markets and immigrants [split]

[Sulla the Dictator]

No, then we'd just shift to talking about the things we ought to be talking about, such as normal politics, like taxes, public education, roads, etc.

No, you couldn't. Everything you believe in ties into your weird fringe racialist politics. Beyond race, you delve into a view of economics which revolves around Jews. You seem to believe that the very use of interest is a "Jewish" phenomenon. You don't like Capitalism because there are Jews who are allowed to compete in it, you claim that Communism is a Jewish invention.

You folks seem to be limited to an agrarian view of economics with some delving into mercantilism. You're a couple centuries behind the times.

<fixed title>

[Thomas777]

You folks seem to be limited to an agrarian view of economics with some delving into mercantilism. You're a couple centuries behind the times.

That may be true of some posters. However, if we want to delve into regressive economic theorizing, I can think of few policy initiatives that serve to stifle continuing innovation more than those which aim to excuse producers from bidding upon domestic labor markets.

In short, free-traders are about as 'progressive' as were the Southern agrarians who clung to the institution of slavery so as to continue to augment already inflated production-side profiteering.

[Sulla the Dictator]

That may be true of some posters. However, if we want to delve into regressive economic theorizing, I can think of few policy initiatives that serve to stifle continuing innovation more than those which aim to excuse producers from bidding upon domestic labor markets.


No, I understand. All markets need to be competitive except for the labor market, because we need to artificially retain jobs. We should make it illegal for Ford to close plants in the US. Thats REAL economics. Sustainable, too.


In short, free-traders are about as 'progressive' as were the Southern agrarians who clung to the institution of slavery so as to continue to augment already inflated production-side profiteering.

It is vital, responsible, and economically logical for us to pay call center techs $18 an hour to work 7 hour days four days a week instead of Indian college graduates who are willing to work 10 hours for half the price.

We must begin a massive horse breeding program to put ranchers back to work, too. Jump start the wagon building industry again.

[shanemac]

No, I understand. All markets need to be competitive except for the labor market, because we need to artificially retain jobs. We should make it illegal for Ford to close plants in the US. Thats REAL economics. Sustainable, too.



It is vital, responsible, and economically logical for us to pay call center techs $18 an hour to work 7 hour days four days a week instead of Indian college graduates who are willing to work 10 hours for half the price.

We must begin a massive horse breeding program to put ranchers back to work, too. Jump start the wagon building industry again.


I hope America also gets a couple of million Indian real estate agents to come over and make the real estate agent market a bit more competitive too.

[Thomas777]

No, I understand. All markets need to be competitive except for the labor market, because we need to artificially retain jobs.
This makes zero sense. Forcing producers to adhere to the law of the land is not 'artificial'. Its incumbant upon producers to offer competitive wages so as to satisfy their labor/staffing needs. What is 'artificial' is permitting producers to flagrantly violate the labor code and illegally import foreign nationals en masse so as to permanently depress wages. This practice, aside from further impoverishing the working poor, also eliminates the need for innovation...instead of being forced to augment efficiency, producers can continue to maintain profits by virtue of their unrestricted access to a Third World labor pool that will work for cents on the dollar.



We should make it illegal for Ford to close plants in the US. Thats REAL economics. Sustainable, too.
We should provide incentives for producers to not engage in rent-seeking behavior, and we should demand the benefit of our bargain when foreign manufacturers wish to do business in America. Reagan seemed to think that this represented sound policy.



It is vital, responsible, and economically logical for us to pay call center techs $18 an hour to work 7 hour days four days a week instead of Indian college graduates who are willing to work 10 hours for half the price.
It is vital, responsible, and economically logical to maintain a robust middle class and promote equity-based, demand side liquidity so as to facilitate enduring, genuine prosperity, as opposed to credit-bubble prosperity.


We must begin a massive horse breeding program to put ranchers back to work, too. Jump start the wagon building industry again.

