Re: Capitalism

On Jul 23, 8:50=A0pm, Topaz <mars1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:07:01 -0700 (PDT), Michael Price
>
> <nini_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > =A0Well no, it claims that it must be better than any other solution
> >for the worker,
>
> It's claims are false.
>
  Cowardly cutting of sentence to remove context noted.

> Chinese workers pay, in U.S. money is from $600 to $1200 a year. Many
> live in company dormitories with free food. They work 14 hours a day,
> seven days a week.
>
  And as I said it must be better than any other solution for the
worker
because otherwise the worker would have chosen that solution.  Do you
know a better solution for the worker?  No?  Then stop claiming that
the
solution that the limited capitalism of China provided is not good.

> Capitalists call this "freedom" because they are not forced to work
> there and they can quit any time. And Capitalists are free to pay them
> as little as possible.

  And we're free to pay capitalists as little as possible.  Why should
we
be free to bargain down their pay but they not be free to bargain down
ours?  Particularly when them doing so means we get cheaper goods?
>
> As more and more Americans lose their jobs to third world workers, the
> capitalists will tell us that we need more capitalism, and we need to
> abolish such things as the minimum wage so we can "compete" with the
> third world. Then they can set up the dormitories here and we can work
> 14 hours a day and seven days a week. It's all based on "supply and
> demand". Unfortunately for human beings there is a big supply of us
> people.

  No that's actually fortunate because large numbers of people mean
lots of
demand for goods and thus for the labour of those that produce them.
Now
>
> =A0 Actually, Capitalism is a bogus concept. We don't have to put up
> with this greed. We could do what J. P. Morgan suggested - =A0that a
> business leader should not be allowed to make more than 20 times the
> average =A0nonexecutive wage of his workers.

  So if he creates a thousand times the wealth that his average worker
does
what happens?  Does he get a pay cut and if so who gets the money?
Why
would people take risks with their money if they know they can't get a
comensurate
reward?  Certainly there's no reason why his workers should get a pay
raise simply
because their boss does his job well.  How would that be fair on
people who work
harder or smarter than them but whose boss is an idiot or lazy?

> This shares the wealth. The business leader is forced to pay his workers
=
more,

  And why is that a good thing?  Why do the workers deserve their
bosses money
more than the people he would have spent the money on if he was not
robbed of it?

> while at the same time this idea keeps plenty of incentives for business
=
leaders to
> start new businesses.

  No there would simply be an incentive to pretend to do this while
actually only
pretending to fragment productive business so that the boss can be
paid 20 times
the avergae workers wage for multiple jobs.  I've done the math on
this and shown
it to you but you're too arrogant to admit that you're wrong.
>
> > because otherwise the worker would have chosen that solution.
> >Whether or not the worker or the employer is "fine" is a judgement
> >call I have no right to make on their behalf.
>
> > =A0Unskilled humans are paid more under capitailism than under any
> >other system. =A0Skilled humans even more so.
>
> Absolutely false.
>
  Absolutely true.  Remember that your precious Hitler came to power
and
promptly crushed the workers ability to increase their pay as well as
institute
rationing and shortages (meaning that nobody was paid as much in
reality as
their money made it seem).

> =A0From a German pamphlet:
>
<snip Nazi propaganda>
  Sorry but pamphlets written by government liars don't count as a
source.

> > And under capitalism,
> >unlike under Nazism, they are not considered expendable pawns
> >in absurd dreams of conquest and domination.
>
> The Jews control your media and your mind.
>
> Hitler said on 19 July 1940: "My intention was never to wage war, but
> to build a new social state with the highest level of culture. Each
> year of war keeps me from this work."

  And yet all that was needed to avoid war was to withdraw from Poland
and
he did not do it.  Even assuming that your lies about a Polish attack
were true
the Polish airforce and most of the army had been destroyed by the
time the
ultimatum was issued and German was clearly safe from further
attacks.
  If Hitler wanted Peace why did he offer parts of Poland to Stalin?
>
> >> =A0No, the economic system should value people.
>
> > =A0Why? =A0You keep making these assertions but why would that be
bette=
r
> > than people deciding what to value? =A0

> =A0 The system should not allow greed.
>
  Well that's not an answer to the question but why shouldn't it allow
greed, given that
it's a basic human emotion?

> > What does it mean for the "economic
> > system" to value people anyway? =A0And how valued were the Jews under
y=
our
> >prefered system?
>
> =A0Jews are an enemy race and we should have a nation without them.
>
  So the answer is negatively then?  I'd rather not be valued at all
than valued lower
than my corpse.
>
> > =A0No it wasn't and "Jewish controlled countries" traded with Germany
> >right up until war was declared.
>
> > =A0Bull****, Hitler had simply conscripted a whole bunch of people.
> > The economy was still screwed and getting worse, Hitler merely
conceale=
d
> > some of the effects for a while.
>
> =A0That is complety false and the Jews control your media and mind.
>
> Leon Degrelle
>
  <snip>
  Ok you just quoted page after page of someone who claimed Hitler was
not a dictator.
Given that he destroyed democracy what else could he be?

