The ONLY way to bring jobs back to America is to lower the minimum wage to $2/hr.
This is the only way we can compete with China. Paul Ryan and my fellow republicans need to act on this now. Employers also should not have to carry the burdern of paying for health care either. Go get em Paul!
I'd like to shove that statistic down the throat of every bullshit libertarian tea party conservative fuck tard that cries socialism of how real wages adjusted for inflation have DECLINED as actually production increase while wages stagnate.....scream about the evils of socialism while the waltons shove that smiley face cockhead deeper into your rectums.
In my opinion automation has a lot to answer for. Automation is typically used to replace the skilled workers, not the unskilled workers. In many industries it is the "decent work" that is lost to automation, wheras the lowest paid jobs will likely never be automated or will just evolve into similar unskilled repetative work. Automation is the destruction of the economic middle class.
The rich won't rest until all of the people are in one of two professions. Prostitution, and Sport-military. The prostitutes will pleasure the rich, and the sport-military will slaughter each other to entertain them. Both professions will be subsistance level pay. Most folk will starve to death and their bones will make piano keys and coasters for the rich. It's time to start mass strikes, murder, and sabotage. Get them bofore they get you.
Its funny how we celebrate a labor day when waging a one-sided class war against labor has been in place for decades with exceptional gusto by the right-wing who love selling out the American public to serve the interests of wealth and power.
The political right says labor is an obstacle yet hostory shows when labor was strongest pay and benefits were better. The right-wing hates labor, hate the majority of the public and historically sides with wealth and power yet fakes being for the ppl
The secret to being competitive lies in making production more automated and efficient, but that requires better technical education and more technicians and engineers.
We can't have it both ways. We can be friendly with countries like china and sell goods here manufactured by underworked over paid citizens, or we can refuse their goods and keep Jobs here in the US. We are selling ourselves short, and shitting the rights of the Chinese down the river. We are headed towards a 2 class system of rich and poverty with no middle class. It doesn't work.
Oh at the end she talks about Everyone upgrading thier houses providing Jobs.. Who has the money for this?
artificially increasing wages via labour unions / state = bound to fail as jobs move elsewhere.. global labour wages equalizing over time = good. am i getting this right? i suppose the problem is as wages grow over time there is a lot of room for abuse, thus the people create unions to lobby with the state for better rights. but if conditions become TOO good = jobs get outsourced. so the answer is in a BALANCE. not extreme pro-union or anti-union.
You're right about war finding. But you're wrong about government spending. Government money cannot create jobs.
Government money is tax money, which is taken by force not by value. Then government can only reallocate wealth from one person to another, it doesn't actually produce anything.
Unfortunately, because of the economic calculation problem, government planners will never have enough information to carry out wealth allocation reliably. This is what destroys socialist economies.
I mean that the money to pay post office employees, firemen, police, libarians, teachers, and congressman - all that money comes from taxes taken from other businesses.
All I'm saying is the government doesn't create jobs. Every job created, in the defense department or in the housing department, is a reallocation from the private to the government sector.
We should speak precisely on these matters. In some cases, there may be a good case to reallocate jobs from the private sector to government. THAT case must be made, not a case for doing the impossible - creating jobs by government action.
The government created DARPANET, not the Internet. You are committing the genealogical fallacy, anyway. All that engineering research money is taken from the private sector, reducing private R&D. Its' just a reallocation, nothing was created. This fact doesn't change just because cool research comes out of government funded initiatives. That funding would have been allocated, and probably much better, by private R&D efforts.
I haven't claimed it's an inherently bad thing. I've said government doesn't create jobs or wealth, but only reallocates it. The reallocation can be good or bad.
Your insurance and shareholder metaphors are inapt. One can insure only events outside of one's control. R&D are controllable, and so not insurable. Nor is the government a business. It is a corporate entity, but not a business. When government is operated as a business, as under Mercantilism, the results are catastrophic.
You are a bastion of equivocation. I know how risky research is. I'm a researcher in topology, which is all basic research. R&D is purposeful human action. In that sense, it is within the control of the human actors that perform it. That makes it uninsurable. Not all risks are insurable. your metaphor is inapt.
What you write is true of R&D, by and large. Doesn't matter. The point still stands: none of the R&D wealth was created by government. It's just reallocated.
The purpose of consortia is to spread uninsurable risk to avoid insolvency. Companies and consortia that aren't very good at allocating wealth for research SHOULD go bankrupt. Give it over to people who are better at it. Bankruptcy isn't a bad thing. It's just how bad assets are recycled.
Government reallocates. Companies allocate. The difference is well explained by Hayek. The difference is one of voluptuary exchange vs. force.
Taxation cannot create jobs. It can only reallocate wealth, moving jobs form one place to another.
Some kinds of economic exchange involves force. What you call "government investment" for example is mere taxation for R&D purposes. This involves some people, perhaps a minority of researchers, taking form other people, perhaps a majority tax base. That's force.
By contrast, voluntary exchange makes both parties subjectively better off. This not a necessary property of forced exchange.
When I write 'force' I mean physical force. Then by 'resistance' you must mean something different than 'force.' Hence, you equivocate again.
Government can impose order. But economic systems have emergent order. This is what trips up socialists. They cannot conceive of a system that is made by humans but not designed by a human.
Hayek pretty convincingly demonstrates that government imposed order is not functional, even in the short run.
Human systems do not exhibit the regularity of physical systems. You cannot use the methods of the physical sciences to study human economic action. you cannot even analogize economics and physics. This is the flaw of almost all modern social science, including most 'free market' econometrics.
Sure we need politics. The question is what kind. Again, Hayek's critique is decisive.
The existence of complex, non-ideal transactions should move us away from central planning and social tampering towards individual decision-making and emergent order. and not the other way around.
Government action is itself an externality since the results of social tampering cannot be predicted.
Yes, it is impossible. That's why we have governments. We give the government monopoly over the use of force. But this delegation should be minimal. Only enough to preserve the ability of people to freely cooperate.
Suppose I have a car to sell for $x. You need a car, and you have $x. You want my car more than you want your $x. I want your $x more than my car. We trade.
Yes, each transaction is messy and involves unbelievably complex interactions. That's Hayek's point. No central planner, no government, no one person, can possibly know how to set prices or social priorities - beyond the most minimal limits on the use of force.
One of these minimal limits is a court system, that gives individuals the ability to resolve disputes without resort to violence. But this is ex post. The planner rules ex ante.
Oh, courts can and do and have worked pretty well over the centuries. There are also strong economic and social incentives to avoid courts and work things out in other peaceful ways.
The whole point of evolution, the very genius of the theory, is that there is no plan, no planner and yet order emerges from a simple principle: fitness.
Hayek also treats extensively of mixed economic systems. They are unstable, tending to socialism or freedom, but not both.
