Chinese workers sign no suicide pledge

[RGacky3]

DVkbr0LSTg0

This is what the market does.

[Tommy4ever]

That's one of the most horrible things I've ever heard. :(

[Sir Comradical]

Never heard of this radio show, these guys sound alright.

[RGacky3]

Pro-market people might argue that China is not a free market and they would be right, but these sort of conditions are ENTIRELY caused my market forces, not government intervention.

[danyboy27]

Iam not a tankie but damn these people who come up with this kind of bullshit deserve to be shot.

[RGacky3]

Its just happens when the market controls things, its not "peoples" fault perse.

[ZombieRothbard]

Pro-market people might argue that China is not a free market and they would be right, but these sort of conditions are ENTIRELY caused my market forces, not government intervention.

How can it be caused by market forces, when you said yourself it wasn't a free market?

[danyboy27]

How can it be caused by market forces, when you said yourself it wasn't a free market?


beccause even if its not completely free, the market still here and influence things.

[Tommy4ever]

How can it be caused by market forces, when you said yourself it wasn't a free market?

China has a mixed economy. Some things are caused by market forces, others by state intervention. This has nothing to do with state intervention and everything to do with market forces.

Therefore RGacky's statement is indeed correct.

[Queercommie Girl]

China has a mixed economy.


China is largely a neoliberal market economy now. The private sector is certainly larger and more significant than the state sector today.

In some ways China today is even more neoliberal than the United States. The US Federal Government does a better job in taking care of the country's poor than the Chinese "Communist" Government does.

[ZombieRothbard]

China has a mixed economy. Some things are caused by market forces, others by state intervention. This has nothing to do with state intervention and everything to do with market forces.

Therefore RGacky's statement is indeed correct.

Im sure it has everything to do with state intervention. Pure market forces would allow enough factories to open to be able to fully employ the population of China. Once everybody is employed, the scarcity of labor hours would create competition for employees, which would raise wages and working conditions. The reason this doesn't happen, is due to government interventions no doubt.

[danyboy27]

Im sure

you will need more than that to convince us you know.

But be assured, leftist are easy to convince leftist with empirical evidence.
Unfortunately, the right suck at delivering on that field.

[ZombieRothbard]

you will need more than that to convince us you know.

But be assured, leftist are easy to convince leftist with empirical evidence.
Unfortunately, the right suck at delivering on that field.

I am not an expert on the Chinese economy, so I cannot point to specifics as to why this atrocity is a result of government intervention.

[Tim Finnegan]

Im sure it has everything to do with state intervention. Pure market forces would allow enough factories to open to be able to fully employ the population of China. Once everybody is employed, the scarcity of labor hours would create competition for employees, which would raise wages and working conditions. The reason this doesn't happen, is due to government interventions no doubt.
What are you basing this on, exactly? I certainly can't imagine what historical precedents you might be drawing on.


I am not an expert on the Chinese economy, so I cannot point to specifics as to why this atrocity is a result of government intervention.
Ah, so it's an article of faith. Good, good, nice to see you come clean. :rolleyes:

[ZombieRothbard]

What are you basing this on, exactly? I certainly can't imagine what historical precedents you might be drawing on.

There is no historical precedent to base it on, since historically there has never been a truly free market economy void of government intervention.



Ah, so it's an article of faith. Good, good, nice to see you come clean. :rolleyes:

I employ deductive reasoning and analysis of things that are non-hypothetically true about the world to come to my conclusions. That is hardly faith.

[Tim Finnegan]

There is no historical precedent to base it on, since historically there has never been a truly free market economy void of government intervention.
You don't need historical precedents of a "truly free market economy" to demonstrate a correlation between poverty and government intervention. That's a cop-out, and a feeble one.


I employ deductive reasoning and analysis of things that are non-hypothetically true about the world to come to my conclusions. That is hardly faith.But you yourself have admitted to an ignorance of the Chinese economy, so how can you claim that your claims are based on "deductive reasoning"? Empirically-derived conclusions which may arguably true of one situation cannot be imposed onto others willy-nilly.

[agnixie]

There is no historical precedent to base it on, since historically there has never been a truly free market economy void of government intervention.




I employ deductive reasoning and analysis of things that are non-hypothetically true about the world to come to my conclusions. That is hardly faith.

You can't have private property without government intervention.

[Skooma Addict]

Ah, so it's an article of faith. Good, good, nice to see you come clean. :rolleyes:

You do realize nobody here has provided an argument more substantial than the one he provided?

[RGacky3]

You do realize nobody here has provided an argument more substantial than the one he provided?

Ok here it goes.


Im sure it has everything to do with state intervention. Pure market forces would allow enough factories to open to be able to fully employ the population of China. Once everybody is employed, the scarcity of labor hours would create competition for employees, which would raise wages and working conditions. The reason this doesn't happen, is due to government interventions no doubt.

