Artillery Round Containing Sarin Nerve Agent Explodes In Iraq

[spantol]

If you disagree, at least give me the courtesy of a logical reply ...

Yeah communism isn't that bad, it only killed a hundred million people, let's give it another chance!

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm

Constrained Capitalism != Communism

Logical reply, indeed.

[Rooster]

"people are paid what the CEO, et al, believe they should be paid and that is generally what will make the owners, etc. the most money. "

Which is all their labor is really worth. In a true free-market, a CEO will pay labor what ever it takes to keep them on the job. If you are making ten dollars an hour, and the factory down the street is paying 13, everyone goes down the street until either the 13 an hour ceo lowers his wage, or the 10 dollar ceo raises his. If you are working for ten an hour and can go down the street and make 13 at any time, you are worth more than you are getting paid.

Thats is the ONLY way you are worth more than you are getting paid. The government has no responsibility to make sure you have a nice life. Thats your problem. If you don't make enough, better yourself, change your situation, or get used to what you make, because you arn't worth a dime more.

[shartley]

"people are paid what the CEO, et al, believe they should be paid and that is generally what will make the owners, etc. the most money. "

Which is all their labor is really worth. In a true free-market, a CEO will pay labor what ever it takes to keep them on the job. If you are making ten dollars an hour, and the factory down the street is paying 13, everyone goes down the street until either the 13 an hour ceo lowers his wage, or the 10 dollar ceo raises his. If you are working for ten an hour and can go down the street and make 13 at any time, you are worth more than you are getting paid.

Thats is the ONLY way you are worth more than you are getting paid. The government has no responsibility to make sure you have a nice life. Thats your problem. If you don't make enough, better yourself, change your situation, or get used to what you make, because you arn't worth a dime more.

Sorry, but I think that (as with many of your ideas) is an oversimplification of the issue. And because of this, I believe you are wrong in your assessment of the situation.

[Rooster]

Most issues are only complicated becuase people insist on making them so. Nothing is overly-complicated when is comes to pure objectivity.

[RoadDawg]

Unions do more then deal with wages. A big part of what they are around for is safety in the work place. Example. Sometime in history (early 1900's I think) there was a factory fire that killed a lot of workers (don't have my history book's for references) due to how the place was set up and the lack of emergency exits on upper floors. Basically the Unions forced the plant owners to add in those exits so the people could get out in case of a fire. Now to me that seems pretty darn important. Especially if I'm the one that's gonna go crispy for some suit. Yes they can be greedy when it comes to money. For example we had a 4+ month grocery store strike over healthcare. The companies were cutting healthcare benefits from ALL employee's, except the big wigs. Personally I wasn't fond of this due to the fact the employee's deserve good healthcare if they already have it. Having something taken away because a competitor that doesn't offer those benefits (Wal-Mart) is moving into town and offering lower prices isn't very cool in my mind. They ended up settling sometime later and basically came to the means of current workers get the benefits but the new hires don't. Anyhow. I like how the thread has changed.

[shartley]

Most issues are only complicated becuase people insist on making them so. Nothing is overly-complicated when is comes to pure objectivity.

This is far from the truth... sorry.

Most simple things are simple, but the issues you like to discuss and assign simplicity to are most often not simple issues..... people only try to make them simple so they can prove any point they want to make.... which is usually wrong.

[FactsOfLife]

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm

Constrained Capitalism != Communism

Logical reply, indeed.

Ah yet another commie loving bonehead.

Constrained Capitalism. LOL you jackasses will try to give communism ANY face other than what it really is won't you.

I laugh every time I see another fool try to spin communism into something palatable.

Oh, it's never been tried! There's never been REAL communism(my personal fave). Oh, Constrained Capitalism != Communism.


Please, communism is one of the single most destructive forces that has ever been unleashed on free people by a few tyrants.

So spare me your nonsense about how the world would be a better place if we just gave communism one more try.

You want to try communism before you buy? Go move to Cuba for a couple of years and see how you like it first.

I'm sure they'll understand your rants about Castro the same way you rant about the US government...

[spantol]

Okay.

First, up your dosage. Then, point me to where I made any favorable comment about communism. Point out where, exactly, I offered my "nonsense about how the world would be a better place if we just gave communism one more try." Point out where I suggested communism be given another try. Finally, find one instance where I complained about the US Government. You sure read an awful lot into such a simple post.

Classic Strawman, pure and simple. I give it an A+ for sophistry, though.

[FactsOfLife]

Okay.

First, up your dosage. Then, point me to where I made any favorable comment about communism. Point out where, exactly, I offered my "nonsense about how the world would be a better place if we just gave communism one more try." Point out where I suggested communism be given another try. Finally, find one instance where I complained about the US Government. You sure read an awful lot into such a simple post.

Classic Strawman, pure and simple. I give it an A+ for sophistry, though.

Let's see, Restricted Capitalism != Communism. Sounds like a defense of communism to me.

Peddle your lame nonsense elswhere.

[Rooster]

"This is far from the truth... sorry.

