NationStates Jolt Archive

How come no-one has posted anything about the French strikes and protests against the new jobplan the government pushed trough?
Or did I simply miss it?

How come no-one has posted anything about the French strikes and protests against the new jobplan the government pushed trough?
Or did I simply miss it?
You missed it.

Silly French persons; rioting over obscure labor laws. Tsk! ;)

Today is a day of strikes, right? So what makes that different from any other day in France? Seems like they're almost always on strike or protesting or rioting over there. Things must really suck in France.

Today is a day of strikes, right? So what makes that different from any other day in France? Seems like they're almost always on strike or protesting or rioting over there. Things must really suck in France.

Ahem, this particular law allows companies to fire employees up to 26 years old in the first 2 years they're hired without any reason or warning or compensation. Would you let that happen?
Thay're taking away the rights of the French employees, first they start with the youngsters, later they will want to apply it for everyone.

Ahem, this particular law allows companies to fire employees up to 26 years old in the first 2 years they're hired without any reason or warning or compensation. Would you let that happen?
Thay're taking away the rights of the French employees, first they start with the youngsters, later they will want to apply it for everyone.
With France's generous social welfare system? Yes. No problem. Slippery slope fallacy aside, this will make companies more willing to hire young people and give them valuable work experience.

Besides, nobody's going to lose their home or starve to death from being laid off in France. The government is willing to take care of them until they get another job.

Today is a day of strikes, right? So what makes that different from any other day in France? Seems like they're almost always on strike or protesting or rioting over there. Things must really suck in France.

Think about what you have just said, it is France we are talking about! :D

Think about what you have just said, it is France we are talking about! :D
I can't believe that in a place where social programs make sure that nobody, even the ten percent of the nation who don't work, has to do without food, shelter, and healthcare, there are still massive protests about how unfair the government is being.

Damn you capitalist.

(sorry couldn't control myself)
Now seriously, you could say that, but what should you do then? Wait untill you're as poor as people in developing countries and your boss is filthy rich?
Isn't it better to stop these capitalist measures before that happens?

I can't believe that in a place where social programs make sure that nobody, even the ten percent of the nation who don't work, has to do without food, shelter, and healthcare, there are still massive protests about how unfair the government is being.

The French workers have lead the way for the rest of Europe in their way towards this. Social welfare that they now enjoy has been fought hard for, just like the worker's rights.It's not like government just came and gave them as a christmas present. Now the right wing, neo-liberals and major corporations are taking those away from them, or atleast that's how they (and I) feel. Of course they are angry and fight back as hard as they can.

Jup, and it's a good thing there's such massive protest, otherwise other governments might think of trying to do the same thing.

Today is a day of strikes, right? So what makes that different from any other day in France? Seems like they're almost always on strike or protesting or rioting over there. Things must really suck in France.
Meh, just a strong tradition for marking their discontentment, and a well-evolved culture for unionizing.

And since Evil little girls lost control previously in this thread:

(In an outrageously french accent: )
Thank heaven for little girls
for little girls get bigger every day!

Thank heaven for little girls
they grow up in the most delightful way!

Those little eyes so helpless and appealing
one day will flash and send you crashin' thru the ceilin'

Thank heaven for little girls
thank heaven for them all,
no matter where no matter who
for without them, what would little boys do?

Thank heaven... thank heaven...
Thank heaven for little girls!
;)

The French workers have lead the way for the rest of Europe in their way towards this. Social welfare that they now enjoy has been fought hard for, just like the worker's rights.It's not like government just came and gave them as a christmas present. Now the right wing, neo-liberals and major corporations are taking those away from them, or atleast that's how they (and I) feel. Of course they are angry and fight back as hard as they can.

Exactly.

Sorry for not saying more, but I took part in the demo and I'm too tired to take part in an argument about it now. ;)

Especially (and I don't mean this in an unpleasant way) with foreigners who have only a very limited and biased grasp on what's going on.

Ahem, this particular law allows companies to fire employees up to 26 years old in the first 2 years they're hired without any reason or warning or compensation. Would you let that happen?
Thay're taking away the rights of the French employees, first they start with the youngsters, later they will want to apply it for everyone.
I think that's pretty much the way it is in most countries. Certainly is that way here in the US and the result in the US is much, much lower unemployemnt than in France.

I can't believe that in a place where social programs make sure that nobody, even the ten percent of the nation who don't work, has to do without food, shelter, and healthcare, there are still massive protests about how unfair the government is being.I know, it's awe inspiring. I wish we did the same here.

I think that's pretty much the way it is in most countries. Certainly is that way here in the US and the result in the US is much, much lower unemployemnt than in France.
Yep, but in France you don't have to work two jobs on minimum wage to support your family decently.

Yep, but in France you don't have to work two jobs on minimum wage to support your family decently.
You don't have to here, either.

The French workers have lead the way for the rest of Europe in their way towards this. Social welfare that they now enjoy has been fought hard for, just like the worker's rights.It's not like government just came and gave them as a christmas present. Now the right wing, neo-liberals and major corporations are taking those away from them, or atleast that's how they (and I) feel. Of course they are angry and fight back as hard as they can.
So, let me get this straight. A little snot-nosed bastard gets hired by a company, slacks off and basically doesn't learn how to do the work he's supposed to, and you're against the company firing him without warning and without compensation since he didn't do anything? Sheeeit, I wanna live in your fantasy world.

Damn you capitalist.

(sorry couldn't control myself)
Now seriously, you could say that, but what should you do then? Wait untill you're as poor as people in developing countries and your boss is filthy rich?
Isn't it better to stop these capitalist measures before that happens?

Hate to say this but capitalism works, socialism doesn't. Not a matter of opinion but a basic fact. Oh sure, France has a wonderful welfare state but that also goes hand in hand with what is it, 9% unemployment and a GDP growth rate of 1.4%?

I suggest those who despise capitalists actually try and open up a business and see what it is like to risk your own money in an attempt to build a business and offer products or services to make a profit. I started my own business to make money for myself, not to provide cradle to grave services for my employees. I take care of them in my own way to ensure loyalty and good productivity. It's quid pro quo. Guaranteeing employees such benefits without any expectations other than show up for work diminishes innovation, incentiveness and ambition and the end result is someone who could care less if the job is done properly because, what do they have to lose? Certainly not their job.

So, let me get this straight. A little snot-nosed bastard gets hired by a company, slacks off and basically doesn't learn how to do the work he's supposed to, and you're against the company firing him without warning and without compensation since he didn't do anything? Sheeeit, I wanna live in your fantasy world.
That's bullshit. People can get fired ifthey fuck up their job. They're just not fired on the whims of some Asshat boss.

Hate to say this but capitalism works, socialism doesn't. Not a matter of opinion but a basic fact. Oh sure, France has a wonderful welfare state but that also goes hand in hand with what is it, 9% unemployment and a GDP growth rate of 1.4%?

I suggest those who despise capitalists actually try and open up a business and see what it is like to risk your own money in an attempt to build a business and offer products or services to make a profit. I started my own business to make money for myself, not to provide cradle to grave services for my employees. I take care of them in my own way to ensure loyalty and good productivity. It's quid pro quo. Guaranteeing employees such benefits without any expectations other than show up for work diminishes innovation, incentiveness and ambition and the end result is someone who could care less if the job is done properly because, what do they have to lose? Certainly not their job.
Yep. ;)

Now seriously, you could say that, but what should you do then? Wait untill you're as poor as people in developing countries and your boss is filthy rich?
Isn't it better to stop these capitalist measures before that happens?

Well, the US has had labor market liquidity for years, and we've got one of the highest GDPs per capita, highest GDP and industrial production growth rates, lowest unemployment rates and highest median incomes in the Western world.

We also rank highest in IT infrastructure and overall competitiveness, so the notion that corporations impoverish developed nations as a result of labor market liquidity is unsubstantiated.

So, let me get this straight. A little snot-nosed bastard gets hired by a company, slacks off and basically doesn't learn how to do the work he's supposed to, and you're against the company firing him without warning and without compensation since he didn't do anything? Sheeeit, I wanna live in your fantasy world.

You wanna live in Europe? Sorry, but I don't think WE want YOU here :( (:rolleyes:)

So, let me get this straight. A little snot-nosed bastard gets hired by a company, slacks off and basically doesn't learn how to do the work he's supposed to, and you're against the company firing him without warning and without compensation since he didn't do anything?

I've never heard anyone advocate that. You're either being deliberately obtuse for the sake of provocation, or you really are ignorant. Which is it?

That's bullshit. People can get fired ifthey fuck up their job. They're just not fired on the whims of some Asshat boss.

France needs labor market liquidity to save its economy. Otherwise, companies aren't going to hire new employees and aren't going to expand their existing operations but are just going to relocate to places where they can get the same or better quality workers with less difficulty and costs.

- snip -

A fundamental difference in thinking here. See, I think that it's just WORKING that works. In the current globalized capitalist system, people can do their work as well as humanly possible, and that is enough to make profit, but we have people who'se only job is to own that job that others do. They're called share-owners. They might want even MORE profit, and move the means of production to China, or kick out thousands of people who have also been building that company, and actually made that profit just because it rises up the value of those shares.

That doesn't work. We don't need those people who take the profit of the worker's work (like in capitalism), neither do we need government to take everything and then share it to everyone (like in socialism you spoke about, even though France is not a socialist but a SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC country), even to those who don't do their job.

The lack of what we don't need is called anarchism, anarchosyndicalism beeing the best way of it.

France needs labor market liquidity to save its economy. Otherwise, companies aren't going to hire new employees and aren't going to expand their existing operations but are just going to relocate to places where they can get the same or better quality workers with less difficulty and costs.

Yes, that's what the shareowners will do to the companies, so what should we do? You say the best way would be to bow to them, kneel and beg them to stay. I'd say the means of production should be taken from them and handed to those who actually DO PRODUCE something, =the workers.

People can get fired ifthey fuck up their job.
Ah, but the lad/lass in my example didn't in acutality fuck up thier job, they just had really shitty efficiency. Under french labor laws as they currently stand, a company would not be able to just up and fire said person. And they should be able to. Besides which, if you can't survive 2 years at a job without getting fired, something's wrong.

A fundamental difference in thinking here. See, I think that it's just WORKING that works. In the current globalized capitalist system, people can do their work as well as humanly possible, and that is enough to make profit, but we have people who'se only job is to own that job that others do. They're called share-owners. They might want even MORE profit, and move the means of production to China, or kick out thousands of people who have also been building that company, and actually made that profit just because it rises up the value of those shares.

The financial services industry supported by the shareholders employs over 8.2 million people in the US, and the business services industry which supports corporations and other businesses employs 17.6 million people. Over 25. 8 million high paying jobs related directly or indirectly to shareholder capitalism...clearly, the rise of shareholders as a force in business is for the better in terms of output, wages, and employment.

Shareholders do more good than harm to the economy.

France needs labor market liquidity to save its economy.

from what?

Yes, that's what the shareowners will do to the companies, so what should we do? You say the best way would be to bow to them, kneel and beg them to stay. I'd say the means of production should be taken from them and handed to those who actually DO PRODUCE something, =the workers.

The workers wouldn't be producing anything if the shareholders didn't provide the capital to start the business. The managers and shareholders are equally as important to the managing of a corporation as the workers.

Workers agree to work for a company for a predetermined range. They have no rights to the production because they are being hired by the company, not hiring .

Yes, that's what the shareowners will do to the companies, so what should we do? You say the best way would be to bow to them, kneel and beg them to stay. I'd say the means of production should be taken from them and handed to those who actually DO PRODUCE something, =the workers.
Souds great. you go ahead and do that and I'll make sure to put my capital investments elsewhere. :D

You act like shareholders do nothing. Most shareholders are like me. I work a daily job and save my money and buy stock in companies that I think have profit potential. None of them are French and they probably never will be.

Shareholders do more good than harm to the economy.
...under the capitalist system. That is completely artificial state of affairs. They don't produce anything, just buy and sell.

Souds great. you go ahead and do that and I'll make sure to put my capital investments elsewhere. :D

You act like shareholders do nothing. Most shareholders are like me. I work a daily job and save my money and buy stock in companies that I think have profit potential. None of them are French and they probably never will be.
There is a difference between a group of shareholders like you and a a group of shareholders who have no other job, and who'se desicion it is to move the production to China. I meant the second group, obviously.

