|
| Thread: Confessions of an Economic Hitman |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 16, 2008 02:59 PM |
|
|
del_diablo:
You don't understand. If the worker doesn't have enough money, it doesn't matter how afraid he is, he's still not going to be able to afford protection. And the capitalist doesn't want any of his workers to die, if he can help it.
Totoro:
Quote:
Are you stating that USA is the only country in the world that produces weapons and sells them?
No, but it is one of the world's biggest military spenders, which stimulates the military-industrial complex, which, in turn, makes it much easier for them to sell to warring third-world factions.
Quote:
And that still doesn't explain it if manufacturers sell guns onwards who sell them onwards again to someone who sells them to juntas in Africa. How could US government know about it? It just keeps funding the industry.
It may or may not know about it (although it probably does), but they wouldn't be able to do it so much if it didn't fund the industry.
Quote:
China does, Japan doesn't, at least any cheaper than any one of the western countries, because Japan is at quite same level in development than western countries.
Okay, then, why didn't America manufacture the Playstation? The reason that the parts of it that were made in Japan were made in Japan was because it would be cheaper to make it there. Although today there isn't as big of a difference as there was, say, 20 years ago.
Quote:
They did (though China has still alot to catch up) because they weren't exploited by corporations or other countries.
So China isn't being "exploited" by corporations? Please. China has an extremely high foreign investment.
Quote:
Yes, I understand perfectly. But wouldn't it increase the competition even more if there were also companies D, E and F that would come from South-American countries, given that they were at the same level of development than USA is?
Yes. On the other hand, production costs would rise. It is difficult to say which one (lower labor costs or more competition) would result in lower prices. However, usually, that trade-off doesn't have to be made - as production costs continue to stay low for other reasons, such as mechanization.
Quote:
Capitalism has been proven the best-working system. But capitalism isn't about pointing a gun on someone's forehead and saying: "You let us use your resources without any resistance, k?" no matter how productive that would be, because that's against our morals and without morals the society would collapse.
Actually, I don't see non-aggression as necessarily having anything to do with morals at all. You can't be more productive (at least, not in the long run), if you're initiating aggression, so non-violence vs. productivity is a false choice. You can't have the second without the first.
TheDeath:
Quote:
It wasn't if they have the money to buy a car or not. It was if the SALARY or wages is more expensive than their worth.
Obviously, if it was more expensive than their worth, then the capitalist would just not employ the worker. However, while it may be more than their worth if the capitalist paid for the worker's protection directly, he would be paying significantly less if it was through taxes, so it would be more profitable. It may not be cost-effective to protect the worker directly, but it may be if the capitalist would have to pay less.
Quote:
Which is useless.
Usefulness is subjective.  When someone says, "Don't be selfish!", I can simply reply with, "Look at yourself."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted December 16, 2008 03:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Okay, then, why didn't America manufacture the Playstation? The reason that the parts of it that were made in Japan were made in Japan was because it would be cheaper to make it there. Although today there isn't as big of a difference as there was, say, 20 years ago.
Because Playstation was of Japanese innovation; there was no good reason to manufacture them in America.
Besides, Playstation was created 1994, that's roughly over ten years.
Quote:
So China isn't being "exploited" by corporations? Please. China has an extremely high foreign investment.
That's why China is lagging behind in development. Eventually salaries will raise there as well when, correspondingly, factories are outsourced to countries like Indonesia or India.
Quote:
Yes. On the other hand, production costs would rise. It is difficult to say which one (lower labor costs or more competition) would result in lower prices. However, usually, that trade-off doesn't have to be made - as production costs continue to stay low for other reasons, such as mechanization.
I would rather take the increase of labor costs, as that increases people's well-being while more competition doesn't as much.
Quote:
Actually, I don't see non-aggression as necessarily having anything to do with morals at all. You can't be more productive (at least, not in the long run), if you're initiating aggression, so non-violence vs. productivity is a false choice. You can't have the second without the first.
