Immigration nation by kaneman

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

This is one place where my liberal friends and I part company. The only "reform" that our immigration laws need is to drop the allowance that children born in the USA are automatically citizens.... the "anchor baby" provision. IMHO, only children born to USA citizens should be citizens.

I would be willing to trade THAT for amnesty, but not anything else. The current proposal is so unworkable that it is no solution at all.... it's main purpose is to muddy the illegal status of people working in the USA.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 8:29 AM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This is one place where my liberal friends and I part company. The only "reform" that our immigration laws need is to drop the allowance that children born in the USA are automatically citizens.... the "anchor baby" provision. IMHO, only children born to USA citizens should be citizens.

Agreed completely.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 8:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I found this CNN typo inadvertently funny...

Quote:
In addition to beefing up border security and increasing the number of Border Patrol agents, the immigration measure would create a guest worker program, which would allow migrant workers from other countries to work temporarily in the Untied States.

As someone (Fred?) said: Typo? Or Freudian slip?{/i]

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 8:34 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This is one place where my liberal friends and I part company. The only "reform" that our immigration laws need is to drop the allowance that children born in the USA are automatically citizens.... the "anchor baby" provision. IMHO, only children born to USA citizens should be citizens.

Agreed completely.

I also agree completely ( boy, that's scary )...Unfortunately, now in the USA, thoughts like that will get you branded a racist and bigot....pretty sad.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 8:43 AM

DAVESHAYNE

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This is one place where my liberal friends and I part company. The only "reform" that our immigration laws need is to drop the allowance that children born in the USA are automatically citizens.

You do know that would require a constitutional amendment right? I say no thank you.

David

"Not completely as well as the series of Firefly..." - From a review of Serenity at amazon.de

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 8:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The argument has been made that our neighbors to the south are in such terrible shape because we've interfered with their economies and their governments, constantly decapitating nascent democratic socialist governments in favor of generalissimos with bronze scouring pads on their shoulders. It's a theory to which I subscribe.

But the answer to that, IMHO, is not to f*ck everyone over in this nation as well, but to stop propping up the wealthy, and practice non-inteference in other nations. I'd start by giving CAFTA and NAFTA the SHAFTA.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 9:10 AM

KANEMAN

"I'd start by giving CAFTA and NAFTA the SHAFTA."

That should be a bumper sticker..Well done.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 9:27 AM

ANTIMASON

"I'd start by giving CAFTA and NAFTA the SHAFTA."

can i use that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 9:42 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I agree with the sentiment. Just noting that NAFTA, CAFTA SHAFTA is a PN (TM) original.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 9:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Aw shucks! And I thought it sprang from my brain! Just goes to prove, what PN writes sometimes sticks. 'Specially that image of Fred Thompson running around nekkid in the Bohemian Grove. (shudder) Thanks for the visual.... NOT.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 4:25 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Didn't millions of Americans call their senators and say they were against this bill or any bill that would give amnesty? How come the will of the people can blatantly be ignored?

Probably has something to do with the government being a representative democracy vs. a direct democracy.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 16, 2007 4:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, I know that this subject has been beat to death many times, but I'm still willing to hear why I am wrong about wanting to control our borders and make life uncomfortable for the millions of illegals here in the USA.

The biggest problem that I see is that "illegals" work for less, often unreported, and screw the average American working stiff in the process. Even people who are here legally get screwed while their green card is held out of reach (this include programmers, engineesr, physicists etc. Its' not just manual laborers.) and in the meantime screw everyone else.

What is the solution?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 16, 2007 6:18 AM

RAZZA

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, I know that this subject has been beat to death many times, but I'm still willing to hear why I am wrong about wanting to control our borders and make life uncomfortable for the millions of illegals here in the USA.

The biggest problem that I see is that "illegals" work for less, often unreported, and screw the average American working stiff in the process. Even people who are here legally get screwed while their green card is held out of reach (this include programmers, engineesr, physicists etc. Its' not just manual laborers.) and in the meantime screw everyone else.

What is the solution?

Signym:

I think we agree for the most part on this issue. The problem is that both political parties have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and let's face it, the current bill would change nothing. Republicans will not betray their business interest supporters who need the cheap labor that illegals bring to the table. Democrats believe that most of these illegals will eventually vote democratic, so they want to bring in as many as possible as a result. Both
parties are hypocritical as hell on this issue, and it pisses me off. Republican politician are cowtowing to business special interest despite that fact that the majority of their constituency wants a crackdown on the use of illegal workers and thinks the only way to do that is to crackdown on the exploitive business owners who use them. Democrats who are supposed to be the party of labor, are fine with exploited labor as long as they are illegal and will eventually be democratic voters.

This is a complex issue obviously, but there are so many red herrings being thrown around by both sides that it just muddies the waters and makes it difficult to find a solution.

Big Red Herrings IMHO:
1) Anti-illegal immigration proponenets are racists
2) It's impossible to throw 12 million people in jail.
3) Everything is going to be more expensive
4} They are doing jobs americans won't do

It is not racist to espouse a policy which limits the ability of people to cross our borders illegally, how is that racist in any way?

No one is suggesting that we throw 12 million people in jail, it is a ridiculous plan that no one thinks is workable. Eliminate the employment opportunities for illegal immigrants by enforcing laws against businesses which use them and those immigrants will have no choice but to return home. They will leave of their own free will, and no one has to go to jail, except business owners who exploit people who otherwise have no other options.

So what if some goods and services are more expensive? So for the sake of cheap lettuce it's okay to exploit people with few opportunities? And let's face it, our comforts and cheap goods and services are being gained on the backs of good decent people who are simply being exploited! No way around that!

It is not a question of americans being unwilling to do the work, it is a question of americans being unwilling to the work at the cheap wages illegals are. If businesses cannot compete on a level playing field with other businesses without using cheap illegal labor, they shouldn't be in business!!

