How would you reply to : Milton Friedman ???

[Afghan]

Watch Youtube Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi-D24oCa10

This is what all capitalists say :

The rich don't put their money under their pillows. They invest and create jobs for other people.

How would a communist reply to this?

[Rafiq]

Well, taxes have been cut for the past 30 years and they've been given everything they wanted, and the only difference that we saw was the size of their own salary, a destruction of decent wages, and massive debt as a consequence.

So they do put it under their pillows, and history is my proof.

[Misanthrope]

It doesn't mean it's justified. The capitalist creates jobs because he has enough wealth (obviously) but he expropriated this wealth from workers to attain it in the first place.

Capital isn't just formed from thin air (in most cases), it's created by labour.

[Ocean Seal]

First, the rich do hoard quite a bit of their money. So in fact they are metaphorically speaking "putting it under their pillows" especially when they put it in a bank when they don't invest.
Second, the rich do invest money in their companies: overseas. That's enough to turn any American off to that argument.
Third, why do we reward the rich for job creation? We don't punish them for job destruction right? They're doing a pretty crappy job of creating jobs. And in fact now that taxes are lowest, unemployment is highest. Its a myth that tax breaks for the rich create jobs.

[Klaatu]

Friedman is correct in that investments can improve living conditions. But that's where he diverges from the truth: investment doesn't
have to be done by wealthy people.

In fact, it does NOT have to be done by any private party at all. It can be done via public investment. In fact, when investment is done
under a public ownership, the nation benefits much more than if done only privately. In other words, public investment strengthens
the nation as a whole, while private investment strengthens only the elite class.

For example, the public school system is the single most important investment the people have ever made for the strength of our society. (Imagine if only rich kids got to go to school) Other good public investments include public utilities (Hoover Dam for example), the interstate highway system, the space program, just to name a few.

It is a fact that capitalism is not a requirement in order to build a properous society.

[CommunityBeliever]

They invest and create jobs for other people.

If the rich create jobs for other people why has there always been less unemployment in socialist societies such as Cuba and the DPRK?

[NewLeft]

If the rich create jobs for other people why has there always been less unemployment in socialist societies such as Cuba and the DPRK?

lol I'm not sure about DPRK..

[ZeroNowhere]

I don't think it's much of a defence of capitalism to say that it is capitalism. Of course capitalist investment 'creates jobs' under capitalism; that's because labour-power exists as a commodity dependent upon its incorporation into capital for its own sale. Capitalism creates a state where capital becomes the driving force of production and the active subject of society, while creating on the other side the working class as a dependent mass whose movements follow that of capital. This dependence, the fact that capital 'creates jobs', is precisely the issue with capitalism and why it will be abolished. Indeed, as we can see even in the present period of crisis, capital faces its own internal barriers which prevent it from 'creating jobs', and in fact lead to unemployment; so then it is precisely the fact that capital creates jobs that prevents jobs from being created. And it is precisely this self-limitation and self-negation which means that the working class must assert its own autonomy against that of capital.

[RGacky3]

They invest it to get the best return, which in many cases is just financial shenanigans, or if they have a consumer base they'll invest in productive industry, but they'll make sure they invest in the industry that gives the least to labor, and gets the best return out of them.

Its a rediculous theory actually, to invest in productive industry you need a return, and for a return you need demand, then you have tons of other problems, the tendancy of rate of profit dropping and so on.

This is such a simplistic bullshit view that new-classicals have, that shows their models are deeply flawed.

[Revolutionair]

In Medieval times, the king allowed his land to be worked on by peasents. That is creating jobs as well. Some time before that, the Roman aristrocrat had work to be done in his grand mansion. He supplied work to his slaves.

They are creating jobs, a lot of it improves the standard of living. But it is all class society. Even if the rich went out and created as many jobs as possible, that would only prove that we are living in a class society. When the rich 'create a job' (which I find a horrible phrase I might add) they are going to pay you less of what that job actually creates.

[Revolutionair]

Also at 0:40, the woman has a point.

The rich will invest their money in the way it seems most profitable for them. Sometimes the increased revenue of invading another country for oil is worth the cost.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2312823]They invest it to get the best return, which in many cases is just financial shenanigans, or if they have a consumer base they'll invest in productive industry, but they'll make sure they invest in the industry that gives the least to labor, and gets the best return out of them.

