Intelligent conversation...

[nickernocker]

First of all let me establish one fact that I believe everyone can agree on: there has never been a true communist or capitalist nation. You can say America is capitalist but it has many socialist tendency (medicare, social security etc etc.) Likewise all nations that capitalists (which I am by the way) call communist have just been extremely socialist. Therefore it is impossible for us to actually gauge which system is better as neither has actually existed.

With that said I'd like to keep this thread civil. Generally speaking unintelligible attacks on the opposite economic system do nothing to help your cause.

One of the main points made against capitalism is that it exploits the common worker. This actually does contain a grain of truth but not in the way that it is commonly thought of. Mining companies in America during the late 1800s paid their workers next to nothing. Furthermore some didnt even pay their workers US currency, the companies printed their own money therefore forcing the workers to buy from company stores (which had overpriced goods.) Was this exploitation or unfair. In my opinion, no. What would happen if you decided to quit, the company couldnt shoot you or put you in prison. The problem now is you have to find a new job, but thats your own fault. Now because of all this workers pressured the gov't to create laws to raise their wages and generally regulate their employers. So far, all fact.

What if, however, the market had simply been allowed to work on its own? Well obviously since your arent paying your workers much your production costs are low and hiring new employees cost you almost nothing. The result, more money for your business to expand. If you decided to not expand your business then there would still be a large cheap work force ready for other businesses to tap, which they would. Eventually, however, this large work force would be exhausted. In other words a mine or factory would need workers but their wouldnt be any because they all had jobs already. The result of this would be competition amongst various companies for unskilled labor. A new company would have to give incentive for workers to quit their current jobs and work for it by offering something better then they currently have. Its basic supply and demand. As the supply of workers goes down the demand for them goes up and employers will pay more for their labor. To address an issues ahead of time that may come up I do not think of workers as a mere part of my production and not independent beings but rather I consider the product they are offering (in this case the labor of their hands) a part of my production. So why were laborers paid so lowly? Not because I forced them to accept my wages but because if they didnt then someone else would.

This is not just capitalist economic nonsense, it has a basis in reality. Why is a mechanic paid more then a factory worker? There arent as many mechanics as there are factory workers. You need a repair mechanic to fix your machinery but theres only one in town. If he doesnt want to buy at your company store or wants more money then you dont have much choice because if you dont hire him the mine a mile away will. Do miners, mechanics, or doctors contribute more to society? A question that is impossible to quantify, they are all necessary. However, does an individual factory worker, an individual mechanic, or an individual doctor contribute more to society? Factory workers are easy to find, doctors are harder.

My point is that in a free-market society the market determines everything. During the Industrial Revolution the free-market with concerns to labor was not at equilibrium. There were more laborers then there were labor positions (unemployment.) However, the market would eventually find equilibrium in time (it has in every instance where it has been left untampered) and wages would rise.

[New Tolerance]

What if, however, the market had simply been allowed to work on its own? Well obviously since your arent paying your workers much your production costs are low and hiring new employees cost you almost nothing. The result, more money for your business to expand. If you decided to not expand your business then there would still be a large cheap work force ready for other businesses to tap, which they would. Eventually, however, this large work force would be exhausted. In other words a mine or factory would need workers but their wouldnt be any because they all had jobs already. The result of this would be competition amongst various companies for unskilled labor. A new company would have to give incentive for workers to quit their current jobs and work for it by offering something better then they currently have. Its basic supply and demand. As the supply of workers goes down the demand for them goes up and employers will pay more for their labor. To address an issues ahead of time that may come up I do not think of workers as a mere part of my production and not independent beings but rather I consider the product they are offering (in this case the labor of their hands) a part of my production. So why were laborers paid so lowly? Not because I forced them to accept my wages but because if they didnt then someone else would.


That's assuming the industry is labour intensive, if the company just send it's extra money on improving efficiency to increase production than hiring more workers, the demand for workers would not expand. (they might actually lay off some people) would you rather have a car factory that is operated by robotics or humans? Machines don't complain, people do, machines work 24/7, people don't, machines don't join unions and go on strike, people do. Further more although you don't have to pay workers that much money, you have to pay the machines virtually nothing (other than electricity). If you ask me, I rather own a factory that is filled with robots than humans.

[Shredder]

Is that NYC4Ever on a new name? They talk exactly alike.

