It seems ironic to me that Pooka is saying "conservative this" and "conservative that" while complaining about a company owned by Steve Jobs; a liberal.
@stoicsquirrel Steve Jobs a liberal? How interesting. What makes you come to this conclusion?
""You're headed for a one-term presidency," he told Obama at the start of their meeting, insisting that the administration needed to be more business-friendly. As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where "regulations and unnecessary costs" make it difficult for them."" <--from his biography by W. Issacson
@TheTruePooka "Jobs also criticized America's education system, saying it was "crippled by union work rules," noted Isaacson. "Until the teachers' unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform.""
@TheTruePooka Wait a minute. A lot of liberals I know disagree with Obama's policies. A lot of them also say he'll be a one term president. Many of them ALSO believe that there are some unnecessary regulations in place in the US. That doesn't automatically make them conservatives. I think I see the problem here. The problem is that you think that anyone that doesn't think exactly like you must be a conservative. I have a liberal friend that thinks the same way you do.
@stoicsquirrel Obama is a Conservative president. The problem you've got is you're buying into the rhetoric that's being put forward on the "liberal vs Conservative dialogue" in this country.
The reality is there really is no liberal power structure in this country worth mentioning. There's just degrees of Conservative. The whole debate over "liberal vs Conservative" is a canard.
@TheTruePooka Like I said before: you think that anyone that isn't exactly like you is a conservative. You consider Obama a conservative because he does things that you don't agree with. If that's the case then can't I do it too? Would Bush be a liberal since I disagreed with many of his policies? Or does that just make him less conservative on your conservative scale.
@stoicsquirrel And like I said before; you consider anything that doesn't agree with your thinking liberal.
The difference between us is I know what defines conservative & liberal ideology. You don't
You can repeat back; "Derp- you think everything is conservative!" as much as you want but it won't change the fact these words have meanings you don't seem to understand.
@TheTruePooka This was what you said: There's just degrees of Conservative. I think you were only talking about people some sort of power, though. Not people in general. That leads me to believe that you don't like people with any sort of power and you've been told that conservatives are evil so you must have put the two together and come up with the idea that all people with any sort of power are conservatives. What about Clinton?
@stoicsquirrel You have to remember you're speaking to someone who reads history an has lived some of it. This country has shifted far right compared to the 1970's. Many of Nixon's policies would be considered liberal by today's standard.
When I speak of there being no liberals I'm speaking in a context where I compare today's democratic party to that of 20-40 years ago.
@stoicsquirrel "that you think that anyone that doesn't think exactly like you must be a conservative."
Strawman. I've done nothing to indicate that. I'm dealing with a specific topic that addresses an agenda in this country by conservative Republicans to hijack the free market dialogue.
You're making assumptions based on my comments on one specific issue. Your logic is flawed.
And this may shock you but terms like "liberal" & "conservative" have actual meanings.
@TheTruePooka There are core principles that make you one or the other. Saying something like; "A lot of liberals I know disagree with Obama's policies" in response to my quotes on S. Jobs show you don't know what they are.
It also suggests that you're the one who likely lumps everyone who doesn't think like you into a big category called; "liberals".
@TheTruePooka Yes, you did. You called Jobs a conservative simply because he doesn't quite fit your narrow definition of a liberal. You said that there are no liberals, only degrees of conservatives. If that's the case, what are you going on about conservatives for if we're all conservatives?
@stoicsquirrel No, I called Jobs a conservative because his biographer thinks he's a conservative. If you've got a problem with that take it up with the person who wrote the book.
@TheTruePooka Wasn't there someone on this page that said they lived in China? You said you can't believe a stranger (something like that). I agree, but why take the biographer's words as gospel? But, fine, I'll concede that. Even though he supported Obama and was a regular donor to democrats (look it up, it's probably in his autobiography). BTW, why are you only responding to my random pokes at you? I made a few good points (IMO) that you ignored.
@stoicsquirrel There's a difference between a random internet stranger and a book that's about to be sold world-wide that's being reviewed an analyzed by others who are in the same field.
And sorry if I seem to be one sided in what I respond to but you have to realize this comments section has mostly consisted of me fielding strawman arguments, fallacies and outright insults.
So I tend to pick out the common theme and try to address it to figure out what's what.
Why pick such an extreme case that isn't even in this country? I'm pretty sure that MOST conservatives don't support TOTAL deregulation. I don't. I am curious here, could those workers not quit the jobs? If that is the case then why complain about under-regulated corporations? Or in your extreme case NON regulated corporations. The real problem is slavery.
anyone who is under the impression that economy is simple is just making a mistake.
free market does indeed tend to make things bearable for everyone, but you my friend were giving monopoly as an example of free market failure... and thus you fail!
i am really skeptical about the idea that those employees who killed themselves had a lot of job opportunities, so the free market model simply can't be used.
on the other hand, i totally agree, regulate monopoly.
The only thing that needs debunking is the myth that any deregulation actually occurs when something is allegedly deregulated.
The banking industry is so regulated that you would die of old age before you could actually read all of it.
Make a labyrinthine system and don't be surprised when most people lose money in it, and a group that can afford hundreds of lawyers and accountants can game it.
Complete "Deregulation" can only work is the Banking system is changed. Companies are not evil, they are forced to be evil because the money supply is evil. if there was only 2 bread for 20000 people. believe me, people will kill for bread. so Apple will us slavery to compete against interest and the competitive. SO STOP BLAMING THE WRONG PERSON!!!!! THE BANKING SYSTEM ASKS FOR THIS TO HAPPEN, NOT CORPARATIONS!!! a corparation must make profit, so if u r not happy, change the rules....
In china there are massive amounts of regulations this is good for big corporations and bad for small business, total deregulation would lead to no small business and one big corporation just as over regulation favours those with power and wealth. Minimal regulation thought out to favour lots of small to medium business is what we need. Libertarianism and Anarchism are very different things.
I consider this video a strawman since no one I know of who advocates "deregulation" actually advocates complete deregulation you are referring to in this video.
@TheTruePooka "Really? How curious. You must hang with a very select crowd then. I get people arguing for it frequently."
Perhaps I do.
If you can find people who actually advocate no regulations whatsoever, I'll fight with you against them. That being said, I do think there are many unnecessary and burdensome regulations imposed by the government, which is why I and many others tend to call for "deregulation", while definitely not advocating no regulations whatsoever.
Frankly I'm not sure if they advocate for total deregulation or not. But they've got a philosophical mental block on the concept of regulation. You even mention the word and they go off, parroting popular free-market rhetoric without though.
Some people aren't getting that this isn't an anti-free market video. It's a;
"Think about what you're actually saying and believing" video.
@TheTruePooka "Frankly I'm not sure if they advocate for total deregulation or not.[. . .]It's a;
"Think about what you're actually saying and believing" video."
I think that this is a communication problem since a lot of libertarian minded people (including myself somewhat as a "liberALtarian") will tend to speak in absolutes for the sake of the discussion, such as saying, "we should deregulate the market" yet will almost always admit of at least some exceptions when asked.
@TheTruePooka Only because you're a dogmatist who thinks that only government can regulate, despite the enormous and long-standing success of UL and other market regulators.
@joshm60 that has not been my experience with conservatives. All we hear is the U.S economy is overburdened by regulation. Of course. for the most part they can not tell me what regulations they want gone.
@ANZUS777 I don't know about corporate regulations but Wisconsin just spent a few million dollars to make texting while driving illegal. Don't get me wrong. I think it SHOULD be illegal. BUT, when inattentive driving is already a crime and texting while driving falls into that category, what is the point of wasting tax payer's money with that crap?
@stoicsquirrel makes things more specific I suppose, no different from DUI laws. Or are you saying texting is illegal already due to existing laws? Using the word 'should' indicates that although it may be illegal due to a law on inattentive driving, that in reality it is not illegal. I suppose that is why they introuduced the law in Wicsonsin.
@ANZUS777 I used the word should when talking about how I felt about texting. I said it was already against the law because it IS covered under inattentive driving.
@ANZUS777 Okay, I have what I think is the perfect example of what we can both agree with is an unnecessary regulations on businesses. This particular bill would have mostly hurt internet businesses: SOPA.
The logic in this video is flawed, and the arguments are poorly constructed. It's nothing more than a series of generalizing statements. Conservatives wan't deregulation, deregulation will turn us into china, the chinesse live in worse living conditions than americans, etc.
And there's numerous examples of Conservatives abusing power to further create an imbalance between the middle/lower class and the wealthy elite.
Gov. Walker in Wisconsin's abuse of his power to do union busting, Conservative lies about tax rates for millionaires,use of fear rhetoric to take away our freedoms, lies about foreign health care systems to keep our health care industry privatized, etc...... I've discussed it in other videos.
@TheTruePooka What does governor walker's public sector union legislation have to do with apple, foxcom, sweatshops, or globalization? My point was that the arguments in this video are a poorly fleshed out series of generalizing statements. What lead you to believe that I am a conservative when I haven't even stated my opinion on the matter? Why did you attack a conservative governor as if you were attacking me by association? Can you please stay on the subject at hand.
@TheTruePooka Wouldn't Walker's regulation of unions (only public sector unions AFAIK) be an example of why over regulation is bad for the US? Although I live in Wisconsin and don't think there was anything all that bad in bill (hell, it might've kept my taxes from going up) isn't this exactly what you're arguing for? More regulations?