- In the US, our tort system almost promotes lawsuits. Our court system works just fine, and has under all kind of duress for the centuries preceding the New Deal.
- The International Law of the Sea along with it's court system, was not created by sovereign law nor does it operate by sovereign law. It emerged from social cooperation and competition on the high seas.
- The entire history of the Hanseatic League shows that courts can handle it.
All government devolve into cronyism. Federalist #10 explains why. It also explains why cronyism cannot be eliminated from government. Thus, we must limit the power of government so that no faction becomes powerful enough to establish a tyranny.
Socialism and central planning are institutionalized versions of cronyism - not a cure for it.
You proceed from facts not in evidence. I've not claimed that government cronyism is "hopeless."
It's not "hopeless" because the US government is limited. The problem isn't one of honesty, but of faction. We must limit the honest, true believers too. Again, examine Madison's argument in Federalist #10.
By economic history and theory, central planning can't work. It institutionalizes faction, an unconstitutional act, a danger to individual liberty.
Polanyi is just dead wrong about the enclosure movement. But, in any case, lets' examine Polyani's primitivism.
A free market allows anyone to opt out. At any time, anyone can go off and start a self-sufficient socialist commune, or live in a cave and eat berries, be a noble savage, whatever.
Then why have most people chosen the so-called "instability" and "fragility" of free markets? Why didn't Polyani opt out of free markets?
Polyani was anything but a realist. He was a tragic utopian.
True, I can't claim that people are pleased with the current system. How fortunate that I didn't make that claim.
I claim that people are more pleased with free markets than non-market systems. People may have problems with markets, but since they don't opt out, they must think it is better than any alternative.
On the contrary, Polanyi's relevant claim is that "in spite of the chorus of academic incantations so persistent in the nineteenth century, gain and profit made on exchange never before played an important part in human economy. Though the institution of the market was fairly common since the later Stone Age, its role was no more than incidental to economic life."
Everything in Polanyi depends on this. But it's wrong.
AT&T was a government granted monopoly. In the part of AT&T that wasn't a monopoly, Bell Labs did amazing, private, basic research.
Ultimate, the monopoly part of AT&T fell of it's own bloated weight. Now SBC is the monopoly. No difference.
Financial markets have long needed a reliable electronic interchange format. And indeed, prior to the Internet such services were in widespread use. IP tech languished until it was privatized.
Dear Dera Thanks for your support, sometimes I just can't help myself. Remeber there ain't nothin' wrong with Trollin' if it is done artfully. As for the Jedi's plan to magic me into a porpoise via his wizard buddy Samuel, well that has always been a dream of mine, to swim out to sea with my quasi dolphin buddies. Ah, to frolic, screech and click, while gorging myself on raw fish amid the surf. Sounds like paradise, Mr. Colt, take me away.
But then how could you continue your artful pursuits? Trolls need bridges, and you'll find none of those out in the open sea, unless they build that Bering Strait bridge, god forbid they give Sarah Palin any more cause for delusions about foreign relations experience by virtue of a damn land link with Russia.
No, better to remain a troll, and stick to your bridge, even if it is just an overpass, and fling intellectual feces at the windshields of passing internet motorists. It's what Jesus wants
Dear Etimos, Fuckin' A-1, I will do that! But I just want you to know, I ain't doin' it for Jesus, I am doin' it because of you bro. You have shown me the error of my ways. Thanks Eti, now, mutha fuck the right wing pukes who are ruining the world with their creationism, and corporatism, and militarism! May they all break their backs trying to blow themselves!
Legalize Meth and Fight!
Biter (supertroll extrodinaire [now go fugg yourselves])
Thank the corporate media, the Republican Party and everything commercial like the Real News. They bash President Obama before he can get things moving because they know slow and steady change can result in big gains over time. So they have websites and media personalities posing as progressives and liberals attacking viciously from the left and they have Fox News, Lou Dobbs, Limbaugh, Republican et cetera attacking him from the right. Maher said Obama shouldn't go on tv? Olbermann crusade?
i wish they would quit lying so damn much. do you really believe we went from 570,00 jobs lost in july to 216,000 in august? be real. remember they said june was 345,000 and it had to be changed to 558,000. anybody believing these turds are foolish.
Our current world economic system, imposed by global neo-liberal capitalism, as well as absolute planned economies, is in crisis. The Market is not a Messiah, and all of us need to make serious lifestyle changes. Rampant consumerism on one hand, and competitive greed and selfishness on the other are all at fault. Limitless growth and unlimited accumulation of wealth at the cost of millions of lives are to be rejected.
You're way off base. What planet did you just come from?
Neo-conservative capitalism has ruled global markets for the last 40 years, and counting..
Many Americans work hard and try to live within their means. But the rise of inflation, the outsourcing of jobs, and massive layoff is all controlled by corporations that have no allegiance to any nation or society.
Thanks for the reply; I see little here with which I would disagree. But the confusion is understandable as I regard neoliberal capitalism as very alike neo-conservatism. Deregulation, maxamization of profit, protection of contracts over human lives, etc., etc.
Your mention of outsourcing, etc. is a component of globalization, which I also reference. So again, we are much agreed.
That said, Yes, I'm very much off base. I'm far too radical for anything else!
Truthfully I voted for Obama because I wanted change and took a chance [since he called for a new approach] in voting for him 2008.
Has he brought any real change? Nope!
The Stimulus Bill has barely help the average American and now he's setting us up for another needless war in the Middle-East. How is this different? How do you call it "change" from the previous administration? It isn't.
It's my strong belief that we are missing the point when all we talk about is "creating new jobs." True, what is required is some innovative home-grown means of production. Regardless, without something worth while to manufacture produced by our own citizens, and decent wage enough to actually exchange a fair value of their work for more than just barely sustenance - we will not see any satisfactory economic recovery! Any other conversation is a waste of time.
Why are they afraid to point out the obvious. Free trade is the problem. By reducing tariffs worldwide there is no way to protect jobs. manufacturing jobs are essential to the growth of the economy and improving the tax base. Impose tariffs on low wage countries to force them to raise their wages. Lowering the wage further in the US to match China's wage rate is a non-starter.
What did the Government think was going to happen when they let manufacturing jobs go to china, and service jobs go to Illegal immigrates? Clinton, bush and now Obama have done nothing to protect the American people from the Gross misconduct of corporations. This is treason.
Close the Borders, Enact tariffs now. Jail people who hire illegals, vote out the thieves who watched without protecting us.
When Clinton started the China trade deals, I asked myself, "why would he do that to us?".
Dear Poor Folk, Why do you poor people not get it yet. It is the way of the world. Inferior, uneducated shit heels, such as yourselves, were ment to work yourselves to death (and starve while doing so) so that awesome folk (like me) can afford to lounge around and occasionally beat and rape you. Live with it you pukes! You are poor, you aren't even human beings. Aw, gonna cry now? Shut up and make us richer, then die screaming while we urinate on you with you family watching.
