Boris' pissed off and he's telling you why

[Fake Boris]

Which is their own fault. If you get the point where it is loan or die, then you damn well better accept the terms of the loan agreement, because they don't have to loan you money. They could let you die.

Remember, this argument was about freedom of choice. When you say "then you damn well better accept the terms", you are making my point. They didn't really have much of a choice (though it turned out that they did, according to Q-Cubed). I will be verifying this myself.

And I call it giving people a much better job oppertunity.

Whatever. I have not denied that they offer better conditions (less worse would be more appropriate). What I have claimed is that as long as these conditions are intrusive on one's fundamental rights, they are wrong. Who cares if the empoverished one is willing to give them up? It is one's moral duty, when he is on the powerful side of a transaction, to REFUSE them. Slavery will always be criminal, even if someone wants to be your slave. If a seven-years old want to mate with you, it is your duty to refuse. Corporations are not moral or political entities. They are economic ones. Which means the only way we can make sure they respect basic rights is to force them with the law.

You sure know about Free Trade zones. These are chunks of territories in Third World Countries in which the (already deficient) social protection rules of these countries do not apply. There are some in many parts of the world, including Mexico, Indonesia and Malaysia. Nike's sweatshops are built in these. If what you said here was true:

They aren't going to support empoverishing people because that leads to LESS PROFIT! Corporations just don't want some profit, they want to maximize profit

Why is it then that they love these free zones where salaries are obviously lower than anywhere else in the world? Why would they even build a shop there, if they believed in some regulations that brought welfare to everyone? Why don't you ever see a story on Fox News saying how these zones are detrimental to the world's economy, if that's what the tycoons think? Self-censorship, I guess. Rupert Murdoch is a master of black humor, who enjoys his television channels saying the exact opposite of what he thinks out of sheer amusement.

Let's go on with my favorite quote, in which you claimed that reducing workers' wage was the best way to cut costs but:

Only in labor-intensive unskilled work. In capital-intensive skilled jobs such a program is a recipe for disaster.

If you had read thoroughly my previous posts, you would have known better that this a point I have been defending from the beginning. What you fail to mention is that unskilled manufacturing jobs still amounts to a good chunk of the Americam economy. Ergo, the sweatshops. Why pay 500$ a week to an American if an Indonesian child will do it for 25$?
What American corporations want from the Third World is natural resources and cheap, unskilled labor. R&D jobs and those that require a skilled workforce are handled directly in the West. Look at Intel: their fabs are in Mexico and Malaysia, their research facility at Palo Alto. Phone companies have moved their phone call centers to India, but certainly not their engineers. Taiwanese companies have their research centers in Taiwan and their fabs in continental China.
American oil and mining corporations don't build schools in the countries where they get the natural resources. Rather, they bring in their own engineers and natives get to clean toilets and drive trucks. Foreign workers live in closed quarters with armed guards, because, guess what? The natives understand that the companies are here to pillage resources and are quite pissed about it. Why would the corporations spend billions on educating the masses of the Third World by having their profits taxed, if the Western education system is sufficient in giving them the right amount of skilled workers? Why would corporations want a workforce they use for unskilled labor to be rich and educated? They want them to starve, as to make sure they can impose their own working conditions.
And what's the best way to achieve this? Absolute social deregulation in poor countries (free trade zones are close to anarcho-capitalism, in that the corporations hire armed guards to prevent their workers from protesting), and a welfare compromise in the Western, importing countries.

Is it truely a free choice that you will take a job? Silly argument. There is and never will be an absense of all coercion. You need to work to make money to eat, for shelter, etc. If you want to say that ain't a free choice, then fine. But you still got the choice, even if it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Apparently, the greatest philosophers of the humanist tradition don't think so. That no one should have to work for food, shelter, healthcare and education is a widely accepted social concept in True Social-Democracies: Quebec, France, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, etc. The goal of this: counterbalance the tycoons' might by forcing them to give more than the Social Security would anyway.
This doctrine of social spendings was at the root of the Europen success in the 50s. France experienced its highest economic growth rate in history just when public spendings were skyrocketing. They got a huge debt too, but their economy is sufficient to repay it now.
Quebec started a "social-democrat" revolution in the sixties, at a time it was the poorest province in Canada. They nationalized plenty of enterprises too (I'll get back to it later). Now, right wingers in Canada always point out that Quebec is still poorer than the other provinces. They forget to specify that the gap has been reduced.
Claiming that economic growth can only be achieved through deregulation is pure BS. Sweden's growth rate exceeded the US in a good part of the 90s, and so did Canada

Now, let's get to it: You can conjugate social justice with growth, not by waiting 100 years for the market to improve workers' condition, but by building a Welfare State in a matter of 5-10 years that will take care of the poor IMMEDIATELY.