[nickernocker]

Good point New Revolution. However, remember that machinery usually entails a large upfront cost where as hiring someone doesn't. The more complicated/efficient the more it costs. A robot that could completely assemble a car with no human intervention would cost an astronomical sum and even with improving technology would always cost a lot. Also remember that assuming all labor intensive jobs are replaced by robots (which honestly I could probably see happening) that you still need actual humans to repair this machinery, to watch over it etc.


Technology that imroves means of production has historically created a smaller need for employment (layoffs) but then shortly thereafter created a larger demand for higher paying jobs. Is unemployment today especially high today because of technology? Not at all. In fact technology has created a demand for higher paying jobs, which companies will sometimes train potential employees to peform at their own cost (construction companies look for potential employees who already know how to operate their machinery but are also willing to offer on the job training if already trained labor is not available.) Minus a discovery of Matrixesque AI completely replacing human labor with machines leaving only property owners (the burgeiouse right?) with means of income is almost impossible.

New technology the results in less of a need for unskilled labor has almost always created a higher demand for skilled labor.

[Bradyman]

Nickernocker, you're misrepresenting the idea of exploitation in your argument.

The owner of the capital, the guy who owns the factory, employs labor to do the work. The workers are the ones who produce the commodities, who create the product. The businessman has done nothing to create the product, he merely had the money up front. When the product is sold, the businessman has gained profit from the commodity, though he has not actually done anything to help create the product. So where does his profit come from?

The answer is that it came from the labor. Since the labor created all the value of the product, they should get paid the full value of their work. But, in capitalism, the businessman must take money from the workers in order to make a profit.

Use this example:

A worker buys a piece of wood for 5 dollars. He builds a canoe out of it and sells it for 15. He got paid the full value of his work which is 10 dollars.

Now say a businessman gives him the piece of wood to make a canoe. The worker works and builds a canoe which sells for 15 dollars. Unfortunetly, the worker is only paid 5 dollars while capitalist takes the remaining profit (5 dollars).

You see, the worker does not get paid the full value of his work, while the capitalist, who simply has money to begin with, can increase his wealth by doing absolutely nothing.

The common justification of the businessman's profit is that he was the one who took the risk, he put his money up front, he could lose the money. Of course, though, the worker takes just as much risks, losing their job, but frankly that's not the point.

Communism, or rather socialism, is a society in which the businessmen are gotten rid of, where everyone gets paid the full value of their work, where no one is making money and not working. It might seem comendable that the entreprenuer is taking a risk, but it's really unnecessary and just creates exploitation. If the workers controlled the means of production there would be no need for the businessman.

[nickernocker]

The worker does not take as much risk as the businessman. True he could lose his job but he does not lose whatever accumulation of wealth he has (however meager it is.) If the worker in the above example has $100 in savings and the business he works for goes out of business he still has $100 in savings. Also the worker gets paid some sum of money regardless of how the business is doing, where as the entrepeur can actually be losing money for quite some time. Such is the situation with many new small businesses, they incur losses for their first few years of business but they must still pay their employees.

The idea that business owners simply have money and make huge profits off of it doing nothing is only true if you consider only physical labor as work. The entrepeneur must establish a sound business plan, hire competent employees, find and buy land, as well as have concieved a new idea (how many products that are exactly the same as another suddenly become insanely popular?.) All of this requires an enourmous mental expenditure. Think of all the things of canoe-builder is NOT responsible for: accounting, marketing, and dealing with the management of his fellow employees just to name a few. On top of all this the business owner must realize this his source of investment is NOT safe and his source of income NOT assured. If physical work is somehow harder to develop then mental work, then why arent there more geniuses in the world?

Not only that many businesses are not started by a person with excess wealth. Many entrepeneurs have to take out large loans for a bank to start their business. If it fails they havent lost their money theyve lost someone elses and are now in debt.

Your above example actually supports capitalism. If the worker has five dollars then why doesnt he just buy the piece of wood himself? If he has no money then the capitalist has just provided him with a means in which he can buys his own wood.

[Shredder]

If physical work is somehow harder to develop then mental work, then why arent there more geniuses in the world?

It is a common mistake--er, falsification--to refer to an entrepreneurs' efforts as work. It is not his physical work or mental work that we care about. It is his profit that came purely from employing other workers. The part that is not from the workhe put in, but instead the capital he put in. As long as the capitalist system exists, society will not reward labor with wealth, but will simply reward wealth with more wealth, and 20% of the population will always own 80% of the wealth.

