A Workforce Betrayed - Watching Greed Murder the Economy

[piasabird]

While hiring foreign laborers may help the bottom line, most corporations do not pass on that savings to the American Consumer. They just pocket the difference and claim it is foreign capital. Even banks are using foreign workers. Then even worse countries like China are increasing their margins by enforcing little or no pollution controls. The pollution is so thick in some Chinese cities a heavy fog of pollution rests permanently in the very location where China wants to hold the Olympic games. Then this pollution keeps floating on the breeze straight accross the pacific ocean toward California and Oregon.

Slave Labor, Heavy pollution, economic doom. Welcome to the future.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: IGBT
..with every new graduating mob of MBA's the race to the bottom accelerates. they won't stop till everything they can is off shore and you all work for minimum wage with no unions.

That is the inevitable result of the prevailing wisdom. It's quite revolting, really. A generation of middle-class gophers being given fancy degrees yet having no eye for the movement of history. Give us another world war and all those MBAs will be worthless, because Americans will be forced to swallow the consequences of a nation with a non-existent manufacturing base and outsourced technological, research, professional, and security sectors.

We are the Roman Empire and we will sell our national soul piece by piece. I can envision the day when the Continental US breaks into two or three regional nation-states and the Founding Fathers are but a desecrated legend.

..that's well on the way and in the works.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

What can be done? The US economy has been seriously undermined by offshoring. The damage might not be reparable. Possibly, the American market and living standards could be rescued by tariffs that offset the lower labor and compliance costs abroad.

Another alternative, suggested by Ralph Gomory, would be to tax US corporations on the basis of the percentage of their value added that occurs in the US. The greater the value added to a company?s product in America, the lower the tax rate on the profits.

Uhh... so the solution is for the gov't to get more money? Or is this solution wrapped in "helping" so we'll buy the argument for giving the gov't more money.


When are people going to learn that the answer to our problems is NOT more gov't and/or allowing the gov't to take more money. Sheesh

If you weren't such an ideological reactionary, you would recognize that the idea of taxation based on US value add is revenue neutral.

If everyone's taxed $10 today, and tomorrow companies with high US value add pay $15 and those with low US value pay $15, the net taxation is the same.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

What can be done? The US economy has been seriously undermined by offshoring. The damage might not be reparable. Possibly, the American market and living standards could be rescued by tariffs that offset the lower labor and compliance costs abroad.

Another alternative, suggested by Ralph Gomory, would be to tax US corporations on the basis of the percentage of their value added that occurs in the US. The greater the value added to a company?s product in America, the lower the tax rate on the profits.

Uhh... so the solution is for the gov't to get more money? Or is this solution wrapped in "helping" so we'll buy the argument for giving the gov't more money.


When are people going to learn that the answer to our problems is NOT more gov't and/or allowing the gov't to take more money. Sheesh

If you weren't such an ideological reactionary, you would recognize that the idea of taxation based on US value add is revenue neutral.

If everyone's taxed $10 today, and tomorrow companies with high US value add pay $15 and those with low US value pay $15, the net taxation is the same.

:laugh: OK...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Craig, here is the bottom line. Corporations are leaving America because the costs of doing business in America are too high. The myriad of regulations and red tape greatly increase the cost of doing business, and the penalty (taxation) for success is too great.

Here's a bottom line to your bottom line:

What I said is exactly right. First, we *want* some corporations leaving America because the costs of business are too high. Does the phrase 'race to the bottom' mean anything to you? If every single corporation finds you the cheapest nation in the world to do business in, you're getting screwed. You want to be a nation that it's a bit more expensive to do business in, so that the terms are good for you, not effectively slavery.

Second, as I said, the governments of the world would do a lot better to cooperate to prevent that race to the bottom as they compete for corporations.

It's the same idea as that when worker collectivism is outlawed, each worker can get exploited because they have no leverage, but collevtively, they can bargain.

Which is the same idea as competition in capitlalism, that companies competing cut out the fat and cause efficiency, but there's one big difference - there's a bottom for companies at 'making a profit', because no company would make a bid that it loses money on, while workers can be driven down to slave wages because they have to eat.

Your solutions all involve raising costs with convoluted labor laws, or raising taxes on companies and investors to subsidize other parts of the population. This is what all leftist policy involves...ALL OF IT. More regulation, more control, and a higher penalty on success. Your political philosophy contradicts any sensible policy that may keep jobs here and you are too blind to see it.

I've already handed out the irony of the week, unfortunately, but you can have theirony of the day award. Your policies result in the impoverishment of the society and the enrichment of the small ownership class at the society's expense - not higher productivity in the long term, but a backwards feudalism where the ownership class's rights are protected and the rest of society is pretty much screwed. You prevent a sensible policy and are too blind to see that.

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

What if you were "forced" to change your religion and adopt another religion? What if employers only want to hire people of a certain religion? Ditto for sexual orientation, political beliefs, diet, weight, smoking habits, etc. (Remember, under true capitalism private property rights prevail so it would be legal to discriminate against people for any reason no matter how irrational.)