The notion that unionization drives jobs overseas may apply to many manufacturing jobs, but not to service sector jobs. And this is the growth area of the economy long term. Someone cannot stock the shelves of your supermarket remotely from India, for instance, or cut your hair in a maquilladora. These are the jobs that need to be unionized. And that's why they're fighting EFCA so hard -- companies like Walmart can't outsource retail jobs. They'd have to bargain.
that's all sweet and nice but there needs to be an abundance of manufacturing to provide real growth and prosperity. otherwise it's just a decline to nothing.
While I know many people would disagree, I have to say I'm not one of them. Unions are a heavy handed tool for use in a system which is not capable or willing to intervene on behalf of workers to establish better conditions. Ideally, the best system would be a government agency whose purposes is specifically to improve worker conditions and quality of life, without the need for heavy handed group-bargaining, which is the calling card of a decaying and bloated system
My daughter belongs to a union which has no rep at her store, and does nothing except take more money. She pays for dues and health ins. and gets nothing from either.
The fact that unions are necessary at all represents a failure of the government to properly care for the interests of its people.
I dont understand all those anti-government people who seem to view the govt as an outside entity that is against them. In a democracy, the government's sole function is to ensure that the best interests of the people are met. If your government isnt doing that, your democracy is failing, and that should trouble you deeply.
I am not against democracy but monopoly democracy. And I am one of those anti-government people. Also, being troubled deeply doesn't do a whole lot in making you more free.
You guys need to realize that YOU are the government. It's not The Government and You, the government is comprised of people, who are themselves elected into public office by people, paid by people, maintained by people. You guys need to start taking more responsibility for your government instead of just saying "I hate it" and being against it, but never actually doing anything about it.
Canada's government has no 4 year terms. They rule until we say GET OUT!
I am me. I am only DeraJa. I am neither a dog, blue whale, business, or government. If you have delusions about being an organization you may need psychiatric help. Government is a system. Systems are subject to analysis and evaluation. I reject this system as being unnecessary and dangerous.
I agree. Worker unions are a potential democratizing force in the whole world. The overwhelming majority of the great things we all have come from battle unions fought for (social security, child labor laws, limit on hours, weekends, etc).
This is the reason why business (both big and small) and states fear them.
captcrais101 : No th ewason for that is that the corporations don't want the union bosses taking a big bite of the loot. That is what crime groups do, they fight amongst themselves for power control and money.
Thanks to decades of corporate influence over every aspect of our society, there is no reason for the CEO's to do anything other than what they are currently doing. Hells, the supreme court determined that a corporation has but one duty, to produce a profit for its share holders. Talk about a formula for disaster.
You can't rely on corporate heads to stop being greedy for a change to come, you need to advocate a solution yourself.
It is the State that allows these people to do what they do, they even are funded by these very corporations.
The problem is not Capitalism, the free market, the problem is the State, the largest corporation, the monopoly that has control over all the other ones.
This is a very complicated scenario. What people "should earn" is based on what we are used to. This has nothing to do with the resources available.
Much of the high prices (and declining living wage) has been set by government indirectly from regulation. The more bureaucracy, the less of the pie people get.
What you are witnessing is the system becoming very inefficient and wasteful from the many intermediary steps people have to navigate for any avenue of self empowerment.
Yarr! Let's complain about the nominal amount of wage monies rather than the purchasing power of each dollar, further reduced courtesy of the coercive state monopoly on the provision of currency which allows the fed to manipulate the supply of said monies.
Let's also call the Corporatist lobby phallus -> government's vag and the phallus/vag -> rectum raiyp of the common individual a byproduct of voluntary exchange.
The capitalist class uses the state. Actually the capitalist class oftentimes IS the state. So, I figure if you eliminate one, the other will fall on its own.
I am sympathetic to your postion, but capitalist play a neccesary role in allocating resources in an economy. They can also shelter the employee from risk. So, there is a role for capitalism, but it must be limited to only where it creates value.
Of course it can. Unfortunately the real problem is the government, or specifically corruption within the government. Lobbyists have to be stopped at all costs, and there needs to be strict, harsh, far reaching penalties for political corruption. Not just for the people taking the money, but for the people trying to offer it.
Im not a marxist you fool. Bank power is too great the banks own our government. The Congress has the power to print our money for the people by the people. We need to end corporate personhood and return sovereignty to the individual. I am a capitalist if a marxist looked at my favorites they'd hate me.
You say the laws have to be harsher on corporate corruption?
And what politician will do that if 95% or more of them are all funded by these cartels.
Save yourself sometime, remove the politicians that make laws for the corporate heads, and manage yourself locally. No central government, no economic intervention, let Supply and Demand deal with it.
now you know as well as I do what a stupid suggestion that is. It's supply and demand without government regulation that got your asses in this mess in the first place.
It was uninhibited supply and demand capitalism that prompted the appalling and crippling conditions of industrial european work-houses, and it was group-bargaining, unions, and government inhibition that finally resolved many of those problems.
To believe you can solve the problem by embracing the cause is idiocy.
Look at the EU, where the economic downturn, as seems to be the popular way of saying 'Depression' without actually using the word depression, is almost without effect, or even just right here in Canada, right across the border, where we were barely aware of any depression at all, and look at the differences between our position on government intervention, and yours.
Where government controls and limits the endeavors of industry to pursue black ink at the expense of workers, liberty rules.
Take Germany. 36 hour work week instead of 40, 6 weeks paid vacation standard mandated, at least one stat holiday per month, nationalized health care and wellness programs, higher per capita wages and minimum wage baseline, and what do they get for it?
Higher productivity, greater worker satisfaction, and higher overall GDP per capita.
DeraJa: Unlimited Capitalism is what we have in the USA where the banksters use their money and lobbyists to get whatever laws they want from Congress. Look at how easy they got Congress to go along with the multi-trillion dollar stimulus robbery.
asperin: Government intervention? What could be freer from intervention from the government than where the moneyed interests have bought and control the government? The bankers own the government. Want proof, review the tarp and stimulus funding crime.
asperin: YOu are right. What we have in the USA is Fascism which has resulted from out of control capital accumulation in the hands of a few who were able to buy the government. Fascism did not originate with Mussolini but was the result of the Roman Empire. The Fasci symbol comes from Rome.
That is not capatialism. That is fascism. Capitalism is like football. You need rules, goalposts and referees to make it fair. Take that all away and people chan cheat, lie and steal with out any accountablity.
Nonsense. Capitalists are NOT "parasites that take the value of workers productivity."
Marx's surplus-value theory of labor is theoretically unsound and has failed in practice.
