patrick.net

Strategist says

You're wasting your time. I'm the only damn liberal who gets "it"

You are a liberal like the pope is a secret Muslim.

Strategist says

The Longshoremen get $150,000, but their employer only makes $50,000 profit from them.

That's not reality. In reality an employee generates $100,000/yr in wealth and the owner takes between $40,000 to $80,000 from that pot. If the worker is highly skilled, he's only taxed at 40% by the business owner, but if the worker is unskilled then he's taxed at 80%.

indigenous says

Dan if you write another book I will not respond, it takes too long to read your blather.

Translation: I'm way too unintelligent to come up with any kind of counterargument. Also, it doesn't help that Dan has the truth on his side and all the evidence supports the truth for some reason.

Honey, I spent the time to transcribe a large portion of the video. I also spent the time to analyze and clarify what it was saying and the time to prove that it was wrong using real evidence. What I wrote takes less time to read than the video takes to watch. So quite whining about how much work it takes to support your position. If your position isn't worth taking the time to defend, it's a weak position.

Strategist says

Dan, you need to post quality, not quantity.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. Furthermore, reading my response takes less time than watching the video. You are confusing your laziness and refusal to read with verboseness. My arguments are as concise and as short as they can be. If you think otherwise, feel free to show a shorter version of those arguments that do not diminish their specificness, detail, or completeness.

indigenous says

Oh hello Wogster yea I was AFK. But I'm back for a few minutes and will be happy to bitch slap you and the other mutts around the forum.

If you would spend half the time and effort attacking your opponents' arguments rather than them, well, you'd still lose because your position sucks, but at least it wouldn't be as humiliating of a defeat.

Call it Crazy says

Go take a look at the comments on the Youtube page where the video is posted... Many comments there destroy his narrative, saving me the time...

None of the comments on the YouTube page address my comments.

Call it Crazy says

Maybe, just maybe, you and Dan can learn something about capitalism and business. Here's the link, go scroll the comments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFbYM2EDz40#t=410

Funny how you don't mind YouTube links all of a sudden. Hypocrisy much?

Dan8267 says

Honey, I spent the time to transcribe a large portion of the video.

I did answer your blather?

thunderlips11 says

Utter nonsense. We already knew what Keynes was doing in preparation for the end of WWII: Bretton Wood and gradual return to gold standard. Your utter failure at guessing what Keynes would have done in post-WWII goes to show that you don't even understand Keynesianism. What you have is a bastardized what-ever -ism that is anathema to anyone with a clue about economics.

Riiiiight:

Keynes wrote a book against the adoption of the Gold Standard all the way back in the years immediately following WW1.

Yet, Bretton Wood System designed by him clearly anchored the USD to gold, and all other major currencies of the world to the USD.

thunderlips11 says

A lot of academic and business positions are nowadays revolving doors with government/FED positions. The study of economics is more infiltrated with (FED/government printed) money than "climate science" (which is also not a science, due to non-repeatability).

Evidence please.

The most recently retire FED chairman, Bernanke, had previously been a professor at Princeton before taking the FED job;
The current real power wielder at the FED, Fischer, was professor at MIT, and thesis advisor to Bernanke.
The current ECB head, Mario Draghi, was also a student of Fischer's.

I find it hard to believe there are more Economics PhDs working for the Fed than consulting for private business.

That is an irrelevant point even if it is true. At the rate the FED payroll for research Economists is growing, it may well soon hire all PhD economists than all other institutions combined, if not already. It is already by far the top employer of Economics PhD's.

Dan8267 says

There have been many examples of businesses using force from slavery

Which only lasted because of the fugitive slave act (government force), other wise the slaves would have simply left the farms.

Dan8267 says

dangerous child labor

My grandmother had 12 brothers and sisters, back then that was the way things were done as a large family was an asset. It is quite common to see "children" working the farms back then, even throwing 100 lb bails of hay. So depriving the children of working was depriving the family of survival. BTW farming equipment is as dangerous as it gets. I would take it a step further and say that many of the problems in today's culture is from training children not to work by stating that they cannot work until they are 16.

Dan8267 says

exploitation of poor undeveloped nations to the eradication of native populations.

If that is the case why do the indigenous people still work there? Why not just go back to farming?

Dan8267 says

Furthermore, economic force can be just as powerful as violence.

Yup, In some ways you could define money as force or energy.

Dan8267 says

Corporations can control entire cities an do so in China today.

Only with government force.

Dan8267 says

In American history, company towns were common and the business owners treated the workers like indentured servants.

Not for long they didn't, unless of course they colluded with government, other wise the workers would simply leave.

Dan8267 says

It wasn't a pleasant life.

A little context is in order, back then the avg life expectancy was about 40, disease was rampant, you had to work at least 12 hr to survive, you had to work to work a full day for 50 cents as a laborer and a candle cost 28 cents. So your complaints are absurd.

thunderlips11 says

If it wasn't for all those meddling kids, hyperinflation would have got away with it! I thought government could only do bad and no good? Rothbard called for hyperinflation throughout the 80s and 90s too, never happened. Still hasn't happened.

The crucible of a theory is predictive power.

In case you did not realize, fiat money is a purely government product; hyperinflation or any inflation at all is government doing bad . . . whereas keeping the fiat money somewhat "sound" relative to precious metal, which would have been money if not for government enforcement to use something else, is not doing any better than what the market place would have done on its own.

Rothbard predicted hyperinflation would happen eventually ("inevitable"), and would happen quickly if the government and the FED continued its profligacy that characterized the 70's. That was not a false prediction even as Volcker slowed down the rate of inflation with drastically higher interest rates.

Like always, the conservatives try to steer the conversation away from the counter-arguments that disprove their position. They do this by trying to start an argument about a largely or entirely irrelevant topic and hope people just forget that they were caught with their underpants down. So let's get back to the core of this thread by responding to indigenous's poor response to my rebuttal of his argument.

Falsehood 1: Market prices are related to worker productivity.
indigenous says

As to falsehood one, of course the wages are supply and demand. But the China and Japan have rigged the game by devaluing their currency. And the US has let them get away with it through the floating exchange rate.

China and Japan aren't relevant to the big picture. Even 50, 100, and 150 years ago wages were determined entirely by bargaining power, not productivity. And that is the problem.