This is a huge strawman. Such things would never happen in a free market because they would be punished severely. Capitalism is based on self interest, and any business that discriminates based on race/sex, etc would be clearly acting AGAINST their own interests. By discriminating against certain groups, they would be denying themselves able workers from those groups as well as thousands of potential customers from those groups. A corporation's first duty is profit. In order to succeed, a business must hire the most skilled people for the job regardless of their race/gender/sexual preference etc. If a manager is bigoted enough not to hire the best people based on these attributes, his company will be losing great assets to competitors. And refusing to serve an entire class of people based on trivial things like race or gender means losing a HUGE segment of the population (customers) to the competition. The beauty of capitalism is that it cuts across racial and religious divides, and boils down to satisfying public demand. To achieve this, a company must #1 Find the BEST people for the job, and #2: Sell to the largest audience as possible. Violating these rules based on racial or religious bigotry gives your competitors a huge advantage, and it means you won't be in business very long.

An excellent example of how the blind ideological right-wing 'free market' ideology makes an argument that 'sounds logical' but *contradicts the known facts greatly*.

You can't explain, within your pollyanna utopia above, how the US saw racism for over 300 years - first as slavery, and later as discriminatory laws. Let's take the last century before the Civil Rights bill. Why, didn't those businesses realize that by treating blacks with fairness, there was a better labor pool available and they could outcompete others? Didn't those restaurants who didn't serve blacks realize that by opening up a restaurant with equal treatment, they could outcompete the others? Didn't those states who denied admittance to colleges to blacks realize that by admitting blacks, they could get the best people in school and become more competitive against other states?

Your argument says in every case what 'should' have happened - and did not happen. In fact, those colleges had to be opened at the point of a gun, literally, against white mobs.

It took freedom riders being attacked, not your theory, to build the political capital to pass the civil rights bill, which needed federal force, not your theory, to fix the discrimination.

Your post is an excellent example of how you radical ideologues are oblivious to the facts, how you spout these textbook theories however much evidence is against them.

When a whole nation, Chile, was forced to adopt the ideology you spout, the Milton Friedman capitilasm where regulation, public ownership, public spending were all cut drastically to 'increase corporate opportunity', and the economy tanked - unemployment going from 3% to 20%, poverty going from 6% to 45% IIRC - the ideologues' response was that they had to do yet more of the capitalist ideology. Then the unemployment went to 30% a bit later. They had no clue, just ideology.

The thing that kept things from falling apart even more was that Pinochet refused one of their policies - he kept the copper industry nationalized, that provided enough money to prevent even more disaster. You run around proving the maxim that 'a little knowledge is dangerous', posting your ideology without regard to the facts, but too reckless to read and learn your errors.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i like how you didn't read the very next sentence after the one you bolded part of.

Uhh, actually I did read it. However, I am not naive enough to believe that if the gov't did either of these things that "the lower the tax rate" means lower than current tax rates.

considering the guy proposing it is a right winger, he most likely does mean lower than the current tax rates.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i like how you didn't read the very next sentence after the one you bolded part of.

Uhh, actually I did read it. However, I am not naive enough to believe that if the gov't did either of these things that "the lower the tax rate" means lower than current tax rates.

considering the guy proposing it is a right winger, he most likely does mean lower than the current tax rates.

...was...

Also, it wouldn't only be up to him. My comment was: f the gov't did either of these things So his intentions aren't what is being questioned, rather the gov't if this was chosen.

 

[GrGr]

The US is a capitalist nation without Capital. All the 'growth' over the last decade or so was based on Debt. The banking system and other major economic entities like Fannie and Freddie Mac are on the ropes and the government is drowning in debt. All while the currency is tanking and the economic leaders want to hasten its demise through hyperinflation. The current situation is an epic economic meltdown, yet people here tell themselves it is just a minor bump on the road. :roll:

 

[Capitalizt]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Here's a bottom line to your bottom line:

What I said is exactly right. First, we *want* some corporations leaving America because the costs of business are too high. Does the phrase 'race to the bottom' mean anything to you? If every single corporation finds you the cheapest nation in the world to do business in, you're getting screwed. You want to be a nation that it's a bit more expensive to do business in, so that the terms are good for you, not effectively slavery.

Craig, companies are going to continue to leave if you get your way. It is very easy these days to incorporate overseas and export good here. Why can't you accept this reality, and take a common sense approach? High regulation and taxation = higher cost of doing business. Low regulation and taxation = lower cost of doing business. Why not recognize this simple truth and advocate policies that will keep jobs HERE?

I said, the governments of the world would do a lot better to cooperate to prevent that race to the bottom as they compete for corporations.

It's the same idea as that when worker collectivism is outlawed, each worker can get exploited because they have no leverage, but collevtively, they can bargain.

World governments colluding to increase their power and control even more...GREAT! 😉

I've already handed out the irony of the week, unfortunately, but you can have theirony of the day award. Your policies result in the impoverishment of the society and the enrichment of the small ownership class at the society's expense - not higher productivity in the long term, but a backwards feudalism where the ownership class's rights are protected and the rest of society is pretty much screwed. You prevent a sensible policy and are too blind to see that.

The one minor problem being that THE PEOPLE you claim to care about are the ones who own the corporations these days. 65% of citizens in the US today own stock in their retirement plans and that number is growing. The companies you deride are what people depend on for a secure retirement. People have a vested interest in keeping corporate America strong, because as it succeeds, so do they. We live in a new age of ownership Craig. Everybody has a stake in the success of the corporate America. You seem to be stuck with a 1930's 'us vs them" mindset. FDR is dead. It's time to move on.

