That's just silly. In a society that is even marginally capitalist, the end goal of each player is to make a comfortable life for themselves. This means that employers have to compete for talent just as employees compete for jobs. According to your theory of economics, McDonald's and Burger King would be in a race to the bottom that would price their value meals at a penny each. Otherwise "how would they compete?" Well at the point where McDonald's and Burger King realize that they can no longer price their meals profitably they shift their resources where they can make money.
Employees do that too. When they realize that gardeners do not make much money they become computer programmers. When they can't make enough money there, they move on to something else.
Except they don't always have a choice. A lot of people work in crappy jobs. According to your theory this wouldn't happen because they'd choose another profession. Except they can't, because no one else will hire them. They take whatever they can get, and sometimes that's barely enough to survive.
Check the history of the labor rights movement for information on how employers forced people to work in horrible conditions, and fought to remove their choices. Sometimes they killed the more "uppity" ones.
Capitalism is a bitter pill, and companies are free to shop for low prices just like consumers.
But workers aren't free to shop for the lowest cost of living. You can't move to the cheapest place to live since their governments won't let you. No free markets.
Besides, Capitalism is just about certain people owning the means of production, and when a very small number of people own nearly all of the capital, then the system is indistinguishable from the worst implementations of Communism.
Well, for the moment there are some others; medicine, physical therapy, and law/policework, fishing, farming and things that require an intimate knowledge of American culture or a physical presence (like some sales).
I've read about insurance companies who will pay for operations entirely that most patients have to pay for a good chunk of otherwise, if they're willing to have the surgery done in India. They fly them out, have them stay in a hotel, have the operation there, and are flown back, all on the insurance company's dime.
Fishing? Why does fishing on the oceans have to be based in the US? And farming would be offshored already except for the subsidies here.
Also, who says any of those new jobs will be made in America? Why not India? Why not China? I mean, the companies who are outsourcing already have an operation there, why not just expand it there? It'll be tons cheaper.
I have sympathy for people who lose their jobs. I have no sympathy for people who want government to distort economics.
So you'd be in favor of removing all immigration controls, or the laws granting corporate structure? And in favor of breaking all monopolies and trusts, as those are extreme distortions of the market. Right?
Or is it that you're only opposed to some distortions of economics?
Another thing: I have a friend who was involved with Greenpeace briefly. She attended a protest they were doing. They were all instructed on how to protect themselves without fighting back, so that things wouldn't get out of control.
Well, what happened was that among the people they had there, a small number actually entered the building of the place they were protesting (I can't remember the details very well. It happened in Dallas Texas though). One was approached by a security guard, and he tried to take the protester away. Apparently the protester did some superficial damage to the security guard, who was an elderly man.
All of the protesters were arrested, and the one directly involved was charged with "assault on an elderly person". The charges were dropped, as they had access to some of Greenpeace's legal resources.
Now, all I have is the story from my friend, who wasn't even in the building where the "attack" occurred, so take the story with a grain of salt. But I don't think that protests actually have to turn violent to be labelled as such.
A lot of what you say makes sense. Of course, it doesn't take a lot of people in a protest to turn things violent - the rest will get scared or angry, and things will get out of control very quickly.
Doesn't matter whether their intention is peaceful protest. The media will paint them differently, and the Repugs might even send some people in to infiltrate and make sure it turns violent. It's been done before.
Reminds me of the Star Trek where they encountered a pair of civilizations who waged a "virtual" war. It was all kept track of on a computer system, and anybody "killed" was vaporized instantly. Made war very clean, and so there was less reason to avoid it.
Oh, I'm certain they'll fight tooth and nail to keep every last cent in their profit margins. But they've already reduced their costs as much as they conceivably can.
It's like the theory that if we raise the minimum wage, it'll just increase inflation since everybody will raise their prices to compensate. Thing is, every time the minimum wage has been increased in the US, inflation drops, or even goes negative.
