Dubai's free market capitalism

[Shogun]

And what eveidence do you have that if not for a minimum wage law you're boss would try to pay you less?




are you fucking KIDDING ME, capitalist? MY evidence is the constant, eternal struggle to PAY LOWER WAGES via outsourcing and fighting a state minimum wage by the very people who refuse to pay any more than they are legally required to. If there were no min wage then YOU would be insisting that the value of labor is set by the scarcity of workers despite the meager, Calcutta-like results that would manifest. WOW. You are funny when you say dumb shit out of desperation, BE$N.


I never said that about you in the first place. I said it is your contention that the purpose of business is to provide for your standard of living. Is that accurate or not?

The purpose of business is to move funds along commercial paths. Even commies "do business". It's how we allow this movement to HINDER or HELP the culture in which it manifests that matters. Don't like it? Send me a post card from Mexico.



Further I have contended that I want the same thing you want. For people to have the best SOL they can. I simply contend that the isolationist policies you propose won't accomplish that because you can't see past the nose on your face as to what would happen in practice if they were actually implemented.

Bullshit. YOU only want those who can afford it to have the best SOL they can achieve. Being a humanitarian, I'd rather ALL of us enjoy a range of SOL set by a minimum standard even if that means squeezing the top end of the spectrum and protecting our entire scope of employment. Isolationism does work. The Greatest Generation of America knew it. YOUR problem is that you seem to think that America is so fucking dependant on multi-national business that it could never create it's own ventures internally to replace those who want to cry foul when you find that you can't, in fact, eat your fucking import. Alas, You are free to find another club if this one doesn't benefit you the way you think you deserve.




Would you stop posting giberish and nonsense. We didn't pretend anything. The American consumer was offered a choice and they chose. That's how people buy things. If they can get the same quality or better and keep more of their money what the fuck do you think they're going to do? What fucking help are you to them when you insist that a) they can not buy that foreign car for less and must pay the higher price to protect someone elses who isn't able to compete in the first place? You'll have to excuse me if I don't worship at your alter because you forced me to pay more than what I would have if we competed on a global level. This is basic fucking math Shogun. YOU FORCED ME TO SPEND MORE THAN YOU SIT THERE AND TRY TO SPIN SOME SHIT ABOUT HOW YOU'RE RAISING MY SOL.

yea, so sayeth the proprietor of the Company Store. And, by lowballing American labor into the SOL of a mexican pauper I GUESS YOU'LL HAVE TO FORGIVE ME FOR TELLING YOU THE SAME THING ABOUT REACTIVE CONSUMERS WHO VOTE FOR PROTECTIONIST NATIONAL POLICY. What the fuck else do you expect Americans to do, BE$N? Starve themselves some savings at Wal Mart? Can't even afford those low, LOW prices while unemployed!

And yes, they A) can buy a foreign car if it's their choice as long as the domestic car's pricetag is normalized with the price of the rice burner. There is still choice; you can think of it as a tax on external consumption which allows domestic competition to continue.

Like I've been saying, BE$N, your bullshit "I say COMPETE but what I really mean is slave-like standards of living" doesn't impress me on iota. I don't really give a shit if YOU don't think America is competitive with semi-third world nations when it comes to the comparative price of labor. No one gave you the golden key to use our AMERICAN consumption like a fucking tampon.


and again, if you want to talk about BASIC MATH, tell me how a former UAW worker making 27/hour is able to consume as much as he can after being downgraded by your type into a fucking 7.25/hr toyota job. IF THAT. Tell me, BE$N, how does 50k per year compare with UNEMPLOYMENT. yea, I thought so. Tell me more about increased SOLs via 20 cents off a fucking jar of pickles, BE$N.



The numbers are the numbers Shogun. Explain to me how some number less than 10% unemployment, a number that is going to go down, some fucking national crisis?

I guess you'd have to take your fucking ass out of your warm, cozy office to comprehend more than what is on your memo pad, BE$N. Unemployment rate at 10% doesn't speak one fucking word about the lowered SOL via outsourced jobs and wage slave replacement employment for formerly lucrative lifestyles. Again, while technically employed, holding t part time, minimum wage jobs won't support anything CLOSE to what was enjoyed by former UAW labor who gets to hang from the noose of your economic opinions this year. Basic Math, INDEED!



Again math is not your strong suit. If you force me to pay higher costs for goods and services how exactly have you helped improve my standard of living? It is amazing this is so hard for me. I can improve my standard of living, WHICH IS WHAT YOU CLAIM TO WANT, by spending less money.


You probably shouldn't act like a math teacher given how many variables you constantly hope to ignore. Scroll up. I've explained how laughable your grasp on math is this side of our normalized SOL. And, you don't have money to save or spend if YOU DON'T MAKE ANY, BE$N. Or, and this is where your ironic bullshit is the richest (pun intended), IF YOUR SOL GETS LOWERED BECAUSE SOME FMC ASSHOLE DECIDES THAT YOUR AMERICAN LABOR IS NOT AS VALUABLE AS WHAT HE CAN BUY IN A FUCKING GHETTO STATE LIKE MEXICO.



WOW.




Your contention is that companies are moving to overseas labor to save a buck. The reality is they do it often times to save the American jobs they can.





YOU HAVE OFFICIALLY JUMPED THE SHARK, BE$N.





for real. it's pretty sad to see you even try to suggest bullshit like that. SERIOUSLY.

 

[Diuretic]

I believe the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, and it's you saying capitalism can't exist without the state.

Kevin, I'm more than happy to back up any claim I make and I will.
Witness the bailout.
QED.

