For my Libertarian friends

akamaisondufromage wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Could you explain how Capitalism works? How is Nike exploiting poor people by offering them jobs? Nike "sweatshops" give people an enemoursly higher standard of living than they would have without Nike's job. You calling it exploitation is absurd. They offer a job. People willingly take it. Their lives are improved. Nike's business is improved.   Capitalism - Rich people have the mode of production.  Poor people wwork for them.  Rich people pay poor people as little as they can get away with.  Poor people will get more money if there are less poor people to exploit.  Poor people will get more money if they have a limited skill.  If rich people can find people who will work for less with the right skills then they will move their mode of prod to AAfrica r India or whereever.    Nike only check they are not employing kids who should be at school if they are forced to.

Where does the middle class come in at since you keep making this about rich and poor?

akamaisondufromage wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Could you explain how Capitalism works? How is Nike exploiting poor people by offering them jobs? Nike "sweatshops" give people an enemoursly higher standard of living than they would have without Nike's job. You calling it exploitation is absurd. They offer a job. People willingly take it. Their lives are improved. Nike's business is improved.   Capitalism - Rich people have the mode of production.  Poor people wwork for them.  Rich people pay poor people as little as they can get away with.  Poor people will get more money if there are less poor people to exploit.  Poor people will get more money if they have a limited skill.  If rich people can find people who will work for less with the right skills then they will move their mode of prod to AAfrica r India or whereever.    Nike only check they are not employing kids who should be at school if they are forced to.

Why should the kids be in school? Obviously they and their families believe they are better off working at Nike than going to school, or they wouldn't do it. Do you know what is good for them better than they do? What good is school if they are not making enough money to eat? If they work for Nike instead, they eat.

Epignosis wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: thellama73 wrote: " The magority of the tax would come from basics and from the poor or middle class." Again, you're just guessing. You have nothing to back that statement up except antipathy towards people who make more money than you do.   f**k sake!  Yes I'm just guessing.  But I have a hunch that in this country anyway, we sell more jackets than 2000 yr old bottles of malt.  So in my nieve stupid bit of guess work I feel more tax will come from sales of jackets than 2000 yr old malt.  Of course not only am I guessing I am hypothising or whatever you call it, as I do not know exxactly what tax rat Robert has in mind!   A $10 jacket would not have as much tax as a $400 jacket.  Say you have a 10% tax (just an easy number to work with as I drink my third gin and tonic).  The $10 jacket is $11 and the $400 jacket is $440 after tax. So someone buying a $10 jacket pays $1 in tax, and a person who who buys a $400 jacket pays $40 in tax. Now, if you know any poor people buying $400 jackets, then I could probably tell you why they are poor, and it has nothing to do with exploitation by the rich.

 

thellama73 wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Could you explain how Capitalism works? How is Nike exploiting poor people by offering them jobs? Nike "sweatshops" give people an enemoursly higher standard of living than they would have without Nike's job. You calling it exploitation is absurd. They offer a job. People willingly take it. Their lives are improved. Nike's business is improved.   Capitalism - Rich people have the mode of production.  Poor people wwork for them.  Rich people pay poor people as little as they can get away with.  Poor people will get more money if there are less poor people to exploit.  Poor people will get more money if they have a limited skill.  If rich people can find people who will work for less with the right skills then they will move their mode of prod to AAfrica r India or whereever.    Nike only check they are not employing kids who should be at school if they are forced to. Why should the kids be in school? Obviously they and their families believe they are better off working at Nike than going to school, or they wouldn't do it. Do you know what is good for them better than they do? What good is school if they are not making enough money to eat? If they work for Nike instead, they eat.

?? 

Edited by The T - September 27 2010 at 16:53

Epignosis wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Could you explain how Capitalism works? How is Nike exploiting poor people by offering them jobs? Nike "sweatshops" give people an enemoursly higher standard of living than they would have without Nike's job. You calling it exploitation is absurd. They offer a job. People willingly take it. Their lives are improved. Nike's business is improved.   Capitalism - Rich people have the mode of production.  Poor people wwork for them.  Rich people pay poor people as little as they can get away with.  Poor people will get more money if there are less poor people to exploit.  Poor people will get more money if they have a limited skill.  If rich people can find people who will work for less with the right skills then they will move their mode of prod to AAfrica r India or whereever.    Nike only check they are not employing kids who should be at school if they are forced to. Where does the middle class come in at since you keep making this about rich and poor?

 

akamaisondufromage wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Could you explain how Capitalism works? How is Nike exploiting poor people by offering them jobs? Nike "sweatshops" give people an enemoursly higher standard of living than they would have without Nike's job. You calling it exploitation is absurd. They offer a job. People willingly take it. Their lives are improved. Nike's business is improved.   Capitalism - Rich people have the mode of production.  Poor people wwork for them.  Rich people pay poor people as little as they can get away with.  Poor people will get more money if there are less poor people to exploit.  Poor people will get more money if they have a limited skill.  If rich people can find people who will work for less with the right skills then they will move their mode of prod to AAfrica r India or whereever.    Nike only check they are not employing kids who should be at school if they are forced to.

Why should they check? What's wrong with child labor?

Anyone is able to control a mode of production. People of all income brackets work for those who have some mode of production.

Owners of a business pay as little as they can. Workers try to get as much money out of a businessman as they can. What you're describing is not exploitation, it is negotiation.

You didn't address my point at all. People working in sweatshops benefit from the work. They are better off because of the job. Nike is better off. Both parties benefit, and agree to the contract of their own free will.

The T wrote: ??  Explain the privacy part. Please don't become like Pat who just says "X is thus" and leaves it like that. Elaboration please.

Sure thing.

Under an income tax (what we have now, of course), one must disclose his earnings and other aspects of his private life (such as medical costs) to prove deductions.  That's the government forcing themselves into our private lives.  What business is it of their how much money I make and from where or how much I spent on medical care?  Also, our current system tries to socially engineer us by providing benefits for marriage or owning a house or any number of things.  Plus, the tax code is incredibly, incredibly complicated, such that it takes numerous hired professionals (i.e., the IRS) to deal with it (and they cost money too).

Under a consumption tax, no personal details whatsoever need be disclosed to anyone for tax purposes.  You buy something, you pay a flat rate on the item in question.  Done deal.

Epignosis wrote: [QUOTE=The T] ??  Explain the privacy part. Please don't become like Pat who just says "X is thus" and leaves it like that. Elaboration please.

Sure thing.

Under an income tax (what we have now, of course), one must disclose his earnings and other aspects of his private life (such as medical costs) to prove deductions.  That's the government forcing themselves into our private lives.  What business is it of their how much money I make and from where or how much I spent on medical care?  Also, our current system tries to socially engineer us by providing benefits for marriage or owning a house or any number of things.  Plus, the tax code is incredibly, incredibly complicated, such that it takes numerous hired professionals (i.e., the IRS) to deal with it (and they cost money too).

Under a consumption tax, no personal details whatsoever need be disclosed to anyone for tax purposes.  You buy something, you pay a flat rate on the item in question.  Done deal.
[/QUOTE

Lol failure to address any points.

Children don't agree to it? With the choice between go to school and eat rocks, or go to work and eat bread, you think they're not competent enough to make that choice?

I wanted to work when I was 10, but a mixture of child labor laws and minimum wage laws kept me from doing so. I was being protected from exploitation?