Capitalist propaganda is self-contradictory nonsense. Capitalists claim that unions harm businesses competitively because they push wages too high. But, when arguing for lower corporate taxes, capitalists claim that wages have no effect on competition. It's a total double standard.
@QuatFax also, i really think you would benefit greatly if you read 'economics in one lesson' by henry Hazlitt (1946).
it can sum up the position of 90% of austrian economists so even if you disagree, you can refute most Austrians with there own points. ATM you and @AussieAustrianBlog seem to be debating from two different languages (i'm also aussie, and 'austrian')
@CytherLynx I have yet to see anyone refute the Austrian view point. I always see mainstream and nobel laureates get things wrong with their predictions and logic. The strongest aspect of Austrian economics relates to our trade/business cycle theory.
I find this amusing; "capitalists caused this recession." Very broad statements. It was in fact the lack of free market economics that played the biggest part and has been the reason for booms/busts for thousands of years. It is the "central planners" that are to blame for the continuing mess we're in. P.S. you lack an understanding of fundamental economics and the implication of unions on the economy. Furthermore, i'd suggest you study their history in the U.S. Nothing to be proud of.
@AussieAustrianBlog What exactly is a free-market? Can you give me an example of one? Could you explain to me how one would work? Could you explain to me how free market capitalism could even exist, seeing as government is necessary for property, yet government always distorts the economy?
The reality is that the capitalism that actually exists is heavily colluded with the government. If this isn't "true capitalism," fine. But "true, laissez-faire capitalism" is a myth.
@QuatFax Put simply, the free market is merely the matrix of free exchanges entered into by individuals. How would one work? Seems like a silly question that deserves a silly response. I take it you have never been to a produce market!? Clarify your point regarding government needing to exist re property then i'll provide a response.
@AussieAustrianBlog A "produce market" is not a market, though it includes the name. It is simply a distribution point. A free market is an economy with no government distortion, something that has never existed.
Put simply, property can only exist when some coercive force recognizes that it exists. That force, if it is stable, is government. But government always distorts the market. Thus, there is no such thing as free-market capitalism.
@QuatFax A produce market is a free market for as long as long as individuals can freely engage in voluntary exchange. It is absurd to say a produce market is only a "distribution point." Did not a voluntary exchange occur between myself (the buyer) and the seller? In other words, i gave him a sum of money and in return he gave me some apples? The government merely recognizes and enforces/upholds private property rights. No different to enforcing laws aimed at protecting and punishing for murder
@AussieAustrianBlog But it is only a distribution point. The produce market does not take into account the entire context of the produce (where it was grown, how well the workers were paid, whether the pesticides used to grow the produce are poisoning the water, etc.)
But, I digress. The produce market is not laissez-faire because, like the rest of the economy, it is heavily distorted by the government in one way or another.
@QuatFax A market and/or economy can be defined by whatever borders you choose. For example, local, online, car market, fish market, national, international, share market etc. And yes, we do not have laissez-faire markets in the broader view, ie national view, and i'm 99% certain we never will. But the more we move away from the theoretical pure free market towards central planning and regulation then the more we destroy our economy and society.
@AussieAustrianBlog But the point is that there's no sector of our society that isn't heavily influenced by market distortions, particularly from the government. So we can't talk about free markets like they're something we've actually experienced.
@QuatFax No Austrian economist has ever said free markets exist in the broader economy. We also never said they were perfect. Free markets or "free-er" markets provide better outcomes, that's all. It seems you agree governments hamper things?
@AussieAustrianBlog I'm an anarchist. I don't believe that centralized governments, markets, or capitalism should exist at all. My belief is that all three have to be abolished in favor of decentralized socialism and direct democracy.
@QuatFax If you don't beleive in markets you believe in force and coercion, right? Or at the very least you don't beleive in freedom and individual rights and liberties? If i want to sell my stereo, in your world you wouldn't let me sell it to another consenting adult in a voluntary exchange? I don't understand your morals.
@AussieAustrianBlog When I say I'm against markets, it's not that I believe they should be forbidden. I believe that a free society based on direct democracy and worker self-management would lead to a marketless economy, one based on free association and voluntary economic planning. Worker and consumer cooperatives tend to form associations and cooperate together, and I believe that this would lead to forms of marketless socialism, such as anarcho-collectivism or anarcho-communism.
@AussieAustrianBlog I certainly am not in favor of establishing anything by force. And I do very much believe in rights and liberties. Why would you think I was against that?
@AussieAustrianBlog What you have to understand about anarchists is that we see capitalism and private property as reliant on the state. When we say that we are against private property, it is not that we seek to set up a regime that will punish anyone who tries to accumulate property. Rather, we believe that, without the state, any property that exceeds possession cannot exist; private property relies on the existence of the state.
@AussieAustrianBlog The state has no right to impose Lockean property "rights" upon the population. If communities of people voluntarily chose to accept Lockean property, that is fine. But such values should not be imposed on a population regardless of its will. For that matter, there shouldn't be a state at all. Society should be organized according to voluntary association and direct democracy.
@CytherLynx I really haven't read much about that. I have only a peripheral understanding of that issue. My guess would be that the LTV and the STV both contain elements of truth. Like, consumer demand determines the natural price ceiling, while cost/labor determines the natural price floor. Firms can't charge prices below profit margin, but they also can't charge more than consumers are willing to pay.
@AussieAustrianBlog Self-ownership is perfectly consistent with possession. The Mutualist concept of possession (that I own the things that I regularly occupy and use) would obviously apply to myself; I occupy and use my own body at all times. There is no need to apply Lockean property rights to this.
@QuatFax there's an important point here. don't you think that property rights, at least concerning everything that an individual relys on such as shelter, should be a 'right'? even if you threw a bunch of people on an island, they'd likely develop some kind of understanding of what's mine and what's yours. property is instinctive, ie innate.
also, saying there not such thing as pure free-market is like saying there is no such thing as a murder-less society. we should still aim for it.
@CytherLynx I guess it depends on the definition of property. I define it as the concept of absentee ownership; I don't believe someone can own something that she isn't occupying or using. On the other hand, I have no problem with ownership based on occupancy and use (i.e.- possession). I suppose that might be considered property in a certain sense. So I guess it's sort of semantic.
@QuatFax well, its a bit more complicated i think. i mean, there'd have to be different community accepted rules for irreplaceables, uniques, personal goods and land.
You should be able to own things, but not in ways like buying country sized pieces of land. the land that is yours should be yours due to 'first use'. Rothbard's view is very similar. you'd think we'd take technical views on it, but we're actually close to left anarchists. however fundamental different in other places.
@CytherLynx Oh, yeah, it'd have to be more complicated. And, of course, no one has an absolute position on it. Mutualists do believe that people can be separate from their property for some period of time and still own it (i.e.- you don't lose your house just for walking out the door). And Lockeans/Rothbardians, as I understand, would probably see land that was originally homesteaded but then left untouched for decades as open game as well.
@CytherLynx In a real anarchist society, of course, it would all probably vary based on what individual communities think. In a community where the majority valued Lockean property, the economy would probably become anarcho-capitalist. In a community where the majority valued Mutualist property, the economy would probably become Mutualist or some other form of social anarchist. Each would probably be fine with the other as long as they chose to respect each others' right to exist.
@AussieAustrianBlog Unions are not bad for the economy. They are bad for PROFITS; businesses suffer competitively because they have to give more of their profits to workers. But that doesn't make them bad for the economy. It's not bad for workers to take home greater incomes; in fact, it's absolutely necessary for wages to rise. The reason we're in this recession is that, for the past 30 years, wages have not kept pace with the cost of living, so people had to buy things with debt.
@QuatFax Profits and business/economy go hand-in-hand. Profits are important! And we are not in a recession because of wages not rising. We're in this mess for largely the same reasons all countries have had recessions throughout history - and that is government intervention, especially in monetary affairs. That is, credit expansion.
@AussieAustrianBlog We're in this recession because people financed their consumerist lifestyles with debt. But if people were making sufficient wages, they would not have had to use debt to finance their consumption. Hence, no housing bubble or any other debt-driven boom.
@QuatFax You have no idea what caused the crisis. You provide a terrible theory. The US in a recession for the same reason that the US has been in previous recessions, namely due to credit expansions. I could go into more detail, but i have not the time.
@AussieAustrianBlog I'm not saying that low wages were the only factor causing the crisis. I'm saying that they were a factor, and that if wages were higher we'd be recovering much more quickly.
I'm happy to blame government for our economic woes. Government collusion with corporations is the main problem. But don't blame the unions; they actually make things better for workers.
@QuatFax I'd never say unions are the reason for the economic problems, but they do contribute in a small. Although they do some good things, setting wages above the market rate and not alowing wage flexibility in a down-turn is detrimental to jobs and business in general. Unions essentially monopolize labor. Perhaps you haven't read much on labor union history and the economics of what they do. I'm an economist, so i look at things objectively for what they are. My whole family are in unions.
@AussieAustrianBlog While I'm not an economist, I have read some of the literature on economics, unions, and wages. There is no consensus among economists that unions are bad for the economy. Opinions vary; some see unions as great for the economy, others see them as harmful, and still others don't really think they matter.
@QuatFax I agree there is no consensus. I can send u a message to some good resources for an alternative view? Not all unions are bad. In some countries they refrain from setting wages etc due to the detrimental impacts on competitiveness, jobs.... And unions do some good things.