Sorry for ranting, and not sure I can offer real solutions, but we have to start with securing the border. Walls aren't going to do it either, so we shouldn't be wasting our time and resources on them. Anyone who ventures to cross the dangers of the mexican dessert is not going to be stopped by a wall. There are better methods for stopping the flow than physical barriers. Fortress America sends the wrong message about our country to the world if you ask me. We have to crack down on employers who are knowingly using illegal labor, and at the very least make it easier for legitimate business owners to verify worker status. We need to create more programs that marry business owners with the labor they seek, and do it above board so those workers can get the protections and wages they deserve. We need to work on pressuring the governments to the south to reform and become less corrupt. As long as such corruption exists, those governments will have a vested interest in sending their peoples north to get the wealth and prosperity they cannot find at home. I'm sure others have some good ideas as well, but it's probably a waste of time to talk about it, because our government will never act on them. Sad really!

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 16, 2007 9:44 AM

Unfortunately Marx was right, it is labour that creates wealth. Even today there are whole industries in America -- food processing and agriculture being the two biggest examples that I doubt would exist without migrant low cost labour.

That's why you get the odd sight of Republicans in Southern agricultural states pitching improved border security against terrorists and drug dealers and guest worker programs for agricultural workers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 16, 2007 10:00 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

My impression is that you've got Marx half-right. Workers create wealth. Cheap workers create profit. Not the same thing, I think.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 17, 2007 9:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
My impression is that you've got Marx half-right. Workers create wealth. Cheap workers create profit. Not the same thing, I think.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

No I think you'll find they are the same thing. If you run a business without an interest in making a profit then it isnt a business --- it's a hobby or a charity.

In part what people get paid is determined by the value of the objects they produce. For example, you could pay lawyer's $200/hr to flip burgers at McDonalds but nobody would buy the $20 big Mac's they'd make.

In some industries you are right, removing illegals from the equation would just mean that prices and pay would rise to a point where Americans would do the work. In construction you might add 20% to the cost of building a new house and people would pay that because they have no choice -- well, other than give up on ever owning their own home.

In other industries like agriculture or meat packing the same may not be true. If US beef sells for $3/lb and imported Argentine beef sells for $3.20, then adding an extra 50c to the cost of US beef could mean that there simply isn't a market for that product any more. Back in the day that wouldnt have mattered because the US could put a tariff on imported beef to keep the US producers competative, these days with NAFTA/WTO that is no longer true. If you want to compete globally for commodity goods you have to do it at the lowest possible price.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2007 5:13 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The only "reform" that our immigration laws need is to drop the allowance that children born in the USA are automatically citizens....

This is not an "immigration law." It is a Constitutional right, under the 14th Amendment.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States
_Constitution

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

We are a nation of immigrants, made great in large part by immigrants. It was a country of hardship and opportunity for those who were willing to tough it out and fend for themselves. The new blood of the best and toughest from all over the world is what brought infusions of creativity to our country.

Of course, our country isn't so tough anymore, and people don't have to fend for themselves like they used to. So the country doesn't attract the die-hard self-reliant doers that it used to. But still, for the most part, people who come here are willing to work very hard for the American dream. As an immigrant who knows many other immigrants, I understand, but disagree with, the widespread hostility that is growing in this country towards the immigrant population, both legal and illegal.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2007 7:06 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Fletch- As Marx (and Keynes) have noted, concentrating capital into the hands of a few eventually stagnates the entire economy by reducing aggregate demand. Keynes' whole notion of introducing money into the economy at the bottom- ie introducing inflation- was meant to mitigate exactly this problem. But as Rue said in another thread, you've got to see the BIG picture- you're still stuck in the capitalist paradigm. Capitalism is like a virus... is spreads everywhere it touches because it has hooked into the most fundamental law of human society: power concentrates unless it is actively opposed. But just because it spreads rapidly does not mean it is healthy or self-sustaining. I think that, were capitalism (which unfailingly evolves to monopolism) were to becomes the ONLY economic system worldwide, it would kill its host.

CTS: There IS an alternate approach to immigration: fight for worker's rights no matter where they come from. Increase the minimum wage above poverty level and provide everybody the same protection under labor law.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2007 10:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fletch- As Marx (and Keynes) have noted, concentrating capital into the hands of a few eventually stagnates the entire economy by reducing aggregate demand.

etc etc

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Would be nice if you would stay on topic. The pros/cons of wealth distribution has at best peripheral connections with the problem under discussion.

The fact remains that immigrants produce wealth through their labour, that wealth may not be fairly of evenly distributed but it does exist. In addition the value of all jobs default down to the value of the product they make.

How much you can pay a burger flipper is limited by his productivity and the value the market places on his product. He may work hard, he may deserve to be paid more, but if the customer won't pay $5 for a burger he will ultimately be out of luck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2007 10:18 AM

CHRISMOORHEAD

Fuck it man, open the gates and let the nation crumble. I don't give a crap, the US hasn't been the US since the end of the Civil War. Personally, I know that I can survive in a third world hell hole, I've done it before, and I'd be even more adept if I didn't have Convention laws holding me back.

Bring on the Dark Paradise!

[IMG]

Ride down from Asgard to the battlefield,
Bringer of the valiant dead who died but never yielded,
Carry we who die in battle over land and sea,
Across the rainbow bridge to Valhalla,
Odin's waiting for me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2007 10:38 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The luxury car worker buys an economy car, the economy car worker buys a motorcycle, the motorcycle worker buys a bicycle, the bicycle worker walks in shoes, and the shoemaker goes unshod. B/c of the profit 'cut' no one gets paid the full value of what they make. It's a conundrum of capitalism. That's why US citizens can't afford US-made products. The problem with cheap labor (either illegal or through exported manufacture) is that ultimately it's a race to the bottom for all workers. Hiring illegals may be a temporary boost to buying power, but ultimately it's cutting your own throat.

Quote:

Would be nice if you would stay on topic. The pros/cons of wealth distribution has at best peripheral connections with the problem under discussion.

The fact remains that immigrants produce wealth through their labour, that wealth may not be fairly of evenly distributed but it does exist. In addition the value of all jobs default down to the value of the product they make.

How much you can pay a burger flipper is limited by his productivity and the value the market places on his product. He may work hard, he may deserve to be paid more, but if the customer won't pay $5 for a burger he will ultimately be out of luck.

*************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2007 11:54 AM

Except the world isn't really like that. In truth the guy that makes the economy car drives an economy car as does the guy that makes bicycles and just about everyone else does ride bicycles --- go and look if you dont believe me.

