3rd world debt

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: grandpa Actually, if you are claiming part ownership of someone's actions, you are essentially renting their "free will." There's no way around that, is there?

NO!!

You'll never understand this, will you? Or you refuse to on purpose.


Free will means you can do anything you want at any time. If I hired a worker, technically, he could just walk off the job any time he wanted for any reason he wanted.

That's free will.

And sometimes, as I've mentioned, people have used force to solve conflicts--which is why labor laws exist, to minimize the chances of violent conflict.

They exist because the American voters were brainwashed by the socialists into believing that the unregulated market wasn't the most efficient way, which it is.

I do have a job and I do live in our society. And I prefer jobs that have a good work climate and pay decently. But if I had to work in a sweatshop or starve, I'm sure I'd be in a considerably worse state.

So?

Is that justification that everyone else should subsidize a better way of life for you?

Obviously not.

But some wills are more free than others, Are you to deny societal hurdles and the fact that some are more free than others?

It's not a fact it's your warped opinion.

Everyone has the exact same free will as another. There is no more such a thing as a freer free will as there is a blacker black. Black is defined as the absense of color. So obviously there can't be an more black black.

To the same effect, free will is defined as being able to do whatever, whenever, for any reason. Obviously you can't be more free than that.

I prefer reasonable, minimal standards over none at all.

Is that justification for everyone subsidizing your opinion of what should be the quality of living for everyone?

Obviously not.

So you should oppose the investor class and CEO's who take far more money than they actually did the work for. Grandpa h.

You keep saying this lie as if it will one day be true if you can say it enough.

After this response, I will not respond to it any more: companies own all the money that comes from the sale of their products.

The end.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: grandpa Such cases of workplace related violence led to labor laws.

The only thing that led to labor laws was the lying to of the public.

I think people have a right to live whether they "earn it" from someone else or not.

But no one has a right to property unless they earn it!

This strikes me as very simplistic. I think most people would be happy if they didn't have to pay rent. It would just be one less bill to pay and more opportunities for their own freedom. No boogeyman would crawl into your bedroom at night because you didn't pay rent. Grandpa h.

Why should anyone pay for anything?

Because if everything was free then no one would work and we wouldn't have stuff in the first place.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 NO!! You'll never understand this, will you? Or you refuse to on purpose. Free will means you can do anything you want at any time. If I hired a worker, technically, he could just walk off the job any time he wanted for any reason he wanted. That's free will. .

In the case of a sweatshop, you have free will to walk off the job and straight into poverty, which you already have while working.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 They exist because the American voters were brainwashed by the socialists into believing that the unregulated market wasn't the most efficient way, which it is. .

So people weren't utterly appaled by their working conditions? There was no workplace violence? No one went on strike to protest the free market and demand labor laws?

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 It's not a fact it's your warped opinion. Everyone has the exact same free will as another. .

I don't think so. Some people live under more oppressiev conditions than others. And all kinds of hurdles do exist if you are not well off financially. To believe otherwise is to have a "warped opinion." Sorry.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 There is no more such a thing as a freer free will as there is a blacker black. Black is defined as the absense of color. So obviously there can't be an more black black. .

Actually, black is all the colors combined. As an artist, I know this.
But we're not talking about black and white here, we're talking about reality.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 To the same effect, free will is defined as being able to do whatever, whenever, for any reason. Obviously you can't be more free than that.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=free%20will
Free will:
The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
Free will:
Freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...y&va=free+will
Free will is as subjective as reality itself. External circumstances and prior causes apply to any given situation, so obviously some wills are more free than others.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Is that justification for everyone subsidizing your opinion of what should be the quality of living for everyone? Obviously not.

Well, I'm not talking exclusively about my own opinions, but the minimal standards that most people would agree to.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 You keep saying this lie as if it will one day be true if you can say it enough. After this response, I will not respond to it any more: companies own all the money that comes from the sale of their products. .

Companies are imaginary. They are not people so they can not rationally own anything.
When you talk about companies owning things, it's really code word for the CEO's, shareholders and probably the government. I merely point out that workers are part of a company, therefore minimal standards should be set in order to avoid conflict.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The only thing that led to labor laws was the lying to of the public. .

Is it a lie to say that workplace had terrible conditions? Or that private corporations own much of the land and therefore limit alternatives to working for them?

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 But no one has a right to property unless they earn it!

That's simply not true. If people claim something first, then it is theirs. They need't earn anything. I needn't earn a dollar to spend it if I've found it in the street. And then there are potential owenership disputes if you have two people working for the same thing.
Some things are just granted, fairly or unfairly, without anyone having earned it more than someone else.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Why should anyone pay for anything?

