Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

Then if when you can exploit someone, you should, why don't you support social reform.
They would be profitable to you.

[Nikov]

Then if when you can exploit someone, you should, why don't you support social reform.
They would be profitable to you.

Because that would be exploiting people by coercion rather than 'exploiting' people who choose to work for you. Its a big difference between asking for a job to earn $40 and demanding $40 because someone is richer than you.

[kuro_suna]

And yeah, Nike doesn't make 700% on their money. Its more like 12%, pre-tax. And with US corporate tax rates being what they are, its no wonder they're moving everything they can overseas.

They probably do at the manufacturing stage and only lose the 688% after paying bonuses to the upper management.

[ed boy]

And yeah, Nike doesn't make 700% on their money. Its more like 12%, pre-tax. And with US corporate tax rates being what they are, its no wonder they're moving everything they can overseas.

That's one of the biggest problems with the american tax system - they tax profits that companies make. That gives the companies reduced incentive to cut prices and be more efficient, as they would lose the benefits of that to tax. What should be taxed is prices companies charge, as that would give appropriate incentives to the companies.

Then if when you can exploit someone, you should, why don't you support social reform.
They would be profitable to you.

Not me personally, so I don't.

You've also got to keep in mind that humans are very complicated things. Although for the most part we act completely rationally, we don't always. For example, I wouldn't exploit my mother the same way I would gladly exploit someone on the other side of the world.

[Phmcw]

Because that would be exploiting people by coercion rather than 'exploiting' people who choose to work for you. Its a big difference between asking for a job to earn $40 and demanding $40 because someone is richer than you.

What is that difference exactly? The big corporation aren' exactly the same as you mother in law, and have ways to keep the salaries low and the prices hight (monopoles, dumping, re-localizations ...). They can use whole varieties of means out of your access.

[Nikov]

Because that would be exploiting people by coercion rather than 'exploiting' people who choose to work for you. Its a big difference between asking for a job to earn $40 and demanding $40 because someone is richer than you.

What is that difference exactly? The big corporation aren' exactly the same as you mother in law, and have ways to keep the salaries low and the prices hight (monopoles, dumping, re-localizations ...). They can use whole varieties of means out of your access.

So you're saying I'm justified to steal because someone else steals.

[DJ]

Except there is a fair deal of coercion involved. A couple of years ago factory workers of some Coca Cola's subsidiary tried to unionise and win better work conditions through a strike. The company called in mercenaries who killed a dozen or so to get the others back in line. Sorry, I can't provide any sources because i saw this on TV a while ago. But if you want another great example, look up United Fruit Company.

Basically, the same multinationals that use these peoples' terrible conditions to exploit them also actively work on creating and perpetuating these conditions, often by installing puppet government whose sole job is prevention of progress at any cost.

So basically, it's like setting somebody's house on fire to drive them out and then saying it's not coercion because you're not evicting them, they're leaving of their own free will.

[Phmcw]

So you're saying I'm justified to steal because someone else steals.

I don't consider either as stealing. For me stealing is forcefully take, without consent of the law, someone else's property .
One is not completely forceful, the other have the consent of the law.

[ed boy]

What these companies are doing is acting in the logical manner in these situations. Companies that do not act logically do not survive.

[Nikov]

So you're saying I'm justified to steal because someone else steals.

I don't consider either as stealing. For me stealing is forcefully take, without consent of the law, someone else's property .
One is not completely forceful, the other have the consent of the law.

So its only stealing if you hold a gun to them and take their money. Its not stealing if you pass a law so people with guns in uniforms can go around taking their money. Oh I see. Its not exploitation if its by proxy. Makes sense now.

[Phmcw]

So its only stealing if you hold a gun to them and take their money. Its not stealing if you pass a law so people with guns in uniforms can go around taking their money. Oh I see. Its not exploitation if its by proxy. Makes sense now.

Well, no that's pretty much the definition of a tax. You know, the thing that keep your army, institutions, mail, and such things possible.

[qwertyuiopas]

What these companies are doing is acting in the logical manner in these situations. Companies that do not act logically do not survive.

"Logic" in this sense varies with the priorities of the person. Most individuals would prioritize equalityabove profit once they have what they deem enough. The problem, then, is that companies will *never* have enough, and will always seek more.

[Nikov]

So its only stealing if you hold a gun to them and take their money. Its not stealing if you pass a law so people with guns in uniforms can go around taking their money. Oh I see. Its not exploitation if its by proxy. Makes sense now.

Well, no that's pretty much the definition of a tax. You know, the thing that keep your army, institutions, mail, and such things possible.

Yes. I do know that's a tax, and that taxes keep vital government services running. Services I need to be able to pursue my own livelihood. I don't see the justification in taxing people who have done well for themselves in order to give things to people who have done poorly.

[kuro_suna]

So its only stealing if you hold a gun to them and take their money. Its not stealing if you pass a law so people with guns in uniforms can go around taking their money. Oh I see. Its not exploitation if its by proxy. Makes sense now.

Well, no that's pretty much the definition of a tax. You know, the thing that keep your army, institutions, mail, and such things possible.

Yes. I do know that's a tax, and that taxes keep vital government services running. Services I need to be able to pursue my own livelihood. I don't see the justification in taxing people who have done well for themselves in order to give things to people who have done poorly.

Except it works both ways. Some services primarily benefit the poor but many more benefit the rich or more specifically big business. If you have more property you should have to pay more to have police and military protect it. If minarchy really benefits everyone why aren't all the corporate headquarters in somalia or pacific island nations.

[DJ]

Without any Social Security, people who lose their jobs would be practically forced to turn to crime. Crime is very bad for business. Also, low income disparity is good for business, because it leads to greater consumption. OK, maybe diamonds won't sell as well, but food, entertainment and most of the other sectors will benefit from it. I think these are more important to the economy as a whole than luxury goods are.