When a whole nation, Chile, was forced to adopt the ideology you spout, the Milton Friedman capitilasm where regulation, public ownership, public spending were all cut drastically to 'increase corporate opportunity', and the economy tanked - unemployment going from 3% to 20%, poverty going from 6% to 45% IIRC - the ideologues' response was that they had to do yet more of the capitalist ideology. Then the unemployment went to 30% a bit later. They had no clue, just ideology.

The thing that kept things from falling apart even more was that Pinochet refused one of their policies - he kept the copper industry nationalized, that provided enough money to prevent even more disaster. You run around proving the maxim that 'a little knowledge is dangerous', posting your ideology without regard to the facts, but too reckless to read and learn your errors.

You keep clinging to the Pinochet argument like a life raft, but this is a poor example. There are certain preconditions that must exist for a capitalist economy to thrive. A government must be in place that respects the individual rights of the people and embraces it's neighbors. Neither condition was present under the Pinochet regime. He was facing constant political unrest and a low-level upheaval. Even the most technically "free" economy can't survive with political leadership that oppresses its people and antagonizes its neighbors the way Pinochet did. Capitalism requires that people be allowed to live and share ideas freely...that they be able to act without fear of their government. The curfews, censorship, and violence towards the opposition we saw under the dictator can hardly be considered respectful of individual rights. An economy can not be conducive to free trade and the free exchange of ideas when people are being beheaded left and right for opposing their government. There are countless examples through history where prosperity has been ruined by political oppression and ineptitude, and Chile is at the top of the list.

You can't explain, within your pollyanna utopia above, how the US saw racism for over 300 years - first as slavery, and later as discriminatory laws. Let's take the last century before the Civil Rights bill. Why, didn't those businesses realize that by treating blacks with fairness, there was a better labor pool available and they could outcompete others? Didn't those restaurants who didn't serve blacks realize that by opening up a restaurant with equal treatment, they could outcompete the others? Didn't those states who denied admittance to colleges to blacks realize that by admitting blacks, they could get the best people in school and become more competitive against other states?

It took freedom riders being attacked, not your theory, to build the political capital to pass the civil rights bill, which needed federal force, not your theory, to fix the discrimination.

Yet again we have an example of political ineptitude. It was written into LAW that blacks were not fully human...not to be treated as human. It was ILLEGAL to serve and employ blacks because the LAW made it so. It was political ineptitude and cowardice that kept blacks oppressed so long. Those who recognized the truth were powerless to act in their own interests..were powerless to treat blacks as equals because the LAW made it so. You are correct in pointing out that we had to fight a bloody civil war and civil rights movement to progress as a society. And you may not have noticed, but the North won the civil war.. The North, who had greater respect for individuals and granted equal rights to blacks won that war. The North, who allowed blacks to fight alongside whites as equals...who harnessed their economic power in private industry...THEY won the war because they respected individual rights. The North came nearest to the colorblind mindset of a capitalist, and had at a HUGE advantage economically over the south because of it.

You are correct in pointing out it took freedom fighters and a violent civil rights movement to change the law.. But you must recognize this law was not compatible with capitalism in the first place. It was government policy that held blacks back...government policies that denied equal rights and equal treatment of all people. It was government policies that repressed individual freedom...Those policies are completely incompatible with the capitalist ideology.

 

[SigArms08]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Engineer
......

GDP per capita doesn't do shit for my paycheck and my ability to purchase.

Yes it most certainly does. Cost savings by firms that are able to outsource their labor to foreign countries for cheap is passed on to the consumer, i.e. you and me, in the form of cheaper products and services. This is Economics 101.

Yeah, we're just rolling in the savings nowadays. Cost of essential items like food, natural gas (heating one's home), fuel for vehicles, building materials like wood/steel/copper, etc have become incredibly affordable. College costs are way down, too. Fortunately, the dollar store goods and Best Buy electronics are affordable, so load up on the crap that you don't need.

What country do you live in, Evan Lieb? Or is this a fantasy land that you hint of? Outsourcing doesn't allow for drastically cheaper products, it allows for corporations to significantly increase their profit margins while staying competitive (disproportionate realization between profit retained for company vs savings passed to consumer).

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

companies are going to continue to leave if you get your way.

Good, the faster they get out of my country the better.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Originally posted by: Craig234
Here's a bottom line to your bottom line:

What I said is exactly right. First, we *want* some corporations leaving America because the costs of business are too high. Does the phrase 'race to the bottom' mean anything to you? If every single corporation finds you the cheapest nation in the world to do business in, you're getting screwed. You want to be a nation that it's a bit more expensive to do business in, so that the terms are good for you, not effectively slavery.

Craig, companies are going to continue to leave if you get your way.

That's what I want, for the reasons I stated: if you are the cheapest place to operate in the world for every company, you are getting *screwed*.

It is very easy these days to incorporate overseas and export good here. Why can't you accept this reality, and take a common sense approach? High regulation and taxation = higher cost of doing business. Low regulation and taxation = lower cost of doing business. Why not recognize this simple truth and advocate policies that will keep jobs HERE?

You seem to have wax in your ears (well, eyes), so I'll try putting the message on its bolded own line, and see if you can see it a little better, and not keep ignoring it.

Race to the bottom. Learn the phrase and stop ignoring it after I *repeatedly* point it out to you.

We'll use an example in our own nation. An imbalance of power that allows big companies to play one city off against another can lead not only to ridiculously generous offers to those companies - forgiveness of property taxes, allowing the stores to charge *and pocket* sales tax instead of paying it to the state, leaving the public paying those taxes *and the local businessmen unfairly competing by having to pay those extra taxes* which puts them out of business - but to those deals being reached corruptly at times.