There are many reasonable critiques of capitalism. (Even though I don't agree with them.) But capitalists-as-parasites isn't one of them.
Loosely speaking, capitalism is free markets. When biz leaders use government power, it's not capitalism. That's why biz leaders are usually the worst capitalists.
capitalism and free markets are two different things, its a great lie that capitalism = free market the capitalists have made up. capitalism is in essence that you can make money from money without actually doing any labour or being productive.
capitalism is very protectionist and they love to disguise it as free market, look up the protectionist measures in so called Free trade agreements such as NAFTA, and what about subsidies, taxcuts and any other edge big corporations have over smaller ones?
its a systemic problem with capitalism that power consolidates and then takes over, a few regulations cant change the foundational problems. if you want to look up real free market then check out Mutualism. the only place where real capitalism exist (also called free market) is in the thirld world where it has been shoved down peoples throats, do you feel its a good and fair system they have over there?
oh and state and capital is pretty much the same, the capital owns the state in order to protect itself and provide rules and regulations that benefits them.
Mutualism is still based on the unsound surplus-value theory of labor. And so Mutualism is unsound, too.
Making money from money isn't necessarily unproductive. Suppose I loan money to a business for profit, and make the business more productive. I would make money from money, and yet I am productive and profitable.
Entrepreneurship with capital is not the problem. It's that powerful political interests control governments and coerce people, redistributing their wealth to powerful interests.
The Pullman strikers killed people. The obstructed rail lines. They committed arson and sabotage. The Pullman company did just as bad as the unions, but let's not gloss over the violent past of unions either. Real News, if you really want to provide real news, then you must proved the whole story.
The labor market is global, but laborers cannot migrate to where the work is. Then wages in the US will reach equilibrium with global labor prices. Sucks.
Pat Buchanan is a talking head for the republican party. I have watched him speak like a Fox news pundit on MSNBC. Rachel Madow kicks his ass often. One time Pat kicked his own ass.
Not necessarily. Pat Buchanan is a paleo-conservative and does not support the foreign policy, amnesty, and the social spending of the neo-cons. Rachel Madow is no different in her rhetorical gymnastics than neo-con talking heads like Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.
Pat at least has the courtesy of letting Madow and the guests to finish their statements before making a rebuttal, a quality that some of the sophist liberal guests do not contain.
Rachel has disagreed with Obama too at times like on him imprisioning people indefinitly at Bagaram prison. Which is like Guantanmo only in Afghistan.
This has been flagged as spam show
The ONLY way to bring jobs back to America is to lower the minimum wage to $2/hr.
This is the only way we can compete with China. Paul Ryan and my fellow republicans need to act on this now. Employers also should not have to carry the burdern of paying for health care either. Go get em Paul!
GOPkicksbutt 10 months ago
I'd like to shove that statistic down the throat of every bullshit libertarian tea party conservative fuck tard that cries socialism of how real wages adjusted for inflation have DECLINED as actually production increase while wages stagnate.....scream about the evils of socialism while the waltons shove that smiley face cockhead deeper into your rectums.
MMZen 1 year ago
the right wing fascists want lots of slave labor for thier corporate butt buddies
themeaningoflife38 1 year ago
In my opinion automation has a lot to answer for. Automation is typically used to replace the skilled workers, not the unskilled workers. In many industries it is the "decent work" that is lost to automation, wheras the lowest paid jobs will likely never be automated or will just evolve into similar unskilled repetative work. Automation is the destruction of the economic middle class.
ChrisCooper312 1 year ago
we dont' see these anymore.. lets go riots the streets.. the rich are only 2% and 10% of them are military and police.
pr0gm3r 2 years ago
The rich won't rest until all of the people are in one of two professions. Prostitution, and Sport-military. The prostitutes will pleasure the rich, and the sport-military will slaughter each other to entertain them. Both professions will be subsistance level pay. Most folk will starve to death and their bones will make piano keys and coasters for the rich. It's time to start mass strikes, murder, and sabotage. Get them bofore they get you.
elbowbiter1 2 years ago
Its funny how we celebrate a labor day when waging a one-sided class war against labor has been in place for decades with exceptional gusto by the right-wing who love selling out the American public to serve the interests of wealth and power.
The political right says labor is an obstacle yet hostory shows when labor was strongest pay and benefits were better. The right-wing hates labor, hate the majority of the public and historically sides with wealth and power yet fakes being for the ppl
Navywxman 2 years ago
I personally would like to see hard data on labor costs vs. competitive labor. Anyone have any links to share?
jadam914 2 years ago
The secret to being competitive lies in making production more automated and efficient, but that requires better technical education and more technicians and engineers.
Ercular 2 years ago
We can't have it both ways. We can be friendly with countries like china and sell goods here manufactured by underworked over paid citizens, or we can refuse their goods and keep Jobs here in the US. We are selling ourselves short, and shitting the rights of the Chinese down the river. We are headed towards a 2 class system of rich and poverty with no middle class. It doesn't work.
Oh at the end she talks about Everyone upgrading thier houses providing Jobs.. Who has the money for this?
kjpdqpb 2 years ago
* overworked, underpaid. rofl my bad.
I never knew any of this about labor day.
kjpdqpb 2 years ago
Capital investment into equipment and new technology makes business more productive. And takes work load off of labor.
theoriginalanomaly 2 years ago
That's good news! So I shouldn't send my kids to college; or will you need a college degree to be a janitor?
pongman 2 years ago 2
artificially increasing wages via labour unions / state = bound to fail as jobs move elsewhere.. global labour wages equalizing over time = good. am i getting this right? i suppose the problem is as wages grow over time there is a lot of room for abuse, thus the people create unions to lobby with the state for better rights. but if conditions become TOO good = jobs get outsourced. so the answer is in a BALANCE. not extreme pro-union or anti-union.
asphyxiafeeling 2 years ago
You're right about war finding. But you're wrong about government spending. Government money cannot create jobs.
Government money is tax money, which is taken by force not by value. Then government can only reallocate wealth from one person to another, it doesn't actually produce anything.
Unfortunately, because of the economic calculation problem, government planners will never have enough information to carry out wealth allocation reliably. This is what destroys socialist economies.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Post office, firemen, police, libarians, teachers, congressman, senators. What do you mean they can't create jobs?
biguy617 2 years ago
I mean that the money to pay post office employees, firemen, police, libarians, teachers, and congressman - all that money comes from taxes taken from other businesses.
So the jobs were simply reallocated, not created.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
Way to miss the point, eryksun.
All I'm saying is the government doesn't create jobs. Every job created, in the defense department or in the housing department, is a reallocation from the private to the government sector.
