Immigration and multiculturalism news

[SoliFortissimi]

And as we all know the corporations of the time never used violence to keep their workers in line.

If the workers want to fight, then the Corporations should get to fight back. It's not like the former has any right to threaten replacement workers.

I'm not calling you a Marxist, I just want to note that labor disputes are much more complex than pop history will teach you. I would rather avoid name calling if possible.

 

[Bacle]

Because of Unions. It was a mess because of Unions. And it stopped being a mess when The Iron Lady spanked them.

If the workers in a union don't work, then you can't stop the whole economy to pander to their demands. What you do is to shift production to factories where the workers will earn their pay, and keep doing it until the gangsters break.

There can be no negotiation with terrorists.

....you consider Union activates 'terrorism', simply because Labour was retarded and trying to enforce dumb pay caps on Union in the UK.

No, Labour are the ones who were in the wrong, and just because Thatcher came down hard on the unions doesn't make it a good thing.

Thatcher's good moves were in the Falklands, not in going after unions.

Unions routinely fuck over their members. The union exists to enrich the union bosses, not protect the livelihood of its members

We literally just had an example with the writers guild and the AI deal. Where the union screwed all their members, lied and claimed their members approved it, and cut a deal to outsource all the work to AI in exchange for the union getting a cut.
Not the union members, they don't see a cent of it. (unless the AI is using their likeness)

Yes, unions can be abusive, and I have never liked the way some unions can force you to join them just to be employeed in some places.

However, it is not the unions who shipped the guts of the American economy over to the CCP and India, nor were unions the ones who fell for the lies of 'trickle down economics' like most of the GOP did.

If the workers want to fight, then the Corporations should get to fight back. It's not like the former has any right to threaten replacement workers.

I'm not calling you a Marxist, I just want to note that labor disputes are much more complex than pop history will teach you. I would rather avoid name calling if possible.

You do know what the Ludlow Massacre was, right?

Ludlow Massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or the various crimes of the Pinkerton's?

Or do you think the Pinkertons and CO Nat Guard were the 'good guys'?

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Or hiring thugs and even getting the national guard to open fire or drop bombs on striking laborers.

Please stop pretending that the Unions haven't done this, and continue to do this today.

Conservatives will complain about ‘degeneracy’ and the evils of the global ‘elite’ in one breath and then turn around and preach that ‘umm ackthually, rich oligarchs have a god given right to act as amoral as they want, and only an evil socialist would ever complain about anything bad they do.’

Also, please stop telling me what I believe. I'm a Conservative.

I'm gonna tell you that Capitalism requires that you act morally if it's going to succeed. Capitalism starts with a moral imperative not to fuck over your employees and customers because that's how you build a solid business. If it's not moral, than it quickly becomes monopolistic and gains control of the levers of governmental power as well.

Seem kinda familiar?

What we have today is NOT Capitalism.

In regards to Unions today, they've lost their purpose in every case where they've grown bigger than local. Forced unionization and payment of dues in order to work, etc...

 

[SoliFortissimi]

However, it is not the unions who shipped the guts of the American economy over to the CCP and India, nor were unions the ones who fell for the lies of 'trickle down economics' like most of the GOP did.

"Trickle down economics" is leftie propaganda. It's called Supply Side Economics, and it has visibly worked in making goods and services cheaper and thus increasing general human development.

Zero sum thinking is pointless. Free trade will benefit both sides.

Or do you think the Pinkertons and CO Nat Guard were the 'good guys'?

No, no, I am simply telling you it's more complex. In many of these cases, the workers were the ones who initiated hostilities by attacking replacement workers. In many of these cases, the corporations overstepped their boundaries.

It's a very nuanced topic. And for the most part, is better handled without any emotional biases.

 

[mrttao]

Yes, unions can be abusive, and I have never liked the way some unions can force you to join them just to be employeed in some places.

However, it is not the unions who shipped the guts of the American economy over to the CCP and India, nor were unions the ones who fell for the lies of 'trickle down economics' like most of the GOP did.

1. You literally just quoted me giving an example of a union colluding with the corporation to outsource work.

2. I am not trying to absolve corporations or so called "free trade". But realize there is more than one guilty party. If 3 men gut a guy, you don't go "well only tim held the knife. john and and richard only held the victim down while tim did the knifework. therefore only tim is the murderer".
No, all 3 of them are guilty of 1st degree murder.

