

Without blaming anyone and especially Marx, but Marx's theory can only be executed by force, taking individual liberties away from people.

That's exactly the opposite of what Smith said. Without individual freedom a society cannot advance. It is really amazing that people still want to build the umpteenth hundred socialist society when even the communist party of China opened the flood gates and allowed , well, let's call it a controlled economic freedom.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13968 posts, RR: 63
Reply 81, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1588 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 80):
Without blaming anyone and especially Marx, but Marx's theory can only be executed by force, taking individual liberties away from people.

As has been seen in early 19th century Britain as well as now in China, capitalism works quite well in non-liberal societies and dictatorships (Britain during this time was essentially ruled by an oligarchy made up of rich families, some from the traditional landowning aristocrat class, while others belonged to the nouveau riche industrialist class. Universal suffrage was only introduced decades later), or closer to home for me, 19th century Prussia.
Capitalism doesn´t care about personal freedoms. The only freedom required is economic freedom, and this only for the capital owning class.
My grandfather, who ran a construction business during the late 1940s to the early 1950s complained that there was a shortage of labour in the years following WW2 in Germany (Many men had been killed during the war, millions of ex-soldiers were still POWs and there was an accute lack of skilled tradesmen like house carpenters, masons, electricians, plumbers and roofers). According to my grandfather, there should always be a minimum level of unemployment, so that the workers won´t get ideas above their station, e.g. like looking at the law of supply and demand and demanding higher wages, else they would walk ut and work somewhere else.
He was also of the opinion that a good supervisor (as in slavedriver) was better in getting work done than hiring five skilled workers.

Refering to Karl Marx, I think that he (and his partner Engels) wrote a precise analysis of early to mid 19th century capitalism, but that the conclusions the drew were wrong.

IMO, the best thing is something like our "social market" economy, which is a regulated capitalism, which still allows for a certain freedom of entrepreneurship with the associuated ideas, but cushions the worst negative effects to prevent them from becoming a burden to society.
E.g. IMO Marx was right with his analysis that pure captalism has for a while a phase with plenty of competition (which will be in favour of the consumer), but that the end result will be a concentration of economic power (and the political power which goes with it) by forming trusts and cartells among a few successfull businesses, which will crush all competition to the disadvantage of the consumer. We see that happening in the oil sector, in the German energy sector (natural gas and electricity) due to a botched privatisation, and also now among the airlines.

Jan


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9167 posts, RR: 29
Reply 82, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1573 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 81):
As has been seen in early 19th century Britain as well as now in China, capitalism works quite well in non-liberal societies and dictatorships

Sorry, but "capitalism" works at its best only in a free society. Communism or socialism are ideologies whereas "capitalism" is nothing but the summary of millions of individuals realsing their own individual interests. Within the laws of course.

In a dictorship, regardless if right or left winged, there is no free market since these societies are always corrupt. In a counry ruled by decret or in countries with alibi parliaments, the rules can always be changed without prior notice or simply by harrassing the participants who have no legal protection.

What you describe as "social market economy" is based on the state ruled by the law. The state sets the rules making sure that the individual that acts as an entrepreneur has to contribute to a "social income pool" from which health care, pension etc, is financed. Just to mention ons side. Other laws like workers councils, make work conditions like the one described in the article on which this discussion is based, impossible.

That is widely accepted in the European societies. It leaves the individual to follow and realize his ideas.

Or in plain language, you don't have to ask for permission to open a company, you open a company and register it. That is the local city department which will inform the revenue services etc..



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13968 posts, RR: 63
Reply 83, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1562 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 82):
What you describe as "social market economy" is based on the state ruled by the law. The state sets the rules making sure that the individual that acts as an entrepreneur has to contribute to a "social income pool" from which health care, pension etc, is financed. Just to mention ons side. Other laws like workers councils, make work conditions like the one described in the article on which this discussion is based, impossible.

That is widely accepted in the European societies. It leaves the individual to follow and realize his ideas.

Or in plain language, you don't have to ask for permission to open a company, you open a company and register it. That is the local city department which will inform the revenue services etc..

I´m talking about Ehrhardt´s "social market economy" (or Soziale Marktwirschaft), as designed in Western Germany in the 1950s based on experiences with both cutthroat capitalism and corrupt dicatorships.
A pure unregulated cutthroat capitalism as during the early 19th century (or as advocated by some posters here, who see Hayek´s and Smith´s books as a kind of religious scripture), will in the nd just leave a handfull of players in the game. Sure, there will be a period, where there will be a lot of new ideas, improvement and enterprise, but later the markets WILL consolidate, with the biggest players using their economic power to shut down competition. There will be no more improvements because all possible future competition will be killed at the roots, e.g. by the big boys making sure that a new entrepreneur won´t get a loan to get started, etc.. Unless there are laws (e.g. anti-trust laws to prevent concentrations of market powers, or labour laws), pure, unregulated capitalism will result in the dictatorship of a few players. Also don´t forget that money buys power and political influence.
We had times (under the Prussians) in Germany, where voting power was based on an individual taxation. The votes of a person who paid more tax were as much as three times worth as those with a small (labourer´s) income.
The result was that e.g. the steel magnate Krupp practically owned the town of Essen. the only difference between those oldstyle capitalists like Krupp, Siemens, Bosch or Borsig and the faceless MBA CEOs of today was that they actually lived in the towns their factories were in and that they saw themselves as strict, but benevolent fathers of a big family of their employees and carried out a lot of philantropical work, like building new (at this time modern standard) housing projects for their workers to get them out of the slums. They wanted to be respected in their hometowns and not to be seen as bloodsuckers.
Bosch actually transfered his companies into a foundation, which still owns the Bosch companies (car parts, power tools, household appliances, communications electronics etc.). This foundation also runs philantropical projects like nursing homes and hospitals and is fully financed from the gains of the companies under it´s umbrella.

Jan


User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2057 posts, RR: 2
Reply 84, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1553 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 80):

yoiu know the difference between Marx and Adam Smith?

Adam Smith's theory works.

Without blaming anyone and especially Marx, but Marx's theory can only be executed by force, taking individual liberties away from people.

