Their questions were based upon the consensus. It seems there is a consensus in the economist community that third world workers are not being exploited by westerners. Although political scientists agree third world workers are being exploited by third world kleptocracies.

5/8/2010 7:48:02 PM

The authors of the survey did not provide any support for that assertion.

5/8/2010 8:10:25 PM

Quote :

"It seems there is a consensus in the economist community that third world workers are not being exploited by westerners."

Did they come to any other consensuses that have little to do with their field? Maybe one is "economically unenlightened" if they disagree with a consensus in the economic community on whether global warming is caused by humans.

5/8/2010 8:50:47 PM

Capitalist bosses exploit all workers by effectively extorting tribute from them. They would simply be better off if they could jointly or communally control the means of production.

5/8/2010 8:58:18 PM

Quote :

"The authors of the survey did not provide any support for that assertion."

As I said, neither they nor I would feel the need to do so. It is an accepted consensus in the field that trade makes both sides better off, therefore trade with third world workers makes them better off than if they were confronted with trade barriers. That their political masters are keeping them poor has nothing to do with economics, as Kris pointed out, that is a political science question. Although there does seem to be some agreement among political scientists that trade tends to produce a more free society.

Quote :

"They would simply be better off if they could jointly or communally control the means of production."

Despite all evidence to the contrary?

[Edited on May 9, 2010 at 1:52 AM. Reason : .,.]

5/9/2010 1:50:46 AM

Quote :

"As I said, neither they nor I would feel the need to do so."

Then neither one of you should be trying to pass off political partisanship as an objective study.

Quote :

"Despite all evidence to the contrary?"

Evidence? There is never any real world evidence in economics.

5/9/2010 10:16:21 AM

Quote :

"Despite all evidence to the contrary?"

The owner takes a percentage of what each worker produces. Simple math shows that dividing the capitalist's share between the workers means they have more stuff. This has functioned in practice - you see various worker-run factories around the world. The fact that bosses live better than their employees stems from their greater social power. The gears would still turn without this hierarchical division. As with any human construct, we can unmake it.

5/9/2010 12:22:44 PM

Quote :

"This has functioned in practice - you see various worker-run factories around the world. "

Citation needed

5/9/2010 2:40:53 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

http://businessmatters.net/2010/01/worker-owned-cooperatives/

5/9/2010 3:44:27 PM

GoldenViper, my bad, I thought you were saying more than you were. Yes, we can all agree that workers are better off when their employer grants them charity and donates the business to them. But it is not obvious that they would be better off if the employer sold the business to the workers, as such investments are risky and should only be taken by those that can afford the loss.

Similarly, the workers would be worse off if they stole the business, as businesses are not a gift from God, and I'm not familiar of any worker owned firms that started out that way.

5/9/2010 7:08:38 PM

Why would they be better off if the owner gave them the factory but not if they took it? If true, that could only be because of societal prejudice. There's no physical difference between being given something and taking it - the point is, you've got it. Anything that allows workers to keep more of the fruits of labor benefits them.

5/9/2010 8:10:53 PM

where's the rampant inflation from the massive government spending?

Why has this economic theory on that issue failed?

5/9/2010 8:13:23 PM

Quote :

"There's no physical difference between being given something and taking it - the point is, you've got it. Anything that allows workers to keep more of the fruits of labor benefits them."

There is. If it becomes normal for firms to be stollen from those that create them, then they will stop creating them. Again, firms are not a gift from God, they must be created. So, unless the government or workers themselves start creating firms, then as firms continue to be killed off by various mechanisms, such as natural disaster or a shift in demand, the economy will gradually malfunction. As this occurs, a combination of monopoly and shortages will make even the benefactors of widespread theft worse off than they otherwise would have been had theft remained illegal.

^government spending does not cause inflation. Inflation is caused by growth of the money supply, as anyone familiar with economics should know.

[Edited on May 9, 2010 at 8:29 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/9/2010 8:27:24 PM

^ that's a pedantic definition.