Falsehood 2: Market prices are determined by a free market.
indigenous says

Falsehood two, the alternative would be a socialist state such as the USSR, N Korea, or East Germany.

That is completely wrong. You are stating that the ONLY two choices are to let the working class people of the world get raped by business owners or to live in a despotic country that uses a very particular implementation of Communism. This is a false dichotomy.

There are an infinite number of possible economic models to use. Throughout all of human history we've tried three (Capitalism, Communism, and Feudalism). That's three out of infinity. If you think it's time to abandon searching the solution space than you are insane.

The fact is that capitalism is a Bronzed-Age technology with a couple of 18th and 19th century refinements. It is ludicrous to suggest that we can't build a better technology using 21st century ideas. Basing income on productivity rather than bargaining power would not make the United States a communist country. That's just a lie.

Also, socialism isn't the same thing as communism. You really need to learn what the terms mean if you are going to use them. The USSR was a communist state, not a social state. Same for North Korea and the former Eastern Germany, which was part of the USSR. You should also brush up on history while you are at it. 1989 wasn't that long ago.

Falsehood 3: People will only work for Edgar if his offer is attractive to them.
indigenous says

Falsehood three, no they can leave the country as with Mexico, China, Canada. IOW they vote with their feet.

Just because the situation is worse in Mexico or China doesn't excuse the problem here in the U.S. especially since the reason it's so bad in Mexico and China is the exact same problem as in the U.S. and every other country. Those producing the wealth are exploited by an owner class that produces little to nothing. This is simply a problem that needs to be fixed all over the world, starting here in the U.S. Once that problem is fixed, you won't have droves of Mexicans wanting to enter and stay in the U.S. The immigration problem you conservatives bitch and moan about is caused by the economic problems you conservatives inflict on our society.

Furthermore, Americans cannot simply vote with their feet as international corporations have ensured that the entire world is run by the owner class. And even if people could leave their country to go some place better, they have to leave behind family members, friends, and their entire social lives. Few people want to do this and none should have to simply to be productive and not be exploited.

indigenous says

The tragedy of the commons is irrelevant to minimum wage. The solution is quite well defined by John Locke.

Again, you are not making an argument, just an assertion. You are not even referencing a solution presented by someone else. Contradicting a person's statement but giving no support for your contradiction is effectively saying nothing.

I have explained in detail why the Tragedy of the Commons is very relevant to economics and wages. I have also shown a great example of how breaking the wage suppression and wealth grip of the owner class got Europe out of the stagnation of the Dark Ages and into a productive new era that made our modern life possible. You have said nothing to address this historic lesson.

indigenous says

How the fuck did you come up with that number? OTOH just other day you mutts were going on about how the tax rate was not 50% but that has no connection to Walmart.

Read the thread in which I stated that. I gave all the numbers and cited every reference needed. I showed all the math leaving out no detail.

And the "tax" I was talking about in that thread was a tax that Walmart, the employer, imposes on its workers before the government taxes anything. Employers tax employees for the privilege of working. This is necessary, but the extent of the tax is now absurd. This employer issued tax has nothing to do with government taxes, but tax is still the appropriate word for it because it acts like a tax in every way.

indigenous says

The inequality is simply because of the Fed creating inflation and the rich investing ahead of the inflation.

Currency debasement is one reason the middle class, particularly savers, get screwed over. It is hardly the only way. Nor is it the primary mechanism.

Paying workers a tiny fraction of the wealth they produce is the primary way in which the owner class acquires great wealth while doing no work and producing nothing. It is the primary reason for the grotesque inequality in our society as well as unjust legislation, war, and violent crime.

indigenous says

But the bottom line is that the minimum wage earners have a better standard of living than most of the rest of the world.

That's exactly like justifying slavery by stating that the slave is better off than someone starving because the master feeds the slave just enough to keep the slave alive.

indigenous says

The only reason that the standard of living improves is because of comparative advantage.

The reason why standards of living rise is because of technological advancement, social progress, and the ability of those who actually work for a living to prevent the owners from taking most of their wealth production away. As for the first reason, you have us STEM workers to thank for the fact that you are not living in the Stone Age like the vast majority of your human ancestors. As for the second reason, you have us liberals to thank for the fact that you don't live in the Dark Ages being ruled over by corrupt monks and kings. As for the third reason, you have us progressives to thank for the 40-hour work week, safe working conditions, and the unions that allowed the America middle class to exist and to build a strong economy. Without those unions, the middle class would have never existed and the powerhouse economy of the 20th century would not have existed either.

Dan8267 says

China and Japan aren't relevant to the big picture. Even 50, 100, and 150 years ago wages were determined entirely by bargaining power, not productivity. And that is the problem.

Why is that a problem? Do you think a professional bargainer would work for free? and workers would be better off if such a professional bargainer takes over all the workers' bargaining power on the latters' behalf? Do you want to work in North Korea and enjoy full employment while having the government appointed union reps represent you in "bargaining"?

Falsehood 2: Market prices are determined by a free market.

huh? Free market price is by definition determined by a free market. Of course rigged markets can have other forces exerting influences. Your solution is more rigging to correct a rigged market place? LOL.

Dan8267 says

That's exactly like justifying slavery by stating that the slave is better off than someone starving because the master feeds the slave just enough to keep the slave alive.

Slavery, with food, housing, education and medicine all provided by the slave master, is exactly what would happen if you get the government officials to decide what the workers get paid, instead of letting individual workers and individual employers exercise their respective bargaining power against each other.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

There have been many examples of businesses using force from slavery

Which only lasted because of the fugitive slave act (government force), other wise the slaves would have simply left the farms.

You seriously need to read up on the history of slavery in America and how it relates to the sugar industry. Business was most certainly the primary cause of slavery, not government. Business largely controls government. That was true in the 18th and 19th centuries and it is true today.

indigenous says

It is quite common to see "children" working the farms back then, even throwing 100 lb bails of hay.

There's a huge difference between children working on a family farm under the supervision of their parents who want them to live and stay safe and healthy versus children working in a dangerous factory where the boss doesn't give a rat's ass how many of them lose an arm in the machinery, which was a common occurrence. Equating the two is simply a way to ignore the reality of our nation's history and to present a whitewashed image of it. You aren't genuinely addressing the real events.