...under the capitalist system. That is completely artificial state of affairs. They don't produce anything, just buy and sell.
They provide the means for expansion and development. Shareholding is the most democratic of all means of ownership. Anyone can buy shares of a company and thus own part of it. If you work for a company and you think you should have a bigger share of its profits, buy stock.

Ahem, this particular law allows companies to fire employees up to 26 years old in the first 2 years they're hired without any reason or warning or compensation. Would you let that happen?

happens all the time in the US :D

Thay're taking away the rights of the French employees, first they start with the youngsters, later they will want to apply it for everyone.

Maybe if they actually get rid of all the dead weight in the French Business world, they might become economically viable again.

from what?

From a cost crisis that will eventually force them to cut benefits to save their social welfare programs; they will also need to increase the size of their employment to support the growing number of retirees withdrawing money from the system.

If their economy was growing solidly, they could support their infrastructure much more easily than they do now with lower taxes; France needs more growth in employment to cover costs as well as solve the social ones stemming from high unemployment. There are a lot of poor, unemployed, and angry people in France and that just leads to crime and instability.

If you think giving employers more freedom to fire will lower wages, then wait until the unemployment rate rises...supply outstripping demand will depress wages in the long run, especially if accompanied by slowing productivity growth.

The French workers have lead the way for the rest of Europe in their way towards this. Social welfare that they now enjoy has been fought hard for, just like the worker's rights.It's not like government just came and gave them as a christmas present. Now the right wing, neo-liberals and major corporations are taking those away from them, or atleast that's how they (and I) feel. Of course they are angry and fight back as hard as they can.

Britain I believe, had the 1st Social Democracy. Not France.

You act like shareholders do nothing. Most shareholders are like me. I work a daily job and save my money and buy stock in companies that I think have profit potential.

while it is true that most of the people who own shares also have to work, it is not true that most of the shares available to be owned are held by those who do.

None of them are French and they probably never will be.

bullshit

Shareholding is the most democratic of all means of ownership. No, cooperatives are the most democratic of all means of ownership.

There is a difference between a group of shareholders like you and a a group of shareholders who have no other job, and who'se desicion it is to move the production to China. I meant the second group, obviously.
I hope one day to have invested my money wisely enough to become part of the second group. I work hard at it and instead of blowing all my money on a McMansion and a Lexus I rent a room and drive a Mustang. I expect that my sacrifice now will be rewarded in the future if I play my cards right and invest wisely.

...under the capitalist system. That is completely artificial state of affairs. They don't produce anything, just buy and sell.

There's nothing wrong with that; it gives them the money to support their families and buy the products that keep the economy growing. Wealth creation is wealth creation, regardless of its source because it is eventually reinvested in to the economy in the purchase of physical goods.

Getting rid of the financial services and business services would annihilate the middle class and depress the overall quality of the workforce.

The workers wouldn't be producing anything if the shareholders didn't provide the capital to start the business. The managers and shareholders are equally as important to the managing of a corporation as the workers.
...In the capitalist system. It's not like when the world took shape after the big bang, money was given to few who then started generosity of building factories and starting the businesses. Our society needs a good shaking, a new share of things. Only ones to have shares of a company should be the workers of it.

Workers agree to work for a company for a predetermined range. They have no rights to the production because they are being hired by the company, not hiring .
Unfortunately. That is wrong and needs to be fixed.

I think that's pretty much the way it is in most countries. Certainly is that way here in the US and the result in the US is much, much lower unemployemnt than in France.

Wi

And if we do not work, we get canned. We are not productive enough, we get canned anyway. Its a great motivator. Either work and be productive or you get canned. Good way to keep down the unemployment numbers :D

You wanna live in Europe? Sorry, but I don't think WE want YOU here :( (:rolleyes:)


Hey, there is no 'we' here, speak for yourself. I welcome all who want to come to the UK, work and provide stimulus and diversity to this country.

And another thing about 'we, the people'. It's false. It doesn't exist. It is a false conciousness. And its worst it is invoked to justify gross abuses of human rights.

France needs labor market liquidity to save its economy. Otherwise, companies aren't going to hire new employees and aren't going to expand their existing operations but are just going to relocate to places where they can get the same or better quality workers with less difficulty and costs.

Why stop there? What would really attract businesses is to get rid of this nonsense about laborers deserving fair wages. The government should ban unions and enact maximum wages of, say, the French equivalent of $3.00 an hour for low-tier jobs. Legalize child labor, too. The influx of cheap labor will definitely attract investment.

For that matter, why worry about the labor market at all? Just enslave the working class. That'll stop this unemployment problem, and get rid of this stubborn refusal to work long hours for little pay once and for all.

while it is true that most of the people who own shares also have to work, it is not true that most of the shares available to be owned are held by those who do.So they either invested wisely enough at first or they had more money to begin with. More power to them.



bullshit
No, it's true. I honestly do not have one single share of stock in a French company. I own Canadian, Brittish and American energy company stock, mostly, with a little Italian and some Chinese and Russian. :)

There is a difference between a group of shareholders like you and a a group of shareholders who have no other job, and who'se desicion it is to move the production to China. I meant the second group, obviously.

The number of shares owned by the extremely wealthy outside of the owners of a corporation is extremely small. The vast majority are owned by people who have jobs or are owned by mutual funds that provide for the retirement of and provide a source of additional income for their investors, who in turn are almost all ordinary middle class employees; they also fund pensions for industrial workers and provide money for companies to invest in new projects.

Yes, that's what the shareowners will do to the companies, so what should we do? You say the best way would be to bow to them, kneel and beg them to stay. I'd say the means of production should be taken from them and handed to those who actually DO PRODUCE something, =the workers.


This has been tried for the last 80 odd years. And whenever and where-ever it has been tried it has led to utter disaster. Why do you ignore this obvious fact?

Well, the US has had labor market liquidity for years, and we've got one of the highest GDPs per capita, highest GDP and industrial production growth rates, lowest unemployment rates and highest median incomes in the Western world.

We also rank highest in IT infrastructure and overall competitiveness, so the notion that corporations impoverish developed nations as a result of labor market liquidity is unsubstantiated.

Still, for some strange reason, the US is going bankrupt. Not just morally and ideologically and in terms of favour with the world, but economically. As in "out of money". So if Iraq won't start to pay off, they're broke.

So much for GDP and growth rate, when it is dependant on constant catastrophe.

Hate to say this but capitalism works, socialism doesn't. Not a matter of opinion but a basic fact. Oh sure, France has a wonderful welfare state but that also goes hand in hand with what is it, 9% unemployment and a GDP growth rate of 1.4%?

I suggest those who despise capitalists actually try and open up a business and see what it is like to risk your own money in an attempt to build a business and offer products or services to make a profit. I started my own business to make money for myself, not to provide cradle to grave services for my employees. I take care of them in my own way to ensure loyalty and good productivity. It's quid pro quo. Guaranteeing employees such benefits without any expectations other than show up for work diminishes innovation, incentiveness and ambition and the end result is someone who could care less if the job is done properly because, what do they have to lose? Certainly not their job.

Except for Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland and Denmark, where three of these are richer than the US and all of them are far more socialist than France

It's called Socialist Capitalism.

Besides - if you do a crap job, you're still going to get fired. The law is going to allow doing the same to people who do a good job.

There are a lot of poor, unemployed, and angry people in France and that just leads to crime and instability.

i have an idea! let's undermine the protections that make living in a capitalist-statist system bearable, while at the same time not undermining all the regulations and benefits that privilege the elite. in fact, let's expand elite privilege. that's sure to make those people less angry.

They provide the means for expansion and development. Shareholding is the most democratic of all means of ownership. Anyone can buy shares of a company and thus own part of it. If you work for a company and you think you should have a bigger share of its profits, buy stock.

But the fact remains that very small portion of the shares in the France for example are owned by the working class, not to mention those who work in the same company that they own shares of. In fact, a great percentage is owned by non-French people. This is not right.

We still have, no matter how you try to twist it, those who do the job and those who get the profits of it. These two should be united.

from what?

Communism, socialism, social democracy. Take your pick

Why stop there? What would really attract businesses is to get rid of this nonsense about laborers deserving fair wages. The government should ban unions and enact maximum wages of, say, the French equivalent of $3.00 an hour for low-tier jobs. Legalize child labor, too. The influx of cheap labor will definitely attract investment.

For that matter, why worry about the labor market at all? Just enslave the working class. That'll stop this unemployment problem, and get rid of this stubborn refusal to work long hours for little pay once and for all.
False premise. The fruits of labor need a middle class to purchase them. A company that produces widgets will fail if there's noby to buy them. having said that, the results of what you are talking about are exactly what is happening in the US as a result of too much illegal immigration.

You act like shareholders do nothing. Most shareholders are like me. I work a daily job and save my money and buy stock in companies that I think have profit potential. None of them are French and they probably never will be.


:D Well said :D

There is a difference between a group of shareholders like you and a a group of shareholders who have no other job, and who'se desicion it is to move the production to China. I meant the second group, obviously.


Ahhh, I get it. You must be racially prejudiced against the Chinese?

Communism, socialism, social democracy. Take your pick

what about it?

................................
We still have, no matter how you try to twist it, those who do the job and those who get the profits of it. These two should be united.

Partially, at least.

This has been tried for the last 80 odd years. And whenever and where-ever it has been tried it has led to utter disaster. Why do you ignore this obvious fact?

No, actually. It has been tried in Ukraine 1919-1921 by the Makhnoist's, in Catalonia 1936-1937, in Mexico during the civil war, in China in the 1920's and few others. It has worked very well every time, though the communities that have tried this have been destroyed by totalitarists soon after, communists and fascists mostly.

Why stop there? What would really attract businesses is to get rid of this nonsense about laborers deserving fair wages. The government should ban unions and enact maximum wages of, say, the French equivalent of $3.00 an hour for low-tier jobs. Legalize child labor, too. The influx of cheap labor will definitely attract investment.

The US has laws similar to France, and we've got one of the highest standards of living in the world. Wages are set by the market, which for all skilled occupations that are in demand is more than enough to live comfortably by. The US is only around 12% unionized, and incomes are no lower than they were when it was 30 or 40% and are in fact higher; unions don't need to be outlawed because they are no longer necessary and are fading in importance on their own.

For that matter, why worry about the labor market at all? Just enslave the working class. That'll stop this unemployment problem, and get rid of this stubborn refusal to work long hours for little pay once and for all.

The overwhelming majority of workers are not working class. They have specific skills that are in high demand relative to supply, which drives up their wages and protects them from firings for no reason. If you have skills that are in demand, you do not have to be worried about arbitrary firing.

But the fact remains that very small portion of the shares in the France for example are owned by the working class, not to mention those who work in the same company that they own shares of. In fact, a great percentage is owned by non-French people. This is not right.

We still have, no matter how you try to twist it, those who do the job and those who get the profits of it. These two should be united.
Well then buy some. Anyone can buy some. Its not the company's fault if you don't.

Ahhh, I get it. You must be racially prejudiced against the Chinese?
Humour? Oh no it can't be, it wasn't funny...

False premise. The fruits of labor need a middle class to purchase them. A company that produces widgets will fail if there's noby to buy them.

I was being sarcastic.

having said that, the results of what you are talking about are exactly what is happening in the US as a result of too much illegal immigration.

To the contrary. Free movement of labor tends to have an ultimately positive effect; it lets workers sell their labor for the best prices.

Well then buy some. Anyone can buy some. Its not the company's fault if you don't.
Anyone can buy some, true, but the majority stays in the hands of those who do nothing no matter what we do (inside of the capitalist system that is).

Humour? Oh no it can't be, it wasn't funny...
Look, here's one. If you had invested 3 years ago you would have made over 100% on your money. This is a French oil company:

http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?pg=qu&sid=8111&symb=TOT&time=3yr&uf=0

If you don't have enough money, save a little and buy some shares when you can afford it. :)

The US is only around 12% unionized, and incomes are no lower than they were when it was 30 or 40% and are in fact higher

evidence?

