This... Perhaps if the government gave use equal ability of spy on them, by re-instating the suspended Freedom of Information Act, then I might take them, a little more seriously.
was supposed to be... Perhaps if the government gave us equal ability to spy on them or at least reenstate the suspended Freedom of Information Act then I might take them a little more seriously.
The other thing to note is that this surveillance is one sided. I would say that if anything, there is much stronger evidience that the people need to be able to spy on their government but do we see this happening? Why not? Perhaps if the government gave use equal ability of spy on them, by re-instating the suspended Freedom of Information Act, then I might take them, a little more seriously.
Your question assumes that the burden of proof is on the individual so that they may make a convincing enough arguement to be free from surveillance.
However, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on those who seek to limit the freedom and rights of others. So, in this example, the government is seeking to obtain information about individuals that those individuals may not wish to be public. It is up to the government to demonstrate why this is necessary. It can't be just a little convincinig either, it needs to be without a doubt, 100% convincing that this information is necessary. It is a trivial excercise to determine why. For example, imagine a society where anyone could find out anything about you, and could watch you any time they wanted to, even during your most intimate moments. I think that it's obvious that most people do not want this, even by their government.
Maybe surveillance doesn't bother you. What should bother you is the intrustion on large amounts of people who do not want this. In a democratic society people should have a choice over whether or not they are spied on. I'm sure if it were put up for vote, it would be voted down in an instant. What should worry you is what this says about our democracy. It's not just the invasion of privacy that should bother you, it's the overt violation of rights and the trampling of the wishes of the people. What do you think the government is going to do with this information? Do you think they are going to do what the people want?
What we need to do is limit capital flight as well as allow weaker markets to impose tarrifs. So, the best solution is to make it illegal for companies to relocate overseas. I think that solves the problem much better. After all, they made there money here, and they should be required to keep their money here and support the country and the people that helped them get where they are.
There was a space before the last character of the link in the post above. Sorry about that, for whatever reason, slashdot keeps putting a space in the text of this link if I use a version that is longer than a single line. Here is a shorter version of the same link without the "http://" in front.
The answer is that if we do it then it's just, and if someone else does it then it's terrorism and aggression. If we do it, it's "defense", if someone else does it, then it's "aggression". Congratulations, you are beginning to wake up from the spell of the massive US propaganda.
Here's something to think about, if Saddam had veto power, then he wouldn't be in violation of ANY UN resolutions. If you want to get an idea of our foreign policy, and the inherently hypocritical nature of it, then read our UN resolution vetoes over the last 25 years. Here's the link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/8597 16/post s
You can verify this yourself if you don't believe them.
"If people cannot rise to the level of applying to ourselves the same standards we apply to others we have no right to talk about right and wrong or good and evil. " -- Noam Chomsky
The answer is that if we do it then it's just, and if someone else does it then it's terrorism and aggression. If we do it, it's "defense", if someone else does it, then it's "aggression". Congratulations, you are beginning to wake up from the spell of the massive US propaganda.
"If people cannot rise to the level of applying to ourselves the same standards we apply to others we have no right to talk about right and wrong or good and evil. " -- Noam Chomsky
I'm pretty sure Nazi Germany also distributed leaflets encouraging soldiers to surrender. In fact, when they attacked France, the newspapers spoke of the wonderful Nazi Army that was "liberating" France.
I'm sure the Iraqi's will write you a thankyou letter after operation "shock and awe", which is sending 3,000 bombs over the course of 48 hours, completely level's their city and rips innocent people apart. Maybe they could send the bodyparts with the letter to help you understand what this is about. If we want to stop the killing in the Middle East, the first thing we should do is to stop participating in it.
Here's a question for you, name ONE first world country that in this era would go around the world to slaughter (it's not war, there is NO contest) another country. You might name Britain, but I'm talking about countries that weren't bribed or coerced.
You may not be a hawk, but you have nothing to be proud of. This slaughter has no purpose other than to claim oil. If Bush was after terrorists, he would be in Saudi Arabia, if he was after WMD's, he would be in North Korea. If we were trying to install a democracy, we would start with last country we bombed, Afghanistan, or perhaps we could even start here in the US. The amount of hypocracy and lies used to excuse this slaughter is stunning. There is nothing to be proud of.
I'm posting this in a bit more prominent place because it needs to be read.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=52446&thresh ol d=0&commentsort=0&tid=98&mode=thread&pid=5198618#5 201316
Here are some other comments I have posted in the past, the text I am replying to is in italics:
Firstly, what exactly are they supposed to do about it?