For one, the bailouts weren't necessary, in fact they were detrimental to our future economic health. Secondly, the recession that gave rise to the bailout craze was caused by government policies and wouldn't have happened without the government.

It seems that the bailouts - and other Keynesian methods used in other countries - saved global capitalism. As I said, capitalism needs the state, heck look at the legal protection afforded to the conglomeration of individuals called a "corporation". Look at how governments in history have used their military to grab markets and resources for capitalists. Of course capitalism needs the state.

Recessions - aren't they a requirement for capitalism to continue to exist? As such, if I'm right, recessions aren't necessarily caused by government (although they can be I'll admit) rather they are part of the cycle of capitalist operations.

 

[Diuretic]

I believe you meant to say PARASITES can't exist without the state.

.

Nope. Capitalism can't exist without the state. If you disagree then disprove it.

Why does there need to be a government in place before you and I can agree on a fair transaction?

There doesn't. But that's not capitalism.

 

[Diuretic]

The mechanism of social ownership is one thing, management of those socially owned resources is another. Where resources are socially owned the benefits flowing from those resources are available to everyone. The issue then is management and distribution.

My point exactley. My point is that everything is socially owned, which should mean everyone has an equal share of everything. That would make distributing those resources in an efficient manner rather difficult.

The state doesn't run the economy in a socialist system, the economy is managed.

By whom if not the state? What body makes the managerial decisions that guide the economy?



The road to hell is paved with good intentions as you've heard. There simpy isn't the opportunity to get everything there is to get out of life under socialism because it isn't able to be much stronger than its weakest members. It sounds cliche but it is true, it only sounds good on paper. Capitalism on the other hand doesn't even attempt to promise what it can't deliver. It doesn't try to sell people on the idea that everything will be great for everyone. It states up front, you're success is going to be mostly dependant on your effort.

On a side note, being a 'gamer' I know a bit about Austrailia's standards of decency and that they like to choose for people what is appropriate rather than allowing people to choose for themselves. Australia is generally the first to ban games with high levels of violence.



Where free market principles are allowed here (it isn't for things like police or firemen) for socially valuable work, socially valuable skills are compensated for quite well. Doctor's here make more than any country in the world. The pro's and con's of universal health care are for another time, but one FACT is that what free market is allowed in our health care system allows doctor's to make more here than in countries that have UHC. Is our system OVER compensating doctors even though you deem it a socially valuable skill?

And you're still not really addressing the question. How are you going to pay these people for their socially valuable skills if the public is not paying for them? Maybe you're assumming through taxes, but that would still be the public paying for it (FORCED to pay for it as oppossed to allowing consumers to choose). Otherwise what? Allow the government to print money for them?

The “resumption” or whatever name it's given in various locales, of property is a fact of life for us all. Any government can exert force to do so, the form of economy is probably irrelevant. How it's done is important.

So haven't you just contradicted yourself? You said:

Involuntary deprivation of property under capitalism happens when someone bigger than you wants what you have. Eminent domain.

This all started with your charcterization that capitalism is bad because somehow it fleeces people without their consent. The only way you could make that work is by claiming that a private industry can claim eminent domain. Well, I'm sorry that just isn't so. A private company can not simply take from you. Emminent domain, even in this country is almost always claimed by the government. If a private industry does it, it STILL requires government approval to do so. You may think this is a small point but it runs to the heart of your contention of the 'badness' of capitalism. Not only is the concept not true where capitalism is concerned. It is EXACTLY the opposite. It is the system YOU proporte to be so fair that is the most likely to take from people by force in the name of the overall good to society.

Social ownership of the means of production doesn't imply an individual has equity in the means of production. In fact I'd suggest that in socialism that isn't possible. So absent a claim of equity there's no issue regarding a “share”. As far as distribution is concerned, the old “means/need” formula is probably redundant now and that could be why some forms of market socialism are attractive. I have to say I'm not that fond of the original mid-19th Century formulae, we've come a long way since 1848 and I have no doubt socialist theory has too – it's just that I'm not up with it.

A collective body can make decisions in a socialist economy. Given that socialism is – in theory anyway – a transitory stage to the abandonment of the state it would seem that such a collective would need to be carefully built to avoid the problems of state capitalism.

While capitalism has produced much good for us I think it's gotten to the point now where the chickens are coming home. We're looking at a running down of natural resources which for me at least suggests that those increasingly scarce resources need to be managed and I'm afraid that capitalists aren't the people to do that, focused as they are on the immediate short term profits a company can make.

Gaming. Bloody sad it is, the reason is one man, our state's Attorney-General, doesn't want to create an adult rating for video games. It's backward thinking but he's very socially conservative.

Doctors and over-compensation. Good question. I'm not one for putting in ceilings on what people can genuinely earn (ie from their labours rather than as rentiers), I'm more interested in a good foundation for everyone. So wealthy doctors is probably okay with me. I'm not very doctrinaire.
How are they paid? By their employer if they work for a salary or paid by a central funding agency for their work.

Eminent domain/resumption etc. I think my point was that it exists regardless of the form of the economy in a society.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, I'm more than happy to back up any claim I make and I will.
Witness the bailout.
QED.

For one, the bailouts weren't necessary, in fact they were detrimental to our future economic health. Secondly, the recession that gave rise to the bailout craze was caused by government policies and wouldn't have happened without the government.

It seems that the bailouts - and other Keynesian methods used in other countries - saved global capitalism. As I said, capitalism needs the state, heck look at the legal protection afforded to the conglomeration of individuals called a "corporation". Look at how governments in history have used their military to grab markets and resources for capitalists. Of course capitalism needs the state.

