[SadisticSid]

Originally posted by Flaser
You could be right - but the less constrained market will crush us eastern countries, and never actually help us out of the **** the soviets and our own lazzy socialist asses has left us in.

Take the IMB for example in my own country - they estabilished a HD manufacturing facroty only to move on 2 years later to Romany 'casue the workforce is almost for free over there - meanwhile they were given a chanve to not to pay even a cent of tax for setting up business here in Hungary and creating job opportunities.

You may be right about jackass politicians and corrupt bureocrats in the EU, but some kind of inertnational unified European overseeing is necessary, 'casuse the companies will screw us big time if countries have to deal with them on their own.

Flaser, what you forget is that the market has been constrained as you say for decades and it hasn't helped all but the most basic industries in the poorer already-member-states, and damaged them in the more successful ones. It is an approach that only limits economic growth and makes life worse for everyone by consequence. Countries like Hungary may perceptibly benefit in the short term, but a free market would benefit them more in the long term.

And the EU remains an obstacle to that.

[Drew]

Originally posted by SadisticSid


Flaser, what you forget is that the market has been constrained as you say for decades and it hasn't helped all but the most basic industries in the poorer already-member-states, and damaged them in the more successful ones. It is an approach that only limits economic growth and makes life worse for everyone by consequence. Countries like Hungary may perceptibly benefit in the short term, but a free market would benefit them more in the long term.

aye

"you cannon strengthen the weak by weakening the strong."
"you cannont help the poor by destroying the rich"'
Abe lincoln

[Rictor]

Well, fancy quotes aside, its a matter of Grade 2 math to figure out that you can indeed make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.

Amy has 3 apples, but Bob has only 1. If you take one of Amy's apples and give it to Bob, how many apples will they each have? C'mon class, you know this, its easy.

Not that robbing the rich should be the method by which the poor are made richer.By the way, I only use richer out of convencience. I should probably say less poor, becuase I don't know what the word rich is doing when describing the act of increasing someone's income from one dollar a day to two.

If someone if rich, and they've earned it fair and square, than that's their money to keep. If they choose to donate it to some charity or something, good for them, but it is their money to do with as they wish.

However, the same can not be said for those people who have wealth and have not earned it. By using unmoral (is that a word?) and usually illegal means to aqcuire money, you forfiet the claim to it. Its a pretty basic concept. If you rob a bank, that money does not belong to you and you should be made to return it. I think most people agree with this. The only difference between a bank robber and, say, the CEO of Bechtel, is that the latter is involved in a more complex form of robbery, which he manages to convince the world is just good business skill.

Exploiting workers, influencing government policy that will affect your business, using force to keep your operations running, these all negate your right to the money which you have.

The main fault of capitalism is that it encourages greed. The personal with the least morals will make the most money. Thats why there are regualtions in place to prevent exploitation of workers and so forth, but these regulations are worth nothing is you can simply pay a Washington lobby group a few million dollars to change it.

[Drew]

on the other hand.

Amy was broke and she wanted to buy somthing.  So she went and picked three apples. Then she set up a stand to sell the apples. Bob comes along and asks if he can have an apple. Amy says utl cost you .25 cents.  Instead of paying the money or going and picking his own apple, bob *****es to his mom and his mom takes an apple from Amy, telling her how selfish she is for not sharing.

Now imagin what would happen if nobody stopped Amy from selling apples, hiring assitants, buying a few trees, and creating a company.

[Flaser]

Originally posted by Rictor
Well, fancy quotes aside, its a matter of Grade 2 math to figure out that you can indeed make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.

Amy has 3 apples, but Bob has only 1. If you take one of Amy's apples and give it to Bob, how many apples will they each have? C'mon class, you know this, its easy.

Not that robbing the rich should be the method by which the poor are made richer.By the way, I only use richer out of convencience. I should probably say less poor, becuase I don't know what the word rich is doing when describing the act of increasing someone's income from one dollar a day to two.

If someone if rich, and they've earned it fair and square, than that's their money to keep. If they choose to donate it to some charity or something, good for them, but it is their money to do with as they wish.

However, the same can not be said for those people who have wealth and have not earned it. By using unmoral (is that a word?) and usually illegal means to aqcuire money, you forfiet the claim to it. Its a pretty basic concept. If you rob a bank, that money does not belong to you and you should be made to return it. I think most people agree with this. The only difference between a bank robber and, say, the CEO of Bechtel, is that the latter is involved in a more complex form of robbery, which he manages to convince the world is just good business skill.

Exploiting workers, influencing government policy that will affect your business, using force to keep your operations running, these all negate your right to the money which you have.