Well I think the corporations are getting quite much more productive with using "bullet or money" -system against those who got power in South-America and this way getting their resources for cheap.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 16, 2008 03:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Obviously, if it was more expensive than their worth, then the capitalist would just not employ the worker. However, while it may be more than their worth if the capitalist paid for the worker's protection directly, he would be paying significantly less if it was through taxes, so it would be more profitable. It may not be cost-effective to protect the worker directly, but it may be if the capitalist would have to pay less.
Same thing with public transport -- he would pay significantly less for the production since it would be distributed among taxes. So by your logic, socialist systems are better for the capitalist
However there is a flaw somewhere obviously (since it isn't that way).
Quote:
"Don't be selfish!", I can simply reply with, "Look at yourself."
If you want to argue pointlessly, he will further say "Don't be selfish for non-emotional benefits!"
this is what he originally meant anyway.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted December 16, 2008 08:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, of course not. The companies can just get a better deal there. Previously, the slightly more productive 1st-worlders were paid more than they would be if they had to compete with more people. But now they do. When these 3rd-worlders entered the job market, the productivity-to-pay ratio changed. It's still dependent on productivity, though.
It doesn't change the fact compared to the former situation, it benefits the ones that own the company and in general is less beneficial for the workforce. The term would be exploitation.
Quote:
Quote:
Just because they are forced to sell it cheaper that doesn't justify it. You are justifying a fricking system of exploitation. And the sole reason we can live in luxury is because people in Africa live in poverty, and are deliberately KEPT in poverty.
Wrong. Sometimes certainly countries are forced to sell their resources at gunpoint. But that's not what I'm advocating. Africa isn't deliberately kept in poverty - at least, not by 1st-world nations. It's kept in poverty by internal corruption, religious and ethnic wars, and socialist government policies. If Africa stopped fighting and abolished socialistic policies, it would do much better.
Oh I DO know of cases where there had been a rise of an actually non-corrupt government. Do you know what happened to them?
Quote:
And it is because I have a conscience that I advocate capitalism. A system that raises people's living standards is infinitely more moral than a system that oppresses and restricts people.
I'm not advocating systems that oppress and restrict people; that's why I'm against capitalism.
I assume you advocate the ideology of capitalism. If that's the case I suggest you get out more and face reality instead of claiming how great Capitalism is based on how it SHOULD be.
Even so, Capitalism none the less breeds corruption; any system that allows materialistic gain is a solid basis for corruption, dishonesty, and exploitation.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 16, 2008 11:04 PM |
|
|
Totoro:
Quote:
Because Playstation was of Japanese innovation; there was no good reason to manufacture them in America.
If it would have been cheaper for them to do so, then they would have. But clearly it was cheaper for them to manufacture it in Japan.
Quote:
That's why China is lagging behind in development. Eventually salaries will raise there as well when, correspondingly, factories are outsourced to countries like Indonesia or India.
That's not why China is lagging behind - that's why China is surging ahead. As for Indonesia and India - maybe. Or maybe mechanization will speed up. Who knows? Capitalism is very innovative.
Quote:
I would rather take the increase of labor costs, as that increases people's well-being while more competition doesn't as much.
Would you rather everybody's wages would rise 10 times or the cost of everything drop 10 times? Answer: it wouldn't make any difference.
Quote:
Well I think the corporations are getting quite much more productive with using "bullet or money" -system against those who got power in South-America and this way getting their resources for cheap.
Yeah, except then they have to suffer the consequences of the corruption that they cause, plus the negative effects it has on the economy as a whole, plus the danger of revolutions.
TheDeath:
Quote:
Same thing with public transport -- he would pay significantly less for the production since it would be distributed among taxes. So by your logic, socialist systems are better for the capitalist
Some of them are! Others aren't, though.
Quote:
If you want to argue pointlessly, he will further say "Don't be selfish for non-emotional benefits!"
"Don't tell me what to do!"
Moonlith:
Quote:
It doesn't change the fact compared to the former situation, it benefits the ones that own the company and in general is less beneficial for the workforce.
