Free Trade

[Sir Aunty Christ]

This question is mainly for the cappies' but I suppose anyone can contribute.

Is Free Trade really free or only for those who make money and how exactly does it benefit everyone as some people like to claim?

[Clutch]

From what I can understand, it simply allows big corporations to walk into another country and set up shop. Thus bypassing any regualtions that the country in question had in place. All it really is, is just unchecked capitalism. All it can do is make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

[Publius]

From what I can understand, it simply allows big corporations to walk into another country and set up shop. Thus bypassing any regualtions that the country in question had in place. All it really is, is just unchecked capitalism. All it can do is make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Capitalism has been the only thing that's made anyone at least moderately wealthy.

Look at America in the early 20th century.

How did we from a nation of peasant farmers to a nation of suburbanite middle classers?

Unfettered capitalism.

Unfettered capitalism has NEVER done what you've described.

[Publius]

This question is mainly for the cappies' but I suppose anyone can contribute.

Is Free Trade really free or only for those who make money and how exactly does it benefit everyone as some people like to claim?

Let me simplify this a little bit: If I have something you want, and you have something I want, shouldn't we be allowed to trade it?

Shouldn't we be free to trade it?

If so, voila, free trade.

[DaCuBaN]

"Free Trade" in this context is somewhat akin to a game of poker: Whilst the player with the biggest stack is the most likely to "win", the underdog, with only enough left to call, still has the chance of stealing that pile. Anyone can play, but the demand is that you can at least match the stake. For most, this is not possible - to do is in itself is gambling, as the money would be borrowed from another.

It's merely the idea of "dog eat dog" allowed to run rife - it is in many ways very succesful, in that it generates a substantial amount of technological growth (dependant on many other factors, of course) and material wealth, some of which does begin to filter down to those who actual generate this wealth, rather than those who coordinate. There is much scope in such a system, but I believe it to be vitally flawed: There will always be (and it is accepted to be the case) those that cannot drag themselves out of the mire; that cannot get the necessary credit to act upon their "dreams" in this way (for in our materialistic society, so many "dream" of such capital prowess); that cannot remove the burdens that prevent them from realising a comfortable life under a capital system... for a free market system would provide this possibility for many.

So, free trade is free trade - it does just what it says on the tin. However, like poker the game is only played by those of a reckless demeanour. It does not provide for the populous as a whole in any way, save the technological progress that is made and it's eventual reduction in cost that leaves it available to all but the worst off parts of such a society.

It's a good idea, and fucking awful at the same time.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 01:06 PM

From what I can understand, it simply allows big corporations to walk into another country and set up shop. Thus bypassing any regualtions that the country in question had in place. All it really is, is just unchecked capitalism. All it can do is make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Capitalism has been the only thing that's made anyone at least moderately wealthy.

Look at America in the early 20th century.

How did we from a nation of peasant farmers to a nation of suburbanite middle classers?

Unfettered capitalism.

Unfettered capitalism has NEVER done what you've described.
Please don't use America as an example of free trade, we both know that as accurate as saying that the Soviet Union was a communst paradise.

Free trade does mean what it says, but in order for this to occur there needs to be no government, or otherwise, intervention. For the CAP alone you could not say free trade is practiced within Europe. Because of the state of oligarchy abtained my many U.S. based corps. you could not accurately apply the term there. In fact some of the only places to have anything near free trade are specifically designed "free trade zones." These are set up in several underveloped areas, the Phillipines for example. In these areas almost anything goes, workers come, work in poor conditions for long hours and leave with poor pay. I realise that this would not likely be the result of free trade on a larger scale, but it is bad in itself.

If free trade was practiced exactly there would probably be a redressing of some of the inequality in the world, but only if we started from square one. It might help make things better at its finest, but it won't help make things good. Capitalism as an ideology is flawed and is in my oppinion a step in the wrong direction.

[Publius]

Please don't use America as an example of free trade, we both know that as accurate as saying that the Soviet Union was a communst paradise.

America had rather free trade during this period.

No, it wasn't textbook perfect by any means, but what is?


Free trade does mean what it says, but in order for this to occur there needs to be no government, or otherwise, intervention. For the CAP alone you could not say free trade is practiced within Europe. Because of the state of oligarchy abtained my many U.S. based corps. you could not accurately apply the term there. In fact some of the only places to have anything near free trade are specifically designed "free trade zones." These are set up in several underveloped areas, the Phillipines for example. In these areas almost anything goes, workers come, work in poor conditions for long hours and leave with poor pay. I realise that this would not likely be the result of free trade on a larger scale, but it is bad in itself. [/qutoe]

When I say I support Free Trade, I mean just that.

CAFTA is a step in the right direction, but I would like no (Zero) restrictions on trade.

[quote]
If free trade was practiced exactly there would probably be a redressing of some of the inequality in the world, but only if we started from square one. It might help make things better at its finest, but it won't help make things good. Capitalism as an ideology is flawed and is in my oppinion a step in the wrong direction.

Globalization can do (And has done) nothing but make us richer and better off.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 01:16 PM





"Free Trade" in this context is somewhat akin to a game of poker: Whilst the player with the biggest stack is the most likely to "win", the underdog, with only enough left to call, still has the chance of stealing that pile. Anyone can play, but the demand is that you can at least match the stake. For most, this is not possible - to do is in itself is gambling, as the money would be borrowed from another.

Falacy.

Trade is not 'zero sum'.

There is not a set amount of chips.

It's more akin to a game of poker where everyone gets more chips until they all have enough to be content and cash them out.


It's merely the idea of "dog eat dog" allowed to run rife - it is in many ways very succesful, in that it generates a substantial amount of technological growth (dependant on many other factors, of course) and material wealth, some of which does begin to filter down to those who actual generate this wealth, rather than those who coordinate. There is much scope in such a system, but I believe it to be vitally flawed: There will always be (and it is accepted to be the case) those that cannot drag themselves out of the mire; that cannot get the necessary credit to act upon their "dreams" in this way (for in our materialistic society, so many "dream" of such capital prowess); that cannot remove the burdens that prevent them from realising a comfortable life under a capital system... for a free market system would provide this possibility for many.

