29 Feb 04
Originally posted by rwingettNo. A Free market simply endows an "individual" to start a business "providing a good or service" or "selling a good or service" that is free of regulation from any agency or government. It is a mythical beast that hasn't existed for a hundred years. It is the right to "unconditionally obtain property". It is the right to hire and fire people at will. It is these same peoples right to quit and/or strike at will. That is a free market. Wouldn't that be nice?
What, exactly, does a "free market" mean? That you are free to rape and plunder the market at will? That you are free to despoil the environment at a catastrophic level? That you are free to commit any atrocity in order to push profits even higher?
Corporations act with near impunity, but fortunately they are not totally "free". An examination of th ...[text shortened]... do we decide that we can do better? Or is there no longer any hope at all for anything better?
As to the environment, it is really a self solving problem. Unless you are an elitist who presupposes an ill-equipt, incompetent and totally unaware populace. Aware people will buy from those who do the least damage. If you don't believe that, you prove my point about wanting to lead a secret police agency. Elitist to the end?
Corporations are not an answer. They are part of the problem. They are the animal invented by the lawyers of the world to steal. You should know that. A free market would neither tolerate them or need them. In a free market, you would see a return to family owned business and co-op business. The problem now, is that there is no ethics test required before you form a corporation. And the John Edwards and Hillary Clintons of the world are in charge. By default, there is no morality in anything they touch. They are free thinkers.
I am curious as to your delusional view of "Bill gates wallowing in his hoard of gold while millions starve." Are you that stupid or just intentionally promoting class warfare? Do you think his money is kept in vaults filled with gold? Or is it invested as capital in businesses that employ families and allow them to put food on the table? Are you naive enough to really be that shallow? Probably. Anyone who can fall for the communist spiel that you spout can't be anything less than totally naive.
Finally... lets compare Bill's donations to the poor of the world and compare them to those of Green Peace? Any guesses? How about lets hit closer to your personal penchant for labor protectionism... any guess as to what he has donated to the poor compared to what your crime infested unions have done? I would invite you to find out, but it would be a wasted invitation. You are not capable of an open mind. In my opinion.
The good news is that even though you support the opposition (unions) which enables the corrupt corporations to hide behind lawyer speak, there are many of us who do know that a Free Market is smarter than all of you. If it ever gets a chance to happen.
29 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirYou are right. A "free market" can have no better definition than "a relationship wherein the employer and employee engage in mutual exploitation, to the best of their ability."
A free market doesn't mean free for all.
To make money within a free market system, you must have money to start with.
Obviously there are exceptions, as Bill Gates may well shout when he's in the shower, but there are always except ...[text shortened]... e situation at hand is not going to change.
Now for a beer.
You are right that Bill's employees have made him rich. As he has made thousands of them "rich" beyond measure. Then the next tier, can be called "Extremely Comfortable". There are tens of thousands of these people. The next layer of employee down can be called "Reasonably Well Off". These are the distributors, drivers, sales people, support and service people worldwide. They number in the hundreds of thousands. The next layer down can be "Comfortable". These are people like me and Russ who use his stuff to make the world go round and support our families. There are millions of us. The next layer down... and we are at the level of the mom and pops store selling computers and services now, can be whatever they want to be. Ain't freedom grand?
29 Feb 04
1 edit
Obviously, as I stated, Bill Gates is an exception, if all the material, software and deliverance is within Western society.
The average millionaire however must lower costs and increase production or stagnate.
This means having materials etc. made in third world nations.
Is a child better off because she's earning 2$ per 16 hour shift? Or would the child be better off at school learning to read, write and philosophy?
Examples a-plenty: Adidas, Walt Disney, Puma and Ikea.
The 'free market' also monopolizes production.
The great myth that it benefits competition is ludicrious, just look at company take-overs.
Not only are consumers duped, but the producing classes have fewer and fewer 'philanthropists' to run to. Take the offered wage or suffer!
One of the most disgusting things about the so called 'free market' is the political influence it has on an individual State.
Look at the various African countries and Argentina to see the deals that they must adhere to or not receive any help at all!