The main fault of capitalism is that it encourages greed. The personal with the least morals will make the most money. Thats why there are regualtions in place to prevent exploitation of workers and so forth, but these regulations are worth nothing is you can simply pay a Washington lobby group a few million dollars to change it.

Even though I'm a socialist (any other term that identifies a disillusioned, progressive communist?), and you're a somewhat conservative righter person (as far as I could see from your posts) I agree 100% with what you see.
This also should show, that some things should be a primary concern for any honest person regardless their political priorities.

[Rictor]

Drew: OK, before any more nonsense comes out of your mouth, please be aware that we are talking about Amy as being an American CEO running a company worth $40 billion, while Bob as an Indonesian 15-year old making $1.20 a day.

As well, please make sure you understand that it is practically impossible for Bob to every make any more than $1.20 a day, because Amy has intentionally made a system whereby the poor stay poor. Capitalism is all well and good, but it works on the principle of competition. Competition does not work if one side is actively working to disable cit.

Without regulations, capitalism is "Might makes Right."

[Drew]

Originally posted by Rictor
Drew: OK, before any more nonsense comes out of your mouth, please be aware that we are talking about Amy as being an American CEO running a company worth $40 billion, while Bob as an Indonesian 15-year old making $1.20 a day.

As well, please make sure you understand that it is practically impossible for Bob to every make any more than $1.20 a day, because Amy has intentionally made a system whereby the poor stay poor. Capitalism is all well and good, but it works on the principle of competition. Competition does not work if one side is actively working to disable cit.

Without regulations, capitalism is "Might makes Right."

ok, i guess ill have to quote everthing abe said.

"you cannot bring about prospertity by discoraging thrift"
"you cannong strengthen the weak by weakening the strong"
"you cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer"
You cannont further the brotherhood of man by encouragin class hatred."
"You cannont help the poor by destroying the rich"
"you cannont keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn"
"you cannont build charater and courage by taking away mans initiative and inddependance"
"you cannont help men permenetly by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves"

(thats all one quote btw)
ill comment more on that later.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Rictor

Exploiting workers, influencing government policy that will affect your business, using force to keep your operations running, these all negate your right to the money which you have.

The main fault of capitalism is that it encourages greed. The personal with the least morals will make the most money. Thats why there are regualtions in place to prevent exploitation of workers and so forth, but these regulations are worth nothing is you can simply pay a Washington lobby group a few million dollars to change it.

Show me the example of exploting workers your talking about.

The idea that the person with the least morals is the richest is complete and utter bs. There are criminals on death row today and they certantly dont have much money. And arnt you aware that the high majority of employers are not $40 biillion companys, rather, small local business?

[Bobboau]

I think he means like when companies outsorce to cambodia and have some 4 year old make shoes 18 hours a day for .4 cents a week.

[SadisticSid]

Originally posted by Drew


Show me the example of exploting workers your talking about.

The idea that the person with the least morals is the richest is complete and utter bs. There are criminals on death row today and they certantly dont have much money. And arnt you aware that the high majority of employers are not $40 biillion companys, rather, small local business?

Cynics and the economically-interested might be interested in In Praise of Cheap Labor, a fascinating economics piece that I was referred to a while ago. Basically it maintains that however 'perceptibly bad' working conditions and pay are in third world countries, they are always better than a country where total unemployment is the alternative.

[Rictor]

Drew:

"While the ability to quote may be a substitute for wit, parroting the expressions of others is a sure sign of mindlessness."
-- from the complete, unabridged, translation of the works of W. Somerset Maugham.

_______

Imagine if you will, two men competing for a goal. To gain power, or money or fame, or to win a race or anything at all. One man is restricted in his behaviour by such concepts as morality, honour, justice and so forth. The other, simply put, is out to win. At any cost. He will do anything at all if it will ensure him victory. Assuming that both of them are of equal skill, which man will invariably win?


Consdier the following scenarios

1. You go to rob a convenience store. You shoot the two clerks that are on duty. You're caught and end up serving 50 years in prison.

2. You use your buddies in the White House to threaten Argentina with trade sanctions if they continue to sell cheap, generic AIDS medicine to Africa. They comply, and now Africans are forced to buy the much costlier brand-name drugs, which your company just happens to produce. As a result of the inability to pay for the brand-name drugs, millions die of AIDS.You do not go to prison, but are instead rewarded with millions of dollars in revenue for your immoral actions. Pat yourself on the back and buy another Lexus.

That right there is the problem with unrestricted capitalism. The immoral win.

edit: The AIDS medicine thing actually happened. Its a real life example if you are wondering.