Quote :

"Third: Why not go all the way? Zero take-home pay, but your company covers your food, housing, entertainment."

Because then no worker would seek or accept the job.

11/27/2012 1:23:50 AM

^ They used to have that arrangement in mining towns. People lived in company housing, and were paid in scrip that was only good at the company store. The workers got screwed at every turn with it.

11/27/2012 9:05:12 AM

^^ lol do you honestly believe that...?

Are you even vaguely familiar with human history?

People allow themselves to work and live under oppressive conditions all the time.

11/27/2012 1:08:33 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIfu2A0ezq0

11/27/2012 1:18:22 PM

It's almost as though people who are desperate for jobs would rather be oppressed than starve. Thus they "voluntarily" choose the next best thing to chattel slavery.

11/28/2012 11:53:05 AM

Quote :

"They used to have that arrangement in mining towns. People lived in company housing, and were paid in scrip that was only good at the company store. The workers got screwed at every turn with it."

Americans no longer expect to spend 100% of their income on "food, housing, entertainment", therefore an employer offering to only cover these things would represent a significantly lower compensation than Americans are accustomed to getting elsewhere.

Quote :

"People allow themselves to work and live under oppressive conditions all the time."

And if you believe you can run a business at a profit with less oppressive employment conditions, or can find an employer that is going to, please feel free to do so. But wages are dictated by circumstance, calling a relationship exploitation does nothing to change the circumstances.

An employer paying his employees less because he can is no more evil than employees demanding higher wages because they can. Even if those employees wind up making less than you think they should or if the higher wages demanded drive the employer out of business.

11/28/2012 12:53:08 PM

haha, no wage employment. that sounds like a great idea!

11/28/2012 12:53:50 PM

Workers do accept unpaid internships working in Congress, as I understand it.

11/28/2012 12:57:06 PM

internships

11/28/2012 12:57:39 PM

Quote :

"And if you believe you can run a business at a profit with less oppressive employment conditions, or can find an employer that is going to, please feel free to do so. But wages are dictated by circumstance, calling a relationship exploitation does nothing to change the circumstances. An employer paying his employees less because he can is no more evil than employees demanding higher wages because they can. "

You realize that business had exploitative practices, successfully, for decades. They literally bribed and killed people to maintain this standard (i.e. your fantasy that someone else can just set up shop doesn't make sense).

It took the will of society using the force of "big government" to put an end to these practices.

Politics and business don't exists in vacuums where you don't have to consider things in a wholistic way.

[Edited on November 28, 2012 at 1:17 PM. Reason : ]

11/28/2012 1:16:33 PM

Quote :

"It took the will of society using the force of "big government" to put an end to these practices."

I agree. Bribing and killing people should be opposed with the full force of law. I wouldn't call that big government, however.

11/28/2012 6:28:25 PM

What's wrong with bribing? It's just a voluntary transaction between two free agents, why should the government have any say in that?

11/29/2012 9:55:36 AM

It is an issue of fraud and enforcement of contracts.

11/29/2012 10:55:04 AM

What contract is violated by a bribe? What fraud is committed in a bribe?

You give me money and I do something. That's just a transaction of services.

11/29/2012 10:57:12 AM

Presumably you signed a contract with your employer which restricted your ability to transact services for the term of the contract, a contract you are now being bribed to violate.

If this is not the case then you were not bribed, which society has a good reason to punish you for, you were merely given a job, which is none of anyone else's business.

[Edited on November 29, 2012 at 11:08 AM. Reason : .,.]

11/29/2012 11:07:37 AM

"Bribery is a contract violation because maybe you signed a contract that forbids bribery."

[Edited on November 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM. Reason : .]

11/29/2012 11:13:32 AM

And society has an interest in having its members keep their promises. What of it?

11/29/2012 11:34:24 AM

"Why is bribery a contract violation?"

"Because it is."

This is literally the exchange we just had.

11/29/2012 11:44:34 AM

Bribes are bad because for a free market to work, it needs to be transparent and information needs to be available to everyone

(which is one reason of many why we don't have any actual free markets)

11/29/2012 11:54:36 AM

Quote :

"And if you believe you can run a business at a profit with less oppressive employment conditions, or can find an employer that is going to, please feel free to do so. But wages are dictated by circumstance, calling a relationship exploitation does nothing to change the circumstances. An employer paying his employees less because he can is no more evil than employees demanding higher wages because they can."

By allowing capital to move easily among countries, but not labor, this is the crappy situation you create.

An ideal world would be difficult to move capital and easy to move labor. This would improve conditions by having nations and companies compete for labor instead of capital.

