Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 08:51:57 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: This is where I stop believing Obama is possibly a rational, intelligent man.  (Read 11124 times)
Anonymous
Guest

June 16, 2011, 02:36:24 AM
 #21

In addition, Standard Oil was wonderful. It gave us the lowest oil prices we ever had.
1481403117
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481403117

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481403117
Reply with quote  #2

1481403117
Report to moderator
1481403117
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481403117

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481403117
Reply with quote  #2

1481403117
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
June 16, 2011, 02:44:21 AM
 #22

Those people were not forced to work those jobs. They did because it provided far better opportunity than they had. Every developing country goes through that stage. It's inevitable and natural.  

You're right, they weren't forced to work those jobs.  The alternative was their family starving to death.  So, yea, no one held a gun to their head or anything.

And, no, every developing country does not go through that "stage."  That "stage" is a constant in a capitalist system because you need a large number of people doing near-slave labor in order to allow a ladder of profit to the top with reaonable priced good - the need for work at each level is pyramid shaped, while the wealth distribution is an upside-down pyramid shape.  Countries only go through that "stage" if they eventually come to the place that they can outsource it (as the first-world has done).  However, when there isn't anyone else to outsource it to, you're stuck with it.  As such, the third-world will never leave that "stage."


Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
Anonymous
Guest

June 16, 2011, 02:47:03 AM
 #23

Those people were not forced to work those jobs. They did because it provided far better opportunity than they had. Every developing country goes through that stage. It's inevitable and natural. 

You're right, they weren't forced to work those jobs.  The alternative was their family starving to death.  So, yea, no one held a gun to their head or anything.

And, no, every developing country does not go through that "stage."  That "stage" is a constant in a capitalist system because you need a large number of people doing near-slave labor in order to allow a ladder of profit to the top with reaonable priced good - the need for work at each level is pyramid shaped, while the wealth distribution is an upside-down pyramid shape.  Countries only go through that "stage" if they eventually come to the place that they can outsource it (as the first-world has done).  However, when there isn't anyone else to outsource it to, you're stuck with it.  As such, the third-world will never that "stage."

There is no ground for any of that garbage. Most people who work in sweatshops do it for a short period of their lives and go on to a more skilled job or start their own business.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
June 16, 2011, 02:47:59 AM
 #24

In addition, Standard Oil was wonderful. It gave us the lowest oil prices we ever had.

See, this is the issue with Libertarians: your god is mammon and you masturbate to money.  Standard Oil was obviously a great business because it gave us low oil prices - that's all that matters, the low oil prices.  Dumping toxic waste into the river is obviously a great idea because it'll lower production costs significantly.  Not inspecting meat product is obviously a great idea because it'll decrease overhead costs.  Cap and Trade is a terrible idea because it'll reduce profits.


Stop thinking in terms of short-term wealth just for one second and ask yourself instead: what's good for society?

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
June 16, 2011, 02:48:59 AM
 #25

That's a complete misrepresentation of what he's saying.


The "structural issues" are that many of the unemployed are not getting their jobs back because those jobs were lost to machines, not a bad economy.  That's a structure issue.  He's not saying that evolving technology is an issue.  Roll Eyes

I, for once, agree with you. The problem is that he is lying. Technological improvements is not what created this crisis and/or is causing the unemployment. Both are caused by the capital structure distortion (the housing bubble).
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
June 16, 2011, 02:51:15 AM
 #26

Those people were not forced to work those jobs. They did because it provided far better opportunity than they had. Every developing country goes through that stage. It's inevitable and natural.  

You're right, they weren't forced to work those jobs.  The alternative was their family starving to death.  So, yea, no one held a gun to their head or anything.

And, no, every developing country does not go through that "stage."  That "stage" is a constant in a capitalist system because you need a large number of people doing near-slave labor in order to allow a ladder of profit to the top with reaonable priced good - the need for work at each level is pyramid shaped, while the wealth distribution is an upside-down pyramid shape.  Countries only go through that "stage" if they eventually come to the place that they can outsource it (as the first-world has done).  However, when there isn't anyone else to outsource it to, you're stuck with it.  As such, the third-world will never that "stage."

There is no ground for any of that garbage. Most people who work in sweatshops do it for a short period of their lives and go on to a more skilled job or start their own business.