Why? Think about it this way: you're a business owner, and the minimum wage was just raised. You've got to raise your employees' salaries at all levels, because the minimum wage ripples upward through all wage levels.
Now, you could just raise your prices to compensate. But, you know your competition is just waiting for any opportunity to steal your marketshare. What happens if you raise prices but your competition doesn't? You end up with less profit. So you leave your prices alone, and take a hit to your profit margins, because the alternative is to take a bigger hit to your profit margins.
This is how it has worked out every time there's been an increase in the minimum wage. And it works the same way with everything that someone claims will just pass the cost to the consumers. Because if the corps could possibly extract more cash out of your pockets, they'd already be doing it.
And where would the extra money come from, if corps weren't dodging taxes? Would it come from the customers (who they're already gouging and squeezing as hard as they can) or would it come from the corps' profit margins?
Part of free speech is having the right not to speak, and President or not, Bush still has that right.
That's not actually a right. For instance, you can be compelled to speak in court. The president is required to report on the "State of the Union" by the Constitution. The Freedom of Information Act requires the government to disclose certain documents (and Bush has certainly fought hard against this).
Actually, I believe that commonly that second one is supposed to be "Restitution", ie doing what can be done to make it up to the person wronged. This is usually part of civil cases. Ie, I smash your car, I pay to fix it.
The only other legitimate purpose of jail is to keep dangerous people away from others who they might hurt. "Retribution" the way you're talking about it is simply another word for "revenge", which a civilized society should not promote in the justice system. The punishment part of that should go under "deterrence", as someone who is punished for committing a crime might learn to stop committing crimes.
Oh, because if we stopped the deluge of violent information upon the masses, we might have lower crime and a harder time getting young men to kill people the government wants them to kill, not to mention making them a lot less fearful of the world around them. That would be bad for the government.
If we deluged the people with information about sex (especially factual information about sex), they might enjoy it and learn to have safer sex, which would cause the birth rate to decline, leading to a massive drop in the amount of cheap labor available. That would also be bad for the government.
A mixed economy seems to be best for everybody, and works best. Every modern economy has one. The ones that are libertarian in nature are pretty much hell-holes.
I'm assuming that you're talking about the Frankenstein movies, because the book is nothing like that. The monster hunts Frankenstein down and kills his loved ones because he hates the doctor who made him a monster. After he finally finds Frankenstein who died before he got to him, he decides to go to the Arctic (I believe) and destroy himself, so no one else could duplicate the doctor's work.
He was actually quite intelligent, instead of the dim-witted brute in the movies.
Slashdot Mirror
And I'm not pretending I'm doing them favors by not trading with them. I'm simply refusing to let them drag my head underwater along with themselves.
Check the history of the labor rights movement for information on how employers forced people to work in horrible conditions, and fought to remove their choices. Sometimes they killed the more "uppity" ones.
Besides, Capitalism is just about certain people owning the means of production, and when a very small number of people own nearly all of the capital, then the system is indistinguishable from the worst implementations of Communism.
Better to have govt. and corps of approximately equal power than to strip the government of power and leave us to the mercy of corporations.
Haven't you played MGS? We just need a bunch of Metal Gears with mass drivers to launch undetectable nukes from anywhere in the world. :D
Fishing? Why does fishing on the oceans have to be based in the US? And farming would be offshored already except for the subsidies here.
Also, who says any of those new jobs will be made in America? Why not India? Why not China? I mean, the companies who are outsourcing already have an operation there, why not just expand it there? It'll be tons cheaper.
Or is it that you're only opposed to some distortions of economics?
Hey! We're trying to get rid of our rednecks by sending them to the White House! Don't go sending more of them here!
Another thing: I have a friend who was involved with Greenpeace briefly. She attended a protest they were doing. They were all instructed on how to protect themselves without fighting back, so that things wouldn't get out of control.