[Vinny Rafarino]

One of the main points made against capitalism is that it exploits the common worker. This actually does contain a grain of truth but not in the way that it is commonly thought of


Not exactly.

The exploitation of the common "worker" is a reference to the exploitation of labour capital compared to the extraction of surplus value from the goods or services sold. Whenever surplus value (profit) exists, you will find that an intensive level labour capital (also called variable capital) has been exploited from the labour pool.

Workers are being exploited as only a small portion of the surplus value extracted from marketing the goods they produce actually goes to them.

I understand that you (as a capitalist) choose to ignore this simple but irrefutable fact as it really would not be in your best interest to not to address the issue. Unless of course you happen to not actually benefit from the extraction of surplus value and have yet to actually recognise that you too have been "exploited".

If that's the case then, perhaps the joke's on you.


What if, however, the market had simply been allowed to work on its own? Well obviously since your arent paying your workers much your production costs are low and hiring new employees cost you almost nothing. The result, more money for your business to expand

The "result" is even more surplus value not "trickling down" to the workers as some "unique" conservatives would allow you to believe.


If you decided to not expand your business then there would still be a large cheap work force ready for other businesses to tap, which they would. Eventually, however, this large work force would be exhausted. In other words a mine or factory would need workers but their wouldnt be any because they all had jobs already. The result of this would be competition amongst various companies for unskilled labor. A new company would have to give incentive for workers to quit their current jobs and work for it by offering something better then they currently have. Its basic supply and demand

Unfortunately, this is not what happens in the real world.

What REALLY happens is that unemployment continues to increase as companies search for more ways to decrease their variable capital costs. This "army" of workers falls prey to "wage bidding" among the employers. If you don't believe me, watch the news.

Show me an economy filled with companies competing for "you" and I will show you a Socialist nation.

Capitalists have ceased trying to "hide" their intentions for some time now.



This is not just capitalist economic nonsense, it has a basis in reality.


Not really, so far nothing you have said has actually been a "real" interpretation of capitalist economics. For the most part, it's complete fantasy.



Why is a mechanic paid more then a factory worker? There arent as many mechanics as there are factory workers. You need a repair mechanic to fix your machinery but theres only one in town. If he doesnt want to buy at your company store or wants more money then you dont have much choice because if you dont hire him the mine a mile away will. Do miners, mechanics, or doctors contribute more to society? A question that is impossible to quantify, they are all necessary. However, does an individual factory worker, an individual mechanic, or an individual doctor contribute more to society? Factory workers are easy to find, doctors are harder.


Capitalist finally stopped using the "Shit Shoveler vs. The Doctor" excuse many moons ago as it was realised that did not apply to either socialist economics or a money-less communist society. It is simply the same tosh made popular by Joe McCarthy uring the big "red scare".

Please come up with something with substance.


My point is that in a free-market society the market determines everything. During the Industrial Revolution the free-market with concerns to labor was not at equilibrium. There were more laborers then there were labor positions (unemployment.) However, the market would eventually find equilibrium in time (it has in every instance where it has been left untampered) and wages would rise


You better hope you're right otherwise you may have some 'splaining to do Lucy.


One more thing, there is no such thing as "unskilled" and "skilled" labour. Capitalists workers just love to create the illusion that they are somehow "better" than another "class" of workers.

I would imagine this is a psychological defense mechanism that was created to keep the labour pool "poor and happy". No one really thinks "thier own" labour efforts are "unskilled" now do they? Of course not, they are not like those uppity "unskilled labourers" their jobs are "too important" to be considered "unskilled".

Good grief, what a sham.


Bradyman,


Communism, or rather socialism, is a society in which the businessmen are gotten rid of, where everyone gets paid the full value of their work, where no one is making money and not working


Not exactly, a much larger percentage of the surplus value will go to the workers than compared to capitalist policy however there is still a small percentage of the surplus value that must go to the state to pay for housing, healthcare, transportation, etc.

In essence, the worker will indeed receive the full amount of their labour value, (by using those services) but will still not immediately retain 100% of the surplus value of any good or service they produce.


NT,



That's assuming the industry is labour intensive, if the company just send it's extra money on improving efficiency to increase production than hiring more workers, the demand for workers would not expand. (they might actually lay off some people) would you rather have a car factory that is operated by robotics or humans? Machines don't complain, people do, machines work 24/7, people don't, machines don't join unions and go on strike, people do. Further more although you don't have to pay workers that much money, you have to pay the machines virtually nothing (other than electricity). If you ask me, I rather own a factory that is filled with robots than humans.