@AussieAustrianBlog If you're worried about unions making American businesses less competitive internationally, why not support foreign union efforts? After all, if ALL the companies in the market are unionized, unions create no disadvantage. And this way, workers wages rise in tandem with the cost of living EVERYWHERE, meaning the global economy is healthier overall.
Unions tend to restrict the free flow of capital from one firm to the next. in order for the structure of production to adapt to consumer demand you need resources to be able to be bid from one firm to the next as quickly and as efficiently as possible. anyhampering of this process can only hurt consumers. Moreover, unions tend to hold wages above marginal productivity. that causes unemployment. if we had unionism on a worldwide scale there'd colossal resource misallocation and unemployment.
@CommSense There's no evidence of any of this. There is no empirical evidence that higher wages cause umemployment. Higher wages can just as easily manifest themselves in higher prices or in less money going to management. Higher wages actually PREVENT massive unemployment because they provide for more consumer demand, which keeps economic production going.
Empiricism aside, I never said high wages cause unemployment. To use the term "high" in economic analysis is flawed for a number of reasons. What i said was wages above marginal productivity cause unemployment. So, going back y your argument, why just impose a minimum wage of 100, 1,000, or even 1million dollar an hour, thus raising all our living standards simultaneously? Now back t empiricism. Have you subscribed to or have ever read an economic or political journal?
@CommSense Minimum wage is fine, but it is my opinion that unions are more reliable. The government isn't on the side of workers, and it isn't wise for them to rely on it.
Well, you can't give the workers more money than exists. What I would say is that workers should run their businesses democratically and set the wages themselves; that way, their wages are as generous as possible, but they use resources that the company has.
You still didn't address the question about wages being above marginal productivity. But that aside, under this "democratic work place" who decides when to expand or slow production, and if wages aren't in accordance with marginal productivity how is it possible to economize resources if their true value isn't set by what they contribute to production but its the outcome of some vote. It seems to me that such an arrangement can only lead to politics trumping sound economic decisions.
@CommSense I don't know the specifics of how worker cooperatives make economic decisions, but be aware that they have been very successful. Worker cooperatives have proven time and again to be more efficient and more innovative than regular hierarchal businesses. Where they have been able to enter the market, they have significantly outperformed their competitors.
name 5 "workers' cooperatives" who have been "more efficient and more innovative" than "regular hierarchical businesses." Or one fortune 500 workers' cooperative.
@CommSense As far as the question of marginal productivity, unions help ensure that wages match productivity growth. It is without unions that wages fail to match productivity. Look at the United States: over the past 40 years, productivity has gone through the roof, yet wages have stagnated. This correlates very well with the weakening power of unions over the same period.
If unions increase productivity then why were real wages in 19th centr US 3 times as high as their european counterparts, who were heavily unionized compared to the unionless US?
@CommSense There are so many different factors that affect economic and wage growth. The fact that real wages were higher in the US than in Europe could be related to any number of factors besides unionization.
You can't just study compare whole economies where one is more unionized than the other. You have to compare within industries. When you compare two businesses, one unionized and one not, you find that the unionized ones are more productive.
@CommSense The point of the logic is that generally high wages and incomes need to exist for economic growth. If the general population makes a reasonable amount of money, it can drive an economy's consumer engine, thus leading to higher levels of economic growth. If wages are largely inegalitarian, the general population cannot drive economic growth through consumption as effectively, thus leading to stagnation.
@CommSense If by "price floors in the labour market" you mean minimum wages, I am aware of the myths about them, particularly that they contribute to unemployment. There is no actual evidence to back this up; it's little more than an excuse to justify smashing unions and turning the government against workers.
@CommSense Well, there isn't. Studies that actually isolate economic factors between regions with different minimum wages find that the regions with the higher minimum wages actually have LOWER unemployment. There's no evidence that minimum wages contribute to unemployment.
Ok. You cant just keep saying the same thing over and over again. Doesnt make it true. By your logic, if the marginal productivity of a factor is at 8 USD, and the government or a union imposes a wage of 10 USD, then no unemployment ensues. Also, by your logic, when prices rise, people by more of a the good in question. Its an obious fallacy. No evidence? what about the time series paper? what about black teenage employment since the 30s? and most recently, what about the Samoan case?
@CommSense The fact that unemployment accompanied a minimum wage does not mean that the minimum wage caused the unemployment. Correlation does not prove causation.
I can match each example you give me with examples of my own. What about New Jersey and Pennsylvania? What about Washington state and Idaho? I suggest you read "Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders" by Andrajit Dube. He studies economies that are similar except for minimum wage, and finds no significant disemployment effects.
@CommSense Your statements about marginal productivity assume that there is a fixed amount of payroll money that can't change. This ignores a number of factors. Minimum wages could manifest themselves in higher prices, or in a larger share of profits going to workers. Further, minimum wages lead to more consumer spending, thus generating more jobs (as I have said before).
@CommSense "by your logic, when prices rise, people by more of a the good in question. Its an obious fallacy"
I never said that. I said that the job market is not so simple that we can assume that higher prices must decrease employment. There are other factors; that's all I'm saying.
@CommSense By the way, you never responded to my point about cooperatives. These are businesses where profits are just considered extra wages; workers control how profits are distributed, and pay themselves accordingly. Yet worker coops are actually MORE efficient than ordinary businesses, and out-compete them when they can break into the market. Seems to contradict most of your assumptions about wages and profits.
@CommSense And I named you about 200 such cooperatives, collectively called Mondragon. They employ about 100,000 people and bring in about 14 billion euro a year. They are the largest business in the Basque region and the second-largest business in Spain.
So how do you respond to this? It essentially disproves the idea that workers' control is inefficient or that workers can't take from profits.
So you named a corporation that gives out stocks to its workers. Scratch that. You named ONE corporation, which gives stocks to its workers. Better yet, you named one corporation that gives stocks to its workers which is the "7th largest business in (economically inferior to the west) spain." And wah-lah! "Workers cooperatives are now more efficient than all other modern working arrangements. Hey man, i guess if thats all the proof you need then you're sold. Bravo.
@CommSense I actually named about 200 such corporations that are federated together.
You asked me to name 5 worker cooperatives, and I did, along with another 195. Don't criticize me for answering a question that YOU asked. Did you not write "name 5 'workers' cooperatives' who have been "more efficient and more innovative" than 'regular hierarchical businesses.'"?
@CommSense And I did not claim that Mondragon proves that worker coops are always more efficient than all other working arrangements. Quit putting words in my mouth. I know you don't respect people who disagree with you, but at least let them actually make statements without reading things into it.
My only point was that the Mondragon coops have been more efficient than most regular businesses, thus disproving the statement that workers' control is INEFFICIENT.
No, i believe you did. second, by your logic, if you're to call mondragon a "workers coop" then the firm i work for, because they give shares to their employees, is a workers coop. same with GM, UH, etc. we're living ina world of workers coops i guess. lastly, granted the above is actually a workers coop, it still doesnt prove your point. if such a production structure were actually more efficient it would be in the interest of "the capitalists" to adopt that model, which they arent doing.
@CommSense Giving employees the option to buy stock does not make a firm a worker coop. In a worker coop, each employee can only have one vote. Employee stock ownership plans don't provide for this: different employees might own different amounts of stock, and thus have uneven votes.
The principles that define a cooperative can be found here: h t t p : // w w w . ica . coop / coop / principles . html
@CommSense " if such a production structure were actually more efficient it would be in the interest of "the capitalists" to adopt that model, which they arent doing"
No it wouldn't. The worker coop model is more efficient, but profits go to the workers, not to capitalists. For the capitalists to even establish their businesses as worker coops, they'd have to quit their jobs and let the workers run the business democratically. How is that in their interests?
You can't just keep saying "its more efficient." its redundant and isn't an argument. You'll have to explain how production based on politics i.e. democratic principles is more efficient than production based on economic principles i.e what achieves the greatest output per input. until then idk what to tell ya..
@CommSense If we want to have that discussion, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure that you understood what a worker cooperative is. It is not simply a business where workers are allowed to buy shares (though such a business could become a worker coop if the workers organized their share-buying). It is a business that is run democratically by the workers, one member, one vote.
@CommSense Worker cooperatives are more efficient for a number of reasons. The main reason is associated with the benefits of cooperation: workers are better able to coordinate ideas and experiences, and can thus respond to problems more effectively. In an ordinary workplace, there may be a motivation for individual workers to try to fix problems, but there is no motivation for coordination with other workers, as they are in competition with each other.
@CommSense In addition to the benefits of cooperation, workers in worker coops have higher wages and more control over their work, and thus feel more invested in their companies and are more likely to commit themselves to working there. Workers feel that the value they create is made for their own benefit, rather than the benefit of a small elite. Also, less money is spent on management, thus allowing prices to be lowered.
this is why i am tentative to continue this. "less money is spent on management, thus allowing prices to be lower." Factor prices don't determine the price of their output. Prices are determined by quantity and intensity of would-be buyer demand. If you want to continue this discussion you can inbox me. the character limit in these replies severely limits discussion, which is why i try to avoid them. But with all due respect, I don't think you've studied economics enough to continue this.