The point is that the immigrant does bring money to the table via his labour. Yes it's an unfair distribution because neither he nor Uncle Sam get their fair share but they do contribute and that contribution is worth something.

If that contribution went away there would be economic consequences both to the national GDP and to the cost of goods.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2007 11:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Would be nice if you would stay on topic. The pros/cons of wealth distribution has at best peripheral connections with the problem under discussion.

The fact remains that immigrants produce wealth through their labour, that wealth may not be fairly of evenly distributed but it does exist. In addition the value of all jobs default down to the value of the product they make.

How much you can pay a burger flipper is limited by his productivity and the value the market places on his product. He may work hard, he may deserve to be paid more, but if the customer won't pay $5 for a burger he will ultimately be out of luck.

First of all. the distribution of wealth and the effect that illegal- and therefore cheap- -labor has on American wages is a BIG part of anti (illegal) immigrant passion. And the only reason why our current GOP administration is for illegal immigration is that their corporate buddies get the cheap labor that allows them to make a big profit. BTW-your position has a some doozy holes in it!

Quote:
In addition the value of all jobs default down to the value of the product they make.

How about those $100 sneakers that take $5 to produce? There are so many excpetions to this statement - both specific and theoretical- that I think you should go back and REALLY study economics, and not the gobbledy-gook that someone filled your head with.

Quote:
In truth the guy that makes the economy car drives an economy car as does the guy that makes bicycles and just about everyone else does ride bicycles --- go and look if you dont believe me.

Except illegal aliens, who ride the bus. You're sort of arguing out of both sides of your mouth.

Quote:
If that contribution went away there would be economic consequences both to the national GDP and to the cost of goods.

In every instance where the minimum wage has been increased- both historically and geographically- the economy has actually improved. Go figure.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2007 12:12 PM

LEADB

Congress has dragged it's feet on raising the minimum wage, and no one understands why the gap between the richest and poorest is widening. Ok, some folks understand ;-)

I'm all for forcing businesses to pay/collect taxes on their 'illegals', and paying them at least minimum wage.

Catch someone not collecting/paying taxes for illegals, throw the employer in jail. Catch them paying less then minimum wage, throw the employer in jail. I think you'd see things straighten out pretty quick.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2007 1:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
] First of all. the distribution of wealth and the effect that illegal- and therefore cheap- -labor has on American wages is a BIG part of anti (illegal) immigrant passion. And the only reason why our current GOP administration is for illegal immigration is that their corporate buddies get the cheap labor that allows them to make a big profit. BTW-your position has a some doozy holes in it!

During the civil war the Irish in New York rioted because people convinced them that freed slaves would undercut them and cost them their jobs. Just because someone feels passionate about something doesn't mean that they are right. Show me a "doozy hole" in the basic premise that you can't pay someone more than the value of their work product, show me a "doozy hole" in the idea that an immigrant's work doesnt have some value.

Quote:

In addition the value of all jobs default down to the value of the product they make.
How about those $100 sneakers that take $5 to produce? There are so many excpetions to this statement - both specific and theoretical- that I think you should go back and REALLY study economics, and not the gobbledy-gook that someone filled your head with.

The operative word here is DOWN. Of course you can pay someone less than the value of their labour, in fact if you intend to make a profit you have to, the point I was making is that you can't afford to pay them more than that value. If adding 50c to the cost of a pound of US meat means you can't sell it because imported beef is cheaper then you can't afford to pay someone too much more to process that beef. So in some industries it isn't the case that an immigrant job at $3/hr would become a US worker's job at $8/hr if the immigrant wasn't there. That job would simply disappear.

I think my understanding of economics is actually ahead of yours at least I realise that it is possible to price yourself out of a job.

Quote:

Quote:
In truth the guy that makes the economy car drives an economy car as does the guy that makes bicycles and just about everyone else does ride bicycles --- go and look if you dont believe me.
Except illegal aliens, who ride the bus. You're sort of arguing out of both sides of your mouth.

I find openning my mouth to speak is better than mumbling through clenched teeth, which I suspect you do a lot.

The biggest obstical to illegals getting cars is... wait for it... they are illegal and as such have problems getting things like licences and insurance. If they ignore those niceties (like many here in Texas do) then they can get a car. Personally if public transport can get me where I want to go I use it. When was the last time you did?

Quote:

If that contribution went away there would be economic consequences both to the national GDP and to the cost of goods.
In every instance where the minimum wage has been increased- both historically and geographically- the economy has actually improved. Go figure.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

That makes sense trickle up is always more effective than trickle down because lower income people will tend to spend any extra money they make and that in turn stimulates demand. There will also however be folks that get let go because their employer can't or won't shoulder the increase.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 5:08 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
] First of all. the distribution of wealth and the effect that illegal- and therefore cheap- -labor has on American wages is a BIG part of anti (illegal) immigrant passion. And the only reason why our current GOP administration is for illegal immigration is that their corporate buddies get the cheap labor that allows them to make a big profit. BTW-your position has a some doozy holes in it!

During the civil war the Irish in New York rioted because people convinced them that freed slaves would undercut them and cost them their jobs. Just because someone feels passionate about something doesn't mean that they are right. Show me a "doozy hole" in the basic premise that you can't pay someone more than the value of their work product, show me a "doozy hole" in the idea that an immigrant's work doesnt have some value.

Quote:

In addition the value of all jobs default down to the value of the product they make.
How about those $100 sneakers that take $5 to produce? There are so many excpetions to this statement - both specific and theoretical- that I think you should go back and REALLY study economics, and not the gobbledy-gook that someone filled your head with.

The operative word here is DOWN. Of course you can pay someone less than the value of their labour, in fact if you intend to make a profit you have to, the point I was making is that you can't afford to pay them more than that value. If adding 50c to the cost of a pound of US meat means you can't sell it because imported beef is cheaper then you can't afford to pay someone too much more to process that beef. So in some industries it isn't the case that an immigrant job at $3/hr would become a US worker's job at $8/hr if the immigrant wasn't there. That job would simply disappear.

I think my understanding of economics is actually ahead of yours at least I realise that it is possible to price yourself out of a job.

