Boris' pissed off and he's telling you why

[Imran Siddiqui]

i'll concede world bank and imf

Why? They don't have to take the loans, after all. If they want to, then they have to follow the rules with those loans.

[Whoha]

for the reason that I don't like the two and want to see the US pulled out of them.

also considering the fact that the two organizations are somewhat dependent on us.

[JohnT]

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

And enforces them. I have to laugh whenever people rant about Bush's Enron ties - didn't do Enron a goddamn bit of good, did it?

Hell, look at Milken: guilty on four counts of insider trading in a deal worth a grand total of $35,000,000.00 and he gets 2 years in jail, a $1.2 billion fine, his firm gets RICO'd with another billion dollar fine, gets put out of business, and why? Because Rudolph Guiliani needed a high profile case to help propel his political career. Yeah, those Wall Streeters and their corporations sure run roughshod over the helpful and caring government employees who are only interested in the public good, not private gain. Again:

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris 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.

It's late, I'm tired, and I simply don't have the energy to straighten this out from go. So let me focus on this point where you have it completely wrong in every respect.

First, exactly one railroad, the Central Pacific (running San Francisco to Salt Lake City), was built with Chinese labor.

Second, while the Chinese certainly faced racial discrimination, they came here willingly. California was known as "Gold Mountain" in Cantonese. America is still translated as "Beautiful Land" in Mandarin.

Third, the laborers managed to send a good chunk of their wages back to their families in China, which relieved poverty and eventually allowed them to emmigrate.

HERE is a short summary.

The Central Pacific also faced an acute labor shortage. In the winter of 1864, the company had only 600 laborers at work, a small fraction of the 5,000 for which it had advertised. And these workers were unreliable: "Some would stay until pay day, get a little money, get drunk and clear out," a superintendent said.

In February, 1865, the Central Pacific decided to try a new labor pool. Charles Crocker, chief of construction persuaded his company to employ Chinese immigrants, arguing that the people who build the Great Wall of China and invented gunpowder could certainly build a railroad.

Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, civil turmoil and poverty had led many Chinese to emigrate to California, the "Golden Mountain." As early as 1852, there were 25,000 Chinese immigrants in California. Most came from China's southeastern coast. The overwhelming majority were married men who planned to return to China. In California, the immigrants established support networks, based on family ties and place of origin, and found work in agriculture, mines, domestic service, and increasingly in railroad construction.

The Central Pacific's Chinese immigrant workers received just $26-$35 a month for a 12-hour day, 6-day work week and had to provide their own food and tents. White workers received about $35 a month and were furnished with food and shelter. Incredibly, the Chinese immigrant workers saved as much as $20 a month which many eventually used to buy land. These workers quickly earned a reputation as tireless and extraordinarily reliable workers--"quiet, peaceable, patient, industrious, and economical." Within two years, 12,000 of the Central Pacific railroad's 13,500 employees were Chinese immigrants. (My emphasis)

Briefly on another point, has it occurred to you that trade reduces the monopoly power of domestic corporations? Increased sales of Japanese autos in the US, increaed sales of asian electronics in the US and Europe, and Boeing vs. Airbus in the airframe market are three examples whic come immediately to mind.

[JohnT]

Blameless governments....

In the early-mid 1930s, in response to the crises brought about by overproduction of oil in the East Texas region, Harold Ickes, Secretary of the Interior, corralled the 7 sisters (the descendents of Standard Oil) into a quasi-coalition to help shore up prices. The officers of these companies were very leery about joining this coalition, citing their fears that the Justice department would then bring an anti-trust case against them.

Ickes swore up and down that this would never happen, even penned letters to that effect. Reluctantly, the oil company's accepted and started doing what Ickes wanted.

BAM! The Justice Department hits them with an anti-trust case, one that takes almost a decade to fight, one that had Mr. Ickes near denying that he ever asked them to join any coalition, no, not this New Dealer*.

The very same thing happened again in WW2 - even though they were acting in response to the orders from the War Production Board, they were hit yet again with an anti-trust case by the Justice Department, where again, untold millions of dollars and hours were wasted trying to explain that they were just doing as they were forced to do.

Yeah, those Big Business bastards just have the government in the palm of their hands.

*

During the Depression, at his (Ickes) behest, the oil companies had established pools to buy up "distress" gasoline. In 1936, after the Supreme Court invalidated the National Industrial Recovery Act, under which authority Ickes had acted, the Justice Department indicted the companies for the pooling. Ickes, thereafter, kept quiet about his promotion of the scheme and conveniently found that he could not get to the trial, held in Wisconsin, to testify about his role. The companies were convicted, and that experience made them leery, to put it mildly, of working with him again.

The Prize: The Epic Quest for Money and Power, Daniel Yeargin, page 372 (Chapter 19, subsection entitled "The Oil Czar: The Mobilization of America's supply")

[JohnT]

Let's not forget Adam that Chinese workers were banned from the United States from 1882 to 1902 due to the Chinese Exclusion Acts, and, years earlier in California, a clause banning Chinese labor was included in the states Constitution.