I just watched David Cay Johnston explain that the purchasers of the Washington Senators paid $450 million for the team - and be given a $611 million public subsidy, so they were paid to take the team. That's abuse of wealth, and just the sort of thing your policies cause to happen beceause you are such a blind ideologue not to notice the facts. I've heard of a similar abuse by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen with the Seattle sports teams from a mutual personal friend - there's no excuse, it's just abuse of power.

*Caving in to the corporations' demands is not the answer*. There are limits to how much that makes sense. As I have said AND YOU IGNORED, what we need to to is for governments to band together not to be forced to do that, which impoverishes - screws - their publics and enriches the few.

*We want to lose some companies*. We want higher pay, better benefits from the companies, and to get that we'll need not to be the cheapest whore on the corner.

You lack the common sense to have any idea about that, and you instead are simply an ignorant cheerleader for the policies of the ultra wealthy.

I said, the governments of the world would do a lot better to cooperate to prevent that race to the bottom as they compete for corporations.

It's the same idea as that when worker collectivism is outlawed, each worker can get exploited because they have no leverage, but collevtively, they can bargain.

World governments colluding to increase their power and control even more...GREAT! 😉

Could you show a little more ignorance? Because I think you have hit the limits of physics, but am curious if you can somehow show even more.

I've already handed out the irony of the week, unfortunately, but you can have theirony of the day award. Your policies result in the impoverishment of the society and the enrichment of the small ownership class at the society's expense - not higher productivity in the long term, but a backwards feudalism where the ownership class's rights are protected and the rest of society is pretty much screwed. You prevent a sensible policy and are too blind to see that.

The one minor problem being that THE PEOPLE you claim to care about are the ones who own the corporations these days. 65% of citizens in the US today own stock in their retirement plans and that number is growing. The companies you deride are what people depend on for a secure retirement. People have a vested interest in keeping corporate America strong, because as it succeeds, so do they. We live in a new age of ownership Craig. Everybody has a stake in the success of the corporate America. You seem to be stuck with a 1930's 'us vs them" mindset. FDR is dead. It's time to move on.

Don't give my your lying statistics about how many people own tiny pebbles of the companies, give me the honest statistics about who owns HOW MUCH.

Of *course* we want strong corporations. That's a FAR CRY from the disastrous surrender to their domination over our society entirely you are pushing.

And you're such a liar you really need to clean up your act or we're done talking, when you talk about 'those corporations I deride so much'. I'm *for* and have never said otherwise strong and healthy, profitable corporations - it's the *abuses* that I have spoken against, and so you can shove your lies that pretend I'm trying to abolish corporations where they belong, and where they came from.

When a whole nation, Chile, was forced to adopt the ideology you spout, the Milton Friedman capitilasm where regulation, public ownership, public spending were all cut drastically to 'increase corporate opportunity', and the economy tanked - unemployment going from 3% to 20%, poverty going from 6% to 45% IIRC - the ideologues' response was that they had to do yet more of the capitalist ideology. Then the unemployment went to 30% a bit later. They had no clue, just ideology.

The thing that kept things from falling apart even more was that Pinochet refused one of their policies - he kept the copper industry nationalized, that provided enough money to prevent even more disaster. You run around proving the maxim that 'a little knowledge is dangerous', posting your ideology without regard to the facts, but too reckless to read and learn your errors.

You keep clinging to the Pinochet argument like a life raft

Translation: I keep trying to put a little factual information into your world of ignorant delusion, but you aren't interests in the truth

, but this is a poor example. There are certain preconditions that must exist for a capitalist economy to thrive. A government must be in place that respects the individual rights of the people and embraces it's neighbors. Neither condition was present under the Pinochet regime. He was facing constant political unrest and a low-level upheaval. Even the most technically "free" economy can't survive with political leadership that oppresses its people and antagonizes its neighbors the way Pinochet did. Capitalism requires that people be allowed to live and share ideas freely...that they be able to act without fear of their government.

They HAD that, it was called leftist politics and economics, and they were just fine under Allende. It was the people on YOUR side, the 'free market' ideologues under Milton Friedman, the right-wing powers led by Richard Nixon, who used force every step of the way to implement what they wanted, which was all about US corporate wealth - and which was largely achieved at such great cost to the people of Chile, and many other nations where the same thing happened (Chile itself was modelled on the harms to Indoensia).

You here defending it is like the defenders of Nazism who say that it was an imperfect implementation of Nazism because of all the hate, not understanding that the hate was a necesary central part of Nazism, just as the terrorism of Pinochet was an absolutely necessary part of the free-market economics, because those economics so completely screwed the people of Chile that the only way they would let the free-market reforms happen was when they were so terrorized not to interfere.

You try to say Pinochet's terrorism was a problem now, because it's politically correct and you're too fricking ignorant to have any clue about the history, while at the time, your ideological partners, the Chicago boys, said no such thing, and embraced Pinochet and CALLED FOR the economic 'shock doctrine' as being a needed part of the economic plan, and said all along how wonderfully it would work - not that it wouldn't because the violence was so high but that the violence would help.