Well if you say it, it must be so!

Capitalism is quite adept at helping out the poor.


So, free trade is free trade - it does just what it says on the tin. However, like poker the game is only played by those of a reckless demeanour. It does not provide for the populous as a whole in any way, save the technological progress that is made and it's eventual reduction in cost that leaves it available to all but the worst off parts of such a society.

It's a good idea, and fucking awful at the same time.


This is just incorrect.

Globalization has made the poor of the world demonstrably richer.

It cut the amount of the world's extreme poor in half in just 15 years.

Free trade is just that, free trade.

Freedom is good, so is trade.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 04:12 PM

When I say I support Free Trade, I mean just that.

CAFTA is a step in the right direction, but I would like no (Zero) restrictions on trade.

Globalization can do (And has done) nothing but make us richer and better off.
Increasing free trade will create slightly more initially as the horrendous ammounts wasted by beaurocracy, and government mismanagement will be reduced. However the percentages of this extra reaching those that created it will be smaller. Yes people would be better off, some much better off, some just a little.

The problem is that the corporations that exist today were not borne out of free trade, they are a product of the favouritism and protectionism that aided their success, then and now.

There may be bits of legislation every now and then freeing trade, but there are also some strong fiscal policies being proccessed, and if it is real free trade you are looking for you would need a capitalist revolution.

[Ele'ill]

Free trade is the suck.


Let me simplify this a little bit: If I have something you want, and you have something I want, shouldn't we be allowed to trade it?

Shouldn't we be free to trade it?

If so, voila, free trade.

After the trade ask the 200,000 people you used as tools what they think of your free trade system.

[Clutch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 11:06 PM
How did we from a nation of peasant farmers to a nation of suburbanite middle classers?

Slave labour.

[encephalon]

Capitalism has been the only thing that's made anyone at least moderately wealthy.


False. People have been poor and wealthy throughout history in a multitude of economic systems.


Look at America in the early 20th century.

Not to mention that it's very easy to get wealthy when you steal an entire continent from another people. Man, those native americans sure benefitted.



How did we from a nation of peasant farmers to a nation of suburbanite middle classers?


Government policy. Efforts were directed by the government towards specific ends, one of them being the urbanization of key trading areas and another being expansion into the "empty territory" to the west. Both of these led to further government involvement into creating a road infrastructure capable of traversing the large expanses in between urban areas on the continent, creating more avenues for growth.


Unfettered capitalism.

Except it wasn't unfettered capitalism, now was it?


Unfettered capitalism has NEVER done what you've described.

The Roman Republic. That was unfettered capitalism. Which led to the roman revolution and then to imperial rome. Ever wonder why the Cato institute is name the Cato Institute?

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 07:18 AM



Slave labour.

Hahahahahah

Might want to pick that history book up again, son.

If it was 'slave labor' that made us rich, wouldn't the south be the richest part of the nation?

Isn't it the poorest?

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 07:59 AM




False. People have been poor and wealthy throughout history in a multitude of economic systems.

Re-read my statement.

People have been poor through the entire span of human history until capitalism.

A king 200 years ago is a peasant compared to the average person in the capitalist west.

Capitalism is the only system that has been able to make people rich.

Compare the advance of wealth from 10,000 years ago to 200, and then from 200 years ago to today.



Not to mention that it's very easy to get wealthy when you steal an entire continent from another people. Man, those native americans sure benefitted.

Fair enough.

But I would consider that a governmental failure.




Government policy. Efforts were directed by the government towards specific ends, one of them being the urbanization of key trading areas and another being expansion into the "empty territory" to the west. Both of these led to further government involvement into creating a road infrastructure capable of traversing the large expanses in between urban areas on the continent, creating more avenues for growth.

So if government can just pass a writ, they can create wealth?

I'm not denying that government providing an infrastructure aided the growth, but a governmental infrastructure without the capitalist system of production is just that.

Roads do no good when they have no merchants traversing them.

And the government took all the money it used to pay for those ammenities FROM the people.

And where did those people get the wealth? Capitalism.

Government is a parsite, stealing from capitalism.

If you let me steal millions of dollars to employ thousands of men, I could build a fucking road.



Except it wasn't unfettered capitalism, now was it?

For the most part.

And it was 'unfettered capitalism' that lead the growth.

The parts of capitalism that were fettered were significantly worse in performance.

Only through the gains of capitalism are the wastes of government acceptable.



The Roman Republic. That was unfettered capitalism. Which led to the roman revolution and then to imperial rome. Ever wonder why the Cato institute is name the Cato Institute?

From 'Cato's Letters' ( http://www.constitution.org/cl/cato_000.htm ), not from the Emporor Cato. Yes, the letters derived their name from the Emperor, but it's these letters the Institute is named after.

And how was the Roman Republic capitalistic? It was mercantalistic if anything, and predicated on slave labor, a completely un-capitalist force.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Technology, and social "progress" are as responsible for this as anything. If you want to say that technology has only been created out of a business interest then that is something else. Not everything can be attributed to capitalism and could be envisaged in other systems, although useless inventions such as anti-ageing creams and crazy frogs woud most likely never have existed.

[Bannockburn]

People have been poor through the entire span of human history until capitalism.

Well last time I knew, people are still poor under capitalism. Actually, UN reports provide evidence that the gap between rich and poor is widening among the hollowing of the middle class. Moreover, if it wasn't for state intervention of the economic structure, the most damaging consequences would result. The minimum wage for example.