Well, what happened was that among the people they had there, a small number actually entered the building of the place they were protesting (I can't remember the details very well. It happened in Dallas Texas though). One was approached by a security guard, and he tried to take the protester away. Apparently the protester did some superficial damage to the security guard, who was an elderly man.
All of the protesters were arrested, and the one directly involved was charged with "assault on an elderly person". The charges were dropped, as they had access to some of Greenpeace's legal resources.
Now, all I have is the story from my friend, who wasn't even in the building where the "attack" occurred, so take the story with a grain of salt. But I don't think that protests actually have to turn violent to be labelled as such.
A lot of what you say makes sense. Of course, it doesn't take a lot of people in a protest to turn things violent - the rest will get scared or angry, and things will get out of control very quickly.
Doesn't matter whether their intention is peaceful protest. The media will paint them differently, and the Repugs might even send some people in to infiltrate and make sure it turns violent. It's been done before.
Heh, I've seen plenty of survival-of-the-fittest libertarian-type IT gurus.
Reminds me of the Star Trek where they encountered a pair of civilizations who waged a "virtual" war. It was all kept track of on a computer system, and anybody "killed" was vaporized instantly. Made war very clean, and so there was less reason to avoid it.
Don't forget the extremely high barriers to entry into the Japanese market, for damn near every single product.
I smell a troll.
Oh, I'm certain they'll fight tooth and nail to keep every last cent in their profit margins. But they've already reduced their costs as much as they conceivably can.
It's like the theory that if we raise the minimum wage, it'll just increase inflation since everybody will raise their prices to compensate. Thing is, every time the minimum wage has been increased in the US, inflation drops, or even goes negative.
Why? Think about it this way: you're a business owner, and the minimum wage was just raised. You've got to raise your employees' salaries at all levels, because the minimum wage ripples upward through all wage levels.
Now, you could just raise your prices to compensate. But, you know your competition is just waiting for any opportunity to steal your marketshare. What happens if you raise prices but your competition doesn't? You end up with less profit. So you leave your prices alone, and take a hit to your profit margins, because the alternative is to take a bigger hit to your profit margins.
This is how it has worked out every time there's been an increase in the minimum wage. And it works the same way with everything that someone claims will just pass the cost to the consumers. Because if the corps could possibly extract more cash out of your pockets, they'd already be doing it.
And where would the extra money come from, if corps weren't dodging taxes? Would it come from the customers (who they're already gouging and squeezing as hard as they can) or would it come from the corps' profit margins?
Why can't it be both? :D
Actually, I believe that commonly that second one is supposed to be "Restitution", ie doing what can be done to make it up to the person wronged. This is usually part of civil cases. Ie, I smash your car, I pay to fix it.
The only other legitimate purpose of jail is to keep dangerous people away from others who they might hurt. "Retribution" the way you're talking about it is simply another word for "revenge", which a civilized society should not promote in the justice system. The punishment part of that should go under "deterrence", as someone who is punished for committing a crime might learn to stop committing crimes.
Oh, because if we stopped the deluge of violent information upon the masses, we might have lower crime and a harder time getting young men to kill people the government wants them to kill, not to mention making them a lot less fearful of the world around them. That would be bad for the government. If we deluged the people with information about sex (especially factual information about sex), they might enjoy it and learn to have safer sex, which would cause the birth rate to decline, leading to a massive drop in the amount of cheap labor available. That would also be bad for the government.
A mixed economy seems to be best for everybody, and works best. Every modern economy has one. The ones that are libertarian in nature are pretty much hell-holes.
I'm assuming that you're talking about the Frankenstein movies, because the book is nothing like that. The monster hunts Frankenstein down and kills his loved ones because he hates the doctor who made him a monster. After he finally finds Frankenstein who died before he got to him, he decides to go to the Arctic (I believe) and destroy himself, so no one else could duplicate the doctor's work.
He was actually quite intelligent, instead of the dim-witted brute in the movies.