Cite a source.  You can't pull stuff like that out of your ass.  I guess that's why Vietnam is a varitable entrepreneur's utopia of small businesses run by three year old kids who formly made my Nikes.  Roll Eyes

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
June 16, 2011, 03:16:11 AM
 #27

Those people were not forced to work those jobs. They did because it provided far better opportunity than they had. Every developing country goes through that stage. It's inevitable and natural.  

You're right, they weren't forced to work those jobs.  The alternative was their family starving to death.  So, yea, no one held a gun to their head or anything.

And, no, every developing country does not go through that "stage."  That "stage" is a constant in a capitalist system because you need a large number of people doing near-slave labor in order to allow a ladder of profit to the top with reaonable priced good - the need for work at each level is pyramid shaped, while the wealth distribution is an upside-down pyramid shape.  Countries only go through that "stage" if they eventually come to the place that they can outsource it (as the first-world has done).  However, when there isn't anyone else to outsource it to, you're stuck with it.  As such, the third-world will never that "stage."

There is no ground for any of that garbage. Most people who work in sweatshops do it for a short period of their lives and go on to a more skilled job or start their own business.


Cite a source.  You can't pull stuff like that out of your ass.  I guess that's why Vietnam is a varitable entrepreneur's utopia of small businesses run by three year old kids who formly made my Nikes.  Roll Eyes

Vietnam doesn't make Nikes.  They don't make anything, really.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Anonymous
Guest

June 16, 2011, 03:17:39 AM
 #28

Those people were not forced to work those jobs. They did because it provided far better opportunity than they had. Every developing country goes through that stage. It's inevitable and natural.  

You're right, they weren't forced to work those jobs.  The alternative was their family starving to death.  So, yea, no one held a gun to their head or anything.

And, no, every developing country does not go through that "stage."  That "stage" is a constant in a capitalist system because you need a large number of people doing near-slave labor in order to allow a ladder of profit to the top with reaonable priced good - the need for work at each level is pyramid shaped, while the wealth distribution is an upside-down pyramid shape.  Countries only go through that "stage" if they eventually come to the place that they can outsource it (as the first-world has done).  However, when there isn't anyone else to outsource it to, you're stuck with it.  As such, the third-world will never that "stage."

There is no ground for any of that garbage. Most people who work in sweatshops do it for a short period of their lives and go on to a more skilled job or start their own business.


Cite a source.  You can't pull stuff like that out of your ass.  I guess that's why Vietnam is a varitable entrepreneur's utopia of small businesses run by three year old kids who formly made my Nikes.  Roll Eyes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VaHmgoB10E
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
June 16, 2011, 03:26:51 AM
 #29

You're right, they weren't forced to work those jobs.  The alternative was their family starving to death.  So, yea, no one held a gun to their head or anything.

So your solution would be to deny them the ability to provide for their family, so that their only option is to allow them to starve to death? Brilliant!
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
June 16, 2011, 10:49:25 AM
 #30

You're right, they weren't forced to work those jobs.  The alternative was their family starving to death.  So, yea, no one held a gun to their head or anything.

So your solution would be to deny them the ability to provide for their family, so that their only option is to allow them to starve to death? Brilliant!

Because paying them a reasonable wage is CLEARLY out of the question.  That would cost waaaay too much moneyRoll Eyes

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
June 16, 2011, 11:01:03 AM
 #31

Those people were not forced to work those jobs. They did because it provided far better opportunity than they had. Every developing country goes through that stage. It's inevitable and natural.  

You're right, they weren't forced to work those jobs.  The alternative was their family starving to death.  So, yea, no one held a gun to their head or anything.

And, no, every developing country does not go through that "stage."  That "stage" is a constant in a capitalist system because you need a large number of people doing near-slave labor in order to allow a ladder of profit to the top with reaonable priced good - the need for work at each level is pyramid shaped, while the wealth distribution is an upside-down pyramid shape.  Countries only go through that "stage" if they eventually come to the place that they can outsource it (as the first-world has done).  However, when there isn't anyone else to outsource it to, you're stuck with it.  As such, the third-world will never that "stage."

There is no ground for any of that garbage. Most people who work in sweatshops do it for a short period of their lives and go on to a more skilled job or start their own business.