It was about economic domination in that it was necessary to prevent the USSR from getting control of such countries- which would obviously have given them some sort of economical edge.

Oh come on . Yes, having these countries would have given the USSR an economic edge, so that is why we opposed it. It couldn't have anything to do with having a political edge in the Cold War?

Both are linked, actually. You can't talk political power without talking economic power (this also applies to domestic politics, in regard to Corporations).
The fact is, political prestige is an excellent way to integrate a country's economy.
"Look, we were stronger than the commies in Vietnam, so instead of waging a useless war just let us take your natural resources and shut up. We'll even give you discounted armaments so that you can eradicate the communist guerillas".

In the case of Vietnam, it was about destroying the entire country so that people might think twice before engaging in communist guerilla in other places. It was also about funding the militaro-industrial complex.

The war was long, mainly to ensure total annihilation and huge equipment losses that would result in big cash replacement contracts.
True, the US didn't expect the resistance to be that strong. But in the end it fitted their agenda nicely.

Do you actually believe the BS that flows from your mouth? The US wanted the war in Vietnam to be a quagmire so they could benefit military industries?

This one has been thoroughly documented by American historians themselves. Seeing how Vietnam was ravaged, many leaders became fiercely anti-communist and were more willing to help America in eradicating the communsit guerillas.
And the military industries? They killed JFK because they feared he wasn't going to Vietnam. When we finally get access to the archives in a few years, all of this will become official.

And rising. I mean it isn't like Chavez talked about nationalizing industies... oh wait... he did!

First fallacy: The fact remains that if 30% public spending is fine for the US, why wouldn'it be for Venezuela? 20% is not a lot anyway,

Second fallacy: The fact remains too that Chavez had been democratically elected. The people asked for what he did. Meddling in foreign nations' domestic policy by force is criminal. Even more when they are democratic. America can decide what's good for themselves, and so can Venezuela.

Third fallacy: You seem to think Nationalization is something like a crime against humanity. History proves us that some cases went well, while others went wrong. It all depends on how you do it. I'll talk to you about the Province of Quebec and their nationalization program.

In the sixties, the government bought all electricty companies to create a state monopoly. The new society was called Hydro-Quebec. Hydro-Quebec built some of the largest dams in the world, and developed such an expertise that they were asked for help by India and China. At the same time, they have been leaders in woman equity programs and reputed for extremely good worker treatment. Today, electricity in Quebec is the cheapest in the world, yet Hydro-Quebec manages a profit of over a billion every year, that is reinvested in public healthcare and education.
A few years ago, Hydro-Quebec had developed an electric car prototype. GM was so impressed that they bought the patent. Not bad, for a state-owned, innovation-hindering public monopoly. Talk about nationalization done right.
In Ontario, the privatization of Hydro-Ontario last year has brought prices up by 40%, and relieved citizens of the company's profits. (Ontario citizens: correct me if any of my facts are wrong. I assume they aren't since I took them in Canadian newspapers).

Corporations do not want people to be rich. They want to sell their products.

Thanks for contradicting yourself in back-to-back sentances.

Now, that collective wealth appears to be beneficial to a company's profit is true.
What is false, however is the assumption that said companies will be willing to pay out of their own pocket for such collective wealth.

Ask McDonalds if they would like to get rid of the welfare state, seeing as they would lose a ton of money if it was gone.

McDonald's is exactly the kind of enterprise that would benefit from a reduction of the minimal wage, because their workforce is unskilled. At some point, a country's wealth is such that it can sustain deregulation, because a good part of their workforce is skilled anyway, and because the standard of life thay have achieved is solid enough to be transmitted to their children. When the poor do not make anymore the majority of a population, you can safely assume that the middle class could benefit from tax reductions that would increase their purchasing power at the detriment of the lesser classes: janitors, security guards, secretaries, telemarketers, etc. Reducing welfare given to such people in order to cut the middle class taxes would be detrimental to only a small number of people.

USA is not very far from that point. And the Corporations know it.

Look at the CEOs rather than the corporation. Bill Gates has spent a small fortune on charity and so have other CEOs.

