Laid Off

[Marxist]

So you admit you're the one calling them failures when you know nothing about them? Helping people in poverty isn't rewarding failure you ignorant ass.

I edited the post to explain the reasoning behind who defines the failure ...
"They decide what it is they want to achieve ... And they fail to achieve it ... Doesn't matter what they call it when they simply define it either way."

And ... You are not helping them at all ... You are making it worse for them, and are too much of an ignorant ass to see that.

.

How am I not helping? I support food stamps, free education, free healthcare, state programs to vaccinate and provide water/shelter, and full employment.

And fail to support their means of paying for that and supporting such public service systems. You support an unsustainable system prone to collapse (which we have seen historically).

Socialism has never existed apart from the examples I've given, and they only failed due to military force against them. The whole concept of means of paying for that would be irrelevant under the system I subscribe to, although you need to read into it. (Anarchist syndicalism/communism) it's not prone to collapse, capitalism is, As seen historically, although it just shifts the problem..

 

[Marxist]

How am I not helping? I support food stamps, free education, free healthcare, state programs to vaccinate and provide water/shelter, and full employment.

And none of what you support has fixed the problems ... Only compounds the problems and made the middle class and successful take on a greater burden.
You rob from the taxpayer and jeopardize their well-being in order to fail at providing the people you want to help with anything that actually helps them achieve a better life for themselves and their families.

.

Then what the hell do you propose? LOL. Here we go again with the typical asshole. Rob the taxpayer and jeopardize their well being? sounds like tea party rhetoric.

 

[Marxist]

No, I never said they're morons.. But I don't think billions call themselves failures

Of course they don't call themselves failures ... They just fail to achieve their desired goals and conditions.
As long as their failure is rewarded ... It will most certainly continue.

.

So you admit you're the one calling them failures when you know nothing about them? Helping people in poverty isn't rewarding failure you ignorant ass.

Preventing them from acquiring IT service sectors and manufacturing that we outsource to them isn't helping people in poverty either.

I never said I wanted to prevent it, I don't think it's morally acceptable.

Well its doing more for people who live in abject agricultural poverty than your morals are.

It's the concept of exploiting what the laborer is worth, purposefully underpaying the labor, fighting regulations, endorsing child labor...

 

[Osomir]

I know what you are referring to but find it flawed. In the absence of strong private property rights there is little incentive for investment into the means of production. It is a huge problem that has been holding back development in many African states. In the absence of such institutions you get stagnation and even decline.

I find capitalism flawed, and it is severely flawed, but looking at a third world shit hole to observe "collectively owning production" is hilarious, again, free Ukraine, territories during the Spain revolution.." Little incentive? You underestimate human beings and don't like history a lot. You know what's holding back African states? Warlords, capitalists, lack of medicine, infrastructure, etc..

I say little incentive because I have literally seen it at work and there is mathematically and statistically little incentive for people to sink a lot of time and effort into investments that they aren't seeing a personal return on. Your entire model goes against the very nature of human decision making.

You saw nothing at work, don't even pretend to say Africa had socialism. Oh yeah? Oh, the human nature argument... Well, get used to it buddy, its human nature to work for a lord, capitalism goes against human nature. - feudalism supporter

I am talking about the basic field of economics and the basic premise that man seeks to maximize utility for themselves. Humans operated no differently from that under a feudalistic society. Your system depends on man doing something without gain to themselves. It rests on high levels of altruism and suffers from high levels of free rider problems. We have absolutely seen market sectors in various countries collapse due to things such as free rider problems (it is very well documented) and have seen humans refuse to invest in land that they do not have secure private ownership over. We are facing that problem with women farmers in Malawi for example and communal farming groups. They do not have individual ownership over the land and thus have little reason to make investments into it (since they won't be seeing the returns). This keeps them low productivity. This was also the same problem that we saw with feudalism, where serfs had no incentive to engage in labor outside of what was required by their lord.

