Negotiating your wages. [Archive]

Decolonize The Left

23rd August 2005, 03:37

If you know two languages, your value goes up. If you know a trade, your value goes up. If you have a degree, your value goes up.

People are not economic goods, they are not commodities, there is no human "value". Value is only a term prescribed to what services you can offer the market, which is only a total of what other people are willing to pay. There is no human "value", there is only value for goods and services, and this only exists when you have a market. In other words, it is totally unnecessary.

Any wage you accept is necessarily 'fair'.

After that quote, I might have to 'dumb this response down' for you. That statement is completely false. Many wages accepted are far from fair, how would you back your statement up against sweatshops in Taiwan? Those people make 4 cents a day and can't afford to feed their kids, and you call that "fair"?

Wages are not fair. They are determined by the market, by supply. If a producer over-produces his product, he cuts workers, and raises his prices. He will also decrease his wages, in order to maintain his profit. This has no reflection on the needs of the worker, which determines fairness.

Wages are in place through capitalism to keep the people as slaves, hence the term wage-slaves. They are meant to think they are being treated fairly, when the truth couldn't be farther away. How is this fair?

Producers and managers are trying to increase their profit. They do this by spending as little as possible on the workers, machines, property etc... And by keeping the prices as high as possible.
The workers are trying to make enough money to be able to purchase the basic goods to survive, and if they have more, perhaps indulge their children or spouse a little.

These two facts run completely in opposite to each other. In order for one to succeed, the other has to fail. I think we all know who fails.

-- August

23rd August 2005, 03:38

People are not economic goods, they are not commodities, there is no human "value". Value is only a term prescribed to what services you can offer the market, which is only a total of what other people are willing to pay. There is no human "value", there is only value for goods and services, and this only exists when you have a market. In other words, it is totally unnecessary.

Wrong. Labour is a commodity.

Decolonize The Left

23rd August 2005, 06:04

Wrong. Labour is a commodity.

Only to the capitalist, who needs to put a price on it.

-- August

23rd August 2005, 06:06

Only to the capitalist, who needs to put a price on it.

In a capitalist society, labour is a commodity. We live in a capitalist society. Labour is a commodity. It is a commodity to me as much as it is to the owner whom I sell my labour.

Decolonize The Left

23rd August 2005, 06:19

23rd August 2005, 06:24

Your labor should not be a commodity to you. It is yourself that you are "selling". While you are correct that we do live in a capitalist society, and labor is a commodity to the capitalists, it is not in truth. In truth labor is collective. There is no price on your body, just as there is no price on your labor.

Whoever puts a price on your labor, or turns it into a commodity, is using you. And you are knowingly being used. And while that may be necessary, for you to feed yourself or your family, I will not judge you for that. But you shouldn't forget that you should not be sold.

In capitalist society labour is a commodity. It isn't a commodity "to" anyone; it's just a commodity. You might think that it shouldn't be (which I agree with), but that doesn't change the fact that it's a commodity now. Yes labour in the general sense is collective; i.e. all labour is collective, regardless of society we live in. But this doesn't change the fact that in a capitalist society, labour is a commodity.

quincunx5

23rd August 2005, 07:28

So the people that keep our public lives sanitary are screwed?

How exactly are they screwed?

Wages are at the very least adjusted for inflation. Janitorial work can be one of those 'just passing along' jobs like working at McDonalds (except the managers), WalMart, or any other place.

Where I work we have a self-employed janitor and assistant who go around the local zone of commerce and clean up. It takes him and his assistant 40 minutes to clean up our small office. I have seen what we pay him. If he can do 10 offices a day (which is quite reasonable) he would earn a very good living (I also assume he didn't steal the Jaguar he drives).

You will earn more if you do a better job. There is a difference between a shitty janitor and a good one.

After that quote, I might have to 'dumb this response down' for you. That statement is completely false. Many wages accepted are far from fair, how would you back your statement up against sweatshops in Taiwan? Those people make 4 cents a day and can't afford to feed their kids, and you call that "fair"?

I'd like to see statistics on this. I was under the impression that even the worst sweatshops anywhere pay at least 14 cents/hour (can't recall source). Do you think it's fair that they shouldn't have a job at all, and earn 0 cents a year? Or do you think that they should get paid for just being alive?

Basically, based on your genetics, predetermined birthplace, family, situation of upbringing (which needs money in the first place)... THEN you can debate a "fair" wage.

This is such bullshit. Have you actually been asked to provide this information to any employer?

In fact the only thing that an employer can judge you by is your ability to do productive work.

But most people aren't amazingly skilled engineers or architects. Most people are working class, and pretty much have to take what's given to them.

What's given to them? Certainly the engineers and architects were at one point plain individuals. What stops the working class from gaining knowledge and skill?
Are there no libraries? no universities where you can just sit anonymously in a lecture hall? no internet? no books where plain individuals like yourself tell you how to get out of a rut?

23rd August 2005, 08:38

This is such bullshit. Have you actually been asked to provide this information to any employer?

I think what August meant was that the wage that you receive largely has to do with where you live, what your family's economic situation is like, etc...

What's given to them? Certainly the engineers and architects were at one point plain individuals. What stops the working class from gaining knowledge and skill?
Are there no libraries? no universities where you can just sit anonymously in a lecture hall? no internet? no books where plain individuals like yourself tell you how to get out of a rut?

It is free to gain knowledge; with this you are correct. However, it is much harder if not impossible to get a job without the degree; this is what you pay for when you go to college. The knowledge is obviously free in a library. My grandfather never received a degree; the story of his occupational life is the classic one of the mailboy working up to a big company job. This, however, was a long time ago. In the years leading up to his death, the company he worked for was starting to hire degree-only (yes I made that up but you know what I mean). He felt the tension. Why? Because he didn't have a degree. Even though he was a genius.

Decolonize The Left

23rd August 2005, 08:40

Quincun, your ignorant capitalist comments are appauling and inhumane, but none-the-less I will reply:

You will earn more if you do a better job.

This is only correct in jobs that value degrees of work. If you work in a factory putting stickers on metal car parts, it doesn't matter if they're the straightest, most well placed stickers in the world, you still make the same wage. So you can see your janitorial friend is one case, I offered another, two different ends.

I was under the impression that even the worst sweatshops anywhere pay at least 14 cents/hour (can't recall source). Do you think it's fair that they shouldn't have a job at all, and earn 0 cents a year? Or do you think that they should get paid for just being alive?

WHOA! Stop the presses, 14 cents an hour! Shit, someone go and buy them a fucking cart, because they're gonna need some way to haul around all that cash!
Firstly, I was clearly making a generalization, but you didn't grasp that. Secondly, they deserve jobs in a capitalist society, but when a company which will sell the shoes (for example) for $114, pays the workers a total of less than a dollar for each pair, this is not right. They could easily pay them several dollars, if not more, and still make enormous profits. But they don't give a shit, and this is where your arguments falls through. My previous point is completely valid, they can pay them more (so that the people can feed and cloth their families), and still make multi-million dollar profits, but they don't. What do you say to that?

This is such bullshit. Have you actually been asked to provide this information to any employer?

In fact the only thing that an employer can judge you by is your ability to do productive work.

Wrong again... There have been studies, and movies made, on how white people get more jobs then black people. As in they both went in at different times, the black man with better credentials/records, and the white man still gets the job. And that's only race! Women are still treated as second-class citizens.

The fact is not whether you are asked to provide something, it is what is inherent in your person. And your statement that "the only thing that an employer can judge you by is your ability to do productive work" is simply ridiculous. You know that employers judge prospective employees by many things, friendliness for example is one. And it has nothing to do with ability, it's just how cheerful you are. There are many more but I think my point has been made.

What stops the working class from gaining knowledge and skill?
Are there no libraries? no universities where you can just sit anonymously in a lecture hall? no internet? no books where plain individuals like yourself tell you how to get out of a rut?

Where is the public education system? It is underfunded and horribly ineffective. So that's out the window.
You cannot get a job without credentials. Or at least any decent-paying one. You can't just go to the library, read up real good, and go get a great job. Won't work. Because your employer can't trust you. How does he know you really know your stuff? If you went to Harvard, he can imply that you do. But if you only graduated high school (and a public one at that), you arn't worth shit to him.

Your statements are so ignorant, simplistic, and ill-thought through that they barely deserve reply. But I have offered this in hope that you will see the clear logic of my arguments, and will develop some credible ones of your own in the future.

-- August

Martin Blank

23rd August 2005, 09:07

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 22 2005, 11:55 AM
I have heard Capitalists argue repeatedly that Capitalism is not based upon exploitation because workers "negotiate" their wages - isn't this "negotiation" completely skewed in favour of the Capitalist however, considering s/he has the capital, the resources etc - and the worker in General, does not have a union or organisation to advance his/her cause in such "negotiation"?
Of course such "negotiations" are skewed in favor of the capitalists. They own the facilities and run them like a dictatorship. Even if there is a union in place, the workers are at an inherent disadvantage, because they have no voice in the control of the facility. In addition, they also have external coercive forces, like the police/military, the army of unemployed, the politicians, religion, etc.

As for exploitation, every worker is subject to this under capitalism. "Negotiations" between workers and capitalists do not change this fact. If anything, it sort of makes that exploitation seem "acceptable".

Miles

quincunx5

23rd August 2005, 09:21

This is only correct in jobs that value degrees of work. If you work in a factory putting stickers on metal car parts, it doesn't matter if they're the straightest, most well placed stickers in the world, you still make the same wage. So you can see your janitorial friend is one case, I offered another, two different ends.

Until it is found out you make the least errors. Many people came and went, but you are the best. You negotiate a higher wage or you leave.

but when a company which will sell the shoes (for example) for $114, pays the workers a total of less than a dollar for each pair, this is not right. They could easily pay them several dollars, if not more, and still make enormous profits. But they don't give a shit, and this is where your arguments falls through. My previous point is completely valid, they can pay them more (so that the people can feed and cloth their families), and still make multi-million dollar profits, but they don't. What do you say to that?

Woah! Do you not realize that Nike does not have factories accross seas? They contract their jobs to other companies which in turn actually have the sweatshops.
It is that local company and the local government that dictate workers pay/conditions.

You are very confused. They don't sell for $114. People pay $114. If people didn't want to pay $114, the price would be less. But then there would be more demand.

Can you tell your local grocery store that you demand to pay high prices for goods so that the employees can earn more?

Would you pay some kid to remove the snow from your driveway for $20, if another offered to do the same job for $10?

Wrong again... There have been studies, and movies made, on how white people get more jobs then black people. As in they both went in at different times, the black man with better credentials/records, and the white man still gets the job. And that's only race! Women are still treated as second-class citizens.

Do you have a source or ... are you just pulling this out of your ass?

There have been studies and movies made on how <fill in the blank>. There always have been.

Define "better credentials/records".

Maybe white people get more jobs than black people because...there are more white people!

All women? My female relatives would woop your ass.

The fact is not whether you are asked to provide something, it is what is inherent in your person. And your statement that "the only thing that an employer can judge you by is your ability to do productive work" is simply ridiculous. You know that employers judge prospective employees by many things, friendliness for example is one. And it has nothing to do with ability, it's just how cheerful you are. There are many more but I think my point has been made.

I think you understand that when I said this I meant that they already have a job, and they want to negotiate a raise.

Being cheerful and friendly is going to make you more productive than being angry and rude.

Where is the public education system? It is underfunded and horribly ineffective. So that's out the window.

Fuck you! It's not out the window at all. You are an asshole for making such a generic statement. I think I got a fine public education, and so did most of the people I know. And even those who I do not know must have gotten a better one than nothing at all.

Underfunded and horribly ineffective compared to what?
There is no end. You might as well assume that it will always be underfunded and horribly ineffective regardless of how much funding is put in it. Measuring educational success is practically impossible.

You cannot get a job without credentials. Or at least any decent-paying one.

You build yourself up! Well in your case you just fall in the mud and blame the rain.

You can't just go to the library, read up real good, and go get a great job. Won't work. Because your employer can't trust you. How does he know you really know your stuff?

He has someone knowledgeable question your skills. You do your best to answer them. Have you ever looked for a job?

If you went to Harvard, he can imply that you do. But if you only graduated high school (and a public one at that), you arn't worth shit to him.

Getting D's in Harvard is usually worse than getting A's at a state university.

Actually you would be worth shit. He'll pay you shit compared to the Harvard dude. But you will get better and then you can negotiate a higher wage. Should not the Harvard dude get more money? Especially if he has $130,000 in student loans, while you have 0.

Your statements are so ignorant, simplistic, and ill-thought through that they barely deserve reply. But I have offered this in hope that you will see the clear logic of my arguments, and will develop some credible ones of your own in the future.

Oh please, there is no content to your reply. Your whole argument is "there is such and such statistic that remotely proves something I'm saying"

I think what August meant was that the wage that you receive largely has to do with where you live, what your family's economic situation is like, etc...

And how is this known to your employer?

He felt the tension. Why? Because he didn't have a degree. Even though he was a genius.

If he remained there the whole time and he is a genius, why would requiring degrees all of a sudden get him fired?

Experience >> Degree

Elect Marx

23rd August 2005, 10:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 02:39 AM
It is that local company and the local government that dictate workers pay/conditions.
Really? So the companies have no say in what they pay their workers?

Can you tell your local grocery store that you demand to pay high prices for goods so that the employees can earn more?

Riight, selective thinking on your part? Why do cappies always conveniently forget about profit in their meritocratic economic model?

If you paid more, the owners would profit more. Trickle down economics is a capitalist propaganda line.

Would you pay some kid to remove the snow from your driveway for $20, if another offered to do the same job for $10?

No; I would clear it myself. Maybe I would just trade the kid some "federal note" tax free goods for their labor if need be and we could laugh as we deny the capitalist's their profit.

23rd August 2005, 18:20

If he remained there the whole time and he is a genius, why would requiring degrees all of a sudden get him fired?

