BO Loss = Riots

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]malonetd wrote:
Professor X wrote:
You are RIGHT. I don’t care that people making more money than me will be paying higher taxes. They can also likely afford it better than I can or anyone making less than I am.

Some thief thought you could likely afford a new car stereo better than he could. I’m sure he didn’t care since you make more money than him anyway.

http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/music_movies_girls_life/jealousy_sucks?pageNo=0#2498875

[/quote]

Right…you are now comparing home invasion and theft to income taxes for the rich?

There was no understood agreement between me and the guy or girl who broke into my garage.

Even if you do hold the stance that taxes are flat out theft, again you don’t wait until every four years (and then only when your own choice for presidential elect loses) to voice this opinion and force changes.

62

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Even if you do hold the stance that taxes are flat out theft, again you don’t wait until every four years (and then only when your own choice for presidential elect loses) to voice this opinion and force changes.[/quote]

I don’t voice my opinion only when MY candidate loses. Hell, my candidate loses every election, because I waste my vote on a third party. Like you said, taxes weren’t going away with McCain, either. When I vote I vote for real “change”. I’m hoping someday more people will and then maybe tax policy will be overhauled.

63

[quote]ninearms wrote:
belligerent wrote:
I oppose any system that pits one class against another regardless of my own economic standing.

You do realise that’s the basis of capitalism, right?

[/quote]

Huh? Robbing Peter to pay Paul is the basis of capitalism?

64

[quote]Professor X wrote:
My money was being taken during the Bush admin and no one was calling it “wealth redistribution” or complaining about it even though our war practices and tax breaks still ended in a massive economic crisis. I agree, my money was being “redistributed” to the poor and I didn’t hear one person call out Bush on the issue in the several years I’ve participated in this forum. So why is Obama being called on it like he invented the idea?

You are RIGHT. I don’t care that people making more money than me will be paying higher taxes. They can also likely afford it better than I can or anyone making less than I am.

Two wrongs don’t make a right but unless there was some plan proposed by McCain that ELIMINATED income taxes all around, this crying about it is pointless.

Taxes were going to be paid no matter who won the election.[/quote]

A very large number of us have been harshly criticizing McCain and the Republicans for not standing up to Obama’s anti-capitalism. We didn’t vote for him precisely because he doesn’t fight redistrbution. I don’t believe I’ve applied a double standard of any kind.

65

[quote]Sloth wrote:
No, (truly) free markets lead to the kind of effecient production systems and cheap goods and services that raise the standard of living. Over-regulation and taxation is largely responsible for outsourcing. If you pile costs onto me to do business here, I’ll take my jobs overseas to a friendlier enviroment.

[/quote]

“Truly” free? Please define what you mean by that.

Again, I’m not arguing that free markets will lead to cheaper goods and in some cases services. But as the goal is always an increase in wealth, you will inevitably find people who choose profit over morality/respect for human rights. This seems to become increasingly evident the larger the company becomes and the more money it makes.

Free markets are based on the concept of competition, and in a competitive environment you will always get people who are willing to “cheat” to get ahead (in this case cheat means take advantage of other people for personal gain).

Unfortunately this makes it nearly impossible for companies who wish to stay true to their moral convictions to compete. So, they eventually either follow suit, or go out of business/get bought out.

And if you really believe that companies like Nike outsource the manufacturing of their shoes to sweat shops in Asian countries because they are being taxed and not because they can pay the workers less than $1 a day for labor, you’re kidding yourself, though the absence of taxes probably doesn’t hurt either.

66

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
And if you really believe that companies like Nike outsource the manufacturing of their shoes to sweat shops in Asian countries because they are being taxed and not because they can pay the workers less than $1 a day for labor, you’re kidding yourself, though the absence of taxes probably doesn’t hurt either.[/quote]

In a free market, if the use of sweat shops was an issue, people would stop buying Nikes and buy New Balance perhaps. The fact is, people really don’t care about sweat shops. Also, if Asia had free markets, then the workers would change jobs to get something that paid better than $1 a day. Perhaps Adidas would open a shop, pay $1.25 a day and steal Nike’s workers.

In a free market, there’s always somebody who will do something to get his share of the take. Take lower profit margins, charge less, pay more for labor, invent something better.