It USED to be claimed that capitalists would invest in industries that afforded themselves the best possible return, all other considerations be damned. NOW he claim is made they will invest in production which deliberately tries to screw over somebody, other considerations be damned.


Its a rediculous theory actually, to invest in productive industry you need a return,

By definition, productive industry gives a "return."


and for a return you need demand,

If there is no demand, the industry is not particularly productive.


then you have tons of other problems, the tendancy of rate of profit dropping and so on.

It has often been claimed that socialist production is based upon demand. Yet it remains mysterious why capitalism continues to be bashed for proposing the same thing.

[RGacky3]

NOW he claim is made they will invest in production which deliberately tries to screw over somebody, other considerations be damned.


Your missing the causality, keeping your costs down does maximize profit, and keeping your costs down many times invariably screws people.

So the 2 different things are not independant, screwing people is a big part of how profit is maximized.


By definition, productive industry gives a "return."


Not necessarily, many buisinesses have to run for years before you see a return, especially those that are capital intensive, and have a heavy start up cost.

Also you have public goods, non-profits don't give a return, and so on.


If there is no demand, the industry is not particularly productive.


... Thats not the definition of productive.

Your mixing up profitable with productive.


It has often been claimed that socialist production is based upon demand. Yet it remains mysterious why capitalism continues to be bashed for proposing the same thing.

Your playing semantics here, capitalism is'nt being bashed for relying on demand, its being bashed for its internal contradiction which are based on its reliance on the profit motive and competition.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2312931]Your missing the causality, keeping your costs down does maximize profit, and keeping your costs down many times invariably screws people.

But again gacky, why would a socialist community seek to use more resources in production than it would need to? Those are costs.




Not necessarily, many buisinesses have to run for years before you see a return, especially those that are capital intensive, and have a heavy start up cost.

Ok. But so what? The capitalist, for whatever reason, is concluding the costs are worth it.

[RGacky3]

But again gacky, why would a socialist community seek to use more resources in production than it would need to? Those are costs.


Its simple, its not using less or more resources, its how these are used.

Ok Capitalist chair company,

10 workers produce 80 chairs an day, 10 workers get paid $80 (they work 8 hours and get $10 an hour) a day ($800), chairs sell for $30 ($2400 revenue) making a profit of $1600. Productivity goes up because of machines, so now they can produce twice the amount of chairs per hour. So what happens? The company FIRES 5 workers, leaving 5 unemployed, and guess what, unemployment pressure means that the worker can pay his workers only $70 a day now and they'll take it (for fear of being fired), so now he pays $350, and his revenue is $2400, making a profit of $2050. 5 workers loose their job, 5 get pay cuts and the boss gets a fat bonus.

Then you get major problems on the macro level as this happens over and over again and so on and so forth you have major problems with capitalism, plus there are other problems such as competition and the rate of profit falling and so on and so forth.

Socialist chair company.

Everything the same, except workers DON'T get paid $80, the 10 workers split the revenue, so they get $240 a day for working 8 hours, then a new machine comes up, so now they can produce twice as fast, so what happens? Now Everyone can work 4 hours a day and get the same amount of money.

Now, I spelled it out very clearly to you, a 5 year old could get this.


Ok. But so what? The capitalist, for whatever reason, is concluding the costs are worth it.

Then he would'nt cut then would he:rolleyes:. But worth it for what? Worth it for the profit. (I know what your trying to do with this, your juts playing semantics arguments here, that have no basis in reality or any economics.)

[Ismail]

lol I'm not sure about DPRK..Officially there is no unemployment in the DPRK.

Of course this doesn't mean that every single person is doing productive work. In Albania in the 1980's, for instance, outside observers noted that a lot of workers were just sitting around waiting to do stuff and getting paid all along the way. There's bound to be similar stuff going on in the DPRK. Similar issues were in other states as well, which helped give rise to the expression "we pretend to do work and they pretend to pay us."

[Klaatu]

When the rich 'create a job' (which I find a horrible phrase I might add) they are going to pay you less of what that job actually creates.

Exactly. That is, in fact, the reason they are rich: they confiscated far more than their fair share of the workers' labor. When I say "fair share,"
I mean from perhaps one to five percent profit. The worker should be getting 95-99% of his real value. (Ideally, that would be 100%, but that is the established system we have... in fact the worker probably gets, on average, about ten percent of his real value... the other 90% goes to the pockets of the owners and thier overlords, and so on.)