Cite a source.  You can't pull stuff like that out of your ass.  I guess that's why Vietnam is a varitable entrepreneur's utopia of small businesses run by three year old kids who formly made my Nikes.  Roll Eyes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VaHmgoB10E


Wait wait... you mean the mega-corporation owned, American MSM and some ultra-conservative, openly Libertarian reporter guy say sweat shops aren't that bad?  Ok, it's obviously the truth then.   Roll Eyes


I guess you aren't familiar with the concept of wage slavery.  It's called wage slavery for a reason - because employees are paid literally just enough to keep themselves alive.  They don't have anything extra left over to save up, make a better life for themselves, etc.  This massive base of cheap labor is so important to the first-world that we spend trillions of dollars in military might and economic strong handing to make sure these nations can never organize and advance.  Why do you think the IMF was created?  Why do you think the US is constantly intervening in the politics of third-world nations around the world?


I'm curious to know, when free market capitalism has made us all rich and pulled these third-world countries out of the dirt... where will the massive base of ultra-cheap labor come from?  If everyone is working a high paying job... who's left to work for pennies a month?

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
June 16, 2011, 02:06:51 PM
 #32

Because paying them a reasonable wage is CLEARLY out of the question.  That would cost waaaay too much moneyRoll Eyes

The free market already pays people a reasonable wage based on what their labor is worth. If you make 1 widget per hour and I sell those widgets for $5 each then your labor is worth $5 an hour. If someone comes along and demands that I pay you $8 an hour, guess what? You're fired. I'm not taking a loss of $3 an hour. I'd rather stay at home, eat Pop Tarts and watch "The Price is Right" because at least then I wouldn't be losing money.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
June 16, 2011, 02:25:25 PM
 #33


I guess you aren't familiar with the concept of wage slavery.  It's called wage slavery for a reason - because employees are paid literally just enough to keep themselves alive.  They don't have anything extra left over to save up, make a better life for themselves, etc. 


Of course they make more money in a sweatshop than in farming just to feed themselves, or they wouldn't apply for the job.  Wage slavery is called that by tools like you, because you don't know what slavery is.  No one forces these people to accept these jobs.

Quote

 This massive base of cheap labor is so important to the first-world that we spend trillions of dollars in military might and economic strong handing to make sure these nations can never organize and advance.  Why do you think the IMF was created?  Why do you think the US is constantly intervening in the politics of third-world nations around the world?


This is an argument for less government, not more.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
lemonginger
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


firstbits: 121vnq


View Profile
June 16, 2011, 02:58:57 PM
 #34

This thread (well this whole forum actually) is providing some nice examples of "vulgar libertarianism"

coined by Kevin Carson

http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/01/vulgar-libertarianism-watch-part-1.html
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
June 16, 2011, 06:26:09 PM
 #35

This thread (well this whole forum actually) is providing some nice examples of "vulgar libertarianism"

coined by Kevin Carson

http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/01/vulgar-libertarianism-watch-part-1.html

I'm certainly not an apologist for big business. I'm an apologist for voluntary human transactions i.e. not being forced by threat of violence to do something. If you don't want to work for Megacorp Inc. then don't. Start your own business, work for a small business or go live off the land.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
June 16, 2011, 09:27:43 PM
 #36

This thread (well this whole forum actually) is providing some nice examples of "vulgar libertarianism"

coined by Kevin Carson

http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/01/vulgar-libertarianism-watch-part-1.html


Excellent.  That absolutely hit the nail on the head.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
lemonginger
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


firstbits: 121vnq


View Profile
June 16, 2011, 10:11:46 PM
 #37

I'm certainly not an apologist for big business. I'm an apologist for voluntary human transactions i.e. not being forced by threat of violence to do something. If you don't want to work for Megacorp Inc. then don't. Start your own business, work for a small business or go live off the land.

You obviously didn't read beyond the first paragraph.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
June 16, 2011, 10:45:02 PM
 #38

I'm certainly not an apologist for big business. I'm an apologist for voluntary human transactions i.e. not being forced by threat of violence to do something. If you don't want to work for Megacorp Inc. then don't. Start your own business, work for a small business or go live off the land.

You obviously didn't read beyond the first paragraph.
I did, and the irony of it all is that the very 'vulgarus' he was complaining about was correct.  Although the rates that taco bell was offering was provablely low, they were still higher then the next presently available alternative, which happened to be subsistance farming.  As crappy as that work was, and as poorly as Taco Bell may have paid, those who worked there did so by their own free will.  They were not forced to do so.  If they had been, then it would have been real slavery, which is unacceptable.  But they weren't.  It's just that the job market in their area and with their skillset sucked.  If you wanted to help these people out, then start another factory nearby.  Offer better jobs for higher wages, and Taco Bell would have no choice but to pay more or close house.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
June 16, 2011, 10:51:54 PM
 #39

I'm certainly not an apologist for big business. I'm an apologist for voluntary human transactions i.e. not being forced by threat of violence to do something. If you don't want to work for Megacorp Inc. then don't. Start your own business, work for a small business or go live off the land.

