[quote]ephrem wrote:
…the workers’ misery…
[/quote]
Please show me the miserable workers in China you are referring to.
I can show you miserable people that have no work at all.
…nah, i’ll concede this discussion if you don’t mind. You’re right, it’s all just talk and no action, so what’s the point?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
There is no comparison between a minimal income worker in the USA and one in China…
And yet everyone tries to compare them.
Soon enough poor people in the US will know what it is like to be poor in China and soon poor people in China will be driving SUVs and watching big screen TVs like the poor do here in the US.
And the really sad thing is people in the US will blame capitalism its failures and in China they will praise communism for its successes – and they will both be wrong.
…i’m not following; you veered offtopic somehow…
Not really, he is quite on the topic of how the masses are brainwashed by the manipulation of language.
Like slavery that is called freedom, or in your case calling freedom and relative prosperity slavery.
…like you calling paying your workers the absolute minimum for ridiculous hours without a decent chance of your workers bettering themselves, helping them?
[/quote]
What you think about those jobs is really quite irrelevant.
THEY CHOOSE IT OVER EVERY OTHER alternative whenever they possibly can.
Apparently those jobs are still better than subsistence agriculture.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Does this post contain a message?
If so, send me the decoder ring.
Sure. The argument that capital accumulation led do the end of slavery is silly.
The argument that capital accumulation would lead to the end of slavery if left alone is ideology over history.
The argument that capital accumulation led to a decrease in unskilled laborers in the US (or the complete removal of them) ignores wages.
Your random comment about kathy lee (sp?) is a complete tangent, but also seemed to imply that slavery doesn’t exist anymore…which is wrong.
the idea that the end of slavery came about because of libertarianism is quite silly.
l.
o.
l.
[/quote]
As I said, an impenetrable fortress of economic and historic ignorance.
Venceremos comrade, and dont let the historic facts destroy your illusions.
If you ever have the time study the Scottish philosophers and, Lord Acton, Montesqueue and maybe some day you will understand where todays ideas actually come from.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…nah, i’ll concede this discussion if you don’t mind. You’re right, it’s all just talk and no action, so what’s the point?[/quote]
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:They immediately moved to the cities when the word spread that they could find work there so those conditions were better than what they had at home.
You’ve got to work somehow. If the choice is between no work and work at $0.40 a week, you take the latter. That doesn’t it’s not awful.
Capitalists provided work for women, children and freed or fled slaves because contrary to what most people believe capitalist do not care about race, age or gender but about profit.
Nobody had to force them to do anything when it simply was good business.
Haha, the capitalists appropriate everything, leaving no alternative for anyone seeking a job, and you say “Hey, they didn’t force them!” What classic Libertarian logic.
[/quote]
And one for you:
[quote]orion wrote:
If you ever have the time study the Scottish philosophers and, Lord Acton, Montesqueue and maybe some day you will understand where todays ideas actually come from.
[/quote]
Man, I’m just so ignorant! Obviously capital accumulation has had so much to do with it!
I like how you first claim primary source documents “don’t matter” then claim I’m ignorant of history. Classic stuff. Seriously.
[quote]orion wrote:
[/quote]
Oh man. There’s nothing more ignorant than “save the world” college students who can’t even entertain the notion of unintended consequences. Specifically, I’m thinking of that last comment about children going into prostitution after losing their jobs because of child labor protests. Great work! Do these students imagine these folks are going to be able to go next door and get a job selling movie tickets, burgers, or overpriced coffee to supplement the allowance papa already gives them?
[quote]orion wrote:Well yes, those conditions are quite appalling.
They are just better than before, due to capitalism.[/quote]
Ha. In over 100 years, as long as people are still doing stuff, it can scarce help but get a little better.
That’s the bare minimum that you can ask from people continually refining things. Sorry, but “Hey look! Things are better than they were 100 years ago!” is not good enough for me.
Like the fact that many workers ended up OWING MONEY to the munificent corporations which employed them? The fact that many companies were frequently months behind in paying wages? The fact that during the late 1800s there was a depression approximately every 5 to 7 years?
I guess the fact that Rockefeller (for instance) ended up being the richest human in history was just a nice side effect, eh? Ah, libertarianism.
AAHHAHAHAHA! Yes, I’m sure the Heritage Foundation does have those numbers. Haha!
That’s right, unless you care to dispute the mountains of reports we have about ruthless wage cuts. Unless you wish to find some other cause for the rapid accumulation of capital, other than foregone consumption.
And yet there were fewer economic rebellions. Hmmm…
They were “dirt cheap,” yet workers still couldn’t afford them? Interesting.
Except this is at odds with the desire to pay low wages. It is at odds with records of countless recessions/depressions induced by overproduction. I should give you credit: you have hit upon one of the most fundamental contradictions in capitalism, the tension between the desire for higher profits and the need for increased consumption to sustain production.
Sometimes it does and sometimes it does not. We could talk for days about your bullet point.
Since when is contradiction by 200 years of theory or history a strike against a proposition for you? Incidentally, that it is contradicted by liberal economic theory, past being meaningless, actually convinces me further of its truth.