The overwhelming majority of workers are not working class

that's quite the class analysis you've got there

The US is only around 12% unionized, and incomes are no lower than they were when it was 30 or 40% and are in fact higher; Since 1970, inflation has risen higher than wages have, so a simple comparison of the numbers isn't sufficient.

i have an idea! let's undermine the protections that make living in a capitalist-statist system bearable, while at the same time not undermining all the regulations and benefits that privilege the elite. in fact, let's expand elite privilege. that's sure to make those people less angry.

The US does not have the same protections as France, yet has higher real income and considerably lower unemployment and maintains rates of growth three times higher.

The US has laws similar to France, and we've got one of the highest standards of living in the world. Wages are set by the market, which for all skilled occupations that are in demand is more than enough to live comfortably by.
.....

No you don't. Unless you are referring to a specific group in a specific hood. Usually, national standard of living is derived from an average.

I was being sarcastic.



To the contrary. Free movement of labor tends to have an ultimately positive effect; it lets workers sell their labor for the best prices.
I agree, I was just pointing out that the market system would have a hard time were labor prices depressed to much because it would hurt the income of the people who buy the most goods and services.

what about it?

Social Democracy nearly ruined Great Britain. Margarette Thatcher literally saved it from collapse.

No you don't. Unless you are referring to a specific group in a specific hood. Usually, national standard of living is derived from an average.
Yes we do. Specifically, we have a higher standard fo living than France. :)

Since 1970, inflation has risen higher than wages have, so a simple comparison of the numbers isn't sufficient.

http://www.blogginwallstreet.com/real%20income.png

Since 1950, real disposable income has risen by 400%.

Movement of the Libertarian Left solidarity letter (http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/370)



Students and Workers of France,

Professor Roderick Long once wrote:

“When Marx called the French government ‘a joint-stock company for the exploitation of France’s national wealth’ on behalf of the bourgeois elite and at the expense of production and commerce (’Class Struggles in France’), he was only echoing what libertarians had been saying for decades.”

France and all other nation-states remain so today. You and we live in a world where freedom and economic opportunity exist only at the sufferance of a political class that allows us only some small amount of them for sake of their own convenience and take the rest from us by force and coercion for sake of their own parasitism.

Under such circumstances, state-sponsored market liberalization is a cruel joke. The legislation you protest and rebel against seeks only to increase the latitude given your overseers, while maintaining the overall restrictions on your own liberty that, if abolished, would empower you to seek your own prosperity. We believe you and we would be very good at that, mixing both cooperation and peaceful competition, if we were not slaves.

For those reasons, the signers of this letter offer their solidarity to you and present themselves as a sample of a small tendency known as the Movement of the Libertarian Left (MLL), advocates of revolutionary market anarchism or “agorism”.

It is not the place of others to tell you how to wage your own revolution against tyranny. We have some suggestions, though — a version of dual power strategy called “counter-economics”. We humbly recommend MLL founder Samuel Edward Konkin III’s small book on agorism, counter-economics, and revolution “The New Libertarian Manifesto” in hopes you may find it useful or inspirational. It is available free online at:
http://agorism.info/NewLibertarianManifesto.pdf

Signed,
The Movement of the Libertarian Left
Agora! Anarchy! Action!

http://www.blogginwallstreet.com/real%20income.png

Since 1950, real disposable income has risen by 400%.Is this disposable income available across the board, or for a select few individuals?
Does this disposable income also include access to credit cards and other such things?

The US does not have the same protections as France, yet has higher real income and considerably lower unemployment and maintains rates of growth three times higher.

French productivity is higher than US productivity, and economic inequality is lower. A good deal of the difference in average real incomes is due to fewer working hours, not a worse economy.

Social Democracy nearly ruined Great Britain. Margarette Thatcher literally saved it from collapse.
and your super in depth knowledge of britain in 1980 comes from?

secondly margaret*
thirdly - you have a whole generation of people agaisnt your views.

fourth - Vive la commune 2

Yes we do. Specifically, we have a higher standard fo living than France. :)

Because those who are doing really well are doing so damn well. But the real way of measuring is to look at those who are having the lowest standard for living. Which do you see doing better, the French poor or the American one?

No you don't. Unless you are referring to a specific group in a specific hood. Usually, national standard of living is derived from an average.

Real median household income in the US is $44,460, the highest in the world except for Luxembourg, Norway, and Switzerland.

Real median household income in the US is $44,460, the highest in the world except for Luxembourg, Norway, and Switzerland.
Look at my previous post.

Real median household income in the US is $44,460, the highest in the world.

Would that be the select households that are eligible to vote?

and your super in depth knowledge of britain in 1980 comes from?

secondly margaret*
thirdly - you have a whole generation of people agaisnt your views.

fourth - Vive la commune 2

History is my ammunition.

French productivity is higher than US productivity, and economic inequality is lower. A good deal of the difference in average real incomes is due to fewer working hours, not a worse economy.

In terms of global competitiveness, France is ranked 30th and the US 2nd. France is also falling year over year, which means its economy is declining in quality. It is also ranked 22nd in the world in IT infrastrcture, with the US in first. France is also last amongst the four largest European economies in IT infrastructure and global competitiveness.

History is my ammunition.
That is an empty sentence. It depends completely on the point of view. To many, many British Thatcher fucked up pretty much everything she possibly could, without saving anything but few rocks on the Argentinian coast in a horrible price.

In terms of global competitiveness, France is ranked 30th and the US 2nd. France is also falling year over year, which means its economy is declining in quality. It is also ranked 22nd in the world in IT infrastrcture, with the US in first. France is also last amongst the four largest European economies in IT infrastructure and global competitiveness.
Who does the ranking?

Why stop there? What would really attract businesses is to get rid of this nonsense about laborers deserving fair wages.

Define 'fair wage' and support independent, objective and verifiable evidence in support.


The government should ban unions and enact maximum wages of, say, the French equivalent of $3.00 an hour for low-tier jobs. Legalize child labor, too. The influx of cheap labor will definitely attract investment. For that matter, why worry about the labor market at all? Just enslave the working class. That'll stop this unemployment problem, and get rid of this stubborn refusal to work long hours for little pay once and for all.

It doesn't logically, or in any way reasonably, follow that liberalising the employment laws will lead to widespread introduction of child labour and the enslavement of the working class.

I'm very aware that you are being sarcastic but let's run with what you said anyway.

Legalize child labor, too. The influx of cheap labor will definitely attract investment.
There is no guarantee that freeing up children for labour would automatically lead to investment or employment. It is still cheaper to locate labour-intensive industries in China and ship goods in. And children, largely, don't have the skills to be valuable to employers.

Just enslave the working class.
The working class cannot be enslaved because it doesn't exist. you have created a conciousness that deindividualises and dehumanises human being through a theoretical collectivising. But people are very different from each other. I used to be 'working class' and given that I am involved in the production of a tangible product, arguably still am. But I feel no kinship with many of the more 'traditional' working class men and they would likely feel little or no kinship with me. Face it, socialists/commies have created a false 'class-conciousness' which they use as a tool to introduce logical fallacies - namely, appeals to force (if we are together we are stronger and we can force what we want so you capitalists better do as we say), appeals to popularity (the populace as a whole, or as large sections, want it so it must be right) and appeals to consequences (it is right because this or that end will be achieved). The idea of class conciousness is nothing more than a mass-mind-control tool. As the working class does not exist so it cannot be enslaved.

The government should ban unions and enact maximum wages of, say, the French equivalent of $3.00 an hour for low-tier jobs ... enslavement
If anything the liberalisation of labour and the emphasis on individiual rights would inevitably lead to the emancipation of the oppressed, which is irrelevant here anyone because people in France are not routinely enslaved.


Your underlying arguments are both unreasonable and invalid

Would that be the select households that are eligible to vote?

No, it's taken by the census department from a survey of 300,000 or 400,000 households from a variety of regions and cities.

Who does the ranking?

The World Economic Forum.

Who does the ranking?
Those silly, silly French persons, of course. :D

The number of shares owned by the extremely wealthy outside of the owners of a corporation is extremely small. The vast majority are owned ... by mutual funds that provide for retirement


Which is an extremely important point and deserves to be highlighted.
Most shares are owned, whether directly or indirectly, by the workers for their own benefit. By arguing against capitalism opponents are doing most harm to the group they profess to care about most: the workers

Just enslave the working class.
The working class cannot be enslaved because it doesn't exist. you have created a conciousness that deindividualises and dehumanises human being through a theoretical collectivising. But people are very different from each other. I used to be 'working class' and given that I am involved in the production of a tangible product, arguably still am. But I feel no kinship with many of the more 'traditional' working class men and they would likely feel little or no kinship with me. Face it, socialists/commies have created a false 'class-conciousness' which they use as a tool to introduce logical fallacies - namely, appeals to force (if we are together we are stronger and we can force what we want so you capitalists better do as we say), appeals to popularity (the populace as a whole, or as large sections, want it so it must be right) and appeals to consequences (it is right because this or that end will be achieved). The idea of class conciousness is nothing more than a mass-mind-control tool. As the working class does not exist so it cannot be enslaved.
Excellent exposition! Just excellent! [ applauds ]

Is this disposable income available across the board, or for a select few individuals?

It's a survey of several hundred thousand households who are surveyed from a statistically balanced population sample.

Does this disposable income also include access to credit cards and other such things?

No, that's a separate report. Disposable income is the amount of income left to an individual after taxes have been paid that is available for spending and saving.

This is just income, not including income from "paper" assets like investments.

That is an empty sentence. It depends completely on the point of view. To many, many British Thatcher fucked up pretty much everything she possibly could, without saving anything but few rocks on the Argentinian coast in a horrible price.

Then they do not know nothing of history or of just how bad the economic situation was when she took over.

Still, for some strange reason, the US is going bankrupt. Not just morally and ideologically and in terms of favour with the world, but economically. As in "out of money". So if Iraq won't start to pay off, they're broke.

So much for GDP and growth rate, when it is dependant on constant catastrophe.


OK, I'll grant you (in part) morally. But ideologically? More and more of the world is looking to the USA to its laissez faire capitalistic ideology. If there is a dying ideology it is the various shades of Red (although not dying fast enough in my opinion).

US is going bankrupt? As in out of money? Please provide independent, objective and verifiable evidence of this.

Please explain how, with appropriate worked numbers and real-life examples, with back-up from independent, objective and verifiable and authorative individuals that GDP and growth rate are dependant on constant catastrophe.

Please also define, in an independenat, objective and verifiable way what a 'constant catastrophe' is.

It's a survey of several hundred thousand households who are surveyed from a statistically balanced population sample.Oh, I see. It was just a graph, so I couldn't tell.

It's a survey of several hundred thousand households who are surveyed from a statistically balanced population sample.



No, that's a separate report. Disposable income is the amount of income left to an individual after taxes have been paid that is available for spending and saving.

This is just income, not including income from "paper" assets like investments.
Minor correction, average housing and utility costs are also deucted. Disposable income is a measure of the money you have leftover after paying all your bills, not just your taxes. At least that's what I've always understood.

Which is an extremely important point and deserves to be highlighted.
Most shares are owned, whether directly or indirectly, by the workers for their own benefit. By arguing against capitalism opponents are doing most harm to the group they profess to care about most: the workersHow does getting rid of the superfluous bosses harm the workers?

Minor correction, average housing and utility costs are also deucted. Disposable income is a measure of the money you have leftover after paying all your bills, not just your taxes. At least that's what I've always understood.

Correct. I confused personal and disposable income when I wrote it.

How does getting rid of the superfluous bosses harm the workers?
You're not getting rid of superfluous bosses. You're getting rid of owners. When you own stock in a publically traded company then you own a piece of that company and, again, you're free to buy some. :)

You're not getting rid of superfluous bosses. You're getting rid of owners. When you own stock in a publically traded company then you own a piece of that company and, again, you're free to buy some. :)Of course, in order to own stock, one would have to take the immoral (IMHO) action of profiting from a company and not working in it.