Because that is how important a degree is now.

Martin Blank

23rd August 2005, 18:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 01:38 PM

If he remained there the whole time and he is a genius, why would requiring degrees all of a sudden get him fired?

Because that is how important a degree is now.
PhD = Piled higher and DEEPER!

Miles

quincunx5

23rd August 2005, 19:12

Because that is how important a degree is now.

Again, Experience >>> Degree. A company is not a school. Success is related to how well you work in the company, not a degree that you obtained from a third party.

Really? So the companies have no say in what they pay their workers?

No more than you have a say in how a third party conducts his business.

Riight, selective thinking on your part? Why do cappies always conveniently forget about profit in their meritocratic economic model?

Why do commies always conveniently forget about loss? Or the fact that the biggest companies have their means of production owned by shareholders (ie regular people like you and me)?

If you paid more, the owners would profit more. Trickle down economics is a capitalist propaganda line.

Ha ha ha. There is no school of economic throught that ever existed that actually professed the "trickle down theory". It's mere existence is collectivist propaganda.

The workers are always paid first and on a regular basis regardless if a profit is realized. It may take years of running at a loss to realize a profit.

Even with successful and well-established businesses, years may elapse between the initial investment and the return of earnings. From the time when an oil company begins spending money to explore for petroleum to the time when the first gasoline resulting from the exploration comes out of a pump at a gas station, a decade may have passed. In the meantime, all sorts of employees have been paid - geologists, engineers, refinery workers, truck drivers, etc. It is only afterwards that profits begin coming in, if at all!

No; I would clear it myself. Maybe I would just trade the kid some "federal note" tax free goods for their labor if need be and we could laugh as we deny the capitalist's their profit.

There is no profit! You may feel your time is worth more than $20 or $10, but the kid feels that it is not. He may be saving to buy something he likes, something that you do not have.

Decolonize The Left

23rd August 2005, 19:18

Quincun, I'm tired of addressing your simplistic thinking. And I have to go to work, yes I work.

So here:
You think, and this is true if you read your past posts, that the employers actually care about you. And that they are interested in listening to you, or at the very least 'they will bring someone in to question your knowledge'. That's quite naive for someone who claims to understand capitalism.

Employers care about one thing: profit. They don't care about you, or your kids, or your sick grandmother who really really needs those meds (which medicare is charging her too much for). They don't care about you. You represent one thing: labor. And labor means profit. Get that into your head.

No employer is going to jump through hoops for you just because you look like you will work really hard, or you're a really honest guy. If there is someone else there too looking for a job, and they can hire them faster and easier, they most likely will.

You seem to have it in your mind that the capitalist class actually cares about the working class. I don't know which one your from, although from your arguments I'd say the capitalist. But I do know that I have applied for many jobs, and worked hard and gotten raises, and left them for school etc.. Don't judge me, you don't know me. I judged your arguments, not your person.

Now for your naive racist remarks:
"White people get more jobs than black people because there are more white people". Did you graduate high school?
White people get more jobs because this country is subconsciously racist, and very racist at that. Why is it our prisons are filled with blacks? Why is it if a white man and a black man both go in for the same job, and the black man even has better credentials, he is turned away? (By the way, that's what I said earlier and your response was totally eroneous). Not because simply there are more white people, that's a naive and ridiculous statement. Firstly, whites are a minority in America (that ought to piss you off). Secondly, by your statement, latinos should be the most, and best, employed in many states! But we know that isn't true either.

So where are you coming from? You claim to have been through public school, which is evident from your naive and simplistic arguments, which could only be a product of our shitty education system. You claim to understand how easy it is to get a job, and on top of that, to negotiate your wage. This tells me you are either well-to-do financially, and were since a child, and got nice cushy jobs where janitors cleaned up after you.

Grow up. The capitalist class doesn't give a shit about the working class, unless it negatively affects their profit. That's the bottom line.

-- August

Elect Marx

23rd August 2005, 19:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 12:30 PM

Riight, selective thinking on your part? Why do cappies always conveniently forget about profit in their meritocratic economic model?

Why do commies always conveniently forget about loss? Or the fact that the biggest companies have their means of production owned by shareholders (ie regular people like you and me)?
Blatant evasion.

If you paid more, the owners would profit more. Trickle down economics is a capitalist propaganda line.

Ha ha ha. There is no school of economic throught that ever existed that actually professed the "trickle down theory".

Then capitalists must be morons for supporting the idea that wealth will trickle down to the workers?

It's mere existence is collectivist propaganda.

Really? What would collectivists have to gain from it? Capitalists use it to encourage a futile "work ethic."

The workers are always paid first and on a regular basis regardless if a profit is realized. It may take years of running at a loss to realize a profit.

Are we talking about a specific business here? If you think all business works that way, you are living in a fantasy world... but at least you wondered away from my point yet again.

Even with successful and well-established businesses, years may elapse between the initial investment and the return of earnings. From the time when an oil company begins spending money to explore for petroleum to the time when the first gasoline resulting from the exploration comes out of a pump at a gas station, a decade may have passed. In the meantime, all sorts of employees have been paid - geologists, engineers, refinery workers, truck drivers, etc. It is only afterwards that profits begin coming in, if at all!

In the mean time; the government helps to pay the bills for the wealthy oils company owners :rolleyes:

The point is that the companies are allowed to borrow obscene amounts of money (that workers can't), paying workers a bare minimum and when profit comes in from their hard work, do they get a substantial amount? No, they don't.

No; I would clear it myself. Maybe I would just trade the kid some "federal note" tax free goods for their labor if need be and we could laugh as we deny the capitalist's their profit.

There is no profit!

That was my point... when we subvert the capitalist system of monetary exploitation, the capitalists can't profit off of us.

You may feel your time is worth more than $20 or $10, but the kid feels that it is not.

What is your point?

He may be saving to buy something he likes, something that you do not have.

So of the kid was smart; he would trade for a useful item I could give him that had particular value to him in saving him money later, then he could be even closer to his goal or I might even trade through a third party; trade works.

quincunx5

23rd August 2005, 21:17

You think, and this is true if you read your past posts, that the employers actually care about you. And that they are interested in listening to you, or at the very least 'they will bring someone in to question your knowledge'. That's quite naive for someone who claims to understand capitalism.

Would you hire a person just because they have a degree? Or would you care to have a professional ask them questions to confirm their knowledge?

Employers care about one thing: profit. They don't care about you, or your kids, or your sick grandmother who really really needs those meds (which medicare is charging her too much for). They don't care about you. You represent one thing: labor. And labor means profit. Get that into your head.

Jackass! Every person has family issues, including the the employer. Why should they care about your grandmother?

Don't judge me, you don't know me. I judged your arguments, not your person.

You seem to have it in your mind that the capitalist class actually cares about the working class. I don't know which one your from, although from your arguments I'd say the capitalist.

Sounds like you're judging me. I do not have to be a member of any group to see it their way. I don't have to be Japanese to love Japanese food. One does not really appreciate capitalism until they had to work their way up from poverty.

Now for your naive racist remarks:
"White people get more jobs than black people because there are more white people". Did you graduate high school?
White people get more jobs because this country is subconsciously racist, and very racist at that.
Firstly, whites are a minority in America (that ought to piss you off). Secondly, by your statement, latinos should be the most, and best, employed in many states! But we know that isn't true either.

There is nothing racist about my remark. Check your statistics again. Whites are not a minority. Your logic is absurd, did you know that more blacks get jobs over native americans? It's true! Is that a racist remark?

Again august, provide me some statistics

So where are you coming from? You claim to have been through public school, which is evident from your naive and simplistic arguments, which could only be a product of our shitty education system. You claim to understand how easy it is to get a job, and on top of that, to negotiate your wage. This tells me you are either well-to-do financially, and were since a child, and got nice cushy jobs where janitors cleaned up after you.

Sounds like you're judging again. It's funnny how you imply that hating communism stems from a lack of good education.

Why do commies always conveniently forget about loss? Or the fact that the biggest companies have their means of production owned by shareholders (ie regular people like you and me)?

Blatant evasion.

Yes indeed, every collectivist on this forum has evaded this point repeatedly. To them there is no loss, only profit. There are no shareholders, only sole owners.

Then capitalists must be morons for supporting the idea that wealth will trickle down to the workers?

Again, there is no such thing as "Trickle Down Theory". It's a straw man.

Are we talking about a specific business here? If you think all business works that way, you are living in a fantasy world... but at least you wondered away from my point yet again.

Yes public corporations, small/medium private businesses specifically work this way. Give it up, you had no point.

In the mean time; the government helps to pay the bills for the wealthy oils company owners

Oh, well that's just brilliant. Yanking the government is not capitalistic.

The point is that the companies are allowed to borrow obscene amounts of money (that workers can't), paying workers a bare minimum and when profit comes in from their hard work, do they get a substantial amount? No, they don't.

Again, what if there is no profit? Should they pay for the loss?
There is no right "substantial" amount. The substantial amount is whatever they accepted from the beginning.

So of the kid was smart; he would trade for a useful item I could give him that had particular value to him in saving him money later, then he could be even closer to his goal or I might even trade through a third party; trade works.

Giving him a calculator does not bring him closer to buying a bicycle. You are free to negotiate any terms you want. But if you decided that you are going to pay someone to shovel the snow, your choice is now either to pay $20 or $10. Again, you can choose $20, if you know this kid will do a better job.

Elect Marx

23rd August 2005, 21:44

Originally posted by quincunx5+Aug 23 2005, 02:35 PM--> (quincunx5 @ Aug 23 2005, 02:35 PM) Jackass! Every person has family issues, including the the employer. Why should they care about your grandmother? [/b]
That was completely unjustified; I am giving you a warning point for that remark.

It's funnny how you imply that hating communism stems from a lack of good education.

Yes :lol: Hating communism stems from ignorance.

Why do commies always conveniently forget about loss? Or the fact that the biggest companies have their means of production owned by shareholders (ie regular people like you and me)?

Blatant evasion.

Yes indeed, every collectivist on this forum has evaded this point repeatedly. To them there is no loss, only profit. There are no shareholders, only sole owners.

I will address that point as soon as I see you address my point. When you prove that you are not a hypocrite and stop this evasion, I will be happy to address your great point.

Then capitalists must be morons for supporting the idea that wealth will trickle down to the workers?

Again, there is no such thing as "Trickle Down Theory". It's a straw man.

Capitalist propaganda 101
trick•le-down (trĭk'əl-doun')
adj.

Of or relating to the economic theory that financial benefits accorded to big businesses and wealthy investors will pass down to profit smaller businesses and consumers.

Are we talking about a specific business here? If you think all business works that way, you are living in a fantasy world... but at least you wondered away from my point yet again.

Yes public corporations, small/medium private businesses specifically work this way. Give it up, you had no point.

Sure; just as soon as you prove that "The workers are always paid first and on a regular basis regardless if a profit is realized," time for you to show your stats or admit to being a hypocrite.

In the mean time; the government helps to pay the bills for the wealthy oils company owners

Oh, well that's just brilliant. Yanking the government is not capitalistic.

Then why do capitalists do it? How many companies don't take advantage of government power?

The point is that the companies are allowed to borrow obscene amounts of money (that workers can't), paying workers a bare minimum and when profit comes in from their hard work, do they get a substantial amount? No, they don't.

Again, what if there is no profit? Should they pay for the loss?
There is no right "substantial" amount. The substantial amount is whatever they accepted from the beginning.

Like I said; workers don't have the opportunity to take such risks, just as they don't have the opportunity to keep their earnings.

So of the kid was smart; he would trade for a useful item I could give him that had particular value to him in saving him money later, then he could be even closer to his goal or I might even trade through a third party; trade works.

Giving him a calculator does not bring him closer to buying a bicycle.

Great; you have been reduced to making nonsensical statements.

You are free to negotiate any terms you want. But if you decided that you are going to pay someone to shovel the snow, your choice is now either to pay $20 or $10. Again, you can choose $20, if you know this kid will do a better job.

No; I can chose to trade, if kid a doesn't want to, fine. The same is true with kid b.

Publius

23rd August 2005, 22:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 02:55 AM

People are not economic goods, they are not commodities, there is no human "value".

PEOPLE aren't commodities, their LABOR is.

Huge difference.

Your arm is not a commodity to be chopped off, bought and sold, your labor however, is something you can sell as you please.

Value is only a term prescribed to what services you can offer the market, which is only a total of what other people are willing to pay.

Value is the term prescribed when two people agree to trade something.

There is no human "value", there is only value for goods and services, and this only exists when you have a market. In other words, it is totally unnecessary.

There is only value for goods, services and labor.

And tell me how a market isn't necessary.

After that quote, I might have to 'dumb this response down' for you.
That statement is completely false. Many wages accepted are far from fair, how would you back your statement up against sweatshops in Taiwan? Those people make 4 cents a day and can't afford to feed their kids, and you call that "fair"?

Why would someone work for 4 cents a day (A number you pulled out your ass)?

Define 'fair'? What makes one wage 'fair' and another not 'fair'? Your opinion?

How's that fair?

Has globalization: Improve wages in these poor areas or depressed them?

Hint: It's the first one.

Wages are not fair. They are determined by the market, by supply.

Contradiction.

Any price dictated by the market is necessarily fair.

If a producer over-produces his product, he cuts workers, and raises his prices.

No, he would fire his workers and LOWER his prices.

Overproduction results in depressed pricing.

None wonder you fail to understand the capitalist economy.

He will also decrease his wages, in order to maintain his profit.

Of course.

If he didn't, he would go out of business and everyone would be out of a job.

This has no reflection on the needs of the worker, which determines fairness.

That doesn't dictate 'fairness' at all.

What about what's fair to the consumer? The employer? Other workers?

They outnumber the workers millions to one.

I thought you supported democracy!

Wages are in place through capitalism to keep the people as slaves, hence the term wage-slaves.