No, sorry. Neither theory "works", both are approximations of economic processes, and both have strong points and weak points in explaining the phenomena we observe. If pressed, Marx's theory was probably a bit more comprehensive, because he built and improved upon Smith's work, whom he admired.

Since you say Marx's theory has to "executed", I take it you mean Communism, which was not at all in the focus of Marx's thinking. He was primarily concerned with Capitalism. It's true that he believed Capitalism would at some point abolish itself, but he didn't spend much thought about what was to come thereafter; all this was attributed to him afterwards, by other (and more interested) parties.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 81):

E.g. IMO Marx was right with his analysis that pure captalism has for a while a phase with plenty of competition (which will be in favour of the consumer), but that the end result will be a concentration of economic power (and the political power which goes with it) by forming trusts and cartells among a few successfull businesses, which will crush all competition to the disadvantage of the consumer. We see that happening in the oil sector, in the German energy sector (natural gas and electricity) due to a botched privatisation, and also now among the airlines.

Exactly... that's one of the many present-day developments which can be described and understood very well from a Marxian perspective.


Of course we can reduce Marx to one his central claims (Capitalism will eventually go down in a series of ever-worsening crises) and say, well that hasn't happened so he was wrong, but that would be a gross oversimplification (and who knows whether the last word about that has yet to be spoken   ).

[Edited 2012-04-16 03:41:58]


Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3942 posts, RR: 28
Reply 85, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1545 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 78):
from an accounting point of view the corporation owes the capital to the investor.

Hmm, no it doesn't - that is why the Liability schedule on a balance sheet is different from the Equity one (and A = L + E). Equityholders have no claim on the company other than their proportional voting interest - they cannot go around and ask for their money back - at most they can vote for a Board that will institute a dividend or share buyback. Equity is the permanent capital that needs to underpin any company, whether they have debt or not, and the providers of equity are simply different from the providers of debt (hint: banks and insurance companies are not in the business of providing equity, although some think they are).

But since otherwise you seem to be the only German person making any sense in this thread I will drop the issue.   

I do wish most peoplle understood capital structures better, though.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9167 posts, RR: 29
Reply 86, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1539 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 83):
I´m talking about Ehrhardt´s "social market economy" (or Soziale Marktwirschaft), as designed in Western Germany in the 1950s based on experiences with both cutthroat capitalism and corrupt dicatorships

What is "cutthroat capitalism" ? Take SIN for instance, a market economy where even the government is rated and paid according to achievements. Deficit? No boni. Balanced budget? Boni paid. Still, it is a social state which provides more than just the elemantary needs, health care etc.



Quoting Pyrex (Reply 85):
they cannot go around and ask for their money back - at most they can vote for a Board that will institute a dividend or share buyback.

I ahve made a general statement of which you have picked a line. Let me rephrase it, a public company works with other people's money. That is why public companies are regulated, have supervisory boards etc. Of course a shareholder cannot go diectly to the PLC and asks his money back. Biut PLCs also float loans, for instance. Whatever you call it, it is OPM compared with debt free ownership companies.



Quoting Pyrex (Reply 85):
But since otherwise you seem to be the only German person making any sense in this thread I will drop the issue.

Thanks. You see what social market economies" does to the people.   The real explanation is, "economy" is not taught at schools. Most people have no clue what economy actually is.


here's a good example:

Quoting Rara (Reply 84):

No, sorry. Neither theory "works", both are approximations of economic processes, and both have strong points and weak points in explaining the phenomena we observe. If pressed, Marx's theory was probably a bit more comprehensive, because he built and improved upon Smith's work, whom he admired.

Rara, whatever you call it, communism, socialism, whatever, it all failed again and again. After a countries wealth has been eaten up, many people suppressed and their lives chances taken from them by force, the countries simply fail or have to change their political goal, like China did.

China was lucky having someone like Deng Hsio Ping, East Germany was lucky to have a brother in the West who allowed them to participate de facto in the Europena Union but could not fix all the holes the economic mess created. The rest is history.

Whatever example you take, you will also come to the same conclusionm, socialism fails. Again and again.

Whereas free market enterprise (capitalism actually is a Marxist invention", his theory needs a devil that can be painted on the wall, same like a religion which cannot work without) . is, I mentioned that before, the result of millions of people, entreprenours big and small, working every day for their individual goals. There is no "super capitalist" telling them what to do, there is no guidance, all there is is individual free enterprise.

The system is superior, failures are healed within the system, a company fails, another one will take its place. Market chances are seen and the quickest or those with the best idea will succeed. Waste is cut out whenever possible, the goal is to run the shop as efficient as possible, which those who do not understand the free market enterprise system then diffame as "profit maximation".

Rara, where would our social state be without profits? Only profitable companies can employ people , pay them including the shares that keeps our extraordinary social system running, only profitable companies can pay taxes which are never enough since our state rakes in more money each year and still spends more than he gets. Actually, making profits is thew law, The Finanzamt insists on it.

Excessive spending, not meeting the limits set, which describes the situation in many democracies, is a kind of socialism as well and eventually fails, it did already in Greece.

[Edited 2012-04-16 05:00:23]


E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6579 posts, RR: 24
Reply 87, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1528 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 14):
The standard of living for the middle class is orders of magnitude greater than it was a century ago.

True, but largely because of government intervention. In 1912, we had a vastly more free-market economy with little or no government interference.

It's always funny that conservatives rail against government intervention, but historically when the government did nothing, most American's suffered greatly for it.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 55):
The fact that most households have less than $100K in equities outside their home shows that the vast majority of households don't even try to build wealth.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 31):
Greed is a beautiful thing when you think about it.

I can't believe you actually believe this. I suppose you won't mind then if someone robs your house and takes all your belongings...since greed is so beautiful. Stop watching so many movies and live in the real world for a few days.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 65):
The desire for money and success is what makes like interesting.

Not necessarily. Some of the most interesting people I've ever met didn't have a lot of money or success. You would most certainly look down on them, but many have lived fascinating lives. Many of the richest and most successful people I've met were pretty boring and vapid.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 57):
John Paulson saw one and made $6 billion for himself when the sub-prime market crashed. Ben Bernanke had a limitless balance sheet and access to a lot more information than Paulson had - how much money did he make for the Fed?