Recessions - aren't they a requirement for capitalism to continue to exist? As such, if I'm right, recessions aren't necessarily caused by government (although they can be I'll admit) rather they are part of the cycle of capitalist operations.

Saved? Things have only gotten worse as time has gone on, so what exactly was saved? Governments using military power to grab markets and resources is not an example of capitalism, however. Capitalism is the free exchange of goods, not the military stealing goods.

No, recessions would not exist without the government tampering with interest rates.

 

[Diuretic]

For one, the bailouts weren't necessary, in fact they were detrimental to our future economic health. Secondly, the recession that gave rise to the bailout craze was caused by government policies and wouldn't have happened without the government.

It seems that the bailouts - and other Keynesian methods used in other countries - saved global capitalism. As I said, capitalism needs the state, heck look at the legal protection afforded to the conglomeration of individuals called a "corporation". Look at how governments in history have used their military to grab markets and resources for capitalists. Of course capitalism needs the state.

Recessions - aren't they a requirement for capitalism to continue to exist? As such, if I'm right, recessions aren't necessarily caused by government (although they can be I'll admit) rather they are part of the cycle of capitalist operations.

Saved? Things have only gotten worse as time has gone on, so what exactly was saved? Governments using military power to grab markets and resources is not an example of capitalism, however. Capitalism is the free exchange of goods, not the military stealing goods.

No, recessions would not exist without the government tampering with interest rates.

Kevin you have an idealistic view of capitalism. Stand back and have a wider look.

 

[Bern80]

Nope. Capitalism can't exist without the state. If you disagree then disprove it.

Why does there need to be a government in place before you and I can agree on a fair transaction?

There doesn't. But that's not capitalism.

Sure it is. After all for us to even consider the transaction in the first place we have to 'exist' in the first place. I would say that makes a society. True a society of just you and I is really simplistic, but can't a few people do the same thing, or dozens or hundreds. Broadly their are two ways to set up a market in society; either people agree upon a fair prices via individual transactions or it is collectivist where everyone gets a share. In reality neither require government.

 

[Bern80]

are you fucking KIDDING ME, capitalist? MY evidence is the constant, eternal struggle to PAY LOWER WAGES via outsourcing and fighting a state minimum wage by the very people who refuse to pay any more than they are legally required to. If there were no min wage then YOU would be insisting that the value of labor is set by the scarcity of workers despite the meager, Calcutta-like results that would manifest. WOW. You are funny when you say dumb shit out of desperation, BE$N.

EXcept you haven't shown any constant, eternal struggle by business to pay lower wages. And we are talking about YOU and your job. If minimum wage is what your boss can legally get away with paying you by YOUR argument that is exactley what he should be doing at this point. So why isn't he?

The purpose of business is to move funds along commercial paths. Even commies "do business". It's how we allow this movement to HINDER or HELP the culture in which it manifests that matters. Don't like it? Send me a post card from Mexico.

What a load of wishy wash, mealy mouthed vaguery that is. I'm not the one getting desperate here. It appears to be you that is having to go through some real word contortions. 'Move funds along commercial paths'? This isn't hard, Shogun. A business job is to turn a profit so the business can stay in business. Pretty simple. YOUR job is to provide for your standard of living. If YOU don't like it, go to a country like france -a country with higher unemployment than us btw - that will babysit your ass from cradle to grave

Bullshit. YOU only want those who can afford it to have the best SOL they can achieve.

And you wonder why you get called stupid when you write non-sensical shit like this. I believe the vast majority of people have the potential to achieve quite a lot. If/when that potential is fulfilled providing themselves with a decent SOL is a non-issue.

Being a humanitarian, I'd rather ALL of us enjoy a range of SOL set by a minimum standard even if that means squeezing the top end of the spectrum and protecting our entire scope of employment. Isolationism does work. The Greatest Generation of America knew it. YOUR problem is that you seem to think that America is so fucking dependant on multi-national business that it could never create it's own ventures internally to replace those who want to cry foul when you find that you can't....

We keep everything domestic. Build in America, buy only American, etc. We'll use the car industry as an example. We can't reduce the cost of labor in your world, so that means we probably can't reduce the cost of the car. So to keep people from buying foreign cars we put a tarriff on imports so that the foreign car costs the same or more as a domestic one. Now most everyone needs a car and will have to buy a car, but very few people, relatively speaking, make cars. So it is your suggestion that the vast majority of people pay more for this good to defend a non-competetive job. It is further your suggestion that somehow, inexplicably the fact that most will have LESS than they would will somehow turn into MORE in terms of a standard of living.

How many ways does this need to be spelled out for you? Isolationism will REDUCE the standard of living for the majority of people in a feeble attempt to save the few who can't compete in a global economy.

yea, so sayeth the proprietor of the Company Store. And, by lowballing American labor into the SOL of a mexican pauper I GUESS YOU'LL HAVE TO FORGIVE ME FOR TELLING YOU THE SAME THING ABOUT REACTIVE CONSUMERS WHO VOTE FOR PROTECTIONIST NATIONAL POLICY. What the fuck else do you expect Americans to do, BE$N? Starve themselves some savings at Wal Mart? Can't even afford those low, LOW prices while unemployed!

It's hard to make an argument against a faulty presumption. You presume most businesses are in this struggle to find some meager justification to reduce your wage. Problem is statisitcally that isn't accurate. For the most part people's wages increase over time with a company. Drop the your stupid mexican pauper, steets of calcutta, cuban BULL SHI T. It isn't reality. Legally your employer has the right to offer you minimum wage and no more. So by YOUR argument thats what the vast majority of businesses should pay people. BUT THEY DON'T. The vast majority of businesses pay more than the minumum wage.