The point is though that it's common for conservative economists, at least in the media, to repeat that mantra, and plenty of other scientific sounding economical things that are rarely borne out in reality.

5/9/2010 8:34:46 PM

Were they economists, or were they conservatives?

Most economists admit inflation is a political question, since the federal reserve is a political entity.

5/9/2010 8:56:59 PM

Your talk of firms, in the typical economist fashion, obscures the reality of the situation. The people who actually produce physical capital such as factories almost never own or control it. The capitalist class has a different role. At best, they're organizers who exact a high price for their services; at worst, they're parasites. Even assuming the necessity of the organizational service, it's in the interest of workers to get the lowest price possible.

Needless to say, I would rather do away with the money system and move to rational economy devoted to the common good.

5/9/2010 9:15:52 PM

Quote :

"Inflation is caused by growth of the money supply, as anyone familiar with economics should know."

Only monetarists believe that.

I think goldenviper could describe his argument better by saying "what right does the capitalist have to his capital?" The capitalist did not create his capital, it has always existed. The worker however does create his labor. What right does the capitalist have to own the worker's labor by giving out capital that could be argued to more justifiably belong to everyone?

5/9/2010 9:48:19 PM

^^Then you are a socialist in favor of impoverishing the whole in the name of eliminating the rich just to sooth your conscience. The price system has no corollary. The only possible system suggested of consistently organizing greedy humans was soviet communism, the men with guns do lots of math, tell everyone else what to think and how to live, and then hope their edicts feed everyone this time around. How do you want to do it? And how do you plan to stop me from my insistence of preserving the money system?

Quote :

"The capitalist did not create his capital, it has always existed."

Was it a gift from God? Did God provide us the factory in which the workers work?

No, the factory was built by workers whose wages had to come from somewhere, either the capitalist borrowed it, inherited it, stole it, or worked for it as wages. Unless the capitalist was the first settler, the land had to be purchased from someone.

[Edited on May 9, 2010 at 10:08 PM. Reason : ^]

5/9/2010 10:01:50 PM

Quote :

"Was it a gift from God? Did God provide us the factory in which the workers work?"

The factory is just capital and labor. And yes, the capital is a gift from god, no one made the stone used to make it.

Quote :

"Unless the capitalist was the first settler, the land had to be purchased from someone."

The point is who has a right to lay claim over capital in which they had no hand in making?

5/9/2010 10:17:55 PM

Quote :

"Then you are a socialist in favor of impoverishing the whole in the name of eliminating the rich just to sooth your conscience."

Human organization is the only obstacle. Look, your beloved system objectively fails at the equitable distribution of goods. Anyone who values equality cannot help but oppose capitalism.

Quote :

"And yes, the capital is a gift from god, no one made the stone used to make it."

Economists tend to distinguish between physical capital and natural resources. (A factory would be an example of the former while a stone would be one of the latter.) The creation of physical requires labor. Control of natural resources, however, gave many capitalists the ability to fund the production of physical capital and thus claim it for themselves.

5/9/2010 10:33:57 PM

Quote :

"no one made the stone used to make it."

no, but someone did quarry it...

5/9/2010 10:34:20 PM

Quote :

"he creation of physical requires labor."

Labor alone produces nothing.

Quote :

"no, but someone did quarry it..."

What amount of labor gives one the right to exclude others from using it?

5/9/2010 11:30:05 PM

Quote :

"Human organization is the only obstacle. Look, your beloved system objectively fails at the equitable distribution of goods. Anyone who values equality cannot help but oppose capitalism."

And there is the distinction. You value equitable distribution above all else. I value liberty and human rights above all else. If inequitable distribution of goods is the price of liberty, I gladly pay it. And yet, history proclaims it is not the case: the poor of America enjoyed far greater luxuries (cars, living space, electronics, food, etc) than their poor counterparts in Soviet Russia.

5/9/2010 11:30:13 PM

Quote :

"I value liberty and human rights above all else."