Man has done this system before, and they do gain for themselves you moron, if we were all greedy and didn't care about others, we wouldn't have evolved and survive do. You don't know human nature, as you've only observed it under capitalism. Well, you refer to capitalists refusing, what about the working people? They'd all be benefiting, collective ownership and having a say in what gets done at the factory? Yes, yes, this appears under a capitalist system with the constant push for private production ownership, no surprise there. Uh, no, Serfs didn't engage because they thought feudalism was the only working system.

I don't think you understood what I said. I said that actors under a feudalistic system were rational actors, that is exactly why serfs were very unproductive workers. Because they had no ownership and thus no incentive to produce beyond the bare minimum. Without enforced private property rights there is just little incentive for investment. Once again, we have seen this very problem in communal farming markets. They tend to be highly unproductive and eventually collapse when they can't compete.

 

[Osomir]

Of course they don't call themselves failures ... They just fail to achieve their desired goals and conditions.
As long as their failure is rewarded ... It will most certainly continue.

.

So you admit you're the one calling them failures when you know nothing about them? Helping people in poverty isn't rewarding failure you ignorant ass.

Preventing them from acquiring IT service sectors and manufacturing that we outsource to them isn't helping people in poverty either.

I never said I wanted to prevent it, I don't think it's morally acceptable.

Well its doing more for people who live in abject agricultural poverty than your morals are.

It's the concept of exploiting what the laborer is worth, purposefully underpaying the labor, fighting regulations, endorsing child labor...

And India created high levels of progressive labor laws which completely stymied the development (initial costs were too high) of its manufacturing sector so China gobbled it all up allowing China to lift millions out of poverty and causing India to fall behind and maintain instead a largely low productivity informal manufacturing sector which it is only now starting to streamline.

Thus Indians were left without the jobs and thus without the associated progressive benefits that were supposed to come with them. Your vision is of no value to them if it fails in execution.

 

[Mr Natural]

The costs that make American workers non-competitive are excessive regulation and tax policy, bub.

That's bullshit.


There is no way the difference between an American worker making $25 and hour and his Chinese counterpart making $2 an hour is all taxes and regulations.

 

[boedicca]

The costs that make American workers non-competitive are excessive regulation and tax policy, bub.

That's bullshit.


There is no way the difference between an American worker making $25 and hour and his Chinese counterpart making $2 an hour is all taxes and regulations.

You are so full of shit the whites of your eyes are brown.

In manufacturing, labor is only one component of the cost structure. What are the raw material costs? The distribution costs?

The cost of labor is moot, anyway. Humans are being replaced with robots, so even the $2/Hour Chinese workers are on their way out.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Artificial price controls on goods and labor are needed.
And smart civil servants to make it all work out ! Really !!!!!!! Lol

 

[BlackSand]

Then what the hell do you propose? LOL. Here we go again with the typical asshole. Rob the taxpayer and jeopardize their well being? sounds like tea party rhetoric.

I propose you stop with the rhetoric and start living your dream.
There are communities that exist within the bounds of your desires here in the United States.

Collective comminutes that don't rely on capital gains to survive ... And that exist in a state of labor owned production.
Instead of talking about it ... Do it ... And get on with it.
Unless of course you are just chicken shit and don't mean anything you say ... Or are more satisfied with failure to achieve your own goals.

.

 

[Marxist]

Then what the hell do you propose? LOL. Here we go again with the typical asshole. Rob the taxpayer and jeopardize their well being? sounds like tea party rhetoric.

I propose you stop with the rhetoric and start living your dream.
There are communities that exist within the bounds of your desires here in the United States.

Collective comminutes that don't rely on capital gains to survive ... And that exist in a state of labor owned production.
Instead of talking about it ... Do it ... And get on with it.
Unless of course you are just chicken shit and don't mean anything you say ... Or are more satisfied with failure to achieve your own goals.

.

I propose you move to somalia, capitalism is running free there. Live your dream. Quit with the strawmen.

 

[Marxist]

The costs that make American workers non-competitive are excessive regulation and tax policy, bub.

That's bullshit.


There is no way the difference between an American worker making $25 and hour and his Chinese counterpart making $2 an hour is all taxes and regulations.