[cormacobear]

Engels was all for free trade and gave at least two good lectures on it. He felt it helped break down nationalistic ties and united the workers better, he also felt that the more countries devestated by Industrialized labour practices would make a revolution more enevitable.

http://www.marx.org/archive/marx/works/sub...trade/index.htm (http://www.marx.org/archive/marx/works/subject/free-trade/index.htm)

I don't know that I agree, current free trade agreements deal almost exclusively with foriegn investment, so that any corperation anywhere can own the means of production even in different countries. Which only benefits the wealthy, who already control the means of production in there own country and can easily buy up the right to profit from treatied countries. Furthermore the fact that no Intl. Trade agreement has ever included even the premise that, they would endeavour to raise the labour standards to that of the highest participating nation, which forces down wages and labour standards everywhere. Just as Smith described competition for work would do.

It's paperwork imperialism allowing a few wealthy americans to own the recources, the means of extraction and production and collect all the profit, in New York, Washington, or L.A. Just like they've done with their armies, to countries all over the world, for the last 200 years.

Besides the US doesn't obey their side of NAFTA, Canada has had 26 consistent victories over tariffs, and subsidies at the WTO, so why should we participate. The country can't keep it's word ontreaties whether NAFTA, or the Geneva convention, on prisoners rights.

[Ele'ill]

Besides the US doesn't obey their side of NAFTA, Canada has had 26 consistent victories over tariffs, and subsidies at the WTO, so why should we participate. The country can't keep it's word ontreaties whether NAFTA, or the Geneva convention, on prisoners rights.

Basically.

The systems presented reguarless if they're political or economic are sound. Just as communism, anarchism etc..

It's the hijacking and misuse of them that becomes a problem.

[jasontkennedy]

QUOTE
Slave labour.


Hahahahahah

Might want to pick that history book up again, son.

If it was 'slave labor' that made us rich, wouldn't the south be the richest part of the nation?

Isn't it the poorest?




Publius, you should pick up a history book. Start reading about american history begining in the 1900's, focus on the northeast and down through Kentucky. In the 1920's there was this thing that was commonly refered to as the black migration. It happened to coincide with the big industrial boom. This was also really the begining of urbanization. There were many blacks competing with irish immigrants for insutrial work positions, as they were looking to escape southern "jim crow" styled oppression. Ultimately, the thing that took the US from the argiculturally profitable slave nation to another kind of wealth was the industrial boom. During the industrial boom there was plenty of GROSS labor exploitation. Poor working conditions, saftey precautions not taken in the interest of profitablity, children working for virtually nothing, no overtime pay, or benefits. Additionally, standard wages were dictated by the industrial bourgeois, and so if the worker didn't like the job he had, he could quit. But if if he did quit, the job down the street would pay the exact same, almost nothing. But he was unwise to leave his job, as the que of unemployed was rather high, and would be glad to take his job. This country became rich from our industrial revolution, and that wealth was not shared fairly at all. The fact that the earned wages got the worker barely enough to share housing with 5 other families, in crowded unsanitized situations, and enough food to not starve makes this really no different than slavery. If you disagree with that, then you are in the minority, as most history professors that I know would agree with this view.

At the end of the 1920's came the depression, which lasted for 10 years, and wound up becoming an international affair. But you'll notice that FDR's "new deal" was really the U.S. government's first big, direct investment in cultural development. It became necessary for the US government to become the protective sheild from the exploitative industry owners. In the 1930's we saw the emergence of thigs like child labor laws, minimum wages, and maximum work loads all FOR A REASON, THE WORKERS WERE BEING EXPLOITED. Your vision of unfettered capitalism doesn't exist in this country because it was ripping this country appart. If you think that someone needs to read the history books again, maybe you are that someone. I recommend Howard Zinn's "A people's history", read the play "Joe Turner come and gone" by August wilson, and study FDR's "new deal" here http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/new_deal.htm if you'd like. This page has a nice summerization, but is not exhaustive.

The fact is plain, after any REAL study of america in the 20th century, that wealth in this country originally came from slavery, but switched to industrial labor exploitation. The only difference in payment to the workers in the two were that free workers weren't owned or beaten. Other than that, in both cases, the workers were not given anything more than what was needed to survive. The reason that the south is poor today is because it lost it's industry. Despite the invention of the cotton gin, foreign shores offered cheaper textiles, and so bourgeois textile manufacturers either accpeted this, and move to other countries, or went out of buisness trying to compete with the cheaper off shore providers. (Those suckers thought that the US textile retailers would keep buying from them for keeping jobs in america; suckers)

Wealth in the south has dried up, and it is now poor. A lot of this has to do with the fact that it never really recovered from the depression, especially with slaery outlawed, and a crackdown on jim crow laws. The Northeast is prosperous for a very similar labor exloitation.

Finally I also recommend that you view Charlie Chaplin's " Modern Times", I think it also works towards this point, and it was somewhat contemporary to these issues, as it was made in 1936.

[jasontkennedy]

Re-read my statement.

People have been poor through the entire span of human history until capitalism.

A king 200 years ago is a peasant compared to the average person in the capitalist west.

Capitalism is the only system that has been able to make people rich.

Compare the advance of wealth from 10,000 years ago to 200, and then from 200 years ago to today.


And amassing wealth is good for mental health? You are making this statement based on the idea of money equalling happiness, which is insane. Have you done any social studies on things like suicide rates in the last 200 years? If we are wealthier now, then why aren't people jumping for joy?? Maybe because 1 - capital gain doesn not equal happiness, and 2 - because that capital is really poorly shared


Not to mention that it's very easy to get wealthy when you steal an entire continent from another people. Man, those native americans sure benefitted.


Fair enough.

But I would consider that a governmental failure.


Our gov'ts failure or theirs? Of course you know that the native americans didn't have a centralized governmental body? None the less, it doesn't at all vendicate you point of capitalism being what made america rich. Capitalism has existed here for a long time, but I would think that the natural resources in this, the most fertile land in the world, are what gave us the ability to have our slave labour and big industrial boom.


So if government can just pass a writ, they can create wealth?