That's a valid question. Too bad you are too afraid to examine this issue in depth enough to realize a basic fact like: money has no intrinsic value and largely imaginary properties.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Because if everything was free then no one would work and we wouldn't have stuff in the first place.

If people followed the current setup exclusively, then yes. But people actually can and do produce things without trying to gain money. That's simply a fact. I don't think history has ended. I realize that just becaus the world exists in a certain way, it doesn't mean that is the only way it can exist. The reaosons people use money so often are:
1. They are indoctrinated and exposed to it very often.
2. It is the government mandated form of exchange.

Grandpa h.

[zynner]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Yes, it is called the modus operondi of American corporations.

I asked if you can cite a real world example to support your position.

If you cannot, just say so.

If you can, then do so.

~ zynner

[grandpa]

Quote by: zynner I asked if you can cite a real world example to support your position. If you cannot, just say so. If you can, then do so. ~ zynner

Obviously somebody making a small amount of money an hour is making less than the millionaire. Maybe it isn't the 600% figure in every case, but it is still quite larger.

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

We shouldn't underestimate the importance of organized labour and its social achievements. The weekend, 40 hour work week, all sorts of worker safety regulations, pension plans and other benefits, were all brought about thanks to union leadership. Without a doubt workers would have worse working conditions, lower wages and fewer benefits had organized labour not developed. A grumpy dissatisfied worker can easily be fired, a factory full of unhappy workers has to be mediated with.

[Ghumanto]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I think foreign debt needs to be considered on a case, by case basis. Where ever the U.S., the U.N., the World Bank, the International Monetary fund are found to be involved, we should cancel the debt. These people have been enslaved far too long already.

IMF , World Bank etc are created to enslave the underdeveloped countries . You can't find a single country has been developed using loans ( and 3 times more advises ) from IMF / World Bank. They have a one size fit for all theory which also concentrated on enslaving the country.

What is needed is to make really free environment where 3rd world countries can sale their products freely and the west will not put barricades by creating so called human rights things or extra ordinary quality requirements.
Here's an example how the west is cheating the 3rd world countries -
Marks & Spencer is asking for a certain limit of Formaldehyde in the fabric , anymore - the garment is rejected.
Surprisingly that certain amount is more than the amount found in the apples grown in the western countries !
So, eating the formaldehyde is okay because that is western made; wearing the garment is not because that's from 3rd world !!!!

Let's stop lengthy debate ; let's focus on the subject itself.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: grandpa So people weren't utterly appaled by their working conditions? There was no workplace violence? No one went on strike to protest the free market and demand labor laws?

No. No one has every done that.

What people have done is organize themselves to demand better wages from their employeers.

The government was left completely out of the loop. They simply butted in where they never had any business in the first place.



[/quote]Actually, black is all the colors combined. As an artist, I know this.
But we're not talking about black and white here, we're talking about reality. [/quote]

You're talking about the subtractive process.

In physics, visable light is defined by the additive process (IE, black is lack of light, white is the full spectrum of light, the 3 primary colors are red, blue, and green (vs. magenta, cyan, and yellow pigments of the subtractive process)).

Well, I'm not talking exclusively about my own opinions, but the minimal standards that most people would agree to.

Of course you have no proof.

I can claim that most people would agree to my standards and I'd be equally correct as you.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 No. No one has every done that. What people have done is organize themselves to demand better wages from their employeers. The government was left completely out of the loop. They simply butted in where they never had any business in the first place. .

You're simply and fascinatingly wrong. Many people demanded labor laws.
The government was involved in shutting workers up, for the most part, but that ended up switched around to a notable extent.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 You're talking about the subtractive process. In physics, visable light is defined by the additive process (IE, black is lack of light, white is the full spectrum of light, the 3 primary colors are red, blue, and green (vs. magenta, cyan, and yellow pigments of the subtractive process)). .

Black is both the absense of color AND all colors combined.
But we're getting sidetracked.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Of course you have no proof. I can claim that most people would agree to my standards and I'd be equally correct as you.

What I am saying is people often do demand better standards and call for minimal standards. I'm just a single person, so I can't come up with a universal standard.
Common sense would indicate that most people frown upon sweatshops, as would you if you lived in a country with such poverty and you were being exploited.