The curfews, censorship, and violence towards the opposition we saw under the dictator can hardly be considered respectful of individual rights. An economy can not be conducive to free trade and the free exchange of ideas when people are being beheaded left and right for opposing their government. There are countless examples through history where prosperity has been ruined by political oppression and ineptitude, and Chile is at the top of the list.

You are NOT ONE MORE INCH better than someone who argues that the only problem with the Stalinist system was that he didn't kill enough people.

Seriously - that's constantly the right-wing response to their disasters, they were 'too nice'. A major war against people who just want freedom? We didn't attack Vietnam *enough*.

Problems with the economy now? The democrats kept Bush from getting even MORE tax borrowing done. The Chicago boys told Pinochet just that, he was 'too soft' on the public.

You're a damn monster made up evil and ignorance all the while having no idea you're doing anything wrong (perhaps), Capitalizt, though your dishonesty raises suspicions.

You can't explain, within your pollyanna utopia above, how the US saw racism for over 300 years - first as slavery, and later as discriminatory laws. Let's take the last century before the Civil Rights bill. Why, didn't those businesses realize that by treating blacks with fairness, there was a better labor pool available and they could outcompete others? Didn't those restaurants who didn't serve blacks realize that by opening up a restaurant with equal treatment, they could outcompete the others? Didn't those states who denied admittance to colleges to blacks realize that by admitting blacks, they could get the best people in school and become more competitive against other states?

It took freedom riders being attacked, not your theory, to build the political capital to pass the civil rights bill, which needed federal force, not your theory, to fix the discrimination.

Yet again we have an example of political ineptitude. It was written into LAW that blacks were not fully human...not to be treated as human. It was ILLEGAL to serve and employ blacks because the LAW made it so. It was political ineptitude and cowardice that kept blacks oppressed so long. Those who recognized the truth were powerless to act in their own interests..were powerless to treat blacks as equals because the LAW made it so. You are correct in pointing out that we had to fight a bloody civil war and civil rights movement to progress as a society. And you may not have noticed, but the North won the civil war.. The North, who had greater respect for individuals and granted equal rights to blacks won that war. The North, who allowed blacks to fight alongside whites as equals...who harnessed their economic power in private industry...THEY won the war because they respected individual rights. The North came nearest to the colorblind mindset of a capitalist, and had at a HUGE advantage economically over the south because of it.

You are correct in pointing out it took freedom fighters and a violent civil rights movement to change the law.. But you must recognize this law was not compatible with capitalism in the first place. It was government policy that held blacks back...government policies that denied equal rights and equal treatment of all people. It was government policies that repressed individual freedom...Those policies are completely incompatible with the capitalist ideology.

Try to read the following carefully so you hear at least one point.

Capitalism, like communism, is not the nice little words you follow - it's not 'from each according to their ability' and it's not 'racism won't happen because of greed'.

That's not how it works.

You need to consider how centuries of history betray your confused delusions, just as communists need to do the same, and pay attention to the facts.

*The government was not the cause of racism*. You didn't need ANY role of government for the restaurant owner to practive the bigotry common in the culture and refuse to serve blacks. I'll repeat that for you since you likely did not see it. The government needed no role for that to go on. To the extent the government had racism in the books, it was FOLLOWING the lead of the culture, not leading it. CAPITALISM OFFERED NO PROTECTION.

I'm really sick of talking to blind ideologues who try to say how the people starving in the streets where their policies are implemented 'aren't their fault' - capitalist or communist.

Now why don't you tell me how gay discrimination, whether killing them (many cultures), imprisoning them (as recently as 2003 legal in some states in the US), or denying them equal marital rights (in about 48 states in the US today) 'is not compatible with the capitalist system', how capitalism will protect form it. It won't, and it won't protect from any of the other harms your cute little parroting of the Little Green Book of Capitalism says it will (and which it hasn't) or many that it doesn't talk about.

Before FDR and the strengthening of the middle class, the problems were not problems to the 'capitalists'. Child labor? Free choice. Slums for workers? Don't like it, start your own railroad. No healthcare? No one owes you healthcare. 90% elder poverty? Family responsibility.

The history of the capitalist 'ideology', as opposed to the *balanced* capitalism liberals widely champion, is like the history of communism, a history of disaster and excuses.

It took people who said those were problems, and knew the government was the only way to fix them, to make the changes - and they did, and they worked, and the capitalist ideologues didn't learn a thing, but are still trying to destory a lot of those reforms, and ignoring many others (for example, what do you have to say about the government banning child labor? Your ideology says, get rid of those laws. Your ideology says, somehow it just won't happen. History says otherwise. You say nothing, probably).

 

[Craig234]

I'm going to respond specially to one sentence from Capitalizt, to show just how ignorant and deluded his posts are.

The North came nearest to the colorblind mindset of a capitalist, and had at a HUGE advantage economically over the south because of it.

First, there is *nothing in the capitalist ideology to protect from racism*. His opinion that the 'inefficiencies' of racism 'should' preclude its practice are about the same in persuasiveness as the communist ideology that those who can produce the most 'should' for the good of society. But since he wants free of the need of the government, he simply announces capitalism has the same protection, like a teen runaway rationalizing how the pimp will take care of her like her parents would. She wants to believe it, because she doesn't want to return to that *awful* opression she ran away from, any more than the *awful* opression of the Civil Rights Act should be recognized as needed.