3. it isn't really "free trade" that resulted in all the outsourcing.
The USA LITERALLY charges corporations more in taxes for products produced in america. and on top of that also enforces a bunch of environmental regulations and expenses in usa but not abroad.

just from those govt penalties alone you get a vast price difference that has killed countless businesses that tried to keep production in USA because they were undercut in prices too much. While causing countless other business to reluctantly shift production abroad.

Probably most big corporations would have chosen to do so anyways because they are evil and want make use of cheap slave labor.
But were never given a choice. as the usa govt literally coerced them to outsource.

4. Trickle down economics is literally a strawman invented by george bush sr when he ran against reagan. Which got picked up by MSM as a strawman against conservatives... the only people who advocate for trickle down are contrarians who go "if liberals hate it, it must be good". Not realizing it is a strawman. Which, granted, I HAVE met such people who genuinely do that.

 

[Poe]

Zero sum thinking is pointless. Free trade will benefit both sides.

This is only true in certain sectors and for a limited time. The reality is that this talking point you have is at logical odds with the fundamental theory of economics. That is, individuals have unlimited wants but the universe has limited resources. Leaving aside the pure economics, your theory rests on the idea that each country excels at something and thus all countries can just sell the goods they are the best at to all other countries. As has been stated this requires a utopia to realize, even if it was the case that each country has something it is the best in the world at (which it isn't.)

If we lived in a world without borders, without nations and wars, your purely capitalist society would be a bit more feasible. It would still be the case that there would be huge numbers of losers. E.g. In order for China to rise as an industrial power large swathes of America had to lose out, there is simply not the global demand for them both to be large manufacturing powerhouses and the nature of economics, of capitalism, is one of competition.

 

[Bacle]

Please stop pretending that the Unions haven't done this, and continue to do this today.

Also, please stop telling me what I believe. I'm a Conservative.

I'm gonna tell you that Capitalism requires that you act morally if it's going to succeed. Capitalism starts with a moral imperative not to fuck over your employees and customers because that's how you build a solid business. If it's not moral, than it quickly becomes monopolistic and gains control of the levers of governmental power as well.

Seem kinda familiar?

What we have today is NOT Capitalism.

In regards to Unions today, they've lost their purpose in every case where they've grown bigger than local. Forced unionization and payment of dues in order to work, etc...

Ea Nasir would like a word about any moral imperative not to fuck over customers, given a major part of the Near-East early historical record are complaints about his copper quality in various markets and governments.

And he is effective the Ur-Capitalist in history.

US court decisions also tend to disagree with you, and those are what hold weight with corpo lawyers.

"Trickle down economics" is leftie propaganda. It's called Supply Side Economics, and it has visibly worked in making goods and services cheaper and thus increasing general human development.

Zero sum thinking is pointless. Free trade will benefit both sides.

Zero sum is reality, even if Reaganites don't want to admit it

There are only so many containers, only so many ships, only so much flow that can move through the Suez or Panama canals, and now that is being laid bare in the news every month since the Wu Flu happened.

The supply chain snarls, the reduced capacity of the Panama Canal and the Houthi's attacks in the Red Sea show the this fact.

The entire economic paradigm Friedman envisioned relied on two small doors to flow 'efficiently', doors which are both vulnerable to political and ecological variations, and the whole blasted globalized system has shipping snarls like the Evergiven or what happened to the Key Bridge in Baltimore happening more regularly.

Reaganites and Friedman's views relies on an assumption of honest dealing that simply isn't the reality in many nations or economies, and frankly was based on the assumption large scale conflict was simply not possible in the future, and thus has been shown very flawed by what has happened to Ukraine.

No, no, I am simply telling you it's more complex. In many of these cases, the workers were the ones who initiated hostilities by attacking replacement workers. In many of these cases, the corporations overstepped their boundaries.

It's a very nuanced topic. And for the most part, is better handled without any emotional biases.

Human's aren't Vulcans.

This is another flaw of Reaganite thinking, trying to remove emotion, a fundemental human trait, from the political and economic equation.

It's why the Dems still appeal to emotion without shame and win in many place legitly; because they don't have the same mindbug or desire for a 'stoic world' like many on the Right do.

 

[Captain X]

 

[LordDemiurge]

I'm gonna tell you that Capitalism requires that you act morally

No it doesn’t.