That's the whole point, free trade makes it nearly impossible for governments to set a fair wage for it's workers. It effectively reduces worker's rights to zero. It gives all the power to corporations to shop for the cheapest labor, while keeping the barrier to market entry extremely high for businesses in 3rd world countries. So, the end result is that 3rd world countries are not enjoying the profits from this labor, since they aren't the ones that own the businesses.
Secondly, how do you figure that it's $60,000 worth of work?
How does a price for anything get set? It's a balancing act of supply and demand and competitive pressure. When there is no longer a balance, then certain things end up being grossly undervalued, while others are grossly over-valued. So, for example, with a huge amount of labor, and competition, wages are kept low, and are getting lower. However, on the top end, businesses are consolidating and are giving people less and less options. The end result is that the current system is creating an artificial imbalance, and yes, it is by design.
I once met a fellow (suburban Chicago) who had a lawn cutting business and worked with VMS systems. The lawn cutting business during the season was earning him more money than the computer work. He had 8 or 9 trucks going out and cutting for him.
It's important to dig deeper and ask why this is so. After all, computers and technology have far more money flowing in than lawn care, so doesn't it seem absurd to you that he is making more mowing lawns? You act as if it's a good thing. Where is all that money going? Can you answer that?
Basicly what you are saying is exactly my point, even though it might not be obvious. I've been talking over and over about the devaluation of labor. And, you are backing my point up by showing that someone can make more money by owning their own lawn care business than by working in an industry that is awash in money. The reason is that the money in the tech industry is going to the owners? Why is it going to the owners? Not because they deserve, even if in some cases they do, but the reason it is going to the owner is because competition at the top is small, while at the bottom it is huge. Then there are barriers to entry in this market that are making it difficult for people to make the jump from employee to owner. The end result is a system which rewards those with power, while undervaluing labor. The way to get rid of this imbalance is by fostering competition at the highest levels. You do this by heavily subsidizing and promoting businesses that have less that 5% market share(yes, the 5% is somewhat arbitrary, but it's important to keep it small, but not too small). By promoting competition on the supply side, and among the owners of businesses, they will be forced to compete. This will ultimately increase the number of businesses, which will increase demand for labor, lower prices, and help rebalance competition.
This is my whole problem with free trade. It is effectively removing barriers to entry that third world workers have in the labor market, while at the same time keeping the barriers to entry that third world businesses are faced with in place. It is further tilting the balance of competition in favor of business owners. While they may be able to start their own small businesses, I won't even laugh at the absurdity of what you are saying. Who cares if they get crumbs if they are not given an equal chance to compete in the more lucrative businesses? What you are saying is that they will get some crumbs and that they should be
The system is designed and created by men, and is therefore not natural. That is obvious. So, when a corporation get a huge governmetn bailout, it's "survival of the fittest", but when someone that is poor needs money to survive, they're on there own. The hypocricy is obvious and stunning. If you can't apply the same standards to yourself as you do to others, then you have no right to talk about right and wrong or good and evil.
I agree with the last part. However, I think that you are saying that this is stopping with corporations, but it does not. It stops with the owners of corporations, and they know what they are doing. They aren't concerned that eventually this will slow the economy. The economy does not affect those with billions in the bank. As long as there are police to protect them and a desperate pool of labor, they will be fine. What it is about is consolidation. Consolidation is an effort to shift wealth away from the American population at all costs, and into the hands of the owners. Flooding the labor market while at the same time ignoring the already consolidated wealth and power that is acting through consolidated businesses such as Microsoft is creating an imalance in competion. So, we've increased the number of desperate workers, and are reducing the number of companies that are desperate(if there are any) to hire them. The result is predictable. There will be a leaching of wealth from the majority of the world population, and then that leaching will move into the corporations themselves, with the end-game being that a very, very small percentage will come away with the goods, while many will literally starve.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=52446&thresh ol d=0&commentsort=0&tid=98&mode=thread&pid=5198618#5 201316
Here are some other comments I have posted in the past, the text I am replying to is in italics:
Firstly, what exactly are they supposed to do about it?
That's the whole point, free trade makes it nearly impossible for governments to set a fair wage for it's workers. It effectively reduces worker's rights to zero. It gives all the power to corporations to shop for the cheapest labor, while keeping the barrier to market entry extremely high for businesses in 3rd world countries. So, the end result is that 3rd world countries are not enjoying the profits from this labor, since they aren't the ones that own the businesses.
Secondly, how do you figure that it's $60,000 worth of work?
How does a price for anything get set? It's a balancing act of supply and demand and competitive pressure. When there is no longer a balance, then certain things end up being grossly undervalued, while others are grossly over-valued. So, for example, with a huge amount of labor, and competition, wages are kept low, and are getting lower. However, on the top end, businesses are consolidating and are giving people less and less options. The end result is that the current system is creating an artificial imbalance, and yes, it is by design.