Second, notice how he just makes up convenient facts to justify his ideology? He says, as a fact, that the North's 'lack of racism' is why it was so much more prosperous than the South. The perversions of his falsehoods are too numerous to summarize briefly. The most literal correction is to note how that is NOT why the North was more prosperous; indeed, the South was much more prosperous because of slavery than it would have been without it. The South was almost literally built on the backs of the slaves.

The North was prosperous for all kinds of other reasons, and they did not have the same needs for slave labor. The economies were different.

But the perversion gets heavy when you note that his false argument sweeps under the rug a central flaw of 'pure capitalism' - the fact that there is no floor for cheap labor that benefits productivity. When workers are paid just enough to funtion (food, water, dirt to sleep on), and not one cent more in benefits than is profitable (a band-aid gives you an infection-free worker, but a more serious injury, forget it, they're disposable), profit is maximized. It's an ugly fact - one that slavery screams loudly - that he tries to distort.

And then we need to note that the North was *far* from 'colorblind', not anywhere hear his ridiculous ideal of the 'capitalist'. Indeed, to win the presidency, Abraham Lincoln had to repeatedly say things to reassure his racist *Northern* audiences that he was hardly in favor of black equality, for example:

I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races (applause); that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people...

And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must remain the position of superior and inferior, and as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
Abraham Lincoln, Speech in Illinois, ~1858

So anyway, there's a taste of the terrible arguing of Capitalizt. Wrong on the facts, wrong in the concusions, and just inventing facts where it helps his ideology win the point.

Further, a failure on his part to acknowledge the important role government had to play in changing not only the law but the culture of racism, in his later comments on civil rights.

A more accurate discussion of the topic would say that capitalism *encouraged* and *rewarded* slavery, insofar as that was a way to get cheap labor and high profits. Capitalizt has some little fuzzy version where the people's prosperity is a priority, but that's not in the doctrine, other than Capitalizt dishonestly trying to claim that they're one and the same, as if there would never be slavery, because the slave owners would make more profit by having a nice middle class black workforce.

A more accurate discussion would point out the limitations of capitalism - its important role in productivity *when well-regulated*. Capitalism has to be forced to pay its share of taxes, forced to treat workers well, forced not to excessively pollute and dominate our political system, because those things give us a strong society in which capitalists can make profits, instead of the short-term pressures making them *harm society, including their own longer term opportunities*.

Example: if an industry is allowed to pollute, then most companies might say 'polluting is a bad idea, and shoudn't be done', but if a competitor can pollute and cut costs 20%, they will beat the competition, so there is a 'race to the bottom' where companies are forced to pollute to compete. The solution - outside of Capitalizt's delusional understanding - is for voters to elect people who will regulate the pollution and require companies to pay the costs (or restrict or ban it when needed), and most companies will thank them.

That's not 'anti-business', it's 'anti-free market ideology' which has the result of the pollution happening big time.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Could you please tell us a little more about the "9/11 Truth Movement" why it's so kooky? What do the "Truthers" believe happened? I can't say I've paid much attention to the issue. I will say that I don't trust our government at all and that I'm open to the possibility that the government may have played some sort of a role or that it isn't reporting the whole story for some reason.

It's a movement that believes that persons within the U.S. gov't conspired to kill 3K citizens on 9/11, and executed it flawlessly without leaving a shred of evidence behind. It's kooky beyond comprehension.

The article was intended as a newspaper op-ed and not for an academic journal just as our posts in these forums are intended as informal discussion and not as formal academic debate.

It's a poor op-ed by any reasonable standard. And 20 minutes of research isn't nearly enough for an academic journal anyway, so that point is moot.

I think, implicit in those kinds of op-eds is the message, "This is what is happening based on my research into and knowledge of these subjects, if you're interested, you can do your own research to verify all of this and if you are rational this is what you will conclude." Also, a writer may presume that anyone reading his newspaper op-ed (and thus the newspaper) has already read a myriad number of news reports over the years and that his op-ed is not intended to report research results but merely to summarize that mass of information and to make it coherent.

I can't speak for Mr. Roberts, but I, for one, certainly don't feel like engaging in research and tracking down old sources and the hundreds of news reports I've read over the years to make a point in a throwaway discussion forum post to people who are probably already set in their views anyway. I could respond to your posts in the other threads and and we could debate how the BLS calculates the unemployment numbers based on what they've posted at their website, etc., but I just post here for fun and have no interest in making a career or serious hobby out of it.

Then you should have a disclaimer in your sig that reads "I just post here for fun and have no interest in a having a detailed, serious discussion". This is essentially what you have just said.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Cairoswordsman
Yeah, we're just rolling in the savings nowadays. Cost of essential items like food, natural gas (heating one's home), fuel for vehicles, building materials like wood/steel/copper, etc have become incredibly affordable. College costs are way down, too. Fortunately, the dollar store goods and Best Buy electronics are affordable, so load up on the crap that you don't need.

Nothing like playing up current recessionary conditions to start off an already poorly thought out post.

What country do you live in, Evan Lieb? Or is this a fantasy land that you hint of? Outsourcing doesn't allow for drastically cheaper products, it allows for corporations to significantly increase their profit margins while staying competitive (disproportionate realization between profit retained for company vs savings passed to consumer).

Yes, outsourcing allows for cheaper products, because cheaper foreign labor allows U.S. firms to cuts costs, and if that firm wants to capture market and mind share, they will pass that savings onto the consumer (us) in the form of lower product prices, enabling them to increase output. Look up the Bertrand model of price competition if you're actually interested in a real microeconomic debate.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I sounded the alarm years ago.

