NationStates Jolt Archive

Delegates, please approve my proposal "Free Trade and Protectionism." Unlike many other UN proposals, this actually IS an international issue.

The future of the world economy is at stake. Thanks for everything.

Gosh the future of the free market is at stake! Isn't that awful? Strange that nations like the US and those in western Europe which continually preach the benefits of the free market to poorer nations all seem rather keen on protecting their own markets.

We believe that less economically developed nations need strong tarriffs to protect their fledgeling industries from being displaced from their markets by cheaper products from large corporations based in more affluent states. Forcing poorer nations to decrease their tarriffs could end in economic disaster for many governments. We can not support this proposed resolution in any way.

Office of the Governor
Royal Colony at Nation States
Planetian Empire

We believe that less economically developed nations need strong tarriffs to protect their fledgeling industries from being displaced from their markets by cheaper products from large corporations based in more affluent states. Forcing poorer nations to decrease their tarriffs could end in economic disaster for many governments. We can not support this proposed resolution in any way.

Office of the Governor
Royal Colony at Nation States
Planetian Empire

You got to that point before I could. :cry:

Anyway, ditto.

We believe that less economically developed nations need strong tarriffs to protect their fledgeling industries from being displaced from their markets by cheaper products from large corporations based in more affluent states. Forcing poorer nations to decrease their tarriffs could end in economic disaster for many governments. We can not support this proposed resolution in any way.

Office of the Governor
Royal Colony at Nation States
Planetian Empire

This will make ALL nations decrease their tarrifs, not just poor ones.

If you truly represent the interests of the poor then you will want them to have the best product at the lowest possible price, yes?

We believe that less economically developed nations need strong tarriffs to protect their fledgeling industries from being displaced from their markets by cheaper products from large corporations based in more affluent states. Forcing poorer nations to decrease their tarriffs could end in economic disaster for many governments. We can not support this proposed resolution in any way.

Office of the Governor
Royal Colony at Nation States
Planetian Empire

This will make ALL nations decrease their tarrifs, not just poor ones.

If you truly represent the interests of the poor then you will want them to have the best product at the lowest possible price, yes?

You know Global, that I usually agree with everything you propose or argue. However, I see tarrifs as the nation's business, not the UN's.

By protecting one's fragile industries, it protects jobs within your own nation. I want my people to have jobs, so even though products from (India Hong Kong, others) are cheaper, it is in my best interest that I protect my nation's business from being demolished.

The mundane details of the arguement are unimportant. I thought you were for National Sovereignty? Or, does your opinion change when Big Bucks come on the scene? No one should be allowed to force me to lower my tarrifs if I don't want, and especially if it is going to hurt my people.

~Korunida~

We believe that less economically developed nations need strong tarriffs to protect their fledgeling industries from being displaced from their markets by cheaper products from large corporations based in more affluent states. Forcing poorer nations to decrease their tarriffs could end in economic disaster for many governments. We can not support this proposed resolution in any way.

Office of the Governor
Royal Colony at Nation States
Planetian Empire

This will make ALL nations decrease their tarrifs, not just poor ones.

If you truly represent the interests of the poor then you will want them to have the best product at the lowest possible price, yes?

How do they earn any money if no one in their country can compete with foreign multinationals who will only pay the absolute minimum? The poorest will never be able to affrod even the basics in a free market because they will only be payed enough so that they remain alive and able to work. Certainly the elite in richer nations will benefit from this proposal but don't have any illusions about it helping the poor.

We believe that less economically developed nations need strong tarriffs to protect their fledgeling industries from being displaced from their markets by cheaper products from large corporations based in more affluent states. Forcing poorer nations to decrease their tarriffs could end in economic disaster for many governments. We can not support this proposed resolution in any way.

Office of the Governor
Royal Colony at Nation States
Planetian Empire

This will make ALL nations decrease their tarrifs, not just poor ones.

If you truly represent the interests of the poor then you will want them to have the best product at the lowest possible price, yes?

How do they earn any money if no one in their country can compete with foreign multinationals who will only pay the absolute minimum? The poorest will never be able to affrod even the basics in a free market because they will only be payed enough so that they remain alive and able to work. Certainly the elite in richer nations will benefit from this proposal but don't have any illusions about it helping the poor.

Korunida, I am for national sovereignity. But in this case trade polciy is an INTERNATIONAL ISSUE. It affects everyone.

And Wolomy, that is an incentive for those poor people to get skills and then get jobs with the multinationals that pay BETTER wages than local industry. In much of Africa thousands of people starve to death daily who work for local "industry", whereas in poor East Asian nations (Vietnam, Indonesia, China, etc.) where there are MORE sweatshops, the situation isn't nearly as miserable.

Rotovia charges huge Tariffs that result in many benifits, not only the obvious reduction in cheaper imports flooding local markets. But, it the money is used to sponser local bussinesses and suppliment taxes.

Rotovia charges huge Tariffs that result in many benifits, not only the obvious reduction in cheaper imports flooding local markets. But, it the money is used to sponser local bussinesses and suppliment taxes.

It is well known that business (especialyl agricultural) subsidies raise prices. So you make your citizens not only pay higher prices for local goods, but then user government policies that increase those prices even more? You obviously have no concern for your citizens.

The US Omnibus Farm Bill is one of the stupidest business subsidies in the world. We spend ten billion dollars to get farmers to RAISE their crop prices by another five billion, then spend twenty-five billion to give the poor food stamps. That costs fifty billion. If we cut farm subsidies we can give the poor just ten billion to buy the same amount of food. That saves forty billion dollars of taxpayer money.

We believe that less economically developed nations need strong tarriffs to protect their fledgeling industries from being displaced from their markets by cheaper products from large corporations based in more affluent states. Forcing poorer nations to decrease their tarriffs could end in economic disaster for many governments. We can not support this proposed resolution in any way.

Office of the Governor
Royal Colony at Nation States
Planetian Empire

Catholic Europe totally agrees with this statement. Poorer nations need the help of richer nations in other ways that do not result in the decrease of tariffs etc, resulting in less money.

We believe that less economically developed nations need strong tarriffs to protect their fledgeling industries from being displaced from their markets by cheaper products from large corporations based in more affluent states. Forcing poorer nations to decrease their tarriffs could end in economic disaster for many governments. We can not support this proposed resolution in any way.

Office of the Governor
Royal Colony at Nation States
Planetian Empire

Catholic Europe totally agrees with this statement. Poorer nations need the help of richer nations in other ways that do not result in the decrease of tariffs etc, resulting in less money.

Lower tariffs mean more investment, meaning less money fore the government, but more for the people.

We believe that less economically developed nations need strong tarriffs to protect their fledgeling industries from being displaced from their markets by cheaper products from large corporations based in more affluent states. Forcing poorer nations to decrease their tarriffs could end in economic disaster for many governments. We can not support this proposed resolution in any way.

Office of the Governor
Royal Colony at Nation States
Planetian Empire

Catholic Europe totally agrees with this statement. Poorer nations need the help of richer nations in other ways that do not result in the decrease of tariffs etc, resulting in less money.

Lower tariffs mean more investment, meaning less money fore the government, but more for the people.

Yeah, but the country has to look 'attractive', in that security has to be reasonable, facilaties like electricty and water need to be there and other things.

By lowering tariffs, the government does not get as much money which they can then use on improving all of the said things.

We believe that less economically developed nations need strong tarriffs to protect their fledgeling industries from being displaced from their markets by cheaper products from large corporations based in more affluent states. Forcing poorer nations to decrease their tarriffs could end in economic disaster for many governments. We can not support this proposed resolution in any way.

Office of the Governor
Royal Colony at Nation States
Planetian Empire

Catholic Europe totally agrees with this statement. Poorer nations need the help of richer nations in other ways that do not result in the decrease of tariffs etc, resulting in less money.

Lower tariffs mean more investment, meaning less money fore the government, but more for the people.

Yeah, but the country has to look 'attractive', in that security has to be reasonable, facilaties like electricty and water need to be there and other things.

By lowering tariffs, the government does not get as much money which they can then use on improving all of the said things.

Of course the govenrmnet doesn't get as much money.

But the PEOPLE do. And they matter infinitely more than the government.

Like in China or Vietnam, the government is poor but the people are richer than in other third world countries.

We believe that less economically developed nations need strong tarriffs to protect their fledgeling industries from being displaced from their markets by cheaper products from large corporations based in more affluent states. Forcing poorer nations to decrease their tarriffs could end in economic disaster for many governments. We can not support this proposed resolution in any way.

Office of the Governor
Royal Colony at Nation States
Planetian Empire

Catholic Europe totally agrees with this statement. Poorer nations need the help of richer nations in other ways that do not result in the decrease of tariffs etc, resulting in less money.

Lower tariffs mean more investment, meaning less money fore the government, but more for the people.

Yeah, but the country has to look 'attractive', in that security has to be reasonable, facilaties like electricty and water need to be there and other things.

By lowering tariffs, the government does not get as much money which they can then use on improving all of the said things.

Of course the govenrmnet doesn't get as much money.

But the PEOPLE do. And they matter infinitely more than the government.

Like in China or Vietnam, the government is poor but the people are richer than in other third world countries.

Yes, but the government is like a protection net for the people. If it is poor how can it help those that are unemployed, ill, disabled etc?!

Yes, but the government is like a protection net for the people. If it is poor how can it help those that are unemployed, ill, disabled etc?!

It can't. But at least the middle-class, who are teh most important part of any economy, can help themselves. If a third-world government is rich, then that means the middle-class will be poor and the economy wills stagnate. Then when they achieve first-world status, then they can concentrate on things like helpign the disabled and the environment.

Yes, but the government is like a protection net for the people. If it is poor how can it help those that are unemployed, ill, disabled etc?!

It can't. But at least the middle-class, who are teh most important part of any economy, can help themselves. If a third-world government is rich, then that means the middle-class will be poor and the economy wills stagnate. Then when they achieve first-world status, then they can concentrate on things like helpign the disabled and the environment.

By the time that they might reach first-world status, things such as the enviroment could be dire. I'm not saying have totally high tariffs but they should not be lowered to ridicuously low levels either.

Yes, but the government is like a protection net for the people. If it is poor how can it help those that are unemployed, ill, disabled etc?!

It can't. But at least the middle-class, who are teh most important part of any economy, can help themselves. If a third-world government is rich, then that means the middle-class will be poor and the economy wills stagnate. Then when they achieve first-world status, then they can concentrate on things like helpign the disabled and the environment.

By the time that they might reach first-world status, things such as the enviroment could be dire. I'm not saying have totally high tariffs but they should not be lowered to ridicuously low levels either.

Somehow I get the feeling that impoverished Chinese peasants aren't gonna care too much about the spotted owl going extinct.

We should improve the welfare of the environment at the cost of human lives and force third-world peasants into starvation and make them give up what economic progress was gained from corporate investment, cause otherwise the spotted owl will go extinct and we wouldn't want that, eh?

Yes, but the government is like a protection net for the people. If it is poor how can it help those that are unemployed, ill, disabled etc?!

It can't. But at least the middle-class, who are teh most important part of any economy, can help themselves. If a third-world government is rich, then that means the middle-class will be poor and the economy wills stagnate. Then when they achieve first-world status, then they can concentrate on things like helpign the disabled and the environment.

By the time that they might reach first-world status, things such as the enviroment could be dire. I'm not saying have totally high tariffs but they should not be lowered to ridicuously low levels either.

Somehow I get the feeling that impoverished Chinese peasants aren't gonna care too much about the spotted owl going extinct. :roll:

Please, I'm not talking about the spotted owl going extinct but rather much more serious enviromental issues that affect us all, especially peasants, such as: poor soil for farming.

Yes, but the government is like a protection net for the people. If it is poor how can it help those that are unemployed, ill, disabled etc?!

It can't. But at least the middle-class, who are teh most important part of any economy, can help themselves. If a third-world government is rich, then that means the middle-class will be poor and the economy wills stagnate. Then when they achieve first-world status, then they can concentrate on things like helpign the disabled and the environment.