I suggest you do some reading regarding the history of child labor in the U.S. before you continue to paint a lovely portrait of it. The child laborers in the early 20th century were prevented from attending schools, learning how to read or even the alphabet, and could not possibly hope to get a better life because the factory took all their time an energy. Go on and click on the site I just reference and watch the videos. Only a heartless bastard like you wouldn't be enraged at the exploitation of those children.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

exploitation of poor undeveloped nations to the eradication of native populations.

If that is the case why do the indigenous people still work there? Why not just go back to farming?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/a-lozc1rFOU

Of course you'll blame that on government, but the government in China is ran by the owner-class, just like in the United States but to an even greater extent. It's the owner class, not government itself, that is the problem. Government, businesses, and workers are all necessary. The owner class is not necessary.

Then there is the entire history of India and the British colonization, rather exploitation, of it. This exploitation was done using government, but the puppet-masters were business owners. Read Tea: Addiction, Exploitation and Empire

The British were slow to take up tea, lagging behind the Portuguese and Dutch, and even the French. When they finally took it to their hearts, however, it became a national obsession. They covered their kingdom with tea gardens and tea shops. The taxation of tea led to massive smuggling, and the loss of their American empire. To guarantee their supply of tea they went to war against the Chinese. Intrepid planters cleared the jungles of the empire - in India, Ceylon and Africa - to plant up tea. They moved over a million people to work on the plantations, where hundreds of thousands of them died of ill treatment.

That's unrestrained capitalism in a nutshell. The Edgars of the world have no problem killing hundreds of thousands of people so that they can afford some obscene luxury. Their yacht is worth far more than your life and the lives of your children.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Corporations can control entire cities an do so in China today.

Only with government force.

Let's say we waved a magic wand and got rid of all governments. Large corporations and the owner class would still have armed guards and would use force by violence, by economics, and by contract to impose their self-interests at the expense of everyone else. The owner class would be government in everything but name. Well, that's the situation today as well.

By definition, you can call any organization that has a local monopoly on violence the government. The fact that the owner class uses the instrument of government to use violence doesn't negate the fact that the owner class is the one pulling the strings and deciding when and where to use violence.

The fact is that the absence of government, anarchy, is impossible to achieve. Therefore, it is irrelevant how lovely you think anarchy might be. It's not going to happen. A power vacuum is always filled, whether by waring power structures or a single winner. The question is how to make government do good rather than evil. The answer, in part, is to remove the power of the owner from controlling the distribution of revenue. The very corruption of government by the owner-class is made possible solely because of the vast wealth the owner-class siphons off of the working class, which it then uses to buy politicians and legislation.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

In American history, company towns were common and the business owners treated the workers like indentured servants.

Not for long they didn't, unless of course they colluded with government, other wise the workers would simply leave.

Again, you are merely demonstrating your ignorance of American history.

http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/company-towns/
indigenous says

A little context is in order, back then the avg life expectancy was about 40, disease was rampant, you had to work at least 12 hr to survive, you had to work to work a full day for 50 cents as a laborer and a candle cost 28 cents. So your complaints are absurd.

And these things were caused by owner-class greed just like the stagnation of the Dark Age.

Dan8267 says

The fact is that capitalism is a Bronzed-Age technology with a couple of 18th and 19th century refinements. It is ludicrous to suggest that we can't build a better technology using 21st century ideas. Basing income on productivity rather than bargaining power would not make the United States a communist country. That's just a lie.

Actually, attempts at government imposed price fixing is a piece of Bronze-Age technology. The result has been disastrous every time it's been tried.

The real solution is in making it easier for each worker to set up his/her own shop directly finding and marketing to her intended customers, because only the customers can ascertain productivity. A worker opening his/her shops is called entrepreneurship. Government regulations unfortunately get in the way of entrepreneurship.

Dan8267 says

There's a huge difference between children working on a family farm under the supervision of their parents who want them to live and stay safe and healthy versus children working in a dangerous factory where the boss doesn't give a rat's ass how many of them lose an arm in the machinery, which was a common occurrence. Equating the two is simply a way to ignore the reality of our nation's history and to present a whitewashed image of it. You aren't genuinely addressing the real events.

There would not have been a child employee if not for parental consent or parental abandonment.

Dan8267 says

I suggest you do some reading regarding the history of child labor in the U.S. before you continue to paint a lovely portrait of it. The child laborers in the early 20th century were prevented from attending schools, learning how to read or even the alphabet, and could not possibly hope to get a better life because the factory took all their time an energy. Go on and click on the site I just reference and watch the videos. Only a heartless bastard like you wouldn't be enraged at the exploitation of those children.

Yet, you claim here:

Dan8267 says

Business largely controls government. That was true in the 18th and 19th centuries and it is true today.

So in other words, it was the parents who abandoned or sent the kids to the dangerous jobs. It was the businesses that told the government to ban child labor. Now we get it.

Reality says

Why is that a problem? Do you think a professional bargainer would work for free? and workers would be better off if such a professional bargainer takes over all the workers' bargaining power on the latters' behalf? Do you want to work in North Korea and enjoy full employment while having the government appointed union reps represent you in "bargaining"?

Why is determining wages based on bargaining power rather than productivity a problem?
1. Multitudes of people are impoverished even though they are producing $50,000/yr to $100,000/yr of wealth. They still barely make ends meet and if anything bad happens like a health problem then they become homeless and hungry.
2. These people then depend upon the very social services (welfare, food stamps, assisted housing) that the owner class bitches about.
3. The poverty and inequality causes violent crimes including murder, rape, robbery, and gang-related drug dealing.
4. Women in systemic poverty live life hard-and-fast having many children at a young age and are unable to care for them. Women in financially secured environments have fewer children, have those children at an older age (not teens), and are able to care, nurture, and educate those children.
5. People who are barely making ends meet do not have the free time and resources to become entrepreneurs. They cannot make scientific discoveries. They cannot advance technologies. They cannot implement new ideas even if the idea they have is great. They are stuck simply working long hours to make some lazy asshole rich.
6. Because they aren't paid according to what they produce, the working class families cannot pay for their own health care or send their children to college.
7. Poor young men enter lives of crime and violence, join gangs, and create an environment that prevents other young people from escaping poverty and violence.