Paulson's company helped create the bubble and cause the crash, so of course he made lots of money off the deal.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
I lose sleep wondering how old I'll be when I can afford my first Porsche.

And if you drop dead tomorrow, no one will care how much money you had (or dreamed of having).


User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2057 posts, RR: 2
Reply 88, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1516 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 85):

But since otherwise you seem to be the only German person making any sense in this thread I will drop the issue.

If something doesn't make sense to you, it may be from lack of sense, or it may be from lack of understanding.  
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 86):
The real explanation is, "economy" is not taught at schools. Most people have no clue what economy actually is.

"Staying on a point" apparently isn't taught at schools either, which is the larger problem here.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 86):

Rara, whatever you call it, communism, socialism, whatever, it all failed again and again. After a countries wealth has been eaten up, many people suppressed and their lives chances taken from them by force, the countries simply fail or have to change their political goal, like China did.

.... along with lengthy illustrations of the above.

Nobody on this thread ever doubted this, so why exactly are you telling us?   You're barking up the wrong tree really.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 86):
capitalism actually is a Marxist invention

It's not, for instance David Ricardo used the term way earlier. Marx, however, was the first person to fully recognize the free market's capital-accumulating and capital-concentrating aspects, which is why the scientific analysis of Capitalism is very much associated with him.

As to Marx "painting a devil on the wall" etc. - I'm forced to conclude that you haven't ever taken a look at what he wrote? You focus on the normative aspect of the whole thing, which wasn't really much of Marx's concern. He had no love for the simple worker, he wasn't really interested in their fate, and he didn't have much of a political agenda either. He was a scientist first and foremost, and his insights and foresights were astounding. Again, many people associate Marx with Communism and believed that's what he wrote about, which is not at all the case. Engels tried to push him to become more political, but his real interest was an analysis of Capitalism, arguably the first in intellectual history.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13968 posts, RR: 63
Reply 89, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1503 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 88):
Engels tried to push him to become more political, but his real interest was an analysis of Capitalism, arguably the first in intellectual history.

Engels was a curious figure. Born into a factory owning capitalist family, he was sent to Manchester as a young man in 1842to learn how to run his father´s branches of textile factories in early 19th century England.
For the historical context one has to understand that the Napoleonic wars caused a huge upsurge in British industry due to government contracts for e.g. uniforms and weapons for the soldiers. At the same time hundred thousands of young men, mainly from the lower classes, left the labour market to become soldiers or sailors (not always voluntarily).
This, together with the new invention of Watt´s improved steam engine and other inventions sparked by the scientific age, caused the industry to flourish and created a high demand for (reasonably) wellpaid labour. Propertyless people from the countryside, who else would have worked as lowpaid farmhands, went to the cities to work in the new factories.
Now, in 1815, the wars ended and the soldiers got demobilized. This suddenly flooded the labour market with cheap, desperate workers. At the same time the government con tracts got cancelled and due to the end of the continental blockade there was increased competition. This caused widespread desperate poverty among the British working classes (as those I define those who don´t own property or capital and have to do with their skills and musclepower alone).
Engels, who was influenced by the German national democratic movement, which came up under the French occupation and which was very popular among university students and young tradesmen, was appalled by the conditions he saw his father´s employees working under in England.
His connections became even closer when an Irish female factory worker, Mary Burns became his lover (he actually set up a house for her and they lived together like a married couple, but at this time in Britain, with it´s strict class structure, it was impossible for a factory owner to marry a woman from a working class family. In any case, both were against the institution of marriage, but stayed together until her death in 1862. Later her younger sister Lizzie became his lover and the got married later. BHe met both of them in the early 1840s, when they acted as guides to show him around the Manchester slums for his research, where an obviously wealthy foreigner would not have been safe on his own).
Now Engels was in a dilema: On one hand he clearly saw what was going on in Manchester and wanted to improve the living conditions of the workers in the slums, on the other hand he had to run a factory and keep it profitable against competition, which didn´t have such qualms.
Engels financed a lot of Marx´s research and edited the publications.

Jan

[Edited 2012-04-16 06:25:48]

User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 90, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1480 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 79):
I'm not sure whether Marx used the term himself but even if he did - what's with the LOL?   Marx is one of the great economists along with Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Maynard Keynes etc. If you blame him for the evils committed in the name of Communism, you can as well blame Jesus for the Spanish Inquisition.

That's absurd. Marx, and even Keynes, have created massive amounts of suffering in this planet. And no, this has nothing to do with the murderous tendencies of those who tried to implement Marx's ideas. Though it's a natural progression, since you simply can't implement communism without violent action.

Quoting Rara (Reply 79):
Before the Industrial Revolution, people usually manufactured a whole product with means that they owned themselves. A shoemaker would make a whole shoe and sell it. With industrialized processes, workers would start doing only a little part of the job with machinery they didn't own - therefore becoming alienated from their own products. The dildo thing in the article is classic example of that.

The division of labor is a massively positive thing.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 81):
As has been seen in early 19th century Britain as well as now in China, capitalism works quite well in non-liberal societies and dictatorships
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 81):
Capitalism doesn´t care about personal freedoms. The only freedom required is economic freedom, and this only for the capital owning class.

It will work much better than anything else, but for a properly functioning free market, you have to have full freedoms in all areas.

"The alleged dichotomy be- tween economic freedom and political freedom, between property rights and human rights, is groundless. Virtually every human activity employs wealth—property. To re- spect the right and freedom to use property is to respect the right and freedom to carry on the activities in which property is used. To deny the right and freedom to carry on such activities is to deny the right and freedom to use the property involved.

