Quote:You know exactly what will happen if we get rid of business legislation. The rich will get richer, and by relativity, American workers will become the equivalents of serfs in a feudal system. Taking away business legislation is a terrible idea; it's like releasing all the ghosts from the containment unit.
Do the rich stay rich? In a free market, the rich are the people who are the smartest, the people who make the best decisions, the people who are best engineers, businessmen ete. It's meritocracy.
Posts: 4,673
Threads: 154
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation:
13
Gender:
Quote:Do the rich stay rich?
If the rich didn't stay rich, would George W. Bush have attended Yale?
![[Image: AppealtoReason.jpg]](http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g100/baw01002/Album%20Covers/AppealtoReason.jpg)
"I looked up and saw you;
I know that you saw me.
We froze but for a moment
In empathy."-Rise Against
The spark has set aflame. I repeat: the spark has set aflame!
40 hours a week, short? What world do you live in?
Oooh! BOW DOWN TO THE SERVICE SECTOR! NO BENEFITS, LOWER WAGES AND JOB INSECURITY!
Competition is about what consumers want. The fact is, most consumers WANT to buy American made products, but can't because they've been pushed to the brink of extinction and to the very limit of affordability by cheaper products made outsourced. And why are outsourced products cheaper? Because countries like China have no minimum wages, no overtime regulations (this is where the 40 hour workweek comes from), and no business legislation. In fact, Anti-Wisemon, it sounds like the sort of place you'd LOVE! Why don't you move there?
Microsoft actually owns a substantial voting share of Apple. Which reenforces my statement about monopolies. Yes, Linux is providing competition, its desktop market share is 6%. Wow, 6%. And I'm a diehard Linux user, running Firefox right this second.
I don't ignore your example, but the fact is monopolies are bad no matter how cheap they make things, because they can: 1.Treat their workers however they like, and 2. Treat the markets however they like. If Philidelphia Steel had wanted to they could have jacked up prices however much they like.
Another thing we should do: Ban any form of "hard" lobbying, ie: campaign contributions, party funding, that sort of thing. Lobbying should be reduced to letter-writing campaigns and maybe a speech or two if Congress happens to take special interest. Not the bullshit it is today where corporations can pretty much buy politicians. Campaigns should have limits on the amount any individual entity can contribute, and it should be a fairly low ceiling. Perhaps even a law saying that X% of campaign funding cannot come from the same source?
Quote:40 hours a week, short? What world do you live in?
That's 7 hours a day. Most people work 8-10 hours a day.
Quote:Competition is about what consumers want. The fact is, most consumers WANT to buy American made products, but can't because they've been pushed to the brink of extinction and to the very limit of affordability by cheaper products made outsourced. And why are outsourced products cheaper? Because countries like China have no minimum wages, no overtime regulations (this is where the 40 hour workweek comes from), and no business legislation. In fact, Anti-Wisemon, it sounds like the sort of place you'd LOVE! Why don't you move there?
I don't like all that is happening in China, and it's hardly a beacon of free market policies. Consumers want the cheapest, best made products. They get it, and then they bitch? Something has to give. Not to mention they have no one to blame but themselves for outsourcing.
Quote:I don't ignore your example, but the fact is monopolies are bad no matter how cheap they make things, because they can: 1.Treat their workers however they like, and 2. Treat the markets however they like. If Philidelphia Steel had wanted to they could have jacked up prices however much they like.
And lose their market share when another company comes?
They would've used their monopoly power to put another competitor out of business. This was all gone over in the 1930's, I'm not going to repeat all the debates and material for you.
And by the way, since when did 40 divided by 5 equal 7? On Earth 40/5 = 8. That's the way it's always worked and always will.
Posts: 4,673
Threads: 154
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation:
13
Gender:
Quote:And by the way, since when did 40 divided by 5 equal 7? On Earth 40/5 = 8. That's the way it's always worked and always will.
Duh, he's factoring in an hour for lunch. I agree that it's not enough hours per week, but that's because the employers won't give them anymore. So then they have to get a second job, but that second job often interferes with the first, and sometimes that means that they're not allowed a second, and it always means that the time that they're able to spend with their children will be very limited.
"I looked up and saw you;
I know that you saw me.
We froze but for a moment
In empathy."-Rise Against
OR they could just be paid a living wage and hold only one job.
Quote:They would've used their monopoly power to put another competitor out of business. This was all gone over in the 1930's, I'm not going to repeat all the debates and material for you.
Then why did it not happen? History proves you wrong.
Quote:Duh, he's factoring in an hour for lunch. I agree that it's not enough hours per week, but that's because the employers won't give them anymore. So then they have to get a second job, but that second job often interferes with the first, and sometimes that means that they're not allowed a second, and it always means that the time that they're able to spend with their children will be very limited.
I have no beef with them if they had children before, but after, I have no sympathy.
Quote:OR they could just be paid a living wage and hold only one job.
For their work?
Yes, for their work. A living wage. I'm only demanding bread here, not roses.
Sorry, you can't feed children on that. Should've been more careful.
|