You are so full of shit the whites of your eyes are brown.

In manufacturing, labor is only one component of the cost structure. What are the raw material costs? The distribution costs?

The cost of labor is moot, anyway. Humans are being replaced with robots, so even the $2/Hour Chinese workers are on their way out.

Guess who gets the raw materials? Workers. Distribution? Done by workers. Labor is essentially everything. It's good that humans are being replaced with robots? I guess if we adopt a basic income or great welfare programs it is..

 

[Marxist]

I find capitalism flawed, and it is severely flawed, but looking at a third world shit hole to observe "collectively owning production" is hilarious, again, free Ukraine, territories during the Spain revolution.." Little incentive? You underestimate human beings and don't like history a lot. You know what's holding back African states? Warlords, capitalists, lack of medicine, infrastructure, etc..

I say little incentive because I have literally seen it at work and there is mathematically and statistically little incentive for people to sink a lot of time and effort into investments that they aren't seeing a personal return on. Your entire model goes against the very nature of human decision making.

You saw nothing at work, don't even pretend to say Africa had socialism. Oh yeah? Oh, the human nature argument... Well, get used to it buddy, its human nature to work for a lord, capitalism goes against human nature. - feudalism supporter

I am talking about the basic field of economics and the basic premise that man seeks to maximize utility for themselves. Humans operated no differently from that under a feudalistic society. Your system depends on man doing something without gain to themselves. It rests on high levels of altruism and suffers from high levels of free rider problems. We have absolutely seen market sectors in various countries collapse due to things such as free rider problems (it is very well documented) and have seen humans refuse to invest in land that they do not have secure private ownership over. We are facing that problem with women farmers in Malawi for example and communal farming groups. They do not have individual ownership over the land and thus have little reason to make investments into it (since they won't be seeing the returns). This keeps them low productivity. This was also the same problem that we saw with feudalism, where serfs had no incentive to engage in labor outside of what was required by their lord.

Man has done this system before, and they do gain for themselves you moron, if we were all greedy and didn't care about others, we wouldn't have evolved and survive do. You don't know human nature, as you've only observed it under capitalism. Well, you refer to capitalists refusing, what about the working people? They'd all be benefiting, collective ownership and having a say in what gets done at the factory? Yes, yes, this appears under a capitalist system with the constant push for private production ownership, no surprise there. Uh, no, Serfs didn't engage because they thought feudalism was the only working system.

I don't think you understood what I said. I said that actors under a feudalistic system were rational actors, that is exactly why serfs were very unproductive workers. Because they had no ownership and thus no incentive to produce beyond the bare minimum. Without enforced private property rights there is just little incentive for investment. Once again, we have seen this very problem in communal farming markets. They tend to be highly unproductive and eventually collapse when they can't compete.

How do you know they were unproductive, and the free ukraine/etc weren't unproductive, much like all of those who came before capitalism, it's idiotic rhetoric man. The fundamental difference is that under socialism, people would still work for some sort of payment, they would just be able to cooperatively own production, together, so they still own it, essentially, and they get paid for what their labor is actually worth. Your examples are idiotic, I can point out somalia, which is essentially anarcho-capitalism, and show that capitalism is a broken system if not heavily regulated.

 

[Marxist]

So you admit you're the one calling them failures when you know nothing about them? Helping people in poverty isn't rewarding failure you ignorant ass.

Preventing them from acquiring IT service sectors and manufacturing that we outsource to them isn't helping people in poverty either.

I never said I wanted to prevent it, I don't think it's morally acceptable.

Well its doing more for people who live in abject agricultural poverty than your morals are.

It's the concept of exploiting what the laborer is worth, purposefully underpaying the labor, fighting regulations, endorsing child labor...

And India created high levels of progressive labor laws which completely stymied the development (initial costs were too high) of its manufacturing sector so China gobbled it all up allowing China to lift millions out of poverty and causing India to fall behind and maintain instead a largely low productivity informal manufacturing sector which it is only now starting to streamline.

Thus Indians were left without the jobs and thus without the associated progressive benefits that were supposed to come with them. Your vision is of no value to them if it fails in execution.