11/29/2012 11:56:48 AM

Yup, and the exact point of a bribe is to get around or subvert normal competitive market forces.

11/29/2012 11:58:24 AM

Quote :

"What's wrong with bribing? It's just a voluntary transaction between two free agents"

It all depends on the nature of what we're calling a bribe. Most of the time, a bribe is not simply a transaction between two people; the briber seeks to gain control over some third party's assets to which the bribee is a steward and likely contractually bound as such.

People murder and bribe, so we need "big government" (moron's words) to protect us. The tremendous irony here is that this government is responsible for more murders than individuals were responsible for during the 20th century by a factor of 10 or more. It's not even close.

Government is institutionalized theft and bribery. There's no better argument for how government has failed to achieve stated purpose than to look at Congress. There are laws explicitly outlawing bribery and political favors, and yet we all know that lobbying is a bigger business than ever. It's nearly impossible to prove that these backroom deals go on, but every single one of us knows that politicians are influenced by their corporate sponsors. Bribery is occurring on a massive scale every day and the "democratic process" can't do a damn thing about it.

But this is the cost of civil society, right? Without government, we'd have killers and thieves running amuck. With government, the killers and thieves have to wear uniforms, are given fancy titles, are praised as virtuous and compassionate, and are given control of weapons that could destroy the country ten times over.

11/29/2012 12:26:56 PM

Quote :

"An ideal world would be difficult to move capital and easy to move labor."

Absurd. It is cruel for workers trapped by geographic boundaries to suffer when capital would otherwise be willing to move to them.

An ideal world would allow both capital and labor to move freely, therefore maximizing returns to capital owners and maximizing returns to workers.

11/29/2012 12:29:40 PM

Destroyer, just once could you contribute to a thread without trying to integrate your entire philosophy into it?

I manage to post in many, many threads without detailing the violence inherent in private property and Capitalism. You post the same thing in every thread, but with a slightly different lead-in so that it's not a total non-sequitur.

11/29/2012 12:32:57 PM

Just respond to the first part, if you want. I'm going to post what I'm going to post. Deal with it or don't.

11/29/2012 12:44:04 PM

Quote :

"Absurd. It is cruel for workers trapped by geographic boundaries to suffer when capital would otherwise be willing to move to them. "

hence the "easy to move labor" part

We have the opposite, we have easy to move capital and hard to move labor. This creates a situation where labor and nations have to compete for capital. This creates a situation where global wages fall, and in a vacuum of other influences, would lead to a situation where wages and conditions would equal across the world and they would all be crappy. By being able to easily move capital and not labor, capital can always prevent increased wages, improving conditions, or higher taxes by threatening to move to another country/ labor pool.

In an ideal world where barriers to the movement of labor did not exist, and there were barriers to the movement of capital, wages and conditions would be kept higher as capital had to compete for labor pools/ nations.

11/29/2012 12:48:27 PM

Quote :

"Just respond to the first part, if you want. "

It's not much but okay

Quote :

"It all depends on the nature of what we're calling a bribe. Most of the time, a bribe is not simply a transaction between two people; the briber seeks to gain control over some third party's assets to which the bribee is a steward and likely contractually bound as such."

I don't see what's different about this and Lonesnark's post. You're both saying "Bribery is bad when it violates a contract." which is just demonstrating to me that you think violating contracts is bad, not bribery in and of itself.

Do you have any moral or ethical opposition to bribery outside of what appears in the contracts you enter? What about the fact that it deliberately avoids or subverts normal competitive market forces? Just give me something with a bit more meat than "IT's bad when it violates a contract. Also government is violent theft blah blah blah [same rant as always]"

Quote :

"I'm going to post what I'm going to post. Deal with it or don't."

I'm dealing with it by telling you how I feel about it. Deal with that or don't.


[Edited on November 29, 2012 at 12:56 PM. Reason : .]

11/29/2012 12:54:22 PM

Quote :

"I don't see what's different about this and Lonesnark's post. You're both saying "Bribery is bad when it violates a contract." which is just demonstrating to me that you think violating contracts is bad, not bribery in and of itself. Do you have any moral or ethical grounding outside of what appears in the contracts you enter? "

The legal contract isn't the important part to me. There is an understanding between the person being bribed and the individuals he or she represents - an expectation that they will conduct business in an honest way. Maybe there's a contract that says that explicitly, maybe there isn't, but it's unethical either way.

If it were truly a "voluntary transaction" between two people, we wouldn't be calling it a bribe. It'd just be a payment or a gift. It only becomes a bribe when deception enters the mix. You wouldn't make a bribe public because you're attempting to conceal information from people whose interests are at stake.