We should speak precisely on these matters. In some cases, there may be a good case to reallocate jobs from the private sector to government. THAT case must be made, not a case for doing the impossible - creating jobs by government action.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
The government created DARPANET, not the Internet. You are committing the genealogical fallacy, anyway. All that engineering research money is taken from the private sector, reducing private R&D. Its' just a reallocation, nothing was created. This fact doesn't change just because cool research comes out of government funded initiatives. That funding would have been allocated, and probably much better, by private R&D efforts.
Governments just reallocate stuff.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
I haven't claimed it's an inherently bad thing. I've said government doesn't create jobs or wealth, but only reallocates it. The reallocation can be good or bad.
Your insurance and shareholder metaphors are inapt. One can insure only events outside of one's control. R&D are controllable, and so not insurable. Nor is the government a business. It is a corporate entity, but not a business. When government is operated as a business, as under Mercantilism, the results are catastrophic.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
You are a bastion of equivocation. I know how risky research is. I'm a researcher in topology, which is all basic research. R&D is purposeful human action. In that sense, it is within the control of the human actors that perform it. That makes it uninsurable. Not all risks are insurable. your metaphor is inapt.
What you write is true of R&D, by and large. Doesn't matter. The point still stands: none of the R&D wealth was created by government. It's just reallocated.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Sorry. Not "R&D wealth" but "R&D funding."
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
The purpose of consortia is to spread uninsurable risk to avoid insolvency. Companies and consortia that aren't very good at allocating wealth for research SHOULD go bankrupt. Give it over to people who are better at it. Bankruptcy isn't a bad thing. It's just how bad assets are recycled.
Government reallocates. Companies allocate. The difference is well explained by Hayek. The difference is one of voluptuary exchange vs. force.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
My typing is hilarious. Not 'voluptuary' but 'voluntary.' Heh.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
Taxation cannot create jobs. It can only reallocate wealth, moving jobs form one place to another.
Some kinds of economic exchange involves force. What you call "government investment" for example is mere taxation for R&D purposes. This involves some people, perhaps a minority of researchers, taking form other people, perhaps a majority tax base. That's force.
By contrast, voluntary exchange makes both parties subjectively better off. This not a necessary property of forced exchange.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
When I write 'force' I mean physical force. Then by 'resistance' you must mean something different than 'force.' Hence, you equivocate again.
Government can impose order. But economic systems have emergent order. This is what trips up socialists. They cannot conceive of a system that is made by humans but not designed by a human.
Hayek pretty convincingly demonstrates that government imposed order is not functional, even in the short run.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
Human systems do not exhibit the regularity of physical systems. You cannot use the methods of the physical sciences to study human economic action. you cannot even analogize economics and physics. This is the flaw of almost all modern social science, including most 'free market' econometrics.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
Sure we need politics. The question is what kind. Again, Hayek's critique is decisive.
The existence of complex, non-ideal transactions should move us away from central planning and social tampering towards individual decision-making and emergent order. and not the other way around.
Government action is itself an externality since the results of social tampering cannot be predicted.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Paste this link into your browser. Remove the parentheses.
youtube(.)com/watch?v=TsF4gAkuaeY
It's about the economic calculation problem.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
How is a service not a sellable good? How is labor a "fictional commodity?"
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Yes, it is impossible. That's why we have governments. We give the government monopoly over the use of force. But this delegation should be minimal. Only enough to preserve the ability of people to freely cooperate.
Suppose I have a car to sell for $x. You need a car, and you have $x. You want my car more than you want your $x. I want your $x more than my car. We trade.
There is no force. We are both better off.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
Yes, each transaction is messy and involves unbelievably complex interactions. That's Hayek's point. No central planner, no government, no one person, can possibly know how to set prices or social priorities - beyond the most minimal limits on the use of force.
One of these minimal limits is a court system, that gives individuals the ability to resolve disputes without resort to violence. But this is ex post. The planner rules ex ante.
Your evidence harms your own case.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
Oh, courts can and do and have worked pretty well over the centuries. There are also strong economic and social incentives to avoid courts and work things out in other peaceful ways.
The whole point of evolution, the very genius of the theory, is that there is no plan, no planner and yet order emerges from a simple principle: fitness.
Hayek also treats extensively of mixed economic systems. They are unstable, tending to socialism or freedom, but not both.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
Sure they have.
- In the US, our tort system almost promotes lawsuits. Our court system works just fine, and has under all kind of duress for the centuries preceding the New Deal.
- The International Law of the Sea along with it's court system, was not created by sovereign law nor does it operate by sovereign law. It emerged from social cooperation and competition on the high seas.
- The entire history of the Hanseatic League shows that courts can handle it.
- Hayek's analysis is historical.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
All government devolve into cronyism. Federalist #10 explains why. It also explains why cronyism cannot be eliminated from government. Thus, we must limit the power of government so that no faction becomes powerful enough to establish a tyranny.
Socialism and central planning are institutionalized versions of cronyism - not a cure for it.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
You proceed from facts not in evidence. I've not claimed that government cronyism is "hopeless."
It's not "hopeless" because the US government is limited. The problem isn't one of honesty, but of faction. We must limit the honest, true believers too. Again, examine Madison's argument in Federalist #10.
By economic history and theory, central planning can't work. It institutionalizes faction, an unconstitutional act, a danger to individual liberty.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
Polanyi is just dead wrong about the enclosure movement. But, in any case, lets' examine Polyani's primitivism.
A free market allows anyone to opt out. At any time, anyone can go off and start a self-sufficient socialist commune, or live in a cave and eat berries, be a noble savage, whatever.
Then why have most people chosen the so-called "instability" and "fragility" of free markets? Why didn't Polyani opt out of free markets?
Polyani was anything but a realist. He was a tragic utopian.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
Well, you have yet to justify your claim that labor is not a "genuine commodity."
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheFlowneppets 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheFlowneppets 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
True, I can't claim that people are pleased with the current system. How fortunate that I didn't make that claim.
I claim that people are more pleased with free markets than non-market systems. People may have problems with markets, but since they don't opt out, they must think it is better than any alternative.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Comment removed
DylanReel 2 years ago
Comment removed
DylanReel 2 years ago
On the contrary, Polanyi's relevant claim is that "in spite of the chorus of academic incantations so persistent in the nineteenth century, gain and profit made on exchange never before played an important part in human economy. Though the institution of the market was fairly common since the later Stone Age, its role was no more than incidental to economic life."
Everything in Polanyi depends on this. But it's wrong.
Rotbard explains Polanyi's enclosure errors.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
And btw, there is no "proof" that humans are causing global warming or that it is a harm. None.
There is an on-balance case for human caused global warming, but it's extremely weak.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
AT&T was a government granted monopoly. In the part of AT&T that wasn't a monopoly, Bell Labs did amazing, private, basic research.
Ultimate, the monopoly part of AT&T fell of it's own bloated weight. Now SBC is the monopoly. No difference.