Capitalism simply requires you to act in a way that maximizes profit.

And the ways in which profitable behavior does not equate to moral behavior, are so numerous that I don’t even consider them worth listing.

Porn is profitable, but I don’t consider it moral. I don’t consider teenage E-thots selling their bodies online to be moral either.

I also don’t support open borders even though it’s more ‘profitable’ to hire 3rd world serfs who will drive down wages and benefits.

 

[Bacle]

No it doesn’t.

Capitalism simply requires you to act in a way that maximizes profit.

And the ways in which profitable behavior does not equate to moral behavior, are so numerous that I don’t even consider them worth listing.

Porn is profitable, but I don’t consider it moral. I don’t consider teenage E-thots selling their bodies online to be moral either.

I also don’t support open borders even though it’s more ‘profitable’ to hire 3rd world serfs who will drive down wages and benefits.

I feel like if a lot of the Reaganite's just dressed up as Ferengi and worshipped the Rules of Acquisition, it'd be more honest than pretending anything really matters to their politics besides doing whatever it takes to 'make the line go up'.

Quarterly earnings reports are the most important documents in the world, after all.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Will you stop insulting us?

 

[Bacle]

Will you stop insulting us?

You don't seem to understand how much of a joke Reagan is to people who are outside a certain sections of the older GOP.

I didn't move away from the Democrats because I liked Reagan or his legacy, that's for sure.

I think Reagan and his legacy is mostly trying to claim credit for what the Roosevelt's did for the US before and during WW2, and what Ike did right afterewards.

Reagan's legacy didn't even beat the USSR/Russia/the CCP in the long run, and did open the Right up to some very dumb mindbugs that have caused it to keep shooting itself in the foot with younger generations.

His 'Shining City On The Hill' gave his followers and a lot of the world a very false and very naive view of US domestic and foreign policy, while very much helping fuck over the the very economic engine that had given the US it's position when he became president.

About the only good things Reagan did in my view was reactivate the Iowa's and actually rebuild the US military to degree.

But even that didn't last, because fools like Friedman convinced DC and Wall Street that another large scale war was unthinkable and a 'lean military', sanctions, and trade was enough once the Berlin Wall fell. Ukraine is paying the price for that every day.

 

[LordDemiurge]

Will you stop insulting us?

Fine, apologies for being inflammatory.

Let’s agree to disagree for now.

 

[King Arts]

Will you stop insulting us?

How is anyone insulting you? They are just stating facts that you act analogous to the Ferengi.

Is comparing someone to a fictional group that is similar to them an insult?

 

[posh-goofiness]

He's a leftist larping as a conservative. He equates fictional characters to real world stereotypes.

 

[King Arts]

I mean Christians don't get mad when people say Naruto is ninja Jesus. It sounds like he needs thicker skin.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

I wonder when people remember that these creeps have addresses and relatives.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Ea Nasir would like a word about any moral imperative not to fuck over customers, given a major part of the Near-East early historical record are complaints about his copper quality in various markets and governments.

Of course people have screwed the pooch. People are generally interested in themselves. That's why there's no such thing as a human invention that's innately good. We're too fucked up.

US court decisions also tend to disagree with you, and those are what hold weight with corpo lawyers.

Don't care about that. The courts don't actually determine what's moral. They just deal with legal. And lawyers have been screwing that up for millennia.

Capitalism simply requires you to act in a way that maximizes profit.

Bullshit. Capitalism requires that you enact free trade. In ideal Capitalism people trade goods and the highest gain for both parties. Anything that forces that exchange to go one way or the other decreases the total wealth.

 

[mrttao]

Bullshit. Capitalism requires that you enact free trade.

You raise some good points but I think a couple of things to note are:
due to years of strawmen and gaslighting by communists we ended up with multiple competing definitions of capitalism. With 90%+ of people believing in straw definitions instead of the actual definitions.

Also, "free trade" as in "voluntary exchange of goods within your country" or "free trade" as in "have all manufacturing done in foreign countries by slaves without any pesky safety or environmental regulation"

I would define capitalism as "the right to own property and only voluntary exchange of goods".

