 |
| |
|
|
JohnT
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
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
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:32
|
|
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.
* quote:
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") |
Last edited by JohnT on 21-12-2003 at 12:20
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
Imran, I'll take it that you do not understand most of my points.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
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? 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
I'll take it that you do not understand most of my points. |
I understand them, I just think they are nonsense  .
quote:
It is also true that consumer's debts is an at all time high and that the GDP rate of growth is diminishing. |
Yes for the past 3 years the GDP rate of growth was diminishing. What about in the late 90s? Is this your evidence of a general breakdown? A small recession?
quote:
What about Nicaragua? Argentina? Haiti? Bolivia? All of Africa? 2 winners out of hundreds of losers, is that what you call a success? |
2? TWO?!! The US, UK, France, Germany, etc, etc... I can guarentee you that much more than two countries grew from a sweatshop economy to a fully developed capitalist country. Every capitalist country, in fact, has gone through parts of it.
quote:
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? |
It's a tradeoff. Take the loan and follow the rules or don't take the loan and try to work out of it. Saying we need the loan but don't want to follow the rules that were set out when we signed the loan doesn't qualify as a valid defense.
Sorry, just don't take the damned loan!
quote:
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? |
 Sorry, this doesn't help in making me think you are less of a conspiracy theorist. Calling Rupert Murdoch to run propaganda in the news .
And the rest of your examples are silly as well. Of course he'll answer Chase Manhattan's president's call first because who the Hell am I? Just one of his many constituents. The President of Chase Manhattan is head of a major bank and so is much more likely to have knowledge on the economic effect on a certain piece of legislation than I do.
And the granny vs. Bill Gates? If you are looking for money for election do you normally go for the person with LESS money? 
quote:
Allowing companies to contribute to political parties pot is absurd. |
Why? Do they not have the free speech right to lobby politicians to initiate programs which they believe will have a better effect on the economy? Since they are more aware of the economic effects of legislation, shouldn't they be able to contribute on the basis of that knowledge?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
Thanks for your insightful reply, Adam. At least you're showing objectivity.
However, I did not get it straight wrong as you would like it.
Remember, I said railroads in North America . There are two railroads in Canada. Guess what? They imported Chinese workers too. They also used French Canadians when they could not import more Chinese. Straight wrong, you said?
What strikes me in your post is that you bring many arguments to my point and I thank you.
Let's resume this: they face labor shortage. Why? I guess the white men were unreliable workers because they loved the money they got and the good working conditions.
All right, there was the Civil war, but since conscripts were only 1/3 of the Army I doubt this is the main reason.
So they imported starved Chinese whose conditions were even worse in China than in America.
Would you apply for a job that requires you to work 72 hours a week and give you a 1 out of 10 chance of dying? (1200 out of 12000 Chinese died, says the link you provided). This is a shame, really. There are some things that are dependant on historical conditions, true. But such obvious exploitation, not mentioning that it is purely atrocious, seems to demonstrate my point that tycoons won't do anything for justice unless forced to.
Ok I'm tired and going to sleep. Hope I'll see you tomorrow.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
Imran, I'm tired of your idiotic nonsense.
WHAT ARE THE RICHEST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD?
SWEDEN, CANADA, FRANCE, JAPAN, GERMANY, US, SWITZERLAND. DO YOU FIND A LINK BETWEEN THEM? YUP, THEY ARE ALL WELFARE STATES. SOME OF THEM EVEN SPEND MORE THAN 50% OF THEIR GNP ON PUBLIC SPENDINGS.
Yet you claim that free market is the way to go. But you don't realize that taxation is at the opposite of free market. A STATE THAT SPENDS 35+% OF ITS CITIZENS WEALTH IS NOT A FREE MARKET GODAMMIT. US IS NOT A FREE MARKET. THE AMERICAN WEALTH CANNOT BE BASED ON FREE TRADE BECAUSE TRADE IS REGULATED.
What is Free Market? It is a purely theoretical concept. Its political counterpart is Anarchy. Anarchy is impossible, because it can only result in some people grouping and forming a power of some sort. We call it "State".
Free market is impossible, because it can only result in some companies grouping together to consolidate their power. We call it "Cartel".
Free market is a nice word by which Corporations want you to think that economic deregulation will bring wealth, while every single rich country in the world is REGULATED. Hours of work per week, minimal wage. Even taxing corporate profits to fund public education.
