• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Freedom of speech

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
I completely agree with you, globalvision. Gabo, capitalism without regulation results in the total exploitation of the worker.
How is it possible to "exploit" someone when they agree to what they're doing?



anomaly said:
I mean Gabo, why do you think the Gov't stepped in in the first place? Just to cause havoc? It is to protect the workers!
The role of government changed because people got lazy. They said, "well I want this and this and this to change!" But instead of doing it themselves, they imposed rules and regulations to FORCE the entire country to do it for them.



anomaly said:
You seem to think that it is in the businesses best interests to give the worker more rights. This is not true at all!! The less rights (money) given to the worker, the greater the profit the businesses will collect, and that is, of course, what capitalism is all about: profit.
If you pay your employees the lowest amount possible, you are making the most profit right?

WRONG!

Because I will see your stupidity and pay my employees more than you pay yours. Suddenly, all the employees move to work for me! Now I, the one who gave them better benefits, is the one making more money!

This is a little thing called 'market competition'. It naturally drives companies to provide better wages and lower prices. Because if they don't, someone else who is smarter will.


To understand this, you must know how supply and demand works.

If there are less jobs than workers, then the companies hold all the power. THEY are the ones that get to pick and choose the employees and their wages.

The key is having more jobs than workers, because that puts all the power into the workers' hands. The companies must compete to get as many workers from the limited supply there is.

This second situation happens when there are no market regulations. Without regulations, the number of companies doing business increases.

Without regulations, people who are unsatisfied with the prices and wages of companies can more easily create and run their own.

Without minimum wage, more and more jobs come in from overseas.


This puts the workers in control, able to sit back and watch the companies compete for their service.
 

globalvision

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Location
UK
Gabo said:
This second situation happens when there are no market regulations. Without regulations, the number of companies doing business increases.

Without regulations, people who are unsatisfied with the prices and wages of companies can more easily create and run their own.

Without minimum wage, more and more jobs come in from overseas.


This puts the workers in control, able to sit back and watch the companies compete for their service.

sounds good dont it gabo, but you ever heard of inflation, if companies keep on having to bid for new employees as there is less then the available number of jobs wages will increase, sounds good so far, but this leads to inflation which leads to jobs going overseas!

there is always and will always be under the current system a level of unemployment those that are unemployed due to structural problems need a system that protects them, also during a business downturn people need protection until they can find a new job. the charity that you talk about is just not available to support this. during a business cycle downturn when people may earn less do you honestly think that you will give a significant amount to those unemployed, or would you keep it yourself?
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
globalvision said:
sounds good dont it gabo, but you ever heard of inflation, if companies keep on having to bid for new employees as there is less then the available number of jobs wages will increase, sounds good so far, but this leads to inflation which leads to jobs going overseas!
Sorry, but inflation is only made possible when the government monopolizes money.



globalvision said:
there is always and will always be under the current system a level of unemployment those that are unemployed due to structural problems need a system that protects them, also during a business downturn people need protection until they can find a new job. the charity that you talk about is just not available to support this. during a business cycle downturn when people may earn less do you honestly think that you will give a significant amount to those unemployed, or would you keep it yourself?
With no business regulations, unemployed people could find jobs for themselves, doing a simple service or selling a simple product.

It is not hard to find something someone wants that is not yet fulfilled.


I know personally I sell candy bars at school to make some extra cash.

It was extremely easy and took almost no money to begin my business. I simply observed that people were always asking if anyone was selling candy. Using extremely simple logic I deduced that I could sell candy and profit from it. Not only that, but I would be satisfying those who wanted to buy candy.

And as a simple business owner, I know for a fact that I don't set the prices for my candy at all. It sells for whatever people are willing to pay.
 

globalvision

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Location
UK
Gabo said:
Sorry, but inflation is only made possible when the government monopolizes money.

oh dear gabo, fatal mistake! you want to talk economics with an economics student. yes inflation can be caused by government printing money, but it needs to monopolize money to facilitate trade, unless you have another idea which i hope you do.

but i take it you dont know about demand pull and cost pull inflation, or do i need to give you an economics 101 class, which i would be happy to do!
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
globalvision said:
oh dear gabo, fatal mistake! you want to talk economics with an economics student. yes inflation can be caused by government printing money, but it needs to monopolize money to facilitate trade, unless you have another idea which i hope you do.
Nothing wrong with a system of silver, gold, or other precious metals.