[Demogorgon]

I can't watch the whole video right now, so I'll just answer the first part of it where he talks about investment. Firstly there is no reason why investment could not be democratised. Indeed it would likely be better if it was. If the rich alone invest (presuming they really invest, more on that in a minute) then they reap the returns, investment becomes more and more an elite activity, and it becomes skewed to the benefit of an elite group. If society democratically controls investment, then it becomes targeted to society as a whole.

Also, it should be noted that having so much money held by the rich (who in theory should invest more than consume) does not in fact guarantee a particularly high amount of investment. With the exception of Singapore (where the Government forces high investment through compulsory Government controlled savings) the countries with the highest percentage of investment in terms of GDP are not countries rolling with wealthy people. The United States with its enormous class of super-rich people is ranked a pathetic 135th in the world in terms of investment. Only ten measured countries rank below it. Plainly the United States' policy of letting wealth become so concentrated in order to encourage investment has been a dismal failure.

Also much "investment" done by the wealthy is not true investment at all, it is just speculation. That's not contributing to the real economy, it's not increasing capital resources. Friedman is plain wrong.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2312949]Its simple, its not using less or more resources, its how these are used.

Ok Capitalist chair company,

10 workers produce 80 chairs an day, 10 workers get paid $80 (they work 8 hours and get $10 an hour) a day ($800), chairs sell for $30 ($2400 revenue) making a profit of $1600. Productivity goes up because of machines, so now they can produce twice the amount of chairs per hour. So what happens? The company FIRES 5 workers, leaving 5 unemployed, and guess what, unemployment pressure means that the worker can pay his workers only $70 a day now and they'll take it (for fear of being fired), so now he pays $350, and his revenue is $2400, making a profit of $2050. 5 workers loose their job, 5 get pay cuts and the boss gets a fat bonus.

Then you get major problems on the macro level as this happens over and over again and so on and so forth you have major problems with capitalism, plus there are other problems such as competition and the rate of profit falling and so on and so forth.

Socialist chair company.

Everything the same, except workers DON'T get paid $80, the 10 workers split the revenue, so they get $240 a day for working 8 hours, then a new machine comes up, so now they can produce twice as fast, so what happens? Now Everyone can work 4 hours a day and get the same amount of money.

Now, I spelled it out very clearly to you, a 5 year old could get this.


No. It is using more resources. You are freely admitting to using twice as much labor to produce chairs in the socialist factory than in the capitalist. That you propose to claim this is a benefit because it means the workers in the socialist factory can work fewer hours doesn't change it. It simply means a way which the socialist system is evaluated for success is by how few hours people work. That has major "macro" levels implications and problems for the socialist system.

The major one is that production is held to be static; the assumption is that the demand for chairs remains the same. But an adjustment in demand does not lend itself so easily to an adjustment in production, since having to work extra hours is some sort of 'violation' of the socialist system in a uptick in demand for chairs. A decrease in demand for chairs is a great bonanza for the socialist workers since it means fewer hours worked. As it becomes more difficult to find labor, than obviously it should be more difficult to produce and provide "new machines" since production of these would follow the same paradigm as chair production.

[RGacky3]

No. It is using more resources. You are freely admitting to using twice as much labor to produce chairs in the socialist factory than in the capitalist.

No, if you look at it, its actually the same amount of labor.


That you propose to claim this is a benefit because it means the workers in the socialist factory can work fewer hours doesn't change it. It simply means a way which the socialist system is evaluated for success is by how few hours people work. That has major "macro" levels implications and problems for the socialist system.


Well, its 0 unemployment, and a better quality of life for more people, while still keeping the productivity.


The major one is that production is held to be static; the assumption is that the demand for chairs remains the same.

No shit. But that qualification has no impact on the argument.


But an adjustment in demand does not lend itself so easily to an adjustment in production, since having to work extra hours is some sort of 'violation' of the socialist system in a uptick in demand for chairs.

Not at all, why would it do that?

Your basic assumption here is that no one is rational. Which is a sophmoric and nonsense assumption.


A decrease in demand for chairs is a great bonanza for the socialist workers since it means fewer hours worked. As it becomes more difficult to find labor, than obviously it should be more difficult to produce and provide "new machines" since production of these would follow the same paradigm as chair production.