Quote:

Quote:
In truth the guy that makes the economy car drives an economy car as does the guy that makes bicycles and just about everyone else does ride bicycles --- go and look if you dont believe me.
Except illegal aliens, who ride the bus. You're sort of arguing out of both sides of your mouth.

I find openning my mouth to speak is better than mumbling through clenched teeth, which I suspect you do a lot.

The biggest obstical to illegals getting cars is... wait for it... they are illegal and as such have problems getting things like licences and insurance. If they ignore those niceties (like many here in Texas do) then they can get a car. Personally if public transport can get me where I want to go I use it. When was the last time you did?

Quote:

If that contribution went away there would be economic consequences both to the national GDP and to the cost of goods.
In every instance where the minimum wage has been increased- both historically and geographically- the economy has actually improved. Go figure.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

That makes sense trickle up is always more effective than trickle down because lower income people will tend to spend any extra money they make and that in turn stimulates demand. There will also however be folks that get let go because their employer can't or won't shoulder the increase.

Bravo fletch2. I doubt you'll get any responses. Case closed. I loved the slap backs.......Well, he did win this argument....and managed to be snarky tooooooooo.........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 9:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Poor Fletch, you have Kaneman on your side. HAHAHAHA! Well, I won't count it against you!

Fletch, I'm not going to do a point-by-point bc I want to address your post more holistically. You have a very basic contradiction within your own reasoning. On the one hand, you say that we need immigrant labor because otherwise cheap foreign labor will out-compete us. On the other hand, you say that no Americans will lose any jobs because of cheap immigrant labor. You can't have it both ways. Either cheap labor is a threat or it is not.

In addition, the point about "pricing yourself out of a job" assumes that "the market" is functioning. However, "the market" does not function when one side (in this case corporations) have inordinately more power than the other side (workers). A truly functioning labor market would require a force equal in scope and power to the multinationals, which doesn't exist. That would allow the price of labor to go UP as well as DOWN, whereas you posit a one-way street.

Also, I think we have a fundamental difference in how we define "value", and how much "value" an item acquires in the marketplace. You're prolly thinking of a price/demand curve.

So just out of curiosity, how much economics did you study?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 10:12 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"The biggest obstical to illegals getting cars is... wait for it... they are illegal and as such have problems getting things like licences and insurance."

That must be why they live 15 to an apartment and shop yard sales for clothes. They COULD live better on those wages, they just have a hard time legally spending legal tender.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 10:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, yes, living near LA as I do, I've driven thru Pico-Union and seen the ladies pushing a stroller, with three other kids and three bags of groceries taking the bus. I'm sure it's just a matter of choice.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 10:56 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I don't want to interfere with SignyM's conversation here, but do the women who make Adidas sneakers for $5 each actually go the store and buy them at $120 a pop?

That IS what profit is about - the people who make the stuff not actually getting enough money to buy it. And of course, the higher the profit, the bigger the gap.

But that's not the only issue with capitalism, either economic or social.

It seeks to maximize profit. So if you can sell something for $10 that only cost $0.01 to make you will likely be doing that rather than selling some other product. Manufacturing lipstick becomes more attractive than manufacturing steel, or autos, or chips. Selling premium goods to a few people like luxury automobiles becomes more attractive than selling staples to many like food. Selling Viagra and Lipitor to first-world people is more attractive than selling anti-malarials to third-world people. In short, capitalism doesn't market to fill a need, it markets to maximize profit.

Another economic issue with it is the problem of 'the commons'. If something can't be isolated and individually owned capitalism doesn't account for it. So, potentially beneficial things (public health) are left undone, while detrimental things (air pollution) go unchecked in a capitalist model.

As SignyM also mentioned, for the system to be freely competative the workers must have the same power as the owners of the means of production - the capitalists. But since we see that robust mutinationals exist but not robust international unions there is no freely functioning market.

Short on time so leaving some economic issues and moving onto social ones ...

Capitalism structures the entire society in a zero-sum competitive model. Neurologically that's a highly abnormal human state. MOST people are biologically geared to cooperate, and they find peaceful, friendly social interactions preferable.

Anyway, I have to go. Perhaps I'll get back here later.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 3:56 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Illegal aliens murder dozens of US citizens every day in USA. I agree 100% with Alex Jones today. Send all soldiers to the borders and massacre all illegal aliens with helicopter gunships. THAT'S what the military is for, not slaughtering 2.5-million innocent folks in Iraq who never invaded USA. Then arrest all employers, landlords and banksters of illegal aliens, and seize their assets.

Mexico invaded USA in both World War 1 and World War 2 to support the Germans, in the Plan of San Diego. THIS IS WAR!!!
www.vdare.com/Sailer/060129_sandiego.htm
www.infowars.com/articles/immigration/deisyseis_partone.htm

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv

DRIVE BY MIND CONTROL: FREE TV EPISODES ONLINE
www.myspace.com/driveonfox

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 8:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, yes, living near LA as I do, I've driven thru Pico-Union and seen the ladies pushing a stroller, with three other kids and three bags of groceries taking the bus. I'm sure it's just a matter of choice.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

You just described my mother back in the 70's and guess what? we had a car and my dad drove it to work every day. Just because modern suburban soccer moms have a minivan or a truck to run the kids around doesnt mean that everyone can afford 2 vehicles. So your "observation" proves nothing, unless you stopped and asked her which of course you didn't because that would mean you'd have to treat her as a person and not a political footbal.

Here in Texas, where public transport is pitifull yes, even the immigrants have cars. I know this because a coworker was involved in a fender bender with one and the driver had no licence or insurance so my friend had to pay for his own repairs.

The problem both you and Rue have is that you never let reality get in the way of your preconceptions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 8:55 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"The biggest obstical to illegals getting cars is... wait for it... they are illegal and as such have problems getting things like licences and insurance."

That must be why they live 15 to an apartment and shop yard sales for clothes. They COULD live better on those wages, they just have a hard time legally spending legal tender.

Oh, and was that snark really necessary ? Or are you having a hard time addressing the topic.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 10:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I don't want to interfere with SignyM's conversation here, but do the women who make Adidas sneakers for $5 each actually go the store and buy them at $120 a pop?