They need to compete? What for? There are always unemployed. What for? Further improvements in production make work less and less skilled.
It is a rare instance when there such a shortage of labor that capitalists are forced to be competitive (though this does apply less in more skilled positions).
I suppose millionaires and billionaires are just thousands and thousands of times more productive than the workers they employ? Otherwise, in the absence of this superhuman productivity, the conclusion that they appropriate the produce of others’ labor is inescapable. The inequality in productivity that would be necessary to justify the economic inequality we see among workers simply does not exist.
That is SOOOO 17th century. They’re much more sophisticated today.
Is it Libertarian or Lib-FUCKOFF-ian. I always get confused.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Libertarianism and pragmatism do not mix.
Either you are for aggression or you are against aggression. Make your choice and be done with it.[/quote]
Right so what if I am happy with aggression in some instances but I think many of the ‘results’ that lead from the axiom of non-aggression are good?
Like low taxes. Social freedoms etc. I think I’ll call myself a realist libertarian.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
This is a nice theory, but it never works out unless the country in question has another country or few to exploit (in which case, it still doesn’t work out if you look at the whole equation). Why is that? Sure they need labor, but you neglect to mention that the worker needs a job so he can eat. He doesn’t have nearly the resources that the capital owner does, and I think it’s dishonest to deny the fact that this gives the owner a huge advantage at the bargaining table. That’s why there are unions in the first place, because negotiation isn’t conducted on equal footing.
[/quote]
You know the difference in bargaining power is one choice and societal pressure. And you know why? Because idiots are spend happy and consumerist. They are happy to spend 15x their income on a home and pay for it via a loan. Thus they need a job.
If there was a change in attitudes businesses wouldn’t be able to push around workers; if people were a little more self-sufficient rather than relying upon the government. For instance I own my 3 bedroom home freehold. I have 100k in the bank and about the same amount in other assets. I also have a 3 month supply of food for 4 people.
My yearly expenses are currently 12k. I can survive for years even if I lose my job and my wife loses hers.
I have plenty of bargaining power. And I extend my bargaining power to my children. So now they can get a better job, education and wage. If they in turn are conservative then their children will be even better off. This is how within a few generations a family can go from poverty to riches. Which is why plenty of Asians have come to the US and within a couple of generations have started to dominate.
This is why conservative values are important. Why family is important. Why marriage is important. Why being fiscally conservative is important. Why education is important. Why the local community is important. These are the institutes that give us freedom.
Of course the government doesn’t want people to be self-sufficient. Then the people wouldn’t need the government as much. Look at the poverty trap of the inner city. Despite all the extra funding and support they struggle to rise out of poverty more than the poor redneck farmboy types. Because the culture doesn’t respect any of the institutes I listed.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I suppose millionaires and billionaires are just thousands and thousands of times more productive than the workers they employ? Otherwise, in the absence of this superhuman productivity, the conclusion that they appropriate the produce of others’ labor is inescapable. [/quote]
A few points I would like to make:
Yes some people game the system. People have been scamming other people since the dawn of time. If you have a method to reduce it without hurting the innocent let me know.
Secondly yes plenty of millionaires and billionaires ARE thousands and thousands of times more productive than the workers they employ.
Look if I know Steve wants a wall built and is happy to pay $1,000 for it and I also know Mike is out of work and would happily build it for $500 and I introduce them to each other (and take the $500 fee as difference) then I have increased productivity. Mike would have been doing nothing and Steve wouldn’t have his wall.
Now lets pretend I can set up 100 of these connections with different people. Wow I’ve made $50,000 for little effort. Perhaps I don’t deserve the $50k. However I HAVE INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY BY A HEAP. They all would have been worse off if I hadn’t introduced them.
Likewise in the software world it isn’t uncommon for a piece of software written by a small team to be wanted by a million customers. Now if each customer pays $10 and there are 5 people in the team then each member gets 2 million $$.
You seem to equate productivity with raw goods produced. Why?
[quote]phaethon wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Libertarianism and pragmatism do not mix.
Either you are for aggression or you are against aggression. Make your choice and be done with it.
Right so what if I am happy with aggression in some instances but I think many of the ‘results’ that lead from the axiom of non-aggression are good?
Like low taxes. Social freedoms etc. I think I’ll call myself a realist libertarian.[/quote]
So you are for a little bit of aggression. Ya, good luck with that.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I suppose millionaires and billionaires are just thousands and thousands of times more productive than the workers they employ? Otherwise, in the absence of this superhuman productivity, the conclusion that they appropriate the produce of others’ labor is inescapable.
A few points I would like to make:
Yes some people game the system. People have been scamming other people since the dawn of time. If you have a method to reduce it without hurting the innocent let me know.
Secondly yes plenty of millionaires and billionaires ARE thousands and thousands of times more productive than the workers they employ.
Look if I know Steve wants a wall built and is happy to pay $1,000 for it and I also know Mike is out of work and would happily build it for $500 and I introduce them to each other (and take the $500 fee as difference) then I have increased productivity. Mike would have been doing nothing and Steve wouldn’t have his wall.