@stoicsquirrel Walker went after the unions not because of any interest in deregulation. The unions at the time were actually agreeing to the terms put on the table. They were bending over backwards to accept the offered deal.
Walker went after them because they didn't support his run for election. That's entirely why. notice he left the unions that supported his election run alone.
Walker is a classic example of a Boss Tweed at work.
@TheTruePooka And if you have no problem with what Walker did then you should have no problem with the government putting a 9 O'clock curfew on the country "just in case".
Because that's the shit logic that was put forward. "We should break the unions just in case they get unreasonable".
@TheTruePooka It wasn't because they were "getting unreasonable". Did you ever even read the bill that had been proposed? And what's this about a 9 O'clock curfew? I don't get the connection.
@TheTruePooka I didn't say he was interested in deregulation. I said that it was an example of MORE regulations on unions. You claim to support more regulations.
Yes, he left the fire and police departments alone for the most part. I think his reasoning was that it would put undue stress on public workers that had enough stress already.
No, they didn't bend over backwards. I live in Wisconsin and can tell you that was not the case.
"I think his reasoning was that it would put undue stress on public workers that had enough stress already."
Apologetics.
And it was the case. I read the details involving the contract dispute and the negotiated deal. From what I recall (and others) it was most reasonable.
What? Wait. So you DON'T think we need more regulations? Do you think we have just the right amount of laws here? Or are you saying that some regulations on people and corporations ARE burdensome? What about SOPA; a great example of unnecessary regulations on companies that, in the end, cost them too much money. Are you fine with that regulation? I hope not because it got struck down pretty quick.
@stoicsquirrel Did you actually watch the whole video? If you did you'd already have the answer to this question
So far your entire position towards me has been one of the typical free market supporter who doesn't think. They hear someone discussing regulation in a positive light and they automatically shut down and make all sorts of wild assumptions..
Which means you heard what you wanted to hear, not what I said.
@TheTruePooka My entire position towards you is that you keep saying conservative this and that but it's more about money, greed, and power (I guess they're all really the same thing) and has nothing to do with politics. My point is it's not the political fight that you're trying to make it out to be. When you can stop attacking certain groups (you tend to offend people that way) and start attacking the problem (SOPA got stomped out quickly because...continued
....it wasn't turned into a political blame game) you can actually get stuff done. Your video makes you sound like you're anti conservative. But, if people can't even decide where liberalism ends and conservatism begins (we aren't the only ones arguing over Jobs' political affiliation) how do you decide who to blame? I say that ALL politicians are to blame. I'm not for total deregulation but I don't think it's a good idea to give a bunch of politicians too much power either.
@stoicsquirrel The first part of dealing with a problem is recognizing it.
And yes, you are right. It is a greed money & power issue. However the rhetoric they use to keep the situation going?
They claim it is a conservative ideology. So that is why I address "conservativism". Step one is to rip them from the teat of libertarianism that they're suckling at.
Show them for what they are. Just a bunch of lying statists.
@TheTruePooka Are you saying that China is a free market? OMG so much ignorance. If they don't work on foxconn where will they work? in the fields earning half or less what they earn at foxconn in even worse conditions? If they don't like to work at foxconn why don't they go find a job elsewhere? Because they will earn less. If you want to point fingers point them to the chinese government. Go study economics *facepalm* so many fallacies. It must be great to live in ignorance.
@MrFmmcosta Actually I'm using the Republican definition of a free market. The rest of what you said is just null content white noise.
Go study the difference between definition by meaning and definition by action. Then you may realize that when you went to facepalm you actually inserted your foot in your mouth instead.
@TheTruePooka So... what you are saying is that you are debunking deregulation by basing yourself in a market that isn't really deregulated nor even a free market?! And also you opt to ignore their standard of living because otherwise all your generalizations of "deregulation" would be senseless?! hum... fallacious indeed. Good for you. By your "logic", the internet being a free market there must be people dying all over the world because of it. LOL
@MrFmmcosta "So... what you are saying is that you are debunking deregulation by basing yourself in a market that isn't really deregulated nor even a free market?!"
I'm debunking the republican version of deregulation.Which is an economy here the workers/ people are regulated but the corporations/ big businesses aren't.
@TheTruePooka If that's the case then you should clarify it in the video and in the title to avoid misinterpretations. Just to be sure... do you have the same opinion about the libertarian free market? or what's your opinion on it? I'm always challenging my beliefs and that's why I'm here.
@MrFmmcosta This video was designed to make libertarians think. The libertarian dialogue has been hijacked both on YouTube and in America by people with an agenda. That's why I didn't mention any of this in the actual video. If I'd just stated it as you said I should I would have been ignored and dismissed.
My opinion? Is that given the right circumstances a free market would thrive.
@TheTruePooka Good video. I think I read somewhere, though I might have heard it, that if iPhones sold in the US were produced domestically by labour that followed their respective laws, the price of one would be in the tens of thousands.
@TheTruePooka I think they would go out of business if they were to do the 'good' thing. It's partially on us, to stop buying the products that we know are cheap because someone along the chain of production has missed out. (I watched 'the story of stuff' on YouTube, a few days ago. It was good.)
It sucks for the consumer because there isn't always an alternative. I haven't heard of fair trade electronics.
I think we both know the term 'job creation' is usually just used as a campaign slogan.
@TheTruePooka I think they would go out of business if they were to do the 'good' thing. It's partially on us, to stop buying the products that we know are cheap because someone along the chain of production has missed out. (I watched 'the story of stuff' on YouTube, a few days ago. It was good.)
It sucks for the consumer because there isn't always an alternative. I haven't heard of fair trade electronics.
I think we both know the term 'job creation' is usually just used as a campaign slogan.
@TheTruePooka I think they would go out of business if they were to do the 'good' thing. It's partially on us, to stop buying the products that we know are cheap because someone along the chain of production has missed out. (I watched 'the story of stuff' on YouTube, a few days ago. It was good.)
It sucks for the consumer because there isn't always an alternative. I haven't heard of fair trade electronics.
I think we both know the term 'job creation' is usually just used as a campaign slogan.
@TheTruePooka I think they would go out of business if they were to do the 'good' thing. It's partially on us, to stop buying the products that we know are cheap because someone along the chain of production has missed out. (I watched 'the story of stuff' on YouTube, a few days ago. It was good.)
It sucks for the consumer because there isn't always an alternative. I haven't heard of fair trade electronics.
I think we both know the term 'job creation' is usually just used as a campaign slogan.
@TheTruePooka I think they would go out of business if they were to do the 'good' thing. It's partially on us, to stop buying the products that we know are cheap because someone along the chain of production has missed out. (I watched 'the story of stuff' on YouTube, a few days ago. It was good.)
It sucks for the consumer because there isn't always an alternative. I haven't heard of fair trade electronics.
I think we both know the term 'job creation' is usually just used as a campaign slogan.
@TheTruePooka I think they would go out of business if they were to do the 'good' thing. It's partially on us, to stop buying the products that we know are cheap because someone along the chain of production has missed out. (I watched 'the story of stuff' on YouTube, a few days ago. It was good.)
It sucks for the consumer because there isn't always an alternative. I haven't heard of fair trade electronics.
I think we both know the term 'job creation' is usually just used as a campaign slogan.
@TheTruePooka I think they would need to change their business model if they were to do the 'good' thing. It's partially on us, to stop buying the products that we know are cheap because someone along the chain of production has missed out. (I watched 'the story of stuff' on YouTube, a few days ago. It was also good.)
It sucks for the consumer because there isn't always an alternative. I haven't heard of fair trade electronics.
@Derekrife1 It's not just cheap iPhones. If we are going to criticise Apple for contracting out to other companies who will sub contract out to sweatshop condition East Asian factories, we should realistically criticise all phone manufacturers (and then all electronics manufacturers) for doing similar.
It's also Samsung (and others, of course) who do the same thing, it's not just production of high-end smartphones where worker's rights are overlooked or neglected. It's also "them, not us".
@57worldwide 1st, the phones will only costs that much money to produce domestically when you manufacture them by hand with 1000s of workers, but an engineer operating an assembly line can produce even more. Apple said this their press release in response to the scandal.
2nd, if you think apple wouldn't cut it's profits selling domestically produced iphones, you're crazy. Apple is ran by businessmen and even they realize that some profit than no sales.
@Derekrife1 Okay, first of all, Apple said something that sounded good in response to criticism of how their products are manufactured, and you didn't stop to question "Why were they being produced overseas in the first place if they could really produce them here?"
Secondly, Apple cutting it's profits by selling domestically produced iPhones would be "changing their business model".
Thirdly, it's not just cost of labour that influences the production cost - there is also tax, regulations, etc.
@57worldwide Like Pooka said, the reason they produced overseas was to "maximize profits." I find nothing wrong with that, but when maximizing the profits of individuals at the cost of human dignity obviously something is very wrong.
2. And? That's hardly an argument.
3. That's a nice rational argument, but it's hardly an Evidence based one. There's a reason why manufacturing still exists in America, and that's because it's still profitable, albeit not as much when you "maximize profits."
@Derekrife1 1. I was responding to your asertion that "the phones will only cost that much money to produce domestically when you manufacture them by hand..." and that "Apple said this".
2. I was responding to your statement that implied Apple would "cut it's profits selling domestically produced iphones", by quoting my earlier statement where I had said the same thing.
3. Look at how Dell computers puts their computers together, and think about statement 1.
@TheTruePooka "My opinion? Is that given the right circumstances a free market would thrive."