By the time that they might reach first-world status, things such as the enviroment could be dire. I'm not saying have totally high tariffs but they should not be lowered to ridicuously low levels either.

Somehow I get the feeling that impoverished Chinese peasants aren't gonna care too much about the spotted owl going extinct. :roll:

Please, I'm not talking about the spotted owl going extinct but rather much more serious enviromental issues that affect us all, especially peasants, such as: poor soil for farming.

Agreed. We should abolish teh development of new technologies to overcome this, because I like to see people starve in the name of soil.

What I mean is that with investment third-wolrd farming can be more efficient. The US is 2.5% farmer while China is over 50% farmer, yet the US produces over five times as much food as China does.

Yes, but the government is like a protection net for the people. If it is poor how can it help those that are unemployed, ill, disabled etc?!

It can't. But at least the middle-class, who are teh most important part of any economy, can help themselves. If a third-world government is rich, then that means the middle-class will be poor and the economy wills stagnate. Then when they achieve first-world status, then they can concentrate on things like helpign the disabled and the environment.

By the time that they might reach first-world status, things such as the enviroment could be dire. I'm not saying have totally high tariffs but they should not be lowered to ridicuously low levels either.

Somehow I get the feeling that impoverished Chinese peasants aren't gonna care too much about the spotted owl going extinct. :roll:

Please, I'm not talking about the spotted owl going extinct but rather much more serious enviromental issues that affect us all, especially peasants, such as: poor soil for farming.

Agreed. We should abolish teh development of new technologies to overcome this, because I like to see people starve in the name of soil.

Whatever! I can't be bothered with this silliness. My point is I don't believe that tariffs should be lowered, by poor countries, to suit the needs of large, Western corporate companies.

Whatever! I can't be bothered with this silliness. My point is I don't believe that tariffs should be lowered, by poor countries, to suit the needs of large, Western corporate companies.

Fine. But don't blame corporations when your country's starvation rate doubles. You were the one who wanted them out.

Whatever! I can't be bothered with this silliness. My point is I don't believe that tariffs should be lowered, by poor countries, to suit the needs of large, Western corporate companies.

Fine. But don't blame corporations when your country's starvation rate doubles. You were the one who wanted them out.

No! You've got me wrong again.

What I'm saying is that they should compromise and not have it all their way!

Whatever! I can't be bothered with this silliness. My point is I don't believe that tariffs should be lowered, by poor countries, to suit the needs of large, Western corporate companies.

Fine. But don't blame corporations when your country's starvation rate doubles. You were the one who wanted them out.

No! You've got me wrong again.

What I'm saying is that they should compromise and not have it all their way!

Your proposal is a compromise in the sense that being bitten in half by a shark is a compromise with being eaten whole.

Whatever! I can't be bothered with this silliness. My point is I don't believe that tariffs should be lowered, by poor countries, to suit the needs of large, Western corporate companies.

Fine. But don't blame corporations when your country's starvation rate doubles. You were the one who wanted them out.

No! You've got me wrong again.

What I'm saying is that they should compromise and not have it all their way!

Your proposal is a compromise in the sense that being bitten in half by a shark is a compromise with being eaten whole.

That's just being silly!

Here's a diagram:

High Tariffs --> Poor Government, Poor People
Medium Tariffs --> Rich Government, Poor People
Low Tariffs --> Poor Government, Rich People

Low is clearly the most desirable.

Whatever! I can't be bothered with this silliness. My point is I don't believe that tariffs should be lowered, by poor countries, to suit the needs of large, Western corporate companies.

Fine. But don't blame corporations when your country's starvation rate doubles. You were the one who wanted them out.

No! You've got me wrong again.

What I'm saying is that they should compromise and not have it all their way!

Your proposal is a compromise in the sense that being bitten in half by a shark is a compromise with being eaten whole.

That's just being silly!

Seriousness is stupidity sent to college.

in which case they are variously starving to death or crippled by easily preventable diseases.

isn't that a clear violation of human rights resolutions? :roll: i'm sure there's something about a right to life and right to healthcare in the UN.

in which case they are variously starving to death or crippled by easily preventable diseases.

isn't that a clear violation of human rights resolutions? :roll: i'm sure there's something about a right to life and right to healthcare in the UN.

I can't help it if they won't take $30 a year to buy Centrum.

Here's a diagram:

High Tariffs --> Poor Government, Poor People
Medium Tariffs --> Rich Government, Poor People
Low Tariffs --> Poor Government, Rich People

Low is clearly the most desirable.

Sadly your model is flawed, here is a better one:

High tariffs: Rich elite, poor majority.
Medium tariffs: Rich elite, poor majority.
Low tariffs: Rich elite in another country, poor majority.

in which case they are variously starving to death or crippled by easily preventable diseases.

isn't that a clear violation of human rights resolutions? :roll: i'm sure there's something about a right to life and right to healthcare in the UN.

I can't help it if they won't take $30 a year to buy Centrum.maybe you could -gasp- respect UN decisions before making proposals?

Here's a diagram:

High Tariffs --> Poor Government, Poor People
Medium Tariffs --> Rich Government, Poor People
Low Tariffs --> Poor Government, Rich People

Low is clearly the most desirable.

Sadly your model is flawed, here is a better one:

High tariffs: Rich elite, poor majority.
Medium tariffs: Rich elite, poor majority.
Low tariffs: Rich elite in another country, poor majority.

Well the majority will always be poor relative to the elite... but in low tariffs the majority is rich relative to in medium/high tarrifs.

in which case they are variously starving to death or crippled by easily preventable diseases.

isn't that a clear violation of human rights resolutions? :roll: i'm sure there's something about a right to life and right to healthcare in the UN.

I can't help it if they won't take $30 a year to buy Centrum.maybe you could -gasp- respect UN decisions before making proposals?

I do respect UN decisions. I can't help it if they commit suicide then blame my lack of healthcare. My country will gladly spend $30 per citizen per year to give them vitamins that secure against most common disease.

Sadly your model is flawed, here is a better one:

High tariffs: Rich elite, poor majority.
Medium tariffs: Rich elite, poor majority.
Low tariffs: Rich elite in another country, poor majority.

This is my point!

in which case they are variously starving to death or crippled by easily preventable diseases.

isn't that a clear violation of human rights resolutions? :roll: i'm sure there's something about a right to life and right to healthcare in the UN.

I can't help it if they won't take $30 a year to buy Centrum.maybe you could -gasp- respect UN decisions before making proposals?

I do respect UN decisions. I can't help it if they commit suicide then blame my lack of healthcare. My country will gladly spend $30 per citizen per year to give them vitamins that secure against most common disease.
your government pays for them to receive their healthcare, but they refuse it?sound slike you've violated the education resolution, then.

However, “Required Basic Healthcare” will not be imposed upon UN nations, in order to maintain national sovereignty, but will be kept on record as a “reference-document resolution”.


See... it's not mandatory.

However, “Required Basic Healthcare” will not be imposed upon UN nations, in order to maintain national sovereignty, but will be kept on record as a “reference-document resolution”.


See... it's not mandatory.there are others.....such as "keep the world disease-free!" for instance.

The average income tax rate is 100%


Looks live you've violated the Due Process resolution if you take it too litearlly.

However, “Required Basic Healthcare” will not be imposed upon UN nations, in order to maintain national sovereignty, but will be kept on record as a “reference-document resolution”.


See... it's not mandatory.there are others.....such as "keep the world disease-free!" for instance.

While the hygiene standards of the world has certainly improved in the last 100 years, there is more to be done. Every citizen in every land should have the right to: At least one toilet in their house; At least one washbasin in their house; At least one of either a bathtub or a shower; in order to comply with hygiene standards and prolong life expectancy. Furthermore, vaccinations should be made available to the public, although they don't have to be mandatory. Vaccinations against the big diseases such as: Malaria, typhoid, rubella, cholera, polio, et al. With the backing of the UN, we can give even our poorest inhabitants a nice, clean, healthy life.

I'm in perfect complaince with that. WShere does it say otherwise?

We at Carpage will beat any price and make a profit still. Free trade does us no good. We do not import.

We at Carpage will beat any price and make a profit still. Free trade does us no good. We do not import.

Do you export?

Delegates, please approve my proposal "Free Trade and Protectionism." Unlike many other UN proposals, this actually IS an international issue.

The future of the world economy is at stake. Thanks for everything.

I've already endorsed it, dude

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy
U.N. Delegate

http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/small/10045000/10045608.jpg

Delegates, please approve my proposal "Free Trade and Protectionism." Unlike many other UN proposals, this actually IS an international issue.

The future of the world economy is at stake. Thanks for everything.

I've already endorsed it, dude

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy
U.N. Delegate

http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/small/10045000/10045608.jpg

And I thank you for it ;)

The average income tax rate is 100%


Looks live you've violated the Due Process resolution if you take it too litearlly.actually, that only means the only way to legally spend your money is in government shops.We have no real taxation, it's just that what the government spends, the government recovers.Plus, my people could have voted for it, in which case due process wouldn't have been violated.And i don't believe you have provided all necessary vaccinations, because the diseases you should have vaccinated against are almost certianly the "easily preventable diseases"crippling your poor.

The average income tax rate is 100%


Looks live you've violated the Due Process resolution if you take it too litearlly.actually, that only means the only way to legally spend your money is in government shops.We have no real taxation, it's just that what the government spends, the government recovers.Plus, my people could have voted for it, in which case due process wouldn't have been violated.And i don't believe you have provided all necessary vaccinations, because the diseases you should have vaccinated against are almost certianly the "easily preventable diseases"crippling your poor.

There are plenty of easily preventable diseases not listed.

Well the majority will always be poor relative to the elite... but in low tariffs the majority is rich relative to in medium/high tarrifs.

Well I suppose in developed nations you will get a relativly affluent middle class developing but this is at the expense of the poorer nations. The middle class may be the majority in these nations but they are a tiny minority when compared globally. As I pointed out earlier those nations which are the most developed often have double standards with regard to free trade, the US and EU do quite well out of their protectionist policies while developing nations are bullied into opening their markets so the west can profit from them.

Malaria, typhoid, rubella, cholera, polio, et al

Well the majority will always be poor relative to the elite... but in low tariffs the majority is rich relative to in medium/high tarrifs.

Well I suppose in developed nations you will get a relativly affluent middle class developing but this is at the expense of the poorer nations. The middle class may be the majority in these nations but they are a tiny minority when compared globally. As I pointed out earlier those nations which are the most developed often have double standards with regard to free trade, the US and EU do quite well out of their protectionist policies while developing nations are bullied into opening their markets so the west can profit from them.

By opening markets you let developing nations icnrease their middle-class. China, which has very open markets, doubles it's middle class every five or six ye4ars since the eighties.

Malaria, typhoid, rubella, cholera, polio, et al

It says the big diseases. Who are you to say they aren't being crippled byh rare diseases?

Malaria, typhoid, rubella, cholera, polio, et al

It says the big diseases. Who are you to say they aren't being crippled byh rare diseases?rare diseases don't affect the entire proletariat of a nearly 1bill pop country.They become major if they do.

Malaria, typhoid, rubella, cholera, polio, et al

It says the big diseases. Who are you to say they aren't being crippled byh rare diseases?rare diseases don't affect the entire proletariat of a nearly 1bill pop country.They become major if they do.

Multiple rare diseases. And the proletariat is only like 10% of my country.

BUMP

How can the proletartiat only be 10% of your country? Since NationStates has no economic globalisation model or equivalent the proletariat must always be the majority in a capitalist nation.

How can the proletartiat only be 10% of your country? Since NationStates has no economic globalisation model or equivalent the proletariat must always be the majority in a capitalist nation.

No even before globalization the proletariat was a minority in every post-industrial-revolution capitalist society. Proletariat was only about 33% in teh US after WWI... long before globalization began.