So I guess capitalism just up and decided one day it's going to 'keep the worker' down?

Or is it more complex than that, and far more complex than you'd like admit?

They are meant to think they are being treated fairly, when the truth couldn't be farther away. How is this fair?

It self-evidently isn't. Why ask a question when you give the answer to it in the first part of the sentance?

The truth is they ARE being treated fairly.

Producers and managers are trying to increase their profit. They do this by spending as little as possible on the workers, machines, property etc... And by keeping the prices as high as possible.

Which explains why every single American worker lives in destitute poverty, unable to buy the $300 bread and $500 milk, right?

:rolleyes:

The workers are trying to make enough money to be able to purchase the basic goods to survive, and if they have more, perhaps indulge their children or spouse a little.

So does capitalism lower wages, stagnate them or raise them?

These two facts run completely in opposite to each other. In order for one to succeed, the other has to fail. I think we all know who fails.

Holy shit you're stupid.

If this were the case, why have living conditions risen so much since the inception of capitalism?

How have both sides succeeded?

I can answer this one. It's because capitalism isn't a zero-sum game. Both sides win.

It's not about who has a bigger slice of the pie, it's about making the pie larger.

1% of a vast GDP is better than 10% of a miniscule one.

Which is more 'fair' though?

To use any reasonable definition, the latter.

But is it desirable?

quincunx5

23rd August 2005, 23:29

Yes Hating communism stems from ignorance.

So how much good education does one need to see that communism is so great?

I tend to discredit anyone who tells me that there is only one true way.

That was completely unjustified; I am giving you a warning point for that remark.

Ooh, Don't you just love wielding your superiority over me?

I will address that point as soon as I see you address my point. When you prove that you are not a hypocrite and stop this evasion, I will be happy to address your great point.

This is not the first time myself and others have raised this point. It has always been ignored. If you want me to be less 'ignorant', then you will address this vital piece of economic reality.

trick*le-down (trĭk'əl-doun')
adj.

Of or relating to the economic theory that financial benefits accorded to big businesses and wealthy investors will pass down to profit smaller businesses and consumers.

I'm glad you know how to use dictionary.com, but can you please find an actual economist or economists that has ever supported this theory?

Did you even note the 'financial benefits accorded' part? Only the government can do that. I never said that I like the way things are right now. I definitely want to reduce the power of government in favor of a free market.

Sure; just as soon as you prove that "The workers are always paid first and on a regular basis regardless if a profit is realized," time for you to show your stats or admit to being a hypocrite.

I already did. Gasoline does not magically appear in your car. There was labor and investment that went into digging it in the wrong places. That labor was paid for doing it, while the investment was lost because there was nothing found.

I don't need specific stats, it's that obvious that labor can go into unuseful things. Right now China has the fastest economic growth of 10-15%. Do you know what that means? It does not mean that 10-15% are making profits, and the other 85-90% are doing nothing. It means that on average, taking into account profits and losses, from business to business over the course of a year there is a net gain in wealth of 10-15%.

The worker of a lossy company can still invest whatever he has left after living expenses into a profitable company. If he spreads his investment into many portions of the economy his investment on average would yield 10-15%.

Then why do capitalists do it? How many companies don't take advantage of government power?

How many socialists take advantage of government power at the expense of the consumer? Why do I pay rediculous taxes to pay for people that refuse to work?

The moment you go to government for company assitance is the moment you stop being a capitalist and become a mere business man.

Every company would love to have a monopoly, but they can't because the free market does not allow that.

Like I said; workers don't have the opportunity to take such risks, just as they don't have the opportunity to keep their earnings.

Everyone has the opportunity to take any risks any time. Their earnings are nothing more than what they negotiated at the beginning plus whatever benefits they earned from being productive. If they work for a public corporation then they are free to buy stock in their own labor power! They would be able to get a portion of the company profits for a portion of the total labor the workers put in.

No; I can chose to trade, if kid a doesn't want to, fine. The same is true with kid b.

So we agree, you are free to negotiate any terms you want. Again my example made the assumption that you would pay. Now tell me what would happen if kid b wanted to trade for something you value more, meanwhile kid a would accept something you value less?

Elect Marx

24th August 2005, 21:03

Way to kill a thread...

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 04:47 PM
I tend to discredit anyone who tells me that there is only one true way.

Too bad for you then that I've never said anything of the sort :P

Yes Hating communism stems from ignorance.

So how much good education does one need to see that communism is so great?

Well; I wouldn't use the phrase "so great" but you can see fairly easily if you look at the definition that communism is about promoting what people would call a "free society," only actually free. Having no oppression through class hierarchy is appealing to anyone that even slightly cares about liberation and isn't sadistic/brainwashed.
That said, people might have reasons why they find communism impractical, much as I see many forms of utopian socialism impractical but I have yet to hear a reason we shouldn't work toward a classless society, that is based in reality.

That was completely unjustified; I am giving you a warning point for that remark.

Ooh, Don't you just love wielding your superiority over me?

Oh, you know it. The people here have nothing better to do that oppress those innocent people that are attacking others. You are nothing special; just another confused cappie. Get over yourself.

I will address that point as soon as I see you address my point. When you prove that you are not a hypocrite and stop this evasion, I will be happy to address your great point.

This is not the first time myself and others have raised this point. It has always been ignored. If you want me to be less 'ignorant', then you will address this vital piece of economic reality.

You first; hypocrite. You can't hold previous debate questions as pertinent to discussion whenever you want to run and hide :rolleyes:

trick*le-down (trĭk'əl-doun')
adj.

Of or relating to the economic theory that financial benefits accorded to big businesses and wealthy investors will pass down to profit smaller businesses and consumers.

I'm glad you know how to use dictionary.com, but can you please find an actual economist or economists that has ever supported this theory?

Alright... I'll look up the economics for you and that wasn't from dictionary.com BTW.

Did you even note the 'financial benefits accorded' part? Only the government can do that. I never said that I like the way things are right now. I definitely want to reduce the power of government in favor of a free market.

So you think giving profit seeking businesses more power to exploit will help?

Sure; just as soon as you prove that "The workers are always paid first and on a regular basis regardless if a profit is realized," time for you to show your stats or admit to being a hypocrite.

I already did. Gasoline does not magically appear in your car. There was labor and investment that went into digging it in the wrong places. That labor was paid for doing it, while the investment was lost because there was nothing found.

No; statistics, that prove this applies to most people's jobs and not just one assumptive example.

I don't need specific stats,

Yes you do, because your argument is based on rhetoric.

it's that obvious that labor can go into unuseful things.

True but we where addressing the point of "The workers are always paid first and on a regular basis regardless if a profit is realized," can't you stay on your own point?

Right now China has the fastest economic growth of 10-15%. Do you know what that means? It does not mean that 10-15% are making profits, and the other 85-90% are doing nothing. It means that on average, taking into account profits and losses, from business to business over the course of a year there is a net gain in wealth of 10-15%.

I wonder why? Under capitalism, one proportionate loss has to occur for profitseekers to "win." This is exploitation, seeding the failure of others to "win."

The worker of a lossy company can still invest whatever he has left after living expenses into a profitable company. If he spreads his investment into many portions of the economy his investment on average would yield 10-15%.

So what portion of the workers can afford to gamble a considerable amount of their earnings?

Then why do capitalists do it? How many companies don't take advantage of government power?

How many socialists take advantage of government power at the expense of the consumer?

That's right; divert attention. Its okay for my idols to be above the system I support, because those I disagree with work outside the system.

Do I detect; no, could it be hypocrisy?

Why do I pay rediculous taxes to pay for people that refuse to work?

Because capitalists offer exploitive jobs that people don't want?

The moment you go to government for company assitance is the moment you stop being a capitalist and become a mere business man.

So only small businesses that have no support from the government can be owned by cappies? Obviously if businesses could just exploit people without the government facilitating their effort, we would be better off. No accountability makes for great self governing! There is already a name for capitalism without regulation; feudalism, because that is what you would get.

Every company would love to have a monopoly, but they can't because the free market does not allow that.

Really? What can stopping them?

Like I said; workers don't have the opportunity to take such risks, just as they don't have the opportunity to keep their earnings.

Everyone has the opportunity to take any risks any time.

Bullshit! An established capitalist that has received their position by inheritance can borrow $1,000,000+ to start a company; I cannot.

Their earnings are nothing more than what they negotiated at the beginning

How many jobs can you "negotiate" your earnings? This is your example for how "Everyone has the opportunity to take any risks any time," while most people simply cannot use those means? You have just proven yourself wrong.

plus whatever benefits they earned from being productive.

You just said "...it's that obvious that labor can go into unuseful things."
Yet somehow you summarize labor payment to going toward those "being productive."

If they work for a public corporation then they are free to buy stock in their own labor power! They would be able to get a portion of the company profits for a portion of the total labor the workers put in.

What delightful opportunity; when a good portion of the working class has to spend their money just to stay out of debt, while paying for living expenses, if possible!

No; I can chose to trade, if kid a doesn't want to, fine. The same is true with kid b.

So we agree, you are free to negotiate any terms you want. Again my example made the assumption that you would pay. Now tell me what would happen if kid b wanted to trade for something you value more, meanwhile kid a would accept something you value less?

That depends; if they are both goods I am willing to trade, I might give the kid in need a better deal. Nothing wrong with helping your community, unless you are ideologically predatory :P

quincunx5

24th August 2005, 21:27

I wonder why? Under capitalism, one proportionate loss has to occur for profitseekers to "win." This is exploitation, seeding the failure of others to "win."

You have a zero-sum mentality. You are not worth my time.

Decolonize The Left

25th August 2005, 01:08

Good lord, I don't check this thread for one night and come back to the astonishing statements posted above. I shall begin:

Firstly, QuinCun, in regards to EM, you posted:

You have a zero-sum mentality. You are not worth my time.

Here you are in a leftist forum, arguing your capitalist beliefs, and when someone makes a valid point in opposition to your view, you reply "you are not worth my time." What are you afraid of? Why not answer him? Damn our public school system for 'educating' people like you, now look at how confused and scared you are, can't even form an argument. But anyway, on to your "points" (if we can call them that) regarding my previous thread.

Value is the term prescribed when two people agree to trade something.

So you are saying here that workers consent to working for a certain pay. But I will argue that workers are not consenting but rather are compelled. You must support your family, but the producer/employer has all the tools/machines. So you must hire yourself to him, you are compelled to work or him (or someone else), or starve.
You might say: "Compelled, nonsense, you are a free citizen! Ah ha, and as a free citizen you can do as you please!"
Are you really free? How free? How do you live? What does your freedom amount to? You depend on your employer for your wages or your salary don't you? And your wages determine your way of living, don't they? So you are dependent of your employer for your wages.
So what can you do with your freedom? Can you do more than your wages permit? Can't you see that your wages are all the freedom you have? Your freedom, your liberty, don't go a step further than the wages you get.
This freedom, which is written on paper, gives you the right to do a certain thing. But it doesn't mean that you can do it. To be able to do it, you must have the change, the opportunity. You have the right to eat three fine meals a day, but if you haven't the means, the opportunity to get those meals, what good is that right to you?

So you see that it all works out like this:
Capitalism robs you and makes a wage slave of you.
The law upholds and protects that robbery.
The government fools you into believing that you are independent and free.
In this way you are fooled and duped everyday of your life.

I would stop here, because that is probably too much for you to handle, but I feel the need to merely point out some blatant falsities in the rest of your post. And I shall do this, now.

Any price dictated by the market is necessarily fair.

Only correct if the market is completely innocent of outside forces (subsidies, restricting supply, tariffs, etc...). And to say that the market of the global world today is innocent of these factors is another falsehood, as anyone knows that there are so many restrictions on the market today.

That doesn't dictate 'fairness' at all.

What about what's fair to the consumer? The employer? Other workers?

They outnumber the workers millions to one.

I thought you supported democracy!

I'm almost ashamed to reply to this, this, ignorant childlike comment. But I feel I must.
What are consumers? Are they not also workers? How can you be a consumer without money? Where did you get that money? Unless you inherited it, you worked somehow for it, and that makes you a worker. So consumers are also workers.
The employer? The employer is already abusing what power he has, to make it "fair" to him, he would need to loose that power.
Other workers? Are you illiterate? I'll repeat what you just said:
"The needs of the worker do not determine fairness. What about the fairness of the consumer (also workers), the employer (contradiction in goals), the other workers?" So... let me get this straight, you think that the needs of the worker don't determine fairness, because they don't take into account fairness for other workers?... Um, I'm speechless...

So I guess capitalism just up and decided one day it's going to 'keep the worker' down?

No, as I proved in my second response, it is inherent in capitalism to 'keep the worker down'. Please re-read my second response in this post.

Holy shit you're stupid.

Agh an insult! An insult from the man who just argued that fairness isn't determined by the needs of the worker, because I didn't take into account other workers.

If this were the case, why have living conditions risen so much since the inception of capitalism?

Because 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth and continue to increase that wealth, and when you look at standard of living, it doesn't take into account the disparity of wealth, only looks at the numbers.

How have both sides succeeded?

What? 40% of Americans live below the poverty line! How is that called success? If that's success, I don't want to know what failure is...

There, that should give your little mind some arguments to ponder for a while, get back to me when you actually can form a cohesive response, that doesn't involve contradicting arguments, or totally bogus statements.

EM tried to make a well-thought out argument, but you told him you wouldn't waste your time. Well I blatantly called you ignorant, simplistic, and rather stupid, and backed those statements up with evidence from your posts. Am I not worth your time either? If this is the case, you would be denying the evidence that your are all those things, something which wouldn't suprise me.

Uh-oh, I just found some more responses directed at me. Well here we go again.

Jackass! Every person has family issues, including the the employer. Why should they care about your grandmother?

You realize you just contradicted yourself in one sentence... And backed up my point you were trying to argue against...

Sounds like you're judging me.

Lol, you must be illiterate. I just said before this, and you quoted me (!):
"I judged your arguments, not your person."