And yes, they A) can buy a foreign car if it's their choice as long as the domestic car's pricetag is normalized with the price of the rice burner. There is still choice; you can think of it as a tax on external consumption which allows domestic competition to continue.

People's choice is going to be to defend their bottom line in an attempt to protect their standard of living, which you are 100% full of shit about when you claim you are trying to protect it. Either that or you're dumb as a fucking box of rocks. Take your pick. You already have legislated away one way in which people can protect their standard of living. Competitiion? You basically just turned the U.S. in the special olympics. Too stupid to figure out how to compete in the global economy? So narrow minded that you think the only way to do so to cut labor costs? Fine we'll make a special economy just for you. Nevermind the quality won't be as good and everyone has a lower standard of living, but hey thanks a fucking bunch for the warm fuzzy feeling.

Like I've been saying, BE$N, your bullshit "I say COMPETE but what I really mean is slave-like standards of living" doesn't impress me on iota. I don't really give a shit if YOU don't think America is competitive with semi-third world nations when it comes to the comparative price of labor.

There are more ways to be competetive than reducing the cost of labor.

and again, if you want to talk about BASIC MATH, tell me how a former UAW worker making 27/hour is able to consume as much as he can after being downgraded by your type into a fucking 7.25/hr toyota job. IF THAT. Tell me, BE$N, how does 50k per year compare with UNEMPLOYMENT.

How old are you? Seriously. Tell me you're not over 30 and this stupid and naive. What point are you trying to make here? You have the math problem because you can't seem to mathematically figure out how most will have less under your system. As to your autoworker taking a pay cut forgive me if I value labor in different terms than you do. Forgive me if I don't think someone who sticks parts A on part B all day is worth 56k a year.

I guess you'd have to take your fucking ass out of your warm, cozy office to comprehend more than what is on your memo pad, BE$N. Unemployment rate at 10% doesn't speak one fucking word about the lowered SOL via outsourced jobs and wage slave replacement employment for formerly lucrative lifestyles. Again, while technically employed, holding t part time, minimum wage jobs won't support anything CLOSE to what was enjoyed by former UAW labor who gets to hang from the noose of your economic opinions this year. Basic Math, INDEED!

Fine show me the right numbers then. You know the ones that show the American SOL has actually gone down over time.

You probably shouldn't act like a math teacher given how many variables you constantly hope to ignore. Scroll up. I've explained how laughable your grasp on math is this side of our normalized SOL. And, you don't have money to save or spend if YOU DON'T MAKE ANY, BE$N. Or, and this is where your ironic bullshit is the richest (pun intended), IF YOUR SOL GETS LOWERED BECAUSE SOME FMC ASSHOLE DECIDES THAT YOUR AMERICAN LABOR IS NOT AS VALUABLE AS WHAT HE CAN BUY IN A FUCKING GHETTO STATE LIKE MEXICO.

Variables I don't take into account? Why the fuck should I be protected and encouraged to work no harder or smarter than your avg monkey? What you ignore, is that there are all kinds of opportunities to make a really good SOL for yourself if you possess a skill set that someone values. The reality is the only people you are protecting are the indigent and lazy at enormouse expense to the rest of society.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It seems that the bailouts - and other Keynesian methods used in other countries - saved global capitalism. As I said, capitalism needs the state, heck look at the legal protection afforded to the conglomeration of individuals called a "corporation". Look at how governments in history have used their military to grab markets and resources for capitalists. Of course capitalism needs the state.

Recessions - aren't they a requirement for capitalism to continue to exist? As such, if I'm right, recessions aren't necessarily caused by government (although they can be I'll admit) rather they are part of the cycle of capitalist operations.

Saved? Things have only gotten worse as time has gone on, so what exactly was saved? Governments using military power to grab markets and resources is not an example of capitalism, however. Capitalism is the free exchange of goods, not the military stealing goods.

No, recessions would not exist without the government tampering with interest rates.

Kevin you have an idealistic view of capitalism. Stand back and have a wider look.

Diuretic, you have an idealistic view of socialism. Stand back and have a wider look.

 

[antagon]

Kevin you have an idealistic view of capitalism. Stand back and have a wider look.

Diuretic, you have an idealistic view of socialism. Stand back and have a wider look.

i rest my case. these wider look gives you the the mixed, american economy. you can knock it, but you cant knock it down. the same cant be said neither of marxist socialism or laissez-faire capitalism.

 

[Shogun]

EXcept you haven't shown any constant, eternal struggle by business to pay lower wages. And we are talking about YOU and your job. If minimum wage is what your boss can legally get away with paying you by YOUR argument that is exactley what he should be doing at this point. So why isn't he?





RIGHT, BE$N! When people think of capitalistas the first thing that comes to mind is NOT the constant search for the cheapest labor possible!



My boss doesn't pay me minimum wages because I have competitive skills. Skills that UNSKILLED LABOR WHO WORKS FOR UAW PLANTS DON'T HAVE. You know, BE$N.. those people who you seem to think can leap from working a lathe to java programming by their own bootstraps. But, just so you know, I Don't make what the same person in my skillset would have made 25 years ago precisely because of the kind of capitalista bullshit that a former UAW worker currently making minimum wage via 2 part time jobs will understand. Your kind are the tyrants of banana pickers, BE$N. The ones who lock production floors while fires burn. Those who attempt to rationalize child labor and degraded safety standards for nothing more than it's cost to you. Hell, Nike sweatshops are your City of Gold, BE$N. You don't have to pretend otherwise just because it illustrates what kind of monster your views are, BE$N.