I once met a fellow (suburban Chicago) who had a lawn cutting business and worked with VMS systems. The lawn cutting business during the season was earning him more money than the computer work. He had 8 or 9 trucks going out and cutting for him.
It's important to dig deeper and ask why this is so. After all, computers and technology have far more money flowing in than lawn care, so doesn't it seem absurd to you that he is making more mowing lawns? You act as if it's a good thing. Where is all that money going? Can you answer that?
Basicly what you are saying is exactly my point, even though it might not be obvious. I've been talking over and over about the devaluation of labor. And, you are backing my point up by showing that someone can make more money by owning their own lawn care business than by working in an industry that is awash in money. The reason is that the money in the tech industry is going to the owners? Why is it going to the owners? Not because they deserve, even if in some cases they do, but the reason it is going to the owner is because competition at the top is small, while at the bottom it is huge. Then there are barriers to entry in this market that are making it difficult for people to make the jump from employee to owner. The end result is a system which rewards those with power, while undervaluing labor. The way
That's great and everything, but Phd's were more expensive than their counterparts, not less. Thus, there was an incentive to fire them.
There is very little incenctive to fire an employee that you only have to pay ten cents on the dollar to keep. American workers would have to be ten times as productive, and I'm sorry, but even if we do buy into you somewhat elitist interpretation of 3rd world worker productivity, I have seen from my own experience that most Indian workers are just as good as American workers at churning out code. Maybe you are right and perhaps on AVERAGE they aren't as productive as American workes, but they would have to quite a bit less producive to encourage businesses to move industries back here.
I think the problem is that you are looking for the wrong solution to this problem. We live in a democracy, and democracy comes first. If our economic system is causing gross distortions and a huge separation between the haves and have nots, the solution isn't to pray for the market to correct itself. The solution is to address the government to fix these grievances. And, if our economic system proves to have huge flaws, which I believe that it does, then the ultimate solution is to create a new one, or heavily regulate it. Capitalism is not some natural phenomena, it's an artificial system, and flooding the labor market with more employees has predictable results. We have to ask ourselves if this the result we want.
Except that you can't buy and sell people but you can buy and sell corporations. There are many other differences, but that's always a fun one to point out. Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?
One thing is certain, if corporations didn't have owners, but were run democratically (in other words, we made ownership of corporations illegal), then they would be run ALOT differently. So in a way, I guess you have a point, and perhaps if we gave corporation the EXACT same rights that we do people, then things would work better. In my opinion we should abolish corporations in their present form, but what you are proposing would probably work too.
Let me trying explaining one more time with an analogy. If I sold cars for a living and routinely had to send 10% back to the manufacturer because not enough people were interested in buying my products, would you say that I'm doing well?
There are tons of analogies, and I'm sure I could do better. Don't even bother attacking the analogy. Address the real issue, which is that we continuously have 10% unemployment. That renders any crap about labor shortages moot. Again, we continually have 10% unemployment. I fail to see how pointing this out is a "problem" or "flaw" in my argument.
On the surface there does appear to be a difference between a raise due to inflation and that caused by increased productivity, that is, until you realize that on average we are at least twice as productive as we were 30 years ago, and yet the amount of people that owe more than they own has risen. Can you explain this anomaly? What I have been saying explains it very clearly.
Think about it, we have a huge chunk of the population that owes more than they own. That essentially means that they own NOTHING. If you give those people money, chances are they will spend it on necessities or pay off debt, which is good for the economy. Giving money to the rich the way Bush is doing is only going to make our economy more imbalanced.
This sentence: The fact is that human beings do have rights, and that these rights are more important than corporate "rights" (or in other words, the "rights" of those millions to enjoy unlimited profit making potential).
was supposed to be: The fact is that human beings do have rights, and that these rights are more important than corporate "rights" (or in other words, the "rights" of those who own millions of dollars to enjoy unlimited profit making potential).
I should add to that too. The reason you want to limit wealth is because you have to look at the motivation for owning billions of dollars. When talking about billions of dollars, you are no longer talking about wealth, but instead are talkin about power. When the top 0.25% of the population makes 80% of the campaign contributions, and 95% of those with the larger campaign financing wins their election, then it becomes obvious that the ultra-rich are having a huge influence on our democracy. The reason you need to limit wealth is in order to prevent a dictatorship of the wealthy. When it comes to buying our democracy, Bill Gates et al. have no "rights". Period.
What if they go out of business? If they're allowed to leave, at least they have some power against legislature that screws them over. If they can't leave, then I suspect they'd get screwed more (since they're stuck here).