Of course most people were proletarian in the industrial revolution when Marx and everyone was writing, but after the I.R., machines and automation largely took the place of proletariat workers.

A Japanese factory worker is dozens of times more prodcutive than a Burmese sweatshop worker because of technology... which is why Burma has dozens of times more proletariat than Japan does.

How can the proletartiat only be 10% of your country? Since NationStates has no economic globalisation model or equivalent the proletariat must always be the majority in a capitalist nation.

No even before globalization the proletariat was a minority in every post-industrial-revolution capitalist society. Proletariat was only about 33% in teh US after WWI... long before globalization began.

Of course most people were proletarian in the industrial revolution when Marx and everyone was writing, but after the I.R., machines and automation largely took the place of proletariat workers.

A Japanese factory worker is dozens of times more prodcutive than a Burmese sweatshop worker because of technology... which is why Burma has dozens of times more proletariat than Japan does.

That's not nessecarily true. In general, nations are either rich in land or labour: for instance, the US is rich in land, and India in labour. The US has never had a sizeable labour group as land is so plentiful (relavitely speaking). Of course, if you consider farmers to be part of the proletariat, this changes drastically.

However, if you look at the world as a whole, you will realize that while land is limited, labour isn't- the labour pool only grows as population increases. Thus, in a global sense, we must acknowledge that there is indeed a massive, expanding proletariat body.

It should be noted than when I use the term proletariat, I mean it synonymouse with labour. (as in a division of labour/land/capital)

How can the proletartiat only be 10% of your country? Since NationStates has no economic globalisation model or equivalent the proletariat must always be the majority in a capitalist nation.

No even before globalization the proletariat was a minority in every post-industrial-revolution capitalist society. Proletariat was only about 33% in teh US after WWI... long before globalization began.

Of course most people were proletarian in the industrial revolution when Marx and everyone was writing, but after the I.R., machines and automation largely took the place of proletariat workers.

A Japanese factory worker is dozens of times more prodcutive than a Burmese sweatshop worker because of technology... which is why Burma has dozens of times more proletariat than Japan does.

That's not nessecarily true. In general, nations are either rich in land or labour: for instance, the US is rich in land, and India in labour. The US has never had a sizeable labour group as land is so plentiful (relavitely speaking). Of course, if you consider farmers to be part of the proletariat, this changes drastically.

However, if you look at the world as a whole, you will realize that while land is limited, labour isn't- the labour pool only grows as population increases. Thus, in a global sense, we must acknowledge that there is indeed a massive, expanding proletariat body.

It should be noted than when I use the term proletariat, I mean it synonymouse with labour. (as in a division of labour/land/capital)

Hong Kong has one of the highest popuilation densities in the world yet it's like what 5% prole?

You fail to take into account technological growth.

Sure the proletariat is growing, but mostly in countries like the ones in Sub-Saharan Africa that are NOT receptive to corporate investment. Whereas in East Asian third-world countries, corporations ARE welcomed, thus China's middle class doubles in size every six years, Vietnam's every ten, etc.

And the US is only 2.5% farmer (yet we produce five times more food than China, which is 50% farmer)... so adding farmer as proletariat won't change the equation that much...

How can the proletartiat only be 10% of your country? Since NationStates has no economic globalisation model or equivalent the proletariat must always be the majority in a capitalist nation.

No even before globalization the proletariat was a minority in every post-industrial-revolution capitalist society. Proletariat was only about 33% in teh US after WWI... long before globalization began.

Of course most people were proletarian in the industrial revolution when Marx and everyone was writing, but after the I.R., machines and automation largely took the place of proletariat workers.

A Japanese factory worker is dozens of times more prodcutive than a Burmese sweatshop worker because of technology... which is why Burma has dozens of times more proletariat than Japan does.

Perhaps I should have been clearer, by equivalent I mean any model of international exploitation of labour. By the 20th century the proletariat may well have been a minority in many more developed nations (though I belive in Europe at least the large scale change from working class to middle class did not occur until after WWII. Sadly I am not familiar with the US.

As for your points regarding productivity, why do multinationals choose to use labour in the developing world if the developed world is so much more efficient? Also, surely US companies will have US technology no matter where they situate their factories.

Now in NationStates you have a developed capitalist nation but no poor developing world labour force to exploit and therefore your proletariat/cheap labour or whatever has to come from your own population. This group will be the largest because capitalism by nature concentrates wealth in the hands of the few at the expense of the masses. In a nation such as yours with minimal restrictions on the market (no longer a left-leaning college state either I see :()this will be even more noticable.

How can the proletartiat only be 10% of your country? Since NationStates has no economic globalisation model or equivalent the proletariat must always be the majority in a capitalist nation.

No even before globalization the proletariat was a minority in every post-industrial-revolution capitalist society. Proletariat was only about 33% in teh US after WWI... long before globalization began.

Of course most people were proletarian in the industrial revolution when Marx and everyone was writing, but after the I.R., machines and automation largely took the place of proletariat workers.

A Japanese factory worker is dozens of times more prodcutive than a Burmese sweatshop worker because of technology... which is why Burma has dozens of times more proletariat than Japan does.

Perhaps I should have been clearer, by equivalent I mean any model of international exploitation of labour. By the 20th century the proletariat may well have been a minority in many more developed nations (though I belive in Europe at least the large scale change from working class to middle class did not occur until after WWII. Sadly I am not familiar with the US.

As for your points regarding productivity, why do multinationals choose to use labour in the developing world if the developed world is so much more efficient? Also, surely US companies will have US technology no matter where they situate their factories.

Now in NationStates you have a developed capitalist nation but no poor developing world labour force to exploit and therefore your proletariat/cheap labour or whatever has to come from your own population. This group will be the largest because capitalism by nature concentrates wealth in the hands of the few at the expense of the masses. In a nation such as yours with minimal restrictions on the market (no longer a left-leaning college state either I see :()this will be even more noticable.

You also need training AND technology.

If a US worker is 15x more efficient than a Vietnamese worker but demands 20x more pay, then it is still economical to hire 15 Vietnamese workers than 1 US worker.

Capitalism concnetrates welath in the hands of the middle-class... over 80% of the US's GDP is middle-class consumption. The US population is also over 80% middle-class. THIRD-WORLD countries that are the most open to globalization have rapidly expanding middle-class. In 1980, China's middle class was only 3%. It was 7% in 1990 and a bit over 20% in 2000.

My country is 99% proletariat and it's all because of those evil Corporations that steal our money even though I abolished foreign investment and am running the country like a psychotic dictator!!!!

Everyone should have an 'evil twin' puppet nation. Check out mine.

Hong Kong has one of the highest popuilation densities in the world yet it's like what 5% prole?

You fail to take into account technological growth.

Sure the proletariat is growing, but mostly in countries like the ones in Sub-Saharan Africa that are NOT receptive to corporate investment. Whereas in East Asian third-world countries, corporations ARE welcomed, thus China's middle class doubles in size every six years, Vietnam's every ten, etc.

And the US is only 2.5% farmer (yet we produce five times more food than China, which is 50% farmer)... so adding farmer as proletariat won't change the equation that much...

What do you mean by proletariat exactly?

Anyways, Hong Kong is still, to my knowledge, largely labour based, especially in terms of advanced manufacturing. Basically, we devide an economy into three sectors- land, labour and capital. A nation may be rich in land and capital (as in the US) or labour and capital (as in Hong Kong) but never all three. Developing nations tend to be poor in land and capital and abundant in labor, and occaisonally poor in labour and capital and abundant in land.

If you equate labour with proletariat (i.e. people who do not own the means of production) then it is more than possible to have middle-class proletariat- the blue collar workers.

I agree with you to a certain extent in that some third world economies do grow quite nicely under free trade regimes- however, general welfare does not nessecarily grow, and invariable someone loses out as previously profitable sectors become uncompetitive, and the government lacks capital needed to retrain them in a more profitable sector.

Also, globally speaking, considering farmers as proletariat (specifically those who don't own the land they work) does change the proportions radically. As you said, 50% of Chinese citizens are farmers- thats 500million+ right there.

Hong Kong has one of the highest popuilation densities in the world yet it's like what 5% prole?

You fail to take into account technological growth.

Sure the proletariat is growing, but mostly in countries like the ones in Sub-Saharan Africa that are NOT receptive to corporate investment. Whereas in East Asian third-world countries, corporations ARE welcomed, thus China's middle class doubles in size every six years, Vietnam's every ten, etc.

And the US is only 2.5% farmer (yet we produce five times more food than China, which is 50% farmer)... so adding farmer as proletariat won't change the equation that much...

What do you mean by proletariat exactly?

Anyways, Hong Kong is still, to my knowledge, largely labour based, especially in terms of advanced manufacturing. Basically, we devide an economy into three sectors- land, labour and capital. A nation may be rich in land and capital (as in the US) or labour and capital (as in Hong Kong) but never all three. Developing nations tend to be poor in land and capital and abundant in labor, and occaisonally poor in labour and capital and abundant in land.

If you equate labour with proletariat (i.e. people who do not own the means of production) then it is more than possible to have middle-class proletariat- the blue collar workers.

I agree with you to a certain extent in that some third world economies do grow quite nicely under free trade regimes- however, general welfare does not nessecarily grow, and invariable someone loses out as previously profitable sectors become uncompetitive, and the government lacks capital needed to retrain them in a more profitable sector.

Also, globally speaking, considering farmers as proletariat (specifically those who don't own the land they work) does change the proportions radically. As you said, 50% of Chinese citizens are farmers- thats 500million+ right there.

I'm using proletariat as someone who is dirt-poor. The old definition of proletariat as someone who doesn't own a means of production is outdated, cause then most of the multimillionaires in teh US would be proletarian.

To respond to several nations claiming that low tarriffs will actually do good for the people of less economically developed nations:

Poor Country A lowers or eliminates all tarrifs. Sock manufacturing companies in the Republic of Wealthia immediately begin flooding the Country A market with their socks. Because the companies in Wealthia have been developing for a very long time under a supportive, prosperous government, and in a large, well-developed economy, their socks are manufactured cheaply and efficiently, in large numbers, using the latest technology and a streamlined corporate structure. The sock makers of country A, however, do not have access to advanced technology, and their industry has just gotten off of the ground, not having time for streamlined organization. Their socks, as a result, are far more expencive than those that Wealthia is exporting to Country A. As a result, no-one buys locally made socks, the entire Country A sock industry goes bankrupt, leaving millions of former sock-makers unemployed. Meanwhile, Wealthian companies establish sweatshops in Country A to take advantage of the cheap labor force. Being unemployed and thus having no choice, local sockmakers now find themselves working for Wealthian companies, all the profits going to some other country rather than trickling down to them in any form, earning a wage which is just slightly less than enough to pay rent and buy food at the same time. At least they all have access to cheaper socks. Too bad they're mizerable and horribly poor, and are likely to stay that way.

Meanwhile, Poor Country B has punitive tarriffs which make all foreign-made socks being imported into B cost more than locally made socks by the time they reach the consumer. As a result, most people buy socks from local companies. Country B's sock industry develops safely, without fearing foreign competition, and begins to modernize and streamline its corporate structures. The local sock companies only compete with each other, and, as they grow, they begin to be able to afford to raise wages, so as to hire more workers and gain an edge over local competition. Over time, more of Country B's people become employed, and wages rise. Meanwhile, locally made socks drop in price as the industry develops. One day, Counry B finds that it can begin exporting its now-cheaply made socks to the backward Country A, and Country B's sock giants begin to establish sweatshops in Country A. At this point of time, Country B suddenly starts preaching low tarrifs (because by now, they would HELP the local economy, which can now handle competition).

The moral of the story is that low tarrifs are good for economically developed countries, but to become an economically developed country, you need the tarrifs high at first.

