French Riots + Labor law

Easier to fire = easier to hire, that's why. These labor protection laws create and perpetuate unemployment. Why would disincentives to hire result in anything else?

 

Ownership is theft, the companies are just leaching labour off the workers, the means of production are built by workers and the capital to buy said means of production are stolen from workers by not paying them the full value of their labour.

 

Do you own nothing in this world?

how is ownership theft? Workers are paid for their service. I inturn pay for that product.

 

Workers are not paid the full value of their labour, they are the ones that create wealth and the means to create wealth, on the other hand owners steal the wealth (since everything the worker makes the owner takes) and only pays the workers a fraction of the value of their labour.

Think of it this way: a bully pays you with money (his starting capital) he got from shaking kids down for the launch money to build a lemmonade stand, then out of that money gives you a small wage to make the lemonade and sell it expecting all income to go back to him which he then uses to pay your wage and get others to build and run more lemonade stands. Eventually the bully just sits back and let all the kids make wealth for him while all he has to do is pay them a fraction of their worth.

Capitalist didn't just come about because they saved and invested wisely, the class came about through exploitation that they used to re-invest into exploiting people in more efficient means like owning production and paying wages.

 

and who decides what is fair value for their labor if not the government?(minimum wage)

 

Because Karl Marx says so, that's why.

 

Fair value is their contribution to the end value of the finnished product. Think how much the factory worker got for the computer your using compaired to how much the owner got, what did the owner do to deserve such a large piece of the pie? Nothing more then own the means of production which other workers built.

 

word.

 

This isn't the kind of capitalism the founding fathers or Adam Smith envisioned.


Actually, capitalism came after their times.

 

This is exactly the kind of pseudo science that makes every fool think he's a student of advanced marxism.

What does deserve have to do with anything? Capitalism isn't about deserving. It doesn't allocate things based on who deserves what. It allocates based on a free market. This is why it works, why it is so efficient, why it has raised entire nations out of poverty, and why every other system results in economic ruin. Adam Smith never claimed that capitalism works out of benevolency, he said that its positives are a side-effect of the pursuit of personal gain. But those side effects are what validate the entire system of capitalism.

Not that your logic makes sense anyway, even in a narrow sense. If businesses lose money, have they been exploited by their workers? Err.... right.

Back in the Marxist time warp. The world is full of factories, there are owners and workers, the owners inherited their wealth and nothing ever changes. Other than the fact that this bears no resemblance whatsoever to reality, it could be useful to look at the world in this cartoon 19th century prism.

The most fundamental ignorance of this statement (and one which is common to almost all socialists) is that it assumes that the world was created in a day and we all just go to work, makes things, and go home. The idea that people - whether they are John H. Johnson or a shoestring entrepreneur - forgoe consumption for savings, invest these savings - taking risk - in the hope of future rewards doesn't even merit a mention. No, capital is something that is just there. Factories are just there. Risk doesn't exist, and there is no competition. Capitalists just sit around and smoke cigars. It is hard to believe such a facile and ridiculously naive view would survive contact with the outside world, but apparently is somehow manages so long as you restrict yourself to bullshit leftist propaganda.

 

Because all "value" workers create is realized through property ownership. A worker does not own the fruits of his labour, he is only compensated for it.

Though the manufacturer has his wages advanced to him by his master, he, in reality, costs him no expense, the value of those wages being generally restored, together with a profit, in the improved value of the subject upon which his labor is bestowed.
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

 

Only compensated. As in he "only" got paid. What a strange arrangement - you work, and in return you got paid. Only. Got a better criticism?

So what? Investors make profits. This is supposed to be a shocking revalation? Why don't you loan me $1,000. I'll give the same $1,000 back to you, maybe, in five years. Or maybe not. Are you up for it? No. If there is no return on investment, there is no investment. Nobody would forego consumption for investment, because nobody will take risk without reward.

 

You do know that Russia was a 3rd world shit hole before the revolution right? You do know that all capitalism did to the average Russian was make them poorer while a few got insanity rich?