. . .freedom of speech is implied in a farmer’s right to use his pasture as he sees fit. The farmer’s property rights include his right to invite people onto his land to deliver and or hear a speech. Any effort by the government to stop or prevent such a speech is an obvious interference with the farmer’s property rights."

http://www.capitalism.net/Capitalism/CAPITALISM%20Internet.pdf

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 83):
A pure unregulated cutthroat capitalism as during the early 19th century



Quote:
"Despite the large number of mergers, and the growth in the absolute size of many corporations, the dominant tendency in the American economy at the beginning of this century was toward growing competition. Competition was unacceptable to many key business and financial interests, and the merger movement was to a large extent a reflection of voluntary, unsuccessful business efforts to bring irresistible competitive trends under control. Although profit was always a consideration, rationalization of the market was frequently a necessary prerequisite for maintaining long-term profits. As new competitors sprang up, and as economic power was diffused throughout an expanding nation, it became apparent to many important businessmen that only the national government could rationalize the economy. Although specific conditions varied from industry to industry, internal problems that could be solved only by political means were the common denominator in those industries whose leaders advocated greater federal regulation. Ironically, contrary to the consensus of historians, It was not the existence of monopoly that caused the federal government to intervene in the economy, but the lack of it." - Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism

And Mr. Kolko was no capitalist friendly.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2057 posts, RR: 2
Reply 91, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1446 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 90):
That's absurd. Marx, and even Keynes, have created massive amounts of suffering in this planet. And no, this has nothing to do with the murderous tendencies of those who tried to implement Marx's ideas.

Please elaborate.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 90):

The division of labor is a massively positive thing.

The division of labour has enabled us to amass incredible material riches and to attain a level of development that would have been impossible otherwise. At the same time, it has made independent production pretty much impossiblem, put nearly every craftsman out of a job, and therefore created a vast underclass of people who spend their working hours doing something they're not really interested in, don't grasp the importance of, and will never become really good in, because their input is totally exchangeable. Yet you call it "massively positive." Hmmm. Let's say it was a prerequisite for our modern world, and therefore for everything that's good in it. But like everything else, it has more than just one aspect.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8408 posts, RR: 3
Reply 92, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1436 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 91):
Please elaborate.

He's right, probably over 100 million people died in Marxist famines alone in China and the USSR due to blatant economic violence caused by Marx and Lenin. Those ideas stole food right out of people's mouths and they died. Just ask their relatives from China or former USSR.

Keynesian stimulus can ruin entire countries -- think of Europe and the USA or Argentina in the future. Although it is really the misrepresentation of Keynes that is to blame. Keynes himself would be horrified by the excesses of Europe and the USA. He would call for austerity. Anyone with a brain would. But the psychology of addiction is a funny thing. Those addicted to government spending cannot and will not think critically about wise policies. They are not competent, given their mindset as addicts. Even if we literally sold our children's souls, it would not affect the policy of these self styled "Keynesians" such as Paul Krugman.

What is the suffering... poverty and economic dysfunction. We no longer worry about famine, but clearly homelessness is a real threat, created in no small part by government housing policies.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13968 posts, RR: 63
Reply 93, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1414 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 92):
He's right, probably over 100 million people died in Marxist famines alone in China and the USSR due to blatant economic violence caused by Marx and Lenin. Those ideas stole food right out of people's mouths and they died. Just ask their relatives from China or former USSR.

As opposed to the Irish famine of the 1840s, which was purely capitalist caused?
Ok, the harvests of the staple food potato failed for several years due to a fungal plant disease (back then people didn´t know yet that one can´t plant potatoes in the same field for serveral consecuitive seasons. The farmer alternate crops so that diseases, which affect one type of plant, can´t survive until this plant is being planted again. Modern fungizides were also unknown at the time).
Now there was enough grain in Ireland to feed the population.
The only problem was that most of this people were smalltime farmers, who could not afford the price demanded for the grain.
For the grain growing largescale farms of Ireland, which mostly were owned by absentee landlords and run by administrators with the orders to maximise gain, it was more profitable to sell the grain abroad than at home at a price which the locals could afford.

Even Queen Victoria was upset about this development and spent a, for the 19th century quite large, amount of her personal funds to help, but parliament, which was controlled by the landowners, refused to pass any laws to allow for price control and famine relief

Jan


User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2057 posts, RR: 2
Reply 94, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1410 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 92):

He's right, probably over 100 million people died in Marxist famines alone in China and the USSR due to blatant economic violence caused by Marx and Lenin. Those ideas stole food right out of people's mouths and they died. Just ask their relatives from China or former USSR.

What in the world is a "Marxist famine"?   I'm talking about Karl Marx, economist, 1818-1883. You seem to be talking about Lenin, Stalin and Mao Zedong. Those were politicians - Marx was a scientist who was long dead when Communist leaders committed crimes in his name. As I said, if you blame Marx for the atrocities of Communism, you can as well blame Jesus Christ for the atrocities of the Catholic Church. Ludicrous.

Read again what PPVRA wrote:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 90):
That's absurd. Marx, and even Keynes, have created massive amounts of suffering in this planet. And no, this has nothing to do with the murderous tendencies of those who tried to implement Marx's ideas.

"This has nothing to do with the murderous tendencies of those who tried to implement Marx's ideas." This I asked him to elaborate, and not you to repeat that Communism was violent, which we all know already.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 92):
Although it is really the misrepresentation of Keynes that is to blame.

Couldn't possibly be a misrepresentation of Marx that is to blame?



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 95, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1402 times:

Quoting johns624 (Reply 74):
What you have to realize is that not all people were born with the same intelligence or physical gifts.

Actually, I was talking about people with degrees and certificates in things like engeneering, electrical, computers, teaching, who have had their jobs either discontinued or shipped overseas and now they have to work at a low wage job in a warehouse or discount department store just to feed themselves. God help them and their family if they get sick.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 96, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1401 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 91):
Please elaborate.

Marx: do we really need to elaborate on this? History is full of examples of it's failure.

Keynes: this man is responsible for our current economic chaos, and many others that have affected Latin America and the rest of the world in the past 70 years.

Quoting Rara (Reply 91):
At the same time, it has made independent production pretty much impossiblem, put nearly every craftsman out of a job, and therefore created a vast underclass of people who spend their working hours doing something they're not really interested in, don't grasp the importance of, and will never become really good in, because their input is totally exchangeable.