Except for Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland and Denmark, where three of these are richer than the US and all of them are far more socialist than France

Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) valuation of country GDP (US dollars Billions). Source: IMF (2005 data)
denmark 187.721
Finland 161.099
France 1811.561
Norway 193.660
Sweden 267.427
United States 12332.296

As you can see from the above table, Seathorn is completely wrong. The US is far richer than any of the nations mentioned above. All the Scandinavian nations which Seathorn claims are far more socialist than France are also less richer than France.


It's called Socialist Capitalism.
Whatever it is called, it still produces a poorer economy.


Besides - if you do a crap job, you're still going to get fired. The law is going to allow doing the same to people who do a good job.
This is not quite the point. Evidence adduced from business owners indicates that they regard the labour laws as being a hindrance to business development which they say dissuades them from hiring. That anecdotal evidence appears to be backed up in France's labour statistics which show a much higher unemployment rate than in a comparable country like Britain.

What is being tackled here is chronic unemployment caused by rigid labour markets.

i have an idea! let's undermine the protections that make living in a capitalist-statist system bearable, while at the same time not undermining all the regulations and benefits that privilege the elite. in fact, let's expand elite privilege. that's sure to make those people less angry.

The 'protections' you speak off, namely rigid labour markets, do more to undermine an economy than protect it. History shows us that protectionism only ever tends to retard economic growth.

As for making it 'bearable' in the absence of extreme measures like torture etc, whether something is 'bearable' is largely down to the choice of the individual. You can choose to accept something willingly, through gritted teeth or not at all. You have presented something which appears to be objectively true but is in fact completely subjective. Your argument on this point is therefore fallacious.

You make at point about regulations and benefits for the elite. Presumably you are asserting that less rigid labour markets benefit 'the elite'. The 'elite' you refer to is a class-conciousness which I have elsewhere shown as a false conciousness. When refering to the 'elite' please make specific reference to seperate identifiable individuals or organisations.

As far as benefits go, then yes, flexible labour markets do indeed benefit companies large and small, their managers and their owners. As in Western Europe most companies are small privately run concerns and the larger companies are normally owned indirectly by normal workers through pension funds participating in the equity of the company, it is hard to see how that is an 'elite'.

Sure to make people less angry
Yes it will, if they have access to jobs, a living wage and opportunities for advancement. All of that is reachable owing to flexible labour markets.

In terms of global competitiveness, France is ranked 30th and the US 2nd. France is also falling year over year, which means its economy is declining in quality. It is also ranked 22nd in the world in IT infrastrcture, with the US in first. France is also last amongst the four largest European economies in IT infrastructure and global competitiveness.

I thought we were discussing its capability to provide for its citizens? Or is it just my heresy in thinking that such a capability is the only reasonable measure of economic welfare?

You were arguing that the high US real income somehow proved that the US method was superior to the French method, and I countered by pointing out that your measure ignores an important factor - working hours. If the French workforce were worked the same way the US workforce is worked, the French real income would be comparable. The French population, however, has chosen leisure over the capability to buy more, and frankly I agree with that decision.

It doesn't logically, or in any way reasonably, follow that liberalising the employment laws will lead to widespread introduction of child labour and the enslavement of the working class.

Good thing I didn't say it did, then. Note the "Why stop there?"

What has been repeatedly said on these forums, and elsewhere, is that in order to be "globally competitive" we must accept "lower labor costs" and "labor flexibility", that is to say, lower wages and benefits. If those foreign workers in China are willing to work for less, we had better toughen up and accept less as well, or else businesses will invest elsewhere.

Okay. But why remain content with a free market for labor? Why arbitrarily stop there? Because the free market is Holy Gospel, passed on by the God of the "Free" Contract, and we must pay homage? If demand for labor is too high, investment is impeded, even in a free market.

The working class cannot be enslaved because it doesn't exist. you have created a conciousness that deindividualises and dehumanises human being through a theoretical collectivising. But people are very different from each other.

Okay, so people are very different from each other. I am aware of that. What difference does it make?

I used to be 'working class' and given that I am involved in the production of a tangible product, arguably still am. But I feel no kinship with many of the more 'traditional' working class men and they would likely feel little or no kinship with me.

Yeah, class solidarity is for the most part a myth. I don't see how that proves that the working class doesn't exist, though. Economic classes don't depend on class-consciousness.

Face it, socialists/commies have created a false 'class-conciousness' which they use as a tool to introduce logical fallacies - namely, appeals to force (if we are together we are stronger and we can force what we want so you capitalists better do as we say), appeals to popularity (the populace as a whole, or as large sections, want it so it must be right) and appeals to consequences (it is right because this or that end will be achieved). The idea of class conciousness is nothing more than a mass-mind-control tool. As the working class does not exist so it cannot be enslaved.

I don't see an argument here, just a series of attacks, so it's rather difficult to respond, let alone "face" anything.

But the fact remains that very small portion of the shares in the France for example are owned by the working class, not to mention those who work in the same company that they own shares of. In fact, a great percentage is owned by non-French people. This is not right.

We still have, no matter how you try to twist it, those who do the job and those who get the profits of it. These two should be united.

Agreed - the French Government should engage in a mass privatisation programme and stop engaging in economic protectionism. That would enable the workers to choose whether or not buy into the companies they work for.

BUT notice the difference in our positions. In yours you would requisition property whether willing or no from the hands of those who currently hold it. In mine, I would offer the property currently owned by no-one for sale to those who would have the choice whether or not to buy it. I submit that my version, owing to the possibility of exercising free will, is the more ethical choice.

Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) valuation of country GDP (US dollars Billions). Source: IMF (2005 data)
denmark 187.721
Finland 161.099
France 1811.561
Norway 193.660
Sweden 267.427
United States 12332.296

As you can see from the above table, Seathorn is completely wrong. The US is far richer than any of the nations mentioned above. All the Scandinavian nations which Seathorn claims are far more socialist than France are also less richer than France.

Meaningless. Sweden's population is a small fraction of that of the US. Check per capita income for a more worthwhile measure.

The 'protections' you speak off, namely rigid labour markets, do more to undermine an economy than protect it. History shows us that protectionism only ever tends to retard economic growth.If this is true then why did just about every country that became industrialized do so behind a barrier of protectionism?

Meaningless. Sweden's population is a small fraction of that of the US. Check per capita income for a more worthwhile measure.

$29,600 for Sweden vs. $41,800 for the US.

I will concede, however, that Sweden also has a lconsiderably more equitable distribution of income and a more extensive social infrastructure that reduce the significance of the figure, but there are several major special factors that enable that infrastructure to exist so successfully.

No, actually. It has been tried in Ukraine 1919-1921 by the Makhnoist's, in Catalonia 1936-1937, in Mexico during the civil war, in China in the 1920's and few others. It has worked very well every time, though the communities that have tried this have been destroyed by totalitarists soon after, communists and fascists mostly.

Thanks for the references, I'll be sure to look them up.

From my readings of it, no matter how the, for want of a better word, Red community starts out it always ends up as some form of totalist state with an economic implosion of some kind. That said, I will check out the 'red' states you mentioned.

The World Economic Forum.

Not a trustworthy source then...:(

If this is true then why did just about every country that became industrialized do so behind a barrier of protectionism?

That is covered by the "Infant Industry" theory; namely, that protectionism can provide a valuable benefit to new industries especially in the face of vastly more mature industrial bases in other nations.

During the Industrial Revolution, the entire industrial sector was effectively infant, and the nations that used it later on used it for their military or strategic infrastructure purposes rather than for trade.

However, at this point in time the developed world is no longer near that phase and is primarily service based, making protectionism inefficent and unsustainable in the long run. In underdeveloped nations, it can be a good idea but it is not in developed ones.

Not a trustworthy source then...:(

Why?

Of course, in order to own stock, one would have to take the immoral (IMHO) action of profiting from a company and not working in it.
Why is it immoral? If a company is publically traded then you can buy stock in the company you work for and participate in its profits. If you work for a company that doesn't have much in the way of growth potential, as i do, a French company, no less, then you can chose to put the fruits of your labor into other companies. If you want to buy stock in a French company yo can buy stock in mine (Thomson). :)

No you don't. Unless you are referring to a specific group in a specific hood. Usually, national standard of living is derived from an average.

yes it does. Look at the UN Human Development Index. The US is ahead of France.

OK, I'll grant you (in part) morally. But ideologically? More and more of the world is looking to the USA to its laissez faire capitalistic ideology. If there is a dying ideology it is the various shades of Red (although not dying fast enough in my opinion).

US is going bankrupt? As in out of money? Please provide independent, objective and verifiable evidence of this.

Please explain how, with appropriate worked numbers and real-life examples, with back-up from independent, objective and verifiable and authorative individuals that GDP and growth rate are dependant on constant catastrophe.

Please also define, in an independenat, objective and verifiable way what a 'constant catastrophe' is.


Sure. After we agree on a definition of:

1 Independant
2 Objective
3 Verifiable

Any suggestions?

$29,600 for Sweden vs. $41,800 for the US.

Yes, I'm aware of the difference. But it's not to the degree the statistics posted implied.

I will concede, however, that Sweden also has a lconsiderably more equitable distribution of income and a more extensive social infrastructure that reduce the significance of the figure, but there are several major special factors that enable that infrastructure to exist so successfully.

I am aware of that as well. It's not a model that can be successfully implemented across the globe, for a number of reasons. The Swedish people themselves seem to think it needs changes, too, if the current poll numbers for this year's election mean anything.

Movement of the Libertarian Left solidarity letter (http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/370)

Students and Workers of France,

Professor Roderick Long once wrote:

“When Marx called the French government ‘a joint-stock company for the exploitation of France’s national wealth’ on behalf of the bourgeois elite and at the expense of production and commerce

yada yada yada

Signed,
The Movement of the Libertarian Left
Agora! Anarchy! Action!


Ronald Reagan once said

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

Remarks in Arlington, Virginia, September 25, 1987

economy is just one aspect of a socialist democracy. and perhaps rightly so not the number one goal and incentive. the access to free health care, free and equal education i would argue is more important than the amount of dollars you earn.

so what the US has a higher GDP or a higher rate of investment, for a large proportion of the population they can afford what the state wont provide. HOWEVER a soceity should be judged on how they treat the poorest of the community. America will always have poor people, ghettos, unemployed yet their access to health care and education is minimal

id rather be rich in america
but poor in europe .... which of these is more valued

That is covered by the "Infant Industry" theory; namely, that protectionism can provide a valuable benefit to new industries especially in the face of vastly more mature industrial bases in other nations.

During the Industrial Revolution, the entire industrial sector was effectively infant, and the nations that used it later on used it for their military or strategic infrastructure purposes rather than for trade.

However, at this point in time the developed world is no longer near that phase and is primarily service based, making protectionism inefficent and unsustainable in the long run. In underdeveloped nations, it can be a good idea but it is not in developed ones.Ah, so we are in agreement. My reply was in reply to the poster who said "history shows us that protectionism only ever tends to retard economic growth" and I wanted to give an example where this wasn't the case.

I will agree that protectionism is harmful in more than half of the potential cases where it could be applied.

Why is it immoral? If a company is publically traded then you can buy stock in the company you work for and participate in its profits. If you work for a company that doesn't have much in the way of growth potential, as i do, a French company, no less, then you can chose to put the fruits of your labor into other companies. If you want to buy stock in a French company yo can buy stock in mine (Thomson).Oh, I know about stock ownership, and while in one way it's less repugnant than other forms of company ownership, in other ways it's more repugnant than the idea of loans with interest on them, as loans at least have a fixed amount that the lendee has to pay back. Stock does not have this.
I view it as immoral because I believe that the only people who should profit from work are the people who do the work - in this view business owners who don't work in the business are also committing an immoral act.

French productivity is higher than US productivity, and economic inequality is lower.

Please provide independent verifiable and objective evidence


A good deal of the difference in average real incomes is due to fewer working hours, not a worse economy.

Please provide independent verifiable and objective evidence

Ronald Reagan once saidYet another thing he was wrong about.

I thought we were discussing its capability to provide for its citizens? Or is it just my heresy in thinking that such a capability is the only reasonable measure of economic welfare?

IT is a high value, high skill industry that produces considerable value for the economy as a whole and produces a productive, well educated workforce. The world economy is technologically driven, and the inability of a nation to compete will reduce employment, income, and will crimp the ability of government to provide for its citizens.