Quite an intelligent response you have there...

Sounds like you're judging again. It's funnny how you imply that hating communism stems from a lack of good education.

Well I'm not really sure how to answer this... No I wasn't judging you, as I stated before and you quoted, I was judging your arguments. So with that in mind, as you are proving over and over again, you have experienced a lack of good education...?

-- August

quincunx5

25th August 2005, 02:24

What? 40% of Americans live below the poverty line! How is that called success? If that's success, I don't want to know what failure is...

Because 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth and continue to increase that wealth, and when you look at standard of living, it doesn't take into account the disparity of wealth, only looks at the numbers.

Why do you insist on pulling facts out of your ass?

Decolonize The Left

25th August 2005, 03:04

Seeing as how you have refused to justify any of your claims, I don't see how you're in any position to chastize me on this very topic.

And if you are going to demand justification for every statement in opposition to your stance, I suggest you start producing all the 'evidence' on your side.

-- August

Decolonize The Left

25th August 2005, 03:13

I will add though that my word choice was incorrect. "Poverty line" is not what I meant to say, I meant to say "live in poverty". Poverty line is not the correct term because this again takes into account the standard of living, which is skewed.

My mistake, but my point still stands. How do you justify these statistics:
" As of 1995 (the latest figures available), Federal Reserve research found that the wealth of the top one percent of Americans is greater than that of the bottom 95 percent. Three years earlier, the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finance found that the top one percent had wealth greater than the bottom 90 percent."
"The modest net worth of white families is 8 times that of African-Americans and 12 times that of Hispanics. The median financial wealth of African-Americans (net worth less home equity) is $200 (one percent of the $18,000 for whites) while that of Hispanics is zero."
"In 1996, the Census Bureau reported record-level inequality, with the top fifth of U.S. households claiming 48.2 percent of national income while the bottom fifth gets by on 3.6 percent."
"Microsoft CEO Bill Gates has more wealth than the bottom 45 percent of American households combined."
Source: http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/we...bution1999.html (http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/wealth_distribution1999.html)

I guess you'll say that that is all fair and right.

-- August

25th August 2005, 07:21

Again, Experience >>> Degree. A company is not a school. Success is related to how well you work in the company, not a degree that you obtained from a third party.

To work well in the company and acquire success, you have to be hired by the company. Good luck without a degree! You have to realize that if what you say was true, then college wouldn't be as important as it is.

PEOPLE aren't commodities, their LABOR is.

Huge difference.

Your arm is not a commodity to be chopped off, bought and sold, your labor however, is something you can sell as you please.

Yes!

Value is the term prescribed when two people agree to trade something.

YES!

There is no human "value", there is only value for goods and services, and this only exists when you have a market. In other words, it is totally unnecessary.

Who said this? I couldn't find where you got this from.

Why would someone work for 4 cents a day (A number you pulled out your ass)?

Define 'fair'? What makes one wage 'fair' and another not 'fair'? Your opinion?

How's that fair?

Has globalization: Improve wages in these poor areas or depressed them?

Hint: It's the first one.

Yes.

Contradiction.

Any price dictated by the market is necessarily fair.

In the capitalist sense, yes.

That doesn't dictate 'fairness' at all.

What about what's fair to the consumer? The employer? Other workers?

They outnumber the workers millions to one.

I thought you supported democracy!

Aren't the workers the consumers? (Hint: Yes)

So I guess capitalism just up and decided one day it's going to 'keep the worker' down?

Or is it more complex than that, and far more complex than you'd like admit?

Of course it is more complex. That is why Capital is over 1000 pages long.

The truth is they ARE being treated fairly.

Until they're paid. This, however, will be realized soon enough by the workers when globalization has set in and companies don't have anywhere to go for cheap labour.

So does capitalism lower wages, stagnate them or raise them?

Depends how developed it is where you're talking about.

What? 40% of Americans live below the poverty line! How is that called success? If that's success, I don't want to know what failure is...

There, that should give your little mind some arguments to ponder for a while, get back to me when you actually can form a cohesive response, that doesn't involve contradicting arguments, or totally bogus statements.

EM tried to make a well-thought out argument, but you told him you wouldn't waste your time. Well I blatantly called you ignorant, simplistic, and rather stupid, and backed those statements up with evidence from your posts. Am I not worth your time either? If this is the case, you would be denying the evidence that your are all those things, something which wouldn't suprise me.

Uh-oh, I just found some more responses directed at me. Well here we go again.

Capitalism has improved the lives of everybody on this planet. This you can't deny. But what you must realize, is while capitalism is better than what came before it, it is worse than what comes after it; communism.

Elect Marx

25th August 2005, 19:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:45 PM

I wonder why? Under capitalism, one proportionate loss has to occur for profitseekers to "win." This is exploitation, seeding the failure of others to "win."

You are not worth my time.
Yes woe is you; people are always avoiding your points... so you dodge debate.

You have a zero-sum mentality.

What is your point? Capitalism's gain is offset by an equal loss, or more if you consider the pooling of wealth that makes the earnings null and wastes production value.

You have a meritocratic libertarian viewpoint based in the infallibility of the almighty green market god. Do we feel better now?

Elect Marx

25th August 2005, 19:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 03:51 PM
Holy shit you're stupid.
Okay... damn it, I missed this earlier. Stop flaming, I know you know better Publius.
This means you get a warning point.

Can everyone agree to just debate peaceably now?

Publius

25th August 2005, 22:44

Okay... damn it, I missed this earlier. Stop flaming, I know you know better Publius.
This means you get a warning point.

Can everyone agree to just debate peaceably now?

Anything but that! :rolleyes:

Honestly, I don't feel impelled in the least to respond civilly to an outright lie.

Decolonize The Left

25th August 2005, 22:54

I just realized a huge mistake in the capitalist arguments of this thread.

You all claim that value is a negotiation between two people, or in other words, the market determines value.

This is totally incorrect. Value is what a thing is worth, where as price is what it can be sold or bought for in the market. No one can truly measure value. Some economists call value of a commodity the amount of labor required to produce it. But with a little thought we can see this cannot be true.
Suppose the carpenter took 5 hours to make a chair, and a surgeon took 30 minutes to save your life, according to your assessment, the chair is more valuable than your life. But we know that to be false.
A loaf a bread may be very valuable when you're starving, but not so when you're full.
So we can see that value is almost impossible to determine.

While the price can be easily found out, value cannot. The market sure does determine price, but price does not always reflect value, as value is subjective.

-- August

quincunx5

25th August 2005, 23:40

I just realized a huge mistake in the capitalist arguments of this thread.

You mean you just realized you are a capitalist.

Some economists call value of a commodity the amount of labor required to produce it. But with a little thought we can see this cannot be true.
Suppose the carpenter took 5 hours to make a chair, and a surgeon took 30 minutes to save your life, according to your assessment, the chair is more valuable than your life. But we know that to be false.
A loaf a bread may be very valuable when you're starving, but not so when you're full.
So we can see that value is almost impossible to determine.

Thanks. You just disproved Marx's Labor Theory of Value. Good job, Mr. Capitalist.

The market sure does determine price, but price does not always reflect value, as value is subjective.

If you think value is subjective you are a capitalist, welcome to the club!

Decolonize The Left

25th August 2005, 23:48

You mean you just realized you are a capitalist.

Lol, I point out flaws in your logic and you claim I have joined your cause?! Cute.

Thanks. You just disproved Marx's Labor Theory of Value. Good job, Mr. Capitalist.

I'm not a Marxist, but an anarchist, and so my arguments are such.

If you think value is subjective you are a capitalist, welcome to the club!

Even cuter than your first statement.
My saying value is subjective is pointing out a truism, not arguing in favor of capitalism. Earlier you were claiming value was a result of the market, which runs contrary to being subjective. I already pointed out that prices were a result of the market, not value. And so you have contradicted yourself yet again. Well done, you simply won't cease to amaze me.

-- August

Elect Marx

25th August 2005, 23:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 04:02 PM

Okay... damn it, I missed this earlier. Stop flaming, I know you know better Publius.
This means you get a warning point.

Can everyone agree to just debate peaceably now?

Anything but that! :rolleyes:

Honestly, I don't feel impelled in the least to respond civilly to an outright lie.
If anything, the statement you responded to was simplistic but I got the point (that didn’t need much explanation) and to say it is a lie is even more simplistic as you do not fully address the matter.

You should have more problems with capitalists if oversimplification bothers you :P

quincunx5

26th August 2005, 00:04

Yes woe is you; people are always avoiding your points... so you dodge debate.

Debating with you is like trying to explain science to a religious fanatic. I would rather debate with the more intelligent members of your tribe.

What is your point? Capitalism's gain is offset by an equal loss, or more if you consider the pooling of wealth that makes the earnings null and wastes production value.

I chose to ignore your arguments because all of them stem from a misunderstaning of wealth. This and the fact that you tend to break up any persons argument into tiny pieces of 'hypocrite this' 'hyprocrite that' 'blah' 'blah' and other meaningless drivel, as opposed to drawing conclusions from complete arguments.

How can we have all this great science and technology if the gain is offset by equal loss? Hint: We can't.

Wealth is not static, it grows in a capitalist society. The reason for the increasing existence of the poor in the third world is because the growth of wealth in the third world is not fast enough for the growth in population (aside from their lack of real capitalism).

People today are hundreds of times wealthier today than they were 200 years ago.

Your pooling of wealth idea stems from propaganda. The type of propaganda that August linked to in a previous post. I will debunk these statistics later.

You have a meritocratic libertarian viewpoint based in the infallibility of the almighty green market god. Do we feel better now?

Sure, Imagine the market as god.
Who do you think the market is composed of? I'll tell you: People.

quincunx5

26th August 2005, 00:30

I'm not a Marxist, but an anarchist, and so my arguments are such.

Then you must be an anarchist of the capitalist type.

My saying value is subjective is pointing out a truism, not arguing in favor of capitalism. Earlier you were claiming value was a result of the market, which runs contrary to being subjective. I already pointed out that prices were a result of the market, not value. And so you have contradicted yourself yet again. Well done, you simply won't cease to amaze me.

The market is not a god that determines prices. The market is nothing more than the sum of individual's subjective values.

Prices are determined with money. Money is a medium of exchange. When one buys a specific good - they value that good more than say $50 (for example). When one sells a specific good - they value the $50 more than the good.

Exchange occurs when the buyer and seller both feel this way.

The market is nothing more than a reflection of these exchanges.

EDIT: Take away money and institute barter - it will still work the same way. The $50 will turn into a different good.

In your example:

Suppose the carpenter took 5 hours to make a chair, and a surgeon took 30 minutes to save your life, according to your assessment, the chair is more valuable than your life.

This is exactly why health care is expensive and chairs are relatively cheap. Do you see how prices reflect value?

EDIT: This is not my assessment - it is an assessment of one who believes in Marx's LTV.

Decolonize The Left

26th August 2005, 00:44

I still stand that value cannot be determined.

The same thing may be worth a lot to one person while it is worth nothing or little to another. It may be worth much or little even to the same person, at different times. A diamond, a painting, or a book may be worth a great deal to one man and very little to another. Therefore the real value of a thing cannot be ascertained; it is an unknown quantity.
But price can be easily found out. It depends on supply and demand.

The exchange of commodities by means of prices leads to profit making, to taking advantage and exploitation; in short, some form of capitalism. If you do away with profits, you cannot have any price system, nor any system of wages or payment. That means that exchange must be according to value. But as value is uncertain or not ascertainable, exchange must consquently be freem without "equal" value, since such does not exist. In other words, labor and its products must be exchanged without price, without profit, freely, according to necessity. This logically leads to ownership in common and to joint use. While is a sensible, just, and equitable system, and is known as Communism.

-- August

Publius

26th August 2005, 01:18

If anything, the statement you responded to was simplistic but I got the point (that didn’t need much explanation) and to say it is a lie is even more simplistic as you do not fully address the matter.

You should have more problems with capitalists if oversimplification bothers you :P

No, his saying that for one 'faction' to win, the other has to lose is an error.

Both sides can 'win'.

You can make all the arguments you want about how capitalists will eventually 'win' or whatever nonsense you choose, but statements like the one he made are simply not true.

Elect Marx

26th August 2005, 01:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 05:22 PM

Yes woe is you; people are always avoiding your points... so you dodge debate.

Debating with you is like trying to explain science to a religious fanatic.
You would have trouble explaining anything to anyone if you use rhetoric as explanations and storm off when you are questioned; you seem more like the religious nut in this instance :D

I would rather debate with the more intelligent members of your tribe.

Ah, I see; because you might want to dodge debate on a higher level?

What is your point? Capitalism's gain is offset by an equal loss, or more if you consider the pooling of wealth that makes the earnings null and wastes production value.

I chose to ignore your arguments because all of them stem from a misunderstaning of wealth.

Oh, of course that is the reason; it is mealy a coincidence that you ignore my points about the same time as we get to the core of your rationalizations.

This and the fact that you tend to break up any persons argument into tiny pieces of 'hypocrite this' 'hyprocrite that' 'blah' 'blah' and other meaningless drivel,

Not any person; just those that profess beliefs, feelings, or virtues they don't hold or possess. Also interesting is the fact that you never addressed those points; perhaps because they are true :rolleyes:

as opposed to drawing conclusions from complete arguments.

Where exactly is this "complete argument" of yours?

How can we have all this great science and technology if the gain is offset by equal loss? Hint: We can't.

Depriving entire countries of resources? Ever heard of third world nations?

Wealth is not static, it grows in a capitalist society.

Actually the ruling class simply hoards more of the wealth and while production has improved and the rulers have more "wealth," more people are starving every day.

The reason for the increasing existence of the poor in the third world is because the growth of wealth in the third world is not fast enough for the growth in population (aside from their lack of real capitalism).

Maybe if the ruling class wasn't sucking up all the resources possible, we could feed and medicate the world many times over <_<

People today are hundreds of times wealthier today than they were 200 years ago.