Why all of a sudden do people listen to this Craig Roberts guy?

Barnes & Noble AND Amazon were sold out of your book, so we had to go elsewhere to get the info.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I sounded the alarm years ago.

Why all of a sudden do people listen to this Craig Roberts guy?

Barnes & Noble AND Amazon were sold out of your book, so we had to go elsewhere to get the info.

Books are the past.

 

[Capitalizt]

Craig, the problem of government subsidizing rich people and corporations is a problem of socialism...not capitalism. You continue to blame the market for the mistakes and foolish actions of government. I have seen this is dozens of your posts and don't understand why you keep doing it.

And this whole "race to the bottom" argument is pure nonsense. It isn't a race to the bottom...It's a race to the TOP. The country that provides the most attractive environment to business will end up being the most productive country on the planet...It will be creating trillions in new wealth and have a rising tide of prosperity for all of its citizens. There will be no "race to the bottom" for wages as long as there is a healthy and competitive environment. With low unemployment, people become valuable commodities and companies must compete for labor on the marketplace...paying high wages to attract good talent. You also forget that people ARE the corporations Craig. The blood, sweat, & tears of millions of Americans are what make up GM, GE, Dell, AT&T, etc. Your problem is that you tend to view everything through the prism of class...and this socialist mindset leads you to view companies "the rich" as some sort of alien entity...distant and apart from the rest of humanity...You believe they are a dangerous beast to be tamed and controlled, rather than embraced and encouraged. The anti-corporate philosophy is an anti-HUMAN philosphy. This is why all the policies you advocate are so wildly foolish and harmful. With your anti-market mantra, I can't believe that you've actually managed to find gainful employment in the real world...unless you hold a position at a university or some place disconnected with most economic realities. There can be no other reason for such economic ignorance on your part. How you could live in the real world and cling to policy ideas that are proven failures is beyond me..

GG though. 😉

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Craig, the problem of government subsidizing rich people and corporations is a problem of socialism...not capitalism. You continue to blame the market for the mistakes and foolish actions of government. I have seen this is dozens of your posts and don't understand why you keep doing it.

And this whole "race to the bottom" argument is pure nonsense. It isn't a race to the bottom...It's a race to the TOP. The country that provides the most attractive environment to business will end up being the most productive country on the planet...It will be creating trillions in new wealth and have a rising tide of prosperity for all of its citizens. There will be no "race to the bottom" for wages as long as there is a healthy and competitive environment. With low unemployment, people become valuable commodities and companies must compete for labor on the marketplace...paying high wages to attract good talent. You also forget that people ARE the corporations Craig. The blood, sweat, & tears of millions of Americans are what make up GM, GE, Dell, AT&T, etc. Your problem is that you tend to view everything through the prism of class...and this socialist mindset leads you to view companies "the rich" as some sort of alien entity...distant and apart from the rest of humanity...You believe they are a dangerous beast to be tamed and controlled, rather than embraced and encouraged. The anti-corporate philosophy is an anti-HUMAN philosphy. This is why all the policies you advocate are so wildly foolish and harmful. With your anti-market mantra, I can't believe that you've actually managed to find gainful employment in the real world...unless you hold a position at a university or some place disconnected with most economic realities. There can be no other reason for such economic ignorance on your part. How you could live in the real world and cling to policy ideas that are proven failures is beyond me..

GG though. 😉

You seem to be convinced however that the market will take care of itself if we just left it alone.

That has been proven wrong time and time again. The fact is that GREED is the prime motivator here, and greedy individuals, those same altruistic go-getters that you've elevated to supreme status end up crushing the PEOPLE that make up their corporation if left to their own devices.

Enron is a prime example, you think the handful at the top cared about the thousands of employees whose financial lives were destroyed. The answer is no.

Does Walmart care about it's employees welfare of the welfare of those employed in their slave factories in Asia. Well they don't, not even a little. In fact, because Walmart refuses to pay a decent or provide a decent healthcare plan, thousands of their employees across the country are forced to draw government assistance to make ends meet. So in fact, we as taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart's horrid labor practices.

Do you think Chiquita Banana cares about paying off terrorist groups to protect their banana interests in South America, well they don't.

All in the name of the bottom line, nothing else matters.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: Cairoswordsman

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Engineer
......

GDP per capita doesn't do shit for my paycheck and my ability to purchase.

Yes it most certainly does. Cost savings by firms that are able to outsource their labor to foreign countries for cheap is passed on to the consumer, i.e. you and me, in the form of cheaper products and services. This is Economics 101.

Yeah, we're just rolling in the savings nowadays. Cost of essential items like food, natural gas (heating one's home), fuel for vehicles, building materials like wood/steel/copper, etc have become incredibly affordable. College costs are way down, too. Fortunately, the dollar store goods and Best Buy electronics are affordable, so load up on the crap that you don't need.

What country do you live in, Evan Lieb? Or is this a fantasy land that you hint of? Outsourcing doesn't allow for drastically cheaper products, it allows for corporations to significantly increase their profit margins while staying competitive (disproportionate realization between profit retained for company vs savings passed to consumer).

Well, the major reason why prices are increasing has nothing to do with outsourcing but rather with the price of oil. Also, outsourcing was not responsible for the current mortgage crisis.