Anything people can count and keep track of makes a good bartering tool.

As long as the thing is judged by its actual value, not some imaginary value the government creates.
 

globalvision

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Location
UK
Gabo said:
Nothing wrong with a system of silver, gold, or other precious metals.

Anything people can count and keep track of makes a good bartering tool.

As long as the thing is judged by its actual value, not some imaginary value the government creates.

Gabo are you mad, we had that kinda system in the last century and it just did not work as well as the current system, thats why people handed there gold to the banks in order to get paper money, which was so much easier, then banks realized that they did not need to keep gold reserves as long as people value the paper money as much as they do the gold they held in reserves. i doubt many people would support your idea. the idea of getting cold coins out of an ATM does not seem that promising to me.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
globalvision said:
Gabo are you mad, we had that kinda system in the last century and it just did not work as well as the current system, thats why people handed there gold to the banks in order to get paper money, which was so much easier, then banks realized that they did not need to keep gold reserves as long as people value the paper money as much as they do the gold they held in reserves. i doubt many people would support your idea. the idea of getting cold coins out of an ATM does not seem that promising to me.
Look at inflation before we traded over to a government monopolized money system. It was nothing compared to now.

There is nothing wrong with banks issuing notes that represent real objects, but when government takes the money and makes it no longer compared to anything, it is able to manipulate money supply at will.

I'm not saying that we should all carry gold coins around, just that our money should actually be a representer of those gold coins, rather than just random slips of paper.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
globalvision said:
ps do you admit you are wrong about inflation?
Please do explain to me how inflation is possible if money is actually an object of value or actually represents an object of value.
 

globalvision

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Location
UK
the reason that governments dont like to use objects of value such as gold, is because objects such as gold can change in value in a day to day basis. so does money but not to the same degree as gold. the value of gold could suddenly collapse if a massive new reserve of gold is found in south Africa for instance. money printed by a bank allows for people to exchange goods in a more efficient mannor as it is national and internationally accepted.
 

globalvision

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Location
UK
a government does not wish to manipulate the money supply at will as this leads to instability, which im sure is not the objective of the government. it can use it in a sense to tax called an inflation tax by printing money. this can lead to hyperinflation. so the government rarely does this to much of a degree. the American government also benefits from having its massive debts calculated in dollars.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
globalvision said:
a government does not wish to manipulate the money supply at will as this leads to instability, which im sure is not the objective of the government.
Yes, I forgot that all the politicians are pure economic geniuses!


That's why we'll never see something such as..... a Great Depression.



O wait, too late. They already did that!




And like you said, the value of what the money is backed by doesn't matter. So long as it is backed by SOMETHING, inflation is prevented. Our current fiat money has absolutely no value, and people still use it. I'm sure a system backed with gold, no matter what its price is, will be just the same as our current system. The only difference is there's NO INFLATION.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
Yes, I forgot that all the politicians are pure economic geniuses!


That's why we'll never see something such as..... a Great Depression.



O wait, too late. They already did that!




And like you said, the value of what the money is backed by doesn't matter. So long as it is backed by SOMETHING, inflation is prevented. Our current fiat money has absolutely no value, and people still use it. I'm sure a system backed with gold, no matter what its price is, will be just the same as our current system. The only difference is there's NO INFLATION.

Ah, my old friend Gabo. I see that you've once again tried your hand at debating with a left-winger. Not to interfere, but just a question...who are 'they'? The politicians? Yes I completely agree with you. The politicians caused the Great Depression by being overly pro-labor. But anyways, here's why I'm actually writing this: Awhile back, in a response to me, you said that government regulations protecting workers were 'caused by the workers own laziness by not taking action themselves'. The workers take action? Ther were no labor rights to speak of, this means no right to organise. If the workers 'did it themselves' as you wisely suggest, they would have all been fired! In a situation like that, the government must step in to help the worker. To end, I'd like to make you aware of something, you laissez-faire man of the people: Under transnational capitalism tosay, more people suffer from it than thrive from it.
 

globalvision

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Location
UK
Gabo said:
And like you said, the value of what the money is backed by doesn't matter. So long as it is backed by SOMETHING, inflation is prevented. Our current fiat money has absolutely no value, and people still use it. I'm sure a system backed with gold, no matter what its price is, will be just the same as our current system. The only difference is there's NO INFLATION.