Out of curiosity then if you don't mind me asking, do you view the idea of government intervention of the market as something needed to stabilize conditions so the market doesn't mutate in an uncontrollable cancer? If that is your view, a good book I'd recommend is "The Cancer Stage of Capitalism" by John McMurtry.
....The pay and conditions of the workers is determined by the global economics of supply and demand. If prices of production and distribution become uncompetitive in one country, then production will move elsewhere. This is a fundamental fact of economics. Hand wringing will not change that fact.
@TheTruePooka Hi. Nice to chat. Not sure if you have visted any factories in China, or spoken to any of the workers or bosses. Let me give you an example from a friend of mine who buys textiles and clothing from China based factories. Some companies he sells to have tried to bring in a limit on the hours worked by the staff. The staff do not want to work for such companies because they cannot make enough money to go home with. The product price cannot go up, because that makes it uncompetitive..
@TheTruePooka No offense taken. Just to give you a background, I am a Brit who has lived and worked in China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong for the last 9 years. I have dealt with a lot of companies in those years, and understand some of the dynamics. NYT is a reputable paper, but at the end of the day, these are the words of one writer, and we would need to see sources. I have seen erroneous articles in the Financial Times as well on subjects I specialise in. BTW I am aware of the reported suicides..
@asianlife53 "but at the end of the day, these are the words of one writer, "
Again; you're putting forward the premise that I should believe you over a reputable source like the NYTimes. No offense, but we get this sort of thing from Creationists when discussing the peer reviewed process.
If what you say is true then contact a newspaper and provide your evidence.
Because you are not only saying that the writer is lying or wrong, and trying to cast the offhand accusation that; "newspapers screw-up so therefore this must be the case here" but you're also claiming that Apple is lying about the situation. And Apple for the most part offered confirmation with their statement shown of Fox Business.
I'm sorry but you're going to have to offer something more substantial.
@TheTruePooka The links to the articles took me down the wrong path. Apple do not agree with all the claims made in the article, but the explosions, suicides and long hours are well known. The child labour claim levelled against Foxconn has never been substantiated to my knowledge, unless you can link it. However, there is child labour in China, as in many Asian countries. No one denies the long hours, and that the workers sleep in dormitaries. But add cost to the supply chain and jobs will...
@TheTruePooka ...go elsewhere. The economic fundamentals mean that these jobs will not go to America. As with other Asian economies, we will see the rise of the middle classes in China creating demand which will probably far exceed the demand of the West in the fulness of time. We are seeing the rise of the APAC century, and America is more and more realising that it needs to supply goods to Asia that Asians want.
@TheTruePooka The article by Barboza under the 2012 link is an article from 2010. The article itself looks like a fair representation of the worker's day. It look a whole lot better than Millions and Millions of other workers's experiences in Asia. Am I looking at the wrong article? If Foxconn became uncompetive in China it will simply uproot and move to Indonesia or Thailand etc. If those other Asian countries could get their logistics sorted out, they might move anyway, since the ...
@TheTruePooka ...cost of labour in Sothern China is escalating already, and the proximity to logistics centres is what keeps a lot of the factories there. Trust me, a lot of Asian economies would welcome a Foxconn factory with open arms. To your initial point, deregulation would not solve the problem, since the cost of the labour-force in America has gone way beyond that of other countries. Remember at one time when Japan was the cheapest labour location of the global economy. As aspirations...
@TheTruePooka ...grew, so did costs, and so the low value jobs moved elsewhere. The challenge then, through an enhanced education system is to produce an up-skilled workforce, as per Japan, Korea, Taiwan etc, where the per capita GDP is higher, but so is the per capita input into the economy in value terms. From an outside point of view, the American workforce, as a generalisation, does not appear to have upskilled.
@TheTruePooka "Again; you're putting forward the premise that I should believe you over a reputable source like the NYTimes."
Or you could look at a REAL peer-reviewed published economist like Jeremy Rifkin, who points out that jobs are disappearing even in China and outsourcing only accounts for 5% of jobs lost, and that jobs with long hours are therefore in high demand by Chinese workers.
@TheTruePooka ...at Foxconn. But the conditions there are nothing as bad as some of the conditions at companies which have got nothing to do with the global economy. I have no issue with you main premise re the Conservative Right, but I think your views re Foxconn etc are incorrect.
@TheTruePooka ...if all factories reduced their productivity and upped their prices then the work would move from China. There are millions of people who's lives are so shit, that working in a factory for minimum wages is nirvana. This is commerce. We may have qualms, but there has never been a time when these dynamics were not at play.
Of course, Foxconn is a Taiwanese company operating in China. But anyway...I have worked in the region, and whilst I like TheTruePooka, I think his thinking is flawed. The costs of production are low primarily because of the lower working wage of the workers. And that wage is significantly higher than they could earn if they stayed in an agrarian society. However bad their conditions are [questionable], they are a lot better than they were if they didn't have the job cont...
@asianlife53 This is the dirty secret: Chinese businesses are pretty badly regulated (by that I mean there's a lot of regulations) and it's getting worse. Cheap workers is the only way they can compete. Whereas here in America, because of the Minimum Wage, businesses don't even have THAT way of staying solvent! So they either move elsewhere or go out of business entirely.
@shanedk Businesses in the developed world have tried and failed to compete in the low wage, low added value space. It only works when the logistics costs of imports are sufficiently in their favour. There is regulation in China, but usually it can be dealt with. The threat in China [the South in particular] is that total labour costs are rising higher than other countries, and that includes Northern China. Businesses will move to the lower production area because consumers in the west ,,,,
@shanedk ...are not prepared to pay more for their consumables. Its supply and demand based on the price points that Western consumers are willing to accept.
@asianlife53 And you don't think the costs of regulatory compliance--which are greater in this country than the companies' profits themselves--play ANY role in it at all?
@shanedk Compliance is a carry cost of all businesses, and since all aspects of doing business require compliance of one shape or another, then to identify the true cost of regulatory compliance would be difficult across all countries and all industry sectors. Companies have many costs [such as salaries] on their balance sheet which represent a figure which is greater than their gross or net profit margin. That in itself does not make them uncompetitive.
@asianlife53 "Compliance is a carry cost of all businesses"
Yes, including small businesses. Regulations hurt them disproportionately because, unlike big corporations, they're not as able to absorb the extra costs.
"all aspects of doing business require compliance of one shape or another"
Absolute bullshit. It's ONLY because of your precious government. It destroys jobs and makes us ALL poorer.
@shanedk Not sure which countries you have worked in, but if you can tell me an industry anywhere that doesn't require some form of regulatory compliance then I would like to know.
@asianlife53 More fucking dogmatism. It DOESN'T MATTER that countries that regulate less have better economies; if you can't find a country with absolutely no government regulation whatsoever then the Cult automatically wins. Pathetic.
@shanedk Not at all, and please calm down. Your view of 'success' in national economies is a little bit too simplistic. Like I say, there are systems in place to ensure compliance with regulation. That regulation may be fire certificates in the USA or exchange controls in China...whatever. Deregulation is nicely idealistic, but realistically not possible. The dynamics of competitiveness are more complex, and to compare the USA with China is not helpful. America should be comparing with..
@shanedk ''The rest of your post is just blind assertion...'' Assertion? My request that you provide a report that shows that the USA is uncompetitive versus other OECD countries due to its regulatory environment is an assertion? C'mon!
@asianlife53 No, LIAR, I ANSWERED that part with my point about the EFI. Your blind assertion--which you apparently now want to ignore--is "Deregulation is nicely idealistic, but realistically not possible. The dynamics of competitiveness are more complex...". You assert, but do NOT support. The only thing that has to happen for deregulation is for some courageous President to tear up the hundreds of thousands of pages in the CFR that only offer benefit to big corporations.
@johnrainrules If the Dept for Homeland Security doesn't have sufficient due diligence in place to check the credentials of its employees, then that means the regulatory process is not robust enough. I'm sure the Republicans would actually want greater regulation in that instance!!
@johnrainrules Compliance with the regulatory environment means more than just thinking up the regs, it means enforcing them on a hourly basis. If you do not have a rigourous regime in place then you will not be able to regulate a businesses functions, be it a foundry, a hospital, a bank, or a restaurant. There are always regulatory costs in business, through health and safety, visas, exchange controls, fire regs, anti-discriminatory policies, building regs etc etc etc.,,,
@asianlife53 "it means enforcing them on a hourly basis"
Uh, OK.
"There are always regulatory costs in business, through health and safety, visas, exchange controls, fire regs, anti-discriminatory policies, building regs "
And then there are payoffs, that way when your regulated industry goes belly up you can make sure to get bailed out. You can also make sure to stifle competition so you can overcharge.
@johnrainrules As I have asked others before, can you name an industry or business sector that isn't regulated. ''You can also make sure to stifle competition so you can overcharge.'' As all businesses are regulated, I'm not sure how this assertion makes sense.
@asianlife53 "The criticism of the AMA relates to its monpolistic position and not due to the regilatory environment."
It has a monopolistic position due to the regulatory environment. Also who has more of a monopoly than the people who make regulations in the first place.
@johnrainrules The True pooka seems to be implying that more, or existing regulation would better protect the health of workers and cites the Foxconn case where 2 people were killed in 2010. In that same year, 5 people were killed at Klean Energy in Connecticut, and 11 at BP in the Gulf of Mexico. And also he seems to equate the regulatory environment in a country only with Health and Safety.