I'm not denying that government providing an infrastructure aided the growth, but a governmental infrastructure without the capitalist system of production is just that.

Roads do no good when they have no merchants traversing them.

And the government took all the money it used to pay for those ammenities FROM the people.

And where did those people get the wealth? Capitalism.

Government is a parsite, stealing from capitalism.

If you let me steal millions of dollars to employ thousands of men, I could build a fucking road.

NO. If you recall from US history, we have spent a good deal of time spending beyond our means. Again, FDR went on spending like crazy to pull this country out of it's depression. The government wasn't funding those projects from the surplus wealth of capitalism, it was running up debt. (Kinda like the current administration)


For the most part.

And it was 'unfettered capitalism' that lead the growth.

The parts of capitalism that were fettered were significantly worse in performance.

Only through the gains of capitalism are the wastes of government acceptable.

That unfettered capitalism prior to 1933 created some of the worst living conditions in human history. But if you insist on calling it progress, that is your choice.


And how was the Roman Republic capitalistic? It was mercantalistic if anything, and predicated on slave labor, a completely un-capitalist force.

The definition of slave labor becomes sort of blurred in execution vs. concept in a state of imperialism. Just because the US buisness owners don't own their work force, they know that thework force has nowhere else to go (especially when whatever prexisting industry is smashed out). Again, in slavery you are owned, but given food and lodging. In imperial "unfettered capitalism" you are very likely to be given just barely enough to attain food, and if you are really lucky housing with 5 or 6 other families (kinda like on the plantations, eh). A the end of the day the plantation or buisness owner pockets the capital profit, and gives either buys the necessarys the essentials to keep them alive, or pays the the tantamount equilovent. So, really only the terminology is different, but the deeds are the same.

[JKP]

Are you implying that Capitalism is somehow justified based on a facile notion that it increases living standards?

There was an increase in the standard of living in slave societies. Slaves were better off in 19th century than in the 18th century.

Is that an argument for slavery?



You could give the same argument for Stalinism. There was very substantial economic growth in the Soviet Union. It's the second world, not the third world. Or rather, it was the second world until 1989. Now it's back in the third world because they're undergoing capitalist reform. They've had approximately 17 years of it, in an advanced industrial society to boot, and now their entire society's standard of living is plummeting at unprecedented levels. Many predictions say that Russia will have more or less a social implosion within several decades.

Actually, if you look at just the economic growth, it was reasonably successful. In fact, that's exactly what bothered western leaders. If you read the documentary record up to the late 60's, you find that the greatest concern was that the Soviet Union was presenting itself as a model for modernization within a single generation. This raised quite a fervor in both the first and third world countries. Russian aggression, or Stalin's terror didn't pique any ones attention. In fact, Truman admired Stalin, quoting him as "an honest man" and "agreeable". Same with Churchill, who defended Stalin in cabinet meetings .etc .etc. Stalin could kill as many people as he wanted to; that's irrelevant. While they still thought that Russia would remain true to the Molotov-Ribbentrop-pact, their primary concern was the economic growth, which especially in the third world, was looked up to as quite impressive.

Is that an argument for Stalinism?




The same is true with Cuba.

Back in 1996 the European union brought charges against the United States for violating WTO agreements, with the Helmburton act, and the Cuban embargo altogether. The United States was isolated on that issue. In the international arena, the only votes for the United States are Israel, which is reflexive, similar to how Ukraine voted with the Soviet Union, and Uzbekistan. Essentially, Israel and Uzbekistan were the only support America had on this vote. What is interesting is that the United States simply withdrew from WTO jurisdiction claiming that they had no right to intervene. The reasons are even more interesting. Stuart Eisenstat essentially said that America has intervened in Cuba for 30 years (a century actually) and that "the European Union has no right to challenge our policies" .As usual there was no reaction. It's taken for granted that we have a right to overthrow governments, and if anyone challenges that they're off base. Actually, there was an interesting response on narrow grounds by Arthur Schlesinger. His letter was printed in the New York times and addressed to his friend Eisenstat. He wanted to remind him that he misunderstood the Kennedy administrations policies. The policies were, and I'm quoting: "Castro's trouble making in the hemisphere and the Soviet connection". Schlesinger was head of the Latin American mission, with the incoming Kennedy administration. When they discussed the situation involving Cuba, Schlesinger explained what he meant by "trouble making in the hemisphere". He said the problem was "the spread of the Castro idea of taking matters into your own hands." Which has great appeal to people in Latin America who live in incredible poverty, and with the model of Cuba in front of them, they may do all sorts of things. That's Castro's trouble making in the hemisphere. What's the Soviet Connection? It was "presenting it self as a model for modernization in a single generation."

Do not forget that capitalism has been challenged for more than century. Hundreds of American workers were killed right up to the late thirties, until they finally won labour rights. Not to mention the Paris commune, Spanish civil war, May day, Zapatistas etc.




Or look at slavery. Slavery went unchallenged for millennia. Does that justify slavery? And if you want to get serious about it, slavery proponents were giving arguments rather like yours. Read George Fitz Hugh, who was rather vocal when slavery became a serious issue around the 1840's. He had pretty powerful arguments in favor of slavery. He essentially said that northerners were anti negro racists who did not take care of their subjects. Unlike the south, who did so even on economic grounds, since slaves were capital. Simply put, the south purchased their slaves while the North rented them. To make an anachronistic comparison, if I purchase a car, and you rent a car whose will be in better condition? Mine, since I own it. Obviously I'm terribly over simplifying, but that's the gist of his argument. We own people, and you simply rent them, thus we take better care of them. We treat them well, we respect them, they're our capital, we still have pre-capitalist relations etc. You on the other hand treat them as tools. So we're the ones who are moral, and you're the ones who are immoral.

If your going to justify capitalism due to the raising of living standards, look at slavery. Slaves were living better lives in 1850 than in 1750.