You ask the wrong question. What makes an Adidas sneaker worth $120? I wouldn't pay that for a shoe. Is there something about it that makes it 12 times better than a $10 shoe? Really? I'm curious to know.

In reality the shoe is worth $120 not because that's it's intrinsic value but because that's what someone in the West is willing to pay for it. It's supply and demand, if people didnt have the money to pay $120 for sneakers then they would not cost $120. They sell them for what the market can bear not for the actual value of the item which probably cost less than $20 to make.

Chances are the women in those factories wear shoes of similar quality to the ones they make but buy them at a far lower price. In the US you can go to a Fillines basement or Ross and buy a $60 designer second or department store overstock at half price. In a similar store in Hong Kong you can get that same item for $1 because nobody there would pay even $30 for it.

Quote:

That IS what profit is about - the people who make the stuff not actually getting enough money to buy it. And of course, the higher the profit, the bigger the gap.

No that's not what profit is about. Profit is only that amount extra that you make on the sale of an item over and above it's design, manufacture, distribution and retail costs. How big that profit is is determined by those costs and by the amount the customer is willing to pay to acquire it.

Let's stick with your shoe example.

You live in a wealthy country one where there are enough people willing to pay $120 for sneakers to keep the value of those sneakers at $120. If nobody bought the sneakers at that price I'm sure they would be cheaper because that's the nature of the market. There may even be times when for a brief period items are sold for less than they cost to make. That's a market decision too.

There is no conspiracy. Guys puffing cigars do not meet in boardrooms and deliberately plan how to deprive their workers of the privilage of spending $120 on a $20 product. Instead men in marketing department sit around and try to work out how to convince other people with $120 to part with it for a pair of $20 running shoes.

Quote:

It seeks to maximize profit. So if you can sell something for $10 that only cost $0.01 to make you will likely be doing that rather than selling some other product. Manufacturing lipstick becomes more attractive than manufacturing steel, or autos, or chips. Selling premium goods to a few people like luxury automobiles becomes more attractive than selling staples to many like food.

No that's obviously wrong. If what you say is true then you would only be able to buy lipstick and not steel, there would be more Herme's stores than Walgreens and that isn't true. You are right people do try to maximise profit especially if you're investing capital BUT If everyone made and sold the same thing then there would be a glut of it and prices would fall. As prices and profits fell people would move their money out of that segment of the economy into one that promised higher returns and thus you would see diversification.

Companies like Walgeens and Kroger do not exist to sell you deoderant and food. They exist to make a profit, they just chose to do it by selling deoderant and food. If they could not make a profit at what they do they would not be doing it, they are a business not a public service.

And yes if there is a better profit elsewhere in the economy liquid capital will try and chase it. The problem is that moving money around is not a lossless process. There are costs involved both real (like brokerage costs) and theoretical (like opertunity costs.) That means that in most instances the amount of extra profit you could make by taking your money out of Walgreens stock and using it to open a Hermes boutique instead probably isn't worth it.

Quote:

Selling Viagra and Lipitor to first-world people is more attractive than selling anti-malarials to third-world people. In short, capitalism doesn't market to fill a need, it markets to maximize profit.

Absolutely. However the thing you miss is that when there is a need you can usually make a profit filling it. If you can make 20c profit on an antimalerial drug that 20 million people will need to take daily, that's far more money than selling 100,000 doses a month of a $40 impotence pill, especially when you consider that both pills probably cost the same to make.

Quote:

Another economic issue with it is the problem of 'the commons'. If something can't be isolated and individually owned capitalism doesn't account for it. So, potentially beneficial things (public health) are left undone, while detrimental things (air pollution) go unchecked in a capitalist model.

If private businesses had the power to raise taxes to perform social functions then I'm sure you would find ones willing to do it. The problem with things like public health is that nobody wants to pay for it which is a problem even governments have when it comes to providing the services. The advantage the government has is that they can force you to pay for something even if you dont want to ---something that if a commercial entity tried would lead to charges of racketeering.

I would argue that the US medical system is an example of this. In most of the civilised world people pay for healthcare via taxation, ie the government forces people to pay for it. Now it happens that almost everyone sees that healthcare is a good idea so for once you have the situation that people will pay for something without government forcing them to do it. Guess what? When people are willing to pay there are commercial enitities out there willing to be paid to provide that service. Yes I know it sucks but if you step back from the insurance/MHO setup you have here and squint at it, and take into account that its something most people need, then those premium payments look very similar to private companies taxing individuals for services.

Quote:

As SignyM also mentioned, for the system to be freely competative the workers must have the same power as the owners of the means of production - the capitalists. But since we see that robust mutinationals exist but not robust international unions there is no freely functioning market.

That's his and your viewpoint it's not the only one. It happens that people that run businesses happen to like having the freedom to determine what happens to their property. Novel concept I know but there you go. In reality workers have a lot of power in most cases, if they didnt then they wouldn't have the pay and conditions that they do have. Business is a team sport, it works best and is most profitable when everyone is motivated to put in their best efforts. Successfull capitalism understands that. Yes there will be folk who will exploit their workforce to gain a quick buck, likewise there will be the guy that clocks in and spends his workday web surfing, there are types of people that chose to exploit their fellow men and those that chose to work with them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 10:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"The biggest obstical to illegals getting cars is... wait for it... they are illegal and as such have problems getting things like licences and insurance."

That must be why they live 15 to an apartment and shop yard sales for clothes. They COULD live better on those wages, they just have a hard time legally spending legal tender.

Oh, and was that snark really necessary ? Or are you having a hard time addressing the topic.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Did you just quote your own post and complain that it's snarky?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 10:35 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I quoted my post b/c you failed to address it. You'd rather pretend that since you have one friend who got into a car accident once in the past with someone who may or may not have been illegal you've answered the entire question of wages and illegal immigrants. And I'm curious if you have anything of interest to add to the discussion, or if you intend to rest on your little a ---necdote.

The snark comment was about YOUR post, which was, as you know, snarky.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 11:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I quoted my post b/c you failed to address it. You'd rather pretend that since you have one friend who got into a car accident once in the past with someone who may or may not have been illegal you've answered the entire question of wages and illegal immigrants.