Both are flawed ideas as they require the belief in free will. I value productivity, and capitalism has flaws that do not allow our society to reach it's fullest potential.

Quote :

"than their poor counterparts in Soviet Russia"

The same could be said about the rest of the world.

5/9/2010 11:34:00 PM

Quote :

"You value equitable distribution above all else."

No, I value liberty and equality. Capitalism scores poorly in both respects. Again, the outstanding inequality of present global economic system cannot be denied. As mainstream market theory enshrines such a stilted distribution of goods, believers in common welfare have little choice but to turn to alternatives.

5/9/2010 11:40:58 PM

Quote :

"No, I value liberty and equality. Capitalism scores poorly in both respects."

Really? Do tell. For you to believe that, you must be using a different definition of capitalism from I. Clearly what you mean is the present system of Democratic Mixing, where we enjoy capitalistic freedom in some aspects and autocratic control in others, alternating between the two by geography and issue with very little rationality in the distribution. I suspect your objections are misplaced.

5/9/2010 11:56:33 PM

Quote :

"liberty and equality"

Depending on how you define equality, chances are that these two are fundamentally incompatible

Quote :

"Capitalist bosses exploit all workers by effectively extorting tribute from them."

You could make this argument for any locus of power. Fortunately, knowing you to be an anarchist, I realize you aren't inconsistent in this respect but I do think you ignore the fundamental fact that not every human can be an Alpha and thus many content themselves with paying tribute in labor in return for monetary compensation.

5/10/2010 12:08:11 AM

Quote :

"I do think you ignore the fundamental fact that not every human can be an Alpha and thus many content themselves with paying tribute in labor in return for monetary compensation."

You don't have to be an "alpha" to be a "capitalist boss", all you have to do is own the means of production. For most large companies this means owning stock, if you own stock you are a "capitalist boss". I wouldn't get overly engulfed in the cartoonish tycoon type perception of them.

5/10/2010 8:23:30 AM

Then it shouldn't cost much to make every man women and child a capitalist boss by donating them each one share of penny stock.

5/10/2010 10:11:30 AM

its more about the degree of ownership of the means of production

5/10/2010 11:32:16 AM

Quote :

"They would simply be better off if they could jointly or communally control the means of production."

Honest question: Do you have any sources or studies that compare and contrast the benefits, wages, time worked and other compensation of cooperative groups vs a standard corporation? In particular contrasts of larger cooperatives (i.e. > 10 or so owners/employees)

5/10/2010 1:19:34 PM

Quote :

"I mean, do y'all remember Economics classes? They're giant cons. They start off telling you how simple the concepts are and how easy the class is going to be. This is super weird to begin with. But then they turn back the first test and 3/4 of the class fails...and everybody leaves feeling retarded and not interested in the subject anymore. This is by design."

What?
I mean, really, seriously, WHAT?

EC205 or 201 or whatever it was is just about the easiest course anyone can take. It is a complete and total joke. The people failing those tests simply do not belong in college at all.

The first test hardly tests anything besides whether or not you have enough eyes (at least one) to look at a chart and point to where the lines intersect. Presumably they also have an oral version of this to be administered to the blind. There's virtually no acquisition of knowledge necessary, and if you passed the 5th grade, you should have the necessary skills in basic math. There's no analysis or critical thinking whatsoever. It's just concrete facts based upon information that is shown to you on the test itself.

Nothing on an intro economics test should be hard in any way. There is nothing on that test that is more difficult than pointing to the intersection of two lines or doing basic division/multiplication.

[Edited on May 10, 2010 at 6:03 PM. Reason : .]

5/10/2010 6:03:28 PM

Quote :

"You don't have to be an "alpha" to be a "capitalist boss""

I'm not saying you do, inevitably some non-alphas wind up in control. What I AM saying is that there are plenty of non-alphas who are content to follow

5/10/2010 6:04:05 PM

Quote :

"What amount of labor gives one the right to exclude others from using it?"

what, the quarried stone? tell you what. you go work your ass off and buy a TV. I'll come in the next day and take it from you. You should have no problem with that, because, after all, what amount of labour gives you the right to exclude me from using your tv?

besides, you were trying to suggest that there was no "hand in making the stone," when there very much was. Someone had to quarry it. As such, it did not fall from heaven, it was not a gift from God. it was the product of labour.