Exactly how would they go out of business? I'm assuming that you are familiar with basic economics. If the business is operating at cut-throat levels of competition, then they will simply pass the costs on to the consumer. If one's competitors are doing the same thing, then one should remain competitive. Really, all this talk about companies being forced to pay benefits is BS. It's a smoke-screen for what is really happening. Our basic economic system dictates that if you raise wages, that that money gets put back into the system again, and that prices will rise. Giving people benefits is similar to raising wages. Now, it is true that guaranteeing rights does affect the balance of competition, but it's not the competition that occurs between businesses and other businesses. Instead, labor rights and unions change the balance of competition between employer and employee. So, Unions allow employees to collectively bargain for wages and gives labor enough clout to effectively force businesses to pay a fair wage. The reason why unions are necessary is because the balance of competition grossly favors corporations. Think about it for a second. A large corporation represents a huge concentration of wealth and power. I have very few options when bargaining with a corporation, since behind me there are millions of other workers lining up to do the job. The fact that we have any unemployment at all is an indicator that the balance of competition is out of whack and that labor will always be at a disadvantage.
I think you really need to keep in perspective who is getting screwed. In general, if you see two people walk in a room, and one person walks out with all the money, I doubt that you would say that they were "screwed". Corporations routinely underpay people for the value of their work. This is in fact how they generate a "profit". They are what Adam Smith would have called a "market imperfection", since they concentrate wealth and power, and create an artificial imbalance in competition.
Your last comment is disturbing. Companies do have rights, yes, but only the rights that we determine they should have. In early US history, corporations had very few rights, and could be destroyed at will if they violated their charter. Their "rights" were not extended until after the civil war, when more than a few aristocrats took advantage of the turmoil that was created by the civil war to ram through legislation extending corporate power. Note that I use the word power, since I think that when you are talking about billions (or even millions) of dollars, you aren't talking about rights any more. The fact is that human beings do have rights, and that these rights are more important than corporate "rights" (or in other words, the "rights" of those millions to enjoy unlimited profit making potential). You can in fact regulate corporations AND WITHOUT FAIL THE ECONOMY USUALLY DOES GET STRONGER. Take a look at post world war II Jappan if you want to see what smart regulation does for an economy. Letting go of the wheel and letting corporations take control is about the stupidest idea that one can think of. Corporations are tyrannies. That's why the propaganda out there is trying to get people to blame the US government for all of our social problems. The reason is that the US government has a flaw, it is potentially democratic. Corporations have no flaws, they are perfect tyrannies. Therefore, they create propaganda to take the attention off the corporations and thrust all the problems onto the government. That's what all this propagada about "privitization" and "free" trade is about. It's meant to make you think that distorting the balance of competition further by flooding the labor market with tons of desperate labor is a good thing.
Simple, you don't allow them to leave. It really IS that simple. They made there money here, force them to spend it here. It should be part of the social contract, that any company that makes it's money on the backs of workers in a country, should be forced to keep capital within the boarders. That's just one way of fixing this issue of capital flight. People with money have only as much power as we allow them to have. The power to fuck over America while they pull their factories out of the US should not be a power that we allow them to have.
The majority of R&D has been done by the US government, not by corporations. Corporations then graciously take this research, patent it, and then make lots of money from it. But, overall, I do agree that the system is fucked for more reasons than just R&D.
Do you have a source that I could refer to? Where did you get this from? The "gassing his own people" bit that I've always heard has been in reference to the Kurds.
Fine, then whoever marked me a troll perhaps could log on anonymously and explain how someone can "earn" a billion dollars? That's not a facetious question either, how exactly does someone "earn" that much money? Unless you count earning as profitting off other's hard work and skimming off the top, which I see no reason to reward. Can someone explain why skimming off the top is a desirable behavior?
The Kurds were his own people, kind of like the Indians were Andrew Jackson's people. Not to say that it wasn't an atrocity, but we were supporting him throughout this atrocity, and helped to keep him armed all the way until he invaded Kuwait. According to George W Bush's favorite philsopher, who is famous for coming up with the word "hypocrite", one should look in the mirror before examining the crimes of others. So, perhaps we should live up to George Bush's favorite philosopher and start applying the same rules that we do to other people to ourselves. This is the most basic level of morality and ethics. If we cannot live up to our own standards, then we have no right to tell others to do so.
Yeah dude, why don't you do us a favor and roll on out of here. Go ahead and go to Iraq and tell Saddam that you're there to take over his country. You're a tough guy, you can do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops, I had a total lapse in grammar...
This...
Perhaps if the government gave use equal ability of spy on them, by re-instating the suspended Freedom of Information Act, then I might take them, a little more seriously.
was supposed to be...