Look at Haiti at this moment in time! People are dying on the streets because of the situation. The situation has come about because the US and the IMF would not help them out. Why? Because the large companies which support the Democratic and Republican parties (and influence the world bank and IMF) don't want a central-left government in power (United fruits, coffee makers, Bacardi, etc.)
Just look at the large 'free market' companies getting all the great deals in Iraq at this moment in time.
Party on...
29 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirI agree whole heartedly about the exploitation of the third world. Every company you named is headed by a famous "socialist protectionist". Ain't that weird?
Obviously, as I stated, Bill Gates is an exception, if all the material, software and deliverance is within Western society.
The average millionaire however must lower costs and increase production or stagnate.
This means having mate ...[text shortened]... reat deals in Iraq at this moment in time.
Party on...
Ownership of these businesses MUST BE transfered to the third world as the work itself is transfered. But what can you do when a mega corporation like Viacom/Disney [reading the future here] are able to "buy off" the media of the world by sponsoring a "Gay Action Day" at disney land one day each year? Not much.
Haiti is a perfect example of a good "socialist" judge, "Aristide"... who's high ideals disappeared the minute he was caught up in Clintons schemes to get rich. Once he had passed a few >edit> million dollars for handling a few transactions, he was discarded without a second thought. Then in order to sustain the wealth he had become acustomed to, he sold out his ideals for what? You tell me. He is the richest man in Haiti, for whatever that is worth.He and you are the idealists here. Not me. Had I been in charge, I would have executed every socialist lawyer within a hundred miles of the island, found ways to build factories, even if I had to steal the wealth on the high seas. But that is another story. He relied on the UN. And France. And the dole from the US. All it got the people of Haiti was more of Papa Doc's graft and corruption. Free Market isn't the cause of corrupt Governments. Corrupt people... mostly socialists are the cause of corrupt governments.
Is there a solution? Sure there is. Lock up all the lawyers in the world and lose the key. Or better yet, offer them a free cruise on a Disney cruise ship then torpedo it in the middle of the ocean. Don't do business with companies that exploit the poor of the world. Insist on "Free Markets" in deeds, not words.
The problem is that we have been brainwashed to such an extent that what people think is a "free market" is actually a 'totally controled' market. Think about how you aid the enemy every time you mistakenly refer to the "Free Market" as a bad thing.
There is a reason why almost every instance of "slave" labor used in the world can be traced back to rich, idealistic, snobby socialists. The rules only apply to others. They invented the worldwide controls on business all in the name of the "poor and oppressed", all the time lining the pockets of their wealthy cartel's.
But people won't investigate. They just go right on repeating everything they are told. What can one do? Not much. A thousand years of inertia is just about impossible to nudge off it's assigned vector. Bill Gates and the very few like him are doomed. They have absolutely no hope of surviving a thousand years of dominance. A single generation. Maybe two. Then the scrap heap. You know why? They lack enough hutzpah and greed to feel good about exploitation.
29 Feb 04
Are you suggesting the head of ADIDAS is a socialist? Do you mean he roams the streets on a Saturday trying to sell his socialist worker newspapers?
I give you he might listen to Billy Bragg, but other than that I doubt he could tell Engels from Hegel.
Aristide is a socialist?
Yeah, I may have met him down at the docks yesterday... 🙂
I read he used to be a Roman Catholic priest.
Now. He could well have been a lawyer as well, but I question the sincerety of a socialist lawyer priest. Seriously. I do.
You also claim that most corrupt people are socialists. Besides the theoretical point that it is a contradiction, because a socialist can hold no power (and therefor corruption is obselete), I feel the neccesity to name a few non-socialist corrupted (ex) leaders:
- George Bush jr. (and brother Jeb)
- Berlesconi
- Alain Juppe
Slave labour is rooted in rich, idealistic, snobby socialist socialism?
How many KKK socialist do you know?
Of course one could argue that anybody given enough power will become corrupt.
But if a thin man eats to much food and ends up being dragged into the ocean by Greenpeace activists, does that mean he is thin?