@asianlife53 "The True pooka seems to be implying that more, or existing regulation would better protect the health of workers and cites the Foxconn case where 2 people were killed in 2010. In that same year, 5 people were killed at Klean Energy in Connecticut, and 11 at BP in the Gulf of Mexico. "
And how many died in Irag and Afghanistan?
Oh yeah and you can thank regs for BP since they limited their liability, without which they would be sued into nonexistence.
@shanedk Maybe you can cite me a report that shows the USA as being less competitive versus other OECD countries due to its more stringent regulatory environment.
@shanedk Well Hong Kong is number one, if its the same index you refer to. How do you measure success? Virtually zero manufacturing - to be regulated,. Not the highest per capita GDP in the world. A poor social services for the low income brackets. etc etc etc. How do I know? I just lived there for 5 years. The major industries - banking, shipping, insurance, are highly regulated.
@asianlife53 Hmmm, the usual state-worship of manufacturing, bogus use of GDP metric, lack of your precious government's safety net while ignoring the fact that the slums have been disappearing so fast no one's quite sure what to do with the land, oh, and an anecdote to top it all off with. Pathetic.
@shanedk ''Yes, and all of those things increase the value of the final product. Regulations don't.'' Wouldn't you pay more for treatment by a regulated doctor, who has to have passed exams to practice, and to comply with the regulations, than one who doesn't?
@shanedk ...and if the University degree proves to be false, who should be regulating that? The individual? Do you think the majority of people have the ability to verify the qualifications of their doctor? Do you think that hospitals should not check on the qualifications of their doctors? Regulation- bummer eh?
@asianlife53 "...and if the University degree proves to be false, who should be regulating that?"
The University.
"Do you think the majority of people have the ability to verify the qualifications of their doctor?"
Come on, it's not like it's hard! But no, we "little people" are so helpless to do for ourselves so we need mommy government to come take care of us...
No kidding. If people are helpless to check that thing, then they sure as shit can't be given a vote to elect people who would do it for them. It really is that simple.
Everyone needs to stop calling regulations "regulations" and call them what they are: the LAW. That way, it forces the LAW-haters, the corporate anarchists, to be on the defensive, rather than us, because it implies that THEY are always on the verge of breaking the LAW, if not breaking it already.
i ripped a ps3 apart yesterday... i couldnt do what them people do 36hrs in a row... live on site and get very lil pay... if thats all true... they fucking got heart to put them together so fast and in as good of condition as most are...
Yes Pooka you're all for them going back to working 16 hours a day working on a farm eeking out a subsistence living, they'll be so much better off under your plan.
@TheTruePooka Don't be lazy. Explain why it's a strawman.
Do you even have a clue what the living conditions of these people were before they went to work for Foxcomm or what their options are if they leave Foxcomm.
Tell me what their options are Pooka, I'd like to know.
@justintempler It's not laziness. It's being economical. I got tired of explaining "why" to all the others and in the interest of not wasting time I just say; "strawman".
But as a hint; you're trying to put words in my mouth.
@TheTruePooka No I'm pointing out that you are jumping to conclusions.
You are applying 1st world western standards to people in 3rd world countries. In many cases the jobs they take working in what you would consider sweatshop conditions are actually better than the world they left behind.
@TheTruePooka conservative talking points..We call that "poisoning the well"
In your sheltered world I MUST be a conservative right? Well you'd be wrong
It's time wake up and realize the world can't be divided into your simple liberal and conservative categories.Here's an actual documentary that was NOT made by a "conservative" that takes the time to explain it to the whole argument instead of relying on talking points
Globalisation is Good - Johan Norberg on Globalisation
@justintempler *sigh* no it actually is a conservative talking point. It's been the traditional argument offered when any group of laborers has asked for more. Well, that and; "we can't afford it".
It also doesn't take into consideration that sometimes you have to suffer with less in the short term to gain more in the long run. Based on that logic soldiers in Iraq shouldn't have complained about the faulty bulletproof vests because; "It's better than the nothing they had before."
@justintempler And I never called you a conservative. I said you were using a conservative talking point. Unlike you who called me a liberal when I'm not one. There are no liberals in America anymore. At least, not enough to have any significance.
But to get back to the example of soldiers; lets say they'd actually known that they were faulty. It is possible that a high death toll in a short term would have led
@TheTruePooka to immediate action, working vests and many more lives saved over th next decade (assuming the soldiers refused the faulty vests and made a stink about it, dying from chest shots in the process).
That's an example of; "Suffering in the short run so that future soldiers will have a better chance at survival."
@justintempler The only thing you were right on was calling me a liberal-you didn't..
And here's your own words right back at you chuckles.
Don't be lazy. Explain why it's a strawman.
" watch the video."
Your argumentation has been shit. I've caught you in strawman and false accusations and all you've done is slid from one to the next without acknowledging your fuck ups. Why would I possibly waste more than the minute or two I am now dealing with anything you say or think?
It seems ironic to me that Pooka is saying "conservative this" and "conservative that" while complaining about a company owned by Steve Jobs; a liberal.
stoicsquirrel 2 weeks ago
@stoicsquirrel Steve Jobs a liberal? How interesting. What makes you come to this conclusion?
""You're headed for a one-term presidency," he told Obama at the start of their meeting, insisting that the administration needed to be more business-friendly. As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where "regulations and unnecessary costs" make it difficult for them."" <--from his biography by W. Issacson
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka "Jobs also criticized America's education system, saying it was "crippled by union work rules," noted Isaacson. "Until the teachers' unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform.""
Also from the biography.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka Wait a minute. A lot of liberals I know disagree with Obama's policies. A lot of them also say he'll be a one term president. Many of them ALSO believe that there are some unnecessary regulations in place in the US. That doesn't automatically make them conservatives. I think I see the problem here. The problem is that you think that anyone that doesn't think exactly like you must be a conservative. I have a liberal friend that thinks the same way you do.
stoicsquirrel 2 weeks ago
@stoicsquirrel Obama is a Conservative president. The problem you've got is you're buying into the rhetoric that's being put forward on the "liberal vs Conservative dialogue" in this country.
The reality is there really is no liberal power structure in this country worth mentioning. There's just degrees of Conservative. The whole debate over "liberal vs Conservative" is a canard.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka Like I said before: you think that anyone that isn't exactly like you is a conservative. You consider Obama a conservative because he does things that you don't agree with. If that's the case then can't I do it too? Would Bush be a liberal since I disagreed with many of his policies? Or does that just make him less conservative on your conservative scale.
stoicsquirrel 2 weeks ago
@stoicsquirrel And like I said before; you consider anything that doesn't agree with your thinking liberal.
The difference between us is I know what defines conservative & liberal ideology. You don't
You can repeat back; "Derp- you think everything is conservative!" as much as you want but it won't change the fact these words have meanings you don't seem to understand.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka This was what you said: There's just degrees of Conservative. I think you were only talking about people some sort of power, though. Not people in general. That leads me to believe that you don't like people with any sort of power and you've been told that conservatives are evil so you must have put the two together and come up with the idea that all people with any sort of power are conservatives. What about Clinton?
stoicsquirrel 2 weeks ago
@stoicsquirrel You have to remember you're speaking to someone who reads history an has lived some of it. This country has shifted far right compared to the 1970's. Many of Nixon's policies would be considered liberal by today's standard.
When I speak of there being no liberals I'm speaking in a context where I compare today's democratic party to that of 20-40 years ago.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@stoicsquirrel "that you think that anyone that doesn't think exactly like you must be a conservative."
Strawman. I've done nothing to indicate that. I'm dealing with a specific topic that addresses an agenda in this country by conservative Republicans to hijack the free market dialogue.
You're making assumptions based on my comments on one specific issue. Your logic is flawed.
And this may shock you but terms like "liberal" & "conservative" have actual meanings.
cont -
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka There are core principles that make you one or the other. Saying something like; "A lot of liberals I know disagree with Obama's policies" in response to my quotes on S. Jobs show you don't know what they are.
It also suggests that you're the one who likely lumps everyone who doesn't think like you into a big category called; "liberals".
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka Yes, you did. You called Jobs a conservative simply because he doesn't quite fit your narrow definition of a liberal. You said that there are no liberals, only degrees of conservatives. If that's the case, what are you going on about conservatives for if we're all conservatives?
stoicsquirrel 2 weeks ago
@stoicsquirrel No, I called Jobs a conservative because his biographer thinks he's a conservative. If you've got a problem with that take it up with the person who wrote the book.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka Wasn't there someone on this page that said they lived in China? You said you can't believe a stranger (something like that). I agree, but why take the biographer's words as gospel? But, fine, I'll concede that. Even though he supported Obama and was a regular donor to democrats (look it up, it's probably in his autobiography). BTW, why are you only responding to my random pokes at you? I made a few good points (IMO) that you ignored.
stoicsquirrel 2 weeks ago
@stoicsquirrel There's a difference between a random internet stranger and a book that's about to be sold world-wide that's being reviewed an analyzed by others who are in the same field.
And sorry if I seem to be one sided in what I respond to but you have to realize this comments section has mostly consisted of me fielding strawman arguments, fallacies and outright insults.