I already know progressive labor laws are hated by capitalists, and the initial cost wouldn't destroy the capitalists, they're just afraid of profit. Lift millions out of poverty? Yeah, to what exactly, unsafe working conditions where they are essentially still in poverty, wage slaves... I refer you to the articles in my signature for more on this, but moving on.

 

[Osomir]

I say little incentive because I have literally seen it at work and there is mathematically and statistically little incentive for people to sink a lot of time and effort into investments that they aren't seeing a personal return on. Your entire model goes against the very nature of human decision making.

You saw nothing at work, don't even pretend to say Africa had socialism. Oh yeah? Oh, the human nature argument... Well, get used to it buddy, its human nature to work for a lord, capitalism goes against human nature. - feudalism supporter

I am talking about the basic field of economics and the basic premise that man seeks to maximize utility for themselves. Humans operated no differently from that under a feudalistic society. Your system depends on man doing something without gain to themselves. It rests on high levels of altruism and suffers from high levels of free rider problems. We have absolutely seen market sectors in various countries collapse due to things such as free rider problems (it is very well documented) and have seen humans refuse to invest in land that they do not have secure private ownership over. We are facing that problem with women farmers in Malawi for example and communal farming groups. They do not have individual ownership over the land and thus have little reason to make investments into it (since they won't be seeing the returns). This keeps them low productivity. This was also the same problem that we saw with feudalism, where serfs had no incentive to engage in labor outside of what was required by their lord.

Man has done this system before, and they do gain for themselves you moron, if we were all greedy and didn't care about others, we wouldn't have evolved and survive do. You don't know human nature, as you've only observed it under capitalism. Well, you refer to capitalists refusing, what about the working people? They'd all be benefiting, collective ownership and having a say in what gets done at the factory? Yes, yes, this appears under a capitalist system with the constant push for private production ownership, no surprise there. Uh, no, Serfs didn't engage because they thought feudalism was the only working system.

I don't think you understood what I said. I said that actors under a feudalistic system were rational actors, that is exactly why serfs were very unproductive workers. Because they had no ownership and thus no incentive to produce beyond the bare minimum. Without enforced private property rights there is just little incentive for investment. Once again, we have seen this very problem in communal farming markets. They tend to be highly unproductive and eventually collapse when they can't compete.

How do you know they were unproductive, and the free ukraine/etc weren't unproductive, much like all of those who came before capitalism, it's idiotic rhetoric man. The fundamental difference is that under socialism, people would still work for some sort of payment, they would just be able to cooperatively own production, together, so they still own it, essentially, and they get paid for what their labor is actually worth. Your examples are idiotic, I can point out somalia, which is essentially anarcho-capitalism, and show that capitalism is a broken system if not heavily regulated.

I know they were unproductive because we actively monitored how much they produced relative to other systems, I know they are relatively unproductive because we can and do still measure such cooperatives. They simply can't compete in production terms. Tanzania for example tried it in its agricultural sector and it caused the sector to collapse. You haven't given any reason outside of altruism why workers would be incentivized under your system to produce. Nor have you in any way addressed the very real economic concept of the free rider problem which plagues such systems. And I also hate anarcho-capitalism, I find it just as economically naive as anarcho-communsm. I am in favor of a mixed economic system (like most economists) where a largely private market exists that is regulated by the state.

 

[Osomir]

Preventing them from acquiring IT service sectors and manufacturing that we outsource to them isn't helping people in poverty either.

I never said I wanted to prevent it, I don't think it's morally acceptable.

Well its doing more for people who live in abject agricultural poverty than your morals are.

It's the concept of exploiting what the laborer is worth, purposefully underpaying the labor, fighting regulations, endorsing child labor...

And India created high levels of progressive labor laws which completely stymied the development (initial costs were too high) of its manufacturing sector so China gobbled it all up allowing China to lift millions out of poverty and causing India to fall behind and maintain instead a largely low productivity informal manufacturing sector which it is only now starting to streamline.

