Happy Birthday Fidel

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

Umm... I'm not a socialist.



Between us two, you seem to be the more socialist one, with your nonsense about making it fair and unions.

Do you think we have a strict capitalistic system. I don't believe in that so what. We have many restrictiions on our capitalistic system the unions have fought long and hard for protections. We have a mixed economy and that is what I am for. I think we are still trying to find the right mix between socialism and capitalism in US and that is what I want. When you don't have strong protections and restrictions you have Enrons and the housing problems we have now. We need to allow as much freedom in the markets as we can and only restrict the markets where we abosolutely have to. Sorry I put you in the socialist camp.

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Do you think we have a strict capitalistic system. I don't believe in that so what.

The U.S. may have a strict capitalist system, it really all depends on how one defines "capitalism."

Originally Posted by Rouger2

We have many restrictiions on our capitalistic system the unions have fought long and hard for protections. We have a mixed economy and that is what I am for. I think we are still trying to find the right mix between socialism and capitalism in US and that is what I want. When you don't have strong protections and restrictions you have Enrons and the housing problems we have now. We need to allow as much freedom in the markets as we can and only restrict the markets where we abosolutely have to. Sorry I put you in the socialist camp.

So what? Working hard doesn't mean unions deserve any more protection, they've been given an unfair advantage. Enron and the housing problems are largely the product of government involvement. I completely disagree with your socialist ideas.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

The U.S. may have a strict capitalist system, it really all depends on how one defines "capitalism."



So what? Working hard doesn't mean unions deserve any more protection, they've been given an unfair advantage. Enron and the housing problems are largely the product of government involvement. I completely disagree with your socialist ideas.

Enron happened because Enron basically wrote their own regulations. Enron was in the meetings and wrote the regulations for the regulators. Senator Grams wife was one of the regulators that helped with that. What they did was lift the regulations that were in place. So they let a non competitive industry with out regulations charge what ever prices it want to charge so they ripped off California. If there is no competiton in a market to control prices you have monopoly pricing like Enron had. The housing crisis happened because of lax regulations of banking and morgage industry. The unions have shed blood over the rights they have gotten. Rights such as safetly regulations, no child labor, 40 hr work week, time and half for overtime enviromental protections. Withouit labor union capitalism in this country would never have made it.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

SORRY!!!!

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Enron happened because Enron basically wrote their own regulations. Enron was in the meetings and wrote the regulations for the regulators. Senator Grams wife was one of the regulators that helped with that. What they did was lift the regulations that were in place. So they let a non competitive industry with out regulations charge what ever prices it want to charge so they ripped off California. If there is no competiton in a market to control prices you have monopoly pricing like Enron had. The housing crisis happened because of lax regulations of banking and morgage industry. The unions have shed blood over the rights they have gotten. Rights such as safetly regulations, no child labor, 40 hr work week, time and half for overtime enviromental protections. Withouit labor union capitalism in this country would never have made it.

Wrote their own regulations? That means that they used government regulations to their advantage - precisely what I'm opposed to! As with much regulation, the laws in place laws created warped lure for accounting firms to avoid showing any financial problems, while complying with the law, keeping their gainful professional relationships with public companies.

The sub-prime crisis was largely created by the Fed and the CRA which pressured banks to give more loans to "riskier" borrowers.

Oh dear, unions shed blood
I'll break this up into parts.

Safety Regulations:
Because of competition the American workplace has become safer, not union-backed regulation. It's quite simple. An unsafe workplace can be costly to employers because they must pay a compensating difference to draw laborers. Thus, employers must have a big interest in advancing workplace safety. Also, employers must endure the costs of lost work, training new employees, and the threat of lawsuits. Furthermore, the American workplace has become much safer simply because of new technology, such as robots. Oddly many unions oppose such improvements.


Child Labor:
Competition is also why "child labor" was eradicated, not unions. Originally children left the farms to work in rough factory conditions because it was nothing more than a matter of survival for them and their families. Howevert as workers became better paid (thanks to investment and ensuing productivity) more and more families could afford to keep their children at home and in school.
Legislation prohibiting child labor only came after the decline in child labor had already started. Look it up. Only 6% of children were in the workforce when the first federal laws were passed, and 2/3rds of said children worked on farms -which is still legal! Regardless, child labor laws are horrible.


