a question for left-liberals

[caveden]

And the market is always pushing the prices lower.

Market prices are not always falling. They reflect offer and demand. For most products and services, it's true that their offer increases systematically due to improvements and accumulation of capital, so the prices tend to fall. But for labor specifically, while the demand has no bounds, offer is strongly limited by the number of people and time. The more a society accumulates capital, the more the labor of its citizens is worth*. History shows how the price of labor continuously increases in comparison with most other prices, particularly after the industrial revolution. Obviously this progression is not without fluctuations, and there are many different types of labor with different prices.

*This is so evident when you migrate from a poorer country to a richer one, like I did. For ex., it's clearly visible how much better equipped construction workers here are when compared to those from my home country. They have machines for everything, they barely need strength. Obviously, all these equipment allow them to produce much more than their equivalent from poorer places who so much depend on the strength of their arms. And I don't think such difference is present only in construction, it's probably all over the economy, meaning people here manage to produce more, what pretty much explain why in general they are richer.

[1713554748]

1713554748

[1713554748]

1713554748

[1713554748]

1713554748

[1713554748]

1713554748

[1713554748]

1713554748

[BCEmporium]

caveden,

It hasn't to do with machinery, before they have they worked with arms like anybody else, what is a surplus for US in matters of development is their culture of enterprise; the culture "pushes" you towards you to seek a way to go on your own instead of be someone else's employ. So you get more innovation, and create better and more efficient machinery and methods in the process.

This trend is "hang" on most of the World due to excess legislation and "social parasites".

Social parasites in Europe is what we can call for unwanted mandatory "tachistas" (people with "soft jobs" and friends in the government) run "services".
From a friend that is just opening a game store, other than register the company and pay its taxes he needed: IGAC seals (a holographic good for nothing nor used anywhere else on the World stamp you've to stick on all original movies, games, music... needlessly to say, those seals are freaking expensing) then to join some sort of "club" or "association" he needs to pay 150 €/mo for... well... nobody knows.
For a restaurant you even need to "hire" a "service" consisting in one guy dropping by now and then to teach your employees on "how to wash their hands".

All of this rotten regulation obviously leads people to try to work to someone else as it gets insane to work on one own.

[caveden]

The lack of History knowledge is however more harmful. (...)

It seems you have that socialist-biased view of history. Are you even aware how much the life of poor people improved after the industrial revolution, when the "less scrupulous business" started "exploiting" them?

A parenthesis: just think in any animal with no natural predators (and which hasn't yet discovered contraceptive means ). White sharks for instance. If they have no predators, and reproduce in an exponential pace as most animals, how come they haven't yet completely taken over the oceans, occupying every available cubic meter of it? What holds their population from growing more? The answer is: there are no available resources for it. Marine biosphere wouldn't bare, in other words, they wouldn't have enough food.

Closing parenthesis, now take a look at human population growth rates, from the roman empire time to present date:


Interesting, isn't it?

People were dying of poverty (lack of resources) before the industrial revolution and modern capitalism. Infant and children mortality were huge. Industrial revolution cut that short dramatically. Yeah, life at the 18th century was still horrible if compared to today's standards, but it was much better, particularly for the poorest people, if compared with the earlier centuries. This fact socialist folks tend to ignore. The "capitalist pigs" and their "exploitation" saved millions of poor children from starvation.

By the way, this idea that without minimum wage laws wages would fall dramatically demands one question: if employers can simply decrease people's salary like that, how come there are people who earn more than the minimum wage? Why haven't employers managed to decrease everybody's salary to that lower limit?

until people get enough of this exploiters and we get them dealt on Russia 1917's way; lined against a wall and shot in the head.

As far as I know the Russian Revolution was against the state. They barely had any industrial capitalism there, if they had any at all. They precisely lacked the "less scrupulous" people you criticize, to "exploit" them making them richer.

Blackmarket will exist regardless... it's in the duty of authorities to deal with it.

Black markets only exist because there are prohibitions.

And bottom line: private business are NOT to be trusted. They are meant for create profit, not charity.

hehe, right, but armed violent monopolies of "justice", those are to be trusted, I suppose?

It's funny how socialists attack the greed of people but then forget that states are filled with greedy people, with privileges that no human being should have.

[caveden]

caveden,

It hasn't to do with machinery, before they have they worked with arms like anybody else,

Yes and they were probably poorer at that time.
It's true that's not only machinery that makes the difference... it's capital as a whole. Capital = means of production. Anything that can increase people's productivity. More skilled labor, better installations, better infrastructure and so on. Machinery has a major role anyway, particularly in industry.

[BCEmporium]

First of, I'm not "a socialist", but a "social-democrat".

Yes, from the Industrial Revolution to our days it has been a growth than never before.

The major revolt on 1917 was against the "bourgeois", a class you would call nowadays the "capitalists", the "state" came along as it was protecting those "bourgeois".

Also "the State" isn't meant to be "owned" by nobody (unless it is a Monarchy), so in a hypothetical well-made State, nobody would have any "unjustified privileges". Those "unjustified privileges" come out of some taking over the state and treat it as "their property", but that's an usurpation of the meaning of Democracy.