Plus, the IT rankings include technology infrastructure; France is not providing for its citizens in that aspect if it neglects the deployment of public technological infrastructure. A free wireless network provides the underpriveliged with access to the technology.

I'll respond to the second part in a few minutes.

Yet another thing he was wrong about.

How so?

Yet another thing he was wrong about.
hey...at least that was funny:)

and your super in depth knowledge of britain in 1980 comes from?

Living in Britain. Studying British social history in the post-war period. Working as a business journalist.


secondly margaret*
You are correct. But I always preferred 'Maggie'. And you shouldn't correct other people for their spelling errors when yours are not perfect. See the next quote by you, below, and the mis-spelt 'against'.


thirdly - you have a whole generation of people agaisnt your views.
Not a whole generation. I for one, agree with him. And there is a clear trend to right-wing policies. Have a look at www.politicalcompass.com


fourth - Vive la commune 2
Long live Adam Smith!:cool:

Ronald Reagan once said...

i somehow don't think you'll be able to make an accusation of communism stick against the mll. those fuckers can out free market you any day.

Because those who are doing really well are doing so damn well. But the real way of measuring is to look at those who are having the lowest standard for living. Which do you see doing better, the French poor or the American one?

I disagree that looking at the poorest members of society is the only valid way of looking at standard of living. It is more valid to look at the population as a whole (good statistical practice) to draw conclusions as a whole.

How so?Well, to avoid semantic views, I will simply point out that Marx and Lenin do not hold a monopoly on communist viewpoints, and so it is entirely possible to be a communist without believing that Marx and Lenin were accurate.

Excellent exposition! Just excellent! [ applauds ]

Thanks :)

Why?
Apparent lack of scholars, at first glance. Narrow interest group. Seems as credible as Greenpeace.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Wouldn't cite their homepage in a thesis though.

Please provide independent verifiable and objective evidence

I'm going by the OECD statistics. See: http://www.oecd.org/LongAbstract/0,2546,en_2649_201185_29867117_1_1_1_1,00.html

Please provide independent verifiable and objective evidence

It follows from productivity.

Damn you capitalist.

(sorry couldn't control myself)
Now seriously, you could say that, but what should you do then? Wait untill you're as poor as people in developing countries and your boss is filthy rich?
Isn't it better to stop these capitalist measures before that happens?


Yea how dare capitalism make France what it was... a wealthy,respected nation. And YAY for socialism which has made France the laughing stock of the developed world.

Lets compare in America you can get fired no matter what unless you have tenure... and most jobs in America don't have tenure. America= Wealthy, powerful, high standard of living with approx 4.9% unemployment. France= Mediocre at best,weak,middle to low standard of living with approx 10% unemployment. Thanks but no thanks I'll go w/Capitalism any day of the week.

I'm going by the OECD statistics. See: http://www.oecd.org/LongAbstract/0,2546,en_2649_201185_29867117_1_1_1_1,00.html



It follows from productivity.
What is that graph supposed to show? The USA isn't even on that graph.

IT is a high value, high skill industry that produces considerable value for the economy as a whole and produces a productive, well educated workforce. The world economy is technologically driven, and the inability of a nation to compete will reduce employment, income, and will crimp the ability of government to provide for its citizens.

Plus, the IT rankings include technology infrastructure; France is not providing for its citizens in that aspect if it neglects the deployment of public technological infrastructure. A free wireless network provides the underpriveliged with access to the technology.

I'll respond to the second part in a few minutes.

Fair enough. That need, however, can be addressed without reducing wages, social services, and job security. It's not really relevant to the question of whether or not France should relax its labor regulations.

How does getting rid of the superfluous bosses harm the workers?

Depends upon how you define a 'superfluous boss'.

I had the very good fortune to meet the CEO of an international shipping services company. As a young man he became a sea-cadet. Many years of seafaring followed and he eventually became Captain of a cargo-ship. Some years later and he was Captain of a cruise-liner. After that he worked as a cargo super-intendent, a ship-agent, a ship-broker and in various other shipping roles. He looked after the UK as a whole unit for this international company I referred to, then later the UK & Iberia, later again the whole of Europe, then world-wide as Chief Operations Officer. He recently became CEO.

I submit that his company would be very very much worse off without him than with him.

I also submit, based on my own observations and debate, that those of the Red persuasion have a tendency to see matters such as 'bosses' in a very simplistic black and white way. And, one of the things that ultimately turned me from being a leftist into a libertarian, were views expressed by leftists that tended to be based on prejudice and irrational hatred of 'class enemies' like e.g. bosses. Many of the bosses of large international companies that I have met have been intelligent, honest, hardworking and quite generous men. One I know of is going on a a 50 mile bike ride for charity. This is a man who runs a fleet of ships worth billions of dollars, who thinks nothing of getting up in the morning and flying to Singapore for a days work and has personally responsibility for hundreds of his staff ... all of whom he has met personally.

There are many many good men and women who live and work in the capitalist world who work not just for themselves (although that is the primary motivator) but also for the good of everyone around them.

Depends upon how you define a 'superfluous boss'.

I had the very good fortune to meet the CEO of an international shipping services company. As a young man he became a sea-cadet. Many years of seafaring followed and he eventually became Captain of a cargo-ship. Some years later and he was Captain of a cruise-liner. After that he worked as a cargo super-intendent, a ship-agent, a ship-broker and in various other shipping roles. He looked after the UK as a whole unit for this international company I referred to, then later the UK & Iberia, later again the whole of Europe, then world-wide as Chief Operations Officer. He recently became CEO.

I submit that his company would be very very much worse off without him than with him.

I also submit, based on my own observations and debate, that those of the Red persuasion have a tendency to see matters such as 'bosses' in a very simplistic black and white way. And, one of the things that ultimately turned me from being a leftist into a libertarian, were views expressed by leftists that tended to be based on prejudice and irrational hatred of 'class enemies' like e.g. bosses. Many of the bosses of large international companies that I have met have been intelligent, honest, hardworking and quite generous men. One I know of is going on a a 50 mile bike ride for charity. This is a man who runs a fleet of ships worth billions of dollars, who thinks nothing of getting up in the morning and flying to Singapore for a days work and has personally responsibility for hundreds of his staff ... all of whom he has met personally.

There are many many good men and women who live and work in the capitalist world who work not just for themselves (although that is the primary motivator) but also for the good of everyone around them.


And if you get rid of the superflous boss .... where do the jobs come from? Now the workers are jobless. YAY!

Of course, in order to own stock, one would have to take the immoral (IMHO) action of profiting from a company and not working in it.

Can you please explain why, in your opinion that profiting from shareownership while not working for the company is immoral.

What is that graph supposed to show? The USA isn't even on that graph.

Are you looking at the same table I am? The US is on the list, it's at the bottom, and there's a column that compares "GDP per hour worked", that is, productivity, directly to the statistic for the US.

Apparent lack of scholars, at first glance. Narrow interest group. Seems as credible as Greenpeace.

The WEF has 75 of the world's largest international corporations in a variety of sectors and industries as strategic partners. It also has numerous private and public sector representatives as well as various interest groups from different sides of the issues it addresses. The people who run these companies are some of the most qualified in the fields of economics and finance in the world. The notion that its members are not qualified to collect and present this data is totally unjustifiable.

I quote "The Forum is an independent and neutral organization that does not take political positions on the issues it addresses. Rather, the Forum gives leaders of opposing political beliefs a unique opportunity to discuss their differences and discover common ground."

And of the members, 42.6% of them come from European nations and companies.

Depends upon how you define a 'superfluous boss'.

I had the very good fortune to meet the CEO of an international shipping services company. As a young man he became a sea-cadet. Many years of seafaring followed and he eventually became Captain of a cargo-ship. Some years later and he was Captain of a cruise-liner. After that he worked as a cargo super-intendent, a ship-agent, a ship-broker and in various other shipping roles. He looked after the UK as a whole unit for this international company I referred to, then later the UK & Iberia, later again the whole of Europe, then world-wide as Chief Operations Officer. He recently became CEO.

I submit that his company would be very very much worse off without him than with him.

I also submit, based on my own observations and debate, that those of the Red persuasion have a tendency to see matters such as 'bosses' in a very simplistic black and white way. And, one of the things that ultimately turned me from being a leftist into a libertarian, were views expressed by leftists that tended to be based on prejudice and irrational hatred of 'class enemies' like e.g. bosses. Many of the bosses of large international companies that I have met have been intelligent, honest, hardworking and quite generous men. One I know of is going on a a 50 mile bike ride for charity. This is a man who runs a fleet of ships worth billions of dollars, who thinks nothing of getting up in the morning and flying to Singapore for a days work and has personally responsibility for hundreds of his staff ... all of whom he has met personally.I say that bosses are superfluous not because they aren't hardworking, but because the workers in the company could do the job in a democratic manner given the information that the bosses have access to. The bosses can't do the work of all of the workers in the company.

There are many many good men and women who live and work in the capitalist world who work not just for themselves (although that is the primary motivator) but also for the good of everyone around them.Not all bosses are created equal, I agree, but they are all unnecessary.

I say that bosses are superfluous not because they aren't hardworking, but because the workers in the company could do the job in a democratic manner given the information that the bosses have access to. The bosses can't do the work of all of the workers in the company.

Not all bosses are created equal, I agree, but they are all unnecessary.
So.... if workers were to go about in a "democratic way" they would sit around all day and discuss how they were going to do the work without actually getting anything done? Yea.... I wonder why we don't do that..

And who's going to start the company? POOR or MIDDLE CLASS people with no extra capital to spare.. and if they do and the company goes under they starve? Yea another genious idea...

Here's a company under that idealogy... A group of middle class people start a company they all take a second mortgage on their homes to get the loan.. they sit around all day to discuss the running of the company..they produce nothing. The company goes under and they all lose their homes, and they still have no income...

Capitalism invented something so company's could be run democratically... its called a board of directors :).

Are you looking at the same table I am? The US is on the list, it's at the bottom, and there's a column that compares "GDP per hour worked", that is, productivity, directly to the statistic for the US.
Turkey (2) -81 -8 -72
Mexico -75 -4 -71
Poland -68 -6 -62
Slovak Republic -64 -11 -53
Hungary -60 -6 -54
Czech Republic -54 2 -55
Portugal -51 -3 -48
Korea -47 12 -60
Greece -46 -8 -38
New Zealand -40 3 -43
Spain -36 -15 -21
EU-19 (3) -33 -13 -20
Italy -30 -9 -22
OECD -30 -5 -25
Euro-zone (4) -29 -16 -13
Germany -28 -19 -9
France (5) -26 -29 3
Japan -25 5 -30
Australia -24 1 -25
Sweden -24 -10 -14
Finland -23 -8 -15
Belgium -22 -32 10
Netherlands -22 -17 -5
Canada -21 3 -24
United Kingdom -21 -6 -14
Denmark -20 -9 -12
Austria -20 -3 -17
Iceland -18 9 -27
Switzerland -15 5 -21
Ireland -10 -12 2
Norway -3 -25 22


I don't see the US on that list.

And if you get rid of the superflous boss .... where do the jobs come from? Now the workers are jobless. YAY!Getting rid of bosses would be part of getting rid of the illogical concept of ownership.

Can you please explain why, in your opinion that profiting from shareownership while not working for the company is immoral.Because I believe the concept of ownership is illogical; property rights should be based upon use.

So.... if workers were to go about in a "democratic way" they would sit around all day and discuss how they were going to do the work without actually getting anything done? Yea.... I wonder why we don't do that..Yes, no cooperative is ever successful, and nobody would ever do anything if they were assured of the maximum possible profit from it.

And who's going to start the company? POOR or MIDDLE CLASS people with no extra capital to spare.. and if they do and the company goes under they starve? Yea another genious idea...If the company goes under in capitalism, the workers starve also.

Getting rid of bosses would be part of getting rid of the illogical concept of ownership.

Because I believe the concept of ownership is illogical; property rights should be based upon use.

Yes, no cooperative is ever successful, and nobody would ever do anything if they were assured of the maximum possible profit from it.