It has been found that automation cannot decrease the rate of variable capital enough to actually keep the rate of profit from falling. Competition and Anti-Trust laws will ensure that each company can obtain the same labour saving devices as the next cat, driving market value for those goods down to an even level again.

What good is having machines mass produce a product with a "finite" rate of profit until the time comes when you must add even more constant capital into a product to"re-fit" or "upgrade" it? I reckon that's where the "quick buck" comes into play.

These companies may not be able to pay their variable capital on time, (workers pay cheques) but you can be damn sure that the CEO's million dollar pay day clears the bank. It's easy to take large capital risks when the only one that that has anything to lose is NOT YOU.

Some companies find that increasing their constant capital rates by 1000% in one business cycle and decreasing their variable capital rates by 300% on every continuing business cycle while increasing output by say, 200% can expect surplus value to be exctracted from their product within 2 business cycles.

However, now they have to predict for "how long" they can reasonably sells these products at the current market value and if they will bother to even continue operating once the fair market price has leveled.

Some decide to "take the money and run" (B-13) while others decide to invest their temporarily inflated levels of profit into producing another product.

It's pretty easy shit once you know how it works, dig?

[nickernocker]

Trickle-down economics does work. Despite popular opinion the American economy was greatly helped under President Reagan (who I assume, perhaps incorrectly, is who you were referring to with the "trickle down" effect.) The average income for the poorest 20 percent of Americans went up by 5% (compared to a 5% drop under Bill Clinton.) To be fair the richest 20 percent of people saw their incomes raise by about 20% The median (not mean so rich people arent bringing this up disproportionately) family income increased 1% per year (compared with no growth before Reagan and a decline after Reagan.) By the end of his term unemployment had been cut nearly in half (from about 9% to 5%.) Under "voodoo" economic policy the inflation rate dropped from 19% to 11% (incidentally inflation comes from govt tinkering with the economy and not capitalism.) The only area the economy did not perform in was the national debt, but this was not an effect of trickle-down economics but rather of Reagans misguided beliefs in supply-side economics.

Also some labor is better then others. What happens if I remove one factory worker from a company and then dont replace him? Not too much, the company will continue to exist and produce a profit. Same thing with a janitor or a cashier. Now what happens when I remove the CEO and dont replace him/her? The company now has no direction, it might continue for a while but in the absence of leadership it falls apart. Could the factory worker do the work of the CEO? No, it would be essentially the same as having no CEO. Could the CEO do the work of factory worker? Yes. That is why the factory worker is considered "unskilled." The people are considered equal under capitalism just not services they offer. Or how about this, Marxist theory describes a violent revolution by the proletariat. How far will this revolution get without a leader? Remove the leader and the revolution weakens greatly, perhaps even ceases, but remove one revolutionary and almost no one will notice.

Many so called programs in America set to help the common worker actually end up hurting him. Minimum wage creates unemployment (dont believe me? Think about whether you could get a job if minimum wage was 1 million dollars.) Unemployment in turn means a surplus of labor which means wages will never go higher unless the government intervenes. Socialized programs have a habit of imploding on themselves: Social Security is serious jeopardy, the Canadian health system has waiting lists in some areas of 3 months for an MRI.

Lastly, as a laborer (by laborer Im referring to any kind of labor: mining, programming, accounting, etc) you yourself are a capitalist seller. Your selling your labor and trying to get the best price for it. Supply and demand dictates that the more of something that is available the less it is worth. There are no such things as employers and employees, only buyers and sellers. The factory owner buys the labor of the worker for a price agreeable to both. If the transaction is unsatisfactory to either party then no exchange need take place.

The fact that there are rich and poor is not a problem caused by capitalism it is a problem that it inherited.

Who was one of richest Americans of all time? Andrew Carnegie. He started out with nothing; a factory worker who built a massive business and fortune. He then spent his last living years giving away this fortune.

[Nyder]

Nickernocker, you have made some very insightful posts. Keep up the good work.

As you can see, the anti-capitalists here on this board like to completely ignore some very crucial points that would destroy their argument. Just keep repeating the same irrefutable facts to them and they will have nowhere to hide.

[Shredder]

The more anachronistic a capitalist's arguments, the more he gets praise from his cohorts. This is the law of the OI forum.