@CommSense As far as efficiency is concerned, giving workers more control INCREASES efficiency of the business. Study after study proves that more coordination and democracy on the shop floor produces higher productivity and higher efficiency. Unions are a means to this end; they give workers more control over production, and could potentially be a tool to cooperatize business.
Assuming self-interest on behalf of capitalists and laborers, why then haven't capitalist allowed such internal democratic arrangements in their firms in order to increase output and thus benefit themselves?
@CommSense Because it doesn't benefit the capitalists. If workers have real power in their workplaces, they tend to slash the wages of management and raise their own wages. That's why, in cooperatives, managers make considerably less than in normal businesses. Naturally, the managers don't want that.
lastly. high nominal or take-home wages for workers doesnt necessarily mean they will be able to "buy more stuff." wages above the marginal productivity of labor means that other capital and labor must be left unemployed which means less output. a workers nominal wage might be high but the drop in output would offset this nominal gain, leaving everyone worse off
@AussieAustrianBlog Because if we had no unions, workers' wages would not rise adequately. Business owners would keep the profits for themselves and not give workers adequate compensation. This is what we've had in the US for the past 30 years: wages have not risen with the cost of living even though productivity has skyrocketed.
@QuatFax Wages would and have risen without unions due to increased technology and productivity. Unfortunately, government largely destroys the benefits of these gains through credit expansion, interventionism. With "skyrocketing" productivity prices should actually be falling, thus real wages increasing. Point your finger at government for not allowing this to happen (rising real wages etc).
and im more than willing to listen to opposite opinions i dont know everything. but whenyou attack me for being stupid or ignorant or not knowing anything bout economics? it just means you hafta attack me cuz you cant stay on topic and argue the issue, respect youradversary cuz we all dont know everything, peace
Though you are obviously right about capitalists blaming the unions for the loss of jobs in developed countries, I disagree with your statement that unions are the ultimate solution to capitalist social relations. I think its apparent that the vast majority of unions in developed countries only know how to work within the capitalist framework, the have neither the desire nor the know-how to overthrow capitalism. Workers need to appropriate capital, not just demand a bigger slice of the pie.
bahahahaha have you ever been to china? no. you're dumb. go to china. you dont understand markets. i know this from your views on populations. if you understood anything, or have ever studied anything economic, besides what you've been told by internet videos, or have ever been to china, you would't say such dumb things. please rethink your life.
well what does china hafta do with labour organization? those ppl are the most exploited workers in the world. cuz the govt uses the term communist? were talkin reality here. wat really exists there? nike, the gap, wal mart using cheap labour and giving away jobs from america. usa! usa!
labor in china ins directed by the government, telling companies how many workers they can hire and what land their firms can occupy. the reason for low wages in china is lack of capital. without nike, gap, and walmart, young women would be forced into jobs such as prostitution or slaves. men would suffer a similar fate, being pushed to pursue a worse job. oh and i bet you didnt know that US companies who've set up shop in china offer the highest paying jobs there. nice try though.
well i dongt know? what jobs would they have? that is a good q. but prostitution already exists there. now the highest paying jobs? ok lets say thats true, what kinda life these ppl have? workin 12 or more hrs a day for pennies ona dollar n living in poverty. whats the diff tween that n slavery? really? but the topic was more about labour organization . these ppl cant organize, its the same with any authoritarian state watever the label
no. lets not say its true. it is true. they do have the highest paying jobs there. the reason for the impoverishment is because the government had been suppressing (and still is to a degree) any type of voluntary action until 1976. the more these asian countries embrace markets and get exposer to foreign capital. these conditions were similar to the US in the early 19th centr. by the end of the centr the publics standard of living increase dramatically, the middle classes was the widest its
ever been, US workers had highest wages in the world. chinas growth is in its infancy. you complaining about conditions in developing countries is like complaining about pilgrams not having microwaves.
no its a fair comparison. you're criticizing an underdeveloped nation still in its infancy.. for being in infancy. a better example might be.. you telling Picasso half way through one of his paintings that its a terrible painting, simply because it isnt finished yet, and is still undergoing physical and intellectual development.
really cuz capitalism has existed fer yrs , even there fer yrs now n see microwaves didnt exist for a few hundred yrs after the pilgrims so id say thats an unequal comparison. and since slaves lives were better in the 18th century than in the 17th is that a good argument for slavery?im trying to be civil but you seem to wanna argue. your comparison is invalid and the motive behind captalisms profit not a better society so why wud you think that these ppls lives wud be better, see slavery exp
capitalism has existed in the US since the late 1700s. capitalism has existed in china since the late 70s. shutty. im not civil towards people who have no clue what they're talking about. my comparison is completely valid, so valid that you have to take up bogus comsky arguments to try to make them invalid. fact is slaves lives didn't improve from the 18th centr to the 19th centr. if you read a book you'd know that. and if you read a book any further, youd know that slaves lives greatly improve
d after slavery was abolished (in the US). much more rapidly than it did (it only improve for slaves on the biggest plantations, not the slaves on small farms) for slaves prior to the second industrial rev. that would be an argument against slavery, and against socialism, being that socialism is at its core the violation of property rights on a mass scale (slavery).
yes true, but the point was that if ppls lives improve over time that doesnt make the system moral or right. that was your argument their shitty lives (chineese exploited workers) are better thru wage slavery. i can see a place for capitalism but you see no mangmnt of it . your claim is its good and thats the end of discourse.
@CommSense How is that an argument for capitalism? You make no sense! Using your logic then, would the standards of living of today's wage slaves greatly increase if they were able to create a society where they would be free from exploitation? If anything, your argument supports anarchist socialism!
@CommSense It's not. It's a refutation of capitalist myths. We need to burn away the lies that capitalists have spread before we can start presenting a new vision.
microwaves n pilgrims are a valid comparison even tho theres no way for any interaction, ok great argument. and you can say no no no all you want to the fact slaves lives improved over the centuries but that doesnt change the fact that it did improve. yes its a chomsky point and an accurate 1.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
the chinese are not exploited workers. exploitation can only come through force. wage slavery is an economic impossibility. maybe if you stopped watching youtube videos you'd understand basic economics. capitalism is the reason for growth and has allowed you to type your foolish comments. without it the computer that you're so privileged for having would be an aristocratic item at best, if it would have been created at all.
not exploited huh? theyd be doing that job even if they werent gettin paid i guess. wage slavery impossible? when you are paid only enuf to pay for food and a roof befor you hafta get back to work wat cha call that then? you haved to keep workers alive to work for you at min. and when you control the system, wat choice do others have really? you own the police the courts and the factory, theres a choice? thats not force?
no. not exploted. its called voluntary exchange. if these multinationals werent around to pay these workers they'd be in an even worse situation than they're currently in, not expiriencing any grwoth or rise in the standard of living and being totally self sustaining. luckily china has adopt some capitalist reforms to get their country our of the third world. now the chinese dont resort to eating dirt or dying of starvation. yes yes the glories of central planning and anti capitalistic mentality
there are. as i explinaed before, prostitution, self relying, working for a terribly poor lower-wage-paying ccp run company. or china can adopt central planning again and have a third of their population starve to death and eat dirt and grass.
Keep laughing until you are living in a cardboard hut and eating rice and fishheads for a 12 hour day of labor. That is what will happen. You are now competing with a Chinese worker who makes 64 cents per hour. yeah Keep laughing. The ONLY thing that will save the middle class of EVERY country is a greatly reduced population.
The triumph of capitalism depends to a large part; on the consent of individuals to the right of private property ownership regardless of its consequences for socio-economic justice. If too much private land is owned by an individual for the purpose of food provision or the purpose of material-extraction and manufacture - then it increases socio-economic pressures on those who wish to be free of capitalist-dependency.
Please site one example of an alternate socio-economic system that provides the sort of amenities to workers that you claim exist. Theoretical examples don't count.
You haven't refuted his arguement by saying that. Thats like a christian saying "Prove god doesn't exist". The failure of the capitalist system is everywhere you look, 30,000 africans die a day because of starvation, billions earn less than 2 dollars a day. Don't think that because you live in a rich country the system is a sucsess.
OK typical Bolshevik nonsense. Don't paint Africa as this loser downtrodden continent. They're doing a lot of work there building their respective nations. It may take some time, but I can see with racists like you running around spewing racist rhetoric they have a tougher hill to climb.
My name is a joke, i think the BNP are a bunch of racist fucktards, but obviously thats lost on you. The funny thing is you link someone you think member of the BNP with the bolsheviks. What the fuck is wrong with you? I realise they have some centre left policies, but it's hardly the same as Lenin and stalin's stances on economics. Go and read for God's sake, you're not even worthy of youtube discussion...
Now you've completely lost me. I don't think the wards of the mental institution you're in should let you have access to the internet. You are making no sense what so ever. I never brought up anything about the BNP or your name. Africa has been making incredible strides in improving infrastructure STOP SAYING THEY'RE ALL BACKWARDS!!!
So someone is rascist because they state a fact? I wasn't saying so many Africans die every day because they are inferior to white people or backwards. I said it was capitalism. You could take India where the average worker is forced to work 60 hours a week for 23 cents an hour just to feed their families as an example. Is that rascist too? For fuck's sake, you can't tell me the billions who live in poverty do so because people are "rascist". Thats just bullshit.
Take a trip to Africa. Check out the various nations for youself like I did. You will see a productive people making great strides. The left just like to put anyone or anything down that has to do with success. I guess that's the fate of parasites.