A study conducted by the Fraser Institute (right-wing think thank) concludes that charity donations, though higher in the US than in Canada, do not even compensate for a quarter of the gap created by the higher, obligatory State charity in Canada.
And Bill Gates? He'd save everyone's money if he spent his charity on promoting Linux instead of teaching Indian schoolgirls how nice and secure is Windows XP.

Corporations usually don't give much money to charity because it AIN'T THEIR MONEY TO GIVE!

Exactly. They want it to be our money to give. Bush's greatest and latest tax reductions mainly concerned corporate tax, not income tax. Corporations will tolerate Social-democracy as long as they don't carry the most part of its burden.

The job of the officers and directors are to make money for their shareholders. The individual officers and directors, however, can be extremely generous in their giving.

False. What these guys want is no corporate tax and all income tax. Why? Because tax evasion is so much easier when you've got the millions to hire fiscalist lawyers and professional accountants. The middle-class don't get nearly as much of a chance to evade tax. They only have petty means, such as a restaurant not declaring a trade or someone being paid in cash for oddwork.

But in fact, the huge majority of the corporations would have the goverment simply end the welfare state. Wealth is here; they don't give a damn as to how it is distributed. As long as it is spent.

It has been shown that more money will be spent if given to the poor. That is because there are things they wish to purchase but cannot afford. So, of course, corporations back some welfare state. But they'll only back the basic sustenance level and then would prefer tax cuts for the poor.

Notwithstanding that social-democracy is not about taxing the poor. True SDs do not tax the poor.
And what is a poor, exactly? Someone who spends most if his salary on his rent, his food and his electricity. Being poor is only a relative state compared to other members of your society. There will always be some people who have to pay a higher percentage of their salary on basic commodities, simply because upper classes put a forward pressure on prices. These people will never be really interesting to the Corporations as buyers of products and services.
If the US is really taxing the poor, then Corporations can only laugh their ass out of this orgasmic social measure. But then they'd rather have their own tax cut than the poor's. After all, it is not "THEIR money to spend", eh?

As for your point that more money is spent if given to the poor, it is only true to the point that welfare money spent on education can help a poor to improve his standard of life and become a middle-class (such is the idea behind dirt-cheap university costs in SDs). Welfare won't make the poor buy brand new cars and Pentium 4 Extreme Editions.

A. What is wrong with profit?

Nothing, really. Except that, as I have repeatedly said, profits acquired through an immoral "freedom surrender" are unacceptable. Except that you cannot expect corporations to adopt any code of conduct. You have to regulate them yourself, whithin your democractic institutions. In no case should economic freedom be more important than human rights, and in no case should it overrule political power and sovereignty.

B. They aren't going to support empoverishing people because that leads to LESS PROFIT! Corporations just don't want some profit, they want to maximize profit, and that comes when plenty of people can afford their goods. That means some basic welfare system and low taxes (high taxes means less disposable income, leading to less purchases).

The term "maximization" also includes a time constraint. 50 years is too long for most tycoons. Most would rather make more profits now and reinvest the money on other projects now. This approach can work very well and doesn't have to take into account such things as "long-term social development".
A tycoon will rather build a second sweatshop with the profits of the first one, or takeover his competitor's, than take a lifetime waiting for a country's infrastructure and standard of life to improve.
Again, I will reiterate that emoverishing part of a society can be extremely profitable to their simple manufacturing business.

You can have a semi-socialist state which closes off economic growth and wealth to a large sector of the economy or you can use the free market to help bring your people wealth. Hell, even formerly 'communist' countries like China are embracing the free market to increase their wealth.

I wonder why is it that Sweden, France and Canada are rich countries. They are much more Social-democrat than the US.
I've just read an article in my local newspaper (independant paper) about Romanian immigrants. They were saying that they had just one lifetime and that it was unfair to sacrifice two or three generations to some tycoon's profits, and how they were disappointed of the way capitalism turned out to be in Romania.

This as always been one of Marx principal argument: people are suffering right now; there is no such thing as paradise after death. Ignoring this by letting our huge corporations deal with them unopposed is pure cruelty.

And no, corporations have not been known to show great care towards social interests.

[Imran Siddiqui]

this argument was about freedom of choice. When you say "then you damn well better accept the terms", you are making my point. They didn't really have much of a choice

Of course they do. You always have a choice. You don't have to take the loan. You can try to scrabble by on your own. Why should they loan you anything anyway?