The sentiment that a worker selling his labor power is exactly the same as the person buying his labor power... this is completely absurd. Indeed, they have certain similarities (business transaction). But the labor power of the laborer and the things of the capitalist are lightyears apart. I'm not going to talk for 36 pages about the small and large differences that make capitalists and workers so different; I will just suggest that you try to imagine writing an in-depth economic study of capitalism without pounding out at every bend the difference between capital and wage labor.

The same goes for the imaginary concept that capitalism inherited it's inequality. If you took a metaphorical knife and levelled the playing field, it would grow back to the old, same inequality again and again. Ultimately, there will be owners and workers. The owners will get complete control and plunge the workers into unemployment and poverty. The economy would not forever stay in a more or less equality; some Andrew Carnegie would get lucky and end up in control of the universe. Indeed, you shot yourself in the foot with your Carnegie example, because it shows how capitalism spontaneously creates inequality where there was none before.

The Reagan numbers prove themselves to be accidents because the poorest's wealth increased more than the median. This is impossible in the long run. If the poorest 20% of the US saw their wealth increase 5% (a whole 5%!) they did so at the cost of some illegal immigrants or workers in a far away land. More likely the decline after Reagan was the real outcome of Reagan.

If you intend to take away our minimum wage and other programs for workers, claiming that they are actually hurting us, the only outcome can be your crucifixion.

The idea that a free market equals free people belongs in whatever trash bin they're storing the constitution in these days. Capitalists run the world--if the utopian dream of a completely unrestricted economy would work they would have tried it by now. They can't, because they need their precious state and benefit from their 'socialist' plans. You want us to ante in and prostrate ourselves before the market in prayer for a good hand. Perhaps we should go a step further and refute all knowledge of math and science. We will dance around a fire for a good harvest and sacrifice war prisoners to please the sun god. Speaking of sacrifice, what are you doing here? It's 3 a.m. and the Invisible Hand is hungry!

I leave you with this.


Could the CEO do the work of factory worker? Yes.

No. You can't do factory work over a cell phone from Bermuda.

[cubist]

actually the CEO could do the work, however he would be appaled at the bullshit in they way of him doing his work, he would open his eyes to a new concept of workers rights, something he forgot when he broke through the barrier.

i love that program back to the flaw i can't help but laugh at the shit the CEO's get from the workers.

[Osman Ghazi]

Now what happens when I remove the CEO and dont replace him/her? The company now has no direction, it might continue for a while but in the absence of leadership it falls apart. Could the factory worker do the work of the CEO? No, it would be essentially the same as having no CEO. Could the CEO do the work of factory worker? Yes.

"I wouldn't want to be an Alpha, they have to do so much work" - Beta Hypnopaedia Phrase, Brave New World

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 02:40 PM
actually the CEO could do the work, however he would be appaled at the bullshit in they way of him doing his work, he would open his eyes to a new concept of workers rights, something he forgot when he broke through the barrier.
Rights derive from nature and are enforced by the government, not CEOs.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Trickle-down economics does work. Despite popular opinion the American economy was greatly helped under President Reagan (who I assume, perhaps incorrectly, is who you were referring to with the "trickle down" effect.) The average income for the poorest 20 percent of Americans went up by 5% (compared to a 5% drop under Bill Clinton.) To be fair the richest 20 percent of people saw their incomes raise by about 20% The median (not mean so rich people arent bringing this up disproportionately) family income increased 1% per year (compared with no growth before Reagan and a decline after Reagan.) By the end of his term unemployment had been cut nearly in half (from about 9% to 5%.) Under "voodoo" economic policy the inflation rate dropped from 19% to 11% (incidentally inflation comes from govt tinkering with the economy and not capitalism.) The only area the economy did not perform in was the national debt, but this was not an effect of trickle-down economics but rather of Reagans misguided beliefs in supply-side economics.


Arguably, I really don't care for either Reagan or Clinton as they both have the same motives, I will however point you to a site that compares the last four president's numbers.

Notice the differences in what you posted? (http://www.ndol.org/print.cfm?contentid=250551)


I would also like to point out to you this;

To be fair the richest 20 percent of people saw their incomes raise by about 20%

I reckon the this means the majority of the "trickling" was kaput by the time it got to the bottom, yes?


That is why the factory worker is considered "unskilled."

I lay you 6 to 1 that the factory worker will beg to differ.


