ATM Robbery Sparks Ruminations on Capitalism

[buckethead]

An employer does not purchase a person's life.

The laborers capital is labor. It is worth less than the architects vision. This will not be the case when the supply of intelllectuals and visionaries has surpassed that of the available supply of laborers proportional to the demand of each. I don't forsee that happening.

I am not suggesting that a laborer does not spend his time (life) providing labor any more than the manager, architect, visionary or investor spends his/her time providing their services.

At the same time, we do need regulations in place that allow for a safe workplace. What I don't see as appropriate is a governing body dictating salaries and wages.

When people speak of free markets, one hopes they realize that the term is relative, just as any socio-economic system should never be sought as an absolute.

BTW, I clicked the link after I responded and the group's site you link to is a perfect example of a workers solution to investors using them as capital. The participants do so volutarilty. I wish them the highest level of prosperity and success.

[Dog Walker]

I did not say that labor has no value.  I said that it has the lesser value because it is more available and common than creativity.  I've been paid for my sweat and muscles too and would never say that it has no value.  Marxists say that it is the only or greatest value in production.

BT, When people complain about the "wage gap" or "income disparity" or "concentration of wealth", there are several possible motivations.  Thinking that the pie is of a fixed size is a mistake, but morally defensible.  The other motives are not.

"It's not FAIR!" is the cry of a moral child who didn't get as much as they wanted and saw someone else get more.

"Somewhere someone has suffered for me and you to have what we have" (children in sweatshops making IPODS?) is the morally indefensible casting of unearned guilt to try to gain an end of some kind.  "We are all sinners, brothers and sisters and to make amends put money in this pot."  or "Eating meat is murdering animals so contribute to PETA."  (Got to love their naked lady ads, though.)  Wallow in guilt all you want if it makes you feel better, but don't try to drag me down too.  I didn't kill that whale in the picture and condemn those who did.

Perhaps the most disgusting motive of all are the people who have NOT earned what they have and have the guilty fear that if the wealth distribution gets TOO unequal that the poorer people will come and take away what they have.  There was an absolutely great cartoon in the New Yorker a few years ago that showed a plump, well dressed man pulling away from a panhandler saying, "Why don't you go and inherit your own money."

[JC]

I did not say that labor has no value.  I said that it has the lesser value because it is more available and common than creativity.  I've been paid for my sweat and muscles too and would never say that it has no value.  Marxists say that it is the only or greatest value in production.

BT, When people complain about the "wage gap" or "income disparity" or "concentration of wealth", there are several possible motivations.  Thinking that the pie is of a fixed size is a mistake, but morally defensible.  The other motives are not.

"It's not FAIR!" is the cry of a moral child who didn't get as much as they wanted and saw someone else get more.

"Somewhere someone has suffered for me and you to have what we have" (children in sweatshops making IPODS?) is the morally indefensible casting of unearned guilt to try to gain an end of some kind.  "We are all sinners, brothers and sisters and to make amends put money in this pot."  or "Eating meat is murdering animals so contribute to PETA."  (Got to love their naked lady ads, though.)  Wallow in guilt all you want if it makes you feel better, but don't try to drag me down too.  I didn't kill that whale in the picture and condemn those who did.

Perhaps the most disgusting motive of all are the people who have NOT earned what they have and have the guilty fear that if the wealth distribution gets TOO unequal that the poorer people will come and take away what they have.  There was an absolutely great cartoon in the New Yorker a few years ago that showed a plump, well dressed man pulling away from a panhandler saying, "Why don't you go and inherit your own money."

You said "least important" which is the insulting part.  

An employer does not purchase a person's life.

The laborers capital is labor. It is worth less than the architects vision. This will not be the case when the supply of intelllectuals and visionaries has surpassed that of the available supply of laborers proportional to the demand of each. I don't forsee that happening.

I am not suggesting that a laborer does not spend his time (life) providing labor any more than the manager, architect, visionary or investor spends his/her time providing their services.

At the same time, we do need regulations in place that allow for a safe workplace. What I don't see as appropriate is a governing body dictating salaries and wages.

When people speak of free markets, one hopes they realize that the term is relative, just as any socio-economic system should never be sought as an absolute.

BTW, I clicked the link after I responded and the group's site you link to is a perfect example of a workers solution to investors using them as capital. The participants do so volutarilty. I wish them the highest level of prosperity and success.

As I have said in a previous post, take the gloves off and we will see who wins that fight.  Minimum wage is nothing but a bs "standard" that makes poor people complacent.  Granted, it would suck at first and there would be a race to the bottom but without government protection and subsidies I can guarantee Walmart would not exist.  And yes, you are purchasing a human being for the agreed upon time and agreed upon value  but what choice does a working person have when there is a line of more desperate people willing to do the same work for less?

Well, maybe.

Charity and sharing isnt based on shrill demands, you know.

Its a species thing, and our nature.  We cooperate.  We share.  Or most of us do.

When we dont, every culture of our species has an unflattering word for it.

Not wanting to buy goods produced in a sweatshop is based on the fact that sweatshops are pretty evil.

We are hard wired this way.  When we see another creature in pain, our actual brain chemistry shows no difference in the reaction to when it is happening to ourselves except for the pain signals.  