Why is inflation so bad for you Gabo? does inflation rates of 1 or 2% really make life so hard for you. If you look at it more closely you will see that it actually helps the economy to have a low level of inflation such as this.
 

globalvision

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Location
UK
anomaly said:
Ah, my old friend Gabo. I see that you've once again tried your hand at debating with a left-winger. Not to interfere, but just a question...who are 'they'? The politicians? Yes I completely agree with you. The politicians caused the Great Depression by being overly pro-labor. But anyways, here's why I'm actually writing this: Awhile back, in a response to me, you said that government regulations protecting workers were 'caused by the workers own laziness by not taking action themselves'. The workers take action? Ther were no labor rights to speak of, this means no right to organise. If the workers 'did it themselves' as you wisely suggest, they would have all been fired! In a situation like that, the government must step in to help the worker. To end, I'd like to make you aware of something, you laissez-faire man of the people: Under transnational capitalism tosay, more people suffer from it than thrive from it.

Where did you get this information that the government is to blame for being overly pro-labour, i am not saying that the government of the time has no share in the blame only that you i believe your reasons for this are wrong.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
Awhile back, in a response to me, you said that government regulations protecting workers were 'caused by the workers own laziness by not taking action themselves'. The workers take action? Ther were no labor rights to speak of, this means no right to organise.
If they were being prevented from staging a strike, it was the government that was preventing that.


Under a free market, there would be nothing stopping people from staging a strike.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
globalvision said:
Where did you get this information that the government is to blame for being overly pro-labour, i am not saying that the government of the time has no share in the blame only that you i believe your reasons for this are wrong.

Woah. Big mistake on my part. Gabo, you probably thoguht I was crazy saying this...I meant pro-business. Sorry, Sorry!!
 
Last edited:

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
If they were being prevented from staging a strike, it was the government that was preventing that.


Under a free market, there would be nothing stopping people from staging a strike.

Yes, nothing stops them, except the company they work for threatening to fire them...

Let me see if I can aresponse from you this time: You must be aware that transnational capitalism hurts more people than it helps. Now, I know you probably want to blame the regulations, but there are very few regulations internationally. Hence workers being paid 20 cents an hour...
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
anomaly said:
Yes, nothing stops them, except the company they work for threatening to fire them...

Let me see if I can aresponse from you this time: You must be aware that transnational capitalism hurts more people than it helps. Now, I know you probably want to blame the regulations, but there are very few regulations internationally. Hence workers being paid 20 cents an hour...

I'm not sure I understand the reference to transnational capitalism. Could you expand on this some.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Pacridge said:
I'm not sure I understand the reference to transnational capitalism. Could you expand on this some.

Yes, but first I'd like to correct what I wrote: "Let me see if I can GET a response...". Perhaps, Gabo, that will make it easier for you to answer.

Transnational capitalism refers to the fact that capitalism is beyond the national, it is beyond the reach of the state (we have a capitalist world, rather than any one capitalist state). It refers also to the fact that we see these American based companies making their parts, say in China, and then shipping them to the USA or the EU to be manufactured (transnational corporations). The stages of production now can happen throughout the world instead of in one country. Capitalism is beyond the state's reach now in the sense that the state can no longer control these big corporations, which is why we have a 'global market' that excludes no country. That is also why we see things like outsourcing-the state can't control it.
 
Last edited:

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
Yes, nothing stops them, except the company they work for threatening to fire them...
A company without workers isn't a company for long. ;)

The companies that DO give in to the workers' demands will survive though.


anomaly said:
You must be aware that transnational capitalism hurts more people than it helps. Now, I know you probably want to blame the regulations, but there are very few regulations internationally. Hence workers being paid 20 cents an hour...
If a job takes no intelligence, no education, no experience, no thought process....
Why shouldn't it be payed 20c/hr?

That is, after all, what the job is worth.



You may be saying, "well that's not enough for the person to make a living".
That's probably true, but everyone has to start somewhere.
And there aren't many places that let you start at the top.

With low-qualification, low-paying jobs people have an easier time moving up to better jobs. Government rules and regulations are the part that makes moving up difficult.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
A company without workers isn't a company for long. ;)

The companies that DO give in to the workers' demands will survive though.

The workers always need the corporations, perhaps moreso than today's corporations need the workers. Workes need money, and as long as a corporation offers some money, there will be plenty of workers willing to work, in an attempt to survive. (You never see a company having too few workers, even companies like Nike that have workers work in the harshest of conditions for a very meager wage)



Gabo said:
If a job takes no intelligence, no education, no experience, no thought process....
Why shouldn't it be payed 20c/hr?

That is, after all, what the job is worth.

A factory job is worth 20 cents an hour? Atleast 5 dollars an hour, I'd think. And, what other jobs are 'worth' less? A machinist? A carpenter? Are these jobs 'worth' less?



Gabo said:
You may be saying, "well that's not enough for the person to make a living".
That's probably true, but everyone has to start somewhere.
And there aren't many places that let you start at the top.

With low-qualification, low-paying jobs people have an easier time moving up to better jobs. Government rules and regulations are the part that makes moving up difficult.

Where's your evidence that 'with low paying jobs, people have an easier time moving up'? It seems to me that a higher level job requires an education, which costs money, and a person making 20 cents an hour probably can't afford it. I don't see how its any easier! It looks to be harder! And where are these 'regulations that make moving up difficult'? Gov't regulations allow you to get a foot in the door, instead of having it slam on you. They allow the air you breathe to be cleaner, they allow workers to atleast make something close to what they need to survive (minimum wage). Regulations have helped the modern American worker tremendously, it is the foreign worker in a country with few regulations that is hurting. This suggests that regulations are beneficial to workers. Again, I don't know where you're getting your evidence that regulations are 'bad'. Others have tried in vain to explain to you that they are usually beneficial to the worker, and the 'common man'. Regulations only hurt the big corporations, thus, they leave to do business in a country without regulations in their never ending quest for profit. But if you compare the American worker's life now (with regulations) to his life 100 years ago (without regulations) you will find that his living and working conditions are exponentially better.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
The workers always need the corporations, perhaps moreso than today's corporations need the workers. Workes need money, and as long as a corporation offers some money, there will be plenty of workers willing to work, in an attempt to survive. (You never see a company having too few workers, even companies like Nike that have workers work in the harshest of conditions for a very meager wage)
The reason there are so many extra workers is because government regulations make it difficult to start small businesses, minimum wage hinders thte ability of small businesses to thrive, and people want to go to the big corporations because the government makes them overpay for the job.

This creates a downward spiral, making workers compete for the ever shrinking job market, trying to become one of the select few that gets a job. Sure, the jobs may pay enough to live off of because of the "good" government regulations, but tons of other people get no job at all because of the government strangling the job market.



anomaly said:
A factory job is worth 20 cents an hour? Atleast 5 dollars an hour, I'd think. And, what other jobs are 'worth' less? A machinist? A carpenter? Are these jobs 'worth' less?
$5/hr for something a 5 year old could do?
I really find that quite amusing.

And machinists and carpenters require plenty of skill, intelligence, and experience. They are obviously not worthless.

But the person standing in an assembly line all day putting the same two parts together 1000 times deserves what the job is worth, which is probably less than $5.



anomaly said:
Where's your evidence that 'with low paying jobs, people have an easier time moving up'? It seems to me that a higher level job requires an education, which costs money, and a person making 20 cents an hour probably can't afford it. I don't see how its any easier! It looks to be harder!
Studies show that people working minimum wage get higher wages like 5x faster than people not working minimum wage.

Moving up the ladder doesn't mean going from an assembly line worker to CEO of a gigantic corporation.

Small steps are taken, with small increases in wage.

Some millionaires are high school dropouts.
While an education is nice to have, it is not a necessity to move up the ladder.