Perhaps if the government gave us equal ability to spy on them or at least reenstate the suspended Freedom of Information Act then I might take them a little more seriously.
The other thing to note is that this surveillance is one sided. I would say that if anything, there is much stronger evidience that the people need to be able to spy on their government but do we see this happening? Why not? Perhaps if the government gave use equal ability of spy on them, by re-instating the suspended Freedom of Information Act, then I might take them, a little more seriously.
Your question assumes that the burden of proof is on the individual so that they may make a convincing enough arguement to be free from surveillance.
However, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on those who seek to limit the freedom and rights of others. So, in this example, the government is seeking to obtain information about individuals that those individuals may not wish to be public. It is up to the government to demonstrate why this is necessary. It can't be just a little convincinig either, it needs to be without a doubt, 100% convincing that this information is necessary. It is a trivial excercise to determine why. For example, imagine a society where anyone could find out anything about you, and could watch you any time they wanted to, even during your most intimate moments. I think that it's obvious that most people do not want this, even by their government.
Maybe surveillance doesn't bother you. What should bother you is the intrustion on large amounts of people who do not want this. In a democratic society people should have a choice over whether or not they are spied on. I'm sure if it were put up for vote, it would be voted down in an instant. What should worry you is what this says about our democracy. It's not just the invasion of privacy that should bother you, it's the overt violation of rights and the trampling of the wishes of the people. What do you think the government is going to do with this information? Do you think they are going to do what the people want?
What we need to do is limit capital flight as well as allow weaker markets to impose tarrifs. So, the best solution is to make it illegal for companies to relocate overseas. I think that solves the problem much better. After all, they made there money here, and they should be required to keep their money here and support the country and the people that helped them get where they are.
There was a space before the last character of the link in the post above. Sorry about that, for whatever reason, slashdot keeps putting a space in the text of this link if I use a version that is longer than a single line. Here is a shorter version of the same link without the "http://" in front.
www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/859716/posts
The answer is that if we do it then it's just, and if someone else does it then it's terrorism and aggression. If we do it, it's "defense", if someone else does it, then it's "aggression". Congratulations, you are beginning to wake up from the spell of the massive US propaganda.
7 16/post s
Here's something to think about, if Saddam had veto power, then he wouldn't be in violation of ANY UN resolutions. If you want to get an idea of our foreign policy, and the inherently hypocritical nature of it, then read our UN resolution vetoes over the last 25 years. Here's the link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/859
You can verify this yourself if you don't believe them.
"If people cannot rise to the level of applying to ourselves the same standards we apply to others we have no right to talk about right and wrong or good and evil. "
-- Noam Chomsky
The answer is that if we do it then it's just, and if someone else does it then it's terrorism and aggression. If we do it, it's "defense", if someone else does it, then it's "aggression". Congratulations, you are beginning to wake up from the spell of the massive US propaganda.
"If people cannot rise to the level of applying to ourselves the same standards we apply to others we have no right to talk about right and wrong or good and evil. "
-- Noam Chomsky
I'm pretty sure Nazi Germany also distributed leaflets encouraging soldiers to surrender. In fact, when they attacked France, the newspapers spoke of the wonderful Nazi Army that was "liberating" France.
I'm sure the Iraqi's will write you a thankyou letter after operation "shock and awe", which is sending 3,000 bombs over the course of 48 hours, completely level's their city and rips innocent people apart. Maybe they could send the bodyparts with the letter to help you understand what this is about. If we want to stop the killing in the Middle East, the first thing we should do is to stop participating in it.
Here's a question for you, name ONE first world country that in this era would go around the world to slaughter (it's not war, there is NO contest) another country. You might name Britain, but I'm talking about countries that weren't bribed or coerced.
You may not be a hawk, but you have nothing to be proud of. This slaughter has no purpose other than to claim oil. If Bush was after terrorists, he would be in Saudi Arabia, if he was after WMD's, he would be in North Korea. If we were trying to install a democracy, we would start with last country we bombed, Afghanistan, or perhaps we could even start here in the US. The amount of hypocracy and lies used to excuse this slaughter is stunning. There is nothing to be proud of.
I'm posting this in a bit more prominent place because it needs to be read.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=52446&thresh ol d=0&commentsort=0&tid=98&mode=thread&pid=5198618#5 201316
Here are some other comments I have posted in the past, the text I am replying to is in italics:
Firstly, what exactly are they supposed to do about it?
That's the whole point, free trade makes it nearly impossible for governments to set a fair wage for it's workers. It effectively reduces worker's rights to zero. It gives all the power to corporations to shop for the cheapest labor, while keeping the barrier to market entry extremely high for businesses in 3rd world countries. So, the end result is that 3rd world countries are not enjoying the profits from this labor, since they aren't the ones that own the businesses.