Now lets pretend I can set up 100 of these connections with different people. Wow I’ve made $50,000 for little effort. Perhaps I don’t deserve the $50k. However I HAVE INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY BY A HEAP. They all would have been worse off if I hadn’t introduced them.
Likewise in the software world it isn’t uncommon for a piece of software written by a small team to be wanted by a million customers. Now if each customer pays $10 and there are 5 people in the team then each member gets 2 million $$.
You seem to equate productivity with raw goods produced. Why?[/quote]
Because he is not quite over the labor theory of value.
Meaning he thinks that a products “value” is determined by the work someone put into.
Of course it all breaks down when it comes to software, or music, or literature because in these cases it is blatantly obvious.
Im suprised no one mentioned a response to orion naming the scottish philosophers. Scotland was a kingdom of servitude to the british crown, with relatively few lapses, but was the predominant focal point for the Enlightenment. This folks, is where alot of libertarian ideals came out of. Coincidentaly, prior to the enlightenment you had servitude and social and cultural stagnation, ie the middle ages.
Furthermore, directly following the enlightenment what do you have? Oh, the Industrial Revolution, built on the philosophies from the enlightenment and the most productive period in human history, let alone increasing per capta wealth by comparison.
So someone wants to argue socialism, if you really want I can give you economic research papers of my own that showed socialist, state run economies wallowing in misery until they decided to undertake some capitalist deregulation. Vietnam predominatly comes to mind. Furthermore, on a microeconomic scale look at the increase in per capita gdp from telecoms being imported to Africa.
Anyone that follows economics sees that this is HUGE. Telecoms companies from europe and asia have predominatley set up shop, oh boy for profit. As a result, other innovators, generally a lady who buys a cellphone, charges a certain amount for the rest of the people in her village to make calls, pays it off and profits. Then she invests in other business lines, opening up shops for her husbands agri-goods. See where im going. The grameen bank of bangladesh is another example of how market operates efficiently. I can go on and on.
I do not believe however that libertarians are completley against agression. As i see it from an objectivist veiwpoint violence is warranted when your life is in danger. As your life is the higheest priority. Thus, extrapolated to the government being formed out of a social contract, the government has the responsibility to meet foreign force with force, and domestic force with force (though is a very minor occurance) and tries predominatley civil suits that arrive over contract disputes.
Alot of Americans cannot see the virtue in this because you were raised on a mixed-economy ever increasing welfare state unless you were born pre fdr. People like to talk about “oh so and so made 5 cents a day back then”, without giving any thought to purchasing power parity. Your 100k a year salary wont mean jack shit at this rate.
Going by the princepal of unit economy a division of labor capitalist society is most productive and increases welfare for all, ie the trader princepal. If you think otherwise you must be a jack of all trades multi tasking superhero right?
[quote]666Rich wrote:
Im suprised no one mentioned a response to orion naming the scottish philosophers. Scotland was a kingdom of servitude to the british crown, with relatively few lapses, but was the predominant focal point for the Enlightenment. This folks, is where alot of libertarian ideals came out of. Coincidentaly, prior to the enlightenment you had servitude and social and cultural stagnation, ie the middle ages. Furthermore, directly following the enlightenment what do you have? Oh, the Industrial Revolution, built on the philosophies from the enlightenment and the most productive period in human history, let alone increasing per capta wealth by comparison.
So someone wants to argue socialism, if you really want I can give you economic research papers of my own that showed socialist, state run economies wallowing in misery until they decided to undertake some capitalist deregulation. Vietnam predominatly comes to mind. Furthermore, on a microeconomic scale look at the increase in per capita gdp from telecoms being imported to Africa. Anyone that follows economics sees that this is HUGE. Telecoms companies from europe and asia have predominatley set up shop, oh boy for profit. As a result, other innovators, generally a lady who buys a cellphone, charges a certain amount for the rest of the people in her village to make calls, pays it off and profits. Then she invests in other business lines, opening up shops for her husbands agri-goods. See where im going. The grameen bank of bangladesh is another example of how market operates efficiently. I can go on and on.
I do not believe however that libertarians are completley against agression. As i see it from an objectivist veiwpoint violence is warranted when your life is in danger. As your life is the higheest priority. Thus, extrapolated to the government being formed out of a social contract, the government has the responsibility to meet foreign force with force, and domestic force with force (though is a very minor occurance) and tries predominatley civil suits that arrive over contract disputes.
Alot of Americans cannot see the virtue in this because you were raised on a mixed-economy ever increasing welfare state unless you were born pre fdr. People like to talk about “oh so and so made 5 cents a day back then”, without giving any thought to purchasing power parity. Your 100k a year salary wont mean jack shit at this rate.
Going by the princepal of unit economy a division of labor capitalist society is most productive and increases welfare for all, ie the trader princepal. If you think otherwise you must be a jack of all trades multi tasking superhero right?[/quote]
Even then division of labor would still make sense.
Comparative advantage and such.