In which case capitalism REQUIRES aggressive antitrust enforcement on businesses and politicians to ensure businesses don't coerce people to buy from them. For example by bribing politicians to kill competitors (LBRY was recently killed by the SEC. likely on google's behalf. big pharma engages in patent evergreening to keep drug prices high. Disney bribes politicians to keep extending their IP expirations, etc) or engaging in shady business to kill competitors (amazon ate a 150 million dollar loss to kill Diapers.com by selling diapers at a loss to the Diapers.com customers. HMO do kickback system with pharmacies. etc)

I mean, sure. if you cut down on the green hysteria and the like, you can increase local production and reduce offshore outsourcing.
Same as if you cut down on bullshit red tape that exists solely because megacorps bribed politicians to make it illegal for startups to compete with them.
But on the other hand, if instead of trimming the above govt malfeasance you cut down the govt ability to break monopolies then you make things worse.

 

[Abhorsen]

This is only true in certain sectors and for a limited time.

No. It's actually inherently true of any free exchange between two parties. Because both sides were happy to trade, and made the effort to do so, it's a benefit to both parties to trade in this way, which makes it a non-zero sum game. This is the core of why capitalism actually produces wealth, but socialism cannot.

.

That is, individuals have unlimited wants but the universe has limited resources. Leaving aside the pure economics, your theory rests on the idea that each country excels at something and thus all countries can just sell the goods they are the best at to all other countries. As has been stated this requires a utopia to realize, even if it was the case that each country has something it is the best in the world at (which it isn't.)

The above is just completely wrong, but these are common misconceptions.

First, capitalism works because there are limited resources. In fact, resources being unlimited is one of the only ways SciFi has escaped capitalism (Star Trek), and even then it comes back somewhat. In fact, a free market is how best to allocate a limited resource, as it's basically a massive computer that outputs the answer as a price and who's offering that price. More, that price tells people what resources are becoming limited, and when to look for more or an alternative.

Second, comparative advantage (the ide free trade is based on) very much doesn't require that each country excels. Just that their rates of production are in different ratios. One country can actually be better at everything than the other country, and it's still worth trading.

Here's an example, let's cut the Economy into two goods, minerals and machines. Uganda takes 1 day to make a mineral, and 1 week to make a machine. The US can produce at a mineral in half a day, or a machine in one day.

The US could earn 3 mineral and 3 machine by taking 4.5 days doing it themselves. And it would take Uganda 8 days to just get to 1 mineral and 1 machine. Or they could trade. The US offers to trade a machine for 3 mineral. Uganda accepts. It save the US a half day/ work, and Uganda 4 days

	Time to produce alone	Time to produce with trade (1 machine = 3 mineral)
US	3 * .5 + 3 * 1 = 4.5 days	4 * 1 = 4 days
Uganda	1 * 1 + 1 * 7 = 8 days	1 * 4 = 4 days

Basically, you don't actually need to excel. You just need to produce in a different time ratio to make trade profitable.

The above is the math behind why free trade works. Now there are actual issues with free trade, but not any of the ones you listed. They aren't really economic issues, mostly they are power/politics issues. The big ones are the following: first, benefiting an enemy. The issue with free trade with China is that you've empowered a geopolitical enemy. That's not an economic issue though, that's a power/politics issue. More, China's flouting of intellectual property has made other issues of free trade as well. Then there's the moving of jobs, a classic politics issue. And I could go on.

You don't seem to understand how much of a joke Reagan is to people who are outside a certain sections of the older GOP.

You're a socialist (FDR loving), of course you hate Reagan, news at 11.

There's a ton of reasons to hate Reagan btw. He increased the national debt a ton, was a gungrabber, etc. But not what you are saying.

Reagan's legacy didn't even beat the USSR/Russia/the CCP in the long run, and did open the Right up to some very dumb mindbugs that have caused it to keep shooting itself in the foot with younger generations.

He absolutely did what he was trying to do, which was defeat the USSR. He caused millions of people to be released from slavery, but you add in the CCP so you can hide his greatest accomplishment. It's like complaining that Jesus didn't come back from the dead twice.

Capitalism simply requires you to act in a way that maximizes profit.

Not true. There are ways to act that maximize profit which aren't capitalistic. The clearest cut example is theft. If you run a thieving ring, you aren't a capitalist. Capitalism requires respect for private property. Now, there's definitely bad behavior that capitalism is fine with (drug dealing most notably, also mercenary work), but it's not that simple. Much of bad behavior is banned by capitalism, with how much is banned decided by the precise definition of capitalism.