I think its funny that guys like you like to pretend that you are in the same league as transnational CEOs (hence the royal 'We')...then again, part of being a staunch Republican is playing 'dress up'.

[Sulla the Dictator]

This makes zero sense. Forcing producers to adhere to the law of the land is not 'artificial'.


You mean new laws? New laws guaranteeing jobs? The new "Right to a job" amendment?


Its incumbant upon producers to offer competitive wages so as to satisfy their labor/staffing needs.


As I implied earlier, labor is subject to market forces and value assessments as much as any other commodity or cost. Labor does not have special status.


What is 'artificial' is permitting producers to flagrantly violate the labor code and illegally import foreign nationals en masse so as to permanently depress wages.


Thats actually not a real economic issue. The major industrial economic issue that I THOUGHT you were talking about was outsourcing labor. I mean, you can't possibly be suggesting that illegal immigrants are taking jobs in factories or call centers.


This practice, aside from further impoverishing the working poor, also eliminates the need for innovation...instead of being forced to augment efficiency, producers can continue to maintain profits by virtue of their unrestricted access to a Third World labor pool that will work for cents on the dollar.


I see. So for example, you object to the Japanese opening manufacturing plants in the United States because of the high cost of production and shipping in Japan. This is a flawed policy. Instead, the Japanese should....mark up their cars?

And lets make sure we understand what this means here. Business needs to tighten its belt in order to provide jobs. NOT the workers. The unions and the workers need to be paid a 'living wage', correct?

I thought the purpose of business was profit. I didn't know it was a state organization dedicated to employing the Soviet.


We should provide incentives for producers to not engage in rent-seeking behavior,


Well thats pretty vague. Care to elaborate on what sort of incentives compete with the vast difference in costs?


and we should demand the benefit of our bargain when foreign manufacturers wish to do business in America.


I don't disagree with this. But you seem to want it both ways. You don't think Americans should have to compete with market forces while suggesting that foreign nations need to comply with standards of fairness in the free market.


It is vital, responsible, and economically logical to maintain a robust middle class and promote equity-based, demand side liquidity so as to facilitate enduring, genuine prosperity, as opposed to credit-bubble prosperity.


It is not the job of private industry to 'maintain a robust middle class'. Its bizarre to suggest that business has that responsibility. Its strange to me that someone could even believe business COULD do that even if it WAS their responsibility.

I would like you to tell me how business 'maintains a robust middle class'. Do they establish a "Business committee" which choses a General Secretary to manage income levels for employees which suit your arbitrary demands?


I think its funny that guys like you like to pretend that you are in the same league as transnational CEOs (hence the royal 'We')...then again, part of being a staunch Republican is playing 'dress up'.

Whatever you say Thomas. I don't think that attacking me is going to provide substance to your foggy economic plan.

[Sulla the Dictator]

You think major corporations believe in the so-called "free market"? :p

It doesn't matter what they believe in. They are subject to the market.

[Sulla the Dictator]

They don't try to manipulate the market, say, by corrupting the political process with the hundreds of millions of dollars they spend on lobbyists every year, to advance their own narrow interests?

Not really relevant. You'll recall that American automobile manufacturers did this very thing throughout the 80s and they've still been dying a slow, painful death.

[Daniel Shays]

In short, free-traders are about as 'progressive' as were the Southern agrarians who clung to the institution of slavery so as to continue to augment already inflated production-side profiteering. For developed countries, free trade is progressive. Marx said this. It's only regressive when it stifles the development of industry by keeping weaker countries backward. For instance, trying to deny a country the use of nuclear power is very anti-laissez-faire at its core, obviously and utterly reactionary. That is the nature of imperialism.

[Captain Marinesko]

I would say it is highly relevant (like knowing the other guy is cheating when you are playing cards). The so-called "free market" is constantly being rigged by those who have the money and the power to manipulate it to their advantage, above all, by the very same corporations who are always belching out neoliberal propaganda while maintaining an army of lobbyists on K street. Where was the "free market" when the federal government spent billions of taxpayer dollars bailing out Citibank for investing in Brazilian junk bonds?