Office of the Governor
Royal Colony at NationStates
Planetian Empire

Time and again the world has witnessed that “free trade” is a euphemism economic suicide and this applies to both strong and poor economies alike. Once showcase nations have now imploded. Consider Argentina, Indonesia, and Zambia ... all former poster nations for deregulation and "trade liberalization" that have since landed in the crapper. The “Asian Tiger” economies have been tranquilized in the Asian Financial Meltdown – actually put to sleep in Indonesia's instance. Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Hong Kong - these nations became powerhouse economies in the first place thanks to strong tariffs. U.S. pressure compelled deregulation of international investment and disaster quickly followed.

Why?

The “free trade” faithful argue that regulations slow foreign investment into a country. True. But they also slow “capital flight” out of it. When these nations lowered their barriers, it welcomed in a flood of foreign capital. But the market is a capricious, greedy god - easily bored and sticky fingered. When fly-by-night foreign capital left, it siphoned off a lot of domestic capital with it. These stampeded investment lemmings cost their economies much of their homegrown wealth.

Needless to say, this cripples strong economies and exterminates weak ones. Since the IMF & World Bank apply tremendous pressure on developing nations to privatize their infrastructure, capital flight tends to carry off everything that isn’t nailed down – and almost nothing is nailed down anymore.

The consequences are not just devastating but deadly. Since their theorists consider socialized medicine an anathema, free-trade gurus had forced many African nations to dismantle their systems in the midst of the AIDS pandemic. The theory was that plucky entrepreneurs would fill the resulting health care vacuum, but that did not happen. In a pure market environment, care follows the money and consequently skips the country. Former government doctors were forced into private practice and discovered that their patients couldn’t pay. Those who chose to stay and fight the disease had to find employment with foreign relief agencies. Others packed their bags in search of wealthy patients abroad.

Sub-Saharan Africa is suffering the worst human tragedy since the trans-Atlantic slave trade, which is itself a grim example of unhampered markets. JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association, estimates that every year about 1.5 million Africans die of HIV/AIDS. Tag-team diseases are deadly things. AIDS kills by undermining the body’s ability to weather otherwise survivable diseases such as pneumonia. Privatization kills by undermining societies’ ability to fight AIDS.

I know the issue is “free trade” rather than privatization; but the issues are linked. “Free Trade” is never just about “free trade”, but a host of other things. For example, its advocates don’t just regard tariffs as “unfair barriers to trade” but labor, safety, and environmental legislation as well. The United States’ Clean Air Act was declared such by the World Trade Organization’s very first ruling. A Venezuelan petrol company wanted to market its dirty burning gasoline in the U.S. and sued the U.S. for “lost profits.” The U.S. was forced to gut the law or annually pay the company its estimated losses. America chose the former. Governments should punish polluters; but under “free trade” treaties, polluters punish any government that dares to regulate its own air quality – even the mighty United States.

You will note that I use the phrase “free trade” in quotes. That is because there is nothing free about it. Advocates claim their goal is to free us of “burdensome regulation”, but the WTO generates plenty of its own regulation. Once again, the case of AIDS in Africa furnishes another grim example. Pharmaceutical giants have been price-gouging poor countries on AIDS drugs simply because they could. In response, AIDS-ravaged nations claimed the right to make generic equivalents domestically and shop around for overstock abroad where it often cost 90% less (wholesale isn’t cheaper when the manufacturer is evil). Article 28 of the WTO's Trips accord forbids nations from attempting this, but Article 6 allows shopping around in the event of a national emergency. Gee, I think this counts; but of course the corporate lawyers who become WTO bureaucrats don’t. Trips agreements are a lot like insurance policies with conflicting clauses; one is there for show and the other protects profits. Guess which one gets applied? And who makes these decicions? Secret judges. I'm not kidding. There is nothing free about this.

Even when “free trade” is strictly about erasing tariffs, it is still a sham. No nation in human history has ever built up its infant industries without protective tariffs. The U.S. and Great Britain both built their manufacturing bases behind massive tariff barriers. They only embraced the ideology of “free trade” after they had gotten a long head start, and only to prevent other nations from following in their footsteps. So-called “free trade” is deadly poison sold as medicine.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20000214&s=lynas
http://www.sierraclub.org/trade/summit/factsa.asp
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=96&row=1

Rotovia charges huge Tariffs that result in many benifits, not only the obvious reduction in cheaper imports flooding local markets. But, it the money is used to sponser local bussinesses and suppliment taxes.

It is well known that business (especialyl agricultural) subsidies raise prices. So you make your citizens not only pay higher prices for local goods, but then user government policies that increase those prices even more? You obviously have no concern for your citizens.

The US Omnibus Farm Bill is one of the stupidest business subsidies in the world. We spend ten billion dollars to get farmers to RAISE their crop prices by another five billion, then spend twenty-five billion to give the poor food stamps. That costs fifty billion. If we cut farm subsidies we can give the poor just ten billion to buy the same amount of food. That saves forty billion dollars of taxpayer money.

Where did I claim that Tariffes were used to support farmers? No where, Why? Because we don't. Rotovia has reduced tax rates to assist farmers, and even lower during dry seasons. The tariffes are used to help small bussinesess get started.

Is this that proposal to decrease tariffs by 25%???
This is total fubar!!! DON"T VOTE FOR IT!!!

Everyone should have an 'evil twin' puppet nation. Check out mine.
I don't need an evil twin. You are enough.
I'm using proletariat as someone who is dirt-poor. The old definition of proletariat as someone who doesn't own a means of production is outdated, cause then most of the multimillionaires in teh US would be proletarian.
With all due respect, sir, you are an idiot. The proletariat is the working class, meaning that they are the employees of any company. They are the people who actually work to PRODUCE things.

A capitalist economy without a proletariat is a capitalist economy that doesn't produce anything. Yeah, I can see how well that would work. :roll:

As for the proposal that this topic is trying to promote, I think my comrades have already pointed out the ways in which it would screw the poor and make the rich even richer. I don't need to go over that again.

In short:

If you are on the side of a tiny minority of rich elitists who get their money from other people's work, vote FOR this proposal.

If you are on the side of the vast majority of poor and middle class workers who spend their days at work, only have the fruits of their labour stolen by their capitalist overlords, vote AGAINST this proposal.

1. CoOpera states:

'But the market is a capricious, greedy god - easily bored and sticky fingered. When fly-by-night foreign capital left, it siphoned off a lot of domestic capital with it. These stampeded investment lemmings cost their economies much of their homegrown wealth.'

This refers to what is claimed to be exploitation of countries that let down their trade barriers.. Strip the flowery, immotive language and the fact that those nations did not meet up to the challenge that the market offers is evident. The solution to those nations issues is not to close up trade barriers or to be protectionist. But to push to create industries/products that are market worthy. I.e. create/do something that people want to pay for and continue to be successful. Granted losers in a free trade situation can be treated harshly be the market. Perhaps this is educational? Perhaps people/nations learn from failure and suceed in future. Should this learning process be impeded by socialism or protectionism (many conservatives are guilty of this) or even religion..??

2. Constantinopolis states (an imploded economy - what a surprise!):

'If you are on the side of the vast majority of poor and middle class workers who spend their days at work, only have the fruits of their labour stolen by their capitalist overlords, vote AGAINST this proposal.'

Again more immotive rhetoric. The market is class neutral. It only recognises winners and losers in situations of competition. Nothing is stolen from workers. They are hired to perform a job of work. They are paid for it. Everyone can suceed but few have the nerve to try or the ability to win.

3. Another pearl of wisdom from Constantinopolis:

'If you are on the side of a tiny minority of rich elitists who get their money from other people's work, vote FOR this proposal'

Nobody is forced to work for a particular employer. Maybe rich people get money because they have a great idea(s) and the ability to turn that idea into a healthy business - bringing in revenue and employment for that country/region.

Everyone should have an 'evil twin' puppet nation. Check out mine.
I don't need an evil twin. You are enough.
I'm using proletariat as someone who is dirt-poor. The old definition of proletariat as someone who doesn't own a means of production is outdated, cause then most of the multimillionaires in teh US would be proletarian.
With all due respect, sir, you are an idiot. The proletariat is the working class, meaning that they are the employees of any company. They are the people who actually work to PRODUCE things.

A capitalist economy without a proletariat is a capitalist economy that doesn't produce anything. Yeah, I can see how well that would work. :roll:

So.... Hollywood actors that make $100 million a year are proletariat. Gotcha. You're using 19th century definitions and applying them today.

so long as I am leader of my country, there will NEVER be FREE TRADE!
why screw local industry over to save a few million dollars? If everyone paid $1 more tax every year, this would more than make up for it.
so to free trade, nnooo way!

So.... Hollywood actors that make $100 million a year are proletariat. Gotcha.
Yes they are, as a matter of fact. "Proletarian" does not necessarely mean "poor". Hollywood actors are proletarians.
The MAJORITY of proletarians are poor, not all of them.

an imploded economy - what a surprise!
First, let me introduce you to a friend of mine, The United Socialist States of __America__ (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=__america__). See his economic rating? Frightening. And as you can plainly see, his nation is just as socialist as my own, if not more so.

Also, my own puppet, Constantine Europa (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=constantine_europa), has a Thriving economy.

So please try not to make a fool of yourself.

Again more immotive rhetoric. The market is class neutral. It only recognises winners and losers in situations of competition. Nothing is stolen from workers. They are hired to perform a job of work. They are paid for it. Everyone can suceed but few have the nerve to try or the ability to win.
Yes, I did use emotive language - because the issue had already been settled by my comrades, so there was nothing left to say. But I suppose I need to go back to the basics for you.
Fine then. Let me explain to you how capitalist exploitation works:

Every employee works using means of production which are the property of his employer. The product of his work also becomes the property of his employer. In exchange for this, the employee receives a salary. But this salary has no connection with the actual value of the product that the employee produces. That product - the fruit of the employee's labour - becomes the property of the employer.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. You see, labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and how much they are willing to work for. It has nothing to do whatsoever with the value of the product he produces.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.

Nobody is forced to work for a particular employer. Maybe rich people get money because they have a great idea(s) and the ability to turn that idea into a healthy business - bringing in revenue and employment for that country/region.
Good ideas should be rewarded, and socialism/communism does that. But capitalism allows you to make an infinite sum of money with a single good idea. All the work is done by the workers. They are the ones who turn the idea into a healthy business. But they are always paid LESS than what they rightfully earn, because their boss (who happened to come up with one good idea a long time ago) takes a large part of the value of each employee's work.

The person who came up with a good idea made a one-time investment, so he should get a one-time reward for it. But in capitalism, the workers must pay for his investment over and over and over again.

And the workers may not be forced to work for a particular employer, but they are forced to work for some employer. And every employer exploits them in the same way.

Also, I see that the "Free Trade and Protectionism" proposal has expired and has been thrown into the dustbin, where it belongs. We have scored another victory against capitalist oppression!

Well Constantinopolis using your definition of proletariat, MOST proletariat in the US are RICH. The US is 5/6 middle-class, and by your definition of proletariat, over 90% proletariat. The definition is outdated. If you want to define proletariat is "someone who doesn't own a means of production", then they aren't oppressed at all. When I use proletariat I'm referring to people who are actually poor.

And your socialist countries with high economies are a minority... whereas capitalist countries with high economies are a majority...

AND I have better Civil AND political freedoms than __America__, so what few economic benefits there are from authoritarian socialism are quickly offest by the fact that you are less free than in a capitalist system.

Also, no investment is one-time. You have to keep marketing and managing your product. Your product may not be popular at first, but it may catch on later. You should get the benefits from that.

I never said a worker is paid as much as his product is worth, I said a worker is paid as much as his JOB is worth. If there's many people willing to take his job, then his job won't be worth as much. If he has a rare skill, like being really good at a certain sport, then he will be paid a lot. Sociology is relative. This is fair.

And if a worker doesnt' want to work for an employer, he can be self-employed. Lots of people are. You can sue people, that's a very popular form of self-employment :lol:. And I'd much rather be "oppressed" by Nike than by, oh say, the Grossdeutsches Reich\.