Financial markets have long needed a reliable electronic interchange format. And indeed, prior to the Internet such services were in widespread use. IP tech languished until it was privatized.
Who know how much better IP would have been?
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
Comment removed
eryksun 2 years ago
Obama where is we will go to the moon before the next decade is out? The Apollo program employed 450,000 people, we could use those jobs.
HPaillet 2 years ago
Comment removed
PaulSunstone 2 years ago
Comment removed
PaulSunstone 2 years ago
american, one more thing,
I am not a "pinko" I am an anarchist.
DeraJa 2 years ago
okay I thought EB's comment was funny in a trollish satirical way.... but you comment is simply frightening. Seriously dude? What the hell?
DeraJa 2 years ago
Dear Dera Thanks for your support, sometimes I just can't help myself. Remeber there ain't nothin' wrong with Trollin' if it is done artfully. As for the Jedi's plan to magic me into a porpoise via his wizard buddy Samuel, well that has always been a dream of mine, to swim out to sea with my quasi dolphin buddies. Ah, to frolic, screech and click, while gorging myself on raw fish amid the surf. Sounds like paradise, Mr. Colt, take me away.
Love,
Biter.
elbowbiter1 2 years ago
But then how could you continue your artful pursuits? Trolls need bridges, and you'll find none of those out in the open sea, unless they build that Bering Strait bridge, god forbid they give Sarah Palin any more cause for delusions about foreign relations experience by virtue of a damn land link with Russia.
No, better to remain a troll, and stick to your bridge, even if it is just an overpass, and fling intellectual feces at the windshields of passing internet motorists. It's what Jesus wants
Etimos 2 years ago
Dear Etimos, Fuckin' A-1, I will do that! But I just want you to know, I ain't doin' it for Jesus, I am doin' it because of you bro. You have shown me the error of my ways. Thanks Eti, now, mutha fuck the right wing pukes who are ruining the world with their creationism, and corporatism, and militarism! May they all break their backs trying to blow themselves!
Legalize Meth and Fight!
Biter (supertroll extrodinaire [now go fugg yourselves])
PS. To think I wanted to be a porpoise?
elbowbiter1 2 years ago
Thank the corporate media, the Republican Party and everything commercial like the Real News. They bash President Obama before he can get things moving because they know slow and steady change can result in big gains over time. So they have websites and media personalities posing as progressives and liberals attacking viciously from the left and they have Fox News, Lou Dobbs, Limbaugh, Republican et cetera attacking him from the right. Maher said Obama shouldn't go on tv? Olbermann crusade?
stanjz 2 years ago
moving somewhere else doesn't do much to abolish the US imperialist empire.
DeraJa 2 years ago 2
i wish they would quit lying so damn much. do you really believe we went from 570,00 jobs lost in july to 216,000 in august? be real. remember they said june was 345,000 and it had to be changed to 558,000. anybody believing these turds are foolish.
llshamelessll 2 years ago
Our current world economic system, imposed by global neo-liberal capitalism, as well as absolute planned economies, is in crisis. The Market is not a Messiah, and all of us need to make serious lifestyle changes. Rampant consumerism on one hand, and competitive greed and selfishness on the other are all at fault. Limitless growth and unlimited accumulation of wealth at the cost of millions of lives are to be rejected.
KeeperOfTheWord 2 years ago
You're way off base. What planet did you just come from?
Neo-conservative capitalism has ruled global markets for the last 40 years, and counting..
Many Americans work hard and try to live within their means. But the rise of inflation, the outsourcing of jobs, and massive layoff is all controlled by corporations that have no allegiance to any nation or society.
Did you even bother watching this entire video?
yo1dude1man 2 years ago
Thanks for the reply; I see little here with which I would disagree. But the confusion is understandable as I regard neoliberal capitalism as very alike neo-conservatism. Deregulation, maxamization of profit, protection of contracts over human lives, etc., etc.
Your mention of outsourcing, etc. is a component of globalization, which I also reference. So again, we are much agreed.
That said, Yes, I'm very much off base. I'm far too radical for anything else!
Take care.
KeeperOfTheWord 2 years ago
I know where you're coming from.
Truthfully I voted for Obama because I wanted change and took a chance [since he called for a new approach] in voting for him 2008.
Has he brought any real change? Nope!
The Stimulus Bill has barely help the average American and now he's setting us up for another needless war in the Middle-East. How is this different? How do you call it "change" from the previous administration? It isn't.
yo1dude1man 2 years ago
From now I'm calling him President o-BAM-a.
yo1dude - Mr President are looking to start WW-III with Iran?
President - "BAM!"
yo1dude - Are you then a puppet to the Oligarch elite Mr President?
President - "BAM BAM!"
yo1dude - So you're ending the nuclear build against Russia in order to transfer money and material toward your new War?
President - "BAAMMMMMMMMMM!"
yo1dude1man 2 years ago
It's my strong belief that we are missing the point when all we talk about is "creating new jobs." True, what is required is some innovative home-grown means of production. Regardless, without something worth while to manufacture produced by our own citizens, and decent wage enough to actually exchange a fair value of their work for more than just barely sustenance - we will not see any satisfactory economic recovery! Any other conversation is a waste of time.
arbiforumnow 2 years ago
I do not think I would want a job created by the Federal government. I would have to rely on approtattions every year. no way to live free, really.
btigtime2 2 years ago
Why are they afraid to point out the obvious. Free trade is the problem. By reducing tariffs worldwide there is no way to protect jobs. manufacturing jobs are essential to the growth of the economy and improving the tax base. Impose tariffs on low wage countries to force them to raise their wages. Lowering the wage further in the US to match China's wage rate is a non-starter.
mcamelyne 2 years ago
elbowbiter1;
u sad little man
jellybean2626 2 years ago
What did the Government think was going to happen when they let manufacturing jobs go to china, and service jobs go to Illegal immigrates? Clinton, bush and now Obama have done nothing to protect the American people from the Gross misconduct of corporations. This is treason.
Close the Borders, Enact tariffs now. Jail people who hire illegals, vote out the thieves who watched without protecting us.
When Clinton started the China trade deals, I asked myself, "why would he do that to us?".
btigtime2 2 years ago
no.
DeraJa 2 years ago
The unemployment here started at least 10-15 years ago.
phnixlady 2 years ago
Dear Poor Folk, Why do you poor people not get it yet. It is the way of the world. Inferior, uneducated shit heels, such as yourselves, were ment to work yourselves to death (and starve while doing so) so that awesome folk (like me) can afford to lounge around and occasionally beat and rape you. Live with it you pukes! You are poor, you aren't even human beings. Aw, gonna cry now? Shut up and make us richer, then die screaming while we urinate on you with you family watching.