Tell that to the Amish. Or, for that matter, the many craftsman who still make a living on their own.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13968 posts, RR: 63
Reply 97, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1398 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 96):
Quoting Rara (Reply 91):
Please elaborate.

Marx: do we really need to elaborate on this? History is full of examples of it's failure.

Yes, you do. Don´t come with platitudes "like do we really need to elaborate?"
What were explicitely Marx (or Keynes´s) faults and what was atributable to those who interpreted his writings and acted on them with their own, bloody, ideas (Lenin, Stalin, Trotzki, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot etc.) ?

Jan


User currently offlinejohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1392 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
Actually, I was talking about people with degrees and certificates in things like engeneering, electrical, computers, teaching, who have had their jobs either discontinued or shipped overseas and now they have to work at a low wage job in a warehouse or discount department store just to feed themselves. God help them and their family if they get sick.

I agree with you. I was replying to BMI727 who seems to think that all people who aren't rich are just lazy and not trying.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 99, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1372 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 97):
What were explicitely Marx (or Keynes´s) faults and what was atributable to those who interpreted his writings and acted on them with their own, bloody, ideas (Lenin, Stalin, Trotzki, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot etc.) ?

Marx's and Keynes's ideas have brought economic misery to billions of people, even leaving the bloodshed caused by others aside. Marx never implemented his ideas, but others did for him. Keynes was much more active in the political scene and influenced economic policy world wide, but he also relied on others for implementation. So I would not put either of those two men in jail, because they have every right to say and publish whatever they want and have no blood in their hands.

Their faults are their flawed ideas.

[Edited 2012-04-16 11:18:08]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2057 posts, RR: 2
Reply 100, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1362 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 99):
Marx's and Keynes's ideas have brought economic misery to billions of people, even leaving the bloodshed caused by others aside. Marx never implemented his ideas, but others did for him.

Okay, list ONE idea of Marx (that he actually wrote down somewhere) that would bring misery to a large number of people when implemented.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13968 posts, RR: 63
Reply 101, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1357 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 99):
Marx's and Keynes's ideas have brought economic misery to billions of people, even leaving the bloodshed caused by others aside. Marx never implemented his ideas, but others did for him. Keynes was much more active in the political scene and influenced economic policy world wide, but he also relied on others for implementation. So I would not put either of those two men in jail, because they have every right to say and publish whatever they want and have no blood in their hands.

Their faults are their flawed ideas.

[Edited 2012-04-16 11:18:08]

What now? Marx´s analysis of early to mid 19th century industrial practices? Or his conclusions (about which one can indeed argue, like the Communist Manifesto). Even an arch conservative like Bismarck realised that these early 19th century practices would lead to a revolution, hence his implementation of the basic mandatory social security system (health insurance, invalidity insurance) in Germany.

What about Keynes and his analysis of the economic crisis in the 1920s to 1930s? Even acc. to my own grandmother, who witnessed the breadlines in the early 1920s, there was absolute poverty with people starving or freezing to death in winter because there was no unemployment insurance (it was only introduced in Germany in 1927).

Jan


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 102, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1351 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 100):
Okay, list ONE idea of Marx (that he actually wrote down somewhere) that would bring misery to a large number of people when implemented.

Elimination of property rights.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 103, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1344 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 101):

Again, in neither the 19th century or the 1920s was there a proper free market functioning. Not in Germany, nor in the US.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 101):
Even acc. to my own grandmother, who witnessed the breadlines in the early 1920s, there was absolute poverty with people starving or freezing to death in winter because there was no unemployment insurance (it was only introduced in Germany in 1927).

Because there was no unemployment insurance??? That's absurd. Can you not look past the most immediate problem to see what actually caused the economic malaise of that period?

[Edited 2012-04-16 11:43:39]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13968 posts, RR: 63
Reply 104, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1333 times:

You pure market fanatics just sound like your opponents from the extreme left. Both of you think that you own the full truth.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 103):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 101):
Even acc. to my own grandmother, who witnessed the breadlines in the early 1920s, there was absolute poverty with people starving or freezing to death in winter because there was no unemployment insurance (it was only introduced in Germany in 1927).

Because there was no unemployment insurance??? That's absurd. Can you not look past the most immediate problem to see what actually caused the economy malaise of that period?

How far do you want me to go back in history?
What about the drive to own colonies, the various crisises of the late 19th century and early 20th century (Balkan crisis, Morrocco crisis etc.), the resulting arms race, the general opinion among military officers from all sides that it would be better to start a war now than later, the setting up of block and mutual defense pacts without conditions, WW1, the losing of this war by Germany and the Austro-Hungarian empire, the blaming of Germany as being the sole culprit of the war, the reparations demanded by Daladier, the failure of president Wilson to convince his Allies not to demand these reparations, the inability of the German government to meet these reparations, the threat of France to occupy the German industrial areas at the Saar and Ruhr rivers, the use of the printing press by the German government to fullfill the obligations for reparations, the resulting hyperinflation and the resulting economical collapse?
The fact is that the normal people had almost no influence about what was happening to them. All they cared about was to have a job to earn their livings. And without a job there was no income and no unemployment insurance to help them.

Same as for the Commies, for you free market theorists the only think that matters is the great idea. If people get thrown under the bus, so be it.

Jan


User currently onlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8697 posts, RR: 43
Reply 105, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1325 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 104):
You pure market fanatics just sound like your opponents from the extreme left. Both of you think that you own the full truth.

Now, now... they're the only ones who make

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 85):
any sense

and don'tyouforgetit!  

As I was saying:

Quoting aloges (Reply 58):
God, I love these threads. Doubt the neoliberal belief system, prepare for the wrath of The Free Marketers.

"Neoliberal" and "Free Marketers" may of course be replaced by "communist" and "Five-Year Planners" when applicable.

Fundamentalism will always end in disaster, no matter if it's of the religious, economic or another variety.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinejohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1321 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 104):
If people get thrown under the bus, so be it.

That's what so many people either forget or ignore. We're talking about fellow humans here, not animals or machines.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 107, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1316 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 104):

So, obviously a large amount of government intervention in many different ways.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 104):
Same as for the Commies, for you free market theorists the only think that matters is the great idea. If people get thrown under the bus, so be it.