Or how about this, Marxist theory describes a violent revolution by the proletariat

No it doesn't. Marx describes a "dictatorship of the proletariat", meaning the working class will gain power and themselves become a separate "ruling class" until the time when it is possible to make the transition into communism. Whether or not it will be "violent" is not addressed.



How far will this revolution get without a leader? Remove the leader and the revolution weakens greatly, perhaps even ceases, but remove one revolutionary and almost no one will notice

Not far at all, I fully support "vanguard" policies as I feel Marx did as well. I really cannot understand how you could possible compare this with the "leadership of a CEO" these two issues are not remotely even comparable.



Many so called programs in America set to help the common worker actually end up hurting him. Minimum wage creates unemployment (dont believe me? Think about whether you could get a job if minimum wage was 1 million dollars.)


Yes, Fedaral Minimum Wage forces companies to seek other means to reduce variable capital, the easiest being 3rd-world globalisation. (as we are currently witnessing)

Either way you slice it, the worker gets fucked, either variable capital is cut by removing labour capital or variable capital is cut by reducing the wages of the current labour force.

There willl never be a way to "put the worker first" as Capitalism was NEVER designed to "help" the worker. It simply cannot be done.


Socialized programs have a habit of imploding on themselves: Social Security is serious jeopardy,


Need I remind you that in the USA, social security is less than 9% of the Federal Budget? Government pensions are more than that. How can something that is less than 9% of the Federal Budget ever even be in question?


Lastly, as a laborer (by laborer Im referring to any kind of labor: mining, programming, accounting, etc) you yourself are a capitalist seller. Your selling your labor and trying to get the best price for it. Supply and demand dictates that the more of something that is available the less it is worth. There are no such things as employers and employees, only buyers and sellers. The factory owner buys the labor of the worker for a price agreeable to both. If the transaction is unsatisfactory to either party then no exchange need take place.


Interesting opinion, does it have anything to do with the extraction of surplus value? Not really.



The fact that there are rich and poor is not a problem caused by capitalism it is a problem that it inherited

This actually does not make logical sense. If the implementation of a capitalist economic platform originally created these "inherited" problems, would the would not the fault still lay with the platform? Of course it would.

You really have not made much any comments beyond how "you" interpret capitalist economics and those interpretations are "unique" at best.


Who was one of richest Americans of all time? Andrew Carnegie. He started out with nothing; a factory worker who built a massive business and fortune. He then spent his last living years giving away this fortune.

And?

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 05:49 AM
Nickernocker, you have made some very insightful posts. Keep up the good work.

As you can see, the anti-capitalists here on this board like to completely ignore some very crucial points that would destroy their argument. Just keep repeating the same irrefutable facts to them and they will have nowhere to hide.
I hope you are only refering to the Marxist-Leninists.

[nickernocker]

Comrad RAF: the numbers on the website you posted dont really relate to any of the numbers I posted in any way (I posted the mean family income not the average.) Regardless the numbers still confirm what I was saying: under economically conservative Reagan the American economy improved greatly. It would have improved even more had Reagan been fiscally responsible as well. Im not exactly sure if you were referring to my negative attacks on Clinton but notice that none of the graphs you showed relates to any of the numbers I posted.

References to third-world outsourcing do not help your case. The average sweat shop worker makes $2 a day. This seems horrible to us, but compare this to the 75 cents a day his non-Nike employed neigbors make and all the sudden it doesnt seem so bad. People give out bribes and line up around the block for work in these factories. Do you think anyone with this highly coveted job (for the people in that country at least) would do anything to mess up and give anything less then %100 effort? Probably not when your making double the average neigborhood income. As a result these factories are more productive then the ones in America.

The idea that capitalism inherited poverty is completely relevant. Europeans came to America to escape persecution, unemployment, and famine. In America they found employment, plentiful food, and tolerance. Were they rich? No. Were they better of then they were in Europe (which still contained strong ties to its feudal system during the Industrial Revolution)? Yes. Did their children go on to achieve better standards of life then their parents? Yes. There were lots and lots of poor people before capitalism and there were lots after it came into being.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 02:39 AM
Many so called programs in America set to help the common worker actually end up hurting him. Minimum wage creates unemployment (dont believe me? Think about whether you could get a job if minimum wage was 1 million dollars.)p
That example is stupid, honestly. Without those laws people would be hired by $20 a month, and the laws of supply and the demand won't really change that, because after all, "if you are a lazy who doesnt work for me you die in the streets because i own everything so i set up the price" and of course that, even in the case that those who don't own means of production agree in not working for any wage, thus reducing the employers profit, the employer will be forced by the market to offer better wages, maybe even greater than the old "minimum wage", but of course the possible chances are that 1) the poor dies because he doesnt accept the "free" contract, and 2) the poor ends up working in a crappy job without any kind of benefit, and as he would consume less than before that would cause a decrease in demand (maybe an increase if this reduces unemployment, and as they would tend to consume basic products to cover their needs, which could mean inflation over very important products).
I do think that more money in the market can cause inflation but that's the market's fault. And honestly, if the employer doesn't want to hire workers just because "the minimum wage is too high" then he is not risking as he is meant to (it's understood here that such jobs would be very simple ones but profitable, which should the point of this).