And those reasons are just off the top of my head.

As for the rest of the stuff you said, it has no bearing on anything I wrote. As I stated, it is a false dichotomy to state that either the working class must get raped by the government or it must get rape by the owner-class. There are zero-rape alternatives.

Reality says

Falsehood 2: Market prices are determined by a free market.

huh? Free market price is by definition determined by a free market. Of course rigged markets can have other forces exerting influences. Your solution is more rigging to correct a rigged market place? LOL.

Reality says

Slavery, with food, housing, education and medicine all provided by the slave master, is exactly what would happen if you get the government officials to decide what the workers get paid, instead of letting individual workers and individual employers exercise their respective bargaining power against each other.

That was not my proposed solution. What I proposed does not require government to decide distribution of the revenue. A computer does that.

Dan8267 says

Government, businesses, and workers are all necessary. The owner class is not necessary.

LOL. What would be "businesses" if there were no owners. Dan, sorry to hear you missed the boat on becoming an owner, but this viscera hatred of owners, even inventing a "class" or them, is quite unnecessary. Someone has to take on the entrepreneurial risks of ownership. If you are too chicken little to buy your own house or start your own business, you pass on that ownership along with associated benefits (and risk) to someone else by default.

Dan8267 says

China and Japan aren't relevant to the big picture. Even 50, 100, and 150 years ago wages were determined entirely by bargaining power, not productivity. And that is the problem.

Another unsubstantiated assertion. So you are saying unions existed 150 years ago?

Dan8267 says

There are an infinite number of possible economic models to use.

Then name a few.

Dan8267 says

Also, socialism isn't the same thing as communism.

Splain the diff

Dan8267 says

I have explained in detail why the Tragedy of the Commons is very relevant to economics and wages. I have also shown a great example of how breaking the wage suppression and wealth grip of the owner class got Europe out of the stagnation of the Dark Ages and into a productive new era that made our modern life possible. You have said nothing to address this historic lesson.

Damn you are fucked up, regale me again on why this is relevant.

Dan8267 says

Read the thread in which I stated that. I gave all the numbers and cited every reference needed. I showed all the math leaving out no detail.

Where?

Dan8267 says

Nor is it the primary mechanism.

Paying workers a tiny fraction of the wealth they produce is the primary way in which the owner class acquires great wealth while doing no work and producing nothing. It is the primary reason for the grotesque inequality in our society as well as unjust legislation, war, and violent crime.

Sure it is the primary cause. The wealth is from investment which involves risk. Just the other day the bankers would have been on their ass if the taxpayers did not bail them out.

Dan8267 says

That's exactly like justifying slavery by stating that the slave is better off than someone starving because the master feeds the slave just enough to keep the slave alive.

If you cannot discern the difference then you are not qualified to talk about this.

Dan8267 says

The reason why standards of living rise is because of technological advancement, social progress, and the ability of those who actually work for a living

Comparative advantage is the cause of this.

Dan8267 says

As for the first reason, you have us STEM workers to thank for the fact that you are not living in the Stone Age like the vast majority of your human ancestors.

Stem workers have been around for thousands of years?

Dan8267 says

As for the second reason, you have us liberals to thank for the fact that you don't live in the Dark Ages being ruled over by corrupt monks and kings.

Actually it was the likes of the first Queen Elisabeth, Voltaire, John Locke, Francis Bacon, Thomas Paine and many others, they were classic liberals you are right. Not to be confused with mutts like you.

Dan8267 says

As for the third reason, you have us progressives to thank for the 40-hour work week

No dumb ass that was because of technology. What, you think that people worked 100 hours a week because they had a good work ethic? NO it was because technology allowed them to survive while working fewer hours.

Dan8267 says

safe working conditions,

This was also because of technology, this trend started and continued long before OSHA existed, even though these parasites will take credit for it.

Dan8267 says

unions that allowed the America middle class to exist and to build a strong economy

Bullshit, they drove GM out of business, if not for the taxpayer saving them at the expense of the bond holders I might add. I don't have a problem with unions unless they are in the public sector at which point collective bargaining drives the cost up and the quality down. Calif e.g. has the highest paid teachers in the US and the 47 worst test scores. The longshoremen cost commerce billions over some bullshit complaints about arbitration.

Toyota operates without unions and seem to be quite successful.

The reason for the middle class was because the other industrialized nations were destroyed in WW 2, the increase in production and technology and less meddling by government after FDR had the courtesy to die.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Slavery, with food, housing, education and medicine all provided by the slave master, is exactly what would happen if you get the government officials to decide what the workers get paid, instead of letting individual workers and individual employers exercise their respective bargaining power against each other.

That was not my proposed solution. What I proposed does not require government to decide distribution of the revenue. A computer does that.

LOL. The Computer God! Dan, you are almost half a century too late. The soviets thought they could rely on mainframe computers to set price and distribution of everything as early as the the 1960's and 70's. You may even be able to find some documentaries on that subject on YouTube.

Here's a hint why that would not work: value is subjective. The computer's preferences do not reflect the living individual human beings.

Dan8267 says

You seriously need to read up on the history of slavery in America and how it relates to the sugar industry. Business was most certainly the primary cause of slavery, not government. Business largely controls government. That was true in the 18th and 19th centuries and it is true today.

bullshit

Dan8267 says

The child laborers in the early 20th century were prevented from attending schools, learning how to read or even the alphabet, and could not possibly hope to get a better life because the factory took all their time an energy. Go on and click on the site I just reference and watch the videos. Only a heartless bastard like you wouldn't be enraged at the exploitation of those children.

IIRC by the time the child labor laws were instituted the problem was already over, which is typical regarding law. The thing to notice about this is that it corrected itself, not the government.

As to the video who the fuck do you think kicked the farmer off of their land? An eminent domain abuse...

Dan8267 says

This exploitation was done using government, but the puppet-masters were business owners.

Like all Libbys you have an aversion to the term crony capitalism.

Dan8267 says

The fact is that the absence of government, anarchy, is impossible to achieve. Therefore, it is irrelevant how lovely you think anarchy might be. It's not going to happen. A power vacuum is always filled, whether by waring power structures or a single winner. The question is how to make government do good rather than evil. The answer, in part, is to remove the power of the owner from controlling the distribution of revenue. The very corruption of government by the owner-class is made possible solely because of the vast wealth the owner-class siphons off of the working class, which it then uses to buy politicians and legislation.