On the contrary, I care about people and their rights first and foremost. You "progressives" throw people under the bus all the time and write it off as justified because you had an "election" where somebody's idea got 51% of the vote. And these same politicians pander to a slight majority just to get elected - just another form of corruption.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 108, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1315 times:

Quoting johns624 (Reply 106):
That's what so many people either forget or ignore. We're talking about fellow humans here, not animals or machines.

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

Let's see who is throwing who under the bus.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently onlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8697 posts, RR: 43
Reply 109, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1312 times:

Quoting johns624 (Reply 106):
We're talking about fellow humans here

You will only see the problem if you think that people and their well-being are more important than the so-called freedom of the market.  

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 107):
You "progressives"

Ah, labels... where would we be without them? In an actual discussion, perhaps...

[Edited 2012-04-16 12:18:38]


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 110, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1299 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 109):
You will only see the problem if you think that people and their well-being are more important than the so-called freedom of the market.  

Illogical.

The "market" is an abstract concept: it does not exist, it does not have freedoms. People have freedoms - including freedom to own property, trade, and enter into contracts. This is what is meant by free markets.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13968 posts, RR: 63
Reply 111, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1295 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 107):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 104):

So, obviously a large amount of government intervention in many different ways.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 104):
Same as for the Commies, for you free market theorists the only think that matters is the great idea. If people get thrown under the bus, so be it.

On the contrary, I care about people and their rights first and foremost. You "progressives" throw people under the bus all the time and write it off as justified because you had an "election" where somebody's idea got 51% of the vote. And these same politicians pander to a slight majority just to get elected - just another form of corruption.

A pure market driven economy and society, where everybody only makes educated decisions based on facts and reason, is just as illusory as pure communism with a world made up from purely altruistic people.
What you have (and it has been said before) is just a theoretical approximatrion.

Jan


User currently onlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8697 posts, RR: 43
Reply 112, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1288 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 110):
The "market" is an abstract concept: it does not exist, it does not have freedoms.

Ah, semantics... where would we be without them? In an actual discussion, perhaps...

"Freedom of the market" as used by myself in the above post refers to the freedom of every person to participate in a market. However, that long a description is rather cumbersome, so "freedom of the market" was used in its stead.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinejohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 113, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1282 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 108):
Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

Let's see who is throwing who under the bus.

That has nothing to do with what I said.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 114, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1253 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 111):
A pure market driven economy and society, where everybody only makes educated decisions based on facts and reason, is just as illusory as pure communism with a world made up from purely altruistic people.

I am perfectly aware that a free market society would not be perfect, nor am I or any other free market economist suggesting we pursue some utopian dream.



Quoting aloges (Reply 112):
"Freedom of the market" as used by myself in the above post refers to the freedom of every person to participate in a market. However, that long a description is rather cumbersome, so "freedom of the market" was used in its stead.

The way you worded it, you alluded to as if a market is a separate identity from people and that capitalists believe "it" to have more rights than people.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently onlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8697 posts, RR: 43
Reply 115, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1243 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 114):
The way you worded it, you alluded to as if a market is a separate identity from people and that capitalists believe "it" to have more rights than people.

Well, I did clear it up. So to insist that I meant something else is silly at best.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1599 posts, RR: 2
Reply 116, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1205 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 80):
yoiu know the difference between Marx and Adam Smith?

Adam Smith's theory works.

Without blaming anyone and especially Marx, but Marx's theory can only be executed by force, taking individual liberties away from people.

The main reason why communism tends to fail its because while the theory is good and overall its a good system, in practice it fails to take human nature, avarice, power hunger and many other negative aspects of people into account.

Same reason why full blown capitalism exclusively reliant on a "self-regulating market with no government intervention" is just as utopic as communism.

As long as they fail to include "human nature" into the equation, they'll fail if tried to be implemented in any form that's anywhere close to what their authors' envisioned.

Some of the people posting in this thread are a clear example of that.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 117, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1190 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 116):
Some of the people posting in this thread are a clear example of that.

Ah, but the very reason capitalism works is because it takes into account human nature. Heck, it basically *IS* human nature minus any violent/fraudulent tendencies humans may have. And because of this exception, government exist.

Unlike communism, capitalism wasn't invented by a person. It is the mere free, peaceful and voluntary interaction of human beings.

[Edited 2012-04-16 19:51:34]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 118, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1169 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 117):
It is the mere free, peaceful and voluntary interaction of human beings.

How is it free? At some point, people put a value on metal and used that as a substitute for the barter system. "I have pieces of what we dub precious metal in exchange for fruit and pelts." People have to do something for money to obtain food and shelter.

How is it peaceful? "We are going to kill this other group because they have precious metal we want."

How is it voluntary? "We have decided to use metal discs to exchange for goods and services instead of bartering and you will comply or else."



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8408 posts, RR: 3
Reply 119, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1171 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 116):
The main reason why communism tends to fail its because while the theory is good and overall its a good system, in practice it fails to take human nature, avarice, power hunger and many other negative aspects of people into account

Don't forget laziness! When you give me a free place to live and free food, I will become lazy. Especially when the rewards of working diminish by half. Forget working! Ahhhhh.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 120, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1162 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 118):
How is it free? At some point, people put a value on metal and used that as a substitute for the barter system. "I have pieces of what we dub precious metal in exchange for fruit and pelts." People have to do something for money to obtain food and shelter.

  

That's not the kind of free I was talking about.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 118):
How is it peaceful? "We are going to kill this other group because they have precious metal we want."

That's what thieves do, or governments. Not market participants.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 118):
How is it voluntary? "We have decided to use metal discs to exchange for goods and services instead of bartering and you will comply or else."

Again:   

Any person is free to choose to trade or abstain from trading with anyone.

Seb, you again have shown that you don't have the slights clue of what you are talking about.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 121, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks ago) and read 1146 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 87):
It's always funny that conservatives rail against government intervention, but historically when the government did nothing, most American's suffered greatly for it.