Socialized programs have a habit of imploding on themselves: Social Security is serious jeopardy, the Canadian health system has waiting lists in some areas of 3 months for an MRI.

The good old myth of "russians waiting in long lines to get some bread", it seems. And it's not like governments spend too much on them anyway. Maybe if all governments would stop spending in their armies or in their politicians new cars...

[New Tolerance]

Socialized programs have a habit of imploding on themselves: Social Security is serious jeopardy, the Canadian health system has waiting lists in some areas of 3 months for an MRI.


Canada spends 9% of it's GDP (on health) and covers it's whole population, while the US spends 14% of it's GDP on the same thing and still does not cover their whole population.

[New Tolerance]

And here's a reference to that:

http://www.newrules.org/equity/CNhealthcare.html

figures predict that by 2008, number of Americans that don't have insured health will rise from 44 million, to 60 million. Is this a market failure or is this a political failure? (but there is no such thing as a market failure, since all a market follows the rule of: if you have something you get something, if you don't have anything you don't get anything, it hasn't failed, it did exactly what it's suppose to do)

[AC-Socialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 12:53 AM


The worker does not take as much risk as the businessman.

But you are ignoring the concept of control Nicker. It is in your own example that with the entrepenur, all control is invested-; The worker has no control over the venture. I put it to you that becuase the worker is not in control of the security of his job, but the enteporenur is, then, even when we take in to account factors such as investement, the worker STILL takes just as much of a risk as the businessman.


If the worker in the above example has $100 in savings and the business he works for goes out of business he still has $100 in savings

Again, you negate your argument. Its up to the businessman what amount of money he puts in and im sure you will agree that redundancy is far more harmful to a worker than to a business man with a bank full of qualifications and credit ratings who, let us not forget, has probably been rational and put some money away.



Also the worker gets paid some sum of money regardless of how the business is doing

Really? Always? Supply and Demand comrade

Oh and remeber, very few companies run off hard capital. most run off credit.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 02:28 AM
Comrad RAF: the numbers on the website you posted dont really relate to any of the numbers I posted in any way (I posted the mean family income not the average.) Regardless the numbers still confirm what I was saying: under economically conservative Reagan the American economy improved greatly. It would have improved even more had Reagan been fiscally responsible as well. Im not exactly sure if you were referring to my negative attacks on Clinton but notice that none of the graphs you showed relates to any of the numbers I posted.

References to third-world outsourcing do not help your case. The average sweat shop worker makes $2 a day. This seems horrible to us, but compare this to the 75 cents a day his non-Nike employed neigbors make and all the sudden it doesnt seem so bad. People give out bribes and line up around the block for work in these factories. Do you think anyone with this highly coveted job (for the people in that country at least) would do anything to mess up and give anything less then %100 effort? Probably not when your making double the average neigborhood income. As a result these factories are more productive then the ones in America.

The idea that capitalism inherited poverty is completely relevant. Europeans came to America to escape persecution, unemployment, and famine. In America they found employment, plentiful food, and tolerance. Were they rich? No. Were they better of then they were in Europe (which still contained strong ties to its feudal system during the Industrial Revolution)? Yes. Did their children go on to achieve better standards of life then their parents? Yes. There were lots and lots of poor people before capitalism and there were lots after it came into being.

Of course they don't dear, I've noticed that about you already. You are barking up the wrong tree here, I don't care about Reagan's policies nor do I care about Clinton's.


References to third-world outsourcing do not help your case

And what case is that? It seems to me the only person "presenting a case" here is you. If you cannot understand why the first world uses globalisation to lower variable capital rates then why are you even here?