They did it in Somalia, and things improved nicely since, I think N Koreans should do the same.

Dan8267 says

Dan8267 says

In American history, company towns were common and the business owners treated the workers like indentured servants.

Not for long they didn't, unless of course they colluded with government, other wise the workers would simply leave.

Again, you are merely demonstrating your ignorance of American history.

Give me the nutshell version of how long this went on how government collusion was not a part of it, I'm not going sit though some PBS blather.

Dan8267 says

A little context is in order, back then the avg life expectancy was about 40, disease was rampant, you had to work at least 12 hr to survive, you had to work to work a full day for 50 cents as a laborer and a candle cost 28 cents. So your complaints are absurd.

And these things were caused by owner-class greed just like the stagnation of the Dark Age.

WTF are you talking about Willis?

Dan8267 says

Why is determining wages based on bargaining power rather than productivity a problem?

You are essentially asking the question, why can't the government fix a "fair" price for everything.

A person's productivity is highly subjective because the output product/service value is subjective.

As for your long list, most of the poor on welfare do not work, therefore have no productivity to speak of. Their entire income (welfare, food stamps and subsidized housing) is the result of political bargaining power because they vote. If you believe that should be taken away, there might be a valid point in that 40+ years of welfare program has only proven that perpetuating multi-generational poverty in household headed up by single mothers is a terrible idea, with severe social consequences in terms of both economic and criminality.

Dan8267 says

As for the third reason, you have us progressives to thank for the 40-hour work week, safe working conditions, and the unions that allowed the America middle class to exist and to build a strong economy. Without those unions, the middle class would have never existed and the powerhouse economy of the 20th century would not have existed either.

Utter nonsense. Labor Union was an imported ideology from Europe in the late 19th century. Labor Union was far more active in Europe than it was in the US; the result was catastrophic for the various European nations.

indigenous says

Another unsubstantiated assertion.

Historical fact is, by definition, not unsubstantiated assertion.

indigenous says

So you are saying unions existed 150 years ago?

No. Your reading comprehension also needs work.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

There are an infinite number of possible economic models to use.

Then name a few.

x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, etc. Things not yet invented tend to not have names yet. However, you can name them whatever you want.

The bottom line is that there is no limit on how economic systems can be built. We are certainly not limited to the three, essentially identical, economic systems used in history. And they are all identical in that an owner class has controlled them all.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Also, socialism isn't the same thing as communism.

Splain the diff

Well, at least you're admitting you don't know the difference. Of course with all the right-wing propaganda to equate the two completely different things it's no wonder you don't.

Communism is an economic system in which the government owns all economic resources and centrally manages all economic activity. The most important principle of communism is that no private ownership of property should be allowed.

Socialism is not an economic system or an economic philosophy. Socialism is an economic tactic in which the costs of something is distributed among a group. For example, the benefits of a lighthouse is enjoyed by all boaters, so the cost of a lighthouse is socialized (spread) over all boaters in the form of a boat tax. The benefits of a military are enjoyed by the entire population, so the cost of the military is socialized over the entire population. Everyone enjoys the reduced risk of poverty by a welfare system that provides a minimal level of existence and is paid for by all of society.

It is utterly impossible to run any society or any economy without some socialism. In America, the military, the highway system, the public sewer systems, the electric grid, the police, and the fire fighters are all examples of socialism. Which of these do you want to ban?

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

I have explained in detail why the Tragedy of the Commons is very relevant to economics and wages. I have also shown a great example of how breaking the wage suppression and wealth grip of the owner class got Europe out of the stagnation of the Dark Ages and into a productive new era that made our modern life possible. You have said nothing to address this historic lesson.

Damn you are fucked up, regale me again on why this is relevant.

From About European History

In the middle of the fourteenth century the Black Death swept across Europe, killing perhaps a third of the population. While devastating, some of the survivors found themselves better off financially and socially, with the same wealth spread among fewer people, and better potential for climbing the social ladder. This was especially true in Italy, where social mobility was much greater. While some areas saw struggles between the more competitively positioned workers and their bosses, this ‘new’ wealth was often was spent on display items to reinforce prestige, much like the rulers above them. This also allowed people to patronize Renaissance artists.

In addition, the merchant classes of a region like Italy also saw a great increase in their wealth from their role in trade, from the same trade routes which spread the Black Death so quickly. This trade income was further developed, some might say revolutionized, by Renaissance developments in commerce, giving the merchants further wealth to patronize with.

In more detail,
http://www.youtube.com/embed/HcEllXY76W4

If you spent more time reading educational material and watching historic documentaries than watching Fox News, you would be more informed and this material wouldn't be so surprising to you.

indigenous says

Where

Look for it. I'm not spending the time doing your research. Plus you can educate yourself by reading all my posts again.

indigenous says

The wealth is from investment which involves risk.

Wrong. Wealth comes from production. That is, from building, planting, growing, inventing, developing, writing, researching, and doing all other kinds of productive work. It does not come from owning things. Yes, capitalism revolves are capital, hence its name, but that does not mean an economic system has to. Revolving around the petty desires of a small, lazy, nonproductive owner class is not the optimal way to run an economy. The owner class only looks out for its own selfish interests, which more often than not are in conflict with everybody else's interests.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

indigenous says

But the bottom line is that the minimum wage earners have a better standard of living than most of the rest of the world.

That's exactly like justifying slavery by stating that the slave is better off than someone starving because the master feeds the slave just enough to keep the slave alive.

If you cannot discern the difference then you are not qualified to talk about this.

I must have hit a nerve. You are now running away with your hands covering your ears.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

The reason why standards of living rise is because of technological advancement, social progress, and the ability of those who actually work for a living

Comparative advantage is the cause of this.

Bullshit. The great advancements of our time rarely yields riches to the inventors. Edgar Codd did not get rich for inventing the relational database. Larry Ellison, who invented nothing, did. Tim Berners-Lee did not get rich inventing the World Wide Web. John Bardeen and Walter Brattain, who invented the transistor that makes all modern electronics work, did not get rich off their invention although many others did.