Conservatives (the ones running the US congress today more so) only care for their interests and in don't give a crap about the well being of others. Look at the posts of people like BMI727, it will only eventually lead to a revoultion and some people will wonder why.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 87):
Not necessarily. Some of the most interesting people I've ever met didn't have a lot of money or success. You would most certainly look down on them, but many have lived fascinating lives. Many of the richest and most successful people I've met were pretty boring and vapid.

Does Mitt Romney ring a bell, as Bill Maher has labeled him "The most uninteresting man in the world" he has money but does he seem interesting. A rich guy I would like to hang with would be Richard Branson.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 92):
He would call for austerity. Anyone with a brain would. But the psychology of addiction is a funny thing. Those addicted to government spending cannot and will not think critically about wise policies.

He theorized IIRC that a government should basically do the opposite of the market so in good times it would tighten its belt and in a downturn it would then be in the position to stimulate an economy without fear or racking up a huge debt. People know they should have nest eggs but why can't a government. This wasn't followed.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 96):
Keynes: this man is responsible for our current economic chaos, and many others that have affected Latin America and the rest of the world in the past 70 years.

Had we followed him the US and Europe wouldn't be in the debt trouble that they are in. They both added debt during boom times, that isn't what he proposed.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 122, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1140 times:

Quoting johns624 (Reply 74):
People at WalMart don't have a lot of disposable income to invest. Most of it goes towards things like food, gas, shelter, etc

I bet managers do. How many people do you think work there who are going to be greeters or cashiers their whole careers? How many people could there possibly be who are so well, incapable, that they could never get enough education to hold down some middle class job or never get promoted to a higher position at Walmart or the warehouse?

And as far as disposable income goes, a lot of that is based on people themselves. Maybe you shouldn't buy a new 60" flat screen for your mobile home and a new car every two years. Maybe those greeters would have more disposable income if they only went to Golden Corral once a week. As long as I have to wait in line at Walmart while the lady in front of me and the cashier discuss which Coach purse is their favorite, that argument holds no water. If you choose to buy luxury goods your whole life, don't come running to me when you can't retire until you're 80.

Quoting johns624 (Reply 76):
I was addressing the above quote by BMI727 where he states that everyone who doesn't succeed and get rich is an idiot or sucks at their job.

Not get rich. But if you spend your entire career working a menial job, you're probably doing something wrong.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 80):
yoiu know the difference between Marx and Adam Smith?

Adam Smith's theory works.

  

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 121):
Conservatives (the ones running the US congress today more so) only care for their interests and in don't give a crap about the well being of others.

The solution is not for me to start concerning myself chiefly with the well being of others. The solution is for others to chiefly concern themselves with their well being as much as I concern myself with mine.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13968 posts, RR: 63
Reply 123, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1141 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 120):
That's what thieves do, or governments. Not market participants.

Yes, in your ideal world, every market partizipant would be purely ethical. He would only make purely rational descisions based on facts. He would have access to all possible information about the markets and would be able to understand everything to be abler to make his descisions.
There would be no criminal intentions involved to confuse somebody so that he won´t be able to make a descision in his best interest. All people have the same intellectual abilities and sellable skills.
Dream on.


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 124, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1137 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
The solution is not for me to start concerning myself chiefly with the well being of others. The solution is for others to chiefly concern themselves with their well being as much as I concern myself with mine.

That's fine but don't expect to have a lot of friends and significant others stick around you if you are unwilling to care for them. Caring about yourself is fine but self centred people are among the loneliest people on the planet. From your post you seem willing to screw each and every person that gets in your way of making $100 million (btw if you want to do that don't work for anyone, you need to be an entrepreneur). That is not going to make you very popular and even if you have all the money in the world I don't care how happy it makes you, you are still not going to like everyone hating you.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
I bet managers do.

They probably earn maybe 50K a year, not a lot when raising a family.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2057 posts, RR: 2
Reply 125, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1134 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 102):

Elimination of property rights.

Okay, that was in the ill-advised "Manifesto" which I consider more of an angry rebuttal against various allegations, and more Engels' doing that Marx's. Also, they make clear that they're not talking about the little man's property. But yes, I can see how that idea would potentially be disastrous.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 116):

Some of the people posting in this thread are a clear example of that.

Like who? In this thread we're debating the various benefits and shortfalls of Capitalism and the free market. No-one here advocated Communism as an alternative, but for some reason, people always assume that whenever someone points some flaw or downside of an unregulated free market, they must be a closet-Communist. As far as I can tell, nobody on this thread would even remotely think Socialism a good idea. It's all in your imagination.

In fact, Capitalist and Socialist societies are in many ways very similar. Both are materialistic. Both believe in the advancement and development of society. Both have a quasi-religious craving for economic growth, which they both need to sustain themselves. And both have their roots in Utopian ideas. No doubt someone will call all this "human" and "natural" and "greed is good" etc. - but the fact is that many societies on this earth, especially traditional societies, operate on entirely different grounds, and may turn out to be more sustainable in the long run.

(As I type this, I can see the replies already in my head "so you advocate returning to the Stone Age" etc.  . I advocate nothing, I'm sitting in front of my computer in a heated building, talking to people thousands of miles away, and I wouldn't change that for the world. I just invite people to think about such issues and not take everything for granted.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently onlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8697 posts, RR: 43
Reply 126, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1120 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 120):
That's not the kind of free I was talking about.

But it

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 117):
basically *IS* human nature

as proven time and again in places like the Congo. They've got the mineral and have it extracted, corporations buy it and there are few (if any) rules governing the process.

You will of course claim that this is due to the politics of the Congo and nothing to do with human nature or unregulated Capitalism. But for everyone looking at it without blinkers on, it is blindingly obvious that the various armies that have controlled the area over the years have disproved ivory-tower theories like this one:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 90):
The alleged dichotomy be- tween economic freedom and political freedom, between property rights and human rights, is groundless.

Those

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 57):
people are "greedy" enough to

value their own

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 110):
freedoms - including freedom to own property, trade, and enter into contracts

higher than anything else.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinejohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 127, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1107 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
And as far as disposable income goes, a lot of that is based on people themselves. Maybe you shouldn't buy a new 60" flat screen for your mobile home and a new car every two years. Maybe those greeters would have more disposable income if they only went to Golden Corral once a week. As long as I have to wait in line at Walmart while the lady in front of me and the cashier discuss which Coach purse is their favorite, that argument holds no water

You're just full of negative stereotypes, aren't you? I'm surprised that you even shop at Walmart, what with having to associate with the great, unwashed masses...