Secondly, how do you figure that it's $60,000 worth of work?
How does a price for anything get set? It's a balancing act of supply and demand and competitive pressure. When there is no longer a balance, then certain things end up being grossly undervalued, while others are grossly over-valued. So, for example, with a huge amount of labor, and competition, wages are kept low, and are getting lower. However, on the top end, businesses are consolidating and are giving people less and less options. The end result is that the current system is creating an artificial imbalance, and yes, it is by design.
I once met a fellow (suburban Chicago) who had a lawn cutting business and worked with VMS systems. The lawn cutting business during the season was earning him more money than the computer work. He had 8 or 9 trucks going out and cutting for him.
It's important to dig deeper and ask why this is so. After all, computers and technology have far more money flowing in than lawn care, so doesn't it seem absurd to you that he is making more mowing lawns? You act as if it's a good thing. Where is all that money going? Can you answer that?
Basicly what you are saying is exactly my point, even though it might not be obvious. I've been talking over and over about the devaluation of labor. And, you are backing my point up by showing that someone can make more money by owning their own lawn care business than by working in an industry that is awash in money. The reason is that the money in the tech industry is going to the owners? Why is it going to the owners? Not because they deserve, even if in some cases they do, but the reason it is going to the owner is because competition at the top is small, while at the bottom it is huge. Then there are barriers to entry in this market that are making it difficult for people to make the jump from employee to owner. The end result is a system which rewards those with power, while undervaluing labor. The way to get rid of this imbalance is by fostering competition at the highest levels. You do this by heavily subsidizing and promoting businesses that have less that 5% market share(yes, the 5% is somewhat arbitrary, but it's important to keep it small, but not too small). By promoting competition on the supply side, and among the owners of businesses, they will be forced to compete. This will ultimately increase the number of businesses, which will increase demand for labor, lower prices, and help rebalance competition.
This is my whole problem with free trade. It is effectively removing barriers to entry that third world workers have in the labor market, while at the same time keeping the barriers to entry that third world businesses are faced with in place. It is further tilting the balance of competition in favor of business owners. While they may be able to start their own small businesses, I won't even laugh at the absurdity of what you are saying. Who cares if they get crumbs if they are not given an equal chance to compete in the more lucrative businesses? What you are saying is that they will get some crumbs and that they should be
You, wouldn't buy my code, and I don't care.
"Gee, I can't think of anything to address his arguement, so instead I'll come up with a stupid ad-hominem attack, that'll show him!!"
Boy, you sure taught me a lesson.
The system is designed and created by men, and is therefore not natural. That is obvious. So, when a corporation get a huge governmetn bailout, it's "survival of the fittest", but when someone that is poor needs money to survive, they're on there own. The hypocricy is obvious and stunning. If you can't apply the same standards to yourself as you do to others, then you have no right to talk about right and wrong or good and evil.
Yes, and the invisible hand theory is wrong, at least in our current situation.
Our current market has huge problems, with huge imbalances in competition.
I agree with the last part. However, I think that you are saying that this is stopping with corporations, but it does not. It stops with the owners of corporations, and they know what they are doing. They aren't concerned that eventually this will slow the economy. The economy does not affect those with billions in the bank. As long as there are police to protect them and a desperate pool of labor, they will be fine. What it is about is consolidation. Consolidation is an effort to shift wealth away from the American population at all costs, and into the hands of the owners. Flooding the labor market while at the same time ignoring the already consolidated wealth and power that is acting through consolidated businesses such as Microsoft is creating an imalance in competion. So, we've increased the number of desperate workers, and are reducing the number of companies that are desperate(if there are any) to hire them. The result is predictable. There will be a leaching of wealth from the majority of the world population, and then that leaching will move into the corporations themselves, with the end-game being that a very, very small percentage will come away with the goods, while many will literally starve.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=52446&thresh ol d=0&commentsort=0&tid=98&mode=thread&pid=5198618#5 201316
Here are some other comments I have posted in the past, the text I am replying to is in italics:
Firstly, what exactly are they supposed to do about it?
That's the whole point, free trade makes it nearly impossible for governments to set a fair wage for it's workers. It effectively reduces worker's rights to zero. It gives all the power to corporations to shop for the cheapest labor, while keeping the barrier to market entry extremely high for businesses in 3rd world countries. So, the end result is that 3rd world countries are not enjoying the profits from this labor, since they aren't the ones that own the businesses.
Secondly, how do you figure that it's $60,000 worth of work?