What a load of wishy wash, mealy mouthed vaguery that is. I'm not the one getting desperate here. It appears to be you that is having to go through some real word contortions. 'Move funds along commercial paths'? This isn't hard, Shogun. A business job is to turn a profit so the business can stay in business. Pretty simple. YOUR job is to provide for your standard of living. If YOU don't like it, go to a country like france -a country with higher unemployment than us btw - that will babysit your ass from cradle to grave



I've told you before about your limp wristed attempts to talk shit, BE$N. You'd better outsource that shit!

and, you might want to take your white collar ass outside of the office one of these days before suggesting someone else learn about the "real world". Seriously.

Praytel, professor, how does a business stay in operation WITHOUT FUNDS MOVING ALONG COMMERCIAL PATHS. Go ask your fucking comptroller what he does all day, BE$N.

And, as i've stated already, you don't have a RIGHT to do business here in the US which takes advantage of the very consumerism that you enjoy starving. We the people have the prerogative to shut your ass down as our regulations see fit. Your opinion of whose duty it is to do what means two things: jack and shit. Now, go cry France some more while you pack your fucking bags for a one way trip to India.


And you wonder why you get called stupid when you write non-sensical shit like this. I believe the vast majority of people have the potential to achieve quite a lot. If/when that potential is fulfilled providing themselves with a decent SOL is a non-issue.

I get called a lot of things, BE$N. Suffice it to say, your opinion of me is about as valid as your opinions on economics this side of Greenspan's trip under the bus. I really don't care how valid YOU think YOUR beliefs are. The FACT remains that you have shown no more concern for Americans than financially necessary in a global scope of labor cost. What YOU call "quite a lot" but which is usually defined explicitly as "Well, they have a microwave" doesn't impress me one bit.

And no, BE$N, the ability to achieve an American SOL via domestic opportunity is EXACTLY the issue. It doesn't shock me that you don't give two shits about that, however.


We keep everything domestic. Build in America, buy only American, etc. We'll use the car industry as an example. We can't reduce the cost of labor in your world, so that means we probably can't reduce the cost of the car. So to keep people from buying foreign cars we put a tarriff on imports so that the foreign car costs the same or more as a domestic one. Now most everyone needs a car and will have to buy a car, but very few people, relatively speaking, make cars. So it is your suggestion that the vast majority of people pay more for this good to defend a non-competetive job. It is further your suggestion that somehow, inexplicably the fact that most will have LESS than they would will somehow turn into MORE in terms of a standard of living.

The cost of a domestically produced car WAS ACHIEVABLE 40 YEARS AGO BE$N. America didn't magically start buying cars as soon as toyota started importing fucking vehicles! When we BUY AMERICAN then an AMERICAN goes to work and is able to afford those AMERICAN products. Simple, indeed. do you think those former UAW have LESS NOW OR BACK WHEN THEY COULD SELL THEIR FUCKING PRODUCT DOMESTICALLY, BE$N? Back when they made 20+/hr or NOW when they make 9/hr? As I said, there is still the choice of a foreign auto but without the excuses for rationalized third world pauper labor tugging OUR sol down to theirs. And, let me point out, if MEXICO can't sell MEXICAN CARS to AMERICA anymore then what are their consumer option? Hint: SELL TO MEXICANS who can't afford them until THEIR SOL raises internally instead of dragging ours down to theirs. Why the fuck should China upset their cheap labor and low prolatariat SOL when they can suck on our consumers like a vampire does blood? But, of course, YOUR kind don't want pauper state labor to have a reason to demand more money for their sweat than you give a shit about our labor's sol being normalized with semi-third world nations.

Maybe, instead of crying that the sky is falling you should direct your energy toward prompting cheap labor nations to consumer as much of our goods as we do theirs... Or, go ahead and keep that chinese dick in your mouth.. either way, BE$N, we both know that protectionist policy is looking mighty fucking tempting to WE THE PEOPLE regardless of your WSJ croc tears.


How many ways does this need to be spelled out for you? Isolationism will REDUCE the standard of living for the majority of people in a feeble attempt to save the few who can't compete in a global economy.


that certainly seems to be your opinion. But, given how shit awful the rest of your economic opinions have turned out you'll have to forgive me for spitting out the taste of your latest nafta flavor. You see, BE$N, we are not bound by the GLOBAL ECONOMY like some dog with it's master. During the majority of our nation's history we have not allowed ourselves to be wagged just because YOU want some kind of validation; nation be damned. Like I said above, a 30 cent reduction on the price of pickles doesn't mean shit if you don't have the income to pay for groceries in the first fucking place.


It's hard to make an argument against a faulty presumption. You presume most businesses are in this struggle to find some meager justification to reduce your wage. Problem is statisitcally that isn't accurate. For the most part people's wages increase over time with a company. Drop the your stupid mexican pauper, steets of calcutta, cuban BULL SHI T. It isn't reality. Legally your employer has the right to offer you minimum wage and no more. So by YOUR argument thats what the vast majority of businesses should pay people. BUT THEY DON'T. The vast majority of businesses pay more than the minumum wage.

Indeed, the reduction of the cost of labor is an eternal variable to capitalist business practices. It's hilarious that you'd suggest otherwise when I can list half a dozen sources whose prime reason for outsourcing labor is, specifically, the reduction of labor cost to operations.

and, if you need to hide behind manufactured statistics now then it just shows how far beyond the shark you've leaped. seriously. This is why you hide behind employment rates as if there is no reason to consider the difference between a former UAW job and the minimum wage jobs currently being doled out by your kind like halloween candy. And yes, it IS reality. go ask a former UAW worker how it feels to see his value be reduced to 9/hr just because YOUR kind can threaten to transplant the factory in Mexico. BE$N, you sure are the band who kept playing while the titanic sank. Keep polishing the turn, BE$N! Your white collar desk job probably gives you the full scope of employment more than unemployed, former factory workers in the midwest. the WSJ SAYS SO!