Except they wouldn't get the maximum possible proffit from it. They would probably divide it equally not according to how much work they actually do, so there would be no incentive to work harder or to get a better education. So our society comes to a dead end (Which is what has happened in Europe and is why we see powers rising in India, Japan, China, and why most inventions come from those areas). Genius. And property rights are based upon use. I buy a car and I use it. WOW.

The WEF has 75 of the world's largest international corporations in a variety of sectors and industries as strategic partners. It also has numerous private and public sector representatives as well as various interest groups from different sides of the issues it addresses. The people who run these companies are some of the most qualified in the fields of economics and finance in the world. The notion that its members are not qualified to collect and present this data is totally unjustifiable.

I quote "The Forum is an independent and neutral organization that does not take political positions on the issues it addresses. Rather, the Forum gives leaders of opposing political beliefs a unique opportunity to discuss their differences and discover common ground."

And of the members, 42.6% of them come from European nations and companies.

Independent and neutral that does not take political positions on the issues it adresses. Right. Their stance on deregulation is not a political position then?


Who are those superqualified members then? What are their qualifications? If those are listed on their site, I missed it. A link please?

That organisation reeks of lobbyism.

Getting rid of bosses would be part of getting rid of the illogical concept of ownership.

Because I believe the concept of ownership is illogical; property rights should be based upon use.

Yes, no cooperative is ever successful, and nobody would ever do anything if they were assured of the maximum possible profit from it.

If the company goes under in capitalism, the workers starve also.


So most people in the US are starving? hahaha no one in the US has ever starved from joblessness. Not even during the Great Depression. You see alot of pictures of poor people and such, but do you ever see pictures of people starving to death? No, and its because it didn't happen! No one starves to death in a capitilistic society because everyone pulls their own weight. However we do see people starving in socialist and communistic society's. China under Chairman Mao around 35 million or so. Countries in Africa which have fallen, other Asian "republics" like Vietnam.

In these "democratic" "worker controlled" paradises thousands and millions of people die. The government speaks for the people... and it says they should give up all their food and starve, while the government grows fat.

Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) valuation of country GDP (US dollars Billions). Source: IMF (2005 data)
denmark 187.721
Finland 161.099
France 1811.561
Norway 193.660
Sweden 267.427
United States 12332.296

As you can see from the above table, Seathorn is completely wrong. The US is far richer than any of the nations mentioned above. All the Scandinavian nations which Seathorn claims are far more socialist than France are also less richer than France.

Meaningless. Sweden's population is a small fraction of that of the US. Check per capita income for a more worthwhile measure.

Meaningless. Sweden's population is a small fraction of that of the US. Check per capita income for a more worthwhile measure.

Here you are ...
Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) per capita GDP US dollars
Denmark 34717.573
Finland 30817.570
France 29019.288
Norway 41940.513
Sweden 29536.787
United States 41571.061

Norway leads owing to a small population and very high oil/gas revenues from the North Sea. Because of that, I submit that it is an outlier and can safely be ignored.

Correcting for Norway, the US leads by a big margin, with the other Scandinavian states (bar Denmark) and France clustered together.

Fairly convincing proof that the USA leads. As the USA has a flexible system whereas the others don't, that economic strength likely comes from that flexibility. More money=more freedom to choose = greater happiness.

Except they wouldn't get the maximum possible proffit from it. They would probably divide it equally not according to how much work they actually doResources in capitalism are not necessarily divided by these criteria, and since value is subjective it isn't necessarily to divide it my these criteria.

, so there would be no incentive to work harder If you work harder, the company does better, and you do better.

or to get a better education. Yes, because nobody ever enjoys being a scientist or doctor or some other job which requires an education.

So our society comes to a dead end (Which is what has happened in Europe and is why we see powers rising in India, Japan, China, and why most inventions come from those areas). Genius. I don't see what Europe in the real world has to do with the system I've proposed as the system I've proposed has never been implemented.

And property rights are based upon use. I buy a car and I use it. WOW.What was the point of this?

Turkey (2) -81 -8 -72
Mexico -75 -4 -71
Poland -68 -6 -62
Slovak Republic -64 -11 -53
Hungary -60 -6 -54
Czech Republic -54 2 -55
Portugal -51 -3 -48
Korea -47 12 -60
Greece -46 -8 -38
New Zealand -40 3 -43
Spain -36 -15 -21
EU-19 (3) -33 -13 -20
Italy -30 -9 -22
OECD -30 -5 -25
Euro-zone (4) -29 -16 -13
Germany -28 -19 -9
France (5) -26 -29 3
Japan -25 5 -30
Australia -24 1 -25
Sweden -24 -10 -14
Finland -23 -8 -15
Belgium -22 -32 10
Netherlands -22 -17 -5
Canada -21 3 -24
United Kingdom -21 -6 -14
Denmark -20 -9 -12
Austria -20 -3 -17
Iceland -18 9 -27
Switzerland -15 5 -21
Ireland -10 -12 2
Norway -3 -25 22


I don't see the US on that list.

Yes, we are looking at different tables. The table I'm looking at is on there somewhere, because I'm looking at it right now after downloading it from the link I provided, but because I'm using Microsoft Works Spreadsheet instead of Excel the presentation is probably messed up.

So most people in the US are starving? hahaha no one in the US has ever starved from joblessness. Not even during the Great Depression. You see alot of pictures of poor people and such, but do you ever see pictures of people starving to death? No, and its because it didn't happen! No one starves to death in a capitilistic society because everyone pulls their own weight. Are you kidding me with this? I never said that most people in the US were starving, but to assert that nobody in the US has ever done so is quite ludicrous.

However we do see people starving in socialist and communistic society's. China under Chairman Mao around 35 million or so. Countries in Africa which have fallen, other Asian "republics" like Vietnam.You've listed nations and countries, but no country or nation has ever been communist. Communist societies have existed, but only for short periods, due to outside forces.

In these "democratic" "worker controlled" paradises thousands and millions of people die. The government speaks for the people... and it says they should give up all their food and starve, while the government grows fat.And this is why those nations were communist - they weren't democratic and worker controlled.

Resources in capitalism are not necessarily divided by these criteria, and since value is subjective it isn't necessarily to divide it my these criteria.

If you work harder, the company does better, and you do better.

Yes, because nobody ever enjoys being a scientist or doctor or some other job which requires an education.

I don't see what Europe in the real world has to do with the system I've proposed as the system I've proposed has never been implemented.

What was the point of this?
You said... "property rights should be based on use" . And why should we apply it to the real world? Since the real world is all that matters. As President Grover Cleveland once said "It is a condition which confronts us.. not a theory" and you fail to address all of my issues together. Instead you nit-pick, please answer all of them together or just don't answer your ignorance is embarrasing.

Except they wouldn't get the maximum possible proffit from it. They would probably divide it equally not according to how much work they actually do, so there would be no incentive to work harder or to get a better education.

Why do you think they would?

Yes, we are looking at different tables. The table I'm looking at is on there somewhere, because I'm looking at it right now after downloading it from the link I provided, but because I'm using Microsoft Works Spreadsheet instead of Excel the presentation is probably messed up.
well, I clicked the link on the page you sent and it doesn't have "GDP per hours worked," it has "Gap in GDP per hours worked," which is entirely different and the list of countries was as I pasted, no US on the list and also it even says on the site, "Estimates of productivity levels are more uncertain than estimates of productivity growth, and the measures should be interpreted with caution."

You said... "property rights should be based on use" . And why should we apply it to the real world? We should apply it to the real world, I fail to see how you did so.

you fail to address all of my issues together. Your issues are separate issues, why would I address all of them at once?

Instead you nit-pick, please answer all of them together or just don't answer your ignorance is embarrasing.Pot meet kettle.

Independent and neutral that does not take political positions on the issues it adresses. Right. Their stance on deregulation is not a political position then?

They make recommendations based upon their analysis of the data collected.

Who are those superqualified members then? What are their qualifications? If those are listed on their site, I missed it. A link please?That organisation reeks of lobbyism.

CEOs from these companies among others:
http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Members+and+Partners%5CStrategic+Partners

Other notable members include former President Bill Clinton and King Hussein II of Jordan...

well, I clicked the link on the page you sent and it doesn't have "GDP per hours worked," it has "Gap in GDP per hours worked," which is entirely different and the list of countries was as I pasted, no US on the list and also it even says on the site, "Estimates of productivity levels are more uncertain than estimates of productivity growth, and the measures should be interpreted with caution."

As I said, we are looking at different tables.

Here's what I was referencing, copied and pasted:

Australia 30,193 76 34.7 75 1
Austria 31,864 80 38.4 83 (3)
Belgium 30,951 78 50.8 110 (32)
Canada 31,321 79 35.2 76 3
Czech Republic 18,472 46 20.7 45 2
Denmark 31,645 80 40.9 88 (9)
Finland 30,471 77 39.2 85 (8)
France (1) 29,456 74 47.7 103 (29)
Germany 28,570 72 42.1 91 (19)
Greece 21,599 54 28.6 62 (8)
Hungary 15,946 40 21.5 46 (6)
Iceland 32,589 82 33.7 73 9
Ireland 35,680 90 47.1 102 (12)
Italy 27,655 70 36.3 78 (9)
Japan 29,684 75 32.5 70 5
Korea 20,907 53 18.6 40 12
Luxembourg 57,938 146 55.9 121 25
Mexico 10,070 25 13.5 29 (4)
Netherlands 31,060 78 44.2 95 (17)
New Zealand 23,953 60 26.4 57 3
Norway 38,728 97 56.6 122 (25)
Poland 12,647 32 17.7 38 (6)
Portugal 19,490 49 23.9 52 (3)
Slovak Republic 14,309 36 21.6 47 (11)
Spain 25,510 64 36.5 79 (15)
Sweden 30,370 76 39.9 86 (10)
Switzerland 33,668 85 36.7 79 5
Turkey (2) 7,688 19 12.7 28 (8)
United Kingdom 31,444 79 39.6 86 (6)
United States 39,732 100 46.3 100 0

OECD 27,670 70 34.7 75 (5)
G7 33,715 85 41.4 89 (5)
North America 31,931 80 38.3 83 (2)
OECD-Europe (3) 26,879 68 37.2 80 (13)
EU-19 (4) 26,641 67 37.0 80 (13)
Euro-zone (5) 28,068 71 40.2 87 (16)

The first number refers to GDP per head of population, the second to GDP per head of population as percentage of the US value, the third to GDP per hour worked, the fourth to GDP per hour worked as percentage of the US value, and the fifth to the gap between the second and fourth columns.

I have no idea why you are not getting the same table.

As for uncertainty about productivity, that may be, but even if French productivity is a little less than the US value, the point remains legitimate - that a mere comparison of per capita income fails to account for differences in working hours, and in this particular case the distinction is crucial.

They make recommendations based upon their analysis of the data collected.



CEOs from these companies among others:
http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Members+and+Partners%5CStrategic+Partners

Other notable members include former President Bill Clinton and King Hussein II of Jordan...

Thanks for that link. A definite lobby institution.

Thanks for that link. A definite lobby institution.
Are they? The Economist and a bunch of newspapers, like The Times and The Independent, have cited their figures often as credible.

Are they? The Economist and a bunch of newspapers, like The Times and The Independent, have cited their figures often as credible.

So?

So?
I don't quite see the reason for your attack on them.

A fundamental difference in thinking here. See, I think that it's just WORKING that works. In the current globalized capitalist system, people can do their work as well as humanly possible, and that is enough to make profit,

Not necessarily. It also takes innovation, technological advances to keep pace with demand. You can have 100 people who are the best at making widgets but if I come up technology that can do the job in half the time, with half the workforce, you're out of business.

but we have people who'se only job is to own that job that others do. They're called share-owners. They might want even MORE profit, and move the means of production to China, or kick out thousands of people who have also been building that company, and actually made that profit just because it rises up the value of those shares.
That doesn't work. We don't need those people who take the profit of the worker's work (like in capitalism),

Actually it works quite well. Where exactly do you think the capital comes from to start a company? Its not a group of 'workers' who get together and decide to form a company. It is the shareholders who make the investment into the company. The workers don't 'build' anything. They do the job that they are paid to do. The profit from the worker's work as you say, has much more to do with the capital investment from the shareholders. That investment pays for technology, equipment and yes, the salaries of those workers who are paid to do the job at hand. You get rid of shareholders, you're out of business.