None of this makes the case for government though. You thought most of my post was irrelevant, but the point was that "government" or "law" doesn't help us eliminate unethical behavior.

11/29/2012 1:20:03 PM

o.O? It's a bribe unless it's public? Overt bribery is just "gift giving"?

[Edited on November 29, 2012 at 1:27 PM. Reason : .]

11/29/2012 1:20:55 PM

Quote :

"o.O? It's a bribe unless it's public?"

No. If you're bribing someone, you don't want the public knowing about it. The whole point of a bribe is that you're trying to influence some individual, who is acting on behalf of an organization, to behave in a certain way. Typically, the briber has reason to believe that this individuals needs an "incentive".

If you're trying to bribe a cop who pulls you over, you want to make sure that it stays between you and the cop. You don't go to the head of the police department about it. If you're trying to bribe a local politician, you don't hold a town hall meeting, you get the politician in a private setting and make it clear that you want him to vote in a certain way in exchange for payment.

Quote :

"Overt bribery is just "gift giving""

No, we call that a "campaign contribution".

[Edited on November 29, 2012 at 1:33 PM. Reason : ]

11/29/2012 1:27:07 PM

Quote :

"Hostess Executive Bonuses: Twinkie-Maker To Seek Approval For $1.8 Million In Bonuses During Liquidation"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/hostess-executive-bonuses_n_2210515.htmlc

11/29/2012 1:39:14 PM

Quote :

"If it were truly a "voluntary transaction" between two people, we wouldn't be calling it a bribe. It'd just be a payment or a gift."

I disagree. There are such things as public trusts. For example, if I'm to live in a free market world with private property, I expect businesses to compete with each other. If bribery enters the picture then we instead have collusion. An example would be one CEO paying another to collude with him to price fix.

Why should I respect their claim to private property if they aren't playing by the rules and competing rather than colluding?

Quote :

"None of this makes the case for government though. You thought most of my post was irrelevant, but the point was that "government" or "law" doesn't help us eliminate unethical behavior."

I agree, government accomplishes exactly the opposite of ethical behavior, namely by using its guns to enforce the system of private property which enslaves the many to the few.

Quote :

"ou don't hold a town hall meeting, you get the politician in a private setting and make it clear that you want him to vote in a certain way in exchange for payment."

There's no contract being violated here at all, then, but you're still calling it a bribe. The accountability being violated isn't in any way official, it's just social disapproval.

[Edited on November 29, 2012 at 1:42 PM. Reason : .]

11/29/2012 1:39:27 PM

Quote :

"For example, if I'm to live in a free market world with private property, I expect businesses to compete with each other. If bribery enters the picture then we instead have collusion."

If we're talking about bribery between companies, then we should be clear about who is doing the bribing and who is getting bribed. Companies don't get bribe money, individuals get bribe money. The company as a whole doesn't want to be bribed, they want their agents to act in a way that is going to be best for that company's financials.

If sales representatives from company A meet with buyers from company B and say, "hey, you should buy our product, and we'll give you 10,000 dollars if you do!", well, that's just part of the price. It's an incredibly silly way of setting up a transaction in my opinion, but it isn't unethical.

If sales representatives from company A meet with a buyer from company B and say, "hey, approve this purchase and we'll give you 10,000 dollars" and the buyer pockets the money, it's a bribe. The buyer from company B fucked over his own company by approving a purchase that he would not have otherwise approved. If company B found out about this deal, they'd fire the purchasing agent and file charges.

The real issue here is honesty. Is the purchasing agent acting in a transparent way within their organization, or are they accepting "kickbacks" for personal gain to the possible detriment of the organization?

Quote :

"There's no contract being violated here at all, then, but you're still calling it a bribe. The accountability being violated isn't in any way official, it's just social disapproval."

There is a contract being violated. The politician is expected to act as a public servant and to be a good, objective steward of tax money. If he is accepting payment with the understanding that he will behave in a certain way, he's not fulfilling that role.

11/29/2012 2:05:56 PM

Quote :

"If we're talking about bribery between companies, then we should be clear about who is doing the bribing and who is getting bribed. Companies don't get bribe money, individuals get bribe money."

I specified individuals were doing the bribing but thanks for pointing out this obvious thing anyway.

Quote :

"If sales representatives from company A meet with buyers from company B and say"

I gave a perfectly good example of a bribe, could you respond to that one instead of coming up with a new one obviously tailored to avoid the issue (Public trust as it relates to private firms).

Quote :

"The real issue here is honesty. Is the purchasing agent acting in a transparent way within their organization, or are they accepting "kickbacks" for personal gain to the possible detriment of the organization?"