People huh? Who, where and when? This applies to all people? Tell it to the Native American people.

Your pooling of wealth idea stems from propaganda. The type of propaganda that August linked to in a previous post. I will debunk these statistics later.

No; the idea stems from the historical fact that the rich are getting richer because obviously they have the means to do so and have no intent to share!

You have a meritocratic libertarian viewpoint based in the infallibility of the almighty green market god. Do we feel better now?

Sure, Imagine the market as god.
Who do you think the market is composed of? I'll tell you: People.

Yes; predatory profiteers looking to fuck over everyone else to "win."
Your god is a glutton, sustaining the capitalist market by sacrificing hungry children :angry:

Your god's head belongs on a pike!

quincunx5

26th August 2005, 02:52

How do you justify these statistics

I justify these on the propaganda of your source. Why would you select a
source that is inherently biased in your favor? Better yet why would link
this source without confirming their original sources?

I'll try to tackle one statistic at a time.

" As of 1995 (the latest figures available), Federal Reserve research found
that the wealth of the top one percent of Americans is greater than that of the
bottom 95 percent. Three years earlier, the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finance
found that the top one percent had wealth greater than the bottom 90 percent."

The original source here is Federal Reserve, Survery of Consumer Finance
(1992, 1995).
URL: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/95/bull01972.pdf

Briefly skimming the document up/down and searching for the literals 'top',
'one', 'wealth' yields nothing of the sort: "Federal Reserve research found
that the wealth of the top one percent of Americans...". Your source
draws their own conclusions, or that of another propagandist.

The part that is of some interest (where conclusions can be drawn) is on page
6, Income (1995 Dollars).

Note that portions of wealth are not divided by percentiles. They are divided
by 1995 dollars income. There is no way to accurately determine wealth of the
top one percent at all. The best that one can do is find the percentage of
wealth held by the top 6.1% (1995), 7.1% (1992). Let's do the math:

1995
----
(1465.2*0.061) / (45.6*0.16 + 74.6*.0265 + 119.3*0.311 + 256 * 0.202 + 1465.2
* 0.061) = 89.377 / 205.256 = 0.435 = 43.5% of total wealth is owned by top
6.1% income earners.

1992
----
(1283.6*0.071) / (30.9*0.155 + 71.2*0.278 + 124.4*0.295 + 240.8*0.2 +
1283.6*0.071) = 91.136 / 200.577 = 45.43% of total wealth is owned by top 7.1%
of income earners.

How can the top 1% own more than the top 6.1% or 7.1% ?
Wrong conclusions drawn by your source.

"The modest net worth of white families is 8 times that of African-Americans
and 12 times that of Hispanics. The median financial wealth of
African-Americans (net worth less home equity) is $200 (one percent of the
$18,000 for whites) while that of Hispanics is zero."

Where is the original source? It doesn't mention.

I can only make arguments with this source, same as above (since they do not
provide one on their own).
URL: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/95/bull01972.pdf
Page 6, Race of ethnicity of head

(74.4 * 0.225) / (244.0*.775 + 74.4 * 0.225) = 16.74 / 205.84 = 0.081 = 8.1%
of wealth owned by 22.5% (African-American head of families). That would mean
a factor of 22.5 = 2.77 (not 8, 12 or anything in between).

Your source's propaganda lies in not accounting for the fact that there is 3.4
(77.5/22.5) times the number of whites to non-whites. Equality would only
exist if 22.5% of the family population had 22.5% of family wealth.

I have no source to disprove the second portion of the quoted statement.

"In 1996, the Census Bureau reported record-level inequality, with the top
fifth of U.S. households claiming 48.2 percent of national income while the
bottom fifth gets by on 3.6 percent."

Original source is Census Bureau - Income 1996
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income96/in96agg2.html

The quoted percentages are aggregate incomes.

Because of the circular flow of money in exchange for goods and services in an
economy, the value of aggregate output (the national product) should equal the
value of aggregate income (national income).

Does it suprise you that producers build the economy? Does it suprise you
that they get to share a bigger portion of the national product/income?

Note that generally the same numbers appear for African-Americans and
Hispanics.

The quintiles do not contain equal populations. They simply contain equal
number of households. I find it highly amusing that the Census Bureau does
not clarify this.

Upon further inspection, I find this:

URL: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1791.cfm

Here is what they have to say:

1. Conventional Census income figures are incomplete and omit many types of
cash and non-cash income.
2. The conventional Census figures do not take into account the equalizing
effects of taxation.
3. The Census quintiles actually contain unequal number of persons, a
fact that greatly magnifies the apparent level of economic inequality.
4. Differences in income are substantially affected by large differences in the
amount of work performed within each quintile, yet these differences in work
effort are rarely acknowledged.

Chart 9 on that link shows you what happens when all of these are taken into
account. My conclusion is:

"In 1997 and 2002, The top 20% earners claimed 39.6 percent of national
income while the bottom 20% earners claimed 9.4 percent."

What all statistics fail to show is that these percentiles do not have
exactly the same people from census to census.

"Microsoft CEO Bill Gates has more wealth than the bottom 45 percent of
American households combined."

Well this is just worst the one of all. No original source, again.

URL: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/20...4/200324pap.pdf (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2003/200324/200324pap.pdf)
Bottom of page 4 (in PDF file), Wealth by Forbes rank
Rank 1 is Bill Gates: 42.4 Billion 2001 Dollars.

Now go to page 22 (in PDF file)
Networth of 0-50% = 1175.7 Billion 2001 dollars

Bill Gates / Bottom 50 % = 42.4 / 1175.7= 3.6%

Bill Gates has 3.6% wealth of the Bottom 50%.

Note that the majority of Bill Gates' wealth is tied up in one asset:
Microsoft. Whereas the bottom 50% has wealth tied into diversified assets
(for example: individual homes)

Which do you think has a better chance of surviving the test of time?

quincunx5

26th August 2005, 03:26

I still stand that value cannot be determined.

That is because value is not absolute. It is subjective.

The same thing may be worth a lot to one person while it is worth nothing or little to another. It may be worth much or little even to the same person, at different times. A diamond, a painting, or a book may be worth a great deal to one man and very little to another.

Yes, value is subjective.

Therefore the real value of a thing cannot be ascertained; it is an unknown quantity.

It is ascertained when an exchange takes place, otherwise there would be no exchange.

But price can be easily found out. It depends on supply and demand.

Price is not the same everywhere. The market does not have instantaneous knowledge of itself.

Supply and Demand is a reflection of the desire to trade. Like I said before, if there was no money, hence no price, goods would just be exchanged with other goods. The market would work precisely the same way except for the inconvenience of not having a medium of exchange.

The exchange of commodities by means of prices leads to profit making, to taking advantage and exploitation; in short, some form of capitalism. If you do away with profits, you cannot have any price system, nor any system of wages or payment. That means that exchange must be according to value. But as value is uncertain or not ascertainable, exchange must consquently be freem without "equal" value, since such does not exist. In other words, labor and its products must be exchanged without price, without profit, freely, according to necessity. This logically leads to ownership in common and to joint use.

The person who saved your life in 30 minutes, should receive nothing...since they are both the same thing.

The house you built should be exchanged for a pair of socks.

What would compel an individual to provide a service according to necessity? Nothing! There is no value in providing according to necessity.

Decolonize The Left

26th August 2005, 05:54

What would compel an individual to provide a service according to necessity? Nothing! There is no value in providing according to necessity.

In a society where people were working in jobs they truly cared about and enjoyed, the quality of products would sore, as well as production. "Laziness" wouldn't exist, as it is only a product of people being placed in jobs they don't care about/don't enjoy.

I think producing according to necessity doesn't mean you only produce what is needed, rather people will take what they need. For example, if Joe and his family eat 5 loafs of bread a day, but Jim and his family eat 3, they will each take what they need in regards to bread. And the baker will produce this bread simply because he enjoys it and takes pride in this. Then, say the baker needs some corn, he will go find whoever is producing corn and take what he needs. Competition will be eliminated, and only the pressure to be a good citizen to your fellows will guide the people.

Crime and violence? Why would people need to steal or hurt others? Crime is a result of some people having less than others and without a way to get them without stealing. It is a direct product of capitalism and classism. Violence? Besides crimes of passion or the such, there would be no violence, as people would all be doing what they enjoyed, and you could take what you needed, why would you want to hurt someone?

Your next statement will probably be: sounds great, but it's utopian and will never happen.

And to this I say, then you can continue to live happily and ignorantly in a world where capitalism makes millions suffer and die, and I will strive for utopia. And if someday it is realized, I will welcome you into this community, and you will indeed be thankful that someone had the balls to make a change.

-- August

quincunx5

26th August 2005, 06:51

I think you understand that my last phrase was mocking your world with 'no values'.

Clearly value exists and it is subjective.

Your next statement will probably be: sounds great, but it's utopian and will never happen.

Actually what you describe is not utopian.

And to this I say, then you can continue to live happily and ignorantly in a world where capitalism makes millions suffer and die, and I will strive for utopia. And if someday it is realized, I will welcome you into this community, and you will indeed be thankful that someone had the balls to make a change.

World Population in 1900: 1 billion
Today: over 6 billion

What happend? Capitalism. Fuck your millions.

You'd have no balls, they would be taken as needed.

26th August 2005, 08:06

Supply and demand only dictates profit.

Decolonize The Left

26th August 2005, 08:13

If the poor I speak of, and the working class people I speak of rose up, your upper, borgeoise, capitalist class would crumble in fear and pain and beg for forgiveness for their mistreatment of the millions. What would happen? Whose balls would be taken?

Yeah you're safe now in your cute little house, with your white-picket fence, with all your material possesions making you feel important. And you can jerk-off to your kiddy porno that was "free" and so you thought you made out really good, but in all truths, that all means nothing in the end. It's just material stuff. What really matters is the impact you make on other people and on the world. And judging by your comments, you could give less of a shit about the people of the world, as long as you get your Starbucks in the morning and can wear your gold cufflinks and think your the shit. You got nothing, only an image. And images don't last forever.

-- August

quincunx5

26th August 2005, 09:01

If the poor I speak of, and the working class people I speak of rose up, your upper, borgeoise, capitalist class would crumble in fear and pain and beg for forgiveness for their mistreatment of the millions. What would happen? Whose balls would be taken?

Upper? You must have the wrong guy - I'm lower middle. Why do you speak of the importance of millions when I tell you about the importance of billions?

Your balls (maybe even mine) in a communist society, if it is decided to be needed by the transgendered FtoM or for decorative purposes.

Yeah you're safe now in your cute little house, with your white-picket fence, with all your material possesions making you feel important. And you can jerk-off to your kiddy porno that was "free" and so you thought you made out really good, but in all truths, that all means nothing in the end. It's just material stuff. What really matters is the impact you make on other people and on the world. And judging by your comments, you could give less of a shit about the people of the world, as long as you get your Starbucks in the morning and can wear your gold cufflinks and think your the shit. You got nothing, only an image. And images don't last forever.

Wow! you've resorted to stereotyping. None of these things describe me at all.

I make an impact everyday, mostly with those that I communicate with. I have obviosuly made an impact on you. Should I have an impact on the price of tea in China?

You make a better impact on people by letting them earn their own material stuff.
Material stuff is exactly what makes everyone better off. Always. You can't save people's lives with sympathy.

I think you've stooped to a very low level.

Supply and demand only dictates profit.

Net Profit, aka Economic Growth.

Is that the best you can do?

Decolonize The Left

26th August 2005, 09:07

I judged you from your capitalist arguments, that's all. If I was off, so be it, I didn't claim to be right on.

Material stuff is exactly what makes everyone better off. Always. You can't save people's lifes with sympathy.

Horse shit and totally ridiculous. "Material stuff is exactly what makes everyone better off". Ha. Well here's a situation for you:
Joe is starving on the street. You see him, and since material stuff will make him better off, you go buy him a Game-Boy, a Pearl necklace, and a set of tires for his car (which you assume he has). Joe dies in 2 hours of starvation. But he was better off with all those things wasn't he?!?
You are more endoctrinated than I originally thought, my mistake.

How do iPods help people who are starving in Africa? How do china tea cup sets help people with no water to drink?
Your logic is totally flawed.

-- August

Freedom Works

26th August 2005, 10:01

Haha, you are the 'endoctrinated' on, AugustWest.

Joe is starving on the street. You see him, and since material stuff will make him better off, you go buy him a Game-Boy, a Pearl necklace, and a set of tires for his car (which you assume he has). Joe dies in 2 hours of starvation. But he was better off with all those things wasn't he?!?
Horse shit and totally ridiculois. Food and water are material things are they not?
Would he not be better off with food and water?

How do iPods help people who are starving in Africa? How do china tea cup sets help people with no water to drink?
Your logic is totally flawed.
It's the old trick that cups are useless without water to put in them, and water is useless without cups to put it in. Capitalists are useless without workers, and workers are useless without capitalists.

Martin Blank

26th August 2005, 10:27

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 26 2005, 05:19 AM
It's the old trick that cups are useless without water to put in them, and water is useless without cups to put it in. Capitalists are useless without workers, and workers are useless without capitalists.
I can drink out of the hose or use my hands. Likewise, I can do my job just fine without a boss.

Miles

quincunx5

26th August 2005, 16:37

Joe dies in 2 hours of starvation. But he was better off with all those things wasn't he?!?

If he dies in 2 hours of starvation, it shows he has really serious problems. Had you even fed him he would have died. And since he was going to die anyway, at least he would have died in style.

Now if you actually wanted to save him, you would call for an ambulance (material), to drive him to the hospital (material), lay him down on a bed (material), hook up an IV (material), and examine him with medical equipment (materials, materials, materials).

Of course you ignore why Joe is starving in the first place.

How do iPods help people who are starving in Africa? How do china tea cup sets help people with no water to drink?