Factories will not open unless there is a market for them, right now that market is mainly the United States and Europe, factories IN CHINA fill that need but they compete for business, buyers in the US and Europe want the cheapest possible production so they can in turn make a good profit (and take home huge bonuses), so Chinese factories run down contitions raise hours and so on to cut costs so as to win the buisiness.

The fact that there IS unemployment helps that, infact it benefits the Capitalists that there is unemployment, more factories will not open because the market is filled with the factories that exist, more workers will only be hired if workers (either through unions or government invervention) force lower hours and higher pay and better conditions, they cannot do that individually because of A: Poverty, poor people don't fight back because they have bills, B: threat on unemployment and C: huge financial power that the factory owners have.

THIS is why its due to market forces, now you tell me why its not actually market forces but instead some mysterious government intervention forcing these factories to make huge profits by running workers into the ground?

[Tim Finnegan]

You do realize nobody here has provided an argument more substantial than the one he provided?
We're not the ones claiming rightness despite an admitted lack of empirical evidence.

[Drosophila]

I do wonder what would happen if they decided to revolt.

[synthesis]

Pure market forces would allow enough factories to open to be able to fully employ the population of China. Once everybody is employed, the scarcity of labor hours would create competition for employees, which would raise wages and working conditions.

This is completely absurd and betrays an utter lack of understanding of the ideology you promote. Full employment is not in the interest of those who control and benefit from "pure market forces." (Notice how the arguments only work if "the market" is attributed personhood, anthropomorphized and stripped of its context.)

[danyboy27]

I do wonder what would happen if they decided to revolt.

me neither, but i do know that they will revolt.

[ZombieRothbard]

This is completely absurd and betrays an utter lack of understanding of the ideology you promote. Full employment is not in the interest of those who control and benefit from "pure market forces." (Notice how the arguments only work if "the market" is attributed personhood, anthropomorphized and stripped of its context.)

Not sure what you meant with this?

[ZombieRothbard]

Ok here it goes.



Factories will not open unless there is a market for them, right now that market is mainly the United States and Europe, factories IN CHINA fill that need but they compete for business, buyers in the US and Europe want the cheapest possible production so they can in turn make a good profit (and take home huge bonuses), so Chinese factories run down contitions raise hours and so on to cut costs so as to win the buisiness.

The fact that there IS unemployment helps that, infact it benefits the Capitalists that there is unemployment, more factories will not open because the market is filled with the factories that exist, more workers will only be hired if workers (either through unions or government invervention) force lower hours and higher pay and better conditions, they cannot do that individually because of A: Poverty, poor people don't fight back because they have bills, B: threat on unemployment and C: huge financial power that the factory owners have.

THIS is why its due to market forces, now you tell me why its not actually market forces but instead some mysterious government intervention forcing these factories to make huge profits by running workers into the ground?

I have a question: Why can't more Chinese factories open?

[ZombieRothbard]

We're not the ones claiming rightness despite an admitted lack of empirical evidence.

As a revolutionary leftist, I am pretty sure you guys deal outside the world of empiricism quite often as well. I am reasonably sure you are not an expert on the Chinese economy either. If you were, I could ask you to point out specifically why the government isn't responsible for the situation there, and you could provide me with a comprehensive answer. But the truth is, I am sure nobody here is an expert on the Chinese economy. Based on that, I think attacking my lack of empiricism isn't really fair.

[RGacky3]

I have a question: Why can't more Chinese factories open?

Because there is'nt a market for them .... If there was they would open. I ANSWERED THAT IN THE POST THAT YOU QUOTED, read the posts.

[RGacky3]

I could ask you to point out specifically why the government isn't responsible for the situation there, and you could provide me with a comprehensive answer. But the truth is, I am sure nobody here is an expert on the Chinese economy. Based on that, I think attacking my lack of empiricism isn't really fair.

The burden of proof is on the person saying that something OUTSIDE the market is responsible, i.e. you.

[synthesis]

Not sure what you meant with this?

You said that "pure free markets" create full employment. This is self-evidently false; in capitalism, labor is a commodity and it is in the interests of capitalism to keep supply higher than demand. Workers have much less leverage if there's no shortage of labor. "Pure free markets" tend towards unemployment/underemployment, so as to keep the price of labor down. I would've thought you'd have learned this by now.

[Ocean Seal]

Pro-market people might argue that China is not a free market and they would be right, but these sort of conditions are ENTIRELY caused my market forces, not government intervention.
But here's the thing. The free market crew often talks about how China is evidence that the free market works better than the planned economy and how China is booming. I would say catch them on this: Look at how the free market is working for China now? Don't believe that it is a free market country then why were they touting it as the victory of the free market.