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6579 posts, RR: 24
Reply 128, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1092 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
But if you spend your entire career working a menial job, you're probably doing something wrong.

Most jobs are menial, so where are all these people going to work? There aren't enough non-menial jobs around to keep even a tiny fraction of the population employed.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 129, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1080 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 126):

Oh, it's got to do with human nature - the very dark side of human nature that government is supposed to deal with.

I like how the idiot minister of mines seems to blame the peaceful free lance miners for the "circus" and wants to reassert control - violently, of course.

As for capitalism - as we know, Congo, the stalwart of capitalism! Of course, you are going to claim none of the problem above is caused by the government, despite the article EXPLICITLY saying the military is raiding and raping for a cut. The minister's answers? "Oh, that's just because we are not in control". Ok, so as soon as he gets in control, he will simply continue the policy of sending in armed men and threatening them for a cut.

That's your very violent philosophy, Aloges. You can deny it's very nature all day long, but you know you would support the government sending in armed men and using their guns - if necessary - to secure your cut. That my friend, is why you are far greedier than any true capitalist - because your money comes out not from mutual and voluntary exchange, but out of fear and blood.

[Edited 2012-04-17 06:08:10]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently onlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8697 posts, RR: 43
Reply 130, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1072 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 129):
Oh, it's got to do with human nature - the very dark side of human nature that government is supposed to deal with.

How interesting... so government is supposed to deal with something after all?

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 129):
As for capitalism - as we know, Congo, the stalwart of capitalism!

SInce it was once the private property of the King of Belgium, you might be on to something... and what a paradise of a free market it was!

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 129):
the article EXPLICITLY saying the military is raiding and raping for a cut

The government of Congo is not a democratic one. It is merely the strongest player in an unregulated market. Sadly, free market fundamentalists fail to make the connection between power (in the forms of money and weapons) and "the very dark side of human nature".

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 129):
That's your very violent philosophy, Aloges.

How do you know my philosophy? So far, I've merely been pointing out the flaws in free-market fundamentalism. I don't recall you asking what "my philosophy" might be, so it's a bit rich for you to judge it.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 129):
You can deny it's very nature all day long, but you know you would support the government sending in armed men and using their guns - if necessary - to secure your cut.

How do you know what I would support? You're so far off the mark that you couldn't find it if I showed you.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 129):
That my friend, is why you are far greedier than any true capitalist - because your money comes out not from mutual and voluntary exchange, but out of fear and blood.

Right. I've been volunteering in one form or another for the better part of my life, but I'm the greedy one. As I was saying, you are wrong - but it's certainly been interesting to see your personal attacks on people over ideas that only you believe them to have.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 131, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1032 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 130):
How interesting... so government is supposed to deal with something after all?

Yes, violent individuals. You should try paying attention.

Quoting aloges (Reply 130):
SInce it was once the private property of the King of Belgium, you might be on to something... and what a paradise of a free market it was!

King? Isn't that the government?

Quoting aloges (Reply 130):
The government of Congo is not a democratic one. It is merely the strongest player in an unregulated market. Sadly, free market fundamentalists fail to make the connection between power (in the forms of money and weapons) and "the very dark side of human nature".

Strongest VIOLENT player, just like the German government is in Germany. And unregulated? That's highly unlikely.

Economic power is perfectly legitimate - political power, is violence. Cold, brutal, uncivilized violent power. This is what you love, not me.



Quoting aloges (Reply 130):
How do you know my philosophy? So far, I've merely been pointing out the flaws in free-market fundamentalism. I don't recall you asking what "my philosophy" might be, so it's a bit rich for you to judge it.

You are obviously Machiavellian. No need to ask, it can be deduced.

Quoting aloges (Reply 130):
How do you know what I would support? You're so far off the mark that you couldn't find it if I showed you.

Is this your way of avoiding denying or accepting my allegations?

Quoting aloges (Reply 130):
Right. I've been volunteering in one form or another for the better part of my life, but I'm the greedy one. As I was saying, you are wrong - but it's certainly been interesting to see your personal attacks on people over ideas that only you believe them to have.

Then answer the allegation I made above, rather than avoiding them. To make it easy, here it goes again: my allegation is that you have no problem with the use of violence if it furthers the end that YOU deem desirable. You reject the notion that violence is only acceptable in self-defense.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently onlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8697 posts, RR: 43
Reply 132, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1029 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 131):
You are obviously Machiavellian. No need to ask, it can be deduced.

Too funny.    As I was saying right at the start:

Quoting aloges (Reply 58):
Doubt the neoliberal belief system, prepare for the wrath of The Free Marketers.

I don't think I've ever read as many preposterous claims about a complete stranger in as little space as your previous posts.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
When The First Lady Is A Man... posted Wed Apr 11 2012 17:33:02 by Canadi>n
Got Windows XP? Well, The Clock Is Ticking... posted Wed Apr 11 2012 11:31:48 by varigb707
Where's The Outrage? posted Wed Apr 11 2012 07:28:42 by sprout5199
Location Of The Simpsons Hometown Revealed posted Tue Apr 10 2012 16:04:03 by dragon-wings
Could Dodge Drop A Cummins In The Sprinter posted Mon Apr 9 2012 09:05:07 by 747400sp
Tallest Building In The World Planned For Tucson posted Thu Apr 5 2012 16:08:05 by mke717spotter
"God Bless (no,no,no) We Love The Usa" posted Thu Apr 5 2012 08:27:28 by fr8mech
Muhammad Ali At The Miami Marlins Game posted Wed Apr 4 2012 16:10:19 by airtran737
Porsche Cayenne Diesel For The US posted Tue Apr 3 2012 22:27:41 by KiwiRob
New Uniforms For The NFL: Nike posted Tue Apr 3 2012 14:03:16 by AirframeAS