[Whoha]

Make sure to not forget the open door policy, vs the policy the rest of the world had with China when trying to make the US look to be the evil bad guy that we are.

[Harry Tuttle]

You know, it's nice to see that some people in this forum actually read the history books, instead of piecing together their knowledge from "the backs of sugar packets and cereal boxes."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Funny ain't it John? So many examples of government screwing over business.. why would the owners of government allow themselves to be treated in those ways?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
You know, it's nice to see that some people in this forum actually read the history books, instead of piecing together their knowledge from "the backs of sugar packets and cereal boxes."

Or by reading the ravings of 19th century malcontents and whiners like Marx and Engels.

[Fake Boris]

Imran, I'll take it that you do not understand most of my points.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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

True, they were not. I was only pointing this out as an ironic fact. Something remains, though: some people see unions as a free-market hindrance, while they fail to see oligopolist cartels as the same. You are not one of those. Great, we agree. Let's move on.

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

Absolutely true. It is also true that consumer's debts is an at all time high and that the GDP rate of growth is diminishing. The Reserve has no room of maneuver whatsoever.

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.

Yes, I know all of this. Keep in mind that I didn't ask: "Why is he getting 1/12" but "Why would he desserve". I give it to you that this is an highly theoretical question that no one here will answer anyway. We can ignore it.

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.

What about Nicaragua? Argentina? Haiti? Bolivia? All of Africa? 2 winners out of hundreds of losers, is that what you call a success?

By the way, did you know that South Korea enacted some laws to forbid new worker unions in 1997 as a reaction to the economic crisis in Asia? They gave the police the right to arrest unions leaders without mandates. Conditions imposed by the IMF for a 60 billions loan were also dismissal of labor protection laws, lowering of the minimal wage. Doesn't that sound like an assault against sovereignty? Sure, they can refuse the loan. But have you ever heard someone asking for a loan he doesn't need?

The crisis in Argentina followed a similar pattern.

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.

I explained the government's anti-corporation laws through "Comfort and Indifference" and Stanley Milgram's experiments. Re-read my first post.
So, you think corporations don't control the government? Say you want your senator to hear your opinion. Who do you bet he'll answer first on the phone: you or Chase Manhattan president? Say he wants money to get elected. Does he call Bill Gates or your granny? Say he wants to convince you that the war in Iraq is a nice thing. Does he call Rupert Murdoch to run some propaganda in the news or an Harvard philosophy teacher to write a brilliant essay based on Hegel's dialectics?

The people has some power, true, but corporations hold much more. The reason for this are numerous, but one of them stands out. Allowing companies to contribute to political parties pot is absurd. Companies in themselves do not have any democratic rights. Their existence is purely economic: they are an extension of a citizen's right to benefit from his work.
Corporations, with the big cash they hold, have become "meta-citizens", a sort of layer that covers individual rights of those not having the means of being bosses or shareholders.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Funny ain't it John? So many examples of government screwing over business.. why would the owners of government allow themselves to be treated in those ways?

I think the argument goes like this, written in the verbage of those who believe it:

Tripledoc: The big corporations just want us to think that so we can go on our happy, complacent lives thinking that they're under control, when in fact they obviously are the ones in control.

Sava: The big corporations just want us to think that so we can go on our happy, complacent lives thinking that they're under control, when in fact they obviously are the ones in control.

Kidicious: The big corporations just want us to think that so we can go on our happy, complacent lives thinking that they're under control, when in fact they obviously are the ones in control.

DuncanK: The big corporations just want us to think that so we can go on our happy, complacent lives thinking that they're under control, when in fact they obviously are the ones in control.

Oncle Boris: The big corporations just want us to think that so we can go on our happy, complacent lives thinking that they're under control, when in fact they obviously are the ones in control.

Is there an echo here?

[JohnT]

Say he wants money to get elected. Does he call Bill Gates or your granny?

Obviously you've never seen a political ad or have been hit with a never-ending stream of telemarketers trying to get you to donate money to the party/election of choice.

Given that the President of Chase Manhattan probably has a clearer grasp on some of the big-picture issues than I, it is quite reasonable that the Senator deal with him first - don't forget, time isn't a limitless resource, and that fact means that the Senator can't have his time wasted by every pissed off Wal Mart cashier who wants to quote Bible verses (or Marx) to him/her.

[JohnT]

I do like this succession of quotes:

Imran, I'll take it that you do not understand most of my points.

(Imran quote)

True, they were not.

(Imran quote)

Absolutely true.

(Imran quote)

Yes, I know all of this.

I'm glad you found a point in which you could finally disagree with him - it was sounding a bit like a mutual admiration society or something.

[JohnT]

But have you ever heard someone asking for a loan he doesn't need?

Yes. It's called "credit cards" and it happens all the time. Hell, even going to another banks' ATM machine is a loan of sorts - you're taking money from one bank and expecting your bank to make payments on that loan. Hence the $2.00 "service fee."