I didn't say they weren't creating infrastructure or that it was their faults. But people in the DRC or Ghana aren't living good lives are they?and we should help them. Seriously what the fuck is up with you?
Versus Socialism which steals the fruits of everyone's labor. If all you want to do is dig ditches then you deserve want you are paid. We all have an obligation to excel. Socialism breeds mediocrity and that leads to oblivion.
Austrian capitalists use the recession as an argument against central banks and stiff prices not JUST UNIONS (as you absurdly insinuate).
Furthermore, your comment below comparing slavery to wages is once again INANE. The "or else" that an entrepreneur offers is total freedom. Slave owners offer only death. That workers are dependent on entreprenuers is a testament to the value of entreprenuers.
BTW Unions are acceptable in a free market. Government backed unions are not.
I'm not sure I follow you mr1001. Do you consider entrepeneurs to be 'capitalists'? If so as a small business owner am I ethically required to hand over the business to my employees if the gang up and decide I should? I directed a substantial portion of my life energy into this business, which wouldn't exist otherwise. I'm trying really hard to understand your perspective, but I'm finding it exceedingly difficult to grasp. Help me out.
The amount of tolerance for wage labor, should be up to democratic communities. Slave owners might have put a lot of effort into setting up and organizing their plantations (in fact, their profit rate in the 19th century was lower than that of capitalists). That didn't justify their "work for a boss or else" system. Similarly, effort doesn't justify contributing to the "work for a boss or else" status quo of capitalism. Plus, chattel or wage slaves often work harder& their job is less satisfying
There is a huge difference between a government backed union monopolizing collective bargaining and an ethical labor movement. I'm a high performing worker with higher education and more responsibilities than most of my coworkers, yet I get paid the same as the mediocre performing employees in my organization. I should have the choice about who I want to organize with just like a 'capitalist' (one who agrees to shoulders the risk) should have the choice to associate with me and/or my group.
I support independent unions. Nevertheless the government can be--unlike businesses-- partially democratic. Slave owners also had responsibilities & took risks (eg buying expensive slaves who got sick&died; using them to make products that didnt sell well etc). Plus, many workers risk life&limb, which capitalist investment doesnt& most activities entail risk (should I get paid for walking down the street?). Democratic communities should decide on remuneration & workplace structure, not autocrats
In a sense, it is true unions increase the costs for the end user, only because higher prices are currently used to fund the union itself as well as the pay and the benefits for the worker, as opposed to these things being at the cost of capitalist profits (in other words, a firm/business/enterprise/whathaveyou, can be just as productive [not totally though, since union activity requires resources of its own], have just as much revenue etc.--
the thing is though, you wouldn't have one person getting away with 80% of the wealth [who would in turn be able to pepetuate the capitalist system with the wealth he/she has amassed]). Now, I don't know if unionization is the best tactic for combatting the inequities of capitalism, but in any case I suppose the grander strategy is to change beliefs about property and such
inefficiently sequestered resources of a communist social type system OR wastefully and unnecessarily exploited resources of a capitalist corporate type system.
Unions do not provide an adequate argument for membership for young people with a membership approaching retirement. The Unions do deals with governments to secure their older members rights rather than looking ahead to their potential future member base in the UK.
Sydnicalism is a tried and failed tactic, unions simply aren't revolutionary enough, and dull the revolutionary spirit, and many times end up just as reformist organizations. Even during the Spanish Civil War, while Durruti wanted to steal the Republic's gold supply, the CNT spent the war guarding it, until it went to Russia who then sent weapons to crush the anarchists! Unions got in the way of a workers revolution.
The CNT wasn't perfect ... they and the FAI did a lot of hamfisted things. But to say that syndicalism is a general failure based on one aspect of an extremely complicated wartime situation is too dismissive.
It's funny that Makhno's your s/n ... he didn't fare any better under wartime circumstances w/the exact same "allies." But, it'd likewise be too dismissive to say Makhnovist style collectivism is a "tried and failed tactic."
We really don't know ... they were destroyed from the outside.
It wasn't only one aspect, syndicalism overall has been a failure. I just pointed to an event upheld by syndicalists as "their" success, when really it was workers themselves who emancipated themselves, led by a vanguard of ideas, not a union. I said the CNT didn't make the revolution, the working class did, and not through a general strike or union body like Syndicalism upholds. There has never been a syndicalist general strike to produce an anarchist revolution, and there never will be.
Couldn't a song be written about that last statement you made? ;D Like "The Capitalist in the Mirror"...
I am amazed at some of the comments you get of people who assume that if you say anything negative about capitalism, you fall into a certain category of person who has a certain set of beliefs that form part of your "official agenda" which is supposedly made up of general statements like "if we just have regulation then everything will be all right" , etc. etc.
"Anti-union" is a euphemism for "anti-worker" (since unions are workers coming together to fight for their interests, in the face of their openly hostile enemies, the capitalists), which is itself a euphemism for "anti-human" (since humans must work to survive and perpetuate their race; note that capitalists are not humans, but are a race of gods -- as evidenced by their complete, puppetmaster-like control over every aspect of society -- which is why they are able to survive without working).
''Capitalists *cheerleaders'': Indoctrinated dancers with short skirts and pom-pons that aren't participating in beatings of workers(fascism) or pushing excessive regulations against unions(capillary fascism) but are supporting semi gods(bosses) in their agenda to make us all wage-slaves.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hell, I'd rather be exploited under capitalism than sent to a Gulag camp under communism.
The Government interference in the market + Federal Reserve caused the economic collapse.
Don't complain about the "US free market" because USA's market is FAR from free. It's about as far from free as your communist bullshit is far from plausible.
You obviously don't understand capitalism. Capitalism is incompatible with a free market because capitalism is drive for profit at all costs. Private corporations and businesses like protectionism because it helps them make more profit. The free market negates this.
Oh, mr1001nights is an anarchist, not a communist, as are most of his subscribers.
Capitalist propaganda is self-contradictory nonsense. Capitalists claim that unions harm businesses competitively because they push wages too high. But, when arguing for lower corporate taxes, capitalists claim that wages have no effect on competition. It's a total double standard.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax also, i really think you would benefit greatly if you read 'economics in one lesson' by henry Hazlitt (1946).
it can sum up the position of 90% of austrian economists so even if you disagree, you can refute most Austrians with there own points. ATM you and @AussieAustrianBlog seem to be debating from two different languages (i'm also aussie, and 'austrian')
anyway, at least take a quick look.
w w w . hacer . org / pdf / Hazlitt00 . pdf
lemme' know what you think
CytherLynx 1 year ago
@CytherLynx Oooo, thanks! 'Twill be quite helpful. I may not have time to read it for a while, but I'll use the first chance I get.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@CytherLynx I have yet to see anyone refute the Austrian view point. I always see mainstream and nobel laureates get things wrong with their predictions and logic. The strongest aspect of Austrian economics relates to our trade/business cycle theory.
AussieAustrianBlog 1 year ago
I find this amusing; "capitalists caused this recession." Very broad statements. It was in fact the lack of free market economics that played the biggest part and has been the reason for booms/busts for thousands of years. It is the "central planners" that are to blame for the continuing mess we're in. P.S. you lack an understanding of fundamental economics and the implication of unions on the economy. Furthermore, i'd suggest you study their history in the U.S. Nothing to be proud of.
AussieAustrianBlog 1 year ago
@AussieAustrianBlog What exactly is a free-market? Can you give me an example of one? Could you explain to me how one would work? Could you explain to me how free market capitalism could even exist, seeing as government is necessary for property, yet government always distorts the economy?
The reality is that the capitalism that actually exists is heavily colluded with the government. If this isn't "true capitalism," fine. But "true, laissez-faire capitalism" is a myth.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax Put simply, the free market is merely the matrix of free exchanges entered into by individuals. How would one work? Seems like a silly question that deserves a silly response. I take it you have never been to a produce market!? Clarify your point regarding government needing to exist re property then i'll provide a response.
AussieAustrianBlog 1 year ago
@AussieAustrianBlog A "produce market" is not a market, though it includes the name. It is simply a distribution point. A free market is an economy with no government distortion, something that has never existed.
Put simply, property can only exist when some coercive force recognizes that it exists. That force, if it is stable, is government. But government always distorts the market. Thus, there is no such thing as free-market capitalism.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax A produce market is a free market for as long as long as individuals can freely engage in voluntary exchange. It is absurd to say a produce market is only a "distribution point." Did not a voluntary exchange occur between myself (the buyer) and the seller? In other words, i gave him a sum of money and in return he gave me some apples? The government merely recognizes and enforces/upholds private property rights. No different to enforcing laws aimed at protecting and punishing for murder
AussieAustrianBlog 1 year ago
@AussieAustrianBlog But it is only a distribution point. The produce market does not take into account the entire context of the produce (where it was grown, how well the workers were paid, whether the pesticides used to grow the produce are poisoning the water, etc.)
But, I digress. The produce market is not laissez-faire because, like the rest of the economy, it is heavily distorted by the government in one way or another.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax A market and/or economy can be defined by whatever borders you choose. For example, local, online, car market, fish market, national, international, share market etc. And yes, we do not have laissez-faire markets in the broader view, ie national view, and i'm 99% certain we never will. But the more we move away from the theoretical pure free market towards central planning and regulation then the more we destroy our economy and society.