The average sweat shop worker makes $2 a day. This seems horrible to us, but compare this to the 75 cents a day his non-Nike employed neigbors make and all the sudden it doesnt seem so bad. People give out bribes and line up around the block for work in these factories. Do you think anyone with this highly coveted job (for the people in that country at least) would do anything to mess up and give anything less then %100 effort? Probably not when your making double the average neigborhood income. As a result these factories are more productive then the ones in America.

Again, and?

Let us get this straight; you feel that because these individuals would gladly take the money so they can feed their families, it completely justifies the fact that they are being exploited? How very white of you.

Good grief, where did you come from?



The idea that capitalism inherited poverty is completely relevant. Europeans came to America to escape persecution, unemployment, and famine. In America they found employment, plentiful food, and tolerance. Were they rich? No. Were they better of then they were in Europe (which still contained strong ties to its feudal system during the Industrial Revolution)? Yes. Did their children go on to achieve better standards of life then their parents? Yes. There were lots and lots of poor people before capitalism and there were lots after it came into being.


So what have we noticed here? Mr. Nocker simply feels that the rest of the world "owes" him and the rest of America for some sort of "devine benevolence" America has shown to the globe throughout history.

Nothing in the world can compare to the atrocities committed by those that feel they have been "cheated".

[New Tolerance]

I'm starting to have a feeling that this thread is slowly descending into "unintelligent conversations"...

(not attacking anyone in particular, or any one side in particular)

or maybe it's just me - eh. forget it.

[Nyder]

AC Socialist,


But you are ignoring the concept of control Nicker. It is in your own example that with the entrepenur, all control is invested-; The worker has no control over the venture.

But the entrepreneur has no control over who pays him - the customer.

In any case your statement is irrelevant. The entrepreneur hires the worker to perform a service, not to take control of his/her capital.


I put it to you that becuase the worker is not in control of the security of his job, but the enteporenur is, then, even when we take in to account factors such as investement, the worker STILL takes just as much of a risk as the businessman.

Not exactly. If you take into account the worker's investment in his job compared with the entrepreneur's investment in his/her business. Then consider that the only loss that the worker makes is potential future gains, which might not be anything as the worker might get another job that pays better. As for the entrepreneur, their real loss if the business fails is a lot more significant then the worker's 'potential loss'.

Therefore risk for the entrepreneur is much greater, yet so are the gains. The worker's risk is low, and the gains are lower. That is the rule of investment.

[AC-Socialist]

But the entrepreneur has no control over who pays him - the customer.

In any case your statement is irrelevant. The entrepreneur hires the worker to perform a service, not to take control of his/her capital.

No, it is your statement that is irrelevant. I was negating Nickers risk rate, not the hierarchy of employment under the capitalist system.




Not exactly. If you take into account the worker's investment in his job compared with the entrepreneur's investment in his/her business. Then consider that the only loss that the worker makes is potential future gains, which might not be anything as the worker might get another job that pays better. As for the entrepreneur, their real loss if the business fails is a lot more significant then the worker's 'potential loss'.

Therefore risk for the entrepreneur is much greater, yet so are the gains. The worker's risk is low, and the gains are lower. That is the rule of investment.


As i said before, i think that the damage of redundancy on a working man who earns such a low wage he is unable to live reasonably and set something by for a 'rainy day', is less than a presumably RATIONAL enterprenur who would raise the capital without using a house or such as colateral.

[Vinny Rafarino]

In any case your statement is irrelevant. The entrepreneur hires the worker to perform a service, not to take control of his/her capital.


We are aware of this and it is exactly what we want to change.


Not exactly. If you take into account the worker's investment in his job compared with the entrepreneur's investment in his/her business. Then consider that the only loss that the worker makes is potential future gains, which might not be anything as the worker might get another job that pays better. As for the entrepreneur, their real loss if the business fails is a lot more significant then the worker's 'potential loss'

We have heard this time and time again, capitalist are the only ones who are going to swallow it. Excuses, excuses.


The worker's risk is low, and the gains are lower.

I enjoy how you are able to put a price on another man's "risks and gains". I certainly hope you are wealthy, otherwise you have been had.

[AC-Socialist]

-

[Nyder]

As i said before, i think that the damage of redundancy on a working man who earns such a low wage he is unable to live reasonably and set something by for a 'rainy day', is less than a presumably RATIONAL enterprenur who would raise the capital without using a house or such as colateral.

That's just a red herring example. In the real world personal financial situations differ markedly.