Each and everyone of these laws, have, historically, resulted in uproar from corporations. Now that they have lost in the US, they want to make sure they won't in countries that still have no protection of any sort. And yet, they are fighting a constant mediatic guerilla through the press. They are winning.
Did you know that the US ranks at number 31 in the world regarding press liberties? Not a bright spot indeed for the country of "free speech". Now, who is limiting press liberties? The governement? Not to my knowledge. Communist guerillas? Nope. The masses? how could they anyway?
Yes, we've got it. TED TURNER, RUPERT MURDOCH AND THE LIKES.
I remember seeing, in an economy book, a graph that claimed minimal wages were unnecessary because people would not work below a certain salary. Huh? If whoores are sucking deecks for crack, I'm sure most any human will clean a toilet for 0,20$ an hour if it's the only way to buy food.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
WHAT ARE THE RICHEST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD?
SWEDEN, CANADA, FRANCE, JAPAN, GERMANY, US, SWITZERLAND. DO YOU FIND A LINK BETWEEN THEM? YUP, THEY ARE ALL WELFARE STATES. SOME OF THEM EVEN SPEND MORE THAN 50% OF THEIR GNP ON PUBLIC SPENDINGS.
Yet you claim that free market is the way to go. But you don't realize that taxation is at the opposite of free market. A STATE THAT SPENDS 35+% OF ITS CITIZENS WEALTH IS NOT A FREE MARKET GODAMMIT. US IS NOT A FREE MARKET. THE AMERICAN WEALTH CANNOT BE BASED ON FREE TRADE BECAUSE TRADE IS REGULATED. |
Why not? Is not the basis for capitalism a more or less free market? When you have businesses buying and selling, don't they use the free market? The fallacy is by socialists who think that Sweden, Canada, US, etc are socialist countries. They aren't. They are decidedly capitalist. They all follow some free market theory. Supply and demand all have an effect. When you go down to store and purchase something, that is a free market transaction. Why? Because it probably ain't a government store. It's two private individuals engaging in a transaction without the government getting involved.
Simply because there are regulations doesn't mean you are not living in a world based on the free market. Even the fact that there is welfare does not mean you are not living in states which tend to embrace the free market. They aren't socialist. You can go down to a private story and buy things.
You think that's silly? Well if country A can give subsidies to an industry and have no tariffs, they would be considered engaging in FREE trade. Don't those government subsidies warp the market? Yep, but it's still 'free trade'. So in the alternative, there is still a free market, even when the government regulates.
quote:
Free market is a nice word by which Corporations want you to think that economic deregulation will bring wealth, while every single rich country in the world is REGULATED. Hours of work per week, minimal wage. Even taxing corporate profits to fund public education. |
Economic deregulation in industries which are not natural monopolies usually does bring wealth. Look at the the telecom deregulation. Now you have more choice and lower prices.
quote:
Did you know that the US ranks at number 31 in the world regarding press liberties? Not a bright spot indeed for the country of "free speech". |
Yes, done by a nicely biased study. We've discussed that before and thrown it aside.
quote:
Yes, we've got it. TED TURNER, RUPERT MURDOCH AND THE LIKES. |
The super liberal Ted Turner you mean? Yes, I'm sure he is pushing for right wing causes  .
Last edited by Imran Siddiqui on 21-12-2003 at 15:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ceteram
|
 |
G. D. of Luxembourg
Feb 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
I am in shock. If the population sample in this thread is representative, we are looking into a very nasty future indeed. Misinformation rules.
How could you possibly argue that the US is NOT on an imperialistic course, securing bases and prime resource areas, while their exceptionally ridiculous prez throws around sentences like "If you're not with us, you're against us", etc...
Can anybody explain why there are US personnel in Georgia?
First supportive of Shevardnaze, then, once the people kick him out with force, change over to supporting the ex-opposition?!?
One could think that the US is building a new Wonder called "The Bush Pipeline" or maybe "The Freedom Occupations", how does "Live Ammo Training in the Middle East" sound?
Believe me, in my eyes, the US have long lost all honour won in WW2. How could you let this happen, I mean the US administration is really disrespectful towards it's people that put in endless efforts for real freedom in the past.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-12-2003 11:40
|