Thus Indians were left without the jobs and thus without the associated progressive benefits that were supposed to come with them. Your vision is of no value to them if it fails in execution.

I already know progressive labor laws are hated by capitalists, and the initial cost wouldn't destroy the capitalists, they're just afraid of profit. Lift millions out of poverty? Yeah, to what exactly, unsafe working conditions where they are essentially still in poverty, wage slaves... I refer you to the articles in my signature for more on this, but moving on.

Except we have seen quite plainly that initial costs of such labor laws have prevented India's manufacturing market from taking off relative to other states. The result? India's unskilled workers remain impoverished and without labor benefits. Such laws can't really precede development, they have to come after it has started otherwise they represent large cost barriers and the market simply doesn't grow, and that doesn't benefit anyone. You remind me a bit of Robert Mugabe. Someone who would sit at the head of a crumbling economy that you destroyed all the while blaming some sort of elusive capitalist conspiracy.

 

[Marxist]

You saw nothing at work, don't even pretend to say Africa had socialism. Oh yeah? Oh, the human nature argument... Well, get used to it buddy, its human nature to work for a lord, capitalism goes against human nature. - feudalism supporter

I am talking about the basic field of economics and the basic premise that man seeks to maximize utility for themselves. Humans operated no differently from that under a feudalistic society. Your system depends on man doing something without gain to themselves. It rests on high levels of altruism and suffers from high levels of free rider problems. We have absolutely seen market sectors in various countries collapse due to things such as free rider problems (it is very well documented) and have seen humans refuse to invest in land that they do not have secure private ownership over. We are facing that problem with women farmers in Malawi for example and communal farming groups. They do not have individual ownership over the land and thus have little reason to make investments into it (since they won't be seeing the returns). This keeps them low productivity. This was also the same problem that we saw with feudalism, where serfs had no incentive to engage in labor outside of what was required by their lord.

Man has done this system before, and they do gain for themselves you moron, if we were all greedy and didn't care about others, we wouldn't have evolved and survive do. You don't know human nature, as you've only observed it under capitalism. Well, you refer to capitalists refusing, what about the working people? They'd all be benefiting, collective ownership and having a say in what gets done at the factory? Yes, yes, this appears under a capitalist system with the constant push for private production ownership, no surprise there. Uh, no, Serfs didn't engage because they thought feudalism was the only working system.

I don't think you understood what I said. I said that actors under a feudalistic system were rational actors, that is exactly why serfs were very unproductive workers. Because they had no ownership and thus no incentive to produce beyond the bare minimum. Without enforced private property rights there is just little incentive for investment. Once again, we have seen this very problem in communal farming markets. They tend to be highly unproductive and eventually collapse when they can't compete.

How do you know they were unproductive, and the free ukraine/etc weren't unproductive, much like all of those who came before capitalism, it's idiotic rhetoric man. The fundamental difference is that under socialism, people would still work for some sort of payment, they would just be able to cooperatively own production, together, so they still own it, essentially, and they get paid for what their labor is actually worth. Your examples are idiotic, I can point out somalia, which is essentially anarcho-capitalism, and show that capitalism is a broken system if not heavily regulated.

I know they were unproductive because we actively monitored how much they produced relative to other systems, I know they are relatively unproductive because we can and do still measure such cooperatives. They simply can't compete in production terms. Tanzania for example tried it in its agricultural sector and it caused the sector to collapse. You haven't given any reason outside of altruism why workers would be incentivized under your system to produce. Nor have you in any way addressed the very real economic concept of the free rider problem which plagues such systems. And I also hate anarcho-capitalism, I find it just as economically naive as anarcho-communsm. I am in favor of a mixed economic system (like most economists) where a largely private market exists that is regulated by the state.

You did not monitor the free Ukraine... Sorry.

 

[Marxist]

I never said I wanted to prevent it, I don't think it's morally acceptable.

Well its doing more for people who live in abject agricultural poverty than your morals are.

It's the concept of exploiting what the laborer is worth, purposefully underpaying the labor, fighting regulations, endorsing child labor...