The snark comment was about YOUR post, which was, as you know, snarky.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Then I beg your forgiveness oh knowing one for I being just a poor mortal did not intend for said post to be snarky. Lowe I will whip myself with birches for having angered you so....

--- Now that was snarky.

I believe I have answered the question well enough. Both my friend and the Dallas police --- know nothings that they are --- know that the guy involved in the accident was an illegal because well he was, they caught him at the scene. I know that causes a problem with your theory but hey.

http://cgi.pantagraph.com/articles/2007/03/29/news/doc460b34108ea1f059
906919.txt

"Supporters estimate some 250,000 immigrants, illegal or not, already are driving in Illinois without proper training and insurance. If they get into traffic accidents, many of those people will flee and leave the other driver stuck with any repair costs or hospital bills."

As to your 15 families to a room or whatever. I have no doubt that somewhere there probably are people that do that. There are people somewhere that abuse their children, did you abuse your child this morning? There are people somewhere that torture animals, do you like it when fluffy squeels like that?

Just because some people do things does not mean that everyone does. I know it suits your political viewpoint to imagine all illegals living in quaint Dickensian squalar and no doubt some do. Not all of them do though, perhaps not even the majority, and yes that means some of them have cars -- how cheeky of them to be so extravagant, they should be huddling around a candle as their only source of warmth until their employer sacks them on Christmas Eve......

He's the thing. We live in a world where there is real slavery. Where a girl can be snatched off a farm in Romania and end up in a brothel in Nice. Someone who didn't decide to leave her home did not chose the work she does, gains nothing from it and will be killed or injured if she refuses. By contrast most US illegals came here of their own free will, made the journey under their own power, found their own employment and can leave it at any time. And we find that SigNY resents them for taking American jobs and you do it because they are being used by the man. Unless you are 100% native American your ancestors made the same choices these guys did. They probably had the same hardship getting here and may even have lived 15 to a room while they got a start. And yes that means they were probably exploited by those capitalists along the way. You know what? The illegals today and your ancestors back then shared one thing, they both thought themselves better off in America doing shitty jobs than being back where they came from.

And I've just wasted an hour of my time for nothing because you are too stupid and too stuborn to ever conceed that you may ever be even slightly wrong about anything.

So guess what, you won, I'll conceed the sky is bright diamond pink if you say it is because you will just argue it to death if anyone says otherwise.

Good night.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 1:25 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'm sorry about the snark comment. When I came on for some reason your longer post didn't come up but your shorter one did. Perhaps we were cross-posting? Anyway, I was referring to this "The problem both you and Rue have is that you never let reality get in the way of your preconceptions."

"It's supply and demand" Supply and demand has little to do with it. And in fact your own argument doesn't follow thorugh on that idea and runs off to this - "Chances are the women in those factories wear shoes of similar quality (interesting elide) to the ones they make". Taking the shoe example, an unspecified leather Adidas sneaker costs about $72.00 in the Philippines (USED. non marking sole. Made in China. Leather sneakers. there's a very litle tear at the back (ankle area). very very little. bought this for P3,800.00 size) At Amazon mens' Adidas leather sneakers cost 69.90 - 84.95. http://www.amazon.com/adidas-Mens-Mali-Leather- Sneaker/dp/B000CFGZSE I'd say that's not much of a price break off-shore. And this REAL example proves my point, as do you oddly enough. There is no price break for the sneakers those women assemble. They can't afford the thing they make. So, the person who makes the luxury sneaker buys the cheap brand. The person who makes the cheap brand ...

"If nobody bought the sneakers at that price" is a complete mis-statement of the calculus involved. If you can make as much a profit selling 10@ $120 sneakers as 100@ $12 sneakers you will market the $120 sneakers. And why is that? B/c the people buying the $120 sneakers have more money and are steadier customers.

"If what you say is true then you would only be able to buy lipstick and not steel"
Yes, and look at the state of steel, car and chip making in the US v lipstick. I rest my case.

"If you can make 20c profit on an antimalerial drug that 20 million people will need to take daily, that's far more money than selling 100,000 doses a month of a $40 impotence pill" In that cast then there WOULD be active research in making better anti-malarials, anti-trypansomites, and so on. Yet drug-makers are constantly looking for the next 'lifestyle' blockbuster drug - ie a lifetime treatment for first-world discomforts. Since that is an indisputable fact you have yet to explain how that happens under your theories.

"if you step back from the insurance/MHO setup you have here and squint at it, and take into account that its something most people need" Any more caveats? In fact, the medical example really shows the consumer-cost of profit as well as marketing and pricing. Socialized medicine costs 1/2 or less per capita compared to the US and covers 50% more people. Why is that? B/c the government is NOT concerned with profit and so medicine is run - at cost. In the US OTOH it is FAR more profitable to cover a select portion of the country ('cherry-picking'). So not only do people who do get insurance pay more b/c of the profit cut, the rest are excluded from getting insurance at all.

"people that run businesses happen to like having the freedom to determine what happens to their property" If you 'owned' a river do you think you should be allowed to pollute it if it's a source of drinking water?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 6:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Fletch, apparently you did not see my previous post. so here it is....
---------------
I'm not going to do a point-by-point bc I want to address your post more holistically. You have a very basic contradiction within your own reasoning. On the one hand, you say that we need immigrant labor because otherwise cheap foreign labor will out-compete us. On the other hand, you say that no Americans will lose any jobs because of cheap immigrant labor. You can't have it both ways. Either cheap labor is a threat or it is not.

In addition, the point about "pricing yourself out of a job" assumes that "the market" is functioning. However, "the market" does not function when one side (in this case corporations) have inordinately more power than the other side (workers). A truly functioning labor market would require a force equal in scope and power to the multinationals, which doesn't exist. That would allow the price of labor to go UP as well as DOWN, whereas you posit a one-way street.

Also, I think we have a fundamental difference in how we define "value", and how much "value" an item acquires in the marketplace. You're prolly thinking of a price/demand curve. (which you proved with one of your later posts.)
------------------

I'm going to add that you stuffed one OTHER internally contradictory argument within your previous post, which was pointed out by RUE specifically. On the one hand, you say that the female makers of premium sneakers wear sneakers of "similar" quality because they get a huge price break at their end. On the other hand, you directly contradict yourself when you say that those referenced sneaker companies sell their sneakers overseas (to USA customers) because the USA is a steadier market.