If we believe that money motivates people to produce, then those who produce should get first dibs on their productivity, not some owner.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

As for the first reason, you have us STEM workers to thank for the fact that you are not living in the Stone Age like the vast majority of your human ancestors.

Stem workers have been around for thousands of years?

In one form or another, yes. Every thinker who tinkered with mathematics, stone, metal, pulleys, or any other technology was a STEM worker. The blacksmiths, the librarians, the sea-charters were all working essentially in STEM. Even before science in the modern sense of the word, there was technology, engineering, and math. There were people shaping the world into a better place with hard work and productivity, and their were fat parasites doing nothing but siphoning wealth from others. The later needs the former, but the former does not need the later.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

As for the second reason, you have us liberals to thank for the fact that you don't live in the Dark Ages being ruled over by corrupt monks and kings.

Actually it was the likes of the first Queen Elisabeth, Voltaire, John Locke, Francis Bacon, Thomas Paine and many others, they were classic liberals you are right. Not to be confused with mutts like you.

So you want to discredit every social and political reform that happened in the 20th century? Women's suffrage is worthless crap to you? You want to go back to segregation? Repeal all safety measures in the workplace? Re-institute "turns" in which a factory worker works for 36 hours straight? Does that sound like a good idea to you?

How about preventing interracial marriages? Re-instituting the draft? Force women into back-alley abortions. Repeal the Freedom of Information Act or the Fair Credit Reporting Act? Maybe we should just disassemble the Internet because it has too much free-speech-y stuff.

Go back to the 18th century where you belong. Even your insults reveal too much about you. You call everyone else mutts because you believe that anyone not in the owner class is subhuman. It's a revolting ideology.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

As for the third reason, you have us progressives to thank for the 40-hour work week

No dumb ass that was because of technology. What, you think that people worked 100 hours a week because they had a good work ethic? NO it was because technology allowed them to survive while working fewer hours.

You're ignorance of American history never ceases to amaze me. It's like you haven't even heard of the progressive movement.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/MT046YLK78I

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

safe working conditions,

This was also because of technology, this trend started and continued long before OSHA existed, even though these parasites will take credit for it.

Business owners will glad risk the lives of their workers if there are no legal repercussions. This has been empirically proven time and time again. It required labor laws to institute safety measures at work just like it requires environmental regulations to keep business from polluting.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

unions that allowed the America middle class to exist and to build a strong economy

Bullshit, they drove GM out of business

The American middle class was created by New Deal and the unions back in 1938 to 1945. GM is still in existence. You can buy their stock. You can't even get basic facts correct.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/yfGZJDPWCzM

Dan8267 says

Why is determining wages based on bargaining power rather than productivity a problem?

Because productivity is dependent on the value of output products and/or services, both of which have subjective value, it is not possible to determine productivity objectively without the market-driven two-way negotiation process. The worker putting in 8 hours at the Lada factory making cars of 30+ years old design has different productivity from the worker putting in the same 8 hours at the Lexus/Acura/Mercedes/BMW/Audi factory making the latest design cars. Only a two-way bargaining process between the consumer vs. carmaker, and carmaker vs. worker can the value of the goods and services be ascertained.

Your basic assumption is based on Marxian Labor Theory of Value, which has been proven wrong for well over a century!

1. Multitudes of people are impoverished even though they are producing $50,000/yr to $100,000/yr of wealth. They still barely make ends meet and if anything bad happens like a health problem then they become homeless and hungry.

2. These people then depend upon the very social services (welfare, food stamps, assisted housing) that the owner class bitches about.

Most people on welfare, food stamps and assisted housing have no jobs, therefore have zero productivity. Their entire legal income comes from their bargaining power at the ballot box. You might be able to make a case that such power of extortion from the rest of the society should be removed and replaced by private charity.

3. The poverty and inequality causes violent crimes including murder, rape, robbery, and gang-related drug dealing.

Welfare, food stamps and housing subsidy combined to give a single-mother household on average $40-$70k a year. That is not poverty by any stretch of imagination, except for the result of poor money management. Rate of criminality is high among children raised in such household not due to poverty or inequality per se, but due to the lack of father figure to instill discipline and lack of any adult role model to teach the kids how to make a living legally. That's how you get the current ghetto environment where being hard studying and good at school is considered "acting white"! whereas acting like a gangster is considered "alpha" and "cool"! Morons like you have been forcing taxpayers to subsidize such nonsense for the past half century!

4. Women in systemic poverty live life hard-and-fast having many children at a young age and are unable to care for them. Women in financially secured environments have fewer children, have those children at an older age (not teens), and are able to care, nurture, and educate those children.

Abortion is accessible to most women living in systemic poverty, as is contraception and long-term/permanent contraceptive solutions. The real reason why the adverse artificial selection (the selection of bad genes and bad child raising environment) is going on in the society is because the opportunity cost for having children is negative for women in poverty: they are paid by Uncle Sam to give births to children, any children. Any wonder, why we now have nearly half new births taking place in such utterly unsuitable households? It's the moronic subsidies you guys have been advocating for the past half century that's resulting in the literal breeding of welfare dependency, broken families and criminality!

5. People who are barely making ends meet do not have the free time and resources to become entrepreneurs. They cannot make scientific discoveries. They cannot advance technologies. They cannot implement new ideas even if the idea they have is great. They are stuck simply working long hours to make some lazy asshole rich.

People on welfare, food stamps and subsidized housing typically do not work legally because any legal income would reduce their government subsidy. The most motivated people in that population resort to drug dealing as entrepreneurial activity. Their mental energy is spent on becoming practical chemists and unlicensed pharmacist experimenting with new drug concoctions. That's why meth cooking has become so popular in recent years.

6. Because they aren't paid according to what they produce, the working class families cannot pay for their own health care or send their children to college.

They get free medical insurance and free college education for their kids, at the expense of middle class families, both through taxation and through artificially jacked up prices for medicine and education.

7. Poor young men enter lives of crime and violence, join gangs, and create an environment that prevents other young people from escaping poverty and violence.

That's an argument for removing welfare incentive for women to have children in that environment. It's just like when San Francisco gave out salaries to the homeless, more homeless came! "Liberals" like you are essentially elitist idiots who do not recognize the poor people's ability to think and game the system.