Bingo. The myth of neoliberalism and welfare-statism destroyed by a simple observation Marxists have known for years. The state is not something above all this. It is necessary to maintain the power of the ruling class. Neo-liberalism really means fighting laws that restrict corporate profits, while pushing for laws that aid those profits.

[Petr]

The worst of both worlds..


The Left-Wing Billionaire Collectivist Pigs

"What is really frightening is that economic globalization means we are facing the marriage of corporatism and transnational progressivism."

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=9635&highlight=china


Petr

[Kodos]

They don't try to manipulate the market, say, by corrupting the political process with the hundreds of millions of dollars they spend on lobbyists every year, to advance their own narrow interests?

Well there is rent seeking behaviour (bad), and there is just making sure socialist and commies don't get elected (good).

Petr is very much right about one thing, rich people with left wing views are scum and should be wiped out with extreme prejudice.

Anti semitism is a bad imitation of this correct principle (since jews tend to be disproportionately wealthy and liberal).

[Petr]

Full Marx for George Bush


If such comparisons seem outlandish, it is precisely because we in the West have failed to grasp the true nature of Marxism-Leninism. We think of Communism as being all about state ownership of the means of production and central planning: in fact, Karl Marx advocated neither. Instead, according to Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the "soul of Marxism" lies in something called dialectical materialism. Derived from Hegel and ultimately Heraclitus, this doctrine holds that the world is in a constant state of flux, that nothing is absolutely true or false, and that everything is connected to everything else. Permanent revolution is consequently the natural state of reality, and hence of politics. Because flux is the natural state, Marx, Engels and Lenin all reasoned that all fixed forms of political association, i.e. the state, were oppressive, and that men would not be free until the state itself had "withered away."

How was this withering away of the state to occur? For Marx and Engels the answer was clear: world capitalism would do the trick. The two authors of The Communist Manifesto eulogised the unstoppable revolutionary force of world capitalism – what we now call "globalisation." They were convinced that capitalism was an unstoppable revolutionary force; that it would overthrow all the existing structures of nation, state and family; and that it would usher in a politically and economically united world. "The bourgeoisie," they enthused, "cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into the air, all that is holy is profaned."


George Orwell is rightly credited with predicting a great deal, yet it is an indication of how far leftwards the West has travelled that his key prediction is often overlooked. Orwell saw that that the Cold War would end on the basis of a convergence between communism and capitalism – the very predicament in which we now find ourselves. At the end of Animal Farm the farmer, who symbolises the capitalist West, returns to the farm and plays cards with the pigs, who symbolise Communism. The shivering creatures outside "looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1519&highlight=laughland


Petr

[Heimdall]

Those jobs being sent overseas have a price, a rather obvious one if you think about it. When a job is sent overseas, you limit the number of domestic skilled jobs while at the same time increasing the amount of domestic skilled workers. Older skilled workers are forced to compete with younger workers for the same entry-level positions.

The younger workers often lose out on this, with teenagers and early twentysomethings being pushed out of the job market.

Young people with nothing to do commit crime, thus requiring more policing, prison and what not, thus increasing the cost of a society to maintain. Throw in the illegal immigrants depressing wages and throwing Americans out of the job market and you have the problem compounded. Lower average wages mean people can buy less, meaning people will turn to crime to get what they need.

On top of this you have higher taxation for people who are making less to pay for people who have nothing to do. With rich corporate interests and individuals controlling the media and intellectual spheres, people are indoctrinated that free trade is good, the free market works and other various nonsense.

If that was so, then why is it that the more corporations are unregulated and rich individuals are allowed to horde, that life collectively gets worse for everyone else?