And India created high levels of progressive labor laws which completely stymied the development (initial costs were too high) of its manufacturing sector so China gobbled it all up allowing China to lift millions out of poverty and causing India to fall behind and maintain instead a largely low productivity informal manufacturing sector which it is only now starting to streamline.

Thus Indians were left without the jobs and thus without the associated progressive benefits that were supposed to come with them. Your vision is of no value to them if it fails in execution.

I already know progressive labor laws are hated by capitalists, and the initial cost wouldn't destroy the capitalists, they're just afraid of profit. Lift millions out of poverty? Yeah, to what exactly, unsafe working conditions where they are essentially still in poverty, wage slaves... I refer you to the articles in my signature for more on this, but moving on.

Except we have seen quite plainly that initial costs of such labor laws have prevented India's manufacturing market from taking off relative to other states. The result? India's unskilled workers remain impoverished and without labor benefits. Such laws can't really precede development, they have to come after it has started otherwise they represent large cost barriers and the market simply doesn't grow, and that doesn't benefit anyone. You remind me a bit of Robert Mugabe. Someone who would sit at the head of a crumbling economy that you destroyed all the while blaming some sort of elusive capitalist conspiracy.

It could have taken off just fine, but the capitalist greed is infinite. Oh, and when they get the benefits, the exploitive labor shifts again. Yeah, a nonexistent system destroyed the economy, tell me more about the Great Depression and 2008

 

[Osomir]

I am talking about the basic field of economics and the basic premise that man seeks to maximize utility for themselves. Humans operated no differently from that under a feudalistic society. Your system depends on man doing something without gain to themselves. It rests on high levels of altruism and suffers from high levels of free rider problems. We have absolutely seen market sectors in various countries collapse due to things such as free rider problems (it is very well documented) and have seen humans refuse to invest in land that they do not have secure private ownership over. We are facing that problem with women farmers in Malawi for example and communal farming groups. They do not have individual ownership over the land and thus have little reason to make investments into it (since they won't be seeing the returns). This keeps them low productivity. This was also the same problem that we saw with feudalism, where serfs had no incentive to engage in labor outside of what was required by their lord.

Man has done this system before, and they do gain for themselves you moron, if we were all greedy and didn't care about others, we wouldn't have evolved and survive do. You don't know human nature, as you've only observed it under capitalism. Well, you refer to capitalists refusing, what about the working people? They'd all be benefiting, collective ownership and having a say in what gets done at the factory? Yes, yes, this appears under a capitalist system with the constant push for private production ownership, no surprise there. Uh, no, Serfs didn't engage because they thought feudalism was the only working system.

I don't think you understood what I said. I said that actors under a feudalistic system were rational actors, that is exactly why serfs were very unproductive workers. Because they had no ownership and thus no incentive to produce beyond the bare minimum. Without enforced private property rights there is just little incentive for investment. Once again, we have seen this very problem in communal farming markets. They tend to be highly unproductive and eventually collapse when they can't compete.

How do you know they were unproductive, and the free ukraine/etc weren't unproductive, much like all of those who came before capitalism, it's idiotic rhetoric man. The fundamental difference is that under socialism, people would still work for some sort of payment, they would just be able to cooperatively own production, together, so they still own it, essentially, and they get paid for what their labor is actually worth. Your examples are idiotic, I can point out somalia, which is essentially anarcho-capitalism, and show that capitalism is a broken system if not heavily regulated.

I know they were unproductive because we actively monitored how much they produced relative to other systems, I know they are relatively unproductive because we can and do still measure such cooperatives. They simply can't compete in production terms. Tanzania for example tried it in its agricultural sector and it caused the sector to collapse. You haven't given any reason outside of altruism why workers would be incentivized under your system to produce. Nor have you in any way addressed the very real economic concept of the free rider problem which plagues such systems. And I also hate anarcho-capitalism, I find it just as economically naive as anarcho-communsm. I am in favor of a mixed economic system (like most economists) where a largely private market exists that is regulated by the state.

You did not monitor the free Ukraine... Sorry.