People's choice is going to be to defend their bottom line in an attempt to protect their standard of living, which you are 100% full of shit about when you claim you are trying to protect it. Either that or you're dumb as a fucking box of rocks. Take your pick. You already have legislated away one way in which people can protect their standard of living. Competitiion? You basically just turned the U.S. in the special olympics. Too stupid to figure out how to compete in the global economy? So narrow minded that you think the only way to do so to cut labor costs? Fine we'll make a special economy just for you. Nevermind the quality won't be as good and everyone has a lower standard of living, but hey thanks a fucking bunch for the warm fuzzy feeling.


yea dude! HUNGRY? EAT YOUR IMPORT sure does sound full of shit in this age of mass auto worker layoffs!



and, your "too stupid to compete" attitude really pinpoints the failure of your logic and the allegiance of your concern. WE don't have to lower out SOL in order to compete with Chinese slave wage labor, BE$N. WE are not interested in becoming a nation of sweatshop labor just so your stupid ass can feel competitive globally. And yes, we WILL make a special economy just for US, BE$N. You can take your silly fucking FMC fantasy to Dubai where... well.. WHOOPSY!




There are more ways to be competetive than reducing the cost of labor.

Name them, you silly fuck. And then watch as I pulverize your bullshit with the relative cost of LABOR versus everything you scrape together the balls to post. We both know that labor is the largest cost in production. But, I look forward to watching you try to scramble out from under this fact so... preytell..




How old are you? Seriously. Tell me you're not over 30 and this stupid and naive. What point are you trying to make here? You have the math problem because you can't seem to mathematically figure out how most will have less under your system. As to your autoworker taking a pay cut forgive me if I value labor in different terms than you do. Forgive me if I don't think someone who sticks parts A on part B all day is worth 56k a year.



ohhh No0z! BE$N thinks I'm stupid and naive! whatz EVER SHALL I DOOOOO000z! *yawnburpfart*

don't cry if my statements undermine the bullshit nature of your polished turd, BE$N. The bolded, red sentence pretty much illustrates the sum total of your entire input to this thread. Sorry, BE$N, I don't forgive you. Instead, I'll offer you a plane ride to Calcutta where you can find all the cheap, dirt pauper labor that you'll ever want to manipulate into semi-slave wage status. enjoy your trip, motherfucker.





Fine show me the right numbers then. You know the ones that show the American SOL has actually gone down over time.

Household Income
Real median household income in the United States fell between the 2007 ACS and the 2008 ACS. Household income decreased 1.2 percent, from $52,673 to $52,029.3
http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/acsbr08-2.pdf


2010 being a census year I KNOW you are looking forward to updated figures as much as I am, RIGHT BE$N? Care to make any wagers on the results?



Variables I don't take into account? Why the fuck should I be protected and encouraged to work no harder or smarter than your avg monkey? What you ignore, is that there are all kinds of opportunities to make a really good SOL for yourself if you possess a skill set that someone values. The reality is the only people you are protecting are the indigent and lazy at enormouse expense to the rest of society.



you can stop dancing, BE$N. Your insight to econ is best summed up with the bolded, red quote you posted above. What YOU consider "all kinds of opportunity" means little to those whose former SOL has been ripped to shreds by the same global collar that you insist normalizing the American standard of living to that of a fucking Mexican dirt pauper.

But, hey... at least you admit, FINALLY, that the very Americans who get to eat the shit of your econ opinions are "indigent and LAZY".



Your "expense" means nothing to me and those of us ready to see you off to your new home in India.

 

[Bern80]

RIGHT, BE$N! When people think of capitalistas the first thing that comes to mind is NOT the constant search for the cheapest labor possible!

I understand in your warped world that's what you think of. That isn't the way it is in the real world that the rest of us inhabit.

My boss doesn't pay me minimum wages because I have competitive skills. Skills that UNSKILLED LABOR WHO WORKS FOR UAW PLANTS DON'T HAVE. You know, BE$N.. those people who you seem to think can leap from working a lathe to java programming by their own bootstraps. But, just so you know, I Don't make what the same person in my skillset would have made 25 years ago precisely because of the kind of capitalista bullshit that a former UAW worker currently making minimum wage via 2 part time jobs will understand.

DING DING DING. WE HAVE A FUCKING WINNER. Only took a dozen odd pages to admit your boss isn't trying to screw you over and is paying you based on the value of your skill set. As to what the same skill set made 25 years ago; where is the unwritten rule that ANY skill set MUST retain the same value till eternity? Of course the only reason it pays less is 'obviously' because it's what your boss can get away with. NO WAY could it be because market for that skill set has changed. You really are an economic moron, you know that. Labor is commodity like any other and thus is subject to laws of supply and demand. You are essentially suggesting that quantity demanded and quantity supplied of goods/services/skill sets stays constant and never changes over time.

And, as i've stated already, you don't have a RIGHT to do business here in the US which takes advantage of the very consumerism that you enjoy starving. We the people have the prerogative to shut your ass down as our regulations see fit.

Actually yes I do have that right. You are again bing non-sensical. Why would I want to starve conumers of money? I need their business.