You obviously didn't read beyond the first paragraph.
I did, and the irony of it all is that the very 'vulgarus' he was complaining about was correct.  Although the rates that taco bell was offering was provablely low, they were still higher then the next presently available alternative, which happened to be subsistance farming.  As crappy as that work was, and as poorly as Taco Bell may have paid, those who worked there did so by their own free will.  They were not forced to do so.  If they had been, then it would have been real slavery, which is unacceptable.  But they weren't.  It's just that the job market in their area and with their skillset sucked.  If you wanted to help these people out, then start another factory nearby.  Offer better jobs for higher wages, and Taco Bell would have no choice but to pay more or close house.


Now proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you didn't read more than the first paragraph.


Since you're incapable of using the down arrow, here's what you missed:

Quote
See, laborers just happen to be stuck with this crappy set of options--the employing classes have absolutely nothing to do with it. And the owning classes just happen to have all these means of production on their hands, and the laboring classes just happen to be propertyless proletarians who are forced to sell their labor on the owners' terms. The possibility that the employing classes might be directly implicated in state policies that reduced the available options of laborers is too ludicrous even to consider.

In the world the rest of us non-vulgar libertoids inhabit, of course, things are a little less rosy. There was a great deal of continuity between the Whig landed aristocracy that carried out the enclosures and other abrogations of traditional rights to the land, and the employing classes of early industrial Britain. The early industrialists of Manchester, far from being (as Mises portrayed them) an upstart class who accumulated capital through their own parsimony, were junior partners of the landed oligarchy; the latter were a major source of investment capital. And the factory owners benefited, in addition, from near-totalitarian social controls on the movement and free association of labor; this legal regime included the Combination Acts, the Riot Act, and the law of Settlements (the latter amounting to an internal passport system).

In addition, the general legal framework (as Benjamin Tucker described it) restricted labor's access to its own capital through such forms of self-organization as mutual banks. As a result of this "money monopoly," workers were forced to sell their labor in a buyer's market on terms set by the owning classes, and thus pay tribute (in the form of a wage less than their labor-product) for access to the means of production.

Lysander Spooner, a hero to many anarcho-capitalists, in Natural Law described the process in somewhat less than capitalistic language:

In process of time, the robber, or slaveholding, class---who had seized all the lands, and held all the means of creating wealth---began to discover that the easiest mode of managing their slaves, and making them profitable, was not for each slaveholder to hold his specified number of slaves, as he had done before, and as he would hold so many cattle, but to give them so much liberty as would throw upon themselves (the slaves) the responsibility of their own subsistence, and yet compel them to sell their labor to the land-holding class---their former owners---for just what the latter might choose to give them. Of course, these liberated slaves, as some have erroneously called them, having no lands, or other property, and no means of obtaining an independent subsistence, had no alternative---to save themselves from starvation---but to sell their labor to the landholders, in exchange only for the coarsest necessaries of life; not always for so much even as that.


These liberated slaves, as they were called, were now scarcely less slaves than they were before. Their means of subsistence were perhaps even more precarious than when each had his own owner, who had an interest to preserve his life. They were liable, at the caprice or interest of the landholders, to be thrown out of home, employment, and the opportunity of even earning a subsistence by their labor. They were, therefore, in large numbers, driven to the necessity of begging, stealing, or starving; and became, of course, dangerous to the property and quiet of their late masters.

The consequence was, that these late owners found it necessary, for their own safety and the safety of their property, to organize themselves more perfectly as a government and make laws for keeping these dangerous people in subjection; that is, laws fixing the prices at which they should be compelled to labor, and also prescribing fearful punishments, even death itself, for such thefts and tresspasses as they were driven to commit, as their only means of saving themselves from starvation.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


View Profile
June 16, 2011, 10:56:45 PM
 #40

No.  And to say it requires capable government is laughable, because free market capitalism is all about castrating government until it's doing literally nothing other than guaranteeing profits for the capitalists.

It requires a government capable of resisting the efforts of capitalists to thwart sensible restrictions on the initiation of force.  I don't see what's so difficult about that concept.

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!