Everything you're saying could stand as a perfectly good argument for slavery, actually, not only could it be offered as an argument for slavery, but was offered as an argument for slavery.




Or take Nazism.

Why was Hitler so popular? Throughout the 30's, he was the most popular leader in German history. Why? He carried out a social revolution. People's quality of life were greatly improved. Not everyone of course, such as the Jews, but overall, the standard of living increased. Hitler's associates figured out that large scale state expenditures could rescue a morbid capitalist economy, the same thing that American business learned during the second world war. (And is the present system for all the G8 nations.)

The economy was booming, and the standard of living increased. Is that an argument for Nazism?

[Martyr Machine]

"Free Trade" in this context is somewhat akin to a game of poker: Whilst the player with the biggest stack is the most likely to "win", the underdog, with only enough left to call, still has the chance of stealing that pile. Anyone can play, but the demand is that you can at least match the stake. For most, this is not possible - to do is in itself is gambling, as the money would be borrowed from another.

As opposed to communism, where the government takes the money from the person with the biggest stack and distributes evenely among the other players, and then shoots them.

[JKP]

Originally posted by Martyr [email protected] 7 2005, 10:17 PM

"Free Trade" in this context is somewhat akin to a game of poker: Whilst the player with the biggest stack is the most likely to "win", the underdog, with only enough left to call, still has the chance of stealing that pile. Anyone can play, but the demand is that you can at least match the stake. For most, this is not possible - to do is in itself is gambling, as the money would be borrowed from another.

As opposed to communism, where the government takes the money from the person with the biggest stack and distributes evenely among the other players, and then shoots them.
How can that be? After all, a Communist society has no government.

EDIT:Or money for that matter.

[Publius]

Publius, you should pick up a history book. Start reading about american history begining in the 1900's, focus on the northeast and down through Kentucky. In the 1920's there was this thing that was commonly refered to as the black migration. It happened to coincide with the big industrial boom. This was also really the begining of urbanization. There were many blacks competing with irish immigrants for insutrial work positions, as they were looking to escape southern "jim crow" styled oppression. Ultimately, the thing that took the US from the argiculturally profitable slave nation to another kind of wealth was the industrial boom. During the industrial boom there was plenty of GROSS labor exploitation. Poor working conditions, saftey precautions not taken in the interest of profitablity, children working for virtually nothing, no overtime pay, or benefits. Additionally, standard wages were dictated by the industrial bourgeois, and so if the worker didn't like the job he had, he could quit. But if if he did quit, the job down the street would pay the exact same, almost nothing. But he was unwise to leave his job, as the que of unemployed was rather high, and would be glad to take his job. This country became rich from our industrial revolution, and that wealth was not shared fairly at all. The fact that the earned wages got the worker barely enough to share housing with 5 other families, in crowded unsanitized situations, and enough food to not starve makes this really no different than slavery. If you disagree with that, then you are in the minority, as most history professors that I know would agree with this view.

Why did these people work these jobs?

Because it was an improvement over what they had.

It was certainly not desirable, but not-starving is preferable to starving, is it not?

Through capitalism, these workers became wealthier. They lived longer, better lives do to capitalist achievements and have beneffited greatly from capitalism.

Tell me then, if capitalism was exploitive in the way you describe, why did wages go up at all?


At the end of the 1920's came the depression, which lasted for 10 years, and wound up becoming an international affair. But you'll notice that FDR's "new deal" was really the U.S. government's first big, direct investment in cultural development. It became necessary for the US government to become the protective sheild from the exploitative industry owners. In the 1930's we saw the emergence of thigs like child labor laws, minimum wages, and maximum work loads all FOR A REASON, THE WORKERS WERE BEING EXPLOITED. Your vision of unfettered capitalism doesn't exist in this country because it was ripping this country appart. If you think that someone needs to read the history books again, maybe you are that someone. I recommend Howard Zinn's "A people's history", read the play "Joe Turner come and gone" by August wilson, and study FDR's "new deal" here http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/new_deal.htm if you'd like. This page has a nice summerization, but is not exhaustive.

I've read Zinn's book already and know plenty about the New Deal, like how it didn't end the Great Depression at all.

The New Deal was a collasal failure, a waste of money, and an absurd, sick joke.

Having my government slaughter farm animals while I starve is not my idea of a good policy.

If the New Deal was such a success, why was the economy still in shambles at the end of the 30's?


The fact is plain, after any REAL study of america in the 20th century, that wealth in this country originally came from slavery, but switched to industrial labor exploitation. The only difference in payment to the workers in the two were that free workers weren't owned or beaten. Other than that, in both cases, the workers were not given anything more than what was needed to survive. The reason that the south is poor today is because it lost it's industry. Despite the invention of the cotton gin, foreign shores offered cheaper textiles, and so bourgeois textile manufacturers either accpeted this, and move to other countries, or went out of buisness trying to compete with the cheaper off shore providers. (Those suckers thought that the US textile retailers would keep buying from them for keeping jobs in america; suckers)

'Inustrial labor exploitation' is nothing like slavery. Slavery is the use of force. Capitalism is freedom. Once something becomes slavery, it is no longer capitalism.

Your characterizations are a joke.

And a better example of 'slavery' is living in a communistic society where the demos rule your life.

That is slavery.



Wealth in the south has dried up, and it is now poor. A lot of this has to do with the fact that it never really recovered from the depression, especially with slaery outlawed, and a crackdown on jim crow laws. The Northeast is prosperous for a very similar labor exloitation.

'Labor exploitation' Hah.

If you and I agree to trade something, is either one of us necessarily 'exploited'?

Of course not. If we both consent to trade something, the trade is fair by default.



Finally I also recommend that you view Charlie Chaplin's " Modern Times", I think it also works towards this point, and it was somewhat contemporary to these issues, as it was made in 1936.

I think I'll stick to real history.

[quincunx5]

If the New Deal was such a success, why was the economy still in shambles at the end of the 30's?