I get called a lot of things, BE$N. Suffice it to say, your opinion of me is about as valid as your opinions on economics this side of Greenspan's trip under the bus. I really don't care how valid YOU think YOUR beliefs are. The FACT remains that you have shown no more concern for Americans than financially necessary in a global scope of labor cost. What YOU call "quite a lot" but which is usually defined explicitly as "Well, they have a microwave" doesn't impress me one bit.

My opinion of you is dead on Shitgun. I have called you whiner. Which any objective person who has read what you write, about things like SOL and foreign labor should agree with.

And no, BE$N, the ability to achieve an American SOL via domestic opportunity is EXACTLY the issue. It doesn't shock me that you don't give two shits about that, however.

The vast majority of American already do achieve a decent standard of living in this country. Obviously there is all kinds of opportunity right here in this country. The evidence of that is right in front of you every day. If you spent as much time researching the going rate for various skill sets IN THIS COUNTRY as you did being a whiny little bitch you might see that.

America didn't magically start buying cars as soon as toyota started importing fucking vehicles! When we BUY AMERICAN then an AMERICAN goes to work and is able to afford those AMERICAN products. Simple, indeed. do you think those former UAW have LESS NOW OR BACK WHEN THEY COULD SELL THEIR FUCKING PRODUCT DOMESTICALLY, BE$N? Back when they made 20+/hr or NOW when they make 9/hr? As I said, there is still the choice of a foreign auto but without the excuses for rationalized third world pauper labor tugging OUR sol down to theirs. And, let me point out, if MEXICO can't sell MEXICAN CARS to AMERICA anymore then what are their consumer option? Hint: SELL TO MEXICANS who can't afford them until THEIR SOL raises internally instead of dragging ours down to theirs. Why the fuck should China upset their cheap labor and low prolatariat SOL when they can suck on our consumers like a vampire does blood?

We started buying foreign cars when we saw that we could get the same value for less. I hate to have to keep nit pickking at your math skills, but you leave me no choice. We'll use actual numbers. A couple hundered million people in this country essentially need cars. There are about 425,000 UAW members. Now as long as your pea brain can understand that 250,000,000 is a bigger number than 425,000 you should be able to follow along okay. That's about 600 to 1. You wan't 600 people to reduce their standard of living because they have to pay more than the alternative to save one non-competetive auto worker? Humanitarian my ass.

that certainly seems to be your opinion. You see, BE$N, we are not bound by the GLOBAL ECONOMY like some dog with it's master. During the majority of our nation's history we have not allowed ourselves to be wagged just because YOU want some kind of validation; nation be damned. Like I said above, a 30 cent reduction on the price of pickles doesn't mean shit if you don't have the income to pay for groceries in the first fucking place.

It had nothing to do with us not allowing it. Technology at the time simply didn't make it a viable alternative for the consumer. No we don't have to be beholdento the global economy. We can do things your way and we can all inflated prices for everything and you can go on believing that somehow less equals more.

Indeed, the reduction of the cost of labor is an eternal variable to capitalist business practices. It's hilarious that you'd suggest otherwise when I can list half a dozen sources whose prime reason for outsourcing labor is, specifically, the reduction of labor cost to operations.

Of course it's a variable. A business owner isn't going to pay someone just for being a swell guy. They have to determine what labor force their company needs. That is far cry from your perceived back room meetings of old white guys debating how they can get away with screwing people over. One is a reality of doing business, the other is a warped reality. I understand it is difficult for you to grasp which is which.

and, if you need to hide behind manufactured statistics now then it just shows how far beyond the shark you've leaped. seriously. This is why you hide behind employment rates as if there is no reason to consider the difference between a former UAW job and the minimum wage jobs currently being doled out by your kind like halloween candy. And yes, it IS reality. go ask a former UAW worker how it feels to see his value be reduced to 9/hr just because YOUR kind can threaten to transplant the factory in Mexico.

I didn't manufacture any statistic. 10% is roughly the number set by the department of labor. Go piss and moan to them if you don't like it. Okay I go ask an auto worker how he likes the pay cut. Of course he isn't going to like it. What is your fucking point? I'm supposed to keep paying him inflated wages because he doesn't LIKE a pay cut?

and, your "too stupid to compete" attitude really pinpoints the failure of your logic and the allegiance of your concern. WE don't have to lower out SOL in order to compete with Chinese slave wage labor, BE$N. WE are not interested in becoming a nation of sweatshop labor just so your stupid ass can feel competitive globally. And yes, we WILL make a special economy just for US, BE$N. You can take your silly fucking FMC fantasy to Dubai where... well.. WHOOPSY!

Why do you see that as the alternative? Are you that unimaginative? Look at the extremely few jobs going overseas. Some telemarketing and customer service jobs and manufacturing. Yet the bulk of our economy is based on the service industry. Why is it you believe we shouldn't have to adapt?

Name them, you silly fuck. And then watch as I pulverize your bullshit with the relative cost of LABOR versus everything you scrape together the balls to post. We both know that labor is the largest cost in production. But, I look forward to watching you try to scramble out from under this fact so... preytell..

Add value to your product. Provide better service. For starters. I'm a phone tech. You know one of those jobs you complain about going overseas. Our company has chosen to keep that here in the states because essentially the consumer has demanded that. If we had foreigners trying to answer questions from our customer base, the customer base would go ape shit. The FREE MARKET, the demands of the consumer, is what determined that it was in our best interest to keep those jobs here. The above are generally what is referred to as value added. Two companies can offer essentially the same product. But if one can provide better customer service and build a reputation on that, that company will most likely get the consumers dollar.