Dan8267 says

Communism is an economic system in which the government owns all economic resources and centrally manages all economic activity. The most important principle of communism is that no private ownership of property should be allowed.

In other words, a dictator like Stalin and the Kims of North Korea owns everything in the country / world. When you concentrate ownership, only the scums of humanity rises to the top.

Dan8267 says

Socialism is not an economic system or an economic philosophy. Socialism is an economic tactic in which the costs of something is distributed among a group. For example, the benefits of a lighthouse is enjoyed by all boaters, so the cost of a lighthouse is socialized (spread) over all boaters in the form of a boat tax. The benefits of a military are enjoyed by the entire population, so the cost of the military is socialized over the entire population. Everyone enjoys the reduced risk of poverty by a welfare system that provides a minimal level of existence and is paid for by all of society.

That is not how light houses typically came about. Historically light houses were typically built by the major shippers or an association of major shippers in the area. The donors' own benefit from the light house out-weighed the cost of the light house; everyone else just derived fringe benefit. Likewise, military for a long time was the private possession of the "lord"; that seems to be a more fair system than our current system of the "lords" derive benefit from foreign military adventures while the taxpayers get to "socialize" the cost. Welfare is an even more wasteful system where 70-80% of the total budget is spent on staffing the bureaucrats, while the whole system promotes dependency, sloth and criminalty; the bureaucrats work hard to preserve their jobs instead of helping people out of poverty. It's a classic case of monopoly instead of letting donors choose which charity to give money to.

Dan8267 says

It is utterly impossible to run any society or any economy without some socialism. In America, the military, the highway system, the public sewer systems, the electric grid, the police, and the fire fighters are all examples of socialism. Which of these do you want to ban?

Most towns in the US still have volunteer fire fighters. The electric grid of course started off as a private enterprise, by Edison. Private developers build sewer systems all the time. Highways were also privately built before government took over as monopoly. Military, well, that being monopolized by the government has more to do with monopoly on the use of violence than anything else: in 1776, you could have said the "socialized military" was the Red Coats; all they wanted to do was to provide safety and security to the colonists from Indians and French while having their cost "socialized"; why couldn't the colonists understand? LOL.

Your "progressivism" is little more than elitist "Divine Right" belief dressed up in the garbs of a new religion and new king.

The American middle class was created by New Deal and the unions back in 1938 to 1945. GM is still in existence. You can buy their stock. You can't even get basic facts correct.

Utter nonsense. The American middle class was in existence at the Revolutionary War of 1776. Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively about the middle class farmers, to which most Americans belonged for most of the 18th and 19th century.

During the WWII, 1941-45, the labor union was obstructionist to the war effort. After the 1950's reconciliation between the carmakers and labor union, every labor union gain came at the expense of the much greater middle class consumers: union rules became designed to keep out new competition to the Big-3.

Reality says

You are essentially asking the question, why can't the government fix a "fair" price for everything.

Not at all. I'm saying determine distribution of revenue based on productivity, not bargaining power. This has nothing to do with government or price fixing.

Reality says

Dan8267 says

Why is determining wages based on bargaining power rather than productivity a problem?

Because productivity is dependent on the value of output products and/or services, both of which have subjective value, it is not possible to determine productivity objectively without the market-driven two-way negotiation process.

I'm not saying that the prices of products aren't determined by markets. I'm saying the distribution of the revenue from those sales should be determine by means other than bargaining power. You are confusing two separate things.

Reality says

Your basic assumption is based on Marxian Labor Theory of Value, which has been proven wrong for well over a century!

You are drawing the connection to Marxian Labor Theory of Value, not me. The basis of my analysis is rooted in game theory and biology, specifically the reference I sited to Evolutionarily stable stalk to spore ratio in cellular slime molds and the law of equalization in net incomes
.

You don't get to replace the basis of my argument with another, irrelevant idea.
Reality says

Most people on welfare, food stamps and assisted housing have no jobs, therefore have zero productivity.

41% of households receiving food stamps have working people

And more importantly, those who don't can't get a job because of monetary policy.

Although it is almost never mentioned in conjunction with the welfare debate, the U.S. Federal Reserve has an official policy of raising interest rates whenever unemployment falls below a certain point--now about 6.2 percent (Extra!, 9-10/94). In other words, if all the unemployed women on welfare were to find jobs, currently employed people would have to be thrown out of work to keep the economy from "overheating."

When the entire economy is controlled by the owner class and the owner class wants at least 6.2% unemployment to keep wages down, there will always be at least 6.2% unemployment.

Reality says

Abortion is accessible to most women living in systemic poverty

So much for conservative "family values" and a pro-life stance. Republicans have been trying to overturn Roe v. Wade for 40 years. You want abortion by the mother's choice to be illegal, but abortion to be mandatory even against the mother's will if she's poor. What a dystopia you are proposing.

In fact every social ill that you are bitching and moaning about is directly created by impoverishing people for the sole purpose of redirecting all wealth produced by the working people to the owners. And you still haven't addressed why the a few people who produce nothing should be the ones deciding how to distribute the wealth produced by others.

Reality says

Utter nonsense. Labor Union was an imported ideology from Europe in the late 19th century. Labor Union was far more active in Europe than it was in the US; the result was catastrophic for the various European nations.

Folks, expelling hot coffee out your nose hurts like a bitch. I got to get a paper towel.

Reality says

Yet, Bretton Wood System designed by him clearly anchored the USD to gold, and all other major currencies of the world to the USD.

Bullcrap. Keynes was only one participant in Bretton Woods, the British delegation only got some of what they wanted, and it wasn't Keynes major priority. Keynes had a long record of being against gold backed currency that stretches at least to the aftermath of WW1, when he wrote a book about it (and it was that book that first made him famous)

Dan8267 says

That's unrestrained capitalism in a nutshell. The Edgars of the world have no problem killing hundreds of thousands of people so that they can afford some obscene luxury. Their yacht is worth far more than your life and the lives of your children.

YUP.

The British also fought the Opium War when they ran out of "Real Precious Metal Currency" - Silver - to pay for the tea. Since the British were running low on silver and starting to run a deficit, they went around desperately searching for an alternative import, and so got millions of Chinese addicted to Opium grown in British Controlled India (Malwa region). When the Chinese emperor tried to restrict the import of Opium, the British cried "This Tyranny Will Not Stand! Let the Free Market Decide! There must be a free flow of goods and services, to arms against such injustice!" and sent ships and marines to wage war against the Chinese.