AussieAustrianBlog 1 year ago
@AussieAustrianBlog But the point is that there's no sector of our society that isn't heavily influenced by market distortions, particularly from the government. So we can't talk about free markets like they're something we've actually experienced.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax No Austrian economist has ever said free markets exist in the broader economy. We also never said they were perfect. Free markets or "free-er" markets provide better outcomes, that's all. It seems you agree governments hamper things?
AussieAustrianBlog 1 year ago
@AussieAustrianBlog I'm an anarchist. I don't believe that centralized governments, markets, or capitalism should exist at all. My belief is that all three have to be abolished in favor of decentralized socialism and direct democracy.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax If you don't beleive in markets you believe in force and coercion, right? Or at the very least you don't beleive in freedom and individual rights and liberties? If i want to sell my stereo, in your world you wouldn't let me sell it to another consenting adult in a voluntary exchange? I don't understand your morals.
AussieAustrianBlog 1 year ago
@AussieAustrianBlog When I say I'm against markets, it's not that I believe they should be forbidden. I believe that a free society based on direct democracy and worker self-management would lead to a marketless economy, one based on free association and voluntary economic planning. Worker and consumer cooperatives tend to form associations and cooperate together, and I believe that this would lead to forms of marketless socialism, such as anarcho-collectivism or anarcho-communism.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@AussieAustrianBlog I certainly am not in favor of establishing anything by force. And I do very much believe in rights and liberties. Why would you think I was against that?
QuatFax 1 year ago
@AussieAustrianBlog What you have to understand about anarchists is that we see capitalism and private property as reliant on the state. When we say that we are against private property, it is not that we seek to set up a regime that will punish anyone who tries to accumulate property. Rather, we believe that, without the state, any property that exceeds possession cannot exist; private property relies on the existence of the state.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax The state should protect private property rights. Unfortunately doesn't happen much :(
AussieAustrianBlog 1 year ago
@AussieAustrianBlog The state has no right to impose Lockean property "rights" upon the population. If communities of people voluntarily chose to accept Lockean property, that is fine. But such values should not be imposed on a population regardless of its will. For that matter, there shouldn't be a state at all. Society should be organized according to voluntary association and direct democracy.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax what do you think of the labor theory of value?
CytherLynx 1 year ago
@CytherLynx I really haven't read much about that. I have only a peripheral understanding of that issue. My guess would be that the LTV and the STV both contain elements of truth. Like, consumer demand determines the natural price ceiling, while cost/labor determines the natural price floor. Firms can't charge prices below profit margin, but they also can't charge more than consumers are willing to pay.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is private property - not sure where that quote came from.
AussieAustrianBlog 1 year ago
@AussieAustrianBlog Can you back that statement up?
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax I own myself and i'm private property. Here's a link to an article: mises.org/daily/4157/SelfOwnership
AussieAustrianBlog 1 year ago
@QuatFax you need to add the h...in front of that link
AussieAustrianBlog 1 year ago
@AussieAustrianBlog Self-ownership is perfectly consistent with possession. The Mutualist concept of possession (that I own the things that I regularly occupy and use) would obviously apply to myself; I occupy and use my own body at all times. There is no need to apply Lockean property rights to this.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax there's an important point here. don't you think that property rights, at least concerning everything that an individual relys on such as shelter, should be a 'right'? even if you threw a bunch of people on an island, they'd likely develop some kind of understanding of what's mine and what's yours. property is instinctive, ie innate.
also, saying there not such thing as pure free-market is like saying there is no such thing as a murder-less society. we should still aim for it.
CytherLynx 1 year ago
@CytherLynx I guess it depends on the definition of property. I define it as the concept of absentee ownership; I don't believe someone can own something that she isn't occupying or using. On the other hand, I have no problem with ownership based on occupancy and use (i.e.- possession). I suppose that might be considered property in a certain sense. So I guess it's sort of semantic.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax well, its a bit more complicated i think. i mean, there'd have to be different community accepted rules for irreplaceables, uniques, personal goods and land.
You should be able to own things, but not in ways like buying country sized pieces of land. the land that is yours should be yours due to 'first use'. Rothbard's view is very similar. you'd think we'd take technical views on it, but we're actually close to left anarchists. however fundamental different in other places.
CytherLynx 1 year ago
@CytherLynx Oh, yeah, it'd have to be more complicated. And, of course, no one has an absolute position on it. Mutualists do believe that people can be separate from their property for some period of time and still own it (i.e.- you don't lose your house just for walking out the door). And Lockeans/Rothbardians, as I understand, would probably see land that was originally homesteaded but then left untouched for decades as open game as well.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@CytherLynx In a real anarchist society, of course, it would all probably vary based on what individual communities think. In a community where the majority valued Lockean property, the economy would probably become anarcho-capitalist. In a community where the majority valued Mutualist property, the economy would probably become Mutualist or some other form of social anarchist. Each would probably be fine with the other as long as they chose to respect each others' right to exist.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@AussieAustrianBlog Unions are not bad for the economy. They are bad for PROFITS; businesses suffer competitively because they have to give more of their profits to workers. But that doesn't make them bad for the economy. It's not bad for workers to take home greater incomes; in fact, it's absolutely necessary for wages to rise. The reason we're in this recession is that, for the past 30 years, wages have not kept pace with the cost of living, so people had to buy things with debt.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax Profits and business/economy go hand-in-hand. Profits are important! And we are not in a recession because of wages not rising. We're in this mess for largely the same reasons all countries have had recessions throughout history - and that is government intervention, especially in monetary affairs. That is, credit expansion.
AussieAustrianBlog 1 year ago
@AussieAustrianBlog We're in this recession because people financed their consumerist lifestyles with debt. But if people were making sufficient wages, they would not have had to use debt to finance their consumption. Hence, no housing bubble or any other debt-driven boom.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax You have no idea what caused the crisis. You provide a terrible theory. The US in a recession for the same reason that the US has been in previous recessions, namely due to credit expansions. I could go into more detail, but i have not the time.
AussieAustrianBlog 1 year ago
@AussieAustrianBlog I'm not saying that low wages were the only factor causing the crisis. I'm saying that they were a factor, and that if wages were higher we'd be recovering much more quickly.
I'm happy to blame government for our economic woes. Government collusion with corporations is the main problem. But don't blame the unions; they actually make things better for workers.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax I'd never say unions are the reason for the economic problems, but they do contribute in a small. Although they do some good things, setting wages above the market rate and not alowing wage flexibility in a down-turn is detrimental to jobs and business in general. Unions essentially monopolize labor. Perhaps you haven't read much on labor union history and the economics of what they do. I'm an economist, so i look at things objectively for what they are. My whole family are in unions.
AussieAustrianBlog 1 year ago
@AussieAustrianBlog While I'm not an economist, I have read some of the literature on economics, unions, and wages. There is no consensus among economists that unions are bad for the economy. Opinions vary; some see unions as great for the economy, others see them as harmful, and still others don't really think they matter.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax I agree there is no consensus. I can send u a message to some good resources for an alternative view? Not all unions are bad. In some countries they refrain from setting wages etc due to the detrimental impacts on competitiveness, jobs.... And unions do some good things.
AussieAustrianBlog 1 year ago
@AussieAustrianBlog If you're worried about unions making American businesses less competitive internationally, why not support foreign union efforts? After all, if ALL the companies in the market are unionized, unions create no disadvantage. And this way, workers wages rise in tandem with the cost of living EVERYWHERE, meaning the global economy is healthier overall.
QuatFax 1 year ago
Unions tend to restrict the free flow of capital from one firm to the next. in order for the structure of production to adapt to consumer demand you need resources to be able to be bid from one firm to the next as quickly and as efficiently as possible. anyhampering of this process can only hurt consumers. Moreover, unions tend to hold wages above marginal productivity. that causes unemployment. if we had unionism on a worldwide scale there'd colossal resource misallocation and unemployment.
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense There's no evidence of any of this. There is no empirical evidence that higher wages cause umemployment. Higher wages can just as easily manifest themselves in higher prices or in less money going to management. Higher wages actually PREVENT massive unemployment because they provide for more consumer demand, which keeps economic production going.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Empiricism aside, I never said high wages cause unemployment. To use the term "high" in economic analysis is flawed for a number of reasons. What i said was wages above marginal productivity cause unemployment. So, going back y your argument, why just impose a minimum wage of 100, 1,000, or even 1million dollar an hour, thus raising all our living standards simultaneously? Now back t empiricism. Have you subscribed to or have ever read an economic or political journal?
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense Minimum wage is fine, but it is my opinion that unions are more reliable. The government isn't on the side of workers, and it isn't wise for them to rely on it.
Well, you can't give the workers more money than exists. What I would say is that workers should run their businesses democratically and set the wages themselves; that way, their wages are as generous as possible, but they use resources that the company has.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
You still didn't address the question about wages being above marginal productivity. But that aside, under this "democratic work place" who decides when to expand or slow production, and if wages aren't in accordance with marginal productivity how is it possible to economize resources if their true value isn't set by what they contribute to production but its the outcome of some vote. It seems to me that such an arrangement can only lead to politics trumping sound economic decisions.