Household Income
Real median household income in the United States fell between the 2007 ACS and the 2008 ACS. Household income decreased 1.2 percent, from $52,673 to $52,029.3
http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/acsbr08-2.pdf

I didn't know your dishonesty stoopped to such levels. Maybe compare something actually indicative of trend rather than one year, but just an FYI it went up between 2006 and 2007. And I don't care if you don't care about 'the expense americans'. tell that to them. They are the ones you're forcing to reduce their SOL to pay for over priced labor.

 

[Shogun]

hey BE$N... save it for the new year. I'll be back to laugh at you on Monday. that is, if you haven't found a cheaper option from Indonesia by then...

 

[Shogun]

Actually yes I do have that right. You are again bing non-sensical. Why would I want to starve conumers of money? I need their business.


No, you really don't have a RIGHT to do business. Open up a plutonium shop and see what happens to your LICENSE TO PRACTICE BUSINESS.


and, it's pretty clear why you want to starve consumers... They demand more value for their labor than a dirt farmer in mexico does... Math, BE$N, math.

ok, now I'm out.. In the immortal words of the Governator.. I'll Be Baahhhck. On Monday.

 

[Shogun]

ps..


Look at the extremely few jobs going overseas.






Classic Quotes by BE$N "Top 1% matters more" 80.

 

[Shogun]

I didn't know your dishonesty stoopped to such levels. Maybe compare something actually indicative of trend rather than one year, but just an FYI it went up between 2006 and 2007. And I don't care if you don't care about 'the expense americans'. tell that to them. They are the ones you're forcing to reduce their SOL to pay for over priced labor.


poooooor BE$N... whatsa matter, Guy? Don't like it when those stats don't match up to your typical, standard issue bullshit? Again, this is a census year, bourgie.. I look forward to curbstomping you with more stats than you can outsource to Mexico.

and, trust me, motherfucker.... If you and I were standing side by side and Middle America had to point at exactly which of us was the cause of their lowered SOL you'd find yourself burning in the hot seat like every other FMC piece of shit willing to sell out their nation over a few dollars more with your Wal Mart excuses and "Who, Me?" reaction to the results of global free market capitalism.


after all.... wiget makers don't really amount to much in your scope of vision, RIGHT BE$N? Certainly not as must as some opinionated asshole crying for a free market noose to tie around our national necks, eh buddy?

 

[Bern80]

I didn't know your dishonesty stoopped to such levels. Maybe compare something actually indicative of trend rather than one year, but just an FYI it went up between 2006 and 2007. And I don't care if you don't care about 'the expense americans'. tell that to them. They are the ones you're forcing to reduce their SOL to pay for over priced labor.


poooooor BE$N... whatsa matter, Guy? Don't like it when those stats don't match up to your typical, standard issue bullshit? Again, this is a census year, bourgie.. I look forward to curbstomping you with more stats than you can outsource to Mexico.

You think one year proves your point? Okay you win fuck wit. You're contention was that SOL has gone down because of the way we participate in a global market. I asked for evidence of that you showed me. What happened to median income between 2007 and 2008. It went down about $550. Not exactly a compelling amount. Further it can even remotely be construed as a trend at this point since the previous years ('06-'07) the median income went up. Finally you would have to show that the REASON it went down $550 dollars is due to the things you complain about (overseas labor, buying foreign goods, etc.) That you think you won the argument by posting that piece of evidence is the best lauigh I have had all day. I asked you to show me stats indicative of an actual trend. As I predicted you would, you pussied out chicken shit. I'll help you out. Between 1998 and 2008 the median income has risen about $5k.

and, trust me, motherfucker.... If you and I were standing side by side and Middle America had to point at exactly which of us was the cause of their lowered SOL you'd find yourself burning in the hot seat like every other FMC piece of shit willing to sell out their nation over a few dollars more with your Wal Mart excuses and "Who, Me?" reaction to the results of global free market capitalism.

IF that were true all it would prove is most of America is as retarded as you are.

 

[Diuretic]

Why does there need to be a government in place before you and I can agree on a fair transaction?

There doesn't. But that's not capitalism.

Sure it is. After all for us to even consider the transaction in the first place we have to 'exist' in the first place. I would say that makes a society. True a society of just you and I is really simplistic, but can't a few people do the same thing, or dozens or hundreds. Broadly their are two ways to set up a market in society; either people agree upon a fair prices via individual transactions or it is collectivist where everyone gets a share. In reality neither require government.

I'm reminded of Adam Smith. But I need to ask was Smith discussing free trade or capitalism? For me capitalism is about free trade but that's only part of the process and not a real marker because free trade can occur in other than capitalist economies. The true marker is the private ownership of the means of production.

 

[Diuretic]

Saved? Things have only gotten worse as time has gone on, so what exactly was saved? Governments using military power to grab markets and resources is not an example of capitalism, however. Capitalism is the free exchange of goods, not the military stealing goods.

No, recessions would not exist without the government tampering with interest rates.

Kevin you have an idealistic view of capitalism. Stand back and have a wider look.

Diuretic, you have an idealistic view of socialism. Stand back and have a wider look.

Touche!

 

[Diuretic]

Kevin you have an idealistic view of capitalism. Stand back and have a wider look.

Diuretic, you have an idealistic view of socialism. Stand back and have a wider look.

i rest my case. these wider look gives you the the mixed, american economy. you can knock it, but you cant knock it down. the same cant be said neither of marxist socialism or laissez-faire capitalism.

And I agree, the reality of an economy is - or should be - different from pure theory. One of the problems with the USSR under Stalin was that he was an expert in dialectical materialism and being ultra-doctrinaire everything had to be squeezed into that paradigm. Now it is a useful method of analysis of history but a poor predictor of the effect of policy, hence the lionising of the fraud Lysenko and the disaster of collective agriculture.