40 Hour Work Week:

As the marginal productivity of labor increased over time, (due to more capital investment) less work was needed to produce the same amount of output. As competition became more stark, employers competed for the best employees by offering both better pay and shorter hours. Thus, employers who were unwilling to offer shorter work weeks and/or better wages would quickly become uncompetitive.

that's enough...

Labor unions are destroying America and it is incredibly silly to think that a country, that was founded and became quite successful without them, wouldn't be able to continue without them. Because of the horrible nature of unions (and power vested into them) they've effectively created a tax on capital investment in the United States.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Enron happened because Enron basically wrote their own regulations. Enron was in the meetings and wrote the regulations for the regulators. Senator Grams wife was one of the regulators that helped with that. What they did was lift the regulations that were in place. So they let a non competitive industry with out regulations charge what ever prices it want to charge so they ripped off California. If there is no competiton in a market to control prices you have monopoly pricing like Enron had. The housing crisis happened because of lax regulations of banking and morgage industry. The unions have shed blood over the rights they have gotten. Rights such as safetly regulations, no child labor, 40 hr work week, time and half for overtime enviromental protections. Withouit labor union capitalism in this country would never have made it.

Nothing you just described is free markets or capitalism.

What you described is exactly the result of government management into business. If you don't want to see more of those types of things in the future, then you should want to get government out of the markets as much as possible and maximize freedom, free trade, and free markets.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

Wrote their own regulations? That means that they used government regulations to their advantage - precisely what I'm opposed to! As with much regulation, the laws in place laws created warped lure for accounting firms to avoid showing any financial problems, while complying with the law, keeping their gainful professional relationships with public companies.

The sub-prime crisis was largely created by the Fed and the CRA which pressured banks to give more loans to "riskier" borrowers.

Oh dear, unions shed blood
I'll break this up into parts.

Safety Regulations:
Because of competition the American workplace has become safer, not union-backed regulation. It's quite simple. An unsafe workplace can be costly to employers because they must pay a compensating difference to draw laborers. Thus, employers must have a big interest in advancing workplace safety. Also, employers must endure the costs of lost work, training new employees, and the threat of lawsuits. Furthermore, the American workplace has become much safer simply because of new technology, such as robots. Oddly many unions oppose such improvements.


Child Labor:
Competition is also why "child labor" was eradicated, not unions. Originally children left the farms to work in rough factory conditions because it was nothing more than a matter of survival for them and their families. Howevert as workers became better paid (thanks to investment and ensuing productivity) more and more families could afford to keep their children at home and in school.
Legislation prohibiting child labor only came after the decline in child labor had already started. Look it up. Only 6% of children were in the workforce when the first federal laws were passed, and 2/3rds of said children worked on farms -which is still legal! Regardless, child labor laws are horrible.


40 Hour Work Week:

As the marginal productivity of labor increased over time, (due to more capital investment) less work was needed to produce the same amount of output. As competition became more stark, employers competed for the best employees by offering both better pay and shorter hours. Thus, employers who were unwilling to offer shorter work weeks and/or better wages would quickly become uncompetitive.

that's enough...

Labor unions are destroying America and it is incredibly silly to think that a country, that was founded and became quite successful without them, wouldn't be able to continue without them. Because of the horrible nature of unions (and power vested into them) they've effectively created a tax on capital investment in the United States.

You didn't read my whole post. They basicallly got rid of all regulations and in a non competitive market that brings monopolistic pricing. The government regulations were needed and are need in a non competitive market. Competition controls prices.
You should check some of your history like the coal mine revolts where union people were killed over mine safety. Many of the protections workers have now were fought for with blood. You let big business off to easy. It is a survival of fittest game, and that causes the weakest to break the rules of society in order to win. Government is the referee and rule maker in the game to protect society.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by lew

Nothing you just described is free markets or capitalism.

What you described is exactly the result of government management into business. If you don't want to see more of those types of things in the future, then you should want to get government out of the markets as much as possible and maximize freedom, free trade, and free markets.