Well Constantinopolis using your definition of proletariat, MOST proletariat in the US are RICH. The US is 5/6 middle-class, and by your definition of proletariat, over 90% proletariat. The definition is outdated. If you want to define proletariat is "someone who doesn't own a means of production", then they aren't oppressed at all. When I use proletariat I'm referring to people who are actually poor.
"Rich"? Compared to whom, exactly? Because they sure aren't rich compared to the bourgeois upper class!

And your socialist countries with high economies are a minority... whereas capitalist countries with high economies are a majority...
A minority of what? A majority of what? And just how the hell can you possibly know any of this without having access to any NS statistics, anyway?

AND I have better Civil AND political freedoms than __America__, so what few economic benefits there are from authoritarian socialism are quickly offest by the fact that you are less free than in a capitalist system.
First of all, get a clue as to what you're talking about. Neither myself, nor __America__, nor any other socialists or communists can ever POSSIBLY be authoritarian. This is because our goal is to put power into the hands of the people. You cannot have socialism without democracy. And communism is a system with no government, for God's sake!

And anyway, I fail to see how Superb civil rights and Very Good political freedoms make me "authoritarian". :roll:

As for your capitalist "freedoms", I'd like to point out that your unemployed or working-class citizens are variously starving to death or being crippled by easily preventable diseases. Oh yeah, I can see how "free" they are. :roll:

Also, no investment is one-time. You have to keep marketing and managing your product.
...or hire someone else (a manager) to do that for you, which is what most capitalist owners do.

I never said a worker is paid as much as his product is worth, I said a worker is paid as much as his JOB is worth. If there's many people willing to take his job, then his job won't be worth as much.
So, basically, the value of YOUR work is determined by what OTHER PEOPLE do. Thank you for proving my point about capitalism.

"Rich"? Compared to whom, exactly? Because they sure aren't rich compared to the bourgeois upper class!

And George W. Bush is poor compared to Bill Gates.

By classic definitions, alot of proletariat are richer than bourgeoisie... Arnold Schwarzenegger is a proletariat but a small time shop owner netting $40,000 a year for his family is a bourgeoisie.

The proletariat in America is wealtheir than the Bourgeoisie in Eastern Europe... even though Soviet-style wage limitations mean that the income gap in Eastern Europe is pretty small.


A minority of what? A majority of what? And just how the hell can you possibly know any of this without having access to any NS statistics, anyway?

A minoirty of other socialist countries and a majority of other capitalist countries. Just look at countries. The ones with frightening economies are USUALLY in "high economic freedom" categories, i.e. capitalizt, etc. And nationstates was designed by someone who isn't exactly a capitalist. The fact that capitalist-leaning countries are GENERALLY richer than comparable socialist-leaning countries is even more apparent in real life.

First of all, get a clue as to what you're talking about. Neither myself, nor __America__, nor any other socialists or communists can ever POSSIBLY be authoritarian.

Tyranny of the majority is an authoritarian system.

This is because our goal is to put power into the hands of the people. You cannot have socialism without democracy. And communism is a system with no government, for God's sake!

Athens in BC 405 was an authoritarian democracy.

And anyway, I fail to see how Superb civil rights and Very Good political freedoms make me "authoritarian". :roll:

Well I have Frightening and Excellent, which is higher than you.

As for your capitalist "freedoms", I'd like to point out that your unemployed or working-class citizens are variously starving to death or being crippled by easily preventable diseases. Oh yeah, I can see how "free" they are. :roll:

This is because the game associates that with all capitalizt countries. All capitalizt countries have that same description. Just like all anarchy countries say "as the collapse of the government has led to the rise of order through biker gangs"... even though in many of those anarchy countries bikes are illegal and crime is very low (look at Jerist)

...or hire someone else (a manager) to do that for you, which is what most capitalist owners do.

If you own part of a company, you should get paid so long as the company is turning a profit, because you invested in the company.

So, basically, the value of YOUR work is determined by what OTHER PEOPLE do. Thank you for proving my point about capitalism.

Actually your work is half determined by others, half determined by yourself. This is the market adjusting itself naturally. This makes it so that not everyone does the same job. If only a few people work in a certain field, then more people will choose that field because of high wages, causing those wages to return to normal. Just as in a very popular field, more people will move out when wages are too low, thus raising wages back to what hte person's work is worth.

It balances out-- your pay is pretty much what your work is worth.

What happens if I can simply out produce someone and crush their economy so I can buy all their infrastructure?

I think that is likely enough to cause some fear.

And George W. Bush is poor compared to Bill Gates.
By classic definitions, alot of proletariat are richer than bourgeoisie... Arnold Schwarzenegger is a proletariat but a small time shop owner netting $40,000 a year for his family is a bourgeoisie.
How many Hollywood actors are there, again? For every one of them, there are probably almost 1 million other proletarians in the US who are poorer than the vast majority of bourgeois.

You see, that's my point: rich proletarians and poor bourgeois do exist, but they are EXTREMELY rare.

The proletariat in America is wealtheir than the Bourgeoisie in Eastern Europe... even though Soviet-style wage limitations mean that the income gap in Eastern Europe is pretty small.
LOL! :lol: You don't know much about Eastern Europe, do you? Well, since I live there, let me explain a few things to you:

First of all, the new capitalist system almost completely exterminated the middle class. Before 1989, there was virtually no poverty like the one you can see in the west. True enough, the incompetence of stalinist bureaucrats meant that the planned economy was not working as it should have and our average standards of living were lower than yours. But our poor were much richer than your poor. After 1989, though, the move to capitalism brought an economic crash that turned the life savings of millions of people into dust. Poverty reached levels that had been unheard of for 40 years. Nearly all of the former middle class had been pushed down into misery. The only ones who profited were the old stalinist party members, who had turned into capitalist entrepreneurs overnight. The gap between rich and poor became immense, and it has stayed that way ever since.

Eastern Europe has a much larger gap between rich and poor than even the United States. And the biggest inequality can be found in Russia, no less. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Russia currently has the biggest income inequality of all the countries of the Global North.

A minoirty of other socialist countries and a majority of other capitalist countries. Just look at countries. The ones with frightening economies are USUALLY in "high economic freedom" categories, i.e. capitalizt, etc. And nationstates was designed by someone who isn't exactly a capitalist. The fact that capitalist-leaning countries are GENERALLY richer than comparable socialist-leaning countries is even more apparent in real life.
Those "rich" capitalist countries also have a tendency to have people starving to death in the streets. Not exactly the kind of place I'd like to live in.

And keep in mind that the true meaning of "high economic freedom" is that the rich have the freedom to screw the poor as much as they want.

Tyranny of the majority is an authoritarian system.
And your plutocracy (i.e. tyranny of the rich minority) is better??

Athens in BC 405 was an authoritarian democracy.
Yes, and a quite capitalist one at that.

Well I have Frightening and Excellent, which is higher than you.
True. Then again, you basically legalized murder, so it shouldn't come as any surprise.

This is because the game associates that with all capitalizt countries. All capitalizt countries have that same description. Just like all anarchy countries say "as the collapse of the government has led to the rise of order through biker gangs"... even though in many of those anarchy countries bikes are illegal and crime is very low (look at Jerist)
Oh, I see. So any game elements that you like automatically become real life truths, while those you don't like are just quirks of the game. :roll:

If you own part of a company, you should get paid so long as the company is turning a profit, because you invested in the company.
Non-sequitur. You still haven't given me any logical reason why you should get paid over and over again for a single one-time contribution (known as an investment).

My logic says that when you give someone money, they give it back (possibly with interest) ONCE. And then the deal is closed. But your capitalist logic says that when you give someone money, they should keep paying you for the rest of their lives.

Actually your work is half determined by others, half determined by yourself. This is the market adjusting itself naturally. This makes it so that not everyone does the same job. If only a few people work in a certain field, then more people will choose that field because of high wages, causing those wages to return to normal. Just as in a very popular field, more people will move out when wages are too low, thus raising wages back to what hte person's work is worth.
You talk about "the market" as if it was some sort of sacred, untouchable judge of fairness. Well, guess what? It's not. The market adjusts itself so that it benefits the people interacting with it from the outside, but it is horribly unjust and immoral to the people who are involved in it. Why should I get paid different sums of money for the same work, depending on how many other people are willing to take my job? This is borderline slavery. I should get paid the value of the product I make. And that value should be determined by the satisfaction of my customers.

Trade should be settled in the common market. Protectionism will remain in place regardless of agreements made. This is called "sovereignty." There is no such thing as Free trade, as trade is never equal. Trade is conducted when both parties believe they have reached an agreement that suits themselves the best. The problem is the loss of revenue that industry creates, affects the economic strength of a nation. The lack of industry in a country, condemns that nation to only trade in resources. This is called a "Third World economy." This is the replacement of Industry by Brokerage's, creating a wholly "service," industry and destroying the middle class that seperates the very rich from the very poor, and inviting tyranny. :idea:

Gordopollis wrote:

"Strip the flowery, immotive language and the fact that those nations did not meet up to the challenge that the market offers is evident. The solution to those nations issues is not to close up trade barriers or to be protectionist. But to push to create industries/products that are market worthy. I.e. create/do something that people want to pay for and continue to be successful. Granted losers in a free trade situation can be treated harshly be the market. Perhaps this is educational?"

Perhaps Gordopollis thinks getting raped is educational? In any case, it seems he is need of some form of education because, beyond his blame-the-victim take, his post belies his poor reading skills. If there weren’t "something that people want to pay for" there would not have been a flood of foreign investment into Indonesia in the first place! Indonesia was (once again) one of the “Asian Tiger” economies that awed the west until recently and a major oil producer. Indonesia has - or had - a great deal of attractive domestically produced capital.

I find it curious that you guys insist "free trade" is for everyone - especially poor nations - until some credulous nation (rich or poor) implodes thanks to your bad advice. Then you shrug and say it is not for everyone.

"2. Constantinopolis states (an imploded economy - what a surprise!):"

I hate to break it to you, but Nation States is a game rather than a plausible model of anything except attitudes (and even then, it is admittedly caricatured). In the real world, pro-business policies often savage economies because letting the fox guard the hen house is quite simply a stupid idea. Almost no in-game daily issues reflect this, but crises of real world nations reflect it very well.

"Again more immotive rhetoric. The market is class neutral. It only recognises winners and losers in situations of competition. Nothing is stolen from workers. They are hired to perform a job of work. They are paid for it. Everyone can suceed but few have the nerve to try or the ability to win."

The market is class neutral? Tell you what: let’s run a race. You run, I’ll drive. And of course, plebian pedestrians are five points.

Nothing is stolen from workers? Time (i.e. life) is stolen when people have to work 16-hour days to just scrape by. People are being robbed when they are not being paid what they are worth.

"Nobody is forced to work for a particular employer. Maybe rich people get money because they have a great idea(s) and the ability to turn that idea into a healthy business - bringing in revenue and employment for that country/region."

People are forced to work for particular employers all the time by economic necessity – prostitution is not always a voluntary career choice, and nobody chooses to work in a sweatshop for 16 hours a day if alternatives are available.

Okay, clearly this guy believes capital creates wealth and that labor should be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the table. Wealth is not a side effect of capitalism; it is the product off labor in society, and capitalists take more than their fair share. Let’s hear from some clearer, learned heads.

In 1750, a Boston pamphleteer named “Phileleutheros” put the situation in plain, if “immotive” (sic.) terms, “From your Labour and Industry arises all that can be called Riches, and by your Hands it must be defended: Gentry, Clergy, Lawyers, and military Officers, do all support their Grandeur by your Sweat, and at your Hazard.” The words were lifted almost verbatim from Cato’s Letters, No. 69; but as the borrowing author points out, it’s virtue, “is not altogether lost by crossing the Atlantic.” This and many other class conscious assaults and wealth and aristocracy can be found in Gary B. Nash’s “The Urban Crucible: Social Change, Political Consciousness and the Origins of the American Revolution” Harvard U Press, 1979. Here is another from a writer to the New York Gazette in 1765:

“Some individuals … by the Smiles of Providence, or some other means, are enabled to roll in their four whell’d (sic.) Carriages, and can support the expense of good Houses, rich Furniture, and Luxurious Living. But is it equitable that 99, rather 999, should suffer for the Extravagance or Grandeur of one? Especially when it is considered that Men frequently owe their Wealth to the impoverishment of their Neighbors?”