I think you know the answer to this. Because the New Deal did not go into effect until 1935, there were still a few kinks to work out. Not to mention that the Depression devasted many "exploitative capitalists" as well. The Great Depression
would have been a mild recession like the one in 1907,1987,2001 had the fucking newly created Federal Reserve (1916) done the job it was supposed to and increased the money supply. It also would have been helpful if almost every Industrial nation at the time did not close it's international trade (Howley-Smoot Act of 1934 in the US).



The New Deal was a collasal failure, a waste of money, and an absurd, sick joke.


You're absolutely right. It did not solve the problem it addressed. That was solved by WWII. But it left horrible things behind like Social Security and Farm subsidies.

[quincunx5]

You could give the same argument for Stalinism. There was very substantial economic growth in the Soviet Union. It's the second world, not the third world. Or rather, it was the second world until 1989. Now it's back in the world because they're undergoing capitalist reform. They've had approximately 17 years of it, in an advanced industrial society to boot, and now their entire society's standard of living is plummeting at unprecedented levels. Many predictions say that Russia will have more or less a social implosion within several decades.

Actually, if you look at just the economic growth, it was reasonably successful. In fact, that's exactly what bothered western leaders. If you read the documentary record up to the late 60's, you find that the greatest concern was that the Soviet Union was presenting itself as a model for modernization within a single generation. This raised quite a fervor in both the first and third world countries.


Russia was never an advanced industrial society. I guess you would have had to live there to know. Aside from the money that was spent on space exploration, technology in Russia was 10 to 20 years behind the US. Not to mention that the quality was extremely shitty, or the fact that about twice as much capital and labor was used in the process, or even the fact that most technology had shortages. Everything was highly inefficient. You want to move somewhere within the same city? Oh you have to fill out many forms, then wait 13 months! Just to end up 4km away. Your refrigerator broke (no one owned one), well you have to wait for someone to come and repair it. 8 days go by one time, and 13 another time. Well that's just too bad, you have to eat not refrigerated foods. Oh, did I forget to mention the water shortages? I think my family had about 18 hours/day of water during the winter and 2 hours/day of water during the summer. People would let the water flow for those few short hours in to buckets. And the pour them out to take a bath. No showers!

Hardly anyone owned a TV, but we were fortunate enough to have one. If you watch it you'd be amazed that there were 3 channels! All of which only broadcast for a portion of the day (like 12 hours).

Aside from TV, this is probably worse than those living in the US during the great depression. Did I mention this was Russia in 1988?

As to why Russia is not getting more "prosperous" now it's because they are not actually following capitalism. They have only slightly left Communism, but more acurately State Capitalism. Big business rules russia. If you have free time why don't you look into the country of Estonia. They are just about the only former soviet republic that is doing things right.

True capitalism is an extension of freedom. Economic freedom is a form of freedom.

[jasontkennedy]

Why did these people work these jobs?

Because it was an improvement over what they had.

It was certainly not desirable, but not-starving is preferable to starving, is it not?

Through capitalism, these workers became wealthier. They lived longer, better lives do to capitalist achievements and have beneffited greatly from capitalism.

Tell me then, if capitalism was exploitive in the way you describe, why did wages go up at all?


a polished turd is somewhat better than a non polished turd, yes I agree. The problem is that this land, rich in natural resources, has such an abundance of wealth that nobody needs to live on turds. That capital gain was acheived by many lazy, sorry, bourgeois assholes in 1900-1920's, and they gave people just enough to survive. The living conditions were not any better than slavery, so far as aminitys go. In fact it was just like slavery, in that if you stopped working, you'd likely starve to death. You say that these factory workers had freedom? Have you ever read any working class books from the 1920's? There aren't many, but anything I have read about the twentys either talks of the gross decadence of the ruling classes or the stark contrast of those to the working classes. Read about "the valley if ashes" in the book "The Great Gatsby" for a nice picture of what life was like for those laborers. Yes blacks would move away from the oppression of the south to industrial jobs, as they didn't have to worry about being beaten or hanged, but using populist oppression as a wedge to make slavery look worse than labor exploitation is kinda weak.

The freedom that you described for the industrial workers is not any sort of prize, so don't talk about it as such. They were free to eek out a living while someone else got rich off of them. The only PRACTICAL difference between this and slavery is that in industrial labor exploitation the wages (that are barely enough to survive) are given in form of cash, and in slavery the equivolent is given in form of goods, cutting out the added step of cash transaction.

You say that these people were "free" to leave their industrial jobs, I wonder what alternative do you think that they have? What they should hnave started their own companys?


I've read Zinn's book already and know plenty about the New Deal, like how it didn't end the Great Depression at all.

The New Deal was a collasal failure, a waste of money, and an absurd, sick joke.

Having my government slaughter farm animals while I starve is not my idea of a good policy.

If the New Deal was such a success, why was the economy still in shambles at the end of the 30's?

If the new deal was such a horrible idea, then why has it become pretty much THE MODEL for deficit recovery?


'Inustrial labor exploitation' is nothing like slavery. Slavery is the use of force. Capitalism is freedom. Once something becomes slavery, it is no longer capitalism.


Giving people just enough to survive in overpopulated living stations, coercive to say the least, and if the bourgeois had destroyed local industry, it becomes damn near forced. (Walmart anyone?) Capitalism is freedom to be taken advantage if you don't have the means to escape to establish your own means of production.


'Labor exploitation' Hah.

If you and I agree to trade something, is either one of us necessarily 'exploited'?

Of course not. If we both consent to trade something, the trade is fair by default.