Now, either the laborers can afford said luxury sneakers... in which case the companies would be selling internally to their own workforce. Or they cannot, in which case the companies would be selling overseas. As before, you can't have it both ways. Either the laborers can afford their own products, or they cannot. By your own words, they cannot.

So far, the only thing you have proved is that cheap labor drives down wages, and cheap laborers are poorer.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 6:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

"It's supply and demand" Supply and demand has little to do with it. And in fact your own argument doesn't follow thorugh on that idea and runs off to this - "Chances are the women in those factories wear shoes of similar quality (interesting elide) to the ones they make". Taking the shoe example, an unspecified leather Adidas sneaker costs about $72.00 in the Philippines (USED. non marking sole. Made in China. Leather sneakers. there's a very litle tear at the back (ankle area). very very little. bought this for P3,800.00 size) At Amazon mens' Adidas leather sneakers cost 69.90 - 84.95. http://www.amazon.com/adidas-Mens-Mali-Leather- Sneaker/dp/B000CFGZSE I'd say that's not much of a price break off-shore.

Bought in the Phillipines but made in China, that's a little like saying bought in Bonn but made in Cairo, there is some distance involved there. Go to Hong Kong and see how much things are there, closer to the place of production. The reason your chinese made trainers were actually in the Phillipines was because someone imported them to make a profit.

Quote:

And this REAL example proves my point, as do you oddly enough. There is no price break for the sneakers those women assemble. They can't afford the thing they make. So, the person who makes the luxury sneaker buys the cheap brand. The person who makes the cheap brand ...

The mistake you are making is that you keep buying into the idea that there are intrinsically more expensive trainers. In fact the actual difference between the $120 and the "cheap" pair is actually minimal and in fact they are probably made by the same people in teh same factory. What makes a $120 trainer is the name on the label and the marketing hype that convinces people that this mass produced shoe is special enough to be worth the extra $100. Put another way, at point of production they are both cheap trainers the fact that one can be sold half a world away for high prices has more to do with the nature of the market they are sold in the intrinsice value of the shoe.

Quote:

"If nobody bought the sneakers at that price" is a complete mis-statement of the calculus involved. If you can make as much a profit selling 10@ $120 sneakers as 100@ $12 sneakers you will market the $120 sneakers. And why is that? B/c the people buying the $120 sneakers have more money and are steadier customers.

You dont address the point. The $120 trainer exists because there are enough people willing to pay $120 for a trainer. If people didn't have the money to buy them then they wouldn't b e able to sell them at that price. In fact you can see this principle in action in a Ross or a Fillines.

I have a friend who's husband is enlisted in the navy, they do not make a lot of money. When she visits us she shops at Ross Dress for Less because they didnt have them where she lives. She buys Tommy Hilfiger Jeans and tops for hubby when she's here because she can't afford the department store prices but he likes the brand. Now think on this. Those shirts in a Dillards would cost you $70 each and they obviously sell enough of them at that price to keep selling them but there are not enough people willing to pay $70 a shirt to sell them all. By the time my friend gets them they are $20 a shirt and you can bet they cost far less than that to produce.

So is the shirt a $70 shirt, a $20 shirt of the $3 it probably cost to produce. It is the same shirt it's intrinsic value remains the same. However it's cost is determined by how much the buyer is willing to pay to acquire it.

Quote:

"If what you say is true then you would only be able to buy lipstick and not steel"
Yes, and look at the state of steel, car and chip making in the US v lipstick. I rest my case.

And it's a loosing one. Reality isn't some guy bursting into the boardroom of US Steel throwing a lipstick on the boardroom table and saying "Gentlemen this is the future!!!" What actually happened was that people in other countries made steel cheaper, eventually making it so cheap that it became next to impossible for US steel to compete and make a profit. Once investors could no longer see profits in steel they put their money into better returning investments like lipstick. So again no capitalist conspiracy. Had US Steel been able to make a profit they would still be making steel and you would also be able to get lipstick because other people who did not get into steel early enough would still need to invest.

This is not a command economy you dont have to chose between luxuries and staples.

Quote:

"If you can make 20c profit on an antimalerial drug that 20 million people will need to take daily, that's far more money than selling 100,000 doses a month of a $40 impotence pill" In that cast then there WOULD be active research in making better anti-malarials, anti-trypansomites, and so on. Yet drug-makers are constantly looking for the next 'lifestyle' blockbuster drug - ie a lifetime treatment for first-world discomforts. Since that is an indisputable fact you have yet to explain how that happens under your theories.

Back to reality. Pizer makes a fortune with Viagra because it's a pill that costs maybe 20c to make and sells for $40 each. Like anything that is successfull from horse buggies to iPods once someone finds something successfull everyone tries to get part of that action. So idiots invest big money to catch up and most of those people lose a lot of money. You said it yourself stable customers are worth something. That $40 blue pill is a lifestyle enhancer, you dont have to take it if things became bad you probably wouldn't buy more. Things like insulin or our mythical 20c milaria cure that people HAVE to take to avoid dying are a different story, they will find money for that. Now there's a dedicated customer base.

Had you said to me that modern pharma companies concentrate more resources on disease management (so you have to keep buying their product) over an out and out cure we'd have some agreement. In reality though there are people working on antimalerials and spending a lot of money doing so for no better reason than a lot of first world companies and militaries would like to protect their overseas staff. The problem is that unlike a wilting willy the nature of the malaria problem changes over time.

Quote:

"if you step back from the insurance/MHO setup you have here and squint at it, and take into account that its something most people need" Any more caveats? In fact, the medical example really shows the consumer-cost of profit as well as marketing and pricing. Socialized medicine costs 1/2 or less per capita compared to the US and covers 50% more people. Why is that? B/c the government is NOT concerned with profit and so medicine is run - at cost. In the US OTOH it is FAR more profitable to cover a select portion of the country ('cherry-picking'). So not only do people who do get insurance pay more b/c of the profit cut, the rest are excluded from getting insurance at all.

Your reading comprehension sucks. Examine what I said. I will break it down for you as bullet points.