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

The World Bank, its subordinate regional development banks, the IMF, the ILO and other institutions, were originally crafted as integral elements of the UN. The Cold War and all that messed with the GATT so things didn't develop as originally conceived. We've seen remarkable progress despite the mess. Now we've got international commercial dispute resolution mechanisms, appeals can be brought, sanctions mediated and even third parties can intervene. When the Cold War was on the US could use the IMF to finance development in friendly states juxtaposed to the Soviet satellites. Then we saw massive industrial development projects like shipyards, high furnaces and railways, often undertaken more out of nationalistic rivalry than for economic development. Plenty of tin-pot dictators got billions for Rivieran palaces and fancy cars, they squandered funds and left their countries in arrears. After the Cold War the need to develop rival satellites diminished but they still need development themselves. Servicing foreign debt takes money needed for development so now we think condonation might be a good idea. It wasn't anticipated so much wealth would be missapplied or that financing would be so hard (without proper investment).

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: grandpa Black is both the absense of color AND all colors combined. But we're getting sidetracked.

The physics definition for light (IE, electromagnetic radiation) is the only definition there is. IE, black is the absense of light.


If you only want to consider pigments, then you can consider the subtractive process all you want.

What I am saying is people often do demand better standards and call for minimal standards. I'm just a single person, so I can't come up with a universal standard. Common sense would indicate that most people frown upon sweatshops, as would you if you lived in a country with such poverty and you were being exploited. Grandpa h.

But, alas, your version of "common sense" is all too uncommon.

Even the people in the 3rd world countries disagree with you by far.

[zynner]

Quote by: grandpa Obviously somebody making a small amount of money an hour is making less than the millionaire. Maybe it isn't the 600% figure in every case, but it is still quite larger.Grandpa h.

That's not what Milton Bradley was talking about.

He was not saying that Shaq makes a lot more playing basketball than someone else who flips burgers.

He was saying that COMPANIES make HUGE PROFITS because workers get paid next to nothing.

He did NOT use a figure like 6% profit margin; he used 600% profit margin as a figure.

I am asking: Can he (or you) cite ONE example of business where the workers somehow get paid next to nothing and the company has a HUGE profit margin like this???

~ zynner

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The physics definition for light (IE, electromagnetic radiation) is the only definition there is. IE, black is the absense of light. .

Obviously there are more definitions and gradations of black. But again, this part of the conversation is pointless.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 But, alas, your version of "common sense" is all too uncommon. Even the people in the 3rd world countries disagree with you by far.

Where is your proof of this, that most people enjoy sweatshop labor and enjoy being over-exploited?

Grandpa h.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: zynner That's not what Milton Bradley was talking about. He was not saying that Shaq makes a lot more playing basketball than someone else who flips burgers. He was saying that COMPANIES make HUGE PROFITS because workers get paid next to nothing. He did NOT use a figure like 6% profit margin; he used 600% profit margin as a figure. I am asking: Can he (or you) cite ONE example of business where the workers somehow get paid next to nothing and the company has a HUGE profit margin like this??? ~ zynner

Without providing an example, I would suggest that my point is valid if only by the evidence you can witness yourself.


Why do companies outsource jobs to countries with lower paid workers?


Why are the candybars you now see on shelves in the U.S. made in Brasil?


Lower cost for the labor force equals a higher profit margin for the stockholder, which is the sole motivation for all companies that trade on the Stock Exchange. The rich stealing from the poor via a mechanism most poor are to disenfranchised to have the resources figure out.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Lower cost for the labor force equals a higher profit margin for the stockholder, which is the sole motivation for all companies that trade on the Stock Exchange. The rich stealing from the poor via a mechanism most poor are to disenfranchised to have the resources [to] figure out.

Just correcting.

[jose]

Money is lent to ¨countries¨ where the leaders take that money and send it to thier personnel accounts in Switzerland and the people then owe that plus interest?how about the world bank keeps track of the money and holds the leaders responsible for its repayment

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: grandpa Obviously there are more definitions and gradations of black. But again, this part of the conversation is pointless.

There are no gradations of black. Black nothing. As soon as you add something, it's not black.

Where is your proof of this, that most people enjoy sweatshop labor?

Where is your proof that they don't enjoy them?

[Compugasm]

Have you heard of Heifer? You can purchase gifts such as cows, goats, geese, and honeybees that provide families and communities with the resources necessary for economic growth and sustainability. For example, the gift of a cow typically provides four gallons of milk per day, and results in baby calves that can be given to other families in need. In fact, the gift of a cow could eventually help an entire community move from poverty to self-reliance.

[grandpa]

Color is relative, T-man. Pure black is quite rare, as is pure white.
I'm ending this pointless part of the conversation.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Where is your proof that they don't enjoy them?

Well, the idea of there being no stupid questiosn goes out the window with this one.
How do I know? Protests maybe? Or how about attempts at organizing labor throughout the world? Or how about the fact that these people live in poverty?

You simply aren't in touch with reality. I'm often surprised by these debates--they get really weird,

Grandpa h.