If the majority of Frenchmen want to hang on to a constrictive regulated labor market, by all means go for it. But again keep in mind that also contributes to a high unemployment rate and a minimal GDP growth rate.
[/QUOTE]

I don't quite see the reason for your attack on them.

Oh...it's just the hate swelling within me, aching to destroy all that is good and fair in this...

*snaps out of it*

I think they are not credible as a scholarly source. At least not credible enough to cite their word as the definite truth, as our learned friend of economics, Vetalia does.

More reason? Just sabotage. Guess I am a closet terrorist. Anyway, I'm gone. The moon is up. :(

Oh...it's just the hate swelling within me, aching to destroy all that is good and fair in this...

*snaps out of it*

I think they are not credible as a scholarly source. At least not credible enough to cite their word as the definite truth, as our learned friend of economics, Vetalia does.

More reason? Just sabotage. Guess I am a closet terrorist.
I see. Well, noone possesses the absolute truth. I think they are a good enough scholarly source, so long as you remain open-minded enough to cross-reference your facts, but again this is down to subjective preferences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Dangerous Animals
It doesn't logically, or in any way reasonably, follow that liberalising the employment laws will lead to widespread introduction of child labour and the enslavement of the working class.

Quote:Soheran
Good thing I didn't say it did, then. Note the "Why stop there?"

RESPONSE CDA
Just because you pre-fixed it with 'why stop there' doesn't mean you didn't say it. You were introducing a fallacy into the argument - the slippery slope argument ... because of a then b then c then x then I then 41 will inevitably follow. Which is demonstrably not true. Which is what I demonstrated.

QUOTE SOHERAN
What has been repeatedly said on these forums, and elsewhere, is that in order to be "globally competitive" we must accept "lower labor costs" and "labor flexibility", that is to say, lower wages and benefits. If those foreign workers in China are willing to work for less, we had better toughen up and accept less as well, or else businesses will invest elsewhere.

RESPONSE CDA
OK, this is often seen on the forums ...

QUOTE SOHERAN

Okay. But why remain content with a free market for labor? Why arbitrarily stop there? Because the free market is Holy Gospel, passed on by the God of the "Free" Contract, and we must pay homage? If demand for labor is too high, investment is impeded, even in a free market.

RESPONSE CDA
You have re-introduced the slippery slope fallacy. Because A > B> C> does not necessarily lead to X>@>P

Anyway, I took the logical fallacy and took it to its breaking point. See my earlier point about the unemployability of children (cheaper to hire chinese adults for labour intensive work, children do not have the value-added skills to perform valuable skills based work). And, I would add, children are not fully developed mentally and so from a libertarian viewpoint are unable to make a fully informed choice. Owing to a lack of real choice owing to their stage of mental development it is only right, according to libertarian ideals, that they be protected until they are capable of making a free, fully informed choice.


Quote: CDA
The working class cannot be enslaved because it doesn't exist. you have created a conciousness that deindividualises and dehumanises human being through a theoretical collectivising. But people are very different from each other.

QUOTE SOHERAN
Okay, so people are very different from each other. I am aware of that. What difference does it make?


RESPONSE CDA
Class conciousness theory dictates that people are very alike and should, nay, will, act in accordance with the attributes of their class and will not change class. The 'conciousness' effectively dictates that people are not only naturally suited to acting in a form of collective political entity, whether you call it the 'working class', 'the elite' 'the proletariat' whatever, but actually are a collective political entity. Now, as I have pointed out and you have agreed with me, people are very different from each other. If we are different and individual then it logically follows that we cannot be a single minded, single acting collective political entity. It logically follows that not only do individuals not naturally form into a single-minded, single-acting collective, but also that there is no collective political entity of class i.e. the concept of class-conciousness is false. That undermines one of the central tenets of leftist philosophy: that there is a class-struggle going on that will be resolved in favour of the working class. For if there is no class, how can there be a struggle? And how can a given class triumph over another if neither exist? There is no spoon :D

Quote: CDA
I used to be 'working class' and given that I am involved in the production of a tangible product, arguably still am. But I feel no kinship with many of the more 'traditional' working class men and they would likely feel little or no kinship with me.

QUOTE SOHERAN
Yeah, class solidarity is for the most part a myth. I don't see how that proves that the working class doesn't exist, though. Economic classes don't depend on class-consciousness.

RESPONSE CDA
Agreed, class solidarity is a myth, because we are not naturally a single-willed, single acting collective political entity. It does prove the working class doesn't exist - see my arguments above. As for economic classes not depending upon class-conciousness, I'm reasonably sure they do, but I will have to dig out my references to back that up. Unless anyone on the boards can help out?

Quote:CDA
Face it, socialists/commies have created a false 'class-conciousness' which they use as a tool to introduce logical fallacies - namely, appeals to force (if we are together we are stronger and we can force what we want so you capitalists better do as we say), appeals to popularity (the populace as a whole, or as large sections, want it so it must be right) and appeals to consequences (it is right because this or that end will be achieved). The idea of class conciousness is nothing more than a mass-mind-control tool. As the working class does not exist so it cannot be enslaved.

QUOTE SOHERAN
I don't see an argument here, just a series of attacks, so it's rather difficult to respond, let alone "face" anything.


RESPONSE CDA
I shouldn't have used the 'face it' phrasing or the pejorative 'commies'. For the sake of convenience I will use 'red' or 'leftist' instead.

I'm a bit musty on the origin of class-conciousness theory but the point of it is this. It is fundamentally not real. Why? It is about taking an otherwise disparate group of people and giving them something around which they will unite and see 'kinship' with other people even though they are very different. A good example of something that induces class-conciousness is football (soccer). Here in the UK it is fair to say everyone is mad for football. Now, you go to Newcastle and wave a Sunderland flag about. I guarantee that you will find yourself in untold amounts of trouble owing to the big rivalry between the football teams. But ... you swap the flag to the England football team flag at the time of the World Cup and you will see Englishmen of all colours, locations, religions, occupations whatever, uniting under the flag of St George. It won't matter if the man standing next to you is a lawyer and you are a bricklayer - you are both England fans. Once the competition is over, lawyer and bricklayer will go their separate ways. Lawyer will not likely invite bricklayer to his home for a dinner party, bricklayer will not likely invite lawyer down to the pub. Lawyer and bricklayer are likely to have very different views, aims, goals and means to achieve this. So, although there is a 'kinship' there, it is temporary and illusory. When people subordinate their identity to a collective in this way then they become controllable. They will be prone to act in the way that the collective, or whoever directs the collective, desires. Witness the problem of football hooliganism and people who would not otherwise engage in such behaviour becoming vandals.

Now, if we swap the illusory 'football-conciousness' to the nation-state we can encourage men to march off to war to kill other men who are different by virtue of their nationality. This national-conciousness is false too. Why? how can we say it is 'our' country? i have one sixty-millioneth of the vote. i own none of it. My opinion is not sought in the running of the country, nor when I raise my voice does anyone listen. My countrymen are often very different to me - I have no religion, I am not interested in sports and so on and so on. yet this is 'our' country. It is 'ours' even though we do not own, control or operate it in any meaningful way. The concept of 'our country' is false.

Now, let's look at class-conciousness. I am the son of a working class man. I own none of the means of production. I am in a trade that has been traditionally working-class. I am likely not to enjoy the company of other working class men as i don't share their interests or politics. yet, according to the class-conciousness theory - working class - i am supposed to subordinate my natural feelings, thoughts and ideals to that of the class. My feelings, thoughts and ideals are directly contradictory to the tenets of leftism. If I act 'true' according to my class I am acting against my own nature. That would be false. If this is scaled up so that many otherwise disparate people act collectively that too is false. The political interests attributed to that class are, accordingly, also false. The actions advocated for the class, by the vanguard of the dictatorship of the proletariat, (a minority group claiming to act for a majority group in majority's best interest without a mandate from the majority so there is no democratic legitimacy in leftism by the way), are also false.

So whether you are talking about class- sporting- or national-conciousness you are talking about something that is effectively false. It does not exist. It can, however, be engineered so that people will act in line with the collective and against their individual natures. Because people act against their own natures, their own interests in a mass-movement in a way dictated by a minority group then I can say that the concept of class conciousness is a form of mass mind or behaviour control.

Now what you described as 'attacks', I describe as, well, descriptors of how that mindcontrol and transformation of an individual into part of a collective identity comes about, namely the introduction of logical fallicies: appeals to force (we are stronger and we can force what we want so you capitalists better do as we say), appeals to popularity (the populace as a whole, or as large sections, want it so it must be right) and appeals to consequences (it is right because this or that end will be achieved).

... it took me ages to do that last post. I'm going to eat cereal and go to bed.

G'night

CDA

zzzZZZzzz

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Dangerous Animals
It doesn't logically, or in any way reasonably, follow that liberalising the employment laws will lead to widespread introduction of child labour and the enslavement of the working class.

Quote:Soheran
Good thing I didn't say it did, then. Note the "Why stop there?"

RESPONSE CDA
Just because you pre-fixed it with 'why stop there' doesn't mean you didn't say it. You were introducing a fallacy into the argument - the slippery slope argument ... because of a then b then c then x then I then 41 will inevitably follow. Which is demonstrably not true. Which is what I demonstrated.

QUOTE SOHERAN
What has been repeatedly said on these forums, and elsewhere, is that in order to be "globally competitive" we must accept "lower labor costs" and "labor flexibility", that is to say, lower wages and benefits. If those foreign workers in China are willing to work for less, we had better toughen up and accept less as well, or else businesses will invest elsewhere.

RESPONSE CDA
OK, this is often seen on the forums ...

QUOTE SOHERAN

Okay. But why remain content with a free market for labor? Why arbitrarily stop there? Because the free market is Holy Gospel, passed on by the God of the "Free" Contract, and we must pay homage? If demand for labor is too high, investment is impeded, even in a free market.

RESPONSE CDA
You have re-introduced the slippery slope fallacy. Because A > B> C> does not necessarily lead to X>@>P

Anyway, I took the logical fallacy and took it to its breaking point. See my earlier point about the unemployability of children (cheaper to hire chinese adults for labour intensive work, children do not have the value-added skills to perform valuable skills based work). And, I would add, children are not fully developed mentally and so from a libertarian viewpoint are unable to make a fully informed choice. Owing to a lack of real choice owing to their stage of mental development it is only right, according to libertarian ideals, that they be protected until they are capable of making a free, fully informed choice.


Quote: CDA
The working class cannot be enslaved because it doesn't exist. you have created a conciousness that deindividualises and dehumanises human being through a theoretical collectivising. But people are very different from each other.

QUOTE SOHERAN
Okay, so people are very different from each other. I am aware of that. What difference does it make?


RESPONSE CDA
Class conciousness theory dictates that people are very alike and should, nay, will, act in accordance with the attributes of their class and will not change class. The 'conciousness' effectively dictates that people are not only naturally suited to acting in a form of collective political entity, whether you call it the 'working class', 'the elite' 'the proletariat' whatever, but actually are a collective political entity. Now, as I have pointed out and you have agreed with me, people are very different from each other. If we are different and individual then it logically follows that we cannot be a single minded, single acting collective political entity. It logically follows that not only do individuals not naturally form into a single-minded, single-acting collective, but also that there is no collective political entity of class i.e. the concept of class-conciousness is false. That undermines one of the central tenets of leftist philosophy: that there is a class-struggle going on that will be resolved in favour of the working class. For if there is no class, how can there be a struggle? And how can a given class triumph over another if neither exist? There is no spoon :D

Quote: CDA
I used to be 'working class' and given that I am involved in the production of a tangible product, arguably still am. But I feel no kinship with many of the more 'traditional' working class men and they would likely feel little or no kinship with me.

QUOTE SOHERAN
Yeah, class solidarity is for the most part a myth. I don't see how that proves that the working class doesn't exist, though. Economic classes don't depend on class-consciousness.