You're avoiding the public trust issue by focusing on employees instead of owners. That is, you're focusing on people at the bottom of a hierarchy who violate the wishes of those at the top of it. I'm asking about people at the top of the hierarchy, who don't answer to anyone (Yes, just assume the owner is the sole shareholder).

The public trust in question is this: "We, the public, will respect the notion of private property, given that the owners of said property operate in ways consistent with a competitive free market."

Quote :

"There is a contract being violated. The politician is expected to act as a public servant and to be a good, objective steward of tax money. If he is accepting payment with the understanding that he will behave in a certain way, he's not fulfilling that role."

Okay then. Then collusion between companies is also a contract violation, since the expectation is that they compete. That's why we go along with private property at all, because we expect it to be put to use in a competitive market. If they aren't competing, they're violating that understanding.

[Edited on November 29, 2012 at 2:53 PM. Reason : .]

11/29/2012 2:53:03 PM

Quote :

"I gave a perfectly good example of a bribe, could you respond to that one instead of coming up with a new one obviously tailored to avoid the issue (Public trust as it relates to private firms)."

Your example is one CEO paying another so that they can collude to fix prices. Both companies will sell the same thing within an agreed upon price range. Most likely, the company of the CEO being bribed stands to benefit by not fixing prices, otherwise there wouldn't be a bribe on the table. They're able to sell their product at a lower price/higher volume and the other company doesn't really want to compete at that price level, so they aim to bribe an individual (the CEO) to undermine their own company.

In a market where company assets are disconnected from owner assets like our current system, this might actually be agreed to by the bribee CEO. If the company goes down, the CEOs assets are protected. In a free market, owner assets are on the chopping block as well. That's how it should be.

Quote :

"You're avoiding the public trust issue by focusing on employees instead of owners. That is, you're focusing on people at the bottom of a hierarchy who violate the wishes of those at the top of it. I'm asking about people at the top of the hierarchy, who don't answer to anyone (Yes, just assume the owner is the sole shareholder). The public trust in question is this: "We, the public, will respect the notion of private property, given that the owners of said property operate in ways consistent with a competitive free market.""

I'm not concerned with public trust. There is no collective. If two companies want to collude and set prices, people shouldn't force them to do otherwise. I'm not entitled to their products for a certain price. With that said, collusion is not mutually beneficial for participants in a free market. One of the two companies is seeing less than optimal profits due to the arrangement. Only under a system with "golden parachutes" would this become commonplace.

Quote :

"Then collusion between companies is also a contract violation, since the expectation is that they compete. That's why we go along with private property at all, because we expect it to be put to use in a competitive market. If they aren't competing, they're violating that understanding."

The expectation by whom? Taxes are paid to the government. You don't pay taxes to Wal-mart. You don't have to shop there. You don't have to work there. Your expectations of Wal-mart don't matter.

We go along with private property for the same reason that you'd be pissed if I cut you open and took one of your kidneys or broke into your house and stole your computer. Property is a necessary part of human civilization as long as scarcity is a concern.

11/29/2012 3:59:22 PM

You are okay with collusion and price setting? I thought you were a free market person.

11/29/2012 4:05:19 PM

To the consumer, what's the difference between collusion and a merger/acquisition?

[Edited on November 29, 2012 at 4:16 PM. Reason : ]

11/29/2012 4:13:54 PM

To the consumer, what is the difference between the companies setting the price and the government?

11/29/2012 4:29:06 PM

Are you serious? If you don't like Wal-mart, you don't have to shop there. You can go to Target and find all the same stuff within a 5 mile radius. If you don't like the U.S. government, you have to move hundreds or thousands of miles. The difference is that in the private sector, competition is free to come and go. You aren't allowed to compete with the government inside of the borders.

11/29/2012 4:39:47 PM

but if they are colluding and setting prices secretly, how do you know to shop somewhere else? what if the entire industry is involved and there are no other options?

free markets depend on transparency

11/29/2012 4:41:09 PM

Quote :

"but if they are colluding and setting prices secretly, how do you know to shop somewhere else? what if the entire industry is involved and there are no other options?"

The same way I know to shop on Amazon instead of Best Buy: I look at the price tag and weigh the customer service and convenience factors.

Long-term monopolies don't occur in free market conditions. They might pop up shortly, and then some new enterprise appears that finds a "niche" or flat out reduces overhead and can compete on price, service, or both. If no one else can compete on price, that's a benefit to the consumer. Antitrust is bullshit. It's invented by bureaucratic busy bodies that need to seem like "problem solvers" to keep their positions.