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense I don't know the specifics of how worker cooperatives make economic decisions, but be aware that they have been very successful. Worker cooperatives have proven time and again to be more efficient and more innovative than regular hierarchal businesses. Where they have been able to enter the market, they have significantly outperformed their competitors.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
name 5 "workers' cooperatives" who have been "more efficient and more innovative" than "regular hierarchical businesses." Or one fortune 500 workers' cooperative.
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense I can actually name you about 200 such worker cooperatives. They're collectively called Mondragon. Look it up.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@CommSense As far as the question of marginal productivity, unions help ensure that wages match productivity growth. It is without unions that wages fail to match productivity. Look at the United States: over the past 40 years, productivity has gone through the roof, yet wages have stagnated. This correlates very well with the weakening power of unions over the same period.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
If unions increase productivity then why were real wages in 19th centr US 3 times as high as their european counterparts, who were heavily unionized compared to the unionless US?
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense There are so many different factors that affect economic and wage growth. The fact that real wages were higher in the US than in Europe could be related to any number of factors besides unionization.
You can't just study compare whole economies where one is more unionized than the other. You have to compare within industries. When you compare two businesses, one unionized and one not, you find that the unionized ones are more productive.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
With that logic, the reason the rich are rich is because they consume more than the poor. an obvious non sequitur
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense The point of the logic is that generally high wages and incomes need to exist for economic growth. If the general population makes a reasonable amount of money, it can drive an economy's consumer engine, thus leading to higher levels of economic growth. If wages are largely inegalitarian, the general population cannot drive economic growth through consumption as effectively, thus leading to stagnation.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@CommSense I have read peer-reviewed economic articles and statements made by economists. I don't subscribe to any journals.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
If that's the case then you should be quite familiar with the consequences of price floors especially in the labor market.
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense If by "price floors in the labour market" you mean minimum wages, I am aware of the myths about them, particularly that they contribute to unemployment. There is no actual evidence to back this up; it's little more than an excuse to justify smashing unions and turning the government against workers.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
For studying economics for the last 5 year i find you claim that "there is no actual evidence to back this up" a pretty remarkable claim.
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense Well, there isn't. Studies that actually isolate economic factors between regions with different minimum wages find that the regions with the higher minimum wages actually have LOWER unemployment. There's no evidence that minimum wages contribute to unemployment.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Ok. You cant just keep saying the same thing over and over again. Doesnt make it true. By your logic, if the marginal productivity of a factor is at 8 USD, and the government or a union imposes a wage of 10 USD, then no unemployment ensues. Also, by your logic, when prices rise, people by more of a the good in question. Its an obious fallacy. No evidence? what about the time series paper? what about black teenage employment since the 30s? and most recently, what about the Samoan case?
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense The fact that unemployment accompanied a minimum wage does not mean that the minimum wage caused the unemployment. Correlation does not prove causation.
I can match each example you give me with examples of my own. What about New Jersey and Pennsylvania? What about Washington state and Idaho? I suggest you read "Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders" by Andrajit Dube. He studies economies that are similar except for minimum wage, and finds no significant disemployment effects.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@CommSense Your statements about marginal productivity assume that there is a fixed amount of payroll money that can't change. This ignores a number of factors. Minimum wages could manifest themselves in higher prices, or in a larger share of profits going to workers. Further, minimum wages lead to more consumer spending, thus generating more jobs (as I have said before).
QuatFax 1 year ago
@CommSense "by your logic, when prices rise, people by more of a the good in question. Its an obious fallacy"
I never said that. I said that the job market is not so simple that we can assume that higher prices must decrease employment. There are other factors; that's all I'm saying.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@CommSense By the way, you never responded to my point about cooperatives. These are businesses where profits are just considered extra wages; workers control how profits are distributed, and pay themselves accordingly. Yet worker coops are actually MORE efficient than ordinary businesses, and out-compete them when they can break into the market. Seems to contradict most of your assumptions about wages and profits.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
I responded to that. I said name 5 or one fortune 500 workers coop
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense And I named you about 200 such cooperatives, collectively called Mondragon. They employ about 100,000 people and bring in about 14 billion euro a year. They are the largest business in the Basque region and the second-largest business in Spain.
So how do you respond to this? It essentially disproves the idea that workers' control is inefficient or that workers can't take from profits.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@CommSense Excuse me. Mondragon is the seventh-largest business in Spain, not the second.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
So you named a corporation that gives out stocks to its workers. Scratch that. You named ONE corporation, which gives stocks to its workers. Better yet, you named one corporation that gives stocks to its workers which is the "7th largest business in (economically inferior to the west) spain." And wah-lah! "Workers cooperatives are now more efficient than all other modern working arrangements. Hey man, i guess if thats all the proof you need then you're sold. Bravo.
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense I actually named about 200 such corporations that are federated together.
You asked me to name 5 worker cooperatives, and I did, along with another 195. Don't criticize me for answering a question that YOU asked. Did you not write "name 5 'workers' cooperatives' who have been "more efficient and more innovative" than 'regular hierarchical businesses.'"?
QuatFax 1 year ago
@CommSense And I did not claim that Mondragon proves that worker coops are always more efficient than all other working arrangements. Quit putting words in my mouth. I know you don't respect people who disagree with you, but at least let them actually make statements without reading things into it.
My only point was that the Mondragon coops have been more efficient than most regular businesses, thus disproving the statement that workers' control is INEFFICIENT.
QuatFax 1 year ago
No, i believe you did. second, by your logic, if you're to call mondragon a "workers coop" then the firm i work for, because they give shares to their employees, is a workers coop. same with GM, UH, etc. we're living ina world of workers coops i guess. lastly, granted the above is actually a workers coop, it still doesnt prove your point. if such a production structure were actually more efficient it would be in the interest of "the capitalists" to adopt that model, which they arent doing.
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense Giving employees the option to buy stock does not make a firm a worker coop. In a worker coop, each employee can only have one vote. Employee stock ownership plans don't provide for this: different employees might own different amounts of stock, and thus have uneven votes.
The principles that define a cooperative can be found here: h t t p : // w w w . ica . coop / coop / principles . html
QuatFax 1 year ago
@CommSense " if such a production structure were actually more efficient it would be in the interest of "the capitalists" to adopt that model, which they arent doing"
No it wouldn't. The worker coop model is more efficient, but profits go to the workers, not to capitalists. For the capitalists to even establish their businesses as worker coops, they'd have to quit their jobs and let the workers run the business democratically. How is that in their interests?
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
You can't just keep saying "its more efficient." its redundant and isn't an argument. You'll have to explain how production based on politics i.e. democratic principles is more efficient than production based on economic principles i.e what achieves the greatest output per input. until then idk what to tell ya..
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense If we want to have that discussion, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure that you understood what a worker cooperative is. It is not simply a business where workers are allowed to buy shares (though such a business could become a worker coop if the workers organized their share-buying). It is a business that is run democratically by the workers, one member, one vote.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@CommSense Worker cooperatives are more efficient for a number of reasons. The main reason is associated with the benefits of cooperation: workers are better able to coordinate ideas and experiences, and can thus respond to problems more effectively. In an ordinary workplace, there may be a motivation for individual workers to try to fix problems, but there is no motivation for coordination with other workers, as they are in competition with each other.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@CommSense In addition to the benefits of cooperation, workers in worker coops have higher wages and more control over their work, and thus feel more invested in their companies and are more likely to commit themselves to working there. Workers feel that the value they create is made for their own benefit, rather than the benefit of a small elite. Also, less money is spent on management, thus allowing prices to be lowered.
QuatFax 1 year ago
this is why i am tentative to continue this. "less money is spent on management, thus allowing prices to be lower." Factor prices don't determine the price of their output. Prices are determined by quantity and intensity of would-be buyer demand. If you want to continue this discussion you can inbox me. the character limit in these replies severely limits discussion, which is why i try to avoid them. But with all due respect, I don't think you've studied economics enough to continue this.
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense As far as efficiency is concerned, giving workers more control INCREASES efficiency of the business. Study after study proves that more coordination and democracy on the shop floor produces higher productivity and higher efficiency. Unions are a means to this end; they give workers more control over production, and could potentially be a tool to cooperatize business.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Assuming self-interest on behalf of capitalists and laborers, why then haven't capitalist allowed such internal democratic arrangements in their firms in order to increase output and thus benefit themselves?
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense Because it doesn't benefit the capitalists. If workers have real power in their workplaces, they tend to slash the wages of management and raise their own wages. That's why, in cooperatives, managers make considerably less than in normal businesses. Naturally, the managers don't want that.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
lastly. high nominal or take-home wages for workers doesnt necessarily mean they will be able to "buy more stuff." wages above the marginal productivity of labor means that other capital and labor must be left unemployed which means less output. a workers nominal wage might be high but the drop in output would offset this nominal gain, leaving everyone worse off
CommSense 1 year ago
@QuatFax By a similar logic, why not have NO unions anywhere monopolizing labor markets and using force/coercion etc?! Wages rise without unions.
AussieAustrianBlog 1 year ago
@AussieAustrianBlog Because if we had no unions, workers' wages would not rise adequately. Business owners would keep the profits for themselves and not give workers adequate compensation. This is what we've had in the US for the past 30 years: wages have not risen with the cost of living even though productivity has skyrocketed.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax Wages would and have risen without unions due to increased technology and productivity. Unfortunately, government largely destroys the benefits of these gains through credit expansion, interventionism. With "skyrocketing" productivity prices should actually be falling, thus real wages increasing. Point your finger at government for not allowing this to happen (rising real wages etc).
