I agree with this but draw a different conclusion from it.rmsharpe said:
Theres a strong argument here in the UK that the minimum wage is not high enough to be an actual living wage, and should be increased by a fair bit.Mathilda said:
rmsharpe said:
Sometimes I wonder if rmsharpe thinks we should just build and maintain roads, schools and wildlife reserves ourselves! Not to mention a police force or an army- can't have that without any taxes either!warpus said:
Must depend on the country, in Finland it's the trade unions negotiatin with the industrial unions..CartesianFart said:
Well the thing is figures showing how many people are on the minkum wage don't take into account the millions who get paid slightly more. I mean I know pelanty of people on say £5.50ish an hour, yet they won't get marked down as minimum wage.El_Machinae said:
Interesting.Mathilda said:
Of course i've heard of it before,but i have to ask,what does your politicians do over there?It seems these unions do most of the important problems.
They concern themselves more with laws and taxes, foreign policies and such like.CartesianFart said:Interesting.
Partly true. There were elections under Stalin. Of course, like all Soviet elections, they were meaningless.Alpha Killer II said:
Again, there is no reason to vote when the outcome is predetermined. Do not, however, confuse this with Western democratic traditions where one party may hold certain districts for a number of decades.
Maoism is just a mix of people starving and bad poetry.
There was no Stalin in 1812, yet Russia managed to survive. Lenin's blunders and Stalin's purges prevented Russia from being the fortress that it traditionally has been. If not for their incompetence, the ground war in Europe may have been short-lived.
False on all counts. The U.S. and aligned countries had the manpower and industrial strength to take down Nazi Germany at any time under any circumstances; the war simply would have been more costly for the West. The benefits, however, would be far superior, in that Europe would be free from fascism as well as communism.
False again. See above.
U.S. military advisors had been sent to Vietnam long before the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the North Vietnamese had long dreamed of to invading and annexing their southern neighbor. Without the NVA and the VC, Vietnam would be free and prosperous.
Korea is now the 13th largest economy. There are over a million Vietnamese who have fled to America, and more than a million Cubans have resettled in abroad after fleeing from Castro's red terror.
You do!
I'm failing to see the point here. Are you afraid of China developing?China's Communism:
Wal-mart's CEO exactly said that ...%20 of all of Wal-marts production comes from China... And that is just 1 company in 1 Country... Now China is the Country of the Century... Biggest Population (1.3 Billion people
Wrong again. The U.S. never directly supplied aid to the "Service Office."
There was Islamist extremism before the collapse of the Berlin Wall - a piece of concrete didn't matter to them, they had hated the U.S. and Israel long before then.
It was as a result of poor choices made by individuals who had decided to have children they cannot support. If they are so mired in poverty, why are they producing so many offspring?
False. I can cite many, many examples of corruption in the Soviet Union, from the Central Committee all the way down to a collective farmer. The fact is that corruption was never reported in the Soviet Union (either for fear of being targeted by the secret police or simply because they too had skeletons to hide) and flourished under the incompetent rule of the CPSU.
What exactly do homosexual tendencies have to do with Marxism, other than having Marxists squash everybody's free will?
I think you should.
CartesianFart said:
Sorry Mathilda but to respond more clearly is that politicians are a party in the negotiations in the form of sitting government.Mathilda said:
I'm sorry but I cannot disagree more.rmsharpe said:
It would have been a natural consequence of development. People have more leisure time today than they did 50 years ago, yet that does not correspond to legislation put into place.ComradeDavo said:
Wages "rise" at the expense of having the goods on the shelf cost more, effectively lowering the wages of the people that shop there. The money to pay the employees comes from somewhere, and that somewhere is the customers' pockets.
If you can find a way tell me how rising labor costs drive the profitability of a business up, you're the best economist the world has ever known.
There are, but minimum wage laws (among others) stand in the way of this. Minimum wage legislation contracts the availible supply of funds for hiring new labor, and thus fewer people are demanded by the company.
A company is only a group of people that share an objective.
By what standards?
Shouldn't isn't the right word to use, because "should" and "should not" mean very little when it comes to the state and restricting your freedom of choice.
This may be the case of poorer countries, but there are very few fields left for tilling in downtown Detroit.silver 2039 said:
How? Capitalism promotes maximized productivity as one of it's central principles. Without efficient use of resources, profits are lost and business plummets.C~G said:
I'd prefer a moderate approach to trade unionism. Unionists now have the mentality of "us-versus-them," when they fail to realize they are both part of the same family and both share the same goals.
A corporation cannot force you to do anything; all decisions are made by the individual and the individual alone.
The products of capitalism contribute far more to the quality of life than the state-run segments of the economy. The state-run economy is inefficient, wasteful, and produces unsatsifactory results because there are no incentives to improve the system.
Do you really believe that corporations don't examine the long-term consequences of their actions? Do you believe the state is always interested in what is best for everybody, long or short-term?
It does through competition. If people feel that they are not receiving the value they deserve from the input of their capital, they'll move their capital to another supplier. Would you shop at a business that is trying to "screw" you?
I don't know how to reply to this, because you falsely assume that corporations are somehow out to "get you" and this kind of conspiratorial thinking is just, in my opinion, absurd.
Pushing is the right phrase to use, because the state pushes around the free market so much that we are no longer really a free market. We aren't a centralized, command-style economy, but we certainly aren't free.
The practice of capitalism has always demonstrated that the theories are correct. State interventionism doesn't solve problems, it only creates new ones.
Again, do you really believe that corporations are conspiring to physically control your life?
Yes, mainly for defense expenses, police/fire services, and road construction.warpus said:
