Boris' pissed off and he's telling you why

[Ned]

OB, Why do socialist countries like China have no unions or, if they have them, why are they controlled by the "party?" I think it is obvious that socialism and vital unions have nothing to do with each other.

I am not sure that unions ever did anything for the economy as a whole. What they did do is improve the working conditions and average benefits of the workers. But, if these same things are guaranteed by the government - for example, OSHA, social security, workman's compensation, heath care, etc., are unions really necessary anymore?

The primary question on the table is how we can spread these same conditions to the rest of the world, is it not? I give you China as a good example of progress of the average worker. The Chinese are proving that capitalism brings a good standard of living and that socialism and unionism do not.

So, the answer for the third world is to adopt the methods of the Chinese and the rest of Asia, become the manufacturing arm of the West. Conditions will improve rapidly for the average worker.

Killing trade with China can only harm the Chinese worker. That surely is not what you want, Boris.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You can be Uncle Sava

[GhengisFarb™]

I wouldn't laugh, they may suggest Uncle Imran next.........

[OzzyKP]

Well with the assumption Boris is not Boris' DL, and in fact a new addition to the OT, I welcome you with open arms. Don't let the others drive you out. They are a close knit bunch of bastards who are unaccepting of new blood.

If you are a DL, then buzz off. :P

As for your arguments, I agree with Imran. What part of the free market bans labor unions? I love unions, and absolutely support their existance. I think all professions should be unionized. From students to waiters to fry cooks. Not that I always agree with the actions and positions taken by unions, but I deffinately support their existance. In fact I think they are necessary for the fair, proper working of the free market.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
That's it. I can take only so much. Yes, I'm pissed--and it's because there is one, and I mean ONE Boris on this board, and that is ME! DO YOU UNDERSTAND?! ME!

I AM THE LAWRRRRRRrrrrrrrr!!!!

Please contact Ming or another moderator about a suitable name change as soon as possible.

Thank you,

The Real Thing

Apparently, the fake Boris is attempting to organize a coup against you.

[Urban Ranger]

Free market conflicts with unions because most proponents of free market demand the government to dismantle regulations over how companies and markets regulate. Which happens to include laws legalising unions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Free market conflicts with unions because most proponents of free market demand the government to dismantle regulations over how companies and markets regulate. Which happens to include laws legalising unions.

Most laws dealt with banning unions. Unions could definetly exist in a free market system... in fact it'd probably be encouraged by the creators of the system.

[OzzyKP]

Why do we need laws legalizing unions if they aren't illegal?

[Whoha]

dear god, the WTO,GATT,NAFTA,etc are all puppets of the US? What exactly are you smoking?

[Fake Boris]

I welcome your arguments.

There has been some misunderstanding.

I'm glad that even free-market advocates support the existence of Unions. This has not always been the case, as proven by history. Aristocrats and industrials used to say unions woulk destroy civilization! That is not a joke. Still today, I've heard many right-wingers claim how bad are unions. Obviously this is not the case of you guys.


Now to the Tycoon part:

Many railroads in North America were built by imported Chinese workers. They worked in quasi-enslavement conditions similar to the forced labor of the gulags. Trust me, they didn't get a penny from the railroad benefits. All right, their grandson lived in a richer society. Great.

19th century America had almost no labor condition regulations. True, railroads brought more shops and employment. But industrialization in its first years brought a WORSENING of general human condition. Owners never would have increased these guy's pay if they hadn't been forced by law, for a simple reason: their work was unspecialized, and thus they were easily disposable and replaceable. As said in my "essay" (some humility here!), even by 1929, the rich hadn't understood that minimal wealth for the masses would increase their own profit on the long run.
In 1850, what a tycoon wanted was money right away: so he hired private guards or bribed the local police to bring back his men to work when they went on strike. It still works like this now: the American commercial deficit is on the rise because corporations are producing more and more goods outside of the US. It may increase profits right away, but no one will laugh when the next great Depression comes.

My conclusion here is: let tycoons do what they want as long as their workers get minimal working conditions. Wherever that may be. Why is it that a Chinese desserve 1/12th of the salary of an American worker?

Put it otherwise: Socialism + free market is the way to go.
Now to American foreign policy: what America is pushing right now is "free market"- without the socialist component. Their argument: government hindrance is an hindrance to free market, therefore it must be banished. WTO & Co is about forcing other governments to pursue this policy.

I am repeating myself: Third World Countries are at Stage 0. Tycoons won't increase the pay of their workers, unless forced to. American foreign policy: making sure other countries won't force them to. That is a widely documented evidence throughout independant press.

Zylka: shut up you idiot. Really. I'm not telling anyone to change his belief; I'm saying that, contrary to what some might think, their government is not defending their values.

Hope this time I'm being clear. I want legitimate attacks, not glorifications about the greatness of Standard Oil and William Randolph Hearst.

And to terminate, some dialectics.

Thesis: free market
Antithesis: unification
Synthesis: oligopoly---- cartel ------ end of dialectics

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Whoha
dear god, the WTO,GATT,NAFTA,etc are all puppets of the US? What exactly are you smoking?

Not EXACTLY. But America says to Latin America president: - File a complaint against us and we fund [insert guerilla here] in your country.
- All right master, to your command.

Or else: (this one was a few month ago in Bolivia):
- Remember that World Bank loan?
- Sure.
- You're selling your water and power services to [insert American company here] if you're getting it.
- All right master.

Few days later, angry mob complain. First because water and electricity prices are on the rise. Second because part of "World Bank Loan" is somewhere in a Cayman Islands bank account. Army shoots at protesters. 70 deaths. What does the US have to say?
-The President was legitimately defending himself against a dangerous rebellion.

As pointed in my text, there is no independant international justice. The Courts are still controlled by this world's powerful ones- mainly America.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Aristocrats and industrials used to say unions woulk destroy civilization!

How are aristocrats and industrialists in the 1890s, free-market supporters?

he American commercial deficit is on the rise because corporations are producing more and more goods outside of the US.

They are also producing more and more goods INSIDE the US. After all, the GDP has been growing, not shrinking.

Why is it that a Chinese desserve 1/12th of the salary of an American worker?

Because to give them the same salary as an American worker would destroy their economy. The effects on inflation would be enormous and the rest of the populace wouldn't be able to afford the things they need.

The corporations in foriegn countries already pay more than the native industries. In some places, substantially more.

It's a gradual process. Look at places like South Korea and Japan. They began with sweatshops and now are economic powers. Foriegn companies coming in was integral to that process.

Tycoons won't increase the pay of their workers, unless forced to. American foreign policy: making sure other countries won't force them to. That is a widely documented evidence throughout independant press.

Ah, the conspiracy theorist rises up again. I really don't think American foriegn policy is based on other countries not making companies increase the pay of their workers .

Just like the other commies, you are trapped in the conspiracy that corporations control the government... even when the government makes anti-corporation laws.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Boris G by far outranks Oncle. QED.

Boris G ?

Uh-uh... Boris is Boris and this Oncle dude needs a name change.

[Harry Tuttle]

Boris, you're correct in your statement that the robber barons of the 19th century had to be reigned in by the law and that working conditions may have been worse for "Joe Farmer" now that he is working in the Cotton Mill.

What I think you are incorrect in saying is that it was socialist ideas and ideals that created the kind of economic system we have today. The Free Market has always been governed by the government, which has stopped many abuses of capitalism. The fact that men and women will always try to take advantage of one another is a fact that we will never be able to get rid of.

Was it right o pay those Chinese a few cents to put those tracks in? No, but then again they were immigrant workers. What would you have had us do, give them a nice house, some clothes, and a bank account and say welcome to the country? Where's the money going to come from, the Robber Baron's railroad budget? Who's going to build the railroad?

Lastly, the socialism hang up. Get over it. It doesn't work. No one is going to work hard just so their reward can be apportioned out to the lazy slob down the line.

I really wish Ayn Rand was still alive so that she could lay into your theories and your definition of "evil".

[Whoha]

Alright i'll concede world bank and imf(we shouldn't loan money to people anyway), but the rest of them aren't.