Americans also imported Opium from the Western Hemisphere to China.

Today, the US and UK bomb countries just for growing cocaine and opium, and feel it is no longer Tyranny against the Free Market to ban Cocaine and Heroin.

Meanwhile, Guatemalan girls are beaten and raped while weaving clothes for US Markets; US companies are wise now, they no longer run the factories themselves, but outsource it to subcontractors, so the beatings can continue while they proclaim innocence. Chocolate, Diamonds, Rugs, etc. are just a few places where US firms know damn well what is happening, but don't give a shit.

Saipan, a US Territory, was also a den of inequity, created by special laws enacted by the last Republican Congress. Instead of hiring locals, they brought over Chinese and Indonesian girls to work as slaves in textile factories.

Dan8267 says

Technology requires time to be developed

No it requires free trade to develop, this is a VERY organic process, IOW no government needed other than a rule of law.

Dan8267 says

To argue that we shouldn't develop new technologies -- and economic systems are technologies -- because they haven't been developed already is utterly ridiculous especially in an era that has seen the rise of personal computers, the Internet, and damn sophisticated mobile computing devices. Should the smart phone had not been developed because rotary phones were used for a long time?

WTF are you talkin about Willis, you are conflating technology and economics, they are two different things.

I try so hard to hep ya, but alas you are the living embodiment of the dangerous meme, look they are in your favorite flavor of median and everything:

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_dangerous_memes?language=en

Or in realizing that you are wrong:

http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong

Dan8267 says

Are you really going to argue that all the historians are wrong? Please feel free to further demonstrate your ignorance. Every time you do, you let the world know that your economic agenda is that of an idiot.

I am not an idiot, history is really just an agreement on what history was, E.G. history says Lincoln was an American hero when in fact he was a subversive who got 1 million Americans killed, and used his political position to bilk Americans out of a lot of money, ignored habeas corpus to protect himself from the press, instigated the Civil War, etc. etc.

Dan8267 says

So, you're basically saying that you want to revoke the right of women to vote. Noted.

Ain't gunna happen but it is an interesting idea, good thinking on your part.

Dan8267 says

Allowing wealth to go to people who "better game the system" rather than produce better results is bad for an economy. It's wasteful, and it decreases growth.

Couldn't have said it better than myself...

Dan8267 says

Dan8267 says

The American middle class was created by New Deal and the unions back in 1938 to 1945. GM is still in existence. You can buy their stock. You can't even get basic facts correct.

You think that laws being passed defies physics? It don't, if longer hours are required because of a lack of labor saving devices such as tractors or forklifts, then workers had to work longer hours in order to bring in the harvest or unload the ship before spoilage.

You falsely stated that unions drove GM out of business back in the mid-20th century. GM is still in business and doing well in the 21st century. What the fuck does physics have to do with the empirically false statement you made?

You can pass a law that gravity is going to have 1/2 the effect it does now so that we can get better gas mileage in our vehicles and other benefits. But that does not mean it is going to happen.

Dan8267 says

OMFG! You are actually making the case that the relationship between slave owners and their slaves was a symbiotic one? You do realize that the slave owners raped and killed slaves both for fun -- yes, slavers are psychopaths -- and to keep the other slaves in fear. And that raping and killing included children, who weren't yet productive in the fields.

You obliviously think that a few irrational slave owners represent the majority who were rational?

The slaves depended on their owners as much as the owners depended on them.

Dan8267 says

I think you've thoroughly demonstrated the lack of morality, ethics, and grasp on reality of the people who take your position. Yes, the Edgars of the world want to be slave owners and think of everyone else as slaves.

You think like a woman.

At least Dan doesn't think like the evil Rothbard:

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive. (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g. by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such ‘neglect’ down to a minimum.)”

Evil Statism forces parents to feed their children, and prevents them from exercising their right of ownership to starve them! Freedom! Liberty! End Tyranny!

Anybody still wondering why Austrians can't get a job in Academia? If the press got a whiff of what Austrian Professors taught College Students...

I'm guessing that is a thought experiment. But you use whatever transgression you can find to alleviate fully grasping what the author espouses.

I have heard it said that Rothbard was the greatest American economist ever, yet you want to glibly throw out the baby with the bathwater.

thunderlips11 says

At least Dan doesn't think like the evil Rothbard:

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.

indigenous says

I have heard it said that Rothbard was the greatest American economist ever, yet you want to glibly throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Dan8267 says

indigenous says

You act as though workers and business owners or even slaves and owners don't have a symbiotic relationship. Apparently you think that slave owners would injure slaves for fun? Slaves were expensive, the owners did not have any motivation to hurt them, nor business owners and workers.

Dan8267 says

OMFG! You are actually making the case that the relationship between slave owners and their slaves was a symbiotic one? You do realize that the slave owners raped and killed slaves both for fun -- yes, slavers are psychopaths -- and to keep the other slaves in fear. And that raping and killing included children, who weren't yet productive in the fields.

I think you've thoroughly demonstrated the lack of morality, ethics, and grasp on reality of the people who take your position. Yes, the Edgars of the world want to be slave owners and think of everyone else as slaves.

indigenous says

You think like a woman.

All women do not think identically. So basically, you are a sexist who doesn't want women to vote, a racist who considers slavery a symbiotic relationship, and you have no respect for human life even the lives of children. Yeah, I'm sure the sane 99% of America will really back an economic system advocated by a psychopath like you.

You certainly do represent the conservative movement. Everybody for himself and it doesn't matter how much you harm others getting what you want. Slavery, child labor, and work camps that kill hundreds of thousands are all fair game. And you wonder why we want a different economic system.

You should change your avatar to

and yours to:

Well, if by feminist you mean I believe in equality under law for all and universal voting rights, then yes. The alternative is being an asshole.

I guess being a programmer you have to think in binary? that is not how life works...

indigenous says

I guess being a programmer you have to think in binary? that is not how life works...

That's a load of crap. There is nothing binary about the statement it's assholic to want to deny women the right to vote or equality under law. Obviously a sexist, racist asshole like you disagrees, but that doesn't make the statement based on a black-n-white view of the world.