So I tend to pick out the common theme and try to address it to figure out what's what.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
Why pick such an extreme case that isn't even in this country? I'm pretty sure that MOST conservatives don't support TOTAL deregulation. I don't. I am curious here, could those workers not quit the jobs? If that is the case then why complain about under-regulated corporations? Or in your extreme case NON regulated corporations. The real problem is slavery.
stoicsquirrel 2 weeks ago
anyone who is under the impression that economy is simple is just making a mistake.
free market does indeed tend to make things bearable for everyone, but you my friend were giving monopoly as an example of free market failure... and thus you fail!
i am really skeptical about the idea that those employees who killed themselves had a lot of job opportunities, so the free market model simply can't be used.
on the other hand, i totally agree, regulate monopoly.
De4sher 2 weeks ago
@De4sher "but you my friend were giving monopoly as an example of free market failure... and thus you fail!"
Actually I'm giving the Conservative example of what ta free market is. According to their words, not their actions.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
The only thing that needs debunking is the myth that any deregulation actually occurs when something is allegedly deregulated.
The banking industry is so regulated that you would die of old age before you could actually read all of it.
Make a labyrinthine system and don't be surprised when most people lose money in it, and a group that can afford hundreds of lawyers and accountants can game it.
johnrainrules 2 weeks ago
@johnrainrules "The only thing that needs debunking is the myth that any deregulation actually occurs when something is allegedly deregulated."
Heh heh. There's some truth in what you say. >.<
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
Complete "Deregulation" can only work is the Banking system is changed. Companies are not evil, they are forced to be evil because the money supply is evil. if there was only 2 bread for 20000 people. believe me, people will kill for bread. so Apple will us slavery to compete against interest and the competitive. SO STOP BLAMING THE WRONG PERSON!!!!! THE BANKING SYSTEM ASKS FOR THIS TO HAPPEN, NOT CORPARATIONS!!! a corparation must make profit, so if u r not happy, change the rules....
Sizomu 2 weeks ago
look at all the comments marked as spam….?
I BELIEVE IN FREEDOM OF SPEECH, as long as it’s my opinion or you should be silenced.
wispa2 2 weeks ago
In china there are massive amounts of regulations this is good for big corporations and bad for small business, total deregulation would lead to no small business and one big corporation just as over regulation favours those with power and wealth. Minimal regulation thought out to favour lots of small to medium business is what we need. Libertarianism and Anarchism are very different things.
wispa2 2 weeks ago
Look at France lots of regulation massive unemployment especially amongst young people this has been the case even in economic boom.
wispa2 2 weeks ago
I consider this video a strawman since no one I know of who advocates "deregulation" actually advocates complete deregulation you are referring to in this video.
joshm60 2 weeks ago
@joshm60 Really? How curious. You must hang with a very select crowd then. I get people arguing for it frequently.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheTruePooka "Really? How curious. You must hang with a very select crowd then. I get people arguing for it frequently."
Perhaps I do.
If you can find people who actually advocate no regulations whatsoever, I'll fight with you against them. That being said, I do think there are many unnecessary and burdensome regulations imposed by the government, which is why I and many others tend to call for "deregulation", while definitely not advocating no regulations whatsoever.
joshm60 2 weeks ago
@joshm60 I'd agree with you.
Frankly I'm not sure if they advocate for total deregulation or not. But they've got a philosophical mental block on the concept of regulation. You even mention the word and they go off, parroting popular free-market rhetoric without though.
Some people aren't getting that this isn't an anti-free market video. It's a;
"Think about what you're actually saying and believing" video.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka It's title says it all. Stop making excuses.
KingRobbStark 2 weeks ago
@KingRobbStark I understand that you're upset that you walked into a fairly simple trap but that's no reason to desperately sink into denial.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@KingRobbStark And holy shit! this; "The title says it all" has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
I suppose when you did your book report in school on; "War and Peace" you wrote;
"This book is about war and peace. End of book report."
(pats on head) "Good job" (checks if there's a space available in the developmentally disabled classes).
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka "Frankly I'm not sure if they advocate for total deregulation or not.[. . .]It's a;
"Think about what you're actually saying and believing" video."
I think that this is a communication problem since a lot of libertarian minded people (including myself somewhat as a "liberALtarian") will tend to speak in absolutes for the sake of the discussion, such as saying, "we should deregulate the market" yet will almost always admit of at least some exceptions when asked.
joshm60 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka Only because you're a dogmatist who thinks that only government can regulate, despite the enormous and long-standing success of UL and other market regulators.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka Well then they don’t understand and are just shouting their mouths off or they are Anarchists.
wispa2 2 weeks ago
@wispa2 Yes, I know. And those are the types who have hijacked the free market debate and made a joke of libertarian philosophy.
They're the perfect patsy for those who want to keep the status quo. At least - the ones who refuse to stop being fanatical dogmatists are.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@joshm60 that has not been my experience with conservatives. All we hear is the U.S economy is overburdened by regulation. Of course. for the most part they can not tell me what regulations they want gone.
ANZUS777 2 weeks ago
@ANZUS777 I don't know about corporate regulations but Wisconsin just spent a few million dollars to make texting while driving illegal. Don't get me wrong. I think it SHOULD be illegal. BUT, when inattentive driving is already a crime and texting while driving falls into that category, what is the point of wasting tax payer's money with that crap?
stoicsquirrel 2 weeks ago
@stoicsquirrel makes things more specific I suppose, no different from DUI laws. Or are you saying texting is illegal already due to existing laws? Using the word 'should' indicates that although it may be illegal due to a law on inattentive driving, that in reality it is not illegal. I suppose that is why they introuduced the law in Wicsonsin.
ANZUS777 2 weeks ago
@ANZUS777 I used the word should when talking about how I felt about texting. I said it was already against the law because it IS covered under inattentive driving.
stoicsquirrel 2 weeks ago
@ANZUS777 Okay, I have what I think is the perfect example of what we can both agree with is an unnecessary regulations on businesses. This particular bill would have mostly hurt internet businesses: SOPA.
stoicsquirrel 2 weeks ago
I like iphones. Deregulation is good because is is the same thing as freedom. I see nothing wrong with apple or foxconn
mjbarrowful 2 weeks ago
@mjbarrowful "Deregulation is good because is is the same thing as freedom. "
That's actually not true. Deregulation can lead to freedom but it is not freedom.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
The logic in this video is flawed, and the arguments are poorly constructed. It's nothing more than a series of generalizing statements. Conservatives wan't deregulation, deregulation will turn us into china, the chinesse live in worse living conditions than americans, etc.
MaelMenoret 2 weeks ago
@MaelMenoret Your analysis is flawed.
And there's numerous examples of Conservatives abusing power to further create an imbalance between the middle/lower class and the wealthy elite.
Gov. Walker in Wisconsin's abuse of his power to do union busting, Conservative lies about tax rates for millionaires,use of fear rhetoric to take away our freedoms, lies about foreign health care systems to keep our health care industry privatized, etc...... I've discussed it in other videos.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka What does governor walker's public sector union legislation have to do with apple, foxcom, sweatshops, or globalization? My point was that the arguments in this video are a poorly fleshed out series of generalizing statements. What lead you to believe that I am a conservative when I haven't even stated my opinion on the matter? Why did you attack a conservative governor as if you were attacking me by association? Can you please stay on the subject at hand.
MaelMenoret 2 weeks ago
@MaelMenoret "What lead U 2 believe that I am a conservative when I haven't even stated my opinion on the matter?"
What led you to think I said you are a Conservative?
"Why did you attack a conservative governor as if U were attacking me by association?"
You're showing some fairly poor examples of logical association here. Perhaps that's why you're characterizing the video as;
"a poorly fleshed out series of generalizing statements."
Based on what I'm seeing; the flaw is yours.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka Wouldn't Walker's regulation of unions (only public sector unions AFAIK) be an example of why over regulation is bad for the US? Although I live in Wisconsin and don't think there was anything all that bad in bill (hell, it might've kept my taxes from going up) isn't this exactly what you're arguing for? More regulations?
stoicsquirrel 2 weeks ago
@stoicsquirrel Walker went after the unions not because of any interest in deregulation. The unions at the time were actually agreeing to the terms put on the table. They were bending over backwards to accept the offered deal.
Walker went after them because they didn't support his run for election. That's entirely why. notice he left the unions that supported his election run alone.
Walker is a classic example of a Boss Tweed at work.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka And if you have no problem with what Walker did then you should have no problem with the government putting a 9 O'clock curfew on the country "just in case".
Because that's the shit logic that was put forward. "We should break the unions just in case they get unreasonable".
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka It wasn't because they were "getting unreasonable". Did you ever even read the bill that had been proposed? And what's this about a 9 O'clock curfew? I don't get the connection.
stoicsquirrel 2 weeks ago
@stoicsquirrel It's called an analogy. Look it up.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka You didn't read the bill, did you? But, yeah, I understand what an analogy is. Yours was just a bit vague. Try another one.
stoicsquirrel 2 weeks ago
@stoicsquirrel "You didn't read the bill, did you?:"
Actually I did. I followed the whole thing very closely. I almost headed down there to cover the event in person.
As to my analogy (shrug) I never claimed to be awesome at coming up with analogies on the spot. It's not great but it gets the point across.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka I didn't say he was interested in deregulation. I said that it was an example of MORE regulations on unions. You claim to support more regulations.
Yes, he left the fire and police departments alone for the most part. I think his reasoning was that it would put undue stress on public workers that had enough stress already.