1) The reason that companies do not get involved with public services is that people dont want to pay for them. You can see this even when governments use taxation to provide them. There will always be folks that complain that their taxes are too high or that governments shouldn't do this.

2) Governments do provide these services because through taxation they can force you to pay.

3) If companies had the power to force citizens to pay for public services they would provide them. Closest proof is medicine where in the US the government doesnt provide it but private companies do. That is because medicine is a rarity in public service terms because people will pay to have it.

4) Since a) you really need medical and b) this means that people will have to find the money for it then c) companies do provide it. In fact what you end up with is a privately run for profit system that resembles government provided healthcare elsewhere except insurance premiums replace taxation as a source of funding.

There is nothing in this about efficiency or anything else, just illistrating that if the public would pay for services companies would exists to provide that service for profit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 6:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Uh, Fletch2? Is my post not worthy of reply? Oh, BTW, when you said

Quote:
There is no conspiracy. Guys puffing cigars do not meet in boardrooms and deliberately plan how to deprive their workers of the privilage of spending $120 on a $20 product. Instead men in marketing department sit around and try to work out how to convince other people with $120 to part with it for a pair of $20 running shoes.

But they DO sit in boardrooms and figure out how to deprive people of wages.

Quote:
Bought in the Phillipines but made in China, that's a little like saying bought in Bonn but made in Cairo, there is some distance involved there. Go to Hong Kong and see how much things are there, closer to the place of production.

Where nearly everything is counterfeit.

Quote:
The reason your chinese made trainers were actually in the Phillipines was because someone imported them to make a profit.

Damn! That's expensive shipping! They must give each sneaker a seat on a commuter flight from Hong Kong to Manila! That's a good example of maximal profit right there.

Its' weird. You contradict yourself at every turn. You say that cheap labor isn't a threat, and then you point out the threat of cheap foreign labor. You say that maximal profit isn't the driving force, and then you come up with a prime example. You say that laborers can afford their own products, and then you turn around and immediately point out that they can't.

Quote:
...just illistrating that if the public would pay for services companies would exists to provide that service for profit.

And here we once again come to the nub of capitalism. If you drive down wages to make maximal profit... something you have already agrees happens... then you have starved your own market, and must find richer people to sell to someplace else.

Imagine this: Take the entire world's output at its sale price and call it aggregate supply. Now take the entire world's wages and call it aggregate demand. Since you've already agreed that "profit" is the difference between the two, it becomes clear (or SHOULD become clear) that demand is always less than supply by exactly the amount of profit. And capitalism, which requires the ability and willingness to pay for services and goods, has just starved it's own market. And that imbalance is the genesis of depressions. Even Henry Ford, that great capitalist, recognized this during the Great Depression because he tried to keep his factory running as long as possible even in a down market, understanding that no one will buy if they aren't working.

--------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 9:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Uh, Fletch2? Is my post not worthy of reply?

If you keep posting rubbish like this then no.

Quote:

Oh, BTW, when you said
Quote:
There is no conspiracy. Guys puffing cigars do not meet in boardrooms and deliberately plan how to deprive their workers of the privilage of spending $120 on a $20 product. Instead men in marketing department sit around and try to work out how to convince other people with $120 to part with it for a pair of $20 running shoes.
But they DO sit in boardrooms and figure out how to deprive people of wages.

That's a loaded statement. "Deprive" implies something someone has a right to. If someone took your labour and then refused to pay you that would be depriving you of wages, and incidentally would probably be illegal. Just because someone choses not to pay you as much as you think you should be paid is not deprivation. I always wanted to be a rock star, damn that I was deprived of that chance despite having no musical talent.

Quote:

Quote:
Bought in the Phillipines but made in China, that's a little like saying bought in Bonn but made in Cairo, there is some distance involved there. Go to Hong Kong and see how much things are there, closer to the place of production.
Where nearly everything is counterfeit.

No they are real. If you examine the goods you will find them to be of the same quality so if they are not the real deal then the counterfeit is equivalent. Like I said, at point of production they are all cheap trainers.

For that mater do you know for sure that the ones in the Philipines are genuine?

Quote:

Quote:
The reason your chinese made trainers were actually in the Phillipines was because someone imported them to make a profit.
Damn! That's expensive shipping! They must give each sneaker a seat on a commuter flight from Hong Kong to Manila! That's a good example of maximal profit right there.

Then you wonder why nobody wants to talk to you.

They were imported to make a profit obviously in Manilla there are enough people willing to pay top dollar that they can be sold at higher prices. I say again at point of production they are all cheap trainers. What it costs to make them is a different question from how much you can sell them for.

Let me give you an example. You sell me your old car for $500, I turn around and sell it on for $2000. In your worldview you seem to believe that you have some right to the $1500 I made on the transaction even though you were happy to sell to me for $500.

Mei Mei is paid $1 a pair to make trainers in Mr Badger's factory. Some of those trainers are Badger home brand and sell for $10 some Adidas and sell for $120. Exactly the same work is involved in making both. You look at the end price and then decide that the person making the goods are unfairly compensated. I look at the end price and think the person paying $120 is being ripped off.

Quote:

Its' weird. You contradict yourself at every turn. You say that cheap labor isn't a threat, and then you point out the threat of cheap foreign labor.

blah blah etc

Reread what I wrote. Do it carefully. I dont have time to go through every straw man "contradiction" you claim there is. I will tackle this point later in more detail for the hard of thinking.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 9:14 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Strange, the more you are pressed on the specifics of your notions the less you have to say besides bitch, snark, snark.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 9:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm trying to have a decent conversation here. My point about expensive transport was humor. But you will not respond to the more theoretical portion of my post. Why is that?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 9:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm trying to have a decent conversation here. My point about expensive transport was humor. But you will not respond to the more theoretical portion of my post. Why is that?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

I have to earn a living. I can send you my account details and you can compensate me for loss of income. Otherwise wait until after my workday like a good little boy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 9:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Strange, the more you are pressed on the specifics of your notions the less you have to say besides bitch, snark, snark.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

That's exasperation, I have low tolerance for deliberately stupid people. I can't wait until school starts again and you have less free time to be deliberately dense.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 10:17 AM