Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[JimC]

All I know is that the union that I belong to is busy negotiating for a decent pay rise...

[Hermit]

What's the point? Why have sector wide agreements if they going to individualise them for subsectors? The bigger the organisation the less critical is any particular segments concerns.

In comparison to, say, the UK and Australia the Dutch and German systems yield better results.

[pErvinalia]

It might be because of other reasons. Like a better societal ethos.

In any case, the Netherregions are shit at everything. Other than being tall, and building windmills.

[JimC]

And sticking their fingers in dykes...

[Hermit]

And making klompen. Don't forget the klompen.

[Scot Dutchy]

What's the point? Why have sector wide agreements if they going to individualise them for subsectors? The bigger the organisation the less critical is any particular segments concerns.

In comparison to, say, the UK and Australia the Dutch and German systems yield better results.

All I can say is that unions here IMHO are more responsible. In the lean years of the 70's and 80's they did not demand pay rises and accepted more free paid days off instead. These have been since converted into proper holidays. Most people now have a minimum of six weeks holidays. Also the possibilities of working part time and keeping a permanent contract are now standard. Many people dont work a full time job (36 hours) anymore especially if they have kids. 32 hours is very popular. Working only four days a week. Taking a log week end or a Wednesday off. All this was negotiated on a sector wide agreements. It also means you dont have people working together under different agreements which is very disruptive.

[Scot Dutchy]

And making klompen. Don't forget the klompen.

They are far too posh. These are workers klompen. The leather band keeps them tighter on the foot. Agricultural workers still wear nothing else.

[Hermit]

And making klompen. Don't forget the klompen.

They are far too posh. These are workers klompen. The leather band keeps them tighter on the foot. Agricultural workers still wear nothing else.

I've worn klompen with and without the leather belt. The ones with the belt were horribly uncomfortable after a couple of hours. The ones without were unbearably uncomfortable in half that time.

[Scot Dutchy]

Were they big enough? I never had problems when I wore them. The belt kept them tighter round the foot.

[Tero]

Capitalism: welfare to corporations:

Scott Walker hands Foxconn $1.5 million per job in state subsidies.
Wisconsin claims that they beat Illinois for the Foxconn plant.

Well, yeah, they're better at corporate welfare than we are, apparently. Wisconsin taxpayers are on the hook for $3 billion in state subsidies for that thing. Works out to $1.5 million per job that is supposedly going to be created. The jobs pay an "average" of $50,000. So the state could have literally picked 2,000 people and handed them $50,000 per year for the next 30 years for the same price.

[rainbow]

I'm not wrong.

Explain to me how a system which puts control of the market into the hands of a small minority, the Capitalists, can be describes as a 'free market'.

You can't.

...so you lose once again.

One way to state it is that a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are relatively free from intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other central authority.

That means it is only free to those who wish to dominate the market, and by doing so, create oligopolies.
Only in La-la Land do Capitalists allow free competition.

You know this yet keep on repeating the mythology.

[Scot Dutchy]

42 seems to think that pure capitalism is a fair deal when it further from the truth. In pure capitalism it is dog eats dog which leads to monopolies which leads to high prices and exploitation of the work force or is that too advanced thinking?

[Forty Two]

Capitalism: welfare to corporations:

Scott Walker hands Foxconn $1.5 million per job in state subsidies.
Wisconsin claims that they beat Illinois for the Foxconn plant.

Well, yeah, they're better at corporate welfare than we are, apparently. Wisconsin taxpayers are on the hook for $3 billion in state subsidies for that thing. Works out to $1.5 million per job that is supposedly going to be created. The jobs pay an "average" of $50,000. So the state could have literally picked 2,000 people and handed them $50,000 per year for the next 30 years for the same price.

It's not dollar for dollar in that way. The tax breaks, for example, are breaks on Foxconn's payment of taxes that otherwise won't be paid by anyone at all, if Foxconn doesn't open the plant. Foxconn is investing $10 billion in building a plant which will employ 13,000 people. That's not the same as writing people checks for $50k for 3 years, because writing people checks like that is out of the current state coffers with money already collected from state taxpayers. Giving someone a tax break to open a plant means that the some tax money is still coming in, but it doesn't reduce the state treasury to afford the tax break.

However, are you against subsidies to private business, in general? What do you find improper about these subsidies, and why?

[Forty Two]

I'm not wrong.

Explain to me how a system which puts control of the market into the hands of a small minority, the Capitalists, can be describes as a 'free market'.

You can't.

...so you lose once again.

One way to state it is that a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are relatively free from intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other central authority.

That means it is only free to those who wish to dominate the market, and by doing so, create oligopolies.
Only in La-la Land do Capitalists allow free competition.

You know this yet keep on repeating the mythology.

No, that's incorrect. Supply and demand works best in a market not dominated by monopoly or oligopoly. So, when you have a market with a lot of participants, the law of supply and demand works irrespective of what participants want.

I've repeated no mythology. Just basic economics.

[Scot Dutchy]

It does not work. It is dog eats dog. Anything else is regulated capitalism that is allowed by social democratic governments in Europe.