Well who dictates the terms? If the terms are non negotiable, and are condescended on one side, then the agreement is dicided because there aren't other options. On a small scale, supposing that I had cancer, I would rather not pay anything at all to have it treated, or very little, but the terms of cost are not an option for me. No, I have to pay out the ass for research and development (and the BMW's that the researchers drive), plus the astronomical markup that is attached it the drug cost, I have to pay 4 middle men, plus doctor's fees. Did you know that a single treatment of epoetin alpha can run over $8000? Do you know how many doses a cancer patient might receive? So, if I were going to get treated for cancer, the costs are astronomical. On a larger scale, maybe a large factory in china, an american investor might buy an already existing factory and continue paying the workers what they were making before, but now will ship the output product as a material, unfettered by tax tarrifs, as it is an american company, back to the states yeilding a much higher profit gain from the same product. Does that mean pay raises for everyone at the factory? Of course not, it means that the industrial american bourgeois "made a good buisness decision".

[Publius]

I think you know the answer to this. Because the New Deal did not go into effect until 1935, there were still a few kinks to work out. Not to mention that the Depression devasted many "exploitative capitalists" as well. The Great Depression
would have been a mild recession like the one in 1907,1987,2001 had the fucking newly created Federal Reserve (1916) done the job it was supposed to and increased the money supply. It also would have been helpful if almost every Industrial nation at the time did not close it's international trade (Howley-Smoot Act of 1934 in the US).

Some factual errors (The Federal Reserved DECREASED the money supply, not increased it, and the First New Deal went into effect in 33.) but you miss the main point.

The New Deal didn't improve the economy. Period.

There was even another recession DURING the New Deal, and most of the supposed 'growth' was governmental, meaning it was predicated on taxation, which is anathema to the economy.




You're absolutely right. It did not solve the problem it addressed. That was solved by WWII. But it left horrible things behind like Social Security and Farm subsidies.

It wasn't even solved by WW2. That was just more government spending.

It was the reduction of government after the war that truly allowed the economy to prosper.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 09:22 PM




a polished turd is somewhat better than a non polished turd, yes I agree. The problem is that this land, rich in natural resources, has such an abundance of wealth that nobody needs to live on turds.

'Natural resources' are dirt unless they are mixed with human thought and effort.

Natural resources are meaningless without human thought and effort just as human thought and effort are useless without resources.

Capitalism provides an effective way of merrying the two.


That capital gain was acheived by many lazy, sorry, bourgeois assholes in 1900-1920's, and they gave people just enough to survive. The living conditions were not any better than slavery, so far as aminitys go.

They gave people what they agreed to work for.

It may not have been fair or equitable, but was better than the alternative.


In fact it was just like slavery, in that if you stopped working, you'd likely starve to death.

Law of Nature.

Communism doesn't solve this 'problem'.


You say that these factory workers had freedom? Have you ever read any working class books from the 1920's? There aren't many, but anything I have read about the twentys either talks of the gross decadence of the ruling classes or the stark contrast of those to the working classes. Read about "the valley if ashes" in the book "The Great Gatsby" for a nice picture of what life was like for those laborers. Yes blacks would move away from the oppression of the south to industrial jobs, as they didn't have to worry about being beaten or hanged, but using populist oppression as a wedge to make slavery look worse than labor exploitation is kinda weak.

No, I haven't, but I'm reasonably learned on the subject.

I just disagree with you.


The freedom that you described for the industrial workers is not any sort of prize, so don't talk about it as such. They were free to eek out a living while someone else got rich off of them. The only PRACTICAL difference between this and slavery is that in industrial labor exploitation the wages (that are barely enough to survive) are given in form of cash, and in slavery the equivolent is given in form of goods, cutting out the added step of cash transaction.

The conditions you describe are part of the natural progression of capitalism, and of humanity.

People are poor before they are wealthy just as they crawl before they walk.

The only similarity between 19th century capitalism and slavery is that it's practitioners were often poor.

Tell me, why are wages higher now?



You say that these people were "free" to leave their industrial jobs, I wonder what alternative do you think that they have? What they should hnave started their own companys?

Generally, none.




If the new deal was such a horrible idea, then why has it become pretty much THE MODEL for deficit recovery?

The cost for the 'model of deficit recovery' is high unemployment, high taxes, high government debt and an almost assured collapse that dwarfs even the Great Depression.

Sign me up!

If you give me enough money, I could solve any problem, but I would likely piss a good majority away.

Give a junior high school student a few trillion dollars and eventually he would piss enough away to the right people to fix the economy, but that's hardly a desirable plan.


Giving people just enough to survive in overpopulated living stations, coercive to say the least, and if the bourgeois had destroyed local industry, it becomes damn near forced. (Walmart anyone?) Capitalism is freedom to be taken advantage if you don't have the means to escape to establish your own means of production.

Walmart none.

It hasn't done what you've described at all. Wal Mart's quite generally BRING IN more business.

The local economy is often predicated on the Wal Mart.

3 entire shopping centers were built when a Super Wal Mart was built in a town near me.

30 new stores there simply because Wal Mart went in.

Capitalism is the freedom to trade your commidities for other commodities.


Well who dictates the terms? If the terms are non negotiable, and are condescended on one side, then the agreement is dicided because there aren't other options. On a small scale, supposing that I had cancer, I would rather not pay anything at all to have it treated, or very little, but the terms of cost are not an option for me. No, I have to pay out the ass for research and development (and the BMW's that the researchers drive), plus the astronomical markup that is attached it the drug cost, I have to pay 4 middle men, plus doctor's fees. Did you know that a single treatment of epoetin alpha can run over $8000? Do you know how many doses a cancer patient might receive? So, if I were going to get treated for cancer, the costs are astronomical. On a larger scale, maybe a large factory in china, an american investor might buy an already existing factory and continue paying the workers what they were making before, but now will ship the output product as a material, unfettered by tax tarrifs, as it is an american company, back to the states yeilding a much higher profit gain from the same product. Does that mean pay raises for everyone at the factory? Of course not, it means that the industrial american bourgeois "made a good buisness decision".

Both sides create the terms.


And your examples are myopic and don't take into account the existence of every other single player in the economy.