They lifted the regulations can't be more free than that. A free market must have competition. Monopolistic pricing happens without competition and then all the advantages of capitalism evaporate. That is what you all seem to forget Capitalism must have real competiton.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

Rights and practicallities are different things. The worker doesn't do it because he does not own the means of production. What i argue for is that the worker does own the means of production.

Socialism doesn't necessitate that the worker own the means of the production, but rather, that the collective owns the means of production. You can't claim to be an advocate of socialism and collectivism while simultaneously alluding to the concept of individual ownership found in Capitalism and individualism.

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

You didn't read my whole post. They basicallly got rid of all regulations and in a non competitive market that brings monopolistic pricing. The government regulations were needed and are need in a non competitive market. Competition controls prices.

They didn't get rid of all regulations, they had an entire team of employees whose only job was to find loopholes to exploit various regulations. Markets only become non-competitive because of regulations.

Originally Posted by Rouger2

You should check some of your history like the coal mine revolts where union people were killed over mine safety. Many of the protections workers have now were fought for with blood.

I never said there haven't been union strikes over safety, or child labor, any thing of the sort. Just that they weren't necessary, nor have they done much (for good).

Originally Posted by Rouger2

You let big business off to easy. It is a survival of fittest game, and that causes the weakest to break the rules of society in order to win. Government is the referee and rule maker in the game to protect society.

Government is nothing more than a parasite on society - not a protector. The game can be played without a referee.

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Socialism doesn't necessitate that the worker own the means of the production, but rather, that the collective owns the means of production. You can't claim to be an advocate of socialism and collectivism while simultaneously alluding to the concept of individual ownership found in Capitalism and individualism.

The worker does own the means of production as a member of the collective workforce.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

The worker does own the means of production as a member of the collective workforce.

the only thing he "owns" is his labor, his effort, his sweat. you try building tables with sweat and I'll build mine with a hammer and nails and we'll see who finishes first.

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by 7960

the only thing he "owns" is his labor, his effort, his sweat. you try building tables with sweat and I'll build mine with a hammer and nails and we'll see who finishes first.

In capitalism that is all he owns. In socialism the collective workforce own the means of production. So i really dont know the relevence of your post.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

They didn't get rid of all regulations, they had an entire team of employees whose only job was to find loopholes to exploit various regulations. Markets only become non-competitive because of regulations.
Enron was in the meetings when they deregulated the market. That means taking regulations away. When you have only one company in a market or one that controls most of the market you have a non competitive market and monopolistic pricing. Since Enron had no competition they over charged California, you need regulations in a non competitive market and there were, but they were taken away. They also did a lot of their trading out of the united states to lose over sight.


I never said there haven't been union strikes over safety, or child labor, any thing of the sort. Just that they weren't necessary, nor have they done much (for good).
I think the coal miners would disagree with that. Those safety laws they fought for saved lives.


Government is nothing more than a parasite on society - not a protector. The game can be played without a referee.

The game is survival of the fittest that means one company or a few companies will eventually control the market. Then you have a monopoly and competiton no longer conrols prices and capitalism loses it efficiency. One of the good things that governments do is fight monopolies.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

In capitalism that is all he owns. In socialism the collective workforce own the means of production. So i really dont know the relevence of your post.

in your system I can't own a hammer so I only have what the state says I can have.

in mine I get to choose if I want a hammer or not.

your system sucks.

[7960]

jailed because castro doesn't like him

Cuba to try anti-Castro punk rocker Gorki Aguila - 08/28/2008 - MiamiHerald.com



yeah, like I said, your system sucks.

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

The game is survival of the fittest that means one company or a few companies will eventually control the market. Then you have a monopoly and competiton no longer conrols prices and capitalism loses it efficiency. One of the good things that governments do is fight monopolies.

Monopolies only form with government assistance in some way, natural monopolies don't exist. Government does nothing good.

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by 7960

jailed because castro doesn't like him

Cuba to try anti-Castro punk rocker Gorki Aguila - 08/28/2008 - MiamiHerald.com



yeah, like I said, your system sucks.

Charged with "pre-crime social dangerousness,''
That's hilarious (and awful).

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by 7960

in your system I can't own a hammer so I only have what the state says I can have.

in mine I get to choose if I want a hammer or not.

your system sucks.

You just obviously dont understand the system if you think that