29 Feb 04
Originally posted by shavixmirHe is a jewish fellow who would rather die than vote for Bush. His parents came from Russia and he would rather die than tell you he is a socialist because that is the form of government that is most easily manipulated for profit.
Are you suggesting the head of ADIDAS is a socialist? Do you mean he roams the streets on a Saturday trying to sell his socialist worker newspapers?
I give you he might listen to Billy Bragg, but other than that I doubt he could tell Engels from Hegel.
Aristide is a socialist?
Yeah, I may have met him down at the docks yesterday... 🙂
I read he ...[text shortened]... and ends up being dragged into the ocean by Greenpeace activists, does that mean he is thin?
Yes. Aristide was a prominent catholic priest and socialist. Before the weirdness got him.
If you are waiting for me to defend Bush, it will be a long wait. In relation to this discussion. He is a man who has fed at the trough of expediency for too many years to own a conscience.
Slave labor is rooted in greed. Rampant, greed. The form of government that allows the easiest and most profound manipulation is by definition "social" government. Sad but true.
I doubt that greenpeace will do that. There is nothing in it for them.
29 Feb 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI don't hold with your argument on 'social' governments allowing the most profound and manipulative forms of greed.
[b]He is a jewish fellow who would rather die than vote for Bush. His parents came from Russia and he would rather die than tell you he is a socialist because that is the form of government that is most easily manipulated for profit.
Slave labor is rooted in greed. Rampant, greed. The form of government that allows the easiest and most profound manipulation is by definition "social" government. Sad but true.
If you ask me, any government dictated to by a minority will corrupt. Social or not social.
The whole idea of socialism is stop a powerful minority dictating.
Again I point to Bush, Berlesconi, Blair, Putin...any of them. They're not socialists, their societies are rancid with greed.
29 Feb 04
Originally posted by shavixmirI can't disagree with you. But take the specific example of what happened to portland when Adidas signed on with ISM, who in turn signed a sweetheart with the government of India. That is a fairly "socially" acceptable government, right? The jobs went to india, at pennies on the dollar. The "contributions" to the government were in the multi-million dollar range in mutually beneficial kick backs. ISM is International Shoe Manufacture which builds shoes for ALL the major shoe companies. There is no difference between an Adidas, Nike, Rebock or whatever. Same group of guys in NYC own all of them.
I don't hold with your argument on 'social' governments allowing the most profound and manipulative forms of greed.
If you ask me, any government dictated to by a minority will corrupt. Social or not social.
The whole idea of socialism is stop a powerful minority dictating.
Again I point to Bush, Berlesconi, Blair, Putin...any of them. They're not socialists, their societies are rancid with greed.
You will never know that if you aren't a total jerk cynic like me. I digress.
The fact that portland lost a few thousand jobs is not that lamentable, (sorry if you are one who lost your job), but the truth is, that is a job that can and should go to the 'second world' nations at this point in time. The only sad thing is that the rich guys who set up the phoney company that in turn sets the phoney contract with the Indian government... those guys are paid up members of moveon.org. They are laughing all the way to the bank... which they also own. The poor slobs at moveon.org just blithely take their money and tear down whatever might remain of "free markets" around the world.
Wouldn't it have been nice if a 'real' bunch of investors in India had been given the chance to buy and build ISM themselves? Without the blind holding companies that launder the money for the fat cats in New York? That is what has to change.
Mike
29 Feb 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAny idea why unions evolved?
Speaking of "Software". The reason we need to ignore your antiquated notions, Rob is because the 'free market' does something that all the greatest and smartest people in the world couldn't do in your beloved USSR. It does something that all the biggest and fastest computers hooked up in parallel couldn't do. It SETS LIMITS ON NEEDED GOODS AND THE ...[text shortened]... leave the homes most dear to them and toil in the USA. Reward is it's own reward. And Means.
29 Feb 04
[b]You are right. A "free market" can have no better definition than "a relationship wherein the employer and employee engage in mutual exploitation, to the best of their ability."This assumes that the relationship between employer and employee is an equal relationship, which, of course, it isn't. Therefore the vast ability to exploit the other party lies with the employer.