RESPONSE CDA
Agreed, class solidarity is a myth, because we are not naturally a single-willed, single acting collective political entity. It does prove the working class doesn't exist - see my arguments above. As for economic classes not depending upon class-conciousness, I'm reasonably sure they do, but I will have to dig out my references to back that up. Unless anyone on the boards can help out?

Quote:CDA
Face it, socialists/commies have created a false 'class-conciousness' which they use as a tool to introduce logical fallacies - namely, appeals to force (if we are together we are stronger and we can force what we want so you capitalists better do as we say), appeals to popularity (the populace as a whole, or as large sections, want it so it must be right) and appeals to consequences (it is right because this or that end will be achieved). The idea of class conciousness is nothing more than a mass-mind-control tool. As the working class does not exist so it cannot be enslaved.

QUOTE SOHERAN
I don't see an argument here, just a series of attacks, so it's rather difficult to respond, let alone "face" anything.


RESPONSE CDA
I shouldn't have used the 'face it' phrasing or the pejorative 'commies'. For the sake of convenience I will use 'red' or 'leftist' instead.

I'm a bit musty on the origin of class-conciousness theory but the point of it is this. It is fundamentally not real. Why? It is about taking an otherwise disparate group of people and giving them something around which they will unite and see 'kinship' with other people even though they are very different. A good example of something that induces class-conciousness is football (soccer). Here in the UK it is fair to say everyone is mad for football. Now, you go to Newcastle and wave a Sunderland flag about. I guarantee that you will find yourself in untold amounts of trouble owing to the big rivalry between the football teams. But ... you swap the flag to the England football team flag at the time of the World Cup and you will see Englishmen of all colours, locations, religions, occupations whatever, uniting under the flag of St George. It won't matter if the man standing next to you is a lawyer and you are a bricklayer - you are both England fans. Once the competition is over, lawyer and bricklayer will go their separate ways. Lawyer will not likely invite bricklayer to his home for a dinner party, bricklayer will not likely invite lawyer down to the pub. Lawyer and bricklayer are likely to have very different views, aims, goals and means to achieve this. So, although there is a 'kinship' there, it is temporary and illusory. When people subordinate their identity to a collective in this way then they become controllable. They will be prone to act in the way that the collective, or whoever directs the collective, desires. Witness the problem of football hooliganism and people who would not otherwise engage in such behaviour becoming vandals.

Now, if we swap the illusory 'football-conciousness' to the nation-state we can encourage men to march off to war to kill other men who are different by virtue of their nationality. This national-conciousness is false too. Why? how can we say it is 'our' country? i have one sixty-millioneth of the vote. i own none of it. My opinion is not sought in the running of the country, nor when I raise my voice does anyone listen. My countrymen are often very different to me - I have no religion, I am not interested in sports and so on and so on. yet this is 'our' country. It is 'ours' even though we do not own, control or operate it in any meaningful way. The concept of 'our country' is false.

Now, let's look at class-conciousness. I am the son of a working class man. I own none of the means of production. I am in a trade that has been traditionally working-class. I am likely not to enjoy the company of other working class men as i don't share their interests or politics. yet, according to the class-conciousness theory - working class - i am supposed to subordinate my natural feelings, thoughts and ideals to that of the class. My feelings, thoughts and ideals are directly contradictory to the tenets of leftism. If I act 'true' according to my class I am acting against my own nature. That would be false. If this is scaled up so that many otherwise disparate people act collectively that too is false. The political interests attributed to that class are, accordingly, also false. The actions advocated for the class, by the vanguard of the dictatorship of the proletariat, (a minority group claiming to act for a majority group in majority's best interest without a mandate from the majority so there is no democratic legitimacy in leftism by the way), are also false.

So whether you are talking about class- sporting- or national-conciousness you are talking about something that is effectively false. It does not exist. It can, however, be engineered so that people will act in line with the collective and against their individual natures. Because people act against their own natures, their own interests in a mass-movement in a way dictated by a minority group then I can say that the concept of class conciousness is a form of mass mind or behaviour control.

Now what you described as 'attacks', I describe as, well, descriptors of how that mindcontrol and transformation of an individual into part of a collective identity comes about, namely the introduction of logical fallicies: appeals to force (we are stronger and we can force what we want so you capitalists better do as we say), appeals to popularity (the populace as a whole, or as large sections, want it so it must be right) and appeals to consequences (it is right because this or that end will be achieved).
I hope you kept a copy of that for later use.

I see. Well, noone possesses the absolute truth. I think they are a good enough scholarly source, so long as you remain open-minded enough to cross-reference your facts, but again this is down to subjective preferences.

Absolutely. Most of the material they use is supported by facts from other sources (IIRC the UN Human Development Index corroborated it); there's only so much that they can do to sway opinion in one way or another with factual data.

Absolutely. Most of the material they use is supported by facts from other sources (IIRC the UN Human Development Index corroborated it); there's only so much that they can do to sway opinion in one way or another with factual data.
Indeed. Which is why, in my view, any reluctance to cite them is more related with subjective mistrust than any fault of their own.

RESPONSE CDA
Just because you pre-fixed it with 'why stop there' doesn't mean you didn't say it. You were introducing a fallacy into the argument - the slippery slope argument ... because of a then b then c then x then I then 41 will inevitably follow. Which is demonstrably not true. Which is what I demonstrated.

I was arguing not from the proposal itself, to liberalize employment laws, but from the logic used in support for the proposal.

Because A > B> C> does not necessarily lead to X>@>P

Granted.

Anyway, I took the logical fallacy and took it to its breaking point. See my earlier point about the unemployability of children (cheaper to hire chinese adults for labour intensive work, children do not have the value-added skills to perform valuable skills based work).

You still aren't addressing my basic point, though - why stop at the free market? Why allow high wages, regardless of their causes, if the guarantor of economic prosperity is maximizing investment?

And, I would add, children are not fully developed mentally and so from a libertarian viewpoint are unable to make a fully informed choice. Owing to a lack of real choice owing to their stage of mental development it is only right, according to libertarian ideals, that they be protected until they are capable of making a free, fully informed choice.

I am aware of libertarian ideals, and I am aware of their application in this particular case. I also do not believe we were arguing from ideals. Coerced labor goes against my ideals, whether capitalist, socialist, feudal, or otherwise, but practicality dictates that we make certain compromises with reality, and punishing people who refuse to work may be one of them.

Class conciousness theory dictates that people are very alike and should, nay, will, act in accordance with the attributes of their class and will not change class. The 'conciousness' effectively dictates that people are not only naturally suited to acting in a form of collective political entity, whether you call it the 'working class', 'the elite' 'the proletariat' whatever, but actually are a collective political entity. Now, as I have pointed out and you have agreed with me, people are very different from each other. If we are different and individual then it logically follows that we cannot be a single minded, single acting collective political entity. It logically follows that not only do individuals not naturally form into a single-minded, single-acting collective, but also that there is no collective political entity of class i.e. the concept of class-conciousness is false. That undermines one of the central tenets of leftist philosophy: that there is a class-struggle going on that will be resolved in favour of the working class. For if there is no class, how can there be a struggle? And how can a given class triumph over another if neither exist? There is no spoon :D

This argument is absurd. The objective of class-consciousness is not forming a "single-minded, single-acting collective." The only sense in which class-consciousness assumes a similarity between members of the class, and even then it is only most members of the class, is on the question of class interest - the idea that on certain matters, such as the class struggle, the vast majority of the class has the same interests and should thus be united in favor of them.

The capitalist system of production makes a hundred free-thinking individuals into a hundred workers at an assembly line, workers who most definitely share the "class interest" of getting higher wages and better benefits from the company for which they work. In that sense, it is wise for them to cooperate and, say, form a union, instead of engaging in a destructive mutual competition that allows their employer to play them against each other and erode their wages and benefits. This extends to politics as well. Since the members of the working-class have similar class interests - higher wages, fewer working hours, better benefits - it only makes sense for them to unite in favor of those class interests.

Human beings differ, yes. But how many workers do you know who want to have their wages cut? Or their pension obliterated? Or their working hours extended?

I shouldn't have used the 'face it' phrasing or the pejorative 'commies'. For the sake of convenience I will use 'red' or 'leftist' instead.

I don't have a problem with pejoratives. My problem with your post was that you were merely stating things that didn't follow from anything you had written before. I sat there for a few minutes trying to contest your argument, but there was nothing to contest.

I'm a bit musty on the origin of class-conciousness theory but the point of it is this. It is fundamentally not real. Why? It is about taking an otherwise disparate group of people and giving them something around which they will unite and see 'kinship' with other people even though they are very different. A good example of something that induces class-conciousness is football (soccer). Here in the UK it is fair to say everyone is mad for football. Now, you go to Newcastle and wave a Sunderland flag about. I guarantee that you will find yourself in untold amounts of trouble owing to the big rivalry between the football teams. But ... you swap the flag to the England football team flag at the time of the World Cup and you will see Englishmen of all colours, locations, religions, occupations whatever, uniting under the flag of St George. It won't matter if the man standing next to you is a lawyer and you are a bricklayer - you are both England fans. Once the competition is over, lawyer and bricklayer will go their separate ways. Lawyer will not likely invite bricklayer to his home for a dinner party, bricklayer will not likely invite lawyer down to the pub. Lawyer and bricklayer are likely to have very different views, aims, goals and means to achieve this. So, although there is a 'kinship' there, it is temporary and illusory. When people subordinate their identity to a collective in this way then they become controllable. They will be prone to act in the way that the collective, or whoever directs the collective, desires. Witness the problem of football hooliganism and people who would not otherwise engage in such behaviour becoming vandals.

Now, if we swap the illusory 'football-conciousness' to the nation-state we can encourage men to march off to war to kill other men who are different by virtue of their nationality. This national-conciousness is false too. Why? how can we say it is 'our' country? i have one sixty-millioneth of the vote. i own none of it. My opinion is not sought in the running of the country, nor when I raise my voice does anyone listen. My countrymen are often very different to me - I have no religion, I am not interested in sports and so on and so on. yet this is 'our' country. It is 'ours' even though we do not own, control or operate it in any meaningful way. The concept of 'our country' is false.

Now, let's look at class-conciousness. I am the son of a working class man. I own none of the means of production. I am in a trade that has been traditionally working-class. I am likely not to enjoy the company of other working class men as i don't share their interests or politics. yet, according to the class-conciousness theory - working class - i am supposed to subordinate my natural feelings, thoughts and ideals to that of the class. My feelings, thoughts and ideals are directly contradictory to the tenets of leftism. If I act 'true' according to my class I am acting against my own nature. That would be false. If this is scaled up so that many otherwise disparate people act collectively that too is false. The political interests attributed to that class are, accordingly, also false. The actions advocated for the class, by the vanguard of the dictatorship of the proletariat, (a minority group claiming to act for a majority group in majority's best interest without a mandate from the majority so there is no democratic legitimacy in leftism by the way), are also false.

So whether you are talking about class- sporting- or national-conciousness you are talking about something that is effectively false. It does not exist. It can, however, be engineered so that people will act in line with the collective and against their individual natures. Because people act against their own natures, their own interests in a mass-movement in a way dictated by a minority group then I can say that the concept of class conciousness is a form of mass mind or behaviour control.

Now what you described as 'attacks', I describe as, well, descriptors of how that mindcontrol and transformation of an individual into part of a collective identity comes about, namely the introduction of logical fallicies: appeals to force (we are stronger and we can force what we want so you capitalists better do as we say), appeals to popularity (the populace as a whole, or as large sections, want it so it must be right) and appeals to consequences (it is right because this or that end will be achieved).

I agree with pretty much all of the substance of what you say. It is true that:

1. People are different;
2. Most people don't act on the basis of class;
3. There is no legitimate basis for subsuming one's own thoughts for the thoughts of the class;
4. Human beings, as a whole, are a lot more than the economic roles they fill.

The problem is that you are attributing to class-consciousness more than there actually is to it.

As a side-note, regarding the "dictatorship of the proletariat": under any sensible model there is definitely a mandate from the majority. Even left-authoritarians like Lenin called for democratic rule, at least rhetorically. Libertarian Marxists have gone a whole lot further. And it is hardly "leftist" doctrine, it is Marxist doctrine. Not all leftists, not even all radical leftists, accept it.