What I have claimed is that as long as these conditions are intrusive on one's fundamental rights, they are wrong.

How were they intrusive on 'fundamental rights'? And what are 'fundamental rights'? What you decide they are?

Why is it then that they love these free zones where salaries are obviously lower than anywhere else in the world?

You do realize they are paying higher salaries in these countries so they are ENRICHING their workers, not empoverating them. As corporations compete over 'sweatshops' the wages will continue to rise.

hat no one should have to work for food, shelter, healthcare and education is a widely accepted social concept in True Social-Democracies: Quebec, France, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, etc.

So if you decide to sit on your ass you can get free food and shelter? Why work?

You can conjugate social justice with growth, not by waiting 100 years for the market to improve workers' condition, but by building a Welfare State in a matter of 5-10 years that will take care of the poor IMMEDIATELY.

It'll be much quicker than 100 years with a free trade system. You can super slow down your growth by switching to a social democracy early if you want, but for the benefit of the economy (and thus the people) it's better to open up the economy.

The fact remains that if 30% public spending is fine for the US, why wouldn'it be for Venezuela? 20% is not a lot anyway,

You seem to focus on these numbers. Have you ever taken into account that Chavez's spending would be much greater without the great protests when he attempted to carry out his left-wing wacko plan.

Meddling in foreign nations' domestic policy by force is criminal.

I assume it would have been wrong to take out Hitler in 1938 then?

Today, electricity in Quebec is the cheapest in the world, yet Hydro-Quebec manages a profit of over a billion every year

Cite?

McDonald's is exactly the kind of enterprise that would benefit from a reduction of the minimal wage, because their workforce is unskilled.

Yes, because most of their customers aren't of the lower wage sort. If they lose money, McDonalds is hurt greatly, even if they can pay their workers less.

Because tax evasion is so much easier when you've got the millions to hire fiscalist lawyers and professional accountants.

Again, you ignore what really happens. When taxes are high is when tax evasion takes off. Why spend money to evade taxes when they are low? It is too much trouble. Too much oppertunity cost. When taxes are high, the oppertunity cost doesn't look like so much in comparison.

And the military industries? They killed JFK because they feared he wasn't going to Vietnam. When we finally get access to the archives in a few years, all of this will become official.

I feel like I'm talking to Fez. Anyone who believes this just isn't going to respond to rational discussion.

A tycoon will rather build a second sweatshop with the profits of the first one, or takeover his competitor's, than take a lifetime waiting for a country's infrastructure and standard of life to improve.

Which improves the country's infrastruction and standard of living when there is another factory that pays more than another other job the workers can get.

I wonder why is it that Sweden, France and Canada are rich countries. They are much more Social-democrat than the US.

Sweden, France, and Canada were all built through the market. Only recently has Sweden gone nuts. France grew very nice when they engaged in privatization a few decades back. Canada has always had less of a social democratic state than those of Europe.

[Lonestar]

Oncle Boris, as a member of the Proletariat ( Lower-rank enlisted sailor) I am compelled to ask....


Who shat in your cereal?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I guess I'm Proletariat right now as well... though I work for the government, so I may be a civil servent .

[Lonestar]

No, no....you're a Beaurcrat(spelling is for the week) who helps the capitalist exploiters maintain control. I'm a worker with holding the bayonet. Or something. Actually, In my situation it would be the electronics collection stuff.

Hell, I don't know.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, no....you're a Beaurcrat(spelling is for the week) who helps the capitalist exploiters maintain control. I'm a worker with holding the bayonet. Or something. Actually, In my situation it would be the electronics collection stuff.

Aren't you an exploiter as well?

Worker with a bayonet

[Japher]

You speak of denying the poor their rights, but in doing so you wish to take rights away rights from the rich.

You are a selective oppressor.

The problem you really have is in inadequatly ran social programs, and you believe that these can be fixed by throwing more money at the problem.

Your idea of capitalist social-democracy is flawed on the fundamental core of what capitalism is, if it weren't for end reward and compesation there would be no desire for success. Why work if you can do nothing and make the same? It is this competition that fuels capitalism and makes these ultra-rich you wish to penalize for their invaluable contributions to society, not to mention the fact that these people pay almost all of the taxes which go to fun these poorly managed social programs.

The main problem is that you desire to allow the "popular kid" to determine the fate of a whole nation, to put all the money and control into that persons hands. Everyones welfare would be at the demise of whoever lied the best; socialism.