Compare, for an instance, these guys in Sweden: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n3fQDAfJmM with the ones in Brasilia.

[goatpig]

The major revolt on 1917 was against the "bourgeois", a class you would call nowadays the "capitalists", the "state" came along as it was protecting those "bourgeois".

I thought the revolution was mainly against the nobles, who held privileges. As a matter of fact, most revolutions in Europe were started by the bourgeoisie against the nobles, for they had the resources but were held down by the noble class privileges. Those privileges now belong to the state, but somehow that's alright?

Also "the State" isn't meant to be "owned" by nobody (unless it is a Monarchy), so in a hypothetical well-made State, nobody would have any "unjustified privileges". Those "unjustified privileges" come out of some taking over the state and treat it as "their property".

The state holds those privileges. Think about commons among other things. Anyone who controls the state controls those privileges. Since the state is judge, jury and executioner, it is natural it caters to the corrupt. Who would you rather corrupt? Some shop clerk, so that he allows you to sell a little drugs in the back of his shop, or the local cops, so you can sell drugs anywhere you want in town?

but that's an usurpation of the meaning of Democracy

Democracy in itself is the privilege of the many over the few.

The state is made of men. The same men that you fancy so corruptible and greedy. What would separate them from those "evil" capitalist entrepreneurs? How do you explain that you fear and distrust people who made a lot of money on their own and eventually made themselves powerful but you won't fear and distrust those who became orders of magnitude more powerful for simply slipping a sweet lie to the masses?

[BCEmporium]

Main causes of the Russian revolution:

- The government printed million of rubbles, creating an overwhelming inflation.
- This inflation went to the pockets of the "bourgeois" - who held the logistics - means the people was still selling their production at the same price but buying others' production inflated 4x.

Don't know where you got that one of "against the Tsar alone"...

To trust in corporations (not the back alley guy who's selling something for life - small commerce never been an issue) is to trust in people you don't see the face and you don't know, you would need a tight security to prevent market maneuvers from these guys which would put the back alley guy and all others alike out of business and you can't do it without a government body.
There seams to be a boundary of corruption somewhere in the middle term between "belong to few" and "belong to many (or all)", all states to close to either of the edges are more corrupt - belonging to few by oligarchies and belonging to many by "not belonging to anyone".

Lies exists everywhere, Democracy is far from perfect, but is the best thing to do "damage control" we know so far.

[em3rgentOrdr]

To trust in corporations (not the back alley guy who's selling something for life - small commerce never been an issue) is to trust in people you don't see the face and you don't know, you would need a tight security to prevent market maneuvers from these guys which would put the back alley guy and all others alike out of business and you can't do it without a government body.

But I don't trust corporations.  They are creations of the state, no?

Lies exists everywhere, Democracy is far from perfect, but is the best thing to do "damage control" we know so far.

Democracy == Concentrated Lies & Theft.

[NghtRppr]

There should be no possessors of property. Humans should just work all the capital for the sake of themselves and their communities.

I respect your right to hold that opinion. Do you respect my right to hold the opposite opinion? In other words, if I disagree with you and start claiming property as my own, are you going to use violence against me or my property in order to suppress my opinion? This is the crux of the issue. Anarchism is the only system that can support both of our views. You would be free to live in a communistic society with whoever else wanted to and I would be free to live in a capitalist society with whoever else wanted to.

The difference with between the choices of labor and a television is that, under a Laissez-faire system, the null choice of labour leads to starvation and death, while the null choice of television leads simply to a lack of a television.

Don't you always have the option to farm, fish, forage or hunt? Unless you plan on eating the money you are paid, there's a more direct way to survive rather than being paid to work some menial job.

[Distribution]

Working in a tipped position, I've had a taste of what an economy would look like without minimum wage laws. When things are good, people are happy, making money (based on their skills, not necessarily by a mandated paycheck). However, when things slowed down, people dropped like rocks. Our micro economy couldn't sustain the amount of consumers and so they went on to other things because the money they were making was no longer worth it. Even now, we have a position that makes the mandated minimum wage and we can hardly keep people. They're going to have to pay more to get a more quality employee. Not because it was sent to them by decree enforced at the point of a gun, but because the market calls for it. I mean, in theory, aren't we all being exploited as these "greedy" corporations are only paying us the minimum of what they think we're worth even though they could probably afford to share more with us? And if you want to talk about exploitation, don't get me started: .

[NghtRppr]

I mean, in theory, aren't we all being exploited as these "greedy" corporations are only paying us the minimum of what they think we're worth even though they could probably afford to share more with us?

Likewise, we are all greedy when we buy stuff because we shop for bargains and better quality, forcing merchants to compete with each other in a race to the bottom. Of course, that's a good thing! It's not just foolish but harmful to pay more than you absolutely have to for a product. It promotes waste and poor quality relative to the price.

[goatpig]

Don't know where you got that one of "against the Tsar alone"...

most revolutions in Europe

To trust in corporations

There is a huge gap between private entrepreneurship and corporatism (public funds used for private interest). There is a compulsive need for leftist to be oblivious of government involvement in corporations, all the while calling it capitalism, which is its opposite.

