How Not to be Exploited by the Capitalists
The easiest way to not be exploited by the Capitalists is not to work for a Capitalist. The Proles should form co-op firms or grow their own food on abandoned lots or fields. No one is forcing the Proles to work for some mean old tightwad Capitalist.
The Proles can shamble and stumble to one place dragging their knuckles on the ground and form a co-op. No one is stopping them.
ruveyn
Yeah, and in such a perfectly competitive market, it's so practical!
Yeah, and in such a perfectly competitive market, it's so practical!
In a communist nation, power comes strictly from the government. But it's the people that allowed that system to flourish in the first place. Same with fascism. Capitalism on the other hand, limits the government's role in prohibiting anti-competitive practices as well protecting citizens from threats to public safety. So the market is more autonomous to the people than you think.
jojobean
Veteran
Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,341
Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk
I like a true free society better than being run by bureaucrats operating outside of their jurisdiction. Taxing people to death has never helped anyone except for the government and welfare leeches. Not that taxes themselves are bad, but taxing people like crazy is BS.
My parents have owned small businesses for decades and I know for a fact that ridiculous minimum wages make them hire less people and on top of that, ridiculous taxes not only makes them lose money, but it also makes the stock itself more expensive to buy. Do you have any reason to hate capitalism other than some vague philosophical and hypothetical inferences?
I don't read a lot about politics, but the fact that I've seen small businesses suffering from left wing policies is enough for be to not buy the "rich getting richer and poor getting poorer" BS. More like left wing policies leave everyone poorer except for the government.
I'm also getting sick of this assumption that because a business is big, that it's automatically evil. It seems like nothing but envy or playing victim. You know, the reason they're rich is maybe because they're doing the right things.
The store my parents currently own has been working out real well for them, while it hardly made profits before they owned it. Why? Cuz the previous owner was dirty, didn't keep the store clean, she was rude to people, ripped people off, so therefore hardly anyone went to the store while she still owned it. And a store nearby recently closed down because their stock was always expired, so naturally people gravitate towards my parent's store.
And that's dealing with small businesses. If you're running an even bigger business, the consequences of f*****g around like that would be even bigger. And who says only business owners are a**holes? Do shirkers not affect the whole business they work for with their unreliability and being unproductive?
Yeah, and in such a perfectly competitive market, it's so practical!
In a communist nation, power comes strictly from the government. But it's the people that allowed that system to flourish in the first place. Same with fascism. Capitalism on the other hand, limits the government's role in prohibiting anti-competitive practices as well protecting citizens from threats to public safety. So the market is more autonomous to the people than you think.
That's a laugh. Does the majority enjoy e coli and mad cow disease? How about lead in their kids' toys? Has the majority fared well from credit default swaps?
Deregulation can cause great harm to the majority. Limiting the government's role in business serves business well, not the citizens. In our current state of capitalism, it is the privileged few who hold the power.
Haahhh funny that you pointed out e coli as an example of privatization being big and bad. A government agency is responsible for the Walkerton tragedy in Canada. Although it was two individuals within the Walkerton Public Utilities Commission that were responsible for this, even after the organization knew that those two people f****d up, they refused to admit it until days after people started experiencing symptoms.
Not only was it two people that f****d up, but the whole organization. Two people were responsible for causing it, and the organization was responsible for not warning people and acting accordingly. 7 people died, 2500 got contaminated, and all these two dudes got was a 1 year sentence in jail and a 9 month house arrest sentence.
So yeah I guess the government is infallible to f**k ups
. You're real vague when you say deregulation can cause great harm. That depends on how you go about deregulation. If done right, it promotes competition and gives people more freedom. If done wrong, it can be detrimental to both businesses and people.
I'm not some anarchist who absolutely hates the government. I believe the government's role is to protect it's citizens, not babysit them. And regulating unethical business practices through anti-trust laws is definitely within their jurisdiction. But trickle up economics, babysitting, and handouts are BS.
Look man, Capitalism isn't supposed to be some utopia. You can't have your cake and eat it too. And that's what capitalism is about. Understand that both corporations and government can f**k up or be malicious, and you can't have a false sense of security for one or the other. Freedom isn't free since it must be sacrificed for security. That's exactly why capitalism is about autonomy.