Most simple things are simple, but the issues you like to discuss and assign simplicity to are most often not simple issues..... people only try to make them simple so they can prove any point they want to make.... which is usually wrong."


The most simple answer is usually the correct one. It's a scientific theroy that been around as long as most western philosophy. Any issue can be boiled down to its component parts. Just becuase people don't want to hear it, doesn't mean it can't be done.

[spantol]

How the hell so? Carnifex was, essentially, asking what was wrong with the limits we place on capitalism (notably the idea of a minimum wage), and you replied by insinuating that he was defending communism.

I replied noting that constrained capitalism is not communism, calling out your strawman.

For saying such, I'm painted a communist sympathizer. Your last name wouldn't happen to be McCarthy, would it?

Are you going to continue to misdirect, or are you going to answer the guy's question?

Let's see, Restricted Capitalism != Communism. Sounds like a defense of communism to me.

Peddle your lame nonsense elswhere.

[Bluestrike_2]

Speaking of EVIL unions, how can we forget Pre and his struggle against the scandalous AAU(Amateur Athletic Union). Our greatest track and field stars back then got NO MORE than $3 a day for AAU sponsored meets. And if you tried to run in a non-AAU sponsored event, you were sanctioned, thus turning pro. Poof! There goes Montreal[Olympics]

http://stevepre.com/aau.html

Pre= Steve Prefontaine

[-Carnifex-]

"people are paid what the CEO, et al, believe they should be paid and that is generally what will make the owners, etc. the most money. "

Which is all their labor is really worth. In a true free-market, a CEO will pay labor what ever it takes to keep them on the job. If you are making ten dollars an hour, and the factory down the street is paying 13, everyone goes down the street until either the 13 an hour ceo lowers his wage, or the 10 dollar ceo raises his. If you are working for ten an hour and can go down the street and make 13 at any time, you are worth more than you are getting paid.

So, what if all of the CEOs decide to drop their wages to a point where the workers can barely get by? Where they have to live in ghettos or on the streets? How is that any better than living in Russia? That's something you believe Americans should have to deal with? And if it got to this point, you still believe unions are evil and wrong?

My definition of a Free Market could be skew, but it means no gov't intervention in the economy, correct? What if there was a depression? We saw Hoover's policy of laissez fare, which obviously didn't work.

If I'm not mistaken, we had an almost totally Free Market in early America, and because of it the standard of living was horrible.

Thats is the ONLY way you are worth more than you are getting paid. The government has no responsibility to make sure you have a nice life. Thats your problem. If you don't make enough, better yourself, change your situation, or get used to what you make, because you arn't worth a dime more.

I'm not saying that the gov't should make your life nice and I posed a situation in which you could not better yourself nor change your situation. I was saying that you should at least be able to aford a decent living space and some amenities.

I don't see how a totally Free Market is better than Communism. It still has the potential to bring poverty to the workers.It also has the potential for monopoly. So how would a Free mark be more beneficial than the one we have now?

[spantol]

My definition of a Free Market could be skew, but it means no gov't intervention in the economy, correct?

What you're describing is generally referred to as Laissez-Faire Capitalism, which holds that the free market functions to the greatest good when left to its own devices, without any governmental involvement. No (or, in practice, minimal) taxes, subsidies, regulation, or government ownership. It's probably best abstracted as one end of an economic continuum, with communism/socialism on the other end.

I don't see how a totally Free Market is better than Communism. It still has the potential to bring poverty to the workers.It also has the potential for monopoly. So how would a Free mark be more beneficial than the one we have now?

You seem to be asking two questions there. One, is LFC any better than pure communism, and two, is LFC better than the constrained capitalism we currently practice.

I would suggest that operating at either extreme is best avoided. Historically, LFC didn't do to well for us, leading to the emergence of the robber barons of the late 19th and early 20th century, and the worker exploitation mentioned earlier in this thread. Some have also blamed LFC for failing to prevent WWI and the Great Depression. On the other hand, the classic problem with communism is that it removes any real incentive for the individual to excel--perhaps the most un-American concept imaginable. There's also the propensity of communist leaders to carry out purges, and whatnot. For more information, Wikipedia.com has a more thorough description of the problems associated with both--just search for "socialism," "communism," and "laissez-faire," separately.

As for whether LFC is better than what we're doing currently, it comes down to what you mean by better. The quick and dirty metric would be to ask whether the average American today is better off than the average American of the early part of the last century.

[Rooster]

"Our greatest track and field stars back then got NO MORE than $3 a day for AAU sponsored meets."

Amatures arn't supposed to get paid at all.

A true free market will work to the greatest good. This is the reason for corporate philanthropy. Financially it doesn't make sense, except when you take into account public relations. High speed transfer of information keeps CEOs from setting up little kingdoms, becuase everyone would find out about it very quickly. People have much more freedom of movement now, they can go across the country for a job if need be, and fairly cheaply. The other thing that any CEO in such a system must realize is the potensial for a revolt. Nothing on a violent revolutionary scale, but such as all the employees quitting. And while that CEO would have the power to fire all those people for not showing up to work, it would be a tremendous loss of money and resources to retrain an entire workforce.