Your entirely missing the argument, your assuming people are irrational and static, which is totally nonsense, infact there is plenty of reason to believe that without the threat of being destitute due to unemployment, people would be MORE fluid, and MORE creative.

Your arguments here are based on the most idiotic assumptions and a total missunderstanding of the argument. Your looking at these problems 1 dimensionally, as if people have no capacity for rational thought, or that people cannot both value their free time AND the wealth they have access too.

Its obvious you have no real arguments here.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2316170]No, if you look at it, its actually the same amount of labor.

I should have added, "to produce the same amount of chairs."




Well, its 0 unemployment, and a better quality of life for more people, while still keeping the productivity.

Not really, since the impact on using more labor to produce the same number of chairs means there is less labor available to produce other items people need.




No shit. But that qualification has no impact on the argument.

Sure it does; the production model you create has to have the ability to adjust and change under differing circumstances.




Not at all, why would it do that?

You are the one praising the 4 hr work day as a desired objective; not I.


Your basic assumption here is that no one is rational. Which is a sophmoric and nonsense assumption.



Your entirely missing the argument, your assuming people are irrational and static,

No. I am assuming people are irrational and static if producing within the confines of a socialist system.


which is totally nonsense, infact there is plenty of reason to believe that without the threat of being destitute due to unemployment, people would be MORE fluid, and MORE creative.

That has nothing to do with anything. If it is a virtue in a socialist system for low productivity, then you can hardly turn around and deny the impact that has on the socialist society.


Your arguments here are based on the most idiotic assumptions and a total missunderstanding of the argument. Your looking at these problems 1 dimensionally, as if people have no capacity for rational thought, or that people cannot both value their free time AND the wealth they have access too.

Not at all. It is you stating than an objective of socialist production is to enjoy created wealth. But the wealth has to be created; it doesn't "appear" like one of these "new machines" in the chair factory.

[RGacky3]

I should have added, "to produce the same amount of chairs."


Ok, its still the same amount of labor, the same hours of labor per chair.


Not really, since the impact on using more labor to produce the same number of chairs means there is less labor available to produce other items people need.


See above, and learn simple mathmatics.


Sure it does; the production model you create has to have the ability to adjust and change under differing circumstances.


And you made no argument that it could not.


You are the one praising the 4 hr work day as a desired objective; not I.


ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING EQUAL, yes it is, especially if the other option is unemployment and lower pay.


No. I am assuming people are irrational and static if producing within the confines of a socialist system.


Which is the dumbest assumption ever, unless socialism to you means hitting every baby on the head when he is born.


That has nothing to do with anything. If it is a virtue in a socialist system for low productivity, then you can hardly turn around and deny the impact that has on the socialist society.


Productivity is output per hour of labor, ITS THE SAME PRODUCTIVITY.

All your showing here is a vast lack of knowledge about economics, and a lack of understanding arguments.


Not at all. It is you stating than an objective of socialist production is to enjoy created wealth. But the wealth has to be created; it doesn't "appear" like one of these "new machines" in the chair factory.

No shit, no arguments there.

productivity=output per hour of labor, not output per worker, otherwise you could raise productivity by just making the workday 12 hours long, learn economic terms, read my argument again and get what I'm saying (its not hard, I've dumbed it down significantly), and stop making baseless assumptions with absolutely no basis in anything.

Then we can have a proper discussion.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2316198]Ok, its still the same amount of labor, the same hours of labor per chair.



See above, and learn simple mathmatics.

But not the same amount of workers.





ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING EQUAL, yes it is, especially if the other option is unemployment and lower pay.

No. Because the problem remains the same- labor directed into an area where it is not in as high as demand.




Which is the dumbest assumption ever, unless socialism to you means hitting every baby on the head when he is born.

Look- What is rational and "makes sense" in socialist production is going to be different than than what is rational and "makes sense" in a capitalist one.

Now, I would argue that capitalism production is rational production and socialist production irrational production. But obviously socialists do not agree. So then one has to look upon what the socialists claim and argue. The response you have frequently offered 'they (the workers in a socialist community) are not stupid' begs the question.




productivity=output per hour of labor, not output per worker, otherwise you could raise productivity by just making the workday 12 hours long,

You are ignoring costs in having 10 laborers doing the work of 5.