Or as St. Jerome put it, "Not all rich men are thieves; some are the grandsons of thieves.”

Such economic critiques weren’t limited to anonymous pamphleteers and ancient Romans. Many big wigs in the American Revolution understood the accumulation of wealth in the same way. Patriot Thomas Paine, who wrote “Common Sense”, wrote another pamphlet entitled “Agrarian Justice” in which he spelled out what countless revolutionaries thought:

"The accumulation of personal property is, in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the labor that produced it; the consequence of which is that the working hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence."

Paine said this had to stop. His solution was a welfare plan funded by taxation and he anticipated rightwing critiques of its justice:

“Land, as before said, is the free gift of the Creator in common to the human race. Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally. Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. ... All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.”

Benjamin Franklin agreed that wealth came from living in society and that we owed a portion of it back:

“All property, indeed, except the savage’s temporary cabin, his bow, his match coat, and other little acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public convention. Hence the public has the right of regulating decents, and all other conveyances of property, and even limiting the quantity and users of it. All the property that is necessary to a man, for the conservation of the individual and the propagation of the species, is his natural right, which none can justly deprive him of: but all property superfluous to such purposes is the property of the public, who, by their laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the welfare of the public shall demand such disposition. He that does not like civil society on these terms, let him retire and live among savages. He can have no right to the benefits of society, who will not pay his club towards the support of it.”

- Page 220 The Norton Critical Edition of Benjamin Franklin’s Autobiography: An Authoritative Text edited by J.A. Leo LeMay and P.M. Zall, New York: W.W. Norton & Co. and Page 139 Vol. IX The Writings of Benjamin Franklin Albert H Smyth ed., 10 vols. New York: MacMillan, 1905-7

Thomas Jefferson embraced the use of taxation to achieve greater economic equality, as well:

“I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all children, or to all brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise.”

- Page 18, Vol. 19 Writings of Thomas Jefferson Lipscomb and Bergh ed., Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, Washington DC, 1905

Thomas Jefferson was absolutely in favor of taxing the rich, and accordingly, he was in favor of those nasty tariffs that “free traders” daily bewail:

“We are all the more reconciled to tax importations, because it falls exclusively on the rich. …In fact the poor man in this country who uses nothing but what is made within his own farm or family, or within the United States, pays not a farthing of tax to the general government, but on his salt; and should we go into that manufacture as we ought to do, we will pay not one cent. Our revenues once liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., and the farmer will see his government supported, is children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spare a cent from his earnings. The path we are now pursuing leads directly to this end, which we cannot fail to attain unless our administration should fall into unwise hands.”

- Page 39, Vol. 13 Writings of Thomas Jefferson Lipscomb and Bergh ed., Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, Washington DC, 1905

Suffice to say, our administration has fallen into unwise hands.

As even George Will has admitted, Abraham Lincoln was an ideological student of Thomas Jefferson. So it should be no surprise that Abe echoes Tom:

"And inasmuch as most good things are produced by labor, it follows that all such things of right belong to those whose labor produced them. But it has so happened, in all ages of the world, that some have labored, and others have without labor enjoyed a large portion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To secure to each laborer the whole product of his labor, or as nearly as possible, is a worthy object of any good government."

- Abraham Lincoln, Dec. 1st, 1847 Fragments of Tariff Discussion, Complete Works, Vol.I page 307.

Lincoln was arguing for tariffs, but he applied the same reasoning for unions and against slavery. You may wonder what this quote has to do with tariffs. Well, like Jefferson, Lincoln felt the working poor – who actually produce society’s wealth – should not be taxed. Abe saw tariffs on imported luxuries as a means of making the rich give something back to society.

Abe’s take sounds awfully familiar to the Industrial Workers of the World slogan "Labor is entitled to all it creates". While Lincoln's ideology was always pro-labor, for a time he defended capital as well - but he always put working people first:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it to be denied that there is, and probably always will be, relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of the community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class - neither work for others nor have others working for them." - Abe Lincoln, Annual Message 1861, - Also from - Reply to a Committee from the Workingmen's Association of New York March 21, 1864. Complete Works The second citation is on page 50 of the volume that covers that year (I forgot to record the volume number, but the volumes are organized chronologically and it should be easy to find).

Here Lincoln is describing a mostly agrarian America in which most people are presumed to be self-employed freeholders (except slaves). That America was already rapidly evaporating as the Civil War kicked industrial production into high gear and thereafter ushered in the Gilded Age of monopolies and sweatshops. Lincoln noticed these changes by the war's close. The tumor he once proclaimed was benign, he now recognized was malignant. Accordingly, he offered this more sober assessment of that cancer called capitalism:

"It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war." - Lincoln in a letter to William F. Elkins, Nov 21st, 1864, Lincoln Encyclopedia under the heading "Civil War, Aftermath feared" page 40 single volume.

[The content of this message has been deleted]

Gentlemen if we can move past defining Proliterate and Burgoise? Because in relaity these are little more that buzz words.

There is no class sytem as such in most Western nations. The poor are ussually those who can't find work, the middle class own no means of production yet still make money, the upper class often do no own any means of production either. It would then stand to reason that to make money in a Capitlist society does not require you to be Burgoise.

You see, that's my point: rich proletarians and poor bourgeois do exist, but they are EXTREMELY rare.

My dad and his entire research team are thus proletarian... I think the average income among them is something like $100k a year. According to your definitions I know more RICH proletarians than poor ones. It is obviously not extremely rare.

And Hollywood employs 400,000 people. Let's say 1% of them are rich and famous, that's still 4,000... times a million... I highly doubt America, who's entire population is only 250 million and is 80% middle class, has 4 billion poor people.


LOL! :lol: You don't know much about Eastern Europe, do you? Well, since I live there, let me explain a few things to you:

First of all, the new capitalist system almost completely exterminated the middle class. Before 1989, there was virtually no poverty like the one you can see in the west. True enough, the incompetence of stalinist bureaucrats meant that the planned economy was not working as it should have and our average standards of living were lower than yours. But our poor were much richer than your poor. After 1989, though, the move to capitalism brought an economic crash that turned the life savings of millions of people into dust. Poverty reached levels that had been unheard of for 40 years. Nearly all of the former middle class had been pushed down into misery. The only ones who profited were the old stalinist party members, who had turned into capitalist entrepreneurs overnight. The gap between rich and poor became immense, and it has stayed that way ever since.

Okay I guess that's my fault, but the State Mining Industry of Czechloslovakia only pays its bosses about 40-50% more than the workers.


Those "rich" capitalist countries also have a tendency to have people starving to death in the streets. Not exactly the kind of place I'd like to live in.

I live in America. I have yet to see a single person starving in the streets.

And your plutocracy (i.e. tyranny of the rich minority) is better??

I respect inalienable rights.


Yes, and a quite capitalist one at that.

How so? It was ruled by demagogues who would invade small defense cities than distribute the land to the city's poor. Athens was ruled by the poor not the rich since the Battle of Salamis.

Non-sequitur. You still haven't given me any logical reason why you should get paid over and over again for a single one-time contribution (known as an investment). My logic says that when you give someone money, they give it back (possibly with interest) ONCE. And then the deal is closed. But your capitalist logic says that when you give someone money, they should keep paying you for the rest of their lives.

An investment ISNT A ONE TIME THING. An investment is like if you borrow money from a bank, you can just keep collecting the interest and leaving your principal in the bank. That way the principal keeps collecting interest and (over an infinite amount of time), you become infinitely rich. It's the same thing with investments. If you buy a stock the stock generates interest called dividends. You can leave your money in the stock market as the principal and keep collecting dividends.

You talk about "the market" as if it was some sort of sacred, untouchable judge of fairness. Well, guess what? It's not. The market adjusts itself so that it benefits the people interacting with it from the outside, but it is horribly unjust and immoral to the people who are involved in it. Why should I get paid different sums of money for the same work, depending on how many other people are willing to take my job? This is borderline slavery. I should get paid the value of the product I make. And that value should be determined by the satisfaction of my customers.

The market does determine the value by the satisifaction of the customers. The customers are the ones paying you. Ultimately, if more people make a certain product, then the customers' standards will be higher and they will be harder to please.

The Global Market wrote:

“Capitalism concnetrates welath in the hands of the middle-class...”

Actually it does the exact opposite: it shrinks the middle class and makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Such an economy ultimately collapses unless saved from itself.

Why?

Because spending money makes the economy go ‘round and laid-off or underpaid consumers don’t consume much. Duh. Corporations are notoriously shortsighted; they like to downsize workforces, bust unions and fight minimum wage laws in order to maximize immediate profits. While initially profitable, it ultimately undermines the market for their products because the growing poor can’t afford them and the shrinking middle class already owns them. Such shortsightedness is built into the system since CEOs are judged by stockholders on whether they turned a profit *this* quarter and not whether they preserved the industry for the future. As a result, every CEO wants to be the guy who killed the goose that laid the golden egg – particularly if he can sell off his stock before the slaughter. Throughout the 1980s and 90s, corporate raiders did just that.

It never fails to amaze me how little “free market” theorists think about the market. Just as a healthy body requires the even circulation of blood, a healthy economy requires the even circulation of money. But unlike in the body, this doesn’t happen naturally. Money gravitates towards the wealthy because they own the stores folks spend their money in. Government needs to redirect wealth downward to prevent the clotting that can cause an economic seizure. Contrary to Reagan Era propaganda, giving the rich more money does not always result in job-creating investment. Sometimes they just sit on it. And sometimes it results in job-destroying investment such as developing “labor-saving” technologies or funding corporate takeovers that are invariably followed by layoffs of employees in “redundant” departments. Pure capitalism is not “trickle down” economics, but trickle up.

The Reagan way was called “supply side economics” because it ignored the demand (i.e. market) side of the economy. They believed that supply created its own demand. In other words, “If you build it, they will come”. Corporations only had to make stuff and people would buy it whether they could afford to or not. This is a stunningly naïve idea. Sure, ads can encourage folks to buy on credit and live beyond their means. But ultimately the momentum goes south: folks go bankrupt or get smart and tighten their belts - either way they stop buying so much stuff and the economy stalls. Consumer culture without consumer buying power is a house of cards.

Supply side advocates like to point to new products that have in turn produced new markets. PCs, CDs and DVDs are all cool new products that have created new industries. But the same problem remains: how many people can afford them before market saturation is reached? Sure, the computer industry has maintained recurrent customers thanks to rapid technological advancement and good old-fashioned planned obsolescence such as stupid bugs, but a lot of people still can’t afford to own a PC. Accordingly, the “invincible” New Economy, wasn’t so invincible after all because of limited participation. Supply *sometimes* creates its own demand, but demand *always* creates its own supply: If folks have disposable income, plucky entrepreneurs will *always* invent cool stuff to sell them. Should we build our economy on something that *sometimes* works or something that *always* works?

When the growing poor & shrinking middle class get sufficiently pissed, they take on the plutocracy through things like union strikes, minimum wage laws and monopoly busting legislation. This, in turn, puts more money in average people’s pockets through higher wages and restored consumer buying power resuscitates the market. Put in crass historical terms, FDR saved American capitalism’s ass.