[quincunx5]

Some factual errors (The Federal Reserved DECREASED the money supply, not increased it, and the First New Deal went into effect in 33.) but you miss the main point.


I was not aware that they decreased the money supply. Can you provide your source. Either way, you are correct in that they did not do the right thing! Which is not surprising since they are not accountable for anything. Never trust the central bankers.



The New Deal didn't improve the economy. Period.

There was even another recession DURING the New Deal, and most of the supposed 'growth' was governmental, meaning it was predicated on taxation, which is anathema to the economy.


You are correct on both counts.



It wasn't even solved by WW2. That was just more government spending.

It was the reduction of government after the war that truly allowed the economy to prosper.


Ok you are mostly correct, but you do realize that in the US most of government spending is from private firms, right? So you can't tell me that the War did not boost the private firms that supplied arms/technology to the government. I think spending on the cold war was more than spending on WWI and II (adjusted for inflation, etc).

[Publius]

Here: http://www.nber.org/papers/W11237

I've not read the paper, but I think the source is pretty good.

The Federal Reserve reduced the money supply by about 1/3 after the Stock Market Crash, and this is what really caused the Depression.




http://www.objectivistcenter.org/text/inte...-depression.asp (http://www.objectivistcenter.org/text/interview_roots-great-depression.asp)

Navigator: In a recent article for The Freeman you characterized the period from 1929 to 1933 as a "deflationary disaster." What, precisely, does this mean?

Timberlake: It was "deflationary" because Federal Reserve policy allowed the economy's money stock to decline through three major banking crises and it was "disastrous" because of the magnitude of the decline.

Navigator: Did the Federal Reserve act to turn around this contraction in the monetary supply?

Timberlake: The Fed did not act to turn around the contraction but allowed it to continue for more than four years. Fed officials were operating under a flawed policy model called "the real bills doctrine." According to this notion, the economy's production preceded the creation of new money to pay for the new product. Given a decline in the output of goods and services, less money was "needed." Consequently, Fed policy makers allowed the economy to spiral downwards as they "successfully" managed an ongoing reduction in the money stock. Prices, wages, incomes, and output spun down toward zero as Fed officials grimly held to their strategy. Without a central bank interfering, the traditional gold standard and clearinghouse adjustments in the form of accommodation to the commercial banks would have righted the economy as early as 1931.

[synthesis]

'Labor exploitation' Hah.

If you and I agree to trade something, is either one of us necessarily 'exploited'?

Of course not. If we both consent to trade something, the trade is fair by default.

If you're taking advantage of someone's inability to find sustenence elsewhere by degrading their work conditions, dangling the threat of being fired over their heads, and paying them far, far less than they produce - so much less that they are barely able to feed their family - I'd say that is a pretty good example of "exploitation."

This is the norm in capitalism. See the first seven letters of that word? Capital. You need capital to get anywhere in capitalism, and if you have to give the shaft to a few thousand people and their families - whose faces you will never see, except maybe in the streets, wiping their filthy asses with the "labor contract" they signed with you - in order to maintain the amount of capital you "need", then it's all part of a day's work. In fact, if you don't do it, you're not being the best you can be, as bourgeois management dictates. You're fucking over your stockholders.


Tell me, why are wages higher now?

That's a fucking ridiculous question to ask. There are literally billions of factors to be considered in the advancement of wages from two hundred years until now; to simplify it to "unfettered capitalism" is patently ridiculous.

There is obviously a landfill's worth of progressive and reactionary legislation with either direct or tangential effect on the economy, and thus wages. And that's just in the law-making realm; every decision the worker and the industrialist made has repercussions today.

Economic simplism somehow plagues capitalists in droves, yet they try to criticize us for naivete. Fuck that.

[Publius]

That's a fucking ridiculous question to ask. There are literally billions of factors to be considered in the advancement of wages from two hundred years until now; to simplify it to "unfettered capitalism" is patently ridiculous.

There is obviously a landfill's worth of progressive and reactionary legislation with either direct or tangential effect on the economy, and thus wages. And that's just in the law-making realm; every decision the worker and the industrialist made has repercussions today.

Economic simplism somehow plagues capitalists in droves, yet they try to criticize us for naivete. Fuck that.

'Literally billions'?

Can't you just admit you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?

On second thought, this is pretty funny. Carry on.

The only factor that allows for higher wages is higher productivity.

End of story.

Other things can effect productivity (Like the laws you mentioned), but only labor productivity can increase wages in any meaningful sense.

[synthesis]

You are confusing artificial and organic wage increases. To deny the effect that such external factors as legislation and top-down decision-making has on the wage system would be obviously ludicrous to any reasonably intelligent person.

The source of a change in wages is irrelevant. All that matters is if the wage increase can be implemented and sustained.

[quincunx5]

The source of a change in wages is irrelevant. All that matters is if the wage increase can be implemented and sustained.


Yeah sure but at the expense of having higher unemployment and deflation. Those who still remain employed will get the benefits of having a higher wage. Others will be out of a job.

If you are to suggest that progressive taxing will take care of that, I would just like to point out that those who are now earning a higher wage will be taxed to pay for all those that are now unemployed!

So what was the point in the first place?

To repeat:


only labor productivity can increase wages in any meaningful sense.

[Publius]

You are confusing artificial and organic wage increases. To deny the effect that such external factors as legislation and top-down decision-making has on the wage system would be obviously ludicrous to any reasonably intelligent person.

The source of a change in wages is irrelevant. All that matters is if the wage increase can be implemented and sustained.

They have some effect, sure, but it is productivity that matters most.

All the legislation and top-down decision-making in the world means shit unless productivity reaches a certain level whereas a certain level of productivity can produce significant wealth without the factors you mentioned.

The source of change in wages is all that matters.

A law could be passed dictating that everyone should make a million dollars an hour and that would certainly increase 'wages', but since the source of this wage increase was illegitimate, it's effect on the economy would be different from the effect of free market brining the productivity up to the level where these wages are possible.