Do you believe in workers getting together to organise themselves to redress this balance, or is this in breach of your free market?
29 Feb 04
Originally posted by rwingettThis says more about the poverty of the countries you listed than the wealth of the Forbes list, though these people are admittedly extremely rich; I think you're also expressing things in monetary terms, rather than PPP which is probably a fairer measure, though even with PPP some countries are extremely poor. What you have to ask is this: do the conditions under which Bill Gates became rich cause your list of African countries to be poor, or would they have been poor even if Bill Gates had never become so rich? Suppose we taxed billionaires more to stop them getting so rich; what would this do for the poor?
Forbes published their most recent list of the world's richest people today. Bill Gates is number one (no surprise), with a net worth of $46.6 billion. I did some research, and by contrast the countries of Niger, Republic of Congo, Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali, Namibia, Zambia, Guinea, Madagascar, Mozambique, Mauritius, Senegal, Gabon, and Malawi have a combi ...[text shortened]... these figures?
*all statistics from:
www.forbes.com
www.clickafrique
www.camelworld.com
01 Mar 04
Originally posted by RedmikeI do believe in that right. I stated above that they have a right to strike and/or do anything they want to. I think what would be good in most cases would be to form a coop in direct competition to any bad company and/or owner and put their ex-employer out of business. But that's just me being a stubborn jackass. It has to be "all free" or it is not free in any sense.
This assumes that the relationship between employer and employee is an equal relationship, which, of course, it isn't. Therefore the vast ability to exploit the other party lies with the employer.
Do you believe in workers getting together to organise themselves to redress this balance, or is this in breach of your free market?
01 Mar 04
Originally posted by AcolyteOf course I'm expressing things in monetary terms. That's the whole point of the post, to point out the enormous disparity that exists. Besides, I'm not familiar with the PPP.
This says more about the poverty of the countries you listed than the wealth of the Forbes list, though these people are admittedly extremely rich; I think you're also expressing things in monetary terms, rather than PPP which is probably a fairer measure, though even with PPP some countries are extremely poor. What you have to ask is this: do the conditio ...[text shortened]... uppose we taxed billionaires more to stop them getting so rich; what would this do for the poor?
When you say, "...the conditions that made Bill Gates rich...", are you talking about Bill Gates exclusively, or capitalism as a whole? I just used Gates as an example because he sits at no. 1 on the list. Personally, he probably doesn't have much to do with the impoverishment of Africa. But the system as a whole is a prime contributing factor to Africa's current state.
I'm not necessarily advocating taxing billionaires until they are bled white. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that a more equitable redistribution of resources is necessary. Many avenues toward that end are available. I'm not sure imposing a heavily progressive tax within the confines of a capitalist system would do much good in the long run. But it might be a starting point.
01 Mar 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyBut surely workers organising themselves and going on strike isn't a free market?
I do believe in that right. I stated above that they have a right to strike and/or do anything they want to. I think what would be good in most cases would be to form a coop in direct competition to any bad company and/or owner and put their ex-employer out of business. But that's just me being a stubborn jackass. It has to be "all free" or it is not free in any sense.
You can't have a free market and organised workers - its a contradiction.
A workers' coop is unlikely to have the capital to compete with a multinational, but that's another arguement
07 Mar 04
There are 6.41 billion people in the world. Now let's assume (just for the sake of argument) that these people rose up, dragged Bill Gates through the street, and stuck his head on a pike by the side of the road. If Bill's $46.6 billion net worth was then expropriated and distributed evenly amongst all the people, it would amount to $7.27 for every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth.
$7.27 may not seem like much to many people. After all, it won't even buy you a subscription at RHP. But look at the Democratic Republic of Congo with a per capita GNI (gross national income) of $100. I'm sure $7.27 would be very welcome to them. Plus, the Democratic Republic of Congo has a population of 56.6 million people. At $7.27 per head, this would equal a $411 million infusion into the country's economy. By contrast, the country's total revenue for the 2000 budget was $508 million. All this just for sticking Bill Gates' head on a pike. It sounds like a good start to me.