AussieAustrianBlog 1 year ago
and im more than willing to listen to opposite opinions i dont know everything. but whenyou attack me for being stupid or ignorant or not knowing anything bout economics? it just means you hafta attack me cuz you cant stay on topic and argue the issue, respect youradversary cuz we all dont know everything, peace
adzug 2 years ago
Though you are obviously right about capitalists blaming the unions for the loss of jobs in developed countries, I disagree with your statement that unions are the ultimate solution to capitalist social relations. I think its apparent that the vast majority of unions in developed countries only know how to work within the capitalist framework, the have neither the desire nor the know-how to overthrow capitalism. Workers need to appropriate capital, not just demand a bigger slice of the pie.
TasinAkiwo 2 years ago
sure, but workers need a labor movement first, with radical unions. We don't have that yet.
mr1001nights 2 years ago
bahahahaha have you ever been to china? no. you're dumb. go to china. you dont understand markets. i know this from your views on populations. if you understood anything, or have ever studied anything economic, besides what you've been told by internet videos, or have ever been to china, you would't say such dumb things. please rethink your life.
CommSense 2 years ago
well what does china hafta do with labour organization? those ppl are the most exploited workers in the world. cuz the govt uses the term communist? were talkin reality here. wat really exists there? nike, the gap, wal mart using cheap labour and giving away jobs from america. usa! usa!
adzug 2 years ago
labor in china ins directed by the government, telling companies how many workers they can hire and what land their firms can occupy. the reason for low wages in china is lack of capital. without nike, gap, and walmart, young women would be forced into jobs such as prostitution or slaves. men would suffer a similar fate, being pushed to pursue a worse job. oh and i bet you didnt know that US companies who've set up shop in china offer the highest paying jobs there. nice try though.
CommSense 2 years ago
well i dongt know? what jobs would they have? that is a good q. but prostitution already exists there. now the highest paying jobs? ok lets say thats true, what kinda life these ppl have? workin 12 or more hrs a day for pennies ona dollar n living in poverty. whats the diff tween that n slavery? really? but the topic was more about labour organization . these ppl cant organize, its the same with any authoritarian state watever the label
adzug 2 years ago
no. lets not say its true. it is true. they do have the highest paying jobs there. the reason for the impoverishment is because the government had been suppressing (and still is to a degree) any type of voluntary action until 1976. the more these asian countries embrace markets and get exposer to foreign capital. these conditions were similar to the US in the early 19th centr. by the end of the centr the publics standard of living increase dramatically, the middle classes was the widest its
CommSense 2 years ago
ever been, US workers had highest wages in the world. chinas growth is in its infancy. you complaining about conditions in developing countries is like complaining about pilgrams not having microwaves.
CommSense 2 years ago
im trying to be real here but to say they have shitty lives compared to pilgrims and microwaves is disingenuous at best.
adzug 2 years ago
no its a fair comparison. you're criticizing an underdeveloped nation still in its infancy.. for being in infancy. a better example might be.. you telling Picasso half way through one of his paintings that its a terrible painting, simply because it isnt finished yet, and is still undergoing physical and intellectual development.
CommSense 2 years ago
really cuz capitalism has existed fer yrs , even there fer yrs now n see microwaves didnt exist for a few hundred yrs after the pilgrims so id say thats an unequal comparison. and since slaves lives were better in the 18th century than in the 17th is that a good argument for slavery?im trying to be civil but you seem to wanna argue. your comparison is invalid and the motive behind captalisms profit not a better society so why wud you think that these ppls lives wud be better, see slavery exp
adzug 2 years ago
capitalism has existed in the US since the late 1700s. capitalism has existed in china since the late 70s. shutty. im not civil towards people who have no clue what they're talking about. my comparison is completely valid, so valid that you have to take up bogus comsky arguments to try to make them invalid. fact is slaves lives didn't improve from the 18th centr to the 19th centr. if you read a book you'd know that. and if you read a book any further, youd know that slaves lives greatly improve
CommSense 2 years ago
d after slavery was abolished (in the US). much more rapidly than it did (it only improve for slaves on the biggest plantations, not the slaves on small farms) for slaves prior to the second industrial rev. that would be an argument against slavery, and against socialism, being that socialism is at its core the violation of property rights on a mass scale (slavery).
CommSense 2 years ago
yes true, but the point was that if ppls lives improve over time that doesnt make the system moral or right. that was your argument their shitty lives (chineese exploited workers) are better thru wage slavery. i can see a place for capitalism but you see no mangmnt of it . your claim is its good and thats the end of discourse.
adzug 2 years ago
@CommSense How is that an argument for capitalism? You make no sense! Using your logic then, would the standards of living of today's wage slaves greatly increase if they were able to create a society where they would be free from exploitation? If anything, your argument supports anarchist socialism!
juliaisafilmbuff123 2 years ago
how is what an argument for capitalism, i can't see which of my comments you're responding to.
CommSense 2 years ago
how is what an argument for anarchist socialism**
CommSense 2 years ago
@CommSense It's not. It's a refutation of capitalist myths. We need to burn away the lies that capitalists have spread before we can start presenting a new vision.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
what a compelling response. throw a bunch of cliche political slogans around and you've got yourself an arguments. bravo.
CommSense 1 year ago
microwaves n pilgrims are a valid comparison even tho theres no way for any interaction, ok great argument. and you can say no no no all you want to the fact slaves lives improved over the centuries but that doesnt change the fact that it did improve. yes its a chomsky point and an accurate 1.
adzug 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the chinese are not exploited workers. exploitation can only come through force. wage slavery is an economic impossibility. maybe if you stopped watching youtube videos you'd understand basic economics. capitalism is the reason for growth and has allowed you to type your foolish comments. without it the computer that you're so privileged for having would be an aristocratic item at best, if it would have been created at all.
CommSense 2 years ago
not exploited huh? theyd be doing that job even if they werent gettin paid i guess. wage slavery impossible? when you are paid only enuf to pay for food and a roof befor you hafta get back to work wat cha call that then? you haved to keep workers alive to work for you at min. and when you control the system, wat choice do others have really? you own the police the courts and the factory, theres a choice? thats not force?
adzug 2 years ago
no. not exploted. its called voluntary exchange. if these multinationals werent around to pay these workers they'd be in an even worse situation than they're currently in, not expiriencing any grwoth or rise in the standard of living and being totally self sustaining. luckily china has adopt some capitalist reforms to get their country our of the third world. now the chinese dont resort to eating dirt or dying of starvation. yes yes the glories of central planning and anti capitalistic mentality
CommSense 2 years ago
voluntary when theres no other options? what else is available to these ppl?
adzug 2 years ago
there are. as i explinaed before, prostitution, self relying, working for a terribly poor lower-wage-paying ccp run company. or china can adopt central planning again and have a third of their population starve to death and eat dirt and grass.
CommSense 2 years ago
bahaha primitive beliefs..
CommSense 2 years ago
Keep laughing until you are living in a cardboard hut and eating rice and fishheads for a 12 hour day of labor. That is what will happen. You are now competing with a Chinese worker who makes 64 cents per hour. yeah Keep laughing. The ONLY thing that will save the middle class of EVERY country is a greatly reduced population.
enkelin32 2 years ago
The triumph of capitalism depends to a large part; on the consent of individuals to the right of private property ownership regardless of its consequences for socio-economic justice. If too much private land is owned by an individual for the purpose of food provision or the purpose of material-extraction and manufacture - then it increases socio-economic pressures on those who wish to be free of capitalist-dependency.
PersianPaladin 2 years ago
u sounded like a libertarian.
KhmerD0g 2 years ago
No one is forced to take a factory job in America.
iNsyNR8R 2 years ago
no, we give them the opition of be homeless or work in a factory.. yay capitalism
snowwolf7777 2 years ago
Please site one example of an alternate socio-economic system that provides the sort of amenities to workers that you claim exist. Theoretical examples don't count.
iNsyNR8R 2 years ago
back in the 1900's, factory owners would give poor immigrants who worked in their factorys tenements for them and their family to live in.
snowwolf7777 2 years ago
???
iNsyNR8R 2 years ago
pwed, you have major butthurt!
snowwolf7777 2 years ago
You should lay off the crack.
iNsyNR8R 2 years ago
hey, crack is something the CIA sells to black people.....
now, don't be a bitch, just eat your ice cream and go back to watching fox news
snowwolf7777 2 years ago
Oh I'm sorry I didn't realize that you lived in a mental institution that gave internet access to it's patients.
Have hope. One day you will be cured. Remember to take your meds!
iNsyNR8R 2 years ago
thanks, i will!
who knows, we could share a room together someday.
snowwolf7777 2 years ago
You haven't refuted his arguement by saying that. Thats like a christian saying "Prove god doesn't exist". The failure of the capitalist system is everywhere you look, 30,000 africans die a day because of starvation, billions earn less than 2 dollars a day. Don't think that because you live in a rich country the system is a sucsess.
bnparethebest 2 years ago
OK typical Bolshevik nonsense. Don't paint Africa as this loser downtrodden continent. They're doing a lot of work there building their respective nations. It may take some time, but I can see with racists like you running around spewing racist rhetoric they have a tougher hill to climb.
iNsyNR8R 2 years ago
My name is a joke, i think the BNP are a bunch of racist fucktards, but obviously thats lost on you. The funny thing is you link someone you think member of the BNP with the bolsheviks. What the fuck is wrong with you? I realise they have some centre left policies, but it's hardly the same as Lenin and stalin's stances on economics. Go and read for God's sake, you're not even worthy of youtube discussion...