How does a price for anything get set? It's a balancing act of supply and demand and competitive pressure. When there is no longer a balance, then certain things end up being grossly undervalued, while others are grossly over-valued. So, for example, with a huge amount of labor, and competition, wages are kept low, and are getting lower. However, on the top end, businesses are consolidating and are giving people less and less options. The end result is that the current system is creating an artificial imbalance, and yes, it is by design.
I once met a fellow (suburban Chicago) who had a lawn cutting business and worked with VMS systems. The lawn cutting business during the season was earning him more money than the computer work. He had 8 or 9 trucks going out and cutting for him.
It's important to dig deeper and ask why this is so. After all, computers and technology have far more money flowing in than lawn care, so doesn't it seem absurd to you that he is making more mowing lawns? You act as if it's a good thing. Where is all that money going? Can you answer that?
Basicly what you are saying is exactly my point, even though it might not be obvious. I've been talking over and over about the devaluation of labor. And, you are backing my point up by showing that someone can make more money by owning their own lawn care business than by working in an industry that is awash in money. The reason is that the money in the tech industry is going to the owners? Why is it going to the owners? Not because they deserve, even if in some cases they do, but the reason it is going to the owner is because competition at the top is small, while at the bottom it is huge. Then there are barriers to entry in this market that are making it difficult for people to make the jump from employee to owner. The end result is a system which rewards those with power, while undervaluing labor. The way
That's great and everything, but Phd's were more expensive than their counterparts, not less. Thus, there was an incentive to fire them.
There is very little incenctive to fire an employee that you only have to pay ten cents on the dollar to keep. American workers would have to be ten times as productive, and I'm sorry, but even if we do buy into you somewhat elitist interpretation of 3rd world worker productivity, I have seen from my own experience that most Indian workers are just as good as American workers at churning out code. Maybe you are right and perhaps on AVERAGE they aren't as productive as American workes, but they would have to quite a bit less producive to encourage businesses to move industries back here.
I think the problem is that you are looking for the wrong solution to this problem. We live in a democracy, and democracy comes first. If our economic system is causing gross distortions and a huge separation between the haves and have nots, the solution isn't to pray for the market to correct itself. The solution is to address the government to fix these grievances. And, if our economic system proves to have huge flaws, which I believe that it does, then the ultimate solution is to create a new one, or heavily regulate it. Capitalism is not some natural phenomena, it's an artificial system, and flooding the labor market with more employees has predictable results. We have to ask ourselves if this the result we want.
Except that you can't buy and sell people but you can buy and sell corporations. There are many other differences, but that's always a fun one to point out. Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?
One thing is certain, if corporations didn't have owners, but were run democratically (in other words, we made ownership of corporations illegal), then they would be run ALOT differently. So in a way, I guess you have a point, and perhaps if we gave corporation the EXACT same rights that we do people, then things would work better. In my opinion we should abolish corporations in their present form, but what you are proposing would probably work too.
Let me trying explaining one more time with an analogy. If I sold cars for a living and routinely had to send 10% back to the manufacturer because not enough people were interested in buying my products, would you say that I'm doing well?
There are tons of analogies, and I'm sure I could do better. Don't even bother attacking the analogy. Address the real issue, which is that we continuously have 10% unemployment. That renders any crap about labor shortages moot. Again, we continually have 10% unemployment. I fail to see how pointing this out is a "problem" or "flaw" in my argument.
On the surface there does appear to be a difference between a raise due to inflation and that caused by increased productivity, that is, until you realize that on average we are at least twice as productive as we were 30 years ago, and yet the amount of people that owe more than they own has risen. Can you explain this anomaly? What I have been saying explains it very clearly.
Think about it, we have a huge chunk of the population that owes more than they own. That essentially means that they own NOTHING. If you give those people money, chances are they will spend it on necessities or pay off debt, which is good for the economy. Giving money to the rich the way Bush is doing is only going to make our economy more imbalanced.
There's always one. Ok, here it is:
This sentence:
The fact is that human beings do have rights, and that these rights are more important than corporate "rights" (or in other words, the "rights" of those millions to enjoy unlimited profit making potential).
was supposed to be:
The fact is that human beings do have rights, and that these rights are more important than corporate "rights" (or in other words, the "rights" of those who own millions of dollars to enjoy unlimited profit making potential).
I should add to that too. The reason you want to limit wealth is because you have to look at the motivation for owning billions of dollars. When talking about billions of dollars, you are no longer talking about wealth, but instead are talkin about power. When the top 0.25% of the population makes 80% of the campaign contributions, and 95% of those with the larger campaign financing wins their election, then it becomes obvious that the ultra-rich are having a huge influence on our democracy. The reason you need to limit wealth is in order to prevent a dictatorship of the wealthy. When it comes to buying our democracy, Bill Gates et al. have no "rights". Period.