Those who build iPods and china tea cups would be paid. They can take their cash and buy drink + water. But otherwise they don't. You need the right materials for the right job - I felt no need to mention this because I was under the delusion that you are rational.

Likewise, I can do my job just fine without a boss.

Then quit whining and start your own business.

26th August 2005, 16:46

Net Profit, aka Economic Growth.

Is that the best you can do?

Supply and demand dictate the market price for a commodity. A commodity is a product of labour since labour is what created the commodity. All commodities are products of labour. The market dictates the price of the product; this means that the market is dictating the value of the labour used to create the product. Supply and demand/subjective value doesn't in any way disprove the Labour Theory of Value.

Originally posted by Wikipedia
The most common interpretation of the LTV is as a theory of price determination, which makes Marx's theory roughly correspond to that of Ricardo. In this view, a commodity's price derives neither from its utility to the consumer (Marx's "use value") nor from supply and demand but from the labor that society has expended on its production. Early in volume III of Capital, Marx presents an analysis of the relationship between values and prices. Most read this as describing how prices can be calculated from given values.

1. The Labour Theory of Value is not a theory of price determination.
2. The Labour Theory of Value doesn't go against supply & demand.
3. You're an idiot for assuming so.

quincunx5

26th August 2005, 19:00

Supply and demand dictate the market price for a commodity. A commodity is a product of labour since labour is what created the commodity. All commodities are products of labour. The market dictates the price of the product; this means that the market is dictating the value of the labour used to create the product.

You like to treat the market, capitalists, and workers as a separate things. Let me make it clear to you in a way you can understand:

Supply and demand dictate the market price for a commodity. All commodities are products of people. The people dictate the price of the product; this means that the people are dictating the value of the people used to create the product.

Supply and demand/subjective value doesn't in any way disprove the Labour Theory of Value.

That's because the latter is just a theory. While the former is reality.

The Labour Theory of Value is not a theory of price determination.

I never said it was. It determines value. But it determines value incorrectly, because Value is subjective.

The market does not need 'prices'. Like I said you don't need fiat money in capitalism. You can barter and you can use a commodity good.

The Labour Theory of Value doesn't go against supply & demand.

not in the literal sense. It just bastardizes it.

Subjective Value is the complete opposite of Labor Theory of Value.

Decolonize The Left

26th August 2005, 20:35

What a sweet argument you have QuinCun, to claim that since everything are material goods, then capitalism is the best for of economy for everyone. And yet it is so over-simplified and ridiculous, I'm amazed you believe it.

Fine, if you want to claim everything is a material good, including the necessities of life, I'll give you that. But I tend to see water, food, and basic shelter and clothing, in a different catagory as iPods, Caviar, and other luxuries.

Those who build iPods and china tea cups would be paid.

I assume by this statement you are making a larger statement that everyone who producers "material goods" is being paid, and therefore can go and buy the necessities of life. No?

Well if this is the case, you are horribly mistaken and ignorant. Let's take all corporate sweatshiop labor overseas. Your argument would be that these people were living in utter poverty and the corporations who came in at least gave them jobs for which they earned more money then they had before. No?

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Corporations pay these people next to nothing, and if you want to bicker if it's 17 cents or 30 cents, or 2 cents, fine, but that just shows how dispicable you are. So let's say they make 17 cents an hour, you will claim they can now feed their family, get water, clothes, and the other necessities of life. But this just doesn't happen, they still can't afford it, often have too many children too feed with that little money. And when a corporation is selling the end product for 50-150 dollars, the pay of the workers is less than 1 percent. So how is this just? Why can't they just pay them 4 dollars an hour? It's still less than minimum wage in America (God forbid they employ the workers here), and they would still make astronomical profits.

-- August

quincunx5

26th August 2005, 22:02

to claim that since everything are material goods, then capitalism is the best for of economy for everyone

Capitalism is not the best economy - it is the only economy. It is what happens when people decide to trade. It works best in anarchist form - and works the worst in state form. People decide to trade by themselves. There is no implied distribution of "from each according to ability, to each according to need".

And when a corporation is selling the end product for 50-150 dollars, the pay of the workers is less than 1 percent. So how is this just? Why can't they just pay them 4 dollars an hour? It's still less than minimum wage in America (God forbid they employ the workers here), and they would still make astronomical profits.

You don't seem to understand that minimum wage increases unemployment. This especially effects those with the least amount of skill: young adults.

If they just paid them 4 US dollars an hour, then they would be richer than those in the current middle class. Those who do not have that job would be relatively poor.
You do realize that the same amount of money buys you a different amount of goods in different areas in the world?

You also do not understand that those who sell the end-product for 50-100 dollars, are not the same ones who employ those people. The ones who employs these people are just contractors who inturn sell to the corporations. Can you imagine going to a deli and asking how much the clerk makes? And then demanding to pay more for the meat so that they can earn more? You may be helping the clerk, but you are not helping your family by buying more expensive cold cuts.

In time they will earn 4 dollars, all on their own. You love to talk about the millions that always remain poor, because that is who the media focuses on. You do not acknowledge the silent majority that is indeed better off than they were.

I tend to see water, food, and basic shelter and clothing, in a different catagory as iPods, Caviar, and other luxuries.

That's too bad. We should all have just the bare necessities, and nothing more?

you will claim they can now feed their family, get water, clothes, and the other necessities of life. But this just doesn't happen, they still can't afford it, often have too many children too feed with that little money.

We were discussing food and drink. Who told them to have many children? It's like they don't know they're poor and insist on bringing children up in poverty. Or maybe they don't think they are poor and hence can provide for their children. Who are you to judge who is poor? Do they not get a say?

BTW, no where in your argument do you show that they were better off before.

Seeker

26th August 2005, 23:14

Most working class people don't have the luxury of being able to negotiate their wages, or of being able to refuse a job based on wages.

If they can't refuse the job, the supply line is inverted (and curved downward, like an 'L') and demand is effectively vertical. The less people are being paid, the more hours they will work. Wages are then based on the average hours of work demanded in an area (sets the 'x' value for demand) and the cost of living in that area (sets the starting 'y' value for supply).

With an inverted supply line, those organizations with a demand for labor compete only with each other. The only market force that affects the price of labor is the current average of local wages. The two lines meet at the point representing the minimum survivable income at a fixed level of demand.

Only a surplus of demand in a local area will drive up the relative cost of labor in that area (relative to average cost of living). This will affect an exodus of demand from that local market, causing the price to dip once again. We can observe this phenomenon on a macro level in the outsourcing of labor intensive jobs to third-world nations.

Freedom Works

27th August 2005, 06:32

Most working class people don't have the luxury of being able to negotiate their wages, or of being able to refuse a job based on wages.
What causes people to not have this 'luxury'?
(hint: it's not a market failure)

Seeker

27th August 2005, 07:25

The whim of the ruling class.

Decolonize The Left

27th August 2005, 07:29

The whim of the ruling class is correct, but it is also the nature of capitalist society today. We have large populations of people who are poorly educated, and therefore can't negotiate their wages, and are endoctrinated into thinking wages are the "correct" form of payment, that they are "fair".

It has nothing to do with the market at all, it is a philosophy that has been engrained into capitalist society. And of course it is upheld and defended by the ruling class as it continously benefits them.

-- August

Andy Bowden

27th August 2005, 11:28

Decolonize The Left

27th August 2005, 16:26

Theres also the death squads rampaging across countries like Colombia, shooting workers for the "crime" of organising Trade Unions - this also restricts the power of workers to negotiate a decent wage.

By all means this is true, by I was under the impression we were talking about America, where the violence is much more subtle. It is upheld by the law and therefore isn't as overt as that in Bolivia. But we still see the same principles here, organizations and unions being inflitrated, strikes being busted or sold to the public as the reason for high prices, and other sorts of "death squads" which don't physically kill people, but economically do.

-- August

Freedom Works

27th August 2005, 19:21

The whim of the ruling class is correct,
There can only be a ruling class with a state.

but it is also the nature of capitalist society today
Interesting you put 'today' in that. Yes, it is a nature of a 'capitalist society' IF and only if there is a state to coerce.

We have large populations of people who are poorly educated,
Caused by the socialist 'education' systems. Lack of competition means poor quality, for more money.

and therefore can't negotiate their wages, and are endoctrinated into thinking wages are the "correct" form of payment, that they are "fair".
Freedom works, collectivism doesn't. If the education system was less centralized, progress occurs faster.

It has nothing to do with the market at all, it is a philosophy that has been engrained into capitalist society.
Engrained into COLLECTIVIST society.

And of course it is upheld and defended by the ruling class as it continously benefits them.
Yes, and people like you whom espouse collectism (and mercantilism) the very thing that got America fucked up.

Do you want kids to be smarter? Private schools.
Do you want roads to be safer? Private roads.
Do you want freedom? Complete property rights.

Decolonize The Left

28th August 2005, 02:50

I'm sorry "Freedom Works", but I've noticed hypocrisy tends to be your favorite weapon. Let's begin, well with your name "Freedom Works".
From this I would assume you support freedom in all forms, but through your arguments I gather, rightly so, that you support capitalism. This is a contradiction in terms. It is impossible to support freedom and capitalism. Capitalism is based on one class suppressing another's freedoms in order to profit.

Now, as for your hypocritical remarks.

There can only be a ruling class with a state.

Ok.. what's your point? Can you name a stateless society today? In fact, most of us here are arguing for a stateless society, which would eliminate the whim of the ruling class.

Yes, it is a nature of a 'capitalist society' IF and only if there is a state to coerce.

Again, more words and no point... See above.

Freedom works, collectivism doesn't.

You are implying that the US is collectivist....? Are you on drugs? Constantly?

Engrained into COLLECTIVIST society.

Again, see above...

Yes, and people like you whom espouse collectism (and mercantilism) the very thing that got America fucked up.

First of all, this isn't a complete sentence.
Second of all, you're first word acknowledges the correctness of the statement you are trying to refute...
Thirdly, I think I gather that you are blaming all people with opposing ideas to capitalism with the faults of society today and telling them to "go with the flow". Well this would go against your support of freedom wouldn't it?

-- August

Freedom Works

28th August 2005, 03:25

From this I would assume you support freedom in all forms, but through your arguments I gather, rightly so, that you support capitalism. This is a contradiction in terms. It is impossible to support freedom and capitalism. Capitalsim is based on one class suppressing another's freedoms in order to profit.
I am sad you have become so indoctrinated by the government schools.
http://conciseguidetoeconomics.com/book/capitalist/
Question everything.

Can you name a stateless society today?
I argue that no "government" is legitimate, which is why I put 'government' in quotes.

You are implying that the US is collectivist....? Are you on drugs? Constantly?
Slightly, no and no.
Are you trying to say the US is a free country? Do you love propaganda?

First of all, this isn't a complete sentence.
True enough, but this isn't a formal board either.

Second of all, you're first word acknowledges the correctness of the statement you are trying to refute...
I am not arguing that there is not a ruling class. I am arguing that the ruling class is the tax consumers, not "fat capitalist pigs".

Thirdly, I think I gather that you are blaming all people with opposing ideas to capitalism with the faults of society today and telling them to "go with the flow". Well this would go against your support of freedom wouldn't it?
I do not blame people with opposing ideas (even if they are ignorant), I blame people who do something about it and try to control the market using "government".

Decolonize The Left

28th August 2005, 03:45

But capitalism isn't just a "form of economy". It is coupled with imperialism to form a huge government complex. You cannot claim it to be so innocent when it has been expanded from simple ideas to a huge system of oppression.

The truth is that today, capitalism is used as best as possible to exploit the working class. It just happens to be the most effective form of economy to this end, while placating the people at the same time.

-- August

Freedom Works

28th August 2005, 09:01

But capitalism isn't just a "form of economy".
Yes it is. It is the natural state that occurs with freedom. What we have now is NOT capitalism, just like China is NOT communist.

It is coupled with imperialism to form a huge government complex.
Only in the minds of people 'educated' by the "state".

You cannot claim it to be so innocent when it has been expanded from simple ideas to a huge system of oppression.
IT has not expanded. "Government" has expanded.
Solution = No "government"

The truth is that today, capitalism is used as best as possible to exploit the working class.
The only classes are the taxconsumers and taxpayers, so your other point is moot.

NovelGentry

28th August 2005, 09:54

What we have now is NOT capitalism

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33258

Freedom Works

28th August 2005, 10:26

"Here I want to make a point about capitalism. As with other "isms," the term is often interpreted differently depending on the viewpoint of the observer. I like to call Capitalism (with an upper case "C"), "state Capitalism." And when I use the lower case "c" (as in "capitalism"), I am referring to "free enterprise." Although anarchy implies the lower case kind, i.e., without state control, there is no mechanism in anarchy to prevent state control, either. So, when a laissez-faire, pure capitalism, free enterprise, libertarian anarchist uses the term he implies there should be or could be no state interference in the market. An anarcho-communist, other the other hand, sees Capitalism as fascist and inextricably dependent on the power of the state.

Those divergent views render the term virtually meaningless. The problem lies in the subtle nexus between the state and corporation, which are seen as fascist Capitalist by the commies and free enterprise capitalists by libertarians. The state created the concept of corporations. Corporations are private companies that, by law, have been magically transformed into "persons." As absurd as this seems, since it alters the meaning of the work person from a human being to an amorphous abstraction, it is done to protect the people who own the company from unlimited liability. Since the state is a protection racket, it has a direct interest in being the sole protector of people's rights. It is composed of politicians, which means they will try to please (read, "protect") everybody. To balance the protection of one group of people (the consumers) against another (the owners of a company), there state makes laws that define the limits of liability. Without them, the reasoning goes, the owners would be exposed to unlimited liability. This effectively precludes potential victims of the owners' negligence from exacting punishment or revenge commensurate with the injury perpetrated by the comany. In return for the protection, the corporations pay the state lots of money in the form of taxes and graft to politicians (whom they finance for election and re-election). It is important to note who is actually financing this scam: the consumers. All costs of doing business, including payola to politicians, are passed along to the consumers as higher prices. Commies blame the corporations for being "greedy," and libertarians blame the "government" for high taxes. Neither side gets the fact that the corporations and "government" are two sides of the same coin. They point fingers at each other and bicker over who is at fault for every economic and social problem, while the state and the Capitalists continue to reap the benefits of this symbiotic relationship. Divide and conquer." -There's No Government Like No Government

Decolonize The Left

28th August 2005, 21:45

I agree with several points:
1) Corporations and the state are the same
I never seperated the two except to address one individually, I am completely aware of the situation.
2) Capitalism and capitalism are different. This has been made clear now, and that would have been helpful to know earlier.