Lies exists everywhere, Democracy is far from perfect, but is the best thing to do "damage control" we know so far.

Damage control against... the government itself? The implication of that sentence is that people need a government. Care to discuss that, cause I don't agree.

[kinghajj]

I respect your right to hold that opinion. Do you respect my right to hold the opposite opinion? In other words, if I disagree with you and start claiming property as my own, are you going to use violence against me or my property in order to suppress my opinion? This is the crux of the issue. Anarchism is the only system that can support both of our views. You would be free to live in a communistic society with whoever else wanted to and I would be free to live in a capitalist society with whoever else wanted to.

I agree completely, the great thing about anarchism is that it's all-inclusive of any niche, and each community would choose and experiment with various social organizations. I would never want violence used against those who disagree.

Don't you always have the option to farm, fish, forage or hunt? Unless you plan on eating the money you are paid, there's a more direct way to survive rather than being paid to work some menial job.

How would one farm without having expensive land? Fishing, foraging and hunting are possible, so long as there are still public lands on which to do so. If the hypothetical world now includes a mix-mash of anarchist communities, then I suppose there would be a chance to "escape" for someone who doesn't like their current community. The only potential problem is that communities/private individuals may deny each other resources because of incompatible economic ideas, like how the IMF and World Bank coerce third-world nations into adapting neoliberal policies.

[Distribution]

Lies exists everywhere, Democracy is far from perfect, but is the best thing to do "damage control" we know so far.

Damage control against... the government itself? The implication of that sentence is that people need a government. Care to discuss that, cause I don't agree.

By damage he means minority. And by control he means, well, "control."

[em3rgentOrdr]

Working in a tipped position, I've had a taste of what an economy would look like without minimum wage laws. When things are good, people are happy, making money (based on their skills, not necessarily by a mandated paycheck). However, when things slowed down, people dropped like rocks. Our micro economy couldn't sustain the amount of consumers and so they went on to other things because the money they were making was no longer worth it. Even now, we have a position that makes the mandated minimum wage and we can hardly keep people. They're going to have to pay more to get a more quality employee. Not because it was sent to them by decree enforced at the point of a gun, but because the market calls for it. I mean, in theory, aren't we all being exploited as these "greedy" corporations are only paying us the minimum of what they think we're worth even though they could probably afford to share more with us?

Most of those booms and busts are the result of government fed policy, you realize.  And the fact that some industries are doing horrible in the recession is probably indicative that it's time to stop working there.

[goatpig]

Lies exists everywhere, Democracy is far from perfect, but is the best thing to do "damage control" we know so far.

Damage control against... the government itself? The implication of that sentence is that people need a government. Care to discuss that, cause I don't agree.

By damage he means minority. And by control he means, well, "control."

That made me cackle

[Distribution]

Working in a tipped position, I've had a taste of what an economy would look like without minimum wage laws. When things are good, people are happy, making money (based on their skills, not necessarily by a mandated paycheck). However, when things slowed down, people dropped like rocks. Our micro economy couldn't sustain the amount of consumers and so they went on to other things because the money they were making was no longer worth it. Even now, we have a position that makes the mandated minimum wage and we can hardly keep people. They're going to have to pay more to get a more quality employee. Not because it was sent to them by decree enforced at the point of a gun, but because the market calls for it. I mean, in theory, aren't we all being exploited as these "greedy" corporations are only paying us the minimum of what they think we're worth even though they could probably afford to share more with us?

Most of those booms and busts are the result of government fed policy, you realize.  And the fact that some industries are doing horrible in the recession is probably indicative that it's time to stop working there.

Right, but independent of the reason that the business is slowed, my point is that when the market can no longer sustain a certain capacity, those employees take themselves elsewhere until our economy is at a reasonable supply/demand relationship. Just because things start doing worse in a recession is no measure of their value when all things are ideal. It just means that with the Fed participating in the business cycle, certain businesses thrive and artificially inflate other businesses until the bubble bursts and things are brought to an equilibrium.

[benjamindees]

For grins, try and figure out how this conversation led me to research carnivorous plants that eat their pollinators.

[em3rgentOrdr]

For grins, try and figure out how this conversation led me to research carnivorous plants that eat their pollinators.

Let me guess...you went on a Wikipedia travel?

[The Script]

I respect your right to hold that opinion. Do you respect my right to hold the opposite opinion? In other words, if I disagree with you and start claiming property as my own, are you going to use violence against me or my property in order to suppress my opinion? This is the crux of the issue. Anarchism is the only system that can support both of our views. You would be free to live in a communistic society with whoever else wanted to and I would be free to live in a capitalist society with whoever else wanted to.

I agree completely, the great thing about anarchism is that it's all-inclusive of any niche, and each community would choose and experiment with various social organizations. I would never want violence used against those who disagree.

This is the key issue for me as well, and it is encouraging to hear that there are those who, though they have different views on property, abhor the initiation of violence to support those ideas.  As long as we all agree on the NAP we are allies against the statists.