> > Ludwig von Mises described the situation
> >most competently. =A0Of course he's a jew so he's obviously lying
> >right?
>
> =A0Right
>
  How do you know if you don't know what he said?

> > =A0And how is that good? =A0Why should people be rewarded for having
> > children they can't afford to feed?
>
> =A0Children are the future. And the system should be changed so that
> young couples can afford children.
>
   Why?  If someone isn't competent enough to feed their children what
makes you think they're competent enough to raise them?  Why should
I pay for someone else's choices?
>
> > =A0"that would formerly have been wasted in strikes and lockouts"
> >mmm....
> > =A0Sorry liar but the "media" is far too big to be controlled by one
> >ethnic group, book publi****ng in particular is very competitive and any
=
decent book
> >can find a publisher. =A0So can many indecent ones like the ones you
rea=
d.
>
> =A0Wrong. It is controlled by Jews.
>
  So they control John Pilger then?  Glenn Greenwald?  Because those
too are not
exactly rampant zionists.
>
> > =A0No person "needs" an ultralight plane, what's your point?
>
> =A0 It might be fun to have an ultralight plane.

  And it might be fun to have things that cost a billion dollars, so
you have no
point.  You stated that nobody needed a thing as a justification for
taking it
away, since you don't "need" your internet connection...

> But a person cannot use
> a billion dollars no matter how much they partied and splurged.

  Well then that's their problem.

> Maybe they could lose it gambling but that should be stopped too.
>
  Again, why?   Simply asserting that things should be forced on
people
is not enough.
>
> >> We need to increase some wages of other people if that is happening.
>
> > =A0Non sequitur. =A0Why would one person producing that much wealth
> >mean that other people deserve more wealth? =A0Their just deserts
depend
> >on their own productivity not that of another.
>
> JP Morgan said that a business leader should not be allowed to make
> more than 20 times the average =A0nonexecutive wage of his workers. This
> shares the wealth. The business leader is forced to pay his workers
> more, while at the same time this idea keeps plenty of incentives for
> business leaders to start new businesses.
>
  You just cut and snipped something twice in the same post asshole.
In fact that system doesn't force business leaders to pay anybody more
since nobody can force a businessman to pay anyone.  It simply
encourages
them to hire more skilled people who demand higher wages while firing
the
less skilled.  Therefore the less skilled are paid less (zero).
>
> >> If captialists don't like that there is not much point in argueing
wit=
h them.
>
> > =A0No since you have no arguements.
>
> =A0 If someone argues that murder is fine you can't just prove them
> wrong.

  No, you can't prove them wrong.  I can by pointing out that murder
is both
morally wrong because it violates the right of self-owner****p and
practically
bad because it would divert resources from productive endevours to
defending
oneself against madmen.

> You can only make sure their ideas get no political power.

  And that's why I oppose you.

> The same with greed.

  But greed is not a violation of rights nor harmful.  An emotion is
not an act.
>
> > =A0Yep, use force when you don't have a moral argument, that's you all
> >over.
>
> =A0 Because we are moral we have the right to put those who aren't in
> their place by force.
>
  But you aren't moral.  If you were you'd have a moral argument for
why you
have the right to do this other than the bald claim that you are
moral.
>
> >> If someone is making billions he needs to be paying his workers more
> >> that $5 an hour.
>
> > =A0Why? =A0Why is the labour of someone working for a successful
> > capitalist more valuable than the labour of someone working for
> > an unsuccessful one? What if their labour isn't worth buying at
> > $5.01 an hour? =A0Should they be fired rather than take lower
> > wages than you insist on, even though you're not any part
> > of the deal?

  <snip non-answer to my question that you simply cut and snipped>
>
> > =A0Presumably you have to convince someone so tell me, why is it bad
to
> > object to government violence?
>
> =A0Unfortunately there are some s***bag humans in the world.

  No kidding.

> So if we are to live in a great society, government violence is
sometimes
> needed.

  Why so you s***bag humans can brutalise those who don't share your
vision
of greatness?  Violence is not needed to deal with s***bags, self-
defence is
and you don't need the government for that.

> > =A0Yep you said it, you don't have to make a moral argument, you just
> >have to use brute force.
>
> =A0 If someone thinks murder is fine, the punishment of brute force
> changes their mind.

  Has it changed your mind?

> The same goes for greed.