I still think capitalism is exploitative in though. And there are classes, not just taxpayers and taxconsumers. Classes have been drawn through lines of poverty. And while I think there should be no classes, at all, this is not the case. You can just walk down the street and randomly ask people "What class do you consider yourself a part of?" and you will see. They don't say "taxconsumer" or "taxpayer", they say lower-middle class, lower class, etc... This is the reality. And it is wrong.

-- August

Freedom Works

29th August 2005, 01:32

1) Corporations and the state are the same
Yes, if you mean that they are fictitious things. Not if you mean they have the same amount of power.

I still think capitalism is exploitative in though.
If I trade you a tie for your pen, am I exploiting you? Yes! I am taking advantage of the fact you want a tie more then a pen. Oh how evil and capitalist I am!

And there are classes, not just taxpayers and taxconsumers.
In the world of delusion, maybe. Otherwise it is the oppressed and the oppressors.

And while I think there should be no classes, at all, this is not the case.
Classes are a fictitious idea, sorry. You can't have none of something that does not exist. (ok, I guess you COULD...)

You can just walk down the street and randomly ask people "What class do you consider yourself a part of?" and you will see. They don't say "taxconsumer" or "taxpayer", they say lower-middle class, lower class, etc...
What does this prove? Absolutely nothing.

This is the reality. And it is wrong.
The reality is that the ruling class is the taxconsumers, and the jobs they have are the ones that are fucking up our lives.

quincunx5

30th August 2005, 18:18

From this I would assume you support freedom in all forms, but through your arguments I gather, rightly so, that you support capitalism. This is a contradiction in terms. It is impossible to support freedom and capitalism.

Actually, capitalism and freedom go hand in hand. Capitalism is nothing more than trading, saving, and reinvesting. It works best with the most freedom.

Capitalism is based on one class suppressing another's freedoms in order to profit.

Yes, capitalists "exploit" one another at each others' benefit.

BTW, do you know what the typical profit rate range is in
1) competitive businesses?
2) state-protected businesses?

But we still see the same principles here, organizations and unions being inflitrated, strikes being busted or sold to the public as the reason for high prices,

Do you know why SUVs are so popular in the US?
1 - Labor Unions
2 - Government lobbying by domestic car producers
3 - Government reducing gas/mileage standard it itself created,
precisely in that order

Higher labor costs leads to higher prices, most often at the cost to the worker himself.

I think I gather that you are blaming all people with opposing ideas to capitalism with the faults of society today and telling them to "go with the flow"

Rule one to succeeding in any society: know how it works.

In my opinion, there are no faults in society. Only faults in some individuals. There always have been. Accept it.

You are implying that the US is collectivist....?

It's getting there.

The truth is that today, capitalism is used as best as possible to exploit the working class.

Who is this mysterious working class? Apparently it's just someone that has no assets. If they do have assets then they must be capitalists.

There is no worker/capitalist divide. They are mutually interdependent.

MitchellStyron

30th August 2005, 18:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 09:03 PM
I still think capitalism is exploitative in though. And there are classes, not just taxpayers and taxconsumers. Classes have been drawn through lines of poverty. And while I think there should be no classes, at all, this is not the case. You can just walk down the street and randomly ask people "What class do you consider yourself a part of?" and you will see. They don't say "taxconsumer" or "taxpayer", they say lower-middle class, lower class, etc... This is the reality. And it is wrong.

-- August
Utter nonsense.

You are born into a socioeconomic class depending on how hard your parents worked in their lifetimes.

My father grew up dirt poor, the son of immigrants who lost everything during the Depreesion. He worked his tail off for 50 years and when he died, he was middle class and so were his children.

Now if I don't work I will fall into the lower class. If I work hard, I can become upper middle class.

That is the beauty of America. Everybody has the opportunity to make his own destiny. People left the caste system of old Europe to come to America specifically to be part of this system.

August, it sounds like you suffer from a classic case of guilt. That is sad. If somebody in the lower class in America wants a better life for themselves, all they have to do is work hard. It is nobody'd fault but their own if they stay poor.

I'd be more concerned about, say, ethnic genocide in the Sudan or something where people truly are repressed.

America is the greatest system on earth, period. Sure, it could use some tweaking, but not a full overhaul.

Think about that. Ask your parents what they think. Your elders always know more than you.

Decolonize The Left

30th August 2005, 21:09

quincunx5

30th August 2005, 22:16

Well I got a bunch of the same in response to my post.

Capitalism works, you just don't understand.
People can do whatever they want in capitalism, if they want to succeed, they can. If not, it's their fault.

Yadda, yadda, yadda, typical capitalist bullshit.

Are you five years old? You have run out of any decent arguments. Not that you had any to start.

True, there are these cases, but if your statements were true, very few would be poor.

Very few people on the US are poor! You would not know that because you read socialist propaganda, and you do not draw conclusions from original statistical sources.

Why isn't this happening? Is the whole lower class just lazy? Well I will argue if they are lazy, then domestic industry would collapse, as they are the workers.
So then, they are not just lazy. They do work hard, but then, why are they still poor? Surely they could simply worker harder?

Maybe they are not working hard because they don't want to. They are satisfies with the choices they made. If they are not then tought shit

The domestic economy will not collapse if 95% of the work force is employed!

One needs to work harder at things that people value most. You can work hard eating and shitting all day, but farm animals can do it better. You can work hard at knitting sweaters, but machines can do this better and faster.

No, they can't, many work two jobs... but they still can't send their kids to private schools, or other such luxuries... so what is the problem here?

Of course they can't send their kids to private school if they are already paying for public ones as well. Think.

Perhaps it is the idea that anyone can change their class by simply fucking working hard... How does someone who barely speaks english (or understand math, thank you public education), get a good-paying job?

Uhm, it's called learning. Do you not acknowledge dictionaries? How do English speaking natives prevent others from learning their language?

Knowing more than one language is an asset that will help you get a good-paying job.

So they work for 6-7 bucks an hour. How do they pay rent, for food, possibly more education, family, car, etc... with that money?

You work your way up. If you are single you should probably get a job that will afford that kind of lifestyle before you engage in it. If you already have a family, then you should probably take turns with your partner between working and educating your self.

Why do they need a car? Maybe they should work at some place they can take public transportation to.

They can't. They are forced to make just enough to live inmeager conditions, while their kids receive shitty educations and are destined for the same.

Why is education received? Can it not be acquired?

Your theory works for some. But not for many who cannot escape poverty. Sure, some can, but the large majority can't. And so capitalism is not freedom for all. On the contrary, for many it is oppression and exploitation.

You have no facts to back this up.
You have a lack of understanding of what freedom is.

Decolonize The Left

31st August 2005, 02:56

Are you five years old? You have run out of any decent arguments. Not that you had any to start.

Clever... Way to respond before reading the rest of the post.

Very few people on the US are poor!

Wow.... I can't believe this. Poor compared to Africa? Yes you're right. Poor in relation to the rest of the US population, wrong.

Maybe they are not working hard because they don't want to. They are satisfies with the choices they made. If they are not then tought shit

Are you illiterate? You quoted me saying people work as hard as they can, and still can't make ends meet. Then you say, "well maybe they arn't working hard because they don't want to." Not only is this answer totally off-topic and doesn't respond to the quoted sentence, but it's just wrong.

The domestic economy will not collapse if 95% of the work force is employed!

What? Where are you going? Why is this here, can't you just stay on topic?

One needs to work harder at things that people value most. You can work hard eating and shitting all day, but farm animals can do it better. You can work hard at knitting sweaters, but machines can do this better and faster.

Well now, you have succesfully and ignorantly evaded my whole point with the above quote. It's hard to respond to this when it doesn't even respond to the original statement.

Of course they can't send their kids to private school if they are already paying for public ones as well. Think.

Ok, let's go through this slowly so you can understand. Do public schools cost money (not universities, schools, as in lower, elementary and high)? No.
Ok... so, do private schools cost money? Yes.
Ok... let's look at that again. Public schools are free (and the education is shitty), and private schools cost money (and the education is better). So now let's look back at what you said:
"Of course they can't send their kids to private school if they are already paying for public ones as well"
Now re-read what I said, and then read what you said. Do you see what's wrong with your statement?

Uhm, it's called learning. Do you not acknowledge dictionaries? How do English speaking natives prevent others from learning their language?

Now we'll look at this one at a time so you can follow as well, k?
Learning, clearly something you arn't familiar with after your previous quote so we'll drop it.
Dictionaries, you think someone who doesn't speak english can teach themself a whole language with a dictionary? You go learn spanish with a dictionary and get back to me when you do, if I'm still alive.
The public school system mostly offers standardized tests in only english, and possibly spanish, maybe. This inhibits foreign speaking people from obtaining the test scores equivalent to their knowledge, and therefore impeads their progress in society.
Damn, that might have been too much for you to understand. Well too late now...

If you already have a family, then you should probably take turns with your partner between working and educating your self.

What if they both work two jobs? What if one is disabled in some way? What if one isn't qualified for many jobs? What if they can't afford a university education?

Why do they need a car? Maybe they should work at some place they can take public transportation to.

They don't need a car, unless they live somewhere where there is little public transportation or it is sporadic, like say... the whole Midwest of the US.

Why is education received? Can it not be acquired?

Wow, you are illiterate. Well here, I'll give you the synonymes of acquire:
Main Entry: acquire
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: receive
Synonyms: access, achieve, amass, annex, attain, bring in, buy, catch, collect, cop, corral, earn, gain, gather, get, grab, have, hustle, land, lock up, obtain, pick up, procure, promote, rack up, scare up, secure, snag, take, take possession, wangle, win
Antonyms: forfeit, give away, lose, relinquish, sell, surrender

So in response to your question, yes education can be received and acquired, because they both mean the same thing. You get a gold star... good job.

You have no facts to back this up.
You have a lack of understanding of what freedom is.

I don't think you're qualified to judge me as to whether or not I understand freedom when you don't have a grasp of the english language and can't form arguments coherently or in response to a previous argument.

-- August

quincunx5

31st August 2005, 05:05

Clever... Way to respond before reading the rest of the post.

I read everything before responding. You use words like "majority", "mostly", and "most" sparingly without any credible facts or statistics. You pathetic attempt to provide them in the past has backfired on you.

Wow.... I can't believe this. Poor compared to Africa? Yes you're right. Poor in relation to the rest of the US population, wrong.

I want legitimate proof that it's this hypothetical majority you always speak of, and not a small minority that I always speak of.

Are you illiterate? You quoted me saying people work as hard as they can, and still can't make ends meet. Then you say, "well maybe they arn't working hard because they don't want to." Not only is this answer totally off-topic and doesn't respond to the quoted sentence, but it's just wrong.

You must be the illiterate one. I answered the first part of the quote with that comment, not all of it. Yes perhaps I should have separated it. Your quote contained nothing about meeting ends meat. You just brought that in. Do you even read what you write?

What? Where are you going? Why is this here, can't you just stay on topic?

No thread here ever stays directly on topic. You are the one who supposed that the domestic industry would collapse. Again, do you read what you write?

Well now, you have succesfully and ignorantly evaded my whole point with the above quote. It's hard to respond to this when it doesn't even respond to the original statement.

You can't think of anything better to say. It applies directly to your statement. I am trying to tell you that working hard does not necessarily produce anything of value. One must work (as hard as neeedd) to make something that is valued by others.

Ok, let's go through this slowly so you can understand. Do public schools cost money (not universities, schools, as in lower, elementary and high)? No.
Ok... so, do private schools cost money? Yes.
Ok... let's look at that again. Public schools are free (and the education is shitty), and private schools cost money (and the education is better). So now let's look back at what you said:
"Of course they can't send their kids to private school if they are already paying for public ones as well"
Now re-read what I said, and then read what you said. Do you see what's wrong with your statement?

There is nothing wrong with my statement, only wrongness in your interpretation of reality. Let's go through this slowly so you can understand...

Public schools are not free. Someone has to pay for them, you will pay for them. If you own a home in the district of a particular school then a significant portion of your property tax goes to funding "free schools". If you pay your local and state taxes a porton of that will pay for these "free schools". If you pay federal taxes then a portion of that will be given back to states as 'block grants' to pay for these "free schools".

In general, if you are forced to pay taxes for "free schools" then you will not be able to pay for another school (private). Is anything getting through?

Dictionaries, you think someone who doesn't speak english can teach themself a whole language with a dictionary? You go learn spanish with a dictionary and get back to me when you do, if I'm still alive.

Dictionaries where just an example. There are multiple sources for learning including books, television, movies, theatres, commerical signs, street signs, and other people that you must communicate with.

One can't learn anything unless they take the time and energy to do it.

The public school system mostly offers standardized tests in only english, and possibly spanish, maybe.

Not maybe - definitely. There are also generic culture-free tests.

This inhibits foreign speaking people from obtaining the test scores equivalent to their knowledge, and therefore impeads their progress in society

If learning English is the knowledge necessary to get good test scores, then yes it would inhibit foreign speaking people from obtaining those scores if they do not have that knowledge. Nothing prevents them from retaking these exams when they have learned more.

Damn, that might have been too much for you to understand. Well too late now...

Yes, you know me. Clearly as a non-native English speaker I have trouble remembering the difficulties I encountered.