(And that's saying a lot!)
bnparethebest 2 years ago
Now you've completely lost me. I don't think the wards of the mental institution you're in should let you have access to the internet. You are making no sense what so ever. I never brought up anything about the BNP or your name. Africa has been making incredible strides in improving infrastructure STOP SAYING THEY'RE ALL BACKWARDS!!!
iNsyNR8R 2 years ago
So someone is rascist because they state a fact? I wasn't saying so many Africans die every day because they are inferior to white people or backwards. I said it was capitalism. You could take India where the average worker is forced to work 60 hours a week for 23 cents an hour just to feed their families as an example. Is that rascist too? For fuck's sake, you can't tell me the billions who live in poverty do so because people are "rascist". Thats just bullshit.
bnparethebest 2 years ago
Take a trip to Africa. Check out the various nations for youself like I did. You will see a productive people making great strides. The left just like to put anyone or anything down that has to do with success. I guess that's the fate of parasites.
iNsyNR8R 2 years ago
I didn't say they weren't creating infrastructure or that it was their faults. But people in the DRC or Ghana aren't living good lives are they?and we should help them. Seriously what the fuck is up with you?
bnparethebest 2 years ago
Capitalism is building a better Africa. Go ask the Chinese.
iNsyNR8R 2 years ago
Versus Socialism which steals the fruits of everyone's labor. If all you want to do is dig ditches then you deserve want you are paid. We all have an obligation to excel. Socialism breeds mediocrity and that leads to oblivion.
iNsyNR8R 2 years ago
Austrian capitalists use the recession as an argument against central banks and stiff prices not JUST UNIONS (as you absurdly insinuate).
Furthermore, your comment below comparing slavery to wages is once again INANE. The "or else" that an entrepreneur offers is total freedom. Slave owners offer only death. That workers are dependent on entreprenuers is a testament to the value of entreprenuers.
BTW Unions are acceptable in a free market. Government backed unions are not.
georgeme89 2 years ago
I'm not sure I follow you mr1001. Do you consider entrepeneurs to be 'capitalists'? If so as a small business owner am I ethically required to hand over the business to my employees if the gang up and decide I should? I directed a substantial portion of my life energy into this business, which wouldn't exist otherwise. I'm trying really hard to understand your perspective, but I'm finding it exceedingly difficult to grasp. Help me out.
proffesor02 2 years ago
The amount of tolerance for wage labor, should be up to democratic communities. Slave owners might have put a lot of effort into setting up and organizing their plantations (in fact, their profit rate in the 19th century was lower than that of capitalists). That didn't justify their "work for a boss or else" system. Similarly, effort doesn't justify contributing to the "work for a boss or else" status quo of capitalism. Plus, chattel or wage slaves often work harder& their job is less satisfying
mr1001nights 2 years ago
There is a huge difference between a government backed union monopolizing collective bargaining and an ethical labor movement. I'm a high performing worker with higher education and more responsibilities than most of my coworkers, yet I get paid the same as the mediocre performing employees in my organization. I should have the choice about who I want to organize with just like a 'capitalist' (one who agrees to shoulders the risk) should have the choice to associate with me and/or my group.
proffesor02 2 years ago
I support independent unions. Nevertheless the government can be--unlike businesses-- partially democratic. Slave owners also had responsibilities & took risks (eg buying expensive slaves who got sick&died; using them to make products that didnt sell well etc). Plus, many workers risk life&limb, which capitalist investment doesnt& most activities entail risk (should I get paid for walking down the street?). Democratic communities should decide on remuneration & workplace structure, not autocrats
mr1001nights 2 years ago
In Germany most people are in unions and they have the what 3rd largest economy. I think they are getting along fine with it.
rring88 2 years ago 2
In a sense, it is true unions increase the costs for the end user, only because higher prices are currently used to fund the union itself as well as the pay and the benefits for the worker, as opposed to these things being at the cost of capitalist profits (in other words, a firm/business/enterprise/whathaveyou, can be just as productive [not totally though, since union activity requires resources of its own], have just as much revenue etc.--
UnhealthySalad 2 years ago
the thing is though, you wouldn't have one person getting away with 80% of the wealth [who would in turn be able to pepetuate the capitalist system with the wealth he/she has amassed]). Now, I don't know if unionization is the best tactic for combatting the inequities of capitalism, but in any case I suppose the grander strategy is to change beliefs about property and such
UnhealthySalad 2 years ago 2
inefficiently sequestered resources of a communist social type system OR wastefully and unnecessarily exploited resources of a capitalist corporate type system.
Unions do not provide an adequate argument for membership for young people with a membership approaching retirement. The Unions do deals with governments to secure their older members rights rather than looking ahead to their potential future member base in the UK.
praline2x 2 years ago
Sydnicalism is a tried and failed tactic, unions simply aren't revolutionary enough, and dull the revolutionary spirit, and many times end up just as reformist organizations. Even during the Spanish Civil War, while Durruti wanted to steal the Republic's gold supply, the CNT spent the war guarding it, until it went to Russia who then sent weapons to crush the anarchists! Unions got in the way of a workers revolution.
NestorMakhno1936 2 years ago
The CNT wasn't perfect ... they and the FAI did a lot of hamfisted things. But to say that syndicalism is a general failure based on one aspect of an extremely complicated wartime situation is too dismissive.
It's funny that Makhno's your s/n ... he didn't fare any better under wartime circumstances w/the exact same "allies." But, it'd likewise be too dismissive to say Makhnovist style collectivism is a "tried and failed tactic."
We really don't know ... they were destroyed from the outside.
jrpigg 2 years ago
It wasn't only one aspect, syndicalism overall has been a failure. I just pointed to an event upheld by syndicalists as "their" success, when really it was workers themselves who emancipated themselves, led by a vanguard of ideas, not a union. I said the CNT didn't make the revolution, the working class did, and not through a general strike or union body like Syndicalism upholds. There has never been a syndicalist general strike to produce an anarchist revolution, and there never will be.
NestorMakhno1936 2 years ago
OMFG!!! Its the real life Niko Bellic!!!!!!
Hows the hooker beatings going these days?
Avarice176 2 years ago 2
I mean, seriously!
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
aaaah ... GREED!
greenhell666 2 years ago
It's been a while since the last video, but this one was worth the wait. One of the most insightful recently.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Stopping business from burning alive people who get in their way makes them "uncompetitive" to the businesses who are allowed.
I think a tiny dip in the GDP is worth this one.
metalorg 2 years ago
Couldn't a song be written about that last statement you made? ;D Like "The Capitalist in the Mirror"...
I am amazed at some of the comments you get of people who assume that if you say anything negative about capitalism, you fall into a certain category of person who has a certain set of beliefs that form part of your "official agenda" which is supposedly made up of general statements like "if we just have regulation then everything will be all right" , etc. etc.
kzargentina 2 years ago
"Anti-union" is a euphemism for "anti-worker" (since unions are workers coming together to fight for their interests, in the face of their openly hostile enemies, the capitalists), which is itself a euphemism for "anti-human" (since humans must work to survive and perpetuate their race; note that capitalists are not humans, but are a race of gods -- as evidenced by their complete, puppetmaster-like control over every aspect of society -- which is why they are able to survive without working).
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago 4
If I ever again hear ''the fruits of labor'' from a capitalist chillider I'm going to shoot myself!
organdva 2 years ago
What is a "chillider?"
Is it Russian for "I'm going to torture you to death in a GULAG camp because you're not a commie shit head like me?"
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
''Capitalists *cheerleaders'': Indoctrinated dancers with short skirts and pom-pons that aren't participating in beatings of workers(fascism) or pushing excessive regulations against unions(capillary fascism) but are supporting semi gods(bosses) in their agenda to make us all wage-slaves.
organdva 2 years ago
I guess now they'll all be talking about the "national interest". How typical - they shit all over you and now you're the one to blame.
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hell, I'd rather be exploited under capitalism than sent to a Gulag camp under communism.
The Government interference in the market + Federal Reserve caused the economic collapse.
Don't complain about the "US free market" because USA's market is FAR from free. It's about as far from free as your communist bullshit is far from plausible.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
You obviously don't understand capitalism. Capitalism is incompatible with a free market because capitalism is drive for profit at all costs. Private corporations and businesses like protectionism because it helps them make more profit. The free market negates this.
Oh, mr1001nights is an anarchist, not a communist, as are most of his subscribers.
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago 3
I'm an anarchist too. But I'm a market-anarchist. (I'm not going to listen to these "UR NOTZ AN ANARCHISTZ!! claims, ca-piesh?)
Corporations may like protectionism, but the consumer does not. The consumer, much like the corporation, is trying to maximize profit.
As a consumer trying to maximize my profit, I refuse to buy products from corporations that attempt to build protectionism.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
A consumer does not buy a commodity to sell it for profit.
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
Unless he is investing...
ZamatoElite 2 years ago