We have empathy as a gift of our biology, or if you prefer, our creator(s).   And we share because teamworking is more productive than trying to build a space ship all by yourself.

Humans operate within the framework of the system they are in.  You can see this with children, an example would be Geoffrey Canada's Harlem Children Zones.  Those kids are in an environment that is safe and fosters cooperation as opposed to the "survival of the fittest" public schools in the same neighborhood.  Capitalism is nasty and plays to the basest of human characteristics, it allows the greediest turds to float to the top of the bowl!

Another example are these doctors in New Orleans, Propublica just won a Pulitzer for their piece on the subject.  These docs were very desperate and they did things they would never have been capable in "normal" circumstances.  

[Ernest Street]

I just want to add that there are creative and visionary types in Jax that have to labor now to make ends meet.

[BridgeTroll]

it allows the greediest turds to float to the top of the bowl!

You mean self made billionaires like Oprah?  Gates?  Allen?  Jobs?  Zuckerberg?  These are but a few of the billionaire turds who have risen to the top... How about the self made millionaires?  Turds also?  How about working stiffs like my father and mother who came from the poorest of the poor and are now pretty well off?  Turds??

Floating to the top?  Or scratching and clawing your way to the top?  The top is the aspiration... few actually make it. 

[Dog Walker]

Stephen,  Charity, compassion and sharing are absolutely built in to our species, thank heavens!

Ipods aren't built in sweatshops either.

Pure lassez-fair capitalism doesn't work any more than pure Communism or Socialism or Merchantilism works.  Our system of regulated capitalism, encouragement of charity, and government support for social infrastructure has worked pretty well.  We have been, still are, and will remain the most flexible and powerful economy in the world as long as we keep the balance right.

Maybe it's a little like raising children.  You have to set limits to and check on their behavior, but you can't stifle their activity, creativity and growth either.

We are in an economic mess right now because part of our financial system was not regulated enough and there was unchecked criminal activity, too.  Got some BAD children out there.

[Dog Walker]

BT,  There are some sore losers out there.

[BridgeTroll]

The people I listed are also philanthropists of the highest degree.  They give back quite a bit...

[BridgeTroll]

If they didnt hold the money in trust for charitable funds they would go directly to the highest taxable column.  When the money is donated to charity, both the interests rates raised for charitable donations and the principal are tax free.

Really?  Just a big ol tax break to them eh?  Oprah?  OPRAH?

[Dog Walker]

If I've got my dates right, Andrew Carnegie gave away most of his money before there was any charitable contribution on income tax.  He basically established the free library system in this country.  And Stephen is right.  We need to encourage charity with our tax system especially in view of our ridiculous inheritance (death) taxes.

If you look catty cornered from the old Hayden Burns library you will see a neo-Classical building that was the first public library in Jacksonville and was built and stocked with Carnegie money.

There was a mezzanine with glass floors.  In the winter time we used to shuffle our feet on those floors and could generate a static spark that would jump six inches.  Young boys are easily amused by that sort of thing (and still am!)

[NotNow]

I wish someone could tell me how to look into the hearts of others.  Would have made life much easier.  How is that done?

[Dog Walker]

NN, there is one way to get some idea of what's there.  Look at the actions.  "What you do speaks so loudly I cannot hear what you say."  - Maslow.

"Have you ever known the long considered opinion of a village about a villager to be wrong?" - Patrick O'Brien.

Unfortunately, there is no quick test.

[JC]

it allows the greediest turds to float to the top of the bowl!

You mean self made billionaires like Oprah?  Gates?  Allen?  Jobs?  Zuckerberg?  These are but a few of the billionaire turds who have risen to the top... How about the self made millionaires?  Turds also?  How about working stiffs like my father and mother who came from the poorest of the poor and are now pretty well off?  Turds??

Floating to the top?  Or scratching and clawing your way to the top?  The top is the aspiration... few actually make it.  

You are reverse engineering my statement to suit your outrage.  Are all people who manage to make it work turds, no, of course not but many are.  Eric Prince, Dick Cheney, Bernie Madoff, Rupert Murdoch, the list is endless.  The point is that, and it is the last time I will make it, that capitalism fosters the worst in humans, it is a framework where within you can destroy whatever you need to just so you can have a bigger house and a fancy hand made car, its stupid and more often than not far more destructive than productive.  The entire industrial revolution has lead to the destruction of our environment, it has caused countless wars, terrorism, you name it all for global market dominance.  I can list a shit load of examples where American companies have gone into foreign countries and exploited the people and the resources, this all happens because such incredible greed is sanctioned by government and, worst of all, public schools.

Stephen,  Charity, compassion and sharing are absolutely built in to our species, thank heavens!

Ipods aren't built in sweatshops either.

Pure lassez-fair capitalism doesn't work any more than pure Communism or Socialism or Merchantilism works.  Our system of regulated capitalism, encouragement of charity, and government support for social infrastructure has worked pretty well.  We have been, still are, and will remain the most flexible and powerful economy in the world as long as we keep the balance right.

Maybe it's a little like raising children.  You have to set limits to and check on their behavior, but you can't stifle their activity, creativity and growth either.

We are in an economic mess right now because part of our financial system was not regulated enough and there was unchecked criminal activity, too.  Got some BAD children out there.