Quote :

"free markets depend on transparency"

No, free markets depend on a respect for property rights. Transparency encourages efficiency since it reduces the price padding effect of the principle-agent problem, but it's possible to have non-transparent, needlessly hierarchical "petty tyrannies" even in a free market, it'll just be less efficient, resulting in relatively higher prices.

[Edited on November 29, 2012 at 4:59 PM. Reason : ]

11/29/2012 4:55:25 PM

Those colluding companies will act to eliminate competition that is not participating by agreeing to set prices low to remove the competition and then raising them.

Quote :

"Long-term monopolies don't occur in free market conditions."

companies working together to set prices is not a free market

11/29/2012 4:58:01 PM

Quote :

"Long-term monopolies don't occur in free market conditions."

What is "long term"? There was a diamond monopoly for generations. There were many other monopolies for almost as long. Are market failures determined by the length of time they exist?

11/29/2012 5:07:15 PM

Quote :

"Those colluding companies will act to eliminate competition that is not participating by agreeing to set prices low to remove the competition and then raising them. "

As soon as they raise prices, competitors can more easily enter the market. The only way they can keep their monopoly is by keeping prices low. If they only keep their prices low for long enough to drive companies out of business, they're taking a huge risk. What if it doesn't work? What if the companies just pop right back up?

Monopoly control of the market is a boogeyman.

Quote :

"companies working together to set prices is not a free market"

It can be as long as no one is being deceived. Again, what is the difference between two companies agreeing to sell their product at a certain price and those two companies simply merging and becoming a single company?

Quote :

"What is "long term"? There was a diamond monopoly for generations. There were many other monopolies for almost as long. Are market failures determined by the length of time they exist?"

There still is a monopoly on diamonds, basically. Standard oil had a monopoly by having lower prices than any other oil company. That's not a market failure. They basically created a market where there wouldn't have been one at all. Standard oil then lobbied the government to ensure that they kept their top spot, and the government obliged.

State protection of corporations yields a market of big, overgrown corporations. It's the only possible outcome when the government picks winners and losers, and as long as government is run by humans, it will pick winners and losers.

[Edited on November 29, 2012 at 5:24 PM. Reason : ]

11/29/2012 5:22:14 PM

Quote :

"There still is a monopoly on diamonds, basically. Standard oil had a monopoly by having lower prices than any other oil company. That's not a market failure. They basically created a market where there wouldn't have been one at all. Standard oil then lobbied the government to ensure that they kept their top spot, and the government obliged. State protection of corporations yields a market of big, overgrown corporations. It's the only possible outcome when the government picks winners and losers, and as long as government is run by humans, it will pick winners and losers."

You gave me a non-answer. De Beers had an international diamond monopoly, any nation's government had nothing to do with it.

11/29/2012 5:51:02 PM

It isn't a non-answer, it just isn't the answer you want. I have no problem with monopolies unless they're using violence as a way to corner the market. Diamonds are an example of a product that is expensive because of marketing, not because of rarity. Perfect diamonds can be made cheaply. To say that De Beers got where they are without the help of the state is silly, though. De Beers has had state assistance, both implicit and explicit.

Of course, the diamond companies are using violence. Some of the diamond miners are literally slaves, but that won't keep most of you from buying a big ass diamond for your wife. Extra bloody, please! Slavery and free markets don't mix.

[Edited on November 29, 2012 at 6:00 PM. Reason : ]

11/29/2012 5:58:07 PM

Quote :

"It can be as long as no one is being deceived. Again, what is the difference between two companies agreeing to sell their product at a certain price and those two companies simply merging and becoming a single company?"

In some situations there wouldn't be much difference, which is why those mergers and acquisitions are regulated and sometimes not allowed

11/29/2012 6:05:11 PM

Quote :

"Slavery and free markets don't mix."

Just wage slaves, right? Would you say historically and contemporarily that societies without minimum wage enforcement have higher or lower compensation on the lower end of the economy?

Actually im not sure how the free market would prevent actual slavery. I bet it could be very profitable.

11/29/2012 6:41:49 PM

Ok, I'm not reading a thread about nationalizing twinkies, but someone tell me that the thread simply devolved into arguing about anything else other than nationalizing twinkies

11/29/2012 6:58:03 PM

Quote :

"I have no problem with monopolies unless they're using violence as a way to corner the market."

It's still a market failure.

Quote :

"Diamonds are an example of a product that is expensive because of marketing, not because of rarity"

That's not relevant.

Quote :

"To say that De Beers got where they are without the help of the state is silly, though. De Beers has had state assistance, both implicit and explicit."

What state? The US? How did the US give them a worldwide diamond monopoly?

11/29/2012 7:07:48 PM