[#FF0000]

Now, I would argue that capitalism production is rational production and socialist production irrational production.

I honestly have no idea how anyone could make that argument, though. Market efficiency usually means loads of waste (empty apartments and homeless people) and capitalist production is the only mode of production where people could starve because there is too much food.

[RGacky3]

But not the same amount of workers.


Ok .... not the definition of productivity.


No. Because the problem remains the same- labor directed into an area where it is not in as high as demand.


No its not.


Look- What is rational and "makes sense" in socialist production is going to be different than than what is rational and "makes sense" in a capitalist one.


It is rational and make's sense to make things that people need.


Now, I would argue that capitalism production is rational production and socialist production irrational production. But obviously socialists do not agree.

No, you would CLAIM that, you hav'nt made an argument yet.

Nor have you responded to ANY of the criticisms of capitalism.

And you've only responded to alternatives by missunderstanding them and making baseless assumptions.


You are ignoring costs in having 10 laborers doing the work of 5.

For half the time ....

But I guess we'll just leave it at that, you'd rather have 5 unemployed workers and 5 workers working 8 hours a day. I'd rather have 10 employed and they all work 4 hours (or 6 or whatever) for the same amount of pay as the 5 (which is possible when its non-profit).

[Agent Equality]

This is looking like its gonna turn into another Gacky-Baseball shitfest again, with Gacky giving good points and Baseball refusing to budge from reaction :sleep:

[RGacky3]

Its gotten to a point where he's arguing that number of workers in production rather than number of hours in production is the measure of productivity. When he's reduced to arguing absurd things like that he should just give up.

Baseball has one trick up his sleeve, just one little trick, he can't argue anything else but that, and even when whe argues that thing, he can't formulate an actual case for it, nor can he give any theoretical or empirical evidence.

[Geiseric]

the rich invest, and are forced to invest in whatever yields the most profit, which is un unionised, slave, sweat shop labor. It isn't even that productive, but that's okay since by that point not many people would be willing to buy anything anyways.

[Baseball]

But I guess we'll just leave it at that, you'd rather have 5 unemployed workers and 5 workers working 8 hours a day. I'd rather have 10 employed and they all work 4 hours (or 6 or whatever) for the same amount of pay as the 5 (which is possible when its non-profit).

I would rather have five workers a full day making chairs and five workers working a full day making pots and pans, than 10 workers working half a day making chairs and 0 workers working 0 part of the day making pots and pans.
It is a more rational arrangement and more beneficial to the community.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2316949]Its gotten to a point where he's arguing that number of workers in production rather than number of hours in production is the measure of productivity.

Its actually the amount of production in an hour, or a day.

[RGacky3]

No its not because you''ll have half of them unemployed, when other industries do this then you have excess capacity, causing more cuts, and then a crisis in capitalism.

Its just a bad way to run the economy. A non-profit worker controlled economy won't have those problems.


Its actually the amount of production in an hour, or a day.

Its almost always used as production per worker per hour.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2318013]No its not because you''ll have half of them unemployed, when other industries do this then you have excess capacity, causing more cuts, and then a crisis in capitalism.

Its just a bad way to run the economy. A non-profit worker controlled economy won't have those problems.

It wil then have the problem of finding labor to produce pots and pans...

[RGacky3]

It wil then have the problem of finding labor to produce pots and pans...

If there is a shortage of labor then people would have to work more.

You have the basic assumptions that economies are totally rigid, an assumption that a 5 year old would understand to be false.

[Baseball]

Its almost always used as production per worker per hour.

Thus 10 workers doing the work of 5 means less productivity per worker

[Baseball]

If there is a shortage of labor then people would have to work more.

You have the basic assumptions that economies are totally rigid, an assumption that a 5 year old would understand to be false.

It is questionable how many more pots and pans those 5 extra and unneeded workers in the chair factory could make per hour...

[RGacky3]

It is questionable how many more pots and pans those 5 extra and unneeded workers in the chair factory could make per hour...

:laugh: I accept your concession. Your arguments now are simply based on purposeful missunderstanding of the word "productivity" and total inability to comprehend simple arithmatic.

[cb9's_unity]

Baseball, remember that an overabundance of labor is actually a crippling thing in capitalism. If there are too many jobs the workers can demand much higher wages, which then makes it very difficult to continue doing business, which threatens the stability of the capitalist system. Tell me how that is 'rational'. If there were an overabundance of labor in a socialist society people would just do less work. Please explain how this is "irrational."