[Autoreduction]

Full Marx for George Bush


If such comparisons seem outlandish, it is precisely because we in the West have failed to grasp the true nature of Marxism-Leninism. We think of Communism as being all about state ownership of the means of production and central planning: in fact, Karl Marx advocated neither. Instead, according to Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the "soul of Marxism" lies in something called dialectical materialism. Derived from Hegel and ultimately Heraclitus, this doctrine holds that the world is in a constant state of flux, that nothing is absolutely true or false, and that everything is connected to everything else. Permanent revolution is consequently the natural state of reality, and hence of politics. Because flux is the natural state, Marx, Engels and Lenin all reasoned that all fixed forms of political association, i.e. the state, were oppressive, and that men would not be free until the state itself had "withered away."

How was this withering away of the state to occur? For Marx and Engels the answer was clear: world capitalism would do the trick. The two authors of The Communist Manifesto eulogised the unstoppable revolutionary force of world capitalism – what we now call "globalisation." They were convinced that capitalism was an unstoppable revolutionary force; that it would overthrow all the existing structures of nation, state and family; and that it would usher in a politically and economically united world. "The bourgeoisie," they enthused, "cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into the air, all that is holy is profaned."


George Orwell is rightly credited with predicting a great deal, yet it is an indication of how far leftwards the West has travelled that his key prediction is often overlooked. Orwell saw that that the Cold War would end on the basis of a convergence between communism and capitalism – the very predicament in which we now find ourselves. At the end of Animal Farm the farmer, who symbolises the capitalist West, returns to the farm and plays cards with the pigs, who symbolise Communism. The shivering creatures outside "looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1519&highlight=laughland


Petr
Also consider that communism (as a movement) and capitalism cannot exist separetly seeing as the movement of communism is the negation of capitalism, thus for there to be a sufficent communist movement there must be a sufficent capitalism to undo. And no, this movement is not something that can be stopped by reactionary means. That capitalism should move towards communism is an inevitable result of the struggle of the workingclass.

[delete]

Also consider that communism (as a movement) and capitalism cannot exist separetly seeing as the movement of communism is the negation of capitalism, thus for there to be a sufficent communist movement there must be a sufficent capitalism to undo. And no, this movement is not something that can be stopped by reactionary means. That capitalism should move towards communism is an inevitable result of the struggle of the workingclass.

I think that it is racism that is imposible to stop, as acting racist becomes rational for more people each day, as the circle of hate gets turned up a notch or two all the time.

Communism as a mass movement is DEAD, and it is only people like you that don't know it yet.

[Captain Marinesko]

I think that it is racism that is imposible to stop, as acting racist becomes rational for more people each day, as the circle of hate gets turned up a notch or two all the time.

Communism as a mass movement is DEAD, and it is only people like you that don't know it yet.


Communism as a mass movement is dead? So that's why Nepal's Communists recently defeated the monarchist government? Maoists are fighting a people's war in India, and there is also a Communist insurrection in the Phillipines. How many White Nationalist insurrections are there?

[cyborg]

I think that it is racism that is imposible to stop, as acting racist becomes rational for more people each day, as the circle of hate gets turned up a notch or two all the time.

Localized common cultural values is more logical than working toward a globalized blended grey mass of controlled humanity. I guess that's racism in a nutshell.

Communism as a mass movement is DEAD, and it is only people like you that don't know it yet.

I do not believe a mass regional or worldwide movement of any sort will go far enough without encountering an insurmountable clutter of impediments. Temporal, spatial, political, language, religious and cultural values occur naturally or are intentionally harnessed by the existing order to create division. Immunity to local or transnational exploitation requires upholding tradition/nationalism instead of desiring cheap/foreign material novelties.

For communism, particularly in our age of globalization, a revolt among those who produce is not likely to win because the trend is for the owners to seek more efficient means of production, be they destitute apolitical migrants, downsizing and system redesign or displacing persons with robots.

DO NOT PRESS BUTTON
http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/6451/buttonxk9.jpg (http://www.necrocapitalist.org/)