The Global Market’s assumption that, “The US population is also over 80% middle-class” is interesting but doubtful in light of his claim that Hong Kong’s population is only 5% working class. (In actuality, over 20% of that city’s population is very poor and the number is rising.) But the ideal of a broad middle class is important to a healthy society both politically as well as economically. In his pamphlet "Information to Those Who Would Remove to America" Benjamin Franklin brags about our nation's then narrow wealth-gap. He tells potential immigrants that America has, "few people so miserable as the poor of Europe”, and “very few that in Europe would be called rich. It is rather a general happy mediocrity that prevails". That situation has since reversed itself and the U.S. now has one of the widest wealth-gaps in the industrialized world. Such a development would have horrified Franklin who feared the rise of another aristocracy. So much so that he claimed:

“An enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals is dangerous to the rights, and destructive of the common happiness, of mankind; and therefore every free state hath a right by it's laws to discourage the possession of such property.”

- Page 533, Vol. 22 The Papers of Benjamin Franklin William B. Willcox ed., Yale University Press, New Haven & London, 1982.

The venerable Benjamin Franklin penned this idea within days of signing the Declaration of Independence. Those Franklin quotes bolster both radical and bourgeois conceptions of American democracy. On the one hand, they affirm the American ideal that everybody is - or ought to be - middle class; on the other, they point to the interdependence of political and economic equality. Both radicals and middle class people can legitimately lay claim to this common heritage even though their thinking continues along different threads. Mind you, those two treads re-entwine from time to time. During the “Gilded Age” of monopolies, robber barons and sweatshops, the poor and the middleclass made common cause. This happened again in the era of another Franklin - name of Roosevelt. And it is long overdue now.

Respectfully,
Benjamin Paine
Diplomat, CoOpera

Editor's note: The Commonwealth of CoOpera’s national currency is the Franklin, also known as the Frank. Its national bird is the Wild Turkey, which is also the national drink.

Actually it does the exact opposite: it shrinks the middle class and makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Such an economy ultimately collapses unless saved from itself.

Yeah right. Is this why capitalist-leaning countries have such large middle-classes?

Because spending money makes the economy go ‘round and laid-off or underpaid consumers don’t consume much. Duh. Corporations are notoriously shortsighted; they like to downsize workforces, bust unions and fight minimum wage laws in order to maximize immediate profits.

Well if the government wasn't so anti-corporate, they wouldn't need to do that. Corporations don't bust unions. Unions should be perfectly LEGAL. On the other hand the minimum wage should be gotten rid of.

While initially profitable, it ultimately undermines the market for their products because the growing poor can’t afford them and the shrinking middle class already owns them.

Countries with hihg minimum wage have MORE PEOPLE MAKING THE MINIMUM WAGE. Very few Americans make the minimum wage because it is so low. Whereas Germany, which has a "living wage" has many many more people making that minimum wage and have no chance to advance.

Such shortsightedness is built into the system since CEOs are judged by stockholders on whether they turned a profit *this* quarter and not whether they preserved the industry for the future. As a result, every CEO wants to be the guy who killed the goose that laid the golden egg – particularly if he can sell off his stock before the slaughter. Throughout the 1980s and 90s, corporate raiders did just that.

Is this why some of today's biggest corporations have been around for over a century?

It never fails to amaze me how little “free market” theorists think about the market. Just as a healthy body requires the even circulation of blood, a healthy economy requires the even circulation of money. But unlike in the body, this doesn’t happen naturally. Money gravitates towards the wealthy because they own the stores folks spend their money in. Government needs to redirect wealth downward to prevent the clotting that can cause an economic seizure.

And you trust government to do this... because?

Contrary to Reagan Era propaganda, giving the rich more money does not always result in job-creating investment. Sometimes they just sit on it. And sometimes it results in job-destroying investment such as developing “labor-saving” technologies or funding corporate takeovers that are invariably followed by layoffs of employees in “redundant” departments. Pure capitalism is not “trickle down” economics, but trickle up.

Actually Reagen raised taxes quite a lot.

The Reagan way was called “supply side economics” because it ignored the demand (i.e. market) side of the economy. They believed that supply created its own demand. In other words, “If you build it, they will come”. Corporations only had to make stuff and people would buy it whether they could afford to or not. This is a stunningly naïve idea.

The minimum wage doesn't reflect the country as a whole. THE LOWER THE MINIMUM WAGE, THE FEWER PEOPLE ARE STUCK ON IT.

Sure, ads can encourage folks to buy on credit and live beyond their means. But ultimately the momentum goes south: folks go bankrupt or get smart and tighten their belts - either way they stop buying so much stuff and the economy stalls. Consumer culture without consumer buying power is a house of cards.

Yet...somehow...we have one of the highest qualities of life in the world.

Supply side advocates like to point to new products that have in turn produced new markets. PCs, CDs and DVDs are all cool new products that have created new industries. But the same problem remains: how many people can afford them before market saturation is reached?

We have almost one PC-per-person. People can afford computers.

Sure, the computer industry has maintained recurrent customers thanks to rapid technological advancement and good old-fashioned planned obsolescence such as stupid bugs, but a lot of people still can’t afford to own a PC. Accordingly, the “invincible” New Economy, wasn’t so invincible after all because of limited participation.

Only 80% of hte population.

Supply *sometimes* creates its own demand, but demand *always* creates its own supply: If folks have disposable income, plucky entrepreneurs will *always* invent cool stuff to sell them. Should we build our economy on something that *sometimes* works or something that *always* works?

You obvious need an intro macroeconomics course. Supply and demand cannot operate independently of each other.

When the growing poor & shrinking middle class get sufficiently pissed, they take on the plutocracy through things like union strikes, minimum wage laws and monopoly busting legislation.

What shrinking middle-class?

This, in turn, puts more money in average people’s pockets through higher wages and restored consumer buying power resuscitates the market. Put in crass historical terms, FDR saved American capitalism’s ass.

And tried to seize control of the country through things like Supreme Court-packing, interning a half million loyal citizens in concentration camps, some of whom weren't released until 1948, SECRETLY ordering the construction of nuclear weapons, exeucting a half dozen "spies" after a "trial" (which lasted shorter than most traffic ticket hearings) to increase his publicty. Face it, the man was a power-hungry American Caesar.

The Global Market’s assumption that, “The US population is also ove 80% middle-class” is interesting but doubtful in light of his claim that Hong Kong’s population is only 5% working class. (In actuality, over 20% of that city’s population is very poor and the number is rising.)

Have you actually been to Hong Kong? The poor are a tiny minority. And shrinking. The East Asian white collar job market doubles in less than a decade.

But the ideal of a broad middle class is important to a healthy society both politically as well as economically. In his pamphlet "Information to Those Who Would Remove to America" Benjamin Franklin brags about our nation's then narrow wealth-gap. He tells potential immigrants that America has, "few people so miserable as the poor of Europe”, and “very few that in Europe would be called rich. It is rather a general happy mediocrity that prevails". That situation has since reversed itself and the U.S. now has one of the widest wealth-gaps in the industrialized world. Such a development would have horrified Franklin who feared the rise of another aristocracy. So much so that he claimed:

What Franklin meant was the fact that the US didn't have a natural aristocracy. You must earn your right to be an aristocrat.

“An enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals is dangerous to the rights, and destructive of the common happiness, of mankind; and therefore every free state hath a right by it's laws to discourage the possession of such property.”

This is what autocracy does. Capitalism doesn't do this nor has it ever done this in the 20th century.

The Global Market wrote:

"Yeah right. Is this why capitalist-leaning countries have such large middle-classes?"

Thanks to unions, and people demanding social programs. In crony-capitalist dictatorships and banana "republics", corporations can do what ever they like and popular opposition is crushed. They are unquestionably capitalist nations and yet shantytown barrios made of tin sheets, chicken wire and cardboard form their suburbs.

"Well if the government wasn't so anti-corporate, they wouldn't need to do that."

Need?

"Corporations don't bust unions."

Around the world, union organizers get murdered every day – even in the States sometimes.

"Unions should be perfectly LEGAL."

Should be. They are on paper, but "Right to Work" states and the business-biased NLRB erect so many barriers it is almost impossible to organize new shops.

"On the other hand the minimum wage should be gotten rid of."

The minimum wage is one of the few things that preserve our consumer economy. Without it, wages would hit rock bottom. Today it is not unheard of to see employee parking lots outside of a factory. In the pre-New Deal "good old days", employees on the assembly line built things they could rarely hope to afford and walked home to grubby tenements instead of driving home to actual houses as they do now. You can thank "big government" and "big labor" for that.

"Countries with hihg minimum wage have MORE PEOPLE MAKING THE MINIMUM WAGE. Very few Americans make the minimum wage because it is so low. Whereas Germany, which has a "living wage" has many many more people making that minimum wage and have no chance to advance."

Those poor oppressed Germans with their six weeks of vacation, free healthcare and generous benefits. I suppose you believe Rush Limbaugh's absurd claim that the poor in America are better off that the mainstream of Europe? Maybe you even think such government generosity impedes innovation? Yeah, that German engineering is for shit and their businesses aren’t competitive at all.

“Is this why some of today's biggest corporations have been around for over a century?”

A lot of huge corporations have benefited from humongous government bailouts like Chrysler in the 80s. Many major defense contractors such as Lockheed and Huey have been rescued from the precipice of bankruptcy.

“And you trust government to do this... because?”

It has worked in the past. See below.

“Actually Reagen raised taxes quite a lot.”

Yes, on ordinary Americans. But the rich made out like bandits. Some corporations paid *zero* taxes. In the 1950s the highest tax bracket paid 90% and 2/3rds of federal revenues came from corporate taxes. That’s economic suicide according to conventional wisdom and yet we had the strongest, fairest economy in our nation’s history. Throughout the following decades the tax burden was gradually shifted onto ordinary Americans as the rich built tax shelters and corporate lobbyists greased to wheels. Reagan arrival only turbo-charged what was already going on.

“The minimum wage doesn't reflect the country as a whole. THE LOWER THE MINIMUM WAGE, THE FEWER PEOPLE ARE STUCK ON IT.”

Your mantra seems to be that a dropping tide lifts all boats. Repeating it won’t convince me. Let’s see some proof instead of Euro-bashing.

“Yet...somehow...we have one of the highest qualities of life in the world.”

We have the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world. Nations that *do* have the highest quality of life are those Scandinavian Liberal Paradises like Sweden, Denmark, … and CoOpera.

“We have almost one PC-per-person. People can afford computers.”

I’m typing this at a library. I play from PCs here and at my friends' apartments. I can’t afford to buy a computer and I know folks worse off than myself. Was that an in-character statement?

“Only 80% of hte population.”

Based on what? Homeownership? Pronouncements from Rush? Where does this figure come from?

“You obvious need an intro macroeconomics course. Supply and demand cannot operate independently of each other.”

You need to improve your reading skills (and spelling). I didn’t say they did. But when government directs the nation’s wealth towards business that is called “supply-side economics”.

“What shrinking middle-class?”

The middle class has been shrinking since Reagan took office. Part of that has been the loss of a lot of factory jobs that paid well enough to secure homeownership and all the other accoutrements of a “middle class standard of living”. For a brief time, working class Americans were also middleclass in income, if not culture.

“Have you actually been to Hong Kong? The poor are a tiny minority. And shrinking. The East Asian white collar job market doubles in less than a decade.”

No, I haven’t and somehow I doubt you have. You certainly haven’t toured their garment district to see how workers there live.

“What Franklin meant was the fact that the US didn't have a natural aristocracy.”