What if they both work two jobs?

Then they will have to decide whether it's worth it for them to obtain further education. If they feel they have to sacrifice their current living standards, to live better in the future, then they will each have to go to school while the other one works.

What if one is disabled in some way?

Then the one who isn't must provide for them. Weren't there some promises made during the wedding ceremony?

What if one isn't qualified for many jobs? What if they can't afford a university education?

You would go to a university if you thought it offered you an advantage in getting a good job. So if you thought that, you would get a loan to afford the university education.

They don't need a car, unless they live somewhere where there is little public transportation or it is sporadic, like say... the whole Midwest of the US.

No one forces them to live where they do. If the cost of a car is a concern then they should move to a place with public transportation.

Wow, you are illiterate. Well here, I'll give you the synonymes of acquire:
Main Entry: acquire
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: receive
Synonyms: access, achieve, amass, annex, attain, bring in, buy, catch, collect, cop, corral, earn, gain, gather, get, grab, have, hustle, land, lock up, obtain, pick up, procure, promote, rack up, scare up, secure, snag, take, take possession, wangle, win
Antonyms: forfeit, give away, lose, relinquish, sell, surrender

So in response to your question, yes education can be received and acquired, because they both mean the same thing. You get a gold star... good job.

Wow, you call this a good argument? Let me clarify what I meant:

Why does on need to receive an education from others (school, lecture, etc.), when they can acquire it themselves (books, internet, etc).

I don't think you're qualified to judge me as to whether or not I understand freedom when you don't have a grasp of the english language and can't form arguments coherently or in response to a previous argument.

I have responded to your previous arguments quite well. I have read your own posts, whereas you have not.

There is a logical fallacy in that statement. I do not see how understand Freedom has anything to do with the English language. Do you ? I expect you to avoid this in your next post.

It's seems that you have quoted two statements of mine, and commented on only one. As usual, you are always avoiding the facts!

Freedom Works

31st August 2005, 05:14

Ok, let's go through this slowly so you can understand. Do public schools cost money (not universities, schools, as in lower, elementary and high)? No.
Ok... so, do private schools cost money? Yes.

Oh my god, rofl! You cannot be serious!! You think all the "government" teachers are working pro bono? Do you think all the books and school buildings just magically appear? NO, THEY COST MONEY (usually about twice as much per pupil as a private school). And because it is socialist, they are overregulated overstaffed inefficient bureaucracies! That is why they are shitty!

Dictionaries, you think someone who doesn't speak english can teach themself a whole language with a dictionary? You go learn spanish with a dictionary and get back to me when you do, if I'm still alive.
The public school system mostly offers standardized tests in only english, and possibly spanish, maybe. This inhibits foreign speaking people from obtaining the test scores equivalent to their knowledge, and therefore impeads their progress in society.
Logical fallacies.

"In general, formal "education" does not:

1) Teach anyone to think.
2) Teach anyone much that they remember a month later.
3) Give a good example of how human beings should behave.

Instead (again, in general), it does teach:

1) You should sit still and wait for the "authority" figure to enlighten you. (aak)
2) You should learn the things that the "authority" thinks you should know. (Aak)
3) You should not talk to anyone without permission from the "authority." (Aak!)
4) If accused of doing something wrong, you must prove your innocence. (AAK)
5) If one person does something wrong, it is okay for all to be punished. (AAK!)
6) You have nothing that is not subject to a search by "authority." (AAK!!)
7) "Authority" will determine every detail of what you will do, and when. (AAAK!!!!)" - http://nogov4me.net/archive/educ1.htm

Decolonize The Left

31st August 2005, 06:07

I want legitimate proof that it's this hypothetical majority you always speak of, and not a small minority that I always speak of.

I never said the majority of the US population was poor. I said that on average, compared to Africa, the poorest of citizens in the US were not that poor.

I'm sorry that you demand statistics, it's easy to find them with a minute of your time:
- The official poverty rate in 2004 was 12.7 percent, up from 12.5 percent 2003.
Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/pov...04/pov04hi.html (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty04/pov04hi.html)

That is not a "small minority" by any means. It also only reflects those who are below the poverty rate in the US, this does not take into account others who are close, or bordering on the line. It also should be noted that many people are left out of these statistics, i.e.:
* Unrelated individuals under age 15 (such as foster children)

o income questions are asked of people age 15 and older

o if someone is under age 15 and not living with a family member, we do not know their income

o since we cannot determine their poverty status, they are excluded from the “poverty universe” (table totals)

* People in:

o institutional group quarters (such as prisons or nursing homes)

o college dormitories

o military barracks

o living situations without conventional housing (and who are not in shelters)

Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povdef.html

If these people were counted as well, many who are homeless, we would see that poverty rate rise.

Your quote contained nothing about meeting ends meat. You just brought that it. Do you even read what you write?

I now will quote my own words, which you quoted and responded to with the statement above. "They do work hard, but then, why are they still poor?" This implies that they worked hard and tried to 'make ends meet' but can't and are still poor. If you failed to grasp this and insist on taking me absolutely word-for-word, then you find it hard to hold debates with people for very long.

I am trying to tell you that working hard does not necessarily produce anything of value. One must work as hard or as little do make something that is valued by others.

Ok I got the first part. I understand if you worked hard at nothing, or at meaningless things like you so cleverly proposed "eating and shitting", it would produce nothing of value. But in fact there you are producing nothing at all.
Whenever someone works hard at producing something for the 'market' or for their friends and family, they are producing something of value, to someone.
The second sentence in that quote doesn't make sense. I'll quote you here, as it is fitting, "Do you ever read what you write?"

Public schools are not free.

I'll quote only this, because I thought you might go into taxes and how that is 'paying' for schools, but I didn't think you'd be that dumb.
You're honestly trying to compare paying taxes for a public school, and paying tuition for a private school?
The small percentage of your income you pay for the public school system pales in comparison to the tuition of private schooling.
This is not to mention the dwindling quality of teachers in the public school system, who for reasons of underpayment and lack of benefits, are leaving. This hurts the children of the public school system more than the parents who have to pay taxes.

Dictionaries where just an example. There are multiple sources for learning including just books, television, movies, theatres, commerical signs, street signs, and other people that you must communicate with.

I hope you're being sarcastic. You claim that someone can become fluent in a language, without going to school? While also balancing a job, possibly a family, and perhaps other time consuming events? And more impoortantly, one could then succeed in the world without a degree of education, but claiming that one educated themselves?
Hmm... I don't really know what to say. This is disgusting.

Not maybe - definitely. There are also IB exams, as well as generic culture-free tests.

Yeah, most standardized tests are in English. True. And this hurts many children who don't speak English fluently and does not give a proper representation of their knowledge.
The IB? I have the IB Bilingual Diploma, and it was not a walk in the park. If I wasn't fluent in English and French, I would never have passed. You don't really know what you're talking about, siting random tests which involve other languages. If this is an attempt to make a point that you don't need to speak English in the US, it's a failed attempt.

If learning English is the knowledge necessary to get good test scores, then yes it would inhibit foreign speaking people from obtaining those scores if they do not have that knowledge. Nothing prevents them from retaking these exams when they have learned more.

True, but in that time they have lost years of life (possibly, or months). And during this time they were not able to work to supprt themselves, or their family. Your argument just furthers the fact that these non-English speakers are being denied opportunity.

Then they will have to decide whether it's worth it for them to obtain further education.

How can you say this? "If it is worth it for them to obtain further education." It should never have to be "worth it" to obtain an education. This sentence alone refutes the statement of equal opportunity in the US. Well not completely, you have the 'opportunity', but it might cost you your health, house and other possesions, but hey, at least you have the opportunity.
News flash: Opportunities don't mean shit to the people without the means to take advantage of those very opportunites.

Then the one who isn't must provide for them.

you would get a loan to afford the university education.

they should move to a place with public transportation.

If this, they should do that. If that doesn't work, they should do this. If that also doesn't work, well then they should sacrifice this for that.
Why not just give them what the fuck they need in the first place?

Why does on need to receive an education from others (school, lecture, etc.), when they can acquire it themselves (books, internet, etc).

Awww, isn't this cute. It's quite sweet and naive of you to think this way. Well, I don't know how old you are, or whether or not you have received an education, but when you do you'll understand why this is sadly not true.

I have responded to your previous arguments quite well.

I disagree. And I feel I have proved so above in my analysis of your responses.

There is a logical fallacy in that statement. I do not see how understand Freedom has anything to do with the English language. Do you ?

Here is the statement again, for easy reference:
"I don't think you're qualified to judge me as to whether or not I understand freedom when you don't have a grasp of the english language and can't form arguments coherently or in response to a previous argument."

Firstly, I don't know if you know what "logical fallacy" means, or if you were just using it because it was a big word. Secondly, you also are missing the word "to" following how, or perhaps "ing" at the end of understand.

But I'll answer anyway:
Yes, I do feel that to understand freedom has something to do with the english language. How will you know what freedom means in America if you don't speak english? When the policeman tells you you can't do something, that is limiting your 'freedom', but if you don't speak english, you won't understand what is happening. Therefore I think a comprehensive understanding of the english language is needed in order to fully understand freedom, and what it entails in the world today.

As usual you are always avoiding the facts!

Aw, cute cheap shot. Unfortunately this is pathetic. You have never offered one fact in justification of your arguments. And to assume that your arguments are facts is to show your ignorance and simplicity for all it really is.

-- August

MitchellStyron

31st August 2005, 06:20

AugustWest, you are seriously brainwashed.

I suggest a deep period of study.

Essential to your education I would recommend these readings:

The Tempting of America by Robert Bork
Anything by Thomas Sowell
a daily persual of www.michellemalkin.com
Tammy Bruce is kickass too
frontpagemag.com is essential reading to get the full story.

You must understand that our universities and media are all dominated by liberals who have fundamentally affected the US in a very destructive way.

Forget about the religious right and forget about all the stereotypes you have been led to believe all of these years.

A true patriotic conservative is a compassionate, intelligent, well put together individual who believes in hard work, famliy and a safe world for future generations

I hope you get it all figured out one day.

quincunx5

31st August 2005, 08:20

I will get to the census stats later.

Ok I got the first part. I understand if you worked hard at nothing, or at meaningless things like you so cleverly proposed "eating and shitting", it would produce nothing of value. But in fact there you are producing nothing at all.

You are producing fertilizer, which is why I mentioned farm animals.

I'll quote only this, because I thought you might go into taxes and how that is 'paying' for schools, but I didn't think you'd be that dumb.

You must be a genius to deduce that taxes do not 'pay' for schools.

You're honestly trying to compare paying taxes for a public school, and paying tuition for a private school?
The small percentage of your income you pay for the public school system pales in comparison to the tuition of private schooling.

Why do you think it is so? I'll tell you: private school can't compete with "free" public schools. They have to make their profits in the market - not from taxpayers.

Public schools are not a small percentage of your income tax. They are the most significant part of your property tax.

This is not to mention the dwindling quality of teachers in the public school system, who for reasons of underpayment and lack of benefits, are leaving. This hurts the children of the public school system more than the parents who have to pay taxes.

Ok genius, tell me where the teachers are going? Might it be to private schools? (I think so) Or do they give up teaching completely?

I hope you're being sarcastic. You claim that someone can become fluent in a language, without going to school?

Yes.

While also balancing a job, possibly a family, and perhaps other time consuming events?

Yes.

And more impoortantly, one could then succeed in the world without a degree of education, but claiming that one educated themselves?

Yes.

Hmm... I don't really know what to say. This is disgusting.

You should tell it to those that have done it.

How can you say this? "If it is worth it for them to obtain further education." It should never have to be "worth it" to obtain an education.

Yes it should.

This sentence alone refutes the statement of equal opportunity in the US.

Well not completely, you have the 'opportunity', but it might cost you your health, house and other possesions, but hey, at least you have the opportunity.

What do you expect? You want someone to waltz into the US, and get everything they need?

You have the opportunity to start a revolution, but it might cost you your health, house and other possessions, but at least you have the opportunity.

Having opportunity is not a guarantee of anything. You might as well say that Freedom of Speech guarantees an audience.

News flash: Opportunities don't mean shit to the people without the means to take advantage of those very opportunites.

Agree. They should employ whatever means necessary to take advtange of their own opportunities.

If this, they should do that. If that doesn't work, they should do this. If that also doesn't work, well then they should sacrifice this for that.

That's life coupled with basic economics.

Why not just give them what the fuck they need in the first place?

Hmm, because the moment they get what they need, they will need more. There is no end to it.
You are saying that if people can't be bothered to move to a place they can afford, or where there is a greater demand for them, they should just sit on their ass and get someone to pay for it.
I live in NYC, so I am very familiar with this.

Awww, isn't this cute. It's quite sweet and naive of you to think this way. Well, I don't know how old you are, or whether or not you have received an education, but when you do you'll understand why this is sadly not true.

Gee, I'm not sure if I got an education. I know I'm in desparate need of one. Can you educate me, oh great master!

Seriously though, what is the right amount of education one needs to receive?

Yes, I do feel that to understand freedom has something to do with the english language.

Freedom only has meaning in English? or do other languages not have the same fucking equivalent? It seems to me to be a universal term.

How will you know what freedom means in America if you don't speak english?

What the fuck would you be doing in America if you didn't know what freedom was.

When the policeman tells you you can't do something, that is limiting your 'freedom', but if you don't speak english, you won't understand what is happening.

You won't understand the local laws, but you will still understand what 'freedom' is. Freedom is a simple concept. Preserving it is the hard part.

Therefore I think a comprehensive understanding of the english language is needed in order to fully understand freedom, and what it entails in the world today.

Again, why not use a different language?

Aw, cute cheap shot. Unfortunately this is pathetic. You have never offered one fact in justification of your arguments. And to assume that your arguments are facts is to show your ignorance and simplicity for all it really is.

I have refuted your previous facts.