Love
EB.
elbowbiter1 2 years ago
The notion that unionization drives jobs overseas may apply to many manufacturing jobs, but not to service sector jobs. And this is the growth area of the economy long term. Someone cannot stock the shelves of your supermarket remotely from India, for instance, or cut your hair in a maquilladora. These are the jobs that need to be unionized. And that's why they're fighting EFCA so hard -- companies like Walmart can't outsource retail jobs. They'd have to bargain.
revelwoodie 2 years ago
that's all sweet and nice but there needs to be an abundance of manufacturing to provide real growth and prosperity. otherwise it's just a decline to nothing.
turkeyjurker 2 years ago
Yep, waiting for the commercial death to hit the news, never does. It is The Nothing.
phnixlady 2 years ago
Wake up, America's a Plutocracy.
matbury 2 years ago 3
Unions are not the answer. How is empowering even more criminals a solution? We have to restore the Constitutional Republic.
klard 2 years ago
While I know many people would disagree, I have to say I'm not one of them. Unions are a heavy handed tool for use in a system which is not capable or willing to intervene on behalf of workers to establish better conditions. Ideally, the best system would be a government agency whose purposes is specifically to improve worker conditions and quality of life, without the need for heavy handed group-bargaining, which is the calling card of a decaying and bloated system
Etimos 2 years ago
My daughter belongs to a union which has no rep at her store, and does nothing except take more money. She pays for dues and health ins. and gets nothing from either.
phnixlady 2 years ago 2
The fact that unions are necessary at all represents a failure of the government to properly care for the interests of its people.
I dont understand all those anti-government people who seem to view the govt as an outside entity that is against them. In a democracy, the government's sole function is to ensure that the best interests of the people are met. If your government isnt doing that, your democracy is failing, and that should trouble you deeply.
Etimos 2 years ago
I am not against democracy but monopoly democracy. And I am one of those anti-government people. Also, being troubled deeply doesn't do a whole lot in making you more free.
DeraJa 2 years ago
You guys need to realize that YOU are the government. It's not The Government and You, the government is comprised of people, who are themselves elected into public office by people, paid by people, maintained by people. You guys need to start taking more responsibility for your government instead of just saying "I hate it" and being against it, but never actually doing anything about it.
Canada's government has no 4 year terms. They rule until we say GET OUT!
Etimos 2 years ago
I am me. I am only DeraJa. I am neither a dog, blue whale, business, or government. If you have delusions about being an organization you may need psychiatric help. Government is a system. Systems are subject to analysis and evaluation. I reject this system as being unnecessary and dangerous.
DeraJa 2 years ago
Unions are constitutional. The right to orgaanize.
captcrais101 2 years ago 3
captcrais101: Of course they are Constitutional. Having another criminal run organization at the trough is not going to make matters any better.
klard 2 years ago
Unions are not criminal!!
captcrais101 2 years ago
I agree. Worker unions are a potential democratizing force in the whole world. The overwhelming majority of the great things we all have come from battle unions fought for (social security, child labor laws, limit on hours, weekends, etc).
This is the reason why business (both big and small) and states fear them.
bootleg42 2 years ago
Unions are run by the same type of criminals who run the banks corporations and government.
klard 2 years ago
Is that why corportions are lobbying politicans to be against the employee free choice act?
captcrais101 2 years ago
captcrais101 : No th ewason for that is that the corporations don't want the union bosses taking a big bite of the loot. That is what crime groups do, they fight amongst themselves for power control and money.
klard 2 years ago
fuck patriotism. I don't endorse religiosity.
DeraJa 2 years ago 5
Comment removed
DeraJa 2 years ago
Thanks to decades of corporate influence over every aspect of our society, there is no reason for the CEO's to do anything other than what they are currently doing. Hells, the supreme court determined that a corporation has but one duty, to produce a profit for its share holders. Talk about a formula for disaster.
Plutonwolf 2 years ago
Great video!
DeraJa 2 years ago
Remember when there were bag carries in stores, and people who would pump the gas for you? Well, the minimum wage law erased those jobs..
Elmeromero1 2 years ago
You can't rely on corporate heads to stop being greedy for a change to come, you need to advocate a solution yourself.
It is the State that allows these people to do what they do, they even are funded by these very corporations.
The problem is not Capitalism, the free market, the problem is the State, the largest corporation, the monopoly that has control over all the other ones.
asperin 2 years ago
It's nice to see some anarcho-capitalist medicine being prescribed for a change!
gn0m1k 2 years ago
This is a very complicated scenario. What people "should earn" is based on what we are used to. This has nothing to do with the resources available.
Much of the high prices (and declining living wage) has been set by government indirectly from regulation. The more bureaucracy, the less of the pie people get.
What you are witnessing is the system becoming very inefficient and wasteful from the many intermediary steps people have to navigate for any avenue of self empowerment.
sirellyn 2 years ago
Yarr! Let's complain about the nominal amount of wage monies rather than the purchasing power of each dollar, further reduced courtesy of the coercive state monopoly on the provision of currency which allows the fed to manipulate the supply of said monies.
Let's also call the Corporatist lobby phallus -> government's vag and the phallus/vag -> rectum raiyp of the common individual a byproduct of voluntary exchange.
gn0m1k 2 years ago
capitalists are parasites that take the value of workers productivity. workers should earn equal to the amount they produce.
QzurK 2 years ago 4
Hey Qzurk, when you said "Capitalists" you meant "Statists".
Those fascists that interfere in the market to extort money from the producer and have a monopoly on violence.
Learn the definitions of the terms you use.
asperin 2 years ago
The capitalist class uses the state. Actually the capitalist class oftentimes IS the state. So, I figure if you eliminate one, the other will fall on its own.
DeraJa 2 years ago
I am sympathetic to your postion, but capitalist play a neccesary role in allocating resources in an economy. They can also shelter the employee from risk. So, there is a role for capitalism, but it must be limited to only where it creates value.
DeraJa 2 years ago
DeraJa: Unlimited Capitalism has become so abusive and dominating hat it cannot just be rolled back to its proper role within society.
klard 2 years ago
Of course it can. Unfortunately the real problem is the government, or specifically corruption within the government. Lobbyists have to be stopped at all costs, and there needs to be strict, harsh, far reaching penalties for political corruption. Not just for the people taking the money, but for the people trying to offer it.
Etimos 2 years ago 2
the government is just a symptom of the problem.
HPaillet 2 years ago
I guess if you are a marxist.
DeraJa 2 years ago
Im not a marxist you fool. Bank power is too great the banks own our government. The Congress has the power to print our money for the people by the people. We need to end corporate personhood and return sovereignty to the individual. I am a capitalist if a marxist looked at my favorites they'd hate me.
HPaillet 2 years ago
Etimos:
You say the laws have to be harsher on corporate corruption?
And what politician will do that if 95% or more of them are all funded by these cartels.