And the person earning 20c/hr could probably move up to ~$9/hr before they actually needed education. And once you are there, you CAN save up.



anomaly said:
And where are these 'regulations that make moving up difficult'?
Minimum wage laws make it difficult just to go from unemployed to employed.
Thousands of rediculous regulations on owning and operating a business make small businesses very hard to create and maintain.
Welfare makes giving up look like the best solution.
Patents and copyrights prevent people from creating their own versions of a product.



anomaly said:
Gov't regulations allow you to get a foot in the door, instead of having it slam on you.
Government regulations pick 10 people out of 100 to get in the door,
then they shut it and deadbolt it.



anomaly said:
They allow the air you breathe to be cleaner, they allow workers to atleast make something close to what they need to survive (minimum wage).
Please refer to my previous statement.

They allow the workers to survive, but because of FORCING companies to do various things, thousands of jobs are lost altogether.

Instead of everyone earning a wage fair for the job, a chosen few get good wages while all the rest get nothing.



anomaly said:
Regulations have helped the modern American worker tremendously, it is the foreign worker in a country with few regulations that is hurting. This suggests that regulations are beneficial to workers.
I know, you are right.... :(

I feel so sorry for the poor people in the foreign countries that can now make 20c/hr instead of nothing.

The people that can now afford to feed themselves, instead of starving to death.

It was much better before we offered them jobs.



anomaly said:
Regulations only hurt the big corporations, thus, they leave to do business in a country without regulations in their never ending quest for profit.
When big corporations can only afford to employ half as many workers because they must pay them twice as much, EVERYONE loses.
-We get a more expensive product.
-Companies get less profit.
-Employees get fired and become unemployed.
Don't say it only affects the big corporations, because that's a lie.



anomaly said:
But if you compare the American worker's life now (with regulations) to his life 100 years ago (without regulations) you will find that his living and working conditions are exponentially better.
That arguement is completely rediculous.

Compare conditions of any period to those of 100yrs before. It's almost always better.

A valid comparison would be to contrast our state of living with other countries. 100 years ago we had THE BEST living/working conditions on the planet, with no regulations that is. Today we are #12 on the list, with our "wonderful" regulations bringing us down 11 places.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
The reason there are so many extra workers is because government regulations make it difficult to start small businesses, minimum wage hinders thte ability of small businesses to thrive, and people want to go to the big corporations because the government makes them overpay for the job.

This creates a downward spiral, making workers compete for the ever shrinking job market, trying to become one of the select few that gets a job. Sure, the jobs may pay enough to live off of because of the "good" government regulations, but tons of other people get no job at all because of the government strangling the job market.
Where's your evidence that regulations actually cause unemployment? Roosevelt's New Deal actually gave jobs to thousands of workers who had none. Today, we have many regulations, and our unemployment rate is something like 6%, which is the best in the world. I mean there is absolutely no evidence that regulations cause unemployment. And your point about small businesses, there are still ways of doing it. You can't just have thousands of small businesses popping up. Imagine the chaos. I imagine that's why the gov't regulations are there. Again, the gov't isn't as evil as you'd like it to be.




Gabo said:
$5/hr for something a 5 year old could do?
I really find that quite amusing.

And machinists and carpenters require plenty of skill, intelligence, and experience. They are obviously not worthless.

But the person standing in an assembly line all day putting the same two parts together 1000 times deserves what the job is worth, which is probably less than $5.
See, that's where we disagree. I argue that the factory worker still has the right to live (and you say minimum wage isn't enough, but that's where the gov't can step in and help), obviously you don't think so. You must begin to undertand that workers are not the ones who benefit from capitalism. This most obvious point is the one you deny.




Gabo said:
Studies show that people working minimum wage get higher wages like 5x faster than people not working minimum wage.
Uh, isn't that the point I'm trying to make? You've just said that people on minimum wage make more money faster than those not making minimum wage. I think you meant the reverse, so can I see this 'study'?

Gabo said:
Moving up the ladder doesn't mean going from an assembly line worker to CEO of a gigantic corporation.

Small steps are taken, with small increases in wage.