Actually, it benefits nearly everybody. It benefits the company because production costs drop. It benefits consumers because product prices drop. It benefits foreign workers because wages rise - sometimes dramatically. When a company moves in that pays twice the average national wage, I don't think they're going to consider themselves exploited. Either they can live the way they've lived for thousands of years, or they can try to get new jobs. No one's forcing them to take the second option, but many of them want to. Do you want to take away that opportunity? Do you want to tell a woman with five kids that some of them will have to die, because she'll lose her job when the factory closes - as you want it to? And then you tell her it's for her own good - so that she doesn't get exploited. Disgusting. 
Quote:
Oh I DO know of cases where there had been a rise of an actually non-corrupt government. Do you know what happened to them?
"Non-corrupt African government" is an oxymoron.
Quote:
I'm not advocating systems that oppress and restrict people; that's why I'm against capitalism.
Funny, that's why I'm against socialism (aka neo-feudalism).
Quote:
I assume you advocate the ideology of capitalism. If that's the case I suggest you get out more and face reality instead of claiming how great Capitalism is based on how it SHOULD be.
Reality? How about you face reality, and see how great capitalism is?
Let me tell you a story. A man was born in the Soviet Union in the late 60s. He lived in a tiny apartment with his brother, parents, and grandparents. They had a tiny kitchen, and didn't have many of what was considered commonplace at the time in America or Western Europe. He went to the university, got an education, and, some time after the Soviet Union collapsed, he emigrated to America, where he prospered, working hard.
That man is my father. My mother grew up in even worse conditions. And now they are much better off, thanks to capitalism. If the Soviet Union had never collapsed, they'd probably be living in a tiny cramped apartment with their parents and their three children.
You don't know what you're talking about. I'm serious. You have no idea.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 17, 2008 10:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm not advocating systems that oppress and restrict people; that's why I'm against capitalism.
Funny, that's why I'm against socialism (aka neo-feudalism).
Ignoring Soviet, what is bad about some of the social ideas?
Socialisme is the idea of a society for everybody where everybody is equal.
Most of europa is actualy neither capitalisme nor socialisme but the middle path betwhen the 2 of em. Healthcare, schools, simiar stuff.
Quote:
Let me tell you a story. A man was born in the Soviet Union in the late 60s. He lived in a tiny apartment with his brother, parents, and grandparents. They had a tiny kitchen, and didn't have many of what was considered commonplace at the time in America or Western Europe. He went to the university, got an education, and, some time after the Soviet Union collapsed, he emigrated to America, where he prospered, working hard.
That man is my father. My mother grew up in even worse conditions. And now they are much better off, thanks to capitalism. If the Soviet Union had never collapsed, they'd probably be living in a tiny cramped apartment with their parents and their three children.
Hei stop there, he GOT the education right? AND he immigrated too.
He would maybe not have gone anyplace without the education anyway. The question is: Would he have gotten a such effective education if he was born in USA?
Last time i checked too, Soviet tended to be lead by some ineffective jarheads. What they managed was to keep it from falling apart actually. They kept the etnical conflicts from becoming huge fires.
Do not forget the leaders either, Lenin did not want Stalin to get controll over Soviet but did not manage to kick him out in time either.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 17, 2008 02:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If it would have been cheaper for them to do so, then they would have. But clearly it was cheaper for them to manufacture it in Japan.
Not always, remember Betamax? Even though it was technically better, it failed compared to VHS
(Sony were kinda stubborn to let it go 'free' you know? so why wouldn't they do it for PlayStation especially in 1994?)
Also mvass I hope you realize that 'equal for all' (when i say it) doesn't mean that I want to punish the hard working ones -- when I say equal, I say equal in CHANCES or OPPORTUNITIES or SITUATION. I want to punish (so to speak) those with better situations or chances or luck.
Well technically I don't want to punish them, I want to prevent them from even using those chances in the first place (of course, such chances would be 'used' by the government for ALL people not just for a select few).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted December 17, 2008 08:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If it would have been cheaper for them to do so, then they would have. But clearly it was cheaper for them to manufacture it in Japan.
I don't believe there was much difference between manufacturing costs in Japan and USA.
Quote:
That's not why China is lagging behind - that's why China is surging ahead. As for Indonesia and India - maybe.
China is not on the same level as western countries, but it is developing very quickly and I believe it will soon best even USA.
Quote:
Would you rather everybody's wages would rise 10 times or the cost of everything drop 10 times? Answer: it wouldn't make any difference.
Yes I would rather take wages multiplied by 10 as then people would have more money to spend on all kinds of things and that increases circulation of capitals which improves economy.
Quote:
Yeah, except then they have to suffer the consequences of the corruption that they cause, plus the negative effects it has on the economy as a whole, plus the danger of revolutions.
Nah, owners of corporations don't care about that kind of stuff as long as money flows into their pockets.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 17, 2008 09:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, except then they have to suffer the consequences of the corruption that they cause, plus the negative effects it has on the economy as a whole, plus the danger of revolutions.
They aren't governments and such, are a lot less likely to CARE at all.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 17, 2008 10:58 PM |
|
|
del_diablo:
Quote:
Ignoring Soviet, what is bad about some of the social ideas?
You can't ignore the Soviet Union. When the economy becomes socialistic enough, only one of two things can happen: it can either become more capitalist or the country can become more authoritarian.
Quote:
Hei stop there, he GOT the education right? AND he immigrated too.
He would maybe not have gone anyplace without the education anyway. The question is: Would he have gotten a such effective education if he was born in USA?
It's true that Soviet education was rather good - but what good would it be if he couldn't use it? If he had to live in a cramped unsanitary apartment and stand in line for bread? I don't think a Ph.D. makes bread lines move any faster. And not everyone got a good education like he did. Not everyone went to a good university.
TheDeath:
I'm not really that familiar with the Betamax vs. VHS competition, so I can't comment on that.
And I would like to see your actual suggestions as to how you would implement your ideas.
Quote:
They aren't governments and such, are a lot less likely to CARE at all.
I think they'd care if the government would nationalize their property and toss them out.
Totoro:
Quote:
I don't believe there was much difference between manufacturing costs in Japan and USA.
Nevertheless, it was obviously cheaper to make in Japan. Companies seek to minimize costs - it wouldn't have done it if it would be more expensive!
Quote:
China is not on the same level as western countries, but it is developing very quickly and I believe it will soon best even USA.
Yes - if the US continues to dither and its government continues to be "as dumb as it wants to be". Also, there might be a reaction in China that might reverse the gains it has made. For example, if the authoritarian government were to be overthrown, it might result in a democracy - but it might also result in more socialism.
Quote:
Yes I would rather take wages multiplied by 10 as then people would have more money to spend on all kinds of things and that increases circulation of capitals which improves economy.
But don't you understand? There would be no difference! People would have more money to spend, but things would also be as much more expensive, so they wouldn't be able to buy any more than they would otherwise.
Quote:
Nah, owners of corporations don't care about that kind of stuff as long as money flows into their pockets.
That kind of stuff can interfere with their profits very heavily.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted December 18, 2008 11:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Nevertheless, it was obviously cheaper to make in Japan. Companies seek to minimize costs - it wouldn't have done it if it would be more expensive!
Alright, it was cheaper but that doesn't mean, not at all, that Japan was a poor developing country.
Quote:
But don't you understand? There would be no difference! People would have more money to spend, but things would also be as much more expensive, so they wouldn't be able to buy any more than they would otherwise.
Actully they would be able to spend more on immaterial services such as going to cinema.
Quote:
That kind of stuff can interfere with their profits very heavily.
They won't take any act before something radical happens that ceases their flow of money.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 18, 2008 03:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Alright, it was cheaper but that doesn't mean, not at all, that Japan was a poor developing country.
It wasn't when the Playstation was being made, of course. But earlier, after WWII, it was.
Quote:
Actully they would be able to spend more on immaterial services such as going to cinema.
But those prices would be the same too. It's not just the price of goods that would stay the same, but the prices of everything.
Quote:
They won't take any act before something radical happens that ceases their flow of money.
And whatever they'd do wouldn't be cheap. It's a lot more profitable for them to avoid such problems in the first place.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted December 18, 2008 03:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Actually, it benefits nearly everybody. It benefits the company because production costs drop. It benefits consumers because product prices drop.
No, it doesn't. In theory, it should. In reality, it NEVER DOES. Get a dose of reality already.
Quote:
It benefits foreign workers because wages rise - sometimes dramatically.
It also forces local business out of business since they can't compete with the bigger corporactions.
Did you at all watch the three videos? Since it seems to me you missed the part about that leaves the country indebted.
Quote:
When a company moves in that pays twice the average national wage, I don't think they're going to consider themselves exploited.
Maybe they don't, because they don't KNOW that the company used to pay TEN TIMES Their national wage in their home country.
So the company gets the benefit and in their home country, people are made jobless.
Quote:
Either they can live the way they've lived for thousands of years, or they can try to get new jobs.
Funny thing is, the only new jobs are crude underpaid labour not get any responsibility or higher jobs that actually own anything - they are nothing more but workslaves after forcing their own companies out of business. It makes them utterly dependant. Why do you think there is so much hatred in the world for America? Trust me, it's not because they hate ideals of freedom or democracy.
Quote:
No one's forcing them to take the second option, but many of them want to. Do you want to take away that opportunity?
Doesn't change the fact it's utter exploitation.
Quote:
Do you want to tell a woman with five kids that some of them will have to die, because she'll lose her job when the factory closes - as you want it to? And then you tell her it's for her own good - so that she doesn't get exploited. Disgusting.
I could ask you the same You want a company to move to another country for cheaper wages, and in turn fire a woman with five kids in America, leaving her to starve? Disgusting!
Quote:
"Non-corrupt African government" is an oxymoron.
No it isn't, stop making ignorant comments and watch the three videos in the main post already.
Quote:
Funny, that's why I'm against socialism (aka neo-feudalism).
Who said I was pro-socialism? I'm pro-welbeing. And Capitalism falls well behind in that regard.
Quote:
That man is my father. My mother grew up in even worse conditions. And now they are much better off, thanks to capitalism. If the Soviet Union had never collapsed, they'd probably be living in a tiny cramped apartment with their parents and their three children.
You don't know what you're talking about. I'm serious. You have no idea.
Like omg omg! Dramatic newflash!
First of all, Soviet Union wasn't communistic, it was pure dictatorship. Get that into your skull already.
Second, compared to such circumstances surely Capitalism seems better. That doesn't mean it's the best. If anything I consider your view biased since you continuesly compare it to those circumstances, while utterly ignoring its potential flaws. You are simply not acknowledging them.
And you keep making it clear, over and over again, you didn't watch the three videos posted in the main post. So why are you even argueing here?
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 18, 2008 03:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, it doesn't. In theory, it should. In reality, it NEVER DOES. Get a dose of reality already.
Except when companies started outsourcing to China, prices of products dropped dramatically. How about that?
Quote:
It also forces local business out of business since they can't compete with the bigger corporactions.
And this is bad because...
Quote:
it seems to me you missed the part about that leaves the country indebted
I think you're confusing government debt and private debt. Outsourcing increases neither. Government debt increases when the government borrows. Outsourcing has nothing to do with the government borrowing. And it has nothing to do with private debt, either.
Quote:
Maybe they don't, because they don't KNOW that the company used to pay TEN TIMES Their national wage in their home country.
But they're better off than they would be otherwise, so they can't complain about the company. It would be like me giving a dollar to a beggar and him complaining that I don't give him the same amount of money that I give my friends when they need some.
Quote:
So the company gets the benefit and in their home country, people are made jobless.
No. Because products become cheaper, the people who don't lose their jobs have surplus money, which they can spend elsewhere, which would create jobs for the people who were made jobless.
Besides, consider this example. I'm hiring, and I interview two people: one is willing to work for $40 an hour, and one for $30. They are identical in every way. Why should I be forced to hire the first one? I shouldn't. Now, what difference does it make if the second one is from a foreign country?
Quote:
Funny thing is, the only new jobs are crude underpaid labour
It's better than whacking at the soil with a stick like they have been for thousands of years. Plus, capitalism improves peace.
Quote:
Why do you think there is so much hatred in the world for America?
Two main reasons: jealousy/nationalism, and dislike of its violent interventionist foreign policy.
Quote:
Doesn't change the fact it's utter exploitation.
Doesn't change the fact that they're better off.
Quote:
You want a company to move to another country for cheaper wages, and in turn fire a woman with five kids in America, leaving her to starve?
Hey, at least we have unemployment benefits, retraining, etc. They don't.
Quote:
First of all, Soviet Union wasn't communistic, it was pure dictatorship. Get that into your skull already.
Except that when socialism goes far enough, it is inevitable that it will either have to backpedal or become dictatorial.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 18, 2008 03:28 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 16:24, 18 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
And I would like to see your actual suggestions as to how you would implement your ideas.
Certainly, hard working and being a billionaire are two different things (that is: to become 'rich' so to speak, you only need good investments and then you're basically doing nothing but circulating the money, because you own the means of employment). I guess, fixing it would need some sort of revolution because not many billionaires will be used to this idea at all, especially if they inherited it (instead of founding it).
Heck, with more idealized situations, by making people in the ideology that they just have to do stuff because they like, not because they want profit (which would happen in, for example, a society ruled by robots and many people 'unemployed' if capitalism was used). One could even abolish selling stuff since then everyone would get a share of the total GDP the whole nation makes -- you might argue, that some may not want to work anymore, which is debatable (and of course you could suspend those from welfare and minimum wage). But guess what? In capitalism, some that even WANT to work can't do at their full capacity because... they're poor or can't afford and their talents are wasted. It's too individualistic.
(that would mean technically everything would be owned by the government which lets anyone capable of using something do it -- like public transport, public libraries, public stuff you know? instead of big ass corporations with their private 'stuff').
Quote:
And this is bad because...
1) Waste of products and talent, and of anything the smaller business would make.
Now if it were to be a public thing, where both of them got equal chance of using the let's say, factory, then they would both make two different equally-competitive products (different designs though) -- which means, owned by a libertarian government (I think that's the term), but there's no waste of anything involved.
2) Inequality -- the small business might not even have got the chance to put itself up on its feet, due to factors such as inheritance, situation, education... stuff like that.
(notice: public education is socialistic -- if you advocate it, I wonder why don't you advocate other things which make people more equal in SITUATIONS (not dedication), because education is a part of it just like anything else)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted December 18, 2008 04:07 PM |
|
Edited by Totoro at 16:09, 18 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
It wasn't when the Playstation was being made, of course. But earlier, after WWII, it was.
Generally it was in better condition than any country in Europe after WWII.
Quote:
And whatever they'd do wouldn't be cheap. It's a lot more profitable for them to avoid such problems in the first place.
Say that to them, and maybe they'll stop all their suspicious doings.
Quote:
But those prices would be the same too. It's not just the price of goods that would stay the same, but the prices of everything.
If the competition increases in western countries that doesn't help poor developing countries as much than if their wages were raised instead.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 18, 2008 10:41 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
In capitalism, some that even WANT to work can't do at their full capacity because... they're poor or can't afford and their talents are wasted.
They could ask for lower wages - oh, wait, minimum wage laws! Aren't they great?
Quote:
It's too individualistic.
Nothing can be too individualistic. The more individualism, the better.
And by "actual suggestions", I didn't mean "two paragraphs of extremely vague stuff followed by one tiny paragraph of socialistic programs that we already have".
Quote:
1) Waste of products and talent, and of anything the smaller business would make.
If the corporation can make them better, why should the business survive? If there is more demand than supply, then there is room for both the corporation and the business. If not, and the corporation does it better than the small business, then, tough.
Quote:
2) Inequality -- the small business might not even have got the chance to put itself up on its feet, due to factors such as inheritance, situation, education... stuff like that.
Nevertheless, it's not as good at satisfying demand, so it doesn't matter.
Quote:
(notice: public education is socialistic -- if you advocate it, I wonder why don't you advocate other things which make people more equal in SITUATIONS (not dedication), because education is a part of it just like anything else)
Because education has a high return and has a considerable "neighborhood effect" - much higher than just redistributing money.
Totoro:
Quote:
Generally it was in better condition than any country in Europe after WWII.
Britain? Sweden? Switzerland?
Quote:
Say that to them, and maybe they'll stop all their suspicious doings.
Many of them aren't doing "suspicious doings". Only a small minority with a hotline to the government - like the military-industrial complex and the oil companies. And the former, as we well know, profits from war.
Quote:
If the competition increases in western countries that doesn't help poor developing countries as much than if their wages were raised instead.
Actually, it helps them just as much, since people can buy more of their products, which creates more jobs there, and so on.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted December 19, 2008 10:13 PM |
|
Edited by Totoro at 22:14, 19 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Generally it was in better condition than any country in Europe after WWII.
Britain? Sweden? Switzerland?
Generally
Quote:
Many of them aren't doing "suspicious doings". Only a small minority with a hotline to the government - like the military-industrial complex and the oil companies. And the former, as we well know, profits from war.
Who cares was it one or one hundred companies, that's wrong anyway.
Quote:
Actually, it helps them just as much, since people can buy more of their products, which creates more jobs there, and so on.
No, the companies do not produce to these poor countries where they get their resources from, but to domestic market and for export to other rich countries.
____________
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 19, 2008 10:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think you're confusing government debt and private debt. Outsourcing increases neither. Government debt increases when the government borrows. Outsourcing has nothing to do with the government borrowing. And it has nothing to do with private debt, either.
So why the hell is they so common and linked up? Lets say i go into a country, buy up independant companys and create my own monopol and then i set ridiculess prises on it and ship it to a rich country i can get some decent money from. Where in this process does the country i controll get any benefits?
Quote:
Quote:
First of all, Soviet Union wasn't communistic, it was pure dictatorship. Get that into your skull already.
Except that when socialism goes far enough, it is inevitable that it will either have to backpedal or become dictatorial.
Evidence please? And do we have more than 6 cases?
And do we hve cases where they could go far enogh to kill valuta? Because it would be needed to be done.
Quote:
Quote:
I don't believe there was much difference between manufacturing costs in Japan and USA.
Nevertheless, it was obviously cheaper to make in Japan. Companies seek to minimize costs - it wouldn't have done it if it would be more expensive!
Playstation was never planned to be a succes outside japan. And there is the factor is transportation, its not cheap how matter you put it.
Besides there are other issues.
One is they had stuff going on like kairobutsu(i spelled it correctly), and similar.
Quote:
It's better than whacking at the soil with a stick like they have been for thousands of years. Plus, capitalism improves peace.
Capitalisme encourages war since it can increase the amount of money they can mak.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 19, 2008 11:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And by "actual suggestions", I didn't mean "two paragraphs of extremely vague stuff followed by one tiny paragraph of socialistic programs that we already have".
I don't get what you don't understand. Schools are publicly owned and everyone can learn, right? Same should apply to other big producing stuff, or any other 'facility' (this includes police and museums and whatever else, such as "an island" or factories or whatever you can think of).
Not something like "hey, you don't want to work for me? Then beat it, pal" because he owns the whole damn place! You see? It's not about distributing wealth, it's about not allowing people to abuse their more lucky situations -- or rather how should I put this? Use the difference in "situation" or "luck" and distribute THAT equally.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