What if they go out of business? If they're allowed to leave, at least they have some power against legislature that screws them over. If they can't leave, then I suspect they'd get screwed more (since they're stuck here).
Exactly how would they go out of business? I'm assuming that you are familiar with basic economics. If the business is operating at cut-throat levels of competition, then they will simply pass the costs on to the consumer. If one's competitors are doing the same thing, then one should remain competitive. Really, all this talk about companies being forced to pay benefits is BS. It's a smoke-screen for what is really happening. Our basic economic system dictates that if you raise wages, that that money gets put back into the system again, and that prices will rise. Giving people benefits is similar to raising wages. Now, it is true that guaranteeing rights does affect the balance of competition, but it's not the competition that occurs between businesses and other businesses. Instead, labor rights and unions change the balance of competition between employer and employee. So, Unions allow employees to collectively bargain for wages and gives labor enough clout to effectively force businesses to pay a fair wage. The reason why unions are necessary is because the balance of competition grossly favors corporations. Think about it for a second. A large corporation represents a huge concentration of wealth and power. I have very few options when bargaining with a corporation, since behind me there are millions of other workers lining up to do the job. The fact that we have any unemployment at all is an indicator that the balance of competition is out of whack and that labor will always be at a disadvantage.
I think you really need to keep in perspective who is getting screwed. In general, if you see two people walk in a room, and one person walks out with all the money, I doubt that you would say that they were "screwed". Corporations routinely underpay people for the value of their work. This is in fact how they generate a "profit". They are what Adam Smith would have called a "market imperfection", since they concentrate wealth and power, and create an artificial imbalance in competition.
Your last comment is disturbing. Companies do have rights, yes, but only the rights that we determine they should have. In early US history, corporations had very few rights, and could be destroyed at will if they violated their charter. Their "rights" were not extended until after the civil war, when more than a few aristocrats took advantage of the turmoil that was created by the civil war to ram through legislation extending corporate power. Note that I use the word power, since I think that when you are talking about billions (or even millions) of dollars, you aren't talking about rights any more. The fact is that human beings do have rights, and that these rights are more important than corporate "rights" (or in other words, the "rights" of those millions to enjoy unlimited profit making potential). You can in fact regulate corporations AND WITHOUT FAIL THE ECONOMY USUALLY DOES GET STRONGER. Take a look at post world war II Jappan if you want to see what smart regulation does for an economy. Letting go of the wheel and letting corporations take control is about the stupidest idea that one can think of. Corporations are tyrannies. That's why the propaganda out there is trying to get people to blame the US government for all of our social problems. The reason is that the US government has a flaw, it is potentially democratic. Corporations have no flaws, they are perfect tyrannies. Therefore, they create propaganda to take the attention off the corporations and thrust all the problems onto the government. That's what all this propagada about "privitization" and "free" trade is about. It's meant to make you think that distorting the balance of competition further by flooding the labor market with tons of desperate labor is a good thing.
Simple, you don't allow them to leave. It really IS that simple. They made there money here, force them to spend it here. It should be part of the social contract, that any company that makes it's money on the backs of workers in a country, should be forced to keep capital within the boarders. That's just one way of fixing this issue of capital flight. People with money have only as much power as we allow them to have. The power to fuck over America while they pull their factories out of the US should not be a power that we allow them to have.
The majority of R&D has been done by the US government, not by corporations. Corporations then graciously take this research, patent it, and then make lots of money from it. But, overall, I do agree that the system is fucked for more reasons than just R&D.
The next question that I need to ask is what we were doing at the time. How did our media react.
Do you have a source that I could refer to? Where did you get this from? The "gassing his own people" bit that I've always heard has been in reference to the Kurds.
Fine, then whoever marked me a troll perhaps could log on anonymously and explain how someone can "earn" a billion dollars? That's not a facetious question either, how exactly does someone "earn" that much money? Unless you count earning as profitting off other's hard work and skimming off the top, which I see no reason to reward. Can someone explain why skimming off the top is a desirable behavior?
The Kurds were his own people, kind of like the Indians were Andrew Jackson's people. Not to say that it wasn't an atrocity, but we were supporting him throughout this atrocity, and helped to keep him armed all the way until he invaded Kuwait. According to George W Bush's favorite philsopher, who is famous for coming up with the word "hypocrite", one should look in the mirror before examining the crimes of others. So, perhaps we should live up to George Bush's favorite philosopher and start applying the same rules that we do to other people to ourselves. This is the most basic level of morality and ethics. If we cannot live up to our own standards, then we have no right to tell others to do so.
Yeah dude, why don't you do us a favor and roll on out of here. Go ahead and go to Iraq and tell Saddam that you're there to take over his country. You're a tough guy, you can do it.