5/10/2010 6:32:47 PM

a documentary on the worker run factories in Argentina

Trailer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLbDUuKK7t0

and you can watch the entire movie in parts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEzXln5kbuw&feature=related

I thought it was pretty interesting story. Touches on a lot of the politics in Argentina, which they have seen a wide spectrum of policies. It ends up placing a lot of blame on disaster capitalism and more specifically the IMF for Argentina's troubles. I thought it was pretty cool how the factories operated in a legal grey zone; the only thing keeping the authorities from shutting them down was the support of the communities.



Disclaimer - Lots of anticapitalism rhetoric, but less annoying than Michael Moore IMO. I hope its not too much of a turnoff.

5/10/2010 8:29:53 PM

Quote :

"I'm not saying you do, inevitably some non-alphas wind up in control. What I AM saying is that there are plenty of non-alphas who are content to follow"

You could have read more than the first line. I was pointing out that all you have to do to be a "capitalist boss" is buy stock.

Quote :

"besides, you were trying to suggest that there was no "hand in making the stone," when there very much was. Someone had to quarry it."

Quarries don't make stone, it's already there, they just dig it up. All they do is use labor to add value to the stone. Every product is a combination of capital and labor. The earth only provides capital and humans only provide labor.

My point was that we arbitrarily assign ownership. Considering ownership is the concept that is the very foundation of capitalism, makes it far more arbitrary than it's supporters would imagine it to be.

5/10/2010 11:56:12 PM

what's arbitrary about saying "they guy who quarried the stone owns the stone gets to use the stone"?

5/11/2010 9:17:29 PM

What makes it his stone? If I just go on your land and start digging up stone, is it mine?

5/11/2010 9:23:50 PM

what makes it "my land?" I mean, that's the absurdity you are trying to ultimately get at.

if a guy goes on "his land" and digs up stone, yeah, it's his. why shouldn't it be?

[Edited on May 11, 2010 at 9:26 PM. Reason : ]

5/11/2010 9:25:12 PM

He didn't make the land and he didn't make the stone, he arbitrarily declared it his own.

5/11/2010 9:51:07 PM

hell, he didn't even make himself. I guess that means anyone should be able to take him and do what they wish with him

5/12/2010 6:48:42 AM

nice strawman

the point is, ownership is arbitrary.

5/12/2010 8:53:39 AM

Ownership only becomes arbitrary once you die.

5/12/2010 9:06:16 AM

Ownership isn't arbitrary at all. It is defined 100% by the use and threat of force.

5/12/2010 1:33:17 PM

Death

to

SCIENCE!

5/12/2010 1:49:33 PM

^^So you own what you can defend? Wouldn't that justify theft and murder? That's far more arbitrary than what I was stating.

5/12/2010 2:31:27 PM

^ Pretty much. You don't steal from other people because their threat of force (the police and the government) is bigger than yours (mostly whining about the capitalists on TWW, though you might bring a knife or gun and maybe a buddy). Besides, what is theft if ownership is arbitrary? You can't steal what someone doesn't own.

[Edited on May 12, 2010 at 4:36 PM. Reason : adsf]

5/12/2010 4:35:52 PM

So then you define ownership as what the collective of individuals (ie. the government) dictates you own? If so, that's fine, that's a different definition of ownership than the one I am attempting to address.

5/12/2010 6:37:40 PM

Quote :

"nice strawman"

not a strawman. it's pointing out the absurdity in your statement. you are arbitrarily deciding that he cannot be owned

5/12/2010 6:45:56 PM

I didn't know we were shifting the conversation from capital ownership to self ownership. It's much easier to define self ownership in a less arbitrary way.

5/12/2010 6:55:00 PM