Save yourself sometime, remove the politicians that make laws for the corporate heads, and manage yourself locally. No central government, no economic intervention, let Supply and Demand deal with it.
asperin 2 years ago
now you know as well as I do what a stupid suggestion that is. It's supply and demand without government regulation that got your asses in this mess in the first place.
It was uninhibited supply and demand capitalism that prompted the appalling and crippling conditions of industrial european work-houses, and it was group-bargaining, unions, and government inhibition that finally resolved many of those problems.
To believe you can solve the problem by embracing the cause is idiocy.
Etimos 2 years ago 2
Look at the EU, where the economic downturn, as seems to be the popular way of saying 'Depression' without actually using the word depression, is almost without effect, or even just right here in Canada, right across the border, where we were barely aware of any depression at all, and look at the differences between our position on government intervention, and yours.
Where government controls and limits the endeavors of industry to pursue black ink at the expense of workers, liberty rules.
Etimos 2 years ago
Take Germany. 36 hour work week instead of 40, 6 weeks paid vacation standard mandated, at least one stat holiday per month, nationalized health care and wellness programs, higher per capita wages and minimum wage baseline, and what do they get for it?
Higher productivity, greater worker satisfaction, and higher overall GDP per capita.
Etimos 2 years ago 3
too bad republicans are immune to that kind of reasoning.
asphyxiafeeling 2 years ago
what is unlimited capitalism? And I advocate agorism and revolution, not rolling anything back (which sounds a lot like reform)
DeraJa 2 years ago
DeraJa: Unlimited Capitalism is what we have in the USA where the banksters use their money and lobbyists to get whatever laws they want from Congress. Look at how easy they got Congress to go along with the multi-trillion dollar stimulus robbery.
klard 2 years ago 3
agreed.
DeraJa 2 years ago
Klard:
We don't have unlimited Capitalism in the US.
Search the definition of Capitalism.
It says that is FREE from government intervention.
asperin 2 years ago
asperin: Government intervention? What could be freer from intervention from the government than where the moneyed interests have bought and control the government? The bankers own the government. Want proof, review the tarp and stimulus funding crime.
klard 2 years ago
That the intervention and regulation does not reach the corrupt friends of politicians still does not mean that this is Capitalism.
That's Fascism(according to Mussolini's definition).
Many other people are forced to pay taxes, respect patents, get licenses, get city permits.
And what about subsidies, bailouts and State contracts?
Still not Capitalism.
asperin 2 years ago
asperin: YOu are right. What we have in the USA is Fascism which has resulted from out of control capital accumulation in the hands of a few who were able to buy the government. Fascism did not originate with Mussolini but was the result of the Roman Empire. The Fasci symbol comes from Rome.
klard 2 years ago
That is not capatialism. That is fascism. Capitalism is like football. You need rules, goalposts and referees to make it fair. Take that all away and people chan cheat, lie and steal with out any accountablity.
biguy617 2 years ago
Capitalism is a market environment WITHOUT regulations but the laws of the market like Supply and Demand.
A better term for Capitalism is "free-market".
asperin 2 years ago
Nonsense. Capitalists are NOT "parasites that take the value of workers productivity."
Marx's surplus-value theory of labor is theoretically unsound and has failed in practice.
There are many reasonable critiques of capitalism. (Even though I don't agree with them.) But capitalists-as-parasites isn't one of them.
Loosely speaking, capitalism is free markets. When biz leaders use government power, it's not capitalism. That's why biz leaders are usually the worst capitalists.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
capitalism and free markets are two different things, its a great lie that capitalism = free market the capitalists have made up. capitalism is in essence that you can make money from money without actually doing any labour or being productive.
QzurK 2 years ago
capitalism is very protectionist and they love to disguise it as free market, look up the protectionist measures in so called Free trade agreements such as NAFTA, and what about subsidies, taxcuts and any other edge big corporations have over smaller ones?
QzurK 2 years ago
its a systemic problem with capitalism that power consolidates and then takes over, a few regulations cant change the foundational problems. if you want to look up real free market then check out Mutualism. the only place where real capitalism exist (also called free market) is in the thirld world where it has been shoved down peoples throats, do you feel its a good and fair system they have over there?
QzurK 2 years ago
oh and state and capital is pretty much the same, the capital owns the state in order to protect itself and provide rules and regulations that benefits them.
QzurK 2 years ago
Mutualism is still based on the unsound surplus-value theory of labor. And so Mutualism is unsound, too.
Making money from money isn't necessarily unproductive. Suppose I loan money to a business for profit, and make the business more productive. I would make money from money, and yet I am productive and profitable.
Entrepreneurship with capital is not the problem. It's that powerful political interests control governments and coerce people, redistributing their wealth to powerful interests.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
The Pullman strikers killed people. The obstructed rail lines. They committed arson and sabotage. The Pullman company did just as bad as the unions, but let's not gloss over the violent past of unions either. Real News, if you really want to provide real news, then you must proved the whole story.
The labor market is global, but laborers cannot migrate to where the work is. Then wages in the US will reach equilibrium with global labor prices. Sucks.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
hey sazzy lil woman or quit bailing out banks with huge stimulus packages.
tanio12 2 years ago
That sounds like a fantastic idea. We'll just lower the wages here until we compete with china! Lower living wages for all! Corporate America FTW
MankindCartoons 2 years ago 9
good job we need more real news and facts and trends reported
thanx
zrocks2001 2 years ago
Free Trade Act 1974
wvolson 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this news channel definitely has a liberal tune it.
TheConstitutionMan 2 years ago
More like a Far Left approach than a modern liberal one. This news organizations tends to interview some Marxists like Howard Zinn.
lunaris19 2 years ago
modern liberal means conservaitve. Just a new BS to mask it.
biguy617 2 years ago
Yes, as Pat Buchanan has said, the Democratic party and the Republican party are two wings of the same bird of prey.
lunaris19 2 years ago
Pat Buchanan is a talking head for the republican party. I have watched him speak like a Fox news pundit on MSNBC. Rachel Madow kicks his ass often. One time Pat kicked his own ass.
biguy617 2 years ago
Not necessarily. Pat Buchanan is a paleo-conservative and does not support the foreign policy, amnesty, and the social spending of the neo-cons. Rachel Madow is no different in her rhetorical gymnastics than neo-con talking heads like Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.
Pat at least has the courtesy of letting Madow and the guests to finish their statements before making a rebuttal, a quality that some of the sophist liberal guests do not contain.
lunaris19 2 years ago
Rachel has disagreed with Obama too at times like on him imprisioning people indefinitly at Bagaram prison. Which is like Guantanmo only in Afghistan.
biguy617 2 years ago
True, and even other liberals like Olbermann has disagreed with Obama in at least one occasion.
But what does your statement have to do with the etiquette and rhetoric of Buchanan and his liberal opponents?
lunaris19