The trouble arises in that free markets interact with other social systems and free markets never work as theory states. It’s a complex system of systems. One of those systems is the political system, and politicians have a nasty habit of screwing up the system.

Take the mortgage crisis. Ultimately the housing boom and bust can be attributed to Congressional programs. For a grossly simplified example, Congress set up quotas to get low income people into houses. (Sounds good right? But why? What’s wrong with renting? ) Those quotas in turn led to aggressive lending practices to meet the quotas. Now the ball gets rolling. Easy loans led to high housing demand, in turn leading to higher housing prices. Higher housing prices led to equity financing, and artificially priced asset-based financing. And eventually, everything needs to get paid for. Oops!

BTW, who was in control of Congress the last two years before the house of cards collapsed? Democrats! Did they try to stop it? Did they listen to the warnings? Noooo… So let’s put them in charge now, right?

Idiots!

67

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No, (truly) free markets lead to the kind of effecient production systems and cheap goods and services that raise the standard of living. Over-regulation and taxation is largely responsible for outsourcing. If you pile costs onto me to do business here, I’ll take my jobs overseas to a friendlier enviroment.

“Truly” free? Please define what you mean by that.

Again, I’m not arguing that free markets will lead to cheaper goods and in some cases services. But as the goal is always an increase in wealth, you will inevitably find people who choose profit over morality/respect for human rights. [/quote]

Stop right there. When profit is chosen above another’s rights, does it not cease being a free market transaction? Fraud and violence are not examples of voluntary exchange.

As far as becoming corrupted. Noone is as dangerous as a corrupt politician with the power to redistribute and/or punish/reward.

68

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No, (truly) free markets lead to the kind of effecient production systems and cheap goods and services that raise the standard of living. Over-regulation and taxation is largely responsible for outsourcing. If you pile costs onto me to do business here, I’ll take my jobs overseas to a friendlier enviroment.

“Truly” free? Please define what you mean by that.

Again, I’m not arguing that free markets will lead to cheaper goods and in some cases services. But as the goal is always an increase in wealth, you will inevitably find people who choose profit over morality/respect for human rights. This seems to become increasingly evident the larger the company becomes and the more money it makes.

Free markets are based on the concept of competition, and in a competitive environment you will always get people who are willing to “cheat” to get ahead (in this case cheat means take advantage of other people for personal gain).

Unfortunately this makes it nearly impossible for companies who wish to stay true to their moral convictions to compete. So, they eventually either follow suit, or go out of business/get bought out.

And if you really believe that companies like Nike outsource the manufacturing of their shoes to sweat shops in Asian countries because they are being taxed and not because they can pay the workers less than $1 a day for labor, you’re kidding yourself, though the absence of taxes probably doesn’t hurt either.[/quote]

Is working for that $1 a day voluntary?

69

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

Free markets are based on the concept of competition, and in a competitive environment you will always get people who are willing to “cheat” to get ahead (in this case cheat means take advantage of other people for personal gain).

[/quote]

And I’d argue that the incentive to “cheat” is far greater in a planned system. Be it fraud, cronyism, black markets, whatever.

70

[quote]yorik wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
And if you really believe that companies like Nike outsource the manufacturing of their shoes to sweat shops in Asian countries because they are being taxed and not because they can pay the workers less than $1 a day for labor, you’re kidding yourself, though the absence of taxes probably doesn’t hurt either.

In a free market, if the use of sweat shops was an issue, people would stop buying Nikes and buy New Balance perhaps.
[/quote]

People do do things like this. But that really has nothing to do with the market itself, it has to do with the consumers making statements by boycotting companies (which I don’t disagree with).

See that’s the problem though. People (especially those running these big businesses) don’t care about the human rights violations and unfair treatment of workers, and the average consumer doesn’t care either, because they are either caught up in a company’s mystique or they can get the products for less money.

It’s all about what’s right for “me”, and who cares about everyone else. It’s precisely this greed driven mentality that a free market creates.

And why would Adidas pay 1.25 a day when they could simply go to some other impoverished area and pay those workers $1 a day?

I agree with you here. It’s the fact that the companies pay huge amounts of money to keep the poor poor and surpress growing economies (unless there is something that they can gain from them) that allows them to make so much money and have uneducated (and in many cases desperate) people to take advantage of.

If everyone was truly on the same page, and you actually had fair wage practices world wide (perhaps that’s what you guys mean by “truly” free), then yeah, these practices would probably cease. But as it stands now, that’s not the case.

How do you feel about automation? That’s not really taking advantage of anyone, but it sure does create less and less jobs. And of course more profit for the owners of the company.

Agreed, not a great plan. But, really the whole U.S. financial system is based on debt (one that can never be truly paid off btw), so it’s not surprising that congress would have pushed a system that would eventually wind up with the banks (or is it the government now) owning lots of property.

What do you think would happen if the nations of the world (take China for example) decided to call in their debts? Those trillions of dollars that Bush and the neo con’s have spent on the war in iraq? We’d be fucked. Talk about taking out loans with no way of paying them back.

The whole system is screwy. Neither side is really for the good of the people IMO. Both sides have offenders when it comes to poor financial choices.

Hopefully Obama actually makes good on some of his words and turns out to be such a person. No one really knows what kind of president he’s going to be yet. But he certainly couldn’t do any worse financially speaking than his predecessor has.

71

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No, (truly) free markets lead to the kind of effecient production systems and cheap goods and services that raise the standard of living. Over-regulation and taxation is largely responsible for outsourcing. If you pile costs onto me to do business here, I’ll take my jobs overseas to a friendlier enviroment.

“Truly” free? Please define what you mean by that.

Again, I’m not arguing that free markets will lead to cheaper goods and in some cases services. But as the goal is always an increase in wealth, you will inevitably find people who choose profit over morality/respect for human rights.

Stop right there. When profit is chosen above another’s rights, does it not cease being a free market transaction? Fraud and violence are not examples of voluntary exchange.
[/quote]

But see, if you go to areas where people are literally starving and offer to pay them shit for pay and horrible working conditions, they’re still gonna take you up on your offer because they are desperate.

So you still get the human rights violations and piss poor pay, but no one’s arm is twisted or hand forced (at least not on the surface).

[quote]
As far as becoming corrupted. Noone is as dangerous as a corrupt politician with the power to redistribute and/or punish/reward.[/quote]

I don’t think anyone is arguing that a corrupt polititian is a dangerous entity. But I’d still argue that the person who has the power to redistribute and yet does so without ever letting people know they are doing it is even more dangerous. At least you know that the polititian is doing it to you.

72

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No, (truly) free markets lead to the kind of effecient production systems and cheap goods and services that raise the standard of living. Over-regulation and taxation is largely responsible for outsourcing. If you pile costs onto me to do business here, I’ll take my jobs overseas to a friendlier enviroment.

“Truly” free? Please define what you mean by that.

Again, I’m not arguing that free markets will lead to cheaper goods and in some cases services. But as the goal is always an increase in wealth, you will inevitably find people who choose profit over morality/respect for human rights. This seems to become increasingly evident the larger the company becomes and the more money it makes.

Free markets are based on the concept of competition, and in a competitive environment you will always get people who are willing to “cheat” to get ahead (in this case cheat means take advantage of other people for personal gain).

Unfortunately this makes it nearly impossible for companies who wish to stay true to their moral convictions to compete. So, they eventually either follow suit, or go out of business/get bought out.

And if you really believe that companies like Nike outsource the manufacturing of their shoes to sweat shops in Asian countries because they are being taxed and not because they can pay the workers less than $1 a day for labor, you’re kidding yourself, though the absence of taxes probably doesn’t hurt either.

Is working for that $1 a day voluntary?[/quote]

In many cases yes it is (sort of).

73

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No, (truly) free markets lead to the kind of effecient production systems and cheap goods and services that raise the standard of living. Over-regulation and taxation is largely responsible for outsourcing. If you pile costs onto me to do business here, I’ll take my jobs overseas to a friendlier enviroment.

“Truly” free? Please define what you mean by that.

Again, I’m not arguing that free markets will lead to cheaper goods and in some cases services. But as the goal is always an increase in wealth, you will inevitably find people who choose profit over morality/respect for human rights. This seems to become increasingly evident the larger the company becomes and the more money it makes.

Free markets are based on the concept of competition, and in a competitive environment you will always get people who are willing to “cheat” to get ahead (in this case cheat means take advantage of other people for personal gain).

Unfortunately this makes it nearly impossible for companies who wish to stay true to their moral convictions to compete. So, they eventually either follow suit, or go out of business/get bought out.

And if you really believe that companies like Nike outsource the manufacturing of their shoes to sweat shops in Asian countries because they are being taxed and not because they can pay the workers less than $1 a day for labor, you’re kidding yourself, though the absence of taxes probably doesn’t hurt either.

Is working for that $1 a day voluntary?

In many cases yes it is (sort of).[/quote]

So, they need the jobs?

74

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:

Free markets are based on the concept of competition, and in a competitive environment you will always get people who are willing to “cheat” to get ahead (in this case cheat means take advantage of other people for personal gain).

And I’d argue that the incentive to “cheat” is far greater in a planned system. Be it fraud, cronyism, black markets, whatever.

[/quote]

You’re gonna get cheaters in any financial system (so long as it’s even loosley based on a monetary system). I don’t know if I’d agree with it being more likely though; just more covert.

75

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No, (truly) free markets lead to the kind of effecient production systems and cheap goods and services that raise the standard of living. Over-regulation and taxation is largely responsible for outsourcing. If you pile costs onto me to do business here, I’ll take my jobs overseas to a friendlier enviroment.

“Truly” free? Please define what you mean by that.

Again, I’m not arguing that free markets will lead to cheaper goods and in some cases services. But as the goal is always an increase in wealth, you will inevitably find people who choose profit over morality/respect for human rights. This seems to become increasingly evident the larger the company becomes and the more money it makes.

Free markets are based on the concept of competition, and in a competitive environment you will always get people who are willing to “cheat” to get ahead (in this case cheat means take advantage of other people for personal gain).

Unfortunately this makes it nearly impossible for companies who wish to stay true to their moral convictions to compete. So, they eventually either follow suit, or go out of business/get bought out.

And if you really believe that companies like Nike outsource the manufacturing of their shoes to sweat shops in Asian countries because they are being taxed and not because they can pay the workers less than $1 a day for labor, you’re kidding yourself, though the absence of taxes probably doesn’t hurt either.

Is working for that $1 a day voluntary?

In many cases yes it is (sort of).

So, they need the jobs?[/quote]

Of course they do, in many cases these people are literally starving and desperate. You’d be surprised what kinds of atrocities you’d be willing to put up with if you were desperate.

The companies could pay them more, but why do so when you can make more money by not doing so. Heck, if they actually cared about paying fair wages, they wouldn’t have moved their manufacturing plants out of the U.S in the first place and would pay American workers competitive wages.

76

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No, (truly) free markets lead to the kind of effecient production systems and cheap goods and services that raise the standard of living. Over-regulation and taxation is largely responsible for outsourcing. If you pile costs onto me to do business here, I’ll take my jobs overseas to a friendlier enviroment.

“Truly” free? Please define what you mean by that.

Again, I’m not arguing that free markets will lead to cheaper goods and in some cases services. But as the goal is always an increase in wealth, you will inevitably find people who choose profit over morality/respect for human rights. This seems to become increasingly evident the larger the company becomes and the more money it makes.

Free markets are based on the concept of competition, and in a competitive environment you will always get people who are willing to “cheat” to get ahead (in this case cheat means take advantage of other people for personal gain).

Unfortunately this makes it nearly impossible for companies who wish to stay true to their moral convictions to compete. So, they eventually either follow suit, or go out of business/get bought out.

And if you really believe that companies like Nike outsource the manufacturing of their shoes to sweat shops in Asian countries because they are being taxed and not because they can pay the workers less than $1 a day for labor, you’re kidding yourself, though the absence of taxes probably doesn’t hurt either.

Is working for that $1 a day voluntary?

In many cases yes it is (sort of).

So, they need the jobs?

Of course they do, in many cases these people are literally starving and desperate. You’d be surprised what kinds of atrocities you’d be willing to put up with if you were desperate.