Not only was it two people that f**** up, but the whole organization. Two people were responsible for causing it, and the organization was responsible for not warning people and acting accordingly. 7 people died, 2500 got contaminated, and all these two dudes got was a 1 year sentence in jail and a 9 month house arrest sentence.
So yeah I guess the government is infallible to f**k ups
I'm not some anarchist who absolutely hates the government. I believe the government's role is to protect it's citizens, not babysit them. And regulating unethical business practices through anti-trust laws is definitely within their jurisdiction. But trickle up economics and babysitting is BS.
The Walkerton tragedy? Is that the best you've got there up in Canada? We had a similar incident about 20 miles from my home several years ago that didn't even make the national headlines. Our regulations are much more lax here. Even China has held protests over their stores selling imported American beef. We rarely inspect anything. If it fits, it ships, and if it sells, we re-shelve. There is little care for safety, unless it affects the bottom line.
Our government is far from infallible. It contributes to the problem by stripping power away from the FDA and appointing heads with conflicts of interest (current head is from Monsanto). Our government has restricted its own authority by allowing natural gas drillers to completely bypass the Clean Water Act. The EPA recently subpoenaed Halliburton because of their lack of disclosure on its chemicals used in drilling, but it's still legal to inject the earth with this toxic crap.
Tollorin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
So giving hardly enough to your workers to live is too much for you... What do you want ? Slaves? Entrepeneurs would be happy with slaves I bet...
Too bad fact and statistics disagree with you.
Reality of life is...
But getting that I talk to peoples who, contraly to me, are clevers enough to start their own business if they want,... we can't have the same way to see things...
_________________
Down with speculators!! !
Not only was it two people that f**** up, but the whole organization. Two people were responsible for causing it, and the organization was responsible for not warning people and acting accordingly. 7 people died, 2500 got contaminated, and all these two dudes got was a 1 year sentence in jail and a 9 month house arrest sentence.
So yeah I guess the government is infallible to f**k ups
I'm not some anarchist who absolutely hates the government. I believe the government's role is to protect it's citizens, not babysit them. And regulating unethical business practices through anti-trust laws is definitely within their jurisdiction. But trickle up economics and babysitting is BS.
The Walkerton tragedy? Is that the best you've got there up in Canada? We had a similar incident about 20 miles from my home several years ago that didn't even make the national headlines. Our regulations are much more lax here. Even China has held protests over their stores selling imported American beef. We rarely inspect anything. If it fits, it ships, and if it sells, we re-shelve. There is little care for safety, unless it affects the bottom line.
Our government is far from infallible. It contributes to the problem by stripping power away from the FDA and appointing heads with conflicts of interest (current head is from Monsanto). Our government has restricted its own authority by allowing natural gas drillers to completely bypass the Clean Water Act. The EPA recently subpoenaed Halliburton because of their lack of disclosure on its chemicals used in drilling, but it's still legal to inject the earth with this toxic crap.
I saw the movie "Food.Inc" and it told a story about 2 journalist from Fox News that were proibited by Fox to air on the news that one of Monsanto's products, was detrimental to human health. Monsanto threatened to sue Fox News so they didn't tell the story. The journalists couldn't get whistleblower status. The case didn't go to court and at the time the the head of FDA was a former Monsanto attorney.
As you mention economics. There is some literature in economics about regulatory capture, I studied a little when I was in school. It is when a regulatory agency acts in the benefit of the major firms of the industry instead of the benefit of the public interest.
That is clearly the best way.
In an ideal sane society 95 percent of the grownups would be self employed capitalists. Even those tasked with cleaning up the garbage and cleaning the grease-traps would be independent business people.
ruveyn
ruveyn
No: it goes against the economy of scale, it goes against efficiency, it then against the market and against the capitalist equilibrium.
If someone doing the cleaning have to buy a car or a cleaning machine, he should be rightfully proved inefficient in the market against a company employing 4 people and sharing the car and the machine.
And what about the advantages and the efficiency that standardization brings?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_scale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordism
_________________
I came, I saw, I conquered, now I want to leave
Forgetting to visit the chat is a capital Aspie sin: http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.html?name=ChatRoom