In the past, people kept saying that they wouldn't mind paying a little more for food etc if companies stopped outsourcing and only hired American workers. Now we're seeing prices rise (mainly because of oil and the lower dollar) and many people are feeling the pain.

I have always felt that many people didn't really appreciate the benefits of lower prices for products in their anti-out-sourcing and anti-immigrant opinions.

 

[Capitalizt]

ayabe, you are also spouting nonsense. The average wage at Wal-Mart is $10 an hour, well above minimum wage. They don't do this out of the kindness of their hearts...true. They do it because they've determined it is the optimum wage to keep and retain employees. $10 an hour may not be enough to raise a family of 4, but it is after all unskilled labor. There are millions of people capable of bringing carts in from the lot or bagging groceries. The do add value to the company, but certainly not much more than $10/hr.

And to paint every company with the criminal brush simply because places like Enron exist is very dishonest. The rule of law is very important in any capitalist economy...and criminals who commit fraud, theft, and violence must be punished severely. There is a big difference between making money honestly and making it through deception and fraud.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY


...was...

Also, it wouldn't only be up to him. My comment was: f the gov't did either of these things So his intentions aren't what is being questioned, rather the gov't if this was chosen.

so a protectionist mantra isn't a right wing thing? pat buchanan would be surprised to hear that.


anyway, when you go outside of discussing the article to just assuming things that would happen all you're doing is injecting a false argument into the discussion.

 

[razor2025]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
And to paint every company with the criminal brush simply because places like Enron exist is very dishonest. The rule of law is very important in any capitalist economy...and criminals who commit fraud, theft, and violence must be punished severely. There is a big difference between making money honestly and making it through deception and fraud.

Wait, so you're advocating government intervention (through enforcement of laws)? Isn't that against your pure "free-market" ideology? Pure capitalism care nothing about the rule of law or morals. Hearing "making money honestly" is very comical.

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
There will be no "race to the bottom" for wages as long as there is a healthy and competitive environment. With low unemployment, people become valuable commodities and companies must compete for labor on the marketplace...paying high wages to attract good talent. The anti-corporate philosophy is an anti-HUMAN philosphy.

Healthy and competitive environment, really? Healthy for whom? Because an environment that pays no respect to (excuse the pun) environmental safety or health of its labor, is VERY HEALTHY for the corporations, and not the labor. Why would corporations pay for high wage in low unemployment are, when they can pay less in a high unemployment area? How much talent do you REALLY need to hold down your average factory job?

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
You also forget that people ARE the corporations Craig. The blood, sweat, & tears of millions of Americans are what make up GM, GE, Dell, AT&T, etc. Your problem is that you tend to view everything through the prism of class...and this socialist mindset leads you to view companies "the rich" as some sort of alien entity...distant and apart from the rest of humanity...You believe they are a dangerous beast to be tamed and controlled, rather than embraced and encouraged.

Corporations are artificial legal entities. Nothing more, nothing less. They are dangerous beast that must be tamed and controlled, because, theoretically, they're motivated by single thing, profit. We use them because that's the best we can do right now. They care nothing for the harms they cause in pursuit for further profit. We seem fine examples of this every day. The "rich" ARE becoming more distant and apart from rest of humanity. Have you seen the disparity lately? The inane shit they spout off? Their ability to skirt the law? Some of them make Marie Antoinette look modest by comparison.

The rich are controlling the corporations, not the laborers. The rich fills the rank of boardroom and executives, who ultimately makes the decision, and not the investors. The shares owned by common citizens hardly have any voice, when their shares are also controlled and managed by pension managers, who are very much in ties with the rich (or are rich themselves). Why do you think corporations after corporations make the decision to kill long-term sustainability for short-term profitability? It's because the top guys wants to make their quick buck, and let the bottom "peons" holding the bill.

 

[razor2025]

Capitalism and corporations are nothing but tools. Tools that people can use. Like with any tools, we can use it incorrectly and hurt ourselves, or use it correctly and make a better tomorrow. There are plenty of examples of the tool being used incorrectly, Enron/Tyco/WorldCom. There are also instances where tools are used correctly, Credit Co-Ops/ Costco / Trader Joe. Make no mistake about it, the "tool" reflects the very nature of people. We can be compassionate moderate person, or evil despicable lunatic. Capitalizt, you need to understand that "free-market" and corporations are not the ultimate/best thing that has happened to human kind.

Also, another reminder. Corporations can live infinitely. People can't.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
ayabe, you are also spouting nonsense. The average wage at Wal-Mart is $10 an hour, well above minimum wage. They don't do this out of the kindness of their hearts...true. They do it because they've determined it is the optimum wage to keep and retain employees. $10 an hour may not be enough to raise a family of 4, but it is after all unskilled labor. There are millions of people capable of bringing carts in from the lot or bagging groceries. The do add value to the company, but certainly not much more than $10/hr.

And to paint every company with the criminal brush simply because places like Enron exist is very dishonest. The rule of law is very important in any capitalist economy...and criminals who commit fraud, theft, and violence must be punished severely. There is a big difference between making money honestly and making it through deception and fraud.

I would encourage you to do some research on Walmart and their dubious practice of actively encouraging employees to seek welfare in lieu of affordable healthcare or installing cameras to spy on employees suspected of trying to unionize.

Text

Here are some facts presented in the documentary about Walmart called The High Cost of Low Price.

These are not isolated incidents, you can read about corporate avarice just about everyday in some newspaper.