And he didn’t want a homegrown one to develop. The revolutionaries understood that aristocracy is not just a bunch of guys with fancy titles. They had a critique that asked how did aristocracies come about in the first place. Answer: rich guys throwing their weight around locally. Jefferson saw aristocratic airs rising among his fellow plantation owners and warned that it was a threat to democratic government. John Adams told Jefferson that wealthy New England bankers had similar ambitions:

“This system of banks, begotten, brooded and hatched by Duer, Robert and Gouverneur Morris, Hamilton and Washington, I have always considered as a system of national injustice. A sacrifice of public and private interest to a few aristocratical friends and favorites. My scheme could have had no such effect. Verres plundered temples, and robbed a few rich men, but he never made such ravages among private property in general, nor swindled so much out of the pockets of the poor, and middle class of people, as these banks have done. No people but this would have borne the imposition so long. The people of Ireland would not bear Wood’s halfpence. What inequalities of talent have been introduced in this country by these aristocratical banks! Our Winthrops, Winslows, Bradfords, Saltonstalls, Quinceys, Chandlers, Leonards, Hutchinsons, Olivers, Sewards, etc., are Precisely in the situation of your Randolphs, Carters, and Burwells and Harrisons”

- Page 9, Vol. 14 Writings of Thomas Jefferson Lipscomb and Bergh ed., Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, Washington DC, 1905

“You must earn your right to be an aristocrat.”

Earn? Oh you mean by slaying a dragon for the king, or having your great great granddady do it?

“This is what autocracy does. Capitalism doesn't do this nor has it ever done this in the 20th century.”

Evidently, you have never heard of “company towns” in the mining industry or Henry Ford’s Dearborn Michigan facility that regulated the minutia of worker’s daily lives. It intruded into people’s lives more than government did at the time - and this was during Prohibition! Even before the War on Drugs, Henry Ford pioneered the pee-in-a-cup-to-keep-your-job style of employer intrusiveness.

If a country wants Free Trade, then it should end all benefits given to Corporations that manufacture outside its country. Taxpayers should not be gouged for Corporate Welfare.

This means:

No more breaks for CommonWealth Corporations that recieve Federal Benefits by proxy.

No more free infrastructure building for foreign nations for the purpose of relocation by corporations.

No more bail-outs.

No more rewards for Corporations that relocate outside of the nation.

True Free Trade represents Corporations paying for their own interests. Robbing the Citizen to pay for Corporate beggars is criminal. :evil:

The whole thrust of CoOperas (anothers of a similar view) argument seems to me (I could be wrong) to be based around a few wrong assumptions:

1. Protectionism or Protectionist laws ensure that a countries economic assets/Industries are preserved

This is not the case. Protectionism leads to job loss. Protectionist laws raise taxes (tariffs) on imported goods and/or impose limits (quotas) on the amount of goods governments permit to enter into a country. They are laws that not only restrict the choice of consumer goods, but also contribute greatly both to the cost of goods and to the cost of doing business. So under "protectionism" you may well end up poorer, with less money for buying other things you want and need. Moreover, protectionist laws that reduce consumer spending power actually end up destroying jobs. In the USA, for example, according to the US Department of Labor's own statistics, "protectionism" destroys eight jobs in the general economy for every one saved in a protected industry.

There is also the issue of prices for goods. In Japan for example consumers pay five times the world price for rice because of import restrictions protecting Japanese farmers. European consumers pay dearly for EC restrictions on food imports and heavy taxes for domestic farm subsidies. American consumers also suffer from the same double burden, paying six times the world price for sugar because of trade restrictions (to give but one example). The US Semiconductor Trade Pact, which pressured Japanese producers to cut back production of computer memory chips, caused an acute worldwide shortage of these widely used parts. Prices quadrupled and companies using these components in the production of electronic consumer goods, in various countries around the world, were badly hurt.

Plus the market always a way of working round or stamping out artificially maintained or created (I mean industries that are propped up by public money instead of standing up to the market) markets. The coal industry the UK for example. Billions of pound wasted on that because the private sector switched to cheaper south american coal.

Are protectionist laws beneficial for the people of a nation? Do they benefit big business special or special interest groups who have an interest in getting away with charging higher prices for goods than they would in a free market?

2. Free Trade is the reason why poorer countries suffer, lose out, become victims or fail to develop

Not so. Sometimes in the market, like with any other competition, there are winners and losers. Losers often get badly burnt - but I mentioned this in my earlier post. Regarding the countries mentioned in this thread as 'victims' of free trade, it is worth questioning the type of governments in these nations. For example how corrupt is those government? Also what provisions have these governments made in the way of welfare? Is there any 'safety net' for people who suffer misfortune?

Do these governments/government officials accept money in return for protectionist or legislation that prevents competition (things that subvert or corrupt free trade)? I am willing to bet that people of poorer nations are victims of this kind of activity rather than the free market.

3. Advocates of free trade are always callous expoiters of the 'huddled mass' or 'lumpen proletariat' (Socialists or Marxists rather than people like myself desrcibe a nations people in those terms - usually when people don't listen to them)

Again wrong. Free trade supporter do not prohibit a welfare system. Nor does they rule out taxation (although they certainly advocate much lower taxes and a reduced role for goverment). Altruism is not prohibited. So it is possible to provide relief those who need it in free trade circumstances.

Liberals, Socialists and Marxists do not have a monopoly on humanity...

[quote=Rotovia]Rotovia charges huge Tariffs that result in many benifits, not only the obvious reduction in cheaper imports flooding local markets. But, it the money is used to sponser local bussinesses and suppliment taxes.

The government provides heath care and social programs. No one is poverty stricken to to point of not bieng able to meet their needs. This requires high tax rates. :roll:

Therefore, this is NOT an issue that should be decided by the UN but by individual nations.

There is one flaw in the Traders argument. The price of brokered imports does not change, but instead follows the nations market value.

The loss of income from jobs sent elsewhere, creates a burden on the taxpayer in the form of social services, and the loss of buying power of customers which can be readily seen in the current American market. Its all there in black and white, just gotta pick up a paper once in a while.

Henry Ford once remarked, when asked why he paid his workers a higher than average wage, "how are they supposed to buy my cars with no money?"

This is a relevant question Free Traders. The market is set by the quality of life of the consumer, that quality of life is beginning to degrade, with it will go the Standard of living. Keynes set up his system of Tariffs to maintain economies against the crashes of the Great Depression. The problem with Tariffs is that the Government is allowed to set them, no influence from Corporations there...

Gordopolis wrote:

“Protectionism leads to job loss.”

No, You have it ass-backwards. Corporations up-rooting their factories and moving them overseas leads to job loss – and falling wages in both nations. “Free Trade” aims to facilitate this; thus it leads to job loss.

“They are laws that not only restrict the choice of consumer goods, but also contribute greatly both to the cost of goods and to the cost of doing business.”

This is the very first accurate thing you have said. Yes, while a nation is using protectionism to build up its industrial base, its citizens have to put up with over-priced, inferior goods until its industry quality catches up with other nations. But again, I emphasize that there is NO building an industrial base in the first place without protectionism. This is what “infant industries” refers to: you wouldn’t put a baby in a boxing ring against Mike Tyson, would you?

I’d perhaps be more sympathetic to your argument if you were advocating free trade between longstanding industrialized nations. Japan has certainly figured out how to make good cars and doesn’t need more time to develop its industrial base or get the bugs out. But newly industrializing nations would get slaughtered in the marketplace without tariffs. The high prices & poor quality typically associated with a new industry are the fault of being new. As novices, they are logically going to be inexpert and inefficient until they catch up. During the early industrial revolution, “Made in Germany” meant cheap and shoddy merchandise. It certainly doesn’t mean that now. Likewise, “Made in Japan” once carried the same stigma of crappy quality – not anymore. Without tariffs, their infant industries would have been strangled in the crib. Again, if you were calling for free trade between fully developed nations, that would not be so objectionable; but to tell poor, underdeveloped nations that they can build themselves up this way is hypocritical, dishonest and unconscionable.

“In the USA, for example, according to the US Department of Labor's own statistics, "protectionism" destroys eight jobs in the general economy for every one saved in a protected industry.”

I’ve noticed a lot of your all’s arguments have an urban-legend quality about them. Do you have a citation to this report?

”In Japan for example consumers pay five times the world price for rice because of import restrictions protecting Japanese farmers.”

Yup. And without tariffs, they would have no industrial base. Japan is a high-population island chain. Think about it. Basing their economy on agriculture would be stupid because there isn’t a hell of a lot of land to go round. Industry uses less land than agriculture, so they trade manufactured goods for food. You can argue against the sense in rice subsidies, but Japan owes its industrial strength to industrial tariffs.

“Sometimes in the market, like with any other competition, there are winners and losers. Losers often get badly burnt - but I mentioned this in my earlier post.”

You seem awfully cavalier about the enormity of others’ misfortune. But let’s not turn this into a compassion contest. Let’s instead look at the countries that free traders have claimed were raging success stories, and see if they still hold up. And guess what: they don’t. You are defending the shambles of a failed theory as surely as any Stalinist. The irony of this is all the more staggering because folks in the former Soviets are now economically far worse off under unregulated capitalism. The poverty rate has climbed 600%; there is almost no cash in circulation outside of Moscow or St. Petersburg and hospitals have no medicines on their shelves. You are pushing a system that works six times worse than “communism” - and that’s pretty pathetic. Unregulated capitalism is an unmitigated failure, and yet when confronted with evidence, you parrot your theory. Could you possibly be more doctrinaire?

I have noticed a pronounced Stalinist attitude on the part of a lot corporate globalization’s apologists. The notion that you have to break a few eggs (i.e. people) to make an omelet, that your theory is the unstoppable blueprint for the future and woe to anyone unfortunate enough to get in the way of these “inevitable” historical forces, etc. Does any of this sound familiar? When the World Bank wants to build a dam in Guatemala, the Indians who would be flooded protest and the Army massacres their villages. This doesn’t sound Stalinist to you? How did Joseph Stalin deal with those who stood in the way industrialization? What happened to those who “resisted progress”? Well *this* time it is different: this isn’t to “build socialism”, it is to build global capitalism. Capitalism can do no wrong – or if it does do bad things they are necessary evils. *We* aren’t committing horrible atrocities – *history* is, and if folks can’t get out of the way of inevitable, it’s regrettable, but it is really their problem.

Maybe this isn't your attitude, but it aptly describes how many corporate globalists think. These same sociopaths then turn around and call those who advocate a national healthcare plan "Stalinists".

“Regarding the countries mentioned in this thread as 'victims' of free trade, it is worth questioning the type of governments in these nations. For example how corrupt is those government? Also what provisions have these governments made in the way of welfare? Is there any 'safety net' for people who suffer misfortune?”

The doctrine of the WTO, IMF and World Bank is that safety nets are “unfair barriers to trade”. Anything that costs corporations money in any way is considered a socialist impediment to progress that must be dropped. This includes safety regulations, taxes, minimum wage laws, - you name it. As I mentioned previously, there is tremendous pressure put on countries to privatize or entirely dismantle their public sectors. In Africa, the consequences have been apocalyptic. Over half the population of sub-Saharan Africa is under 16 because so many adults have died. But hey, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, right?

”Do these governments/government officials accept money in return for protectionist or legislation that prevents competition (things that subvert or corrupt free trade)? I am willing to bet that people of poorer nations are victims of this kind of activity rather than the free market.”

You would loose that bet. The IMF & World Bank make loans on condition that the client nations scrap their safety nets and throw their doors open to foreign corporations with no strings attached. They watch for backsliding and this is fairly easy to check: either the protectionist legislation is on the books or it’s not. Transnational corporations can also complain to the IMF/WB if they feel that they don’t have a free hand. Also, we are talking about poster nations for corporate globalization. Countries with spotty compliance records wouldn’t be held up as models for others to follow. The nations I mentioned were praised for their exceptional “openness”. They followed IMF/WB advice to the letter and got hosed.

”Free trade supporter do not prohibit a welfare system. Nor does they rule out taxation (although they certainly advocate much lower taxes and a reduced role for goverment). Altruism is not prohibited. So it is possible to provide relief those who need it in free trade circumstances.”

I believe I have already addressed this, but let me add one more thing. You know when your UN Category becomes “Anarchy” and your people, “live in a state of perpetual fear, as a complete breakdown of social order has led to the rise of order through biker gangs”? That describes some parts of Africa right now.

”Liberals, Socialists and Marxists do not have a monopoly on humanity...”

No, just on reliable information. Read something other than the corporate media for a change.