The companies could pay them more, but why do so when you can make more money by not doing so. Heck, if they actually cared about paying fair wages, they wouldn’t have moved their manufacturing plants out of the U.S in the first place and would pay American workers competitive wages.[/quote]

If a company has gone into business to pay “fair wages,” I doubt it’ll be in business very long. And then noone is making a wage off that company. And, what’s so great about an American making a higher wage, if the gains are erased by more expensive goods? This all comes back to comparative advantage, though. But, I’m up too late, and too tired to go into this much more tonight. Take care.

77

[quote]ninearms wrote:
belligerent wrote:
I oppose any system that pits one class against another regardless of my own economic standing.

You do realise that’s the basis of capitalism, right?

[/quote]

I thought the basis of Capitalism was the private ownership of the means of production in a division of labor society.

78

[quote]Sloth wrote:
ninearms wrote:
belligerent wrote:
I oppose any system that pits one class against another regardless of my own economic standing.

You do realise that’s the basis of capitalism, right?

I thought the basis of Capitalism was the private ownership of the means of production in a division of labor society.[/quote]

Or the exploitation of those who have only their labour to sell by the owners of the means of production. If belligerent doesn’t like one class being pitted against another (although technically it’s not so much classes being pitted against each other as one class subjugating another) perhaps he should avoid praising the virtues of capitalism.

79

[quote]ninearms wrote:
Sloth wrote:
ninearms wrote:
belligerent wrote:
I oppose any system that pits one class against another regardless of my own economic standing.

You do realise that’s the basis of capitalism, right?

I thought the basis of Capitalism was the private ownership of the means of production in a division of labor society.

Or the exploitation of those who have only their labour to sell by the owners of the means of production. If belligerent doesn’t like one class being pitted against another (although technically it’s not so much classes being pitted against each other as one class subjugating another) perhaps he should avoid praising the virtues of capitalism.[/quote]

Exploitation? It’s a system of voluntary exchange. You can sell your labor for whatever you want, and others will decide if they want to pay your price.

80

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No, (truly) free markets lead to the kind of effecient production systems and cheap goods and services that raise the standard of living. Over-regulation and taxation is largely responsible for outsourcing. If you pile costs onto me to do business here, I’ll take my jobs overseas to a friendlier enviroment.

“Truly” free? Please define what you mean by that.

Again, I’m not arguing that free markets will lead to cheaper goods and in some cases services. But as the goal is always an increase in wealth, you will inevitably find people who choose profit over morality/respect for human rights. This seems to become increasingly evident the larger the company becomes and the more money it makes.

Free markets are based on the concept of competition, and in a competitive environment you will always get people who are willing to “cheat” to get ahead (in this case cheat means take advantage of other people for personal gain).

Unfortunately this makes it nearly impossible for companies who wish to stay true to their moral convictions to compete. So, they eventually either follow suit, or go out of business/get bought out.

And if you really believe that companies like Nike outsource the manufacturing of their shoes to sweat shops in Asian countries because they are being taxed and not because they can pay the workers less than $1 a day for labor, you’re kidding yourself, though the absence of taxes probably doesn’t hurt either.

Is working for that $1 a day voluntary?

In many cases yes it is (sort of).

So, they need the jobs?

Of course they do, in many cases these people are literally starving and desperate. You’d be surprised what kinds of atrocities you’d be willing to put up with if you were desperate.

The companies could pay them more, but why do so when you can make more money by not doing so. Heck, if they actually cared about paying fair wages, they wouldn’t have moved their manufacturing plants out of the U.S in the first place and would pay American workers competitive wages.

If a company has gone into business to pay “fair wages,” I doubt it’ll be in business very long. And then noone is making a wage off that company. And, what’s so great about an American making a higher wage, if the gains are erased by more expensive goods? This all comes back to comparative advantage, though. But, I’m up too late, and too tired to go into this much more tonight. Take care.[/quote]

Exactly! Big businesses are not concerned with the rights of their workers, nor whether or not their practices are moral, because the bottom line is…well the “bottom line”.

A free market (or any capitalistic/monetary based system) is based on competition and in order for companies to “remain in business for very long”, as you yourself stated, they cannot afford to care about their workers or the ethics of their business practices.

That’s the point I’ve been trying to make. Free markets by their very nature are in direct opposition to human rights.