Capitalists generally only value things in terms of the gross amount of production. Socialists generally tend to place more value on living standards. Thus the fascist-capitalist reforms in Chile could be called an "economic miracle" because they advanced production while raising unemployment and generally hurting the poor in the country. Most socialists aren't too religious, but we know that miracles don't involve inflicting pain on the part of the poor in order to advance the profits of the rich.

Finally, we can see capitalists stashing their profits at unprecedented rates today. Profits have been higher than ever, but the capitalists just don't want to hire.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=cb9's_unity;2318483]Baseball, remember that an overabundance of labor is actually a crippling thing in capitalism. If there are too many jobs the workers can demand much higher wages, which then makes it very difficult to continue doing business,

When there are too many jobs available, it does mean wages and salaries will rise, as capitalists seek to attract working labor from elsewhere.
But that just means there is a lot of work available, which means there is high demand for their product, which means profits can be made, or made greater, with an increased labor supply.



If there were an overabundance of labor in a socialist society people would just do less work. Please explain how this is "irrational."

Because it would mean that the socialist community has the potential to either produce more, or produce in other lines of production.



Capitalists generally only value things in terms of the gross amount of production. Socialists generally tend to place more value on living standards.

Capitalists are focused upon creating wealth; socialists upon consuming it, true.


Most socialists aren't too religious, but we know that miracles don't involve inflicting pain on the part of the poor in order to advance the profits of the rich.

But again, defenders of capitalism would deny the rigidness of society which the socialists claim.


Finally, we can see capitalists stashing their profits at unprecedented rates today. Profits have been higher than ever, but the capitalists just don't want to hire.

Because they do not know what the costs of that labor will be over the next few years. Besides, isn't one of the criticisms of the last several about the 'excessive' spending by these capitalists?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

For example, the public school system is the single most important investment the people have ever made for the strength of our society.
Ignoring the role that public education plays in indoctrinating working class children with bourgeois ideology.

[RGacky3]

When there are too many jobs available, it does mean wages and salaries will rise, as capitalists seek to attract working labor from elsewhere.
But that just means there is a lot of work available, which means there is high demand for their product, which means profits can be made, or made greater, with an increased labor supply.


Actually thats not necessarily the case, many times as wages goes up consuption goes up slower, and saving takes a larger chunk of peoples income.


Because it would mean that the socialist community has the potential to either produce more, or produce in other lines of production.


Yes ... They have that option too.


Capitalists are focused upon creating wealth; socialists upon consuming it, true.


The 2 rely on each other, thats a stupid way of looking at it.


But again, defenders of capitalism would deny the rigidness of society which the socialists claim.


The rigidity of society is never really an arguemnt leftists use, its a strawmen pro-capitalists put up.

IF the crown switches hands many different times between nobles it does'nt justify monarchy.


Because they do not know what the costs of that labor will be over the next few years. Besides, isn't one of the criticisms of the last several about the 'excessive' spending by these capitalists?

Thats not why they are stashing money, thats a stupid analysis again, its because they won't get a return because the markets are smaller due to smaller consumption.

The excessive lavishenss of capitalists is'nt a criticism of capitalism as a system, its just an example of the obsenity of capitalism.

Baseball, I think its time you give this up.

[cb9's_unity]

When there are too many jobs available, it does mean wages and salaries will rise, as capitalists seek to attract working labor from elsewhere.
But that just means there is a lot of work available, which means there is high demand for their product, which means profits can be made, or made greater, with an increased labor supply.

I recently heard David Harvey say that capitalism never fixes its problems, it just moves them around. This is basically what you're advocating.

Sooner or later the U.S. is going to even ought with most of the world economically. Our head start into capitalism just isn't going to sustain the competitive benefits it used to. Eventually there won't be cheap labor that we can just import into the country. You need a fairly large economic disparity for Mexicans to be willing to leave their homes to be paid rock-bottom wages.

Your argument is a prime example of why the U.S. needs poor countries to avoid crisis.


Capitalists are focused upon creating wealth; socialists upon consuming it, true.

Nonsense, demand is no small part of the capitalist system.

Socialists think there is a lot more to life than what you consume.

[Prometheus]

It is not a matter of money, it is a matter of access to resources.