Some millionaires are high school dropouts.
While an education is nice to have, it is not a necessity to move up the ladder.

And the person earning 20c/hr could probably move up to ~$9/hr before they actually needed education. And once you are there, you CAN save up.
Show me where the worker in China can go from making 20 cents/hr to making 9 bucks/hr? I'm sure he'd like to know about this miracle too! Again, you've made a claim of someone who believes in idealistic capitalism. While I'm talking about tihs, may I suggest a book: One Market Under God by Thomas Frank. It exposes this myth that market are always 'good'.




Gabo said:
Minimum wage laws make it difficult just to go from unemployed to employed.
Thousands of rediculous regulations on owning and operating a business make small businesses very hard to create and maintain.
Welfare makes giving up look like the best solution.
Patents and copyrights prevent people from creating their own versions of a product.
Small businesses in a system of competition will always be hard to maintain, duh! See my above statement about small businesses also. Welfare would be the best solution if it didn't pay horribly, and if it didn't have limits. Also, I don't know if you know this, but people have a natural want to have a job. They want to feel beneficial. That's why, even in the welfare state, there is no shortage of workers.




Gabo said:
Government regulations pick 10 people out of 100 to get in the door,
then they shut it and deadbolt it.
Actually, they pick about 95 out of 100. That's pretty good. Now, in countries with few regulations, much less get in.




Gabo said:
They allow the workers to survive, but because of FORCING companies to do various things, thousands of jobs are lost altogether.

Instead of everyone earning a wage fair for the job, a chosen few get good wages while all the rest get nothing.
There are always more jobs. And if the gov't didn't 'force' crporations to do certain things, the workers wouldn't make enough to survive on.
"Instead of everyone getting fair wages, a chosen few get good wages while all the rest get nothing"
This is what capitalism is all about! Inequality will always exist in any sytem, but capitalism requires vast inequality to operate. It will always be this way as long as we have capitalism.




Gabo said:
I know, you are right.... :(

I feel so sorry for the poor people in the foreign countries that can now make 20c/hr instead of nothing.

The people that can now afford to feed themselves, instead of starving to death.

It was much better before we offered them jobs.
Do you think there were no jobs before capitalism? Of course there were. The thinking you show here is amazing. Without capitalism, everyone starves. You know, I learn something new everyday. The people, getting back to your statement, many times can't afford to eat, since their wage is so low. Before capitalism, they didn't starve, they were mostly subsistence farmers, meaning they made enough food to live on. The workers of a foreign country do not benefit from capitalism, it forces them to work for a meager salary in order to make someone else richer (the trickle up effect).




Gabo said:
When big corporations can only afford to employ half as many workers because they must pay them twice as much, EVERYONE loses.
-We get a more expensive product.
-Companies get less profit.
-Employees get fired and become unemployed.
Don't say it only affects the big corporations, because that's a lie.
And this is the vice of capitalism, to avoid making everyone suffer (the business owners too, the most important people in capitalism) we see the workers suffer. Sure, everyone could win, if the business owners accepted half as much money as they do, making them still higher paid than workers, but not by much, but that's not what capitalism is about, though. (if you look at statistics for the salary of the avg American worker of a company vs. salary of a company executive now the ratio is something like 1:150, the same ratio was something like 1:40 in 1950. If someone can find the exact stats, I'd appreciate it.)


Gabo said:
That arguement is completely rediculous.

Compare conditions of any period to those of 100yrs before. It's almost always better.

A valid comparison would be to contrast our state of living with other countries. 100 years ago we had THE BEST living/working conditions on the planet, with no regulations that is. Today we are #12 on the list, with our "wonderful" regulations bringing us down 11 places.
Where's your evidence that we had the highest standard of living 100 years ago (I've never heard anything of this)? And regarding workiing conditions 'always rising', you will see they actually go up and down regardless of time (for ex. the conditions of Roman times were better than those of feudal times). More time does not neccesarily equal better conditions, sometimes quite the contrary. This just happens to hold true for the USA, but for other countries, it is quite possible that workers are worse off today (note, the US is the country with more regulations, and yet our workers work in much better conditions...makes you wonder)
 
Top Bottom