What about Mexico? Russia was far poorer then Mexico but was able to climb out out of poverty despite very early on having a blockaid and invasion by the capitalist powers then having another invasion by the Nazis. Lets not forget Russia was also a piss poor example of Marxism since the elected legislative assemblies that existed at local, regional, and national levels was soon done away with for a authoritarian goverment in the name of security since the capitalist powers ganged up on Russia.

What about Agrentina, the less capitalist it was the better of the people and the more capitalist Argentina become the poorer people become.

I could go on about capitalism bringing nothing but poverty but even in the west poverty was not done away with by the capitalist it was done away with by labour joining together aginst the capitalist to demand better wages and working conditions.

Yes because the workers don't have a say yet the wokers pay for the incompentece of the owners and managers.

Most of the capitalist elite get their wealth through inheritance while most poor stay poor through thrift, and hardwork.

 

Not shocking at all, just trying to make a point.

 

It is always funny to see communists instinctively defend the soviet union, and then turn around and say it wasn't communist. having it both ways is always the most fun.

Russia was a third world shithole after the revolution too, except that the rich became poor too and people were slaughtered by the millions by their own government. Which part of this is supposed to prove communism is good?

Russia didn't climb out of poverty. It is still poorer, on a per capita PPP GDP basis, than Argentina or Chile. As usual, you haven't a clue.

I've been through all this before. You know fuck all about economics or history. You make shit up as you go along. You absolutely do not give a crap about facts and just say things made up on the spot to suit your ideological biases. Who do you think you are fooling.

A blockaid and invasion by capitalists and the Nazis? Wow imagine that. Too bad there aren't any examples of capitalist countries invaded by the Nazis so we could compare. Except there are, and they didn't stay poor because of it. What an idiotic example. And how is the USSR exporting billions of dollars of natural gas to western europe a blockade? It isn't.

And the most obvious example is the Czech Republic. One of the richest countries in Europe after WWII, as it was relatively unharmed by the war, the Czech Republic emerged from communism in 1991 as one of Europe's poorest countries. There's a track record for you.

Is it a piss poor example? Maybe its a perfect example. Every time marxist economics have been applied, it has been a catastrophe. The fact that "in theory" it is supposed to work out great doesn't count for much.

Have you ever owned or managed anything in your life? Thought not.

Ever been to reality? Look around you. The majority of this country is middle class. The majority worked for a living. Your cartoon inherited wealth vs. poor worker world doesn't exist anymore. You are so obsessed with a failed 19th century ideology that you haven't even noticed that the world in 2006 bears practically no resemblance to the one Marx wrote about.

 

history > pointbreak.

 

Russia went from a mostly poor peasants to after WWII a welfair state where the basic needs of the people were meet.

When Russia was a welfair state the average Russian had a higher quality of life then after the fall of the USSR.

I'm talking about the blockaid and invasion after the October 1917 revolution, this crushed any hopes of Russia becoming Marxist since the democratic legislative assemblies that poped up after the revolution gave way to a strong central authority since democracy was worthless if they starved due to the blockaid or was occupied by foreign troops especially being occupied by the Nazis

Explain how Argentina went from a industrial power house under state planning to a collapsed economy when it went to capitalism.

Your are so brainwashed you don't even see that the west is not rich because of Capitalism, the capitalist system didn't encourage better wages and working conditions, it came from labour demanding their rights. Now the capitalist simply move production to more capitalist countries where they can get cheaper labour since every penny they have to pay you and put into stuff like worker safty is a penny out of their pocket and capitalism is about maximising profits.

 

thanks, the unions.

 

Pointbreak is so obsessed with his own worldview, he cannot register conflicting information.

 

Sorry.. but MY job was outsourced to India.. when India is on a par with the Uk and their jobs are outsourced.. to say i dunno erm Vietnam.. what happens to the structure in India ?.. Does it suddenly collapse..? or is it bouyed up with previous investment / better conditions and a seemingly brighter future.. thats what i am dreaming anyway.

What happens to Vietnam ?? well i'm hopeing the same thing that happened to India..

These dreams i have trouble me...