I'm not sure what specific example you are attempting to point to but one data point in a sea of hundreds is not significant.

 

[Marxist]

Man has done this system before, and they do gain for themselves you moron, if we were all greedy and didn't care about others, we wouldn't have evolved and survive do. You don't know human nature, as you've only observed it under capitalism. Well, you refer to capitalists refusing, what about the working people? They'd all be benefiting, collective ownership and having a say in what gets done at the factory? Yes, yes, this appears under a capitalist system with the constant push for private production ownership, no surprise there. Uh, no, Serfs didn't engage because they thought feudalism was the only working system.

I don't think you understood what I said. I said that actors under a feudalistic system were rational actors, that is exactly why serfs were very unproductive workers. Because they had no ownership and thus no incentive to produce beyond the bare minimum. Without enforced private property rights there is just little incentive for investment. Once again, we have seen this very problem in communal farming markets. They tend to be highly unproductive and eventually collapse when they can't compete.

How do you know they were unproductive, and the free ukraine/etc weren't unproductive, much like all of those who came before capitalism, it's idiotic rhetoric man. The fundamental difference is that under socialism, people would still work for some sort of payment, they would just be able to cooperatively own production, together, so they still own it, essentially, and they get paid for what their labor is actually worth. Your examples are idiotic, I can point out somalia, which is essentially anarcho-capitalism, and show that capitalism is a broken system if not heavily regulated.

I know they were unproductive because we actively monitored how much they produced relative to other systems, I know they are relatively unproductive because we can and do still measure such cooperatives. They simply can't compete in production terms. Tanzania for example tried it in its agricultural sector and it caused the sector to collapse. You haven't given any reason outside of altruism why workers would be incentivized under your system to produce. Nor have you in any way addressed the very real economic concept of the free rider problem which plagues such systems. And I also hate anarcho-capitalism, I find it just as economically naive as anarcho-communsm. I am in favor of a mixed economic system (like most economists) where a largely private market exists that is regulated by the state.

You did not monitor the free Ukraine... Sorry.

I'm not sure what specific example you are attempting to point to but one data point in a sea of hundreds is not significant.

Modern day worker coops, territories In Spain during the revolution... I'll link readings if you want.

 

[Osomir]

Well its doing more for people who live in abject agricultural poverty than your morals are.

It's the concept of exploiting what the laborer is worth, purposefully underpaying the labor, fighting regulations, endorsing child labor...

And India created high levels of progressive labor laws which completely stymied the development (initial costs were too high) of its manufacturing sector so China gobbled it all up allowing China to lift millions out of poverty and causing India to fall behind and maintain instead a largely low productivity informal manufacturing sector which it is only now starting to streamline.

Thus Indians were left without the jobs and thus without the associated progressive benefits that were supposed to come with them. Your vision is of no value to them if it fails in execution.

I already know progressive labor laws are hated by capitalists, and the initial cost wouldn't destroy the capitalists, they're just afraid of profit. Lift millions out of poverty? Yeah, to what exactly, unsafe working conditions where they are essentially still in poverty, wage slaves... I refer you to the articles in my signature for more on this, but moving on.

Except we have seen quite plainly that initial costs of such labor laws have prevented India's manufacturing market from taking off relative to other states. The result? India's unskilled workers remain impoverished and without labor benefits. Such laws can't really precede development, they have to come after it has started otherwise they represent large cost barriers and the market simply doesn't grow, and that doesn't benefit anyone. You remind me a bit of Robert Mugabe. Someone who would sit at the head of a crumbling economy that you destroyed all the while blaming some sort of elusive capitalist conspiracy.

It could have taken off just fine, but the capitalist greed is infinite. Oh, and when they get the benefits, the exploitive labor shifts again. Yeah, a nonexistent system destroyed the economy, tell me more about the Great Depression and 2008

"It could have" "if only" these are nice sayings and moral soapbox speeches on your part, but the simple fact is that in India they turned out to be prohibitive and for all of your desire to help people, they did the exact opposite and relegated them to rural poverty. Your system is only of value if it actually works in the real world.