However, in a capitalist democracy it does, at times, seem to go to whoever has the deepest pockets, but at least that person does not have the same magnitude of control over my well-being, future, and comfort as one does in a socialist society.

Is it fair? no. Yet, it is more fair than to give those who want but do not want to work for it:

That no one should have to work for food, shelter, healthcare and education is a widely accepted social concept in True Social-Democracies

Is a BS concpet, everything should have it's price. Following this concept, alone, will leave you with a country full of sponges. The only reason those countries you list can do anything is because they are also capitalist, and they hurt because of the social aspect. Leave no man behind! They shout to give themselves warm fuzzies, then moan that some jackass at work isn't pulling his own weight.

IMO, you are self-deprived egotist. You want so much to be successful and the one in power, but you don't want to work for it. Rather, you would work twice as hard to justified your failures to make yourself feel "good"... It is easy to address the problem, but harder to fix it. What you suggest we do is throw out the baby with the bathwater, or more like destroy the automoblie so that we might reinvent the wheel.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Aren't you an exploiter as well?

Worker with a bayonet

This is what happens when I'm bored out of my mind...I make less sense than usual.

Although still more than Oncle Boris, Thank God.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Although still more than Oncle Boris, Thank God.

It'd be hard to make less sense .

[Japher]

Kid tries, and sometimes I make less sense without even knowing it...

[Hot Mustard]

I'm trying to decide what to make of all this...

I'll refrain from adding my opinions on topic and instead summarize my perception of behaviour in this thread.

Points for good behaviour
1) To Oncle Boris for staying (mostly) on topic and shepherding the conversation
2) To Oncle Boris for attempting to clear up linguistic miscommunications
3) To Adam Smith and a select few others who attempted only to add information to the debate

Demerits for bad behaviour
1) To Oncle Boris for personal insults
2) To Oncle Boris for YELLING
3) To many 'Poly veterans for personal insults
4) To many 'Poly veterans for ignoring Oncle Boris' attempts at clearing up miscommunications
5) To the mod (can't remember which one) that pointed a finger more at Oncle Boris than his detractors - what a great way to encourage newcomers to stay!

and lastly,

6) To Americans who do not try to, or just cannot, understand that people outside of the U.S. do not think like they do or even use words the same, and persist in thinking those people must be 'wrong'.

ps. Oncle Boris - I think you would gain some points with your audience if you acquise to changing your handle here.
pps. I commonly think of Canada, Sweden, etc. as 'socialist'.
ppss. Imran - have you seen my last post in our hockey pool?

[Japher]

6) To Americans who do not try to, or just cannot, understand that people outside of the U.S. do not think like they do or even use words the same, and persist in thinking those people must be 'wrong'.

7) To non-Americans who come on and tell Americans that their country should become a socialist nation with certain communist taints...

That is a flat out troll/flame, and is one I will take everytime. What is even more sad is that many of you non-Americans accuse us of being ignorant and expect to get away with it without any flames. If you are so freaking smart than you would do it only as a flame...

That was not aimed at our fellow commie Americans who can actually present ideas and problems with the American political system without insulting Americans themselves...

[Imran Siddiqui]

ppss. Imran - have you seen my last post in our hockey pool?

A. You freaking jinxed me.

B. You can't recognize a troll if it hit you in the face.

[Boris Godunov]

This thread pisses me off, because I'm not pissed at all, and it's false advermatising.

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by Japher

7) To non-Americans who come on and tell Americans that their country should become a socialist nation with certain communist taints...

That is a flat out troll/flame, and is one I will take everytime. What is even more sad is that many of you non-Americans accuse us of being ignorant and expect to get away with it without any flames. If you are so freaking smart than you would do it only as a flame...

That was not aimed at our fellow commie Americans who can actually present ideas and problems with the American political system without insulting Americans themselves...

I agree with you.

Anyone telling others how their country should be run is skating on very thin ice. (I'll skip easy prey of U.S. doing so here.) My statement you quoted does nothing of the sort, nor did it say anything about ignorance. I hope you're not lumping me into this category.

My complaint was merely of situations similar those seen in this thread and observed by myself countless times, whereby Americans seem to think that beliefs or systems different than their own are 'wrong'.

I know that the observation is unfair to apply to all Americans. And I know that in any group or society, there is an inherent distrust in the unfamiliar. It just seems that in the U.S. it is more pervasive than usual.

Imran - Oops - didn't mean to jinx ya.