No, they didn't bend over backwards. I live in Wisconsin and can tell you that was not the case.
stoicsquirrel 2 weeks ago
@stoicsquirrel "You claim to support more regulations."
Where exactly did I say that?
"I think his reasoning was that it would put undue stress on public workers that had enough stress already."
Apologetics.
And it was the case. I read the details involving the contract dispute and the negotiated deal. From what I recall (and others) it was most reasonable.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka "Where exactly did I say that?"
What? Wait. So you DON'T think we need more regulations? Do you think we have just the right amount of laws here? Or are you saying that some regulations on people and corporations ARE burdensome? What about SOPA; a great example of unnecessary regulations on companies that, in the end, cost them too much money. Are you fine with that regulation? I hope not because it got struck down pretty quick.
stoicsquirrel 2 weeks ago
@stoicsquirrel Did you actually watch the whole video? If you did you'd already have the answer to this question
So far your entire position towards me has been one of the typical free market supporter who doesn't think. They hear someone discussing regulation in a positive light and they automatically shut down and make all sorts of wild assumptions..
Which means you heard what you wanted to hear, not what I said.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka My entire position towards you is that you keep saying conservative this and that but it's more about money, greed, and power (I guess they're all really the same thing) and has nothing to do with politics. My point is it's not the political fight that you're trying to make it out to be. When you can stop attacking certain groups (you tend to offend people that way) and start attacking the problem (SOPA got stomped out quickly because...continued
stoicsquirrel 2 weeks ago
....it wasn't turned into a political blame game) you can actually get stuff done. Your video makes you sound like you're anti conservative. But, if people can't even decide where liberalism ends and conservatism begins (we aren't the only ones arguing over Jobs' political affiliation) how do you decide who to blame? I say that ALL politicians are to blame. I'm not for total deregulation but I don't think it's a good idea to give a bunch of politicians too much power either.
stoicsquirrel 2 weeks ago
@stoicsquirrel The first part of dealing with a problem is recognizing it.
And yes, you are right. It is a greed money & power issue. However the rhetoric they use to keep the situation going?
They claim it is a conservative ideology. So that is why I address "conservativism". Step one is to rip them from the teat of libertarianism that they're suckling at.
Show them for what they are. Just a bunch of lying statists.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@stoicsquirrel Here's my video on SOPA watch?v=3oV2a1LSNIA
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka I have to go to bed. But I promise (scout's honor) I will watch the SOPA video tomorrow.
stoicsquirrel 2 weeks ago
@stoicsquirrel After 10 seconds of it you'll get the point :D
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka Are you saying that China is a free market? OMG so much ignorance. If they don't work on foxconn where will they work? in the fields earning half or less what they earn at foxconn in even worse conditions? If they don't like to work at foxconn why don't they go find a job elsewhere? Because they will earn less. If you want to point fingers point them to the chinese government. Go study economics *facepalm* so many fallacies. It must be great to live in ignorance.
MrFmmcosta 6 days ago
@MrFmmcosta Actually I'm using the Republican definition of a free market. The rest of what you said is just null content white noise.
Go study the difference between definition by meaning and definition by action. Then you may realize that when you went to facepalm you actually inserted your foot in your mouth instead.
TheTruePooka 6 days ago
@TheTruePooka So... what you are saying is that you are debunking deregulation by basing yourself in a market that isn't really deregulated nor even a free market?! And also you opt to ignore their standard of living because otherwise all your generalizations of "deregulation" would be senseless?! hum... fallacious indeed. Good for you. By your "logic", the internet being a free market there must be people dying all over the world because of it. LOL
MrFmmcosta 6 days ago
@MrFmmcosta "So... what you are saying is that you are debunking deregulation by basing yourself in a market that isn't really deregulated nor even a free market?!"
I'm debunking the republican version of deregulation.Which is an economy here the workers/ people are regulated but the corporations/ big businesses aren't.
TheTruePooka 6 days ago
@TheTruePooka If that's the case then you should clarify it in the video and in the title to avoid misinterpretations. Just to be sure... do you have the same opinion about the libertarian free market? or what's your opinion on it? I'm always challenging my beliefs and that's why I'm here.
MrFmmcosta 6 days ago
@MrFmmcosta This video was designed to make libertarians think. The libertarian dialogue has been hijacked both on YouTube and in America by people with an agenda. That's why I didn't mention any of this in the actual video. If I'd just stated it as you said I should I would have been ignored and dismissed.
My opinion? Is that given the right circumstances a free market would thrive.
TheTruePooka 6 days ago
@TheTruePooka Good video. I think I read somewhere, though I might have heard it, that if iPhones sold in the US were produced domestically by labour that followed their respective laws, the price of one would be in the tens of thousands.
57worldwide 5 days ago
@57worldwide There's always the option that Apple could just decide not to make not quite as much of a profit in exchange for a better America. >.<
TheTruePooka 5 days ago
@TheTruePooka And as long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony.
TBTabby 5 days ago
@TheTruePooka I think they would go out of business if they were to do the 'good' thing. It's partially on us, to stop buying the products that we know are cheap because someone along the chain of production has missed out. (I watched 'the story of stuff' on YouTube, a few days ago. It was good.)
It sucks for the consumer because there isn't always an alternative. I haven't heard of fair trade electronics.
I think we both know the term 'job creation' is usually just used as a campaign slogan.
57worldwide 5 days ago
@TheTruePooka I think they would go out of business if they were to do the 'good' thing. It's partially on us, to stop buying the products that we know are cheap because someone along the chain of production has missed out. (I watched 'the story of stuff' on YouTube, a few days ago. It was good.)
It sucks for the consumer because there isn't always an alternative. I haven't heard of fair trade electronics.
I think we both know the term 'job creation' is usually just used as a campaign slogan.
57worldwide 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheTruePooka I think they would go out of business if they were to do the 'good' thing. It's partially on us, to stop buying the products that we know are cheap because someone along the chain of production has missed out. (I watched 'the story of stuff' on YouTube, a few days ago. It was good.)
It sucks for the consumer because there isn't always an alternative. I haven't heard of fair trade electronics.
I think we both know the term 'job creation' is usually just used as a campaign slogan.
57worldwide 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheTruePooka I think they would go out of business if they were to do the 'good' thing. It's partially on us, to stop buying the products that we know are cheap because someone along the chain of production has missed out. (I watched 'the story of stuff' on YouTube, a few days ago. It was good.)
It sucks for the consumer because there isn't always an alternative. I haven't heard of fair trade electronics.
I think we both know the term 'job creation' is usually just used as a campaign slogan.
57worldwide 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheTruePooka I think they would go out of business if they were to do the 'good' thing. It's partially on us, to stop buying the products that we know are cheap because someone along the chain of production has missed out. (I watched 'the story of stuff' on YouTube, a few days ago. It was good.)
It sucks for the consumer because there isn't always an alternative. I haven't heard of fair trade electronics.
I think we both know the term 'job creation' is usually just used as a campaign slogan.
57worldwide 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheTruePooka I think they would go out of business if they were to do the 'good' thing. It's partially on us, to stop buying the products that we know are cheap because someone along the chain of production has missed out. (I watched 'the story of stuff' on YouTube, a few days ago. It was good.)
It sucks for the consumer because there isn't always an alternative. I haven't heard of fair trade electronics.
I think we both know the term 'job creation' is usually just used as a campaign slogan.
57worldwide 5 days ago
@TheTruePooka I think they would need to change their business model if they were to do the 'good' thing. It's partially on us, to stop buying the products that we know are cheap because someone along the chain of production has missed out. (I watched 'the story of stuff' on YouTube, a few days ago. It was also good.)
It sucks for the consumer because there isn't always an alternative. I haven't heard of fair trade electronics.
57worldwide 5 days ago
@57worldwide Hmm, balancing options...
Giving Chinese workers the right to work and live with some scrap of dignity, or cheap iPhones?
Truly a dilemma.
Derekrife1 5 days ago
@Derekrife1 It's not just cheap iPhones. If we are going to criticise Apple for contracting out to other companies who will sub contract out to sweatshop condition East Asian factories, we should realistically criticise all phone manufacturers (and then all electronics manufacturers) for doing similar.
It's also Samsung (and others, of course) who do the same thing, it's not just production of high-end smartphones where worker's rights are overlooked or neglected. It's also "them, not us".
57worldwide 5 days ago
@57worldwide 1st, the phones will only costs that much money to produce domestically when you manufacture them by hand with 1000s of workers, but an engineer operating an assembly line can produce even more. Apple said this their press release in response to the scandal.
2nd, if you think apple wouldn't cut it's profits selling domestically produced iphones, you're crazy. Apple is ran by businessmen and even they realize that some profit than no sales.
Derekrife1 4 days ago
@Derekrife1 Okay, first of all, Apple said something that sounded good in response to criticism of how their products are manufactured, and you didn't stop to question "Why were they being produced overseas in the first place if they could really produce them here?"
Secondly, Apple cutting it's profits by selling domestically produced iPhones would be "changing their business model".
Thirdly, it's not just cost of labour that influences the production cost - there is also tax, regulations, etc.
57worldwide 4 days ago
@57worldwide Like Pooka said, the reason they produced overseas was to "maximize profits." I find nothing wrong with that, but when maximizing the profits of individuals at the cost of human dignity obviously something is very wrong.
2. And? That's hardly an argument.
3. That's a nice rational argument, but it's hardly an Evidence based one. There's a reason why manufacturing still exists in America, and that's because it's still profitable, albeit not as much when you "maximize profits."
Derekrife1 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Derekrife1 1. I was responding to your asertion that "the phones will only cost that much money to produce domestically when you manufacture them by hand..." and that "Apple said this".
2. I was responding to your statement that implied Apple would "cut it's profits selling domestically produced iphones", by quoting my earlier statement where I had said the same thing.
3. Look at how Dell computers puts their computers together, and think about statement 1.
57worldwide 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheTruePooka "My opinion? Is that given the right circumstances a free market would thrive."
Out of curiosity then if you don't mind me asking, do you view the idea of government intervention of the market as something needed to stabilize conditions so the market doesn't mutate in an uncontrollable cancer? If that is your view, a good book I'd recommend is "The Cancer Stage of Capitalism" by John McMurtry.
voiceofreason4677 5 days ago
@MrFmmcosta "And also you opt to ignore their standard of living because otherwise all your generalizations of "deregulation" would be senseless?!"
If you look at the articles linked in the underbar you'll see that's addressed.
Good for you, I can't even say;; "by your logic" because you have none.
Good job at failing though.
TheTruePooka 6 days ago
....The pay and conditions of the workers is determined by the global economics of supply and demand. If prices of production and distribution become uncompetitive in one country, then production will move elsewhere. This is a fundamental fact of economics. Hand wringing will not change that fact.
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@asianlife53 This isn't hand wringing. It's calling the Conservatives and their supporters out on their bullshit rhetoric.
And contrary to what people think economics does not exist in a vacuum.
"The best things in life are free".
This refers to concepts like freedom, patriotism, a strong society. But these things are not free. They have to be worked at.
Conservative-free market apologists would tell you that isn't true while they shake your hand & pick your pocket.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka Hi. Nice to chat. Not sure if you have visted any factories in China, or spoken to any of the workers or bosses. Let me give you an example from a friend of mine who buys textiles and clothing from China based factories. Some companies he sells to have tried to bring in a limit on the hours worked by the staff. The staff do not want to work for such companies because they cannot make enough money to go home with. The product price cannot go up, because that makes it uncompetitive..
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@asianlife53 No offense but you're asking me to take the word of a total stranger on something over the word of reputable paper like the NYTimes.
I also notice that you respond to issues that have led to death and permanent damage to the human body by saying;
" The product price cannot go up, because that makes it uncompetitive.."
In other words; you're ducking it and ignoring it while giving standard apologetics answer.
Sorry, but that alone strikes me as incredibly suspect.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka No offense taken. Just to give you a background, I am a Brit who has lived and worked in China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong for the last 9 years. I have dealt with a lot of companies in those years, and understand some of the dynamics. NYT is a reputable paper, but at the end of the day, these are the words of one writer, and we would need to see sources. I have seen erroneous articles in the Financial Times as well on subjects I specialise in. BTW I am aware of the reported suicides..
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@asianlife53 "but at the end of the day, these are the words of one writer, "
Again; you're putting forward the premise that I should believe you over a reputable source like the NYTimes. No offense, but we get this sort of thing from Creationists when discussing the peer reviewed process.
If what you say is true then contact a newspaper and provide your evidence.
Cont -
"
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka cont -
Because you are not only saying that the writer is lying or wrong, and trying to cast the offhand accusation that; "newspapers screw-up so therefore this must be the case here" but you're also claiming that Apple is lying about the situation. And Apple for the most part offered confirmation with their statement shown of Fox Business.
I'm sorry but you're going to have to offer something more substantial.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka The links to the articles took me down the wrong path. Apple do not agree with all the claims made in the article, but the explosions, suicides and long hours are well known. The child labour claim levelled against Foxconn has never been substantiated to my knowledge, unless you can link it. However, there is child labour in China, as in many Asian countries. No one denies the long hours, and that the workers sleep in dormitaries. But add cost to the supply chain and jobs will...
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka ...go elsewhere. The economic fundamentals mean that these jobs will not go to America. As with other Asian economies, we will see the rise of the middle classes in China creating demand which will probably far exceed the demand of the West in the fulness of time. We are seeing the rise of the APAC century, and America is more and more realising that it needs to supply goods to Asia that Asians want.
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@asianlife53 "But add cost to the supply chain and jobs will go elsewhere."
Actually, according to Rifkin, they won't go elsewhere; they'll just go away!
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka The article by Barboza under the 2012 link is an article from 2010. The article itself looks like a fair representation of the worker's day. It look a whole lot better than Millions and Millions of other workers's experiences in Asia. Am I looking at the wrong article? If Foxconn became uncompetive in China it will simply uproot and move to Indonesia or Thailand etc. If those other Asian countries could get their logistics sorted out, they might move anyway, since the ...
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka ...cost of labour in Sothern China is escalating already, and the proximity to logistics centres is what keeps a lot of the factories there. Trust me, a lot of Asian economies would welcome a Foxconn factory with open arms. To your initial point, deregulation would not solve the problem, since the cost of the labour-force in America has gone way beyond that of other countries. Remember at one time when Japan was the cheapest labour location of the global economy. As aspirations...
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka ...grew, so did costs, and so the low value jobs moved elsewhere. The challenge then, through an enhanced education system is to produce an up-skilled workforce, as per Japan, Korea, Taiwan etc, where the per capita GDP is higher, but so is the per capita input into the economy in value terms. From an outside point of view, the American workforce, as a generalisation, does not appear to have upskilled.
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheTruePooka "Again; you're putting forward the premise that I should believe you over a reputable source like the NYTimes."
Or you could look at a REAL peer-reviewed published economist like Jeremy Rifkin, who points out that jobs are disappearing even in China and outsourcing only accounts for 5% of jobs lost, and that jobs with long hours are therefore in high demand by Chinese workers.
But nah, that'd upset your dogma, wouldn't it?
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka ...at Foxconn. But the conditions there are nothing as bad as some of the conditions at companies which have got nothing to do with the global economy. I have no issue with you main premise re the Conservative Right, but I think your views re Foxconn etc are incorrect.
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheTruePooka "...over the word of reputable paper like the NYTimes."
*cough*sputter*chortle*
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka ...if all factories reduced their productivity and upped their prices then the work would move from China. There are millions of people who's lives are so shit, that working in a factory for minimum wages is nirvana. This is commerce. We may have qualms, but there has never been a time when these dynamics were not at play.
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
Of course, Foxconn is a Taiwanese company operating in China. But anyway...I have worked in the region, and whilst I like TheTruePooka, I think his thinking is flawed. The costs of production are low primarily because of the lower working wage of the workers. And that wage is significantly higher than they could earn if they stayed in an agrarian society. However bad their conditions are [questionable], they are a lot better than they were if they didn't have the job cont...
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@asianlife53 This is the dirty secret: Chinese businesses are pretty badly regulated (by that I mean there's a lot of regulations) and it's getting worse. Cheap workers is the only way they can compete. Whereas here in America, because of the Minimum Wage, businesses don't even have THAT way of staying solvent! So they either move elsewhere or go out of business entirely.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk Businesses in the developed world have tried and failed to compete in the low wage, low added value space. It only works when the logistics costs of imports are sufficiently in their favour. There is regulation in China, but usually it can be dealt with. The threat in China [the South in particular] is that total labour costs are rising higher than other countries, and that includes Northern China. Businesses will move to the lower production area because consumers in the west ,,,,
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@shanedk ...are not prepared to pay more for their consumables. Its supply and demand based on the price points that Western consumers are willing to accept.
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@asianlife53 And you don't think the costs of regulatory compliance--which are greater in this country than the companies' profits themselves--play ANY role in it at all?
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk Compliance is a carry cost of all businesses, and since all aspects of doing business require compliance of one shape or another, then to identify the true cost of regulatory compliance would be difficult across all countries and all industry sectors. Companies have many costs [such as salaries] on their balance sheet which represent a figure which is greater than their gross or net profit margin. That in itself does not make them uncompetitive.
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@asianlife53 "Compliance is a carry cost of all businesses"
Yes, including small businesses. Regulations hurt them disproportionately because, unlike big corporations, they're not as able to absorb the extra costs.
"all aspects of doing business require compliance of one shape or another"
Absolute bullshit. It's ONLY because of your precious government. It destroys jobs and makes us ALL poorer.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk Not sure which countries you have worked in, but if you can tell me an industry anywhere that doesn't require some form of regulatory compliance then I would like to know.
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@asianlife53 More fucking dogmatism. It DOESN'T MATTER that countries that regulate less have better economies; if you can't find a country with absolutely no government regulation whatsoever then the Cult automatically wins. Pathetic.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk Not at all, and please calm down. Your view of 'success' in national economies is a little bit too simplistic. Like I say, there are systems in place to ensure compliance with regulation. That regulation may be fire certificates in the USA or exchange controls in China...whatever. Deregulation is nicely idealistic, but realistically not possible. The dynamics of competitiveness are more complex, and to compare the USA with China is not helpful. America should be comparing with..
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@asianlife53 "Your view of 'success' in national economies is a little bit too simplistic."
Is it? Then how come countries as a whole are more prosperous towards the top of the Economic Freedom Index and more impoverished toward the bottom?
The rest of your post is just blind assertion with nothing to back it up.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk ''The rest of your post is just blind assertion...'' Assertion? My request that you provide a report that shows that the USA is uncompetitive versus other OECD countries due to its regulatory environment is an assertion? C'mon!
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@asianlife53 No, LIAR, I ANSWERED that part with my point about the EFI. Your blind assertion--which you apparently now want to ignore--is "Deregulation is nicely idealistic, but realistically not possible. The dynamics of competitiveness are more complex...". You assert, but do NOT support. The only thing that has to happen for deregulation is for some courageous President to tear up the hundreds of thousands of pages in the CFR that only offer benefit to big corporations.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@asianlife53 "Do you think that hospitals should not check on the qualifications of their doctors?"
Oddly enough one of the biggest diploma mill scandals was in high level government jobs like the Department of Homeland Security had.
johnrainrules 2 weeks ago
@johnrainrules If the Dept for Homeland Security doesn't have sufficient due diligence in place to check the credentials of its employees, then that means the regulatory process is not robust enough. I'm sure the Republicans would actually want greater regulation in that instance!!
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@asianlife53 Actually that just means the people you want to put in charge of everything are incompetent.
"I'm sure the Republicans would actually want greater regulation in that instance!!"
They always want greater regulations, but unfortunately the people who have to enforce their regulations are incompetent.
johnrainrules 2 weeks ago
@johnrainrules Compliance with the regulatory environment means more than just thinking up the regs, it means enforcing them on a hourly basis. If you do not have a rigourous regime in place then you will not be able to regulate a businesses functions, be it a foundry, a hospital, a bank, or a restaurant. There are always regulatory costs in business, through health and safety, visas, exchange controls, fire regs, anti-discriminatory policies, building regs etc etc etc.,,,
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@asianlife53 "it means enforcing them on a hourly basis"
Uh, OK.
"There are always regulatory costs in business, through health and safety, visas, exchange controls, fire regs, anti-discriminatory policies, building regs "
And then there are payoffs, that way when your regulated industry goes belly up you can make sure to get bailed out. You can also make sure to stifle competition so you can overcharge.
johnrainrules 2 weeks ago
@johnrainrules As I have asked others before, can you name an industry or business sector that isn't regulated. ''You can also make sure to stifle competition so you can overcharge.'' As all businesses are regulated, I'm not sure how this assertion makes sense.
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@asianlife53 "As all businesses are regulated, I'm not sure how this assertion makes sense."
Look at the cost of medicine before the AMA.
johnrainrules 2 weeks ago
@johnrainrules The criticism of the AMA relates to its monpolistic position and not due to the regilatory environment.
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@asianlife53 "The criticism of the AMA relates to its monpolistic position and not due to the regilatory environment."
It has a monopolistic position due to the regulatory environment. Also who has more of a monopoly than the people who make regulations in the first place.
johnrainrules 2 weeks ago
@johnrainrules regulatory
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@johnrainrules The True pooka seems to be implying that more, or existing regulation would better protect the health of workers and cites the Foxconn case where 2 people were killed in 2010. In that same year, 5 people were killed at Klean Energy in Connecticut, and 11 at BP in the Gulf of Mexico. And also he seems to equate the regulatory environment in a country only with Health and Safety.
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@asianlife53 "The True pooka seems to be implying that more, or existing regulation would better protect the health of workers and cites the Foxconn case where 2 people were killed in 2010. In that same year, 5 people were killed at Klean Energy in Connecticut, and 11 at BP in the Gulf of Mexico. "
And how many died in Irag and Afghanistan?
Oh yeah and you can thank regs for BP since they limited their liability, without which they would be sued into nonexistence.
johnrainrules 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
shanedk 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk ...other OECD countries in terms of competitiveness- unless America wants to put itself into reverse gear of course.
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@shanedk Maybe you can cite me a report that shows the USA as being less competitive versus other OECD countries due to its more stringent regulatory environment.
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@asianlife53 Just look at its rankings on the EFI.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk Well Hong Kong is number one, if its the same index you refer to. How do you measure success? Virtually zero manufacturing - to be regulated,. Not the highest per capita GDP in the world. A poor social services for the low income brackets. etc etc etc. How do I know? I just lived there for 5 years. The major industries - banking, shipping, insurance, are highly regulated.
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@asianlife53 Hmmm, the usual state-worship of manufacturing, bogus use of GDP metric, lack of your precious government's safety net while ignoring the fact that the slums have been disappearing so fast no one's quite sure what to do with the land, oh, and an anecdote to top it all off with. Pathetic.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@asianlife53 "Companies have many costs [such as salaries] on their balance sheet"
Yes, and all of those things increase the value of the final product. Regulations don't.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shanedk ''Yes, and all of those things increase the value of the final product. Regulations don't.'' Wouldn't you pay more for treatment by a regulated doctor, who has to have passed exams to practice, and to comply with the regulations, than one who doesn't?
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@asianlife53 "Wouldn't you pay more for treatment by a regulated doctor, who has to have passed exams to practice"
Yes, which is why I look for his university diploma on the wall. How many times have you asked a doctor to show you his government license?
More Cult of the Omnipotent State here...
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk ...and if the University degree proves to be false, who should be regulating that? The individual? Do you think the majority of people have the ability to verify the qualifications of their doctor? Do you think that hospitals should not check on the qualifications of their doctors? Regulation- bummer eh?
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@asianlife53 "...and if the University degree proves to be false, who should be regulating that?"
The University.
"Do you think the majority of people have the ability to verify the qualifications of their doctor?"
Come on, it's not like it's hard! But no, we "little people" are so helpless to do for ourselves so we need mommy government to come take care of us...
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk
No kidding. If people are helpless to check that thing, then they sure as shit can't be given a vote to elect people who would do it for them. It really is that simple.
vspqbd 2 weeks ago
@asianlife53 "Do you think that hospitals should not check on the qualifications of their doctors?"
Never said anything even remotely resembling this and you know it, LIAR.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
It has been shows De-legilization of the economy is bad.
fonkymaster 2 weeks ago
Everyone needs to stop calling regulations "regulations" and call them what they are: the LAW. That way, it forces the LAW-haters, the corporate anarchists, to be on the defensive, rather than us, because it implies that THEY are always on the verge of breaking the LAW, if not breaking it already.
mphello 2 weeks ago
FANTASTIC video, Pooka! Keep up the great work!
:)
mphello 2 weeks ago
i ripped a ps3 apart yesterday... i couldnt do what them people do 36hrs in a row... live on site and get very lil pay... if thats all true... they fucking got heart to put them together so fast and in as good of condition as most are...
xX4monX4m4rthXx 2 weeks ago
Yes Pooka you're all for them going back to working 16 hours a day working on a farm eeking out a subsistence living, they'll be so much better off under your plan.
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler Strawman.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka Don't be lazy. Explain why it's a strawman.
Do you even have a clue what the living conditions of these people were before they went to work for Foxcomm or what their options are if they leave Foxcomm.
Tell me what their options are Pooka, I'd like to know.
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler It's not laziness. It's being economical. I got tired of explaining "why" to all the others and in the interest of not wasting time I just say; "strawman".
But as a hint; you're trying to put words in my mouth.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka No I'm pointing out that you are jumping to conclusions.
You are applying 1st world western standards to people in 3rd world countries. In many cases the jobs they take working in what you would consider sweatshop conditions are actually better than the world they left behind.
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler Actually you aren't pointing any such thing out.
You're raising the classic conservative talking point if; "Take what we offer you and be glad for it."
This argument fails. And besides, it doesn't even apply here.
Look at the articles in the underbar.
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka conservative talking points..We call that "poisoning the well"
In your sheltered world I MUST be a conservative right? Well you'd be wrong
It's time wake up and realize the world can't be divided into your simple liberal and conservative categories.Here's an actual documentary that was NOT made by a "conservative" that takes the time to explain it to the whole argument instead of relying on talking points
Globalisation is Good - Johan Norberg on Globalisation
watch?v=12YDLZq8rT4
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler *sigh* no it actually is a conservative talking point. It's been the traditional argument offered when any group of laborers has asked for more. Well, that and; "we can't afford it".
It also doesn't take into consideration that sometimes you have to suffer with less in the short term to gain more in the long run. Based on that logic soldiers in Iraq shouldn't have complained about the faulty bulletproof vests because; "It's better than the nothing they had before."
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@justintempler And I never called you a conservative. I said you were using a conservative talking point. Unlike you who called me a liberal when I'm not one. There are no liberals in America anymore. At least, not enough to have any significance.
But to get back to the example of soldiers; lets say they'd actually known that they were faulty. It is possible that a high death toll in a short term would have led
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka to immediate action, working vests and many more lives saved over th next decade (assuming the soldiers refused the faulty vests and made a stink about it, dying from chest shots in the process).
That's an example of; "Suffering in the short run so that future soldiers will have a better chance at survival."
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@TheTruePooka " Unlike you who called me a liberal"
I did no such thing Try reading what I typed without taking it out of context.
"sometimes you have to suffer with less in the short term to gain more in the long run. Based on that logic "
Jumping to conclusions and creating your very own strawman.
Watch the video link... or don't.
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler The only thing you were right on was calling me a liberal-you didn't..
And here's your own words right back at you chuckles.
Don't be lazy. Explain why it's a strawman.
" watch the video."
Your argumentation has been shit. I've caught you in strawman and false accusations and all you've done is slid from one to the next without acknowledging your fuck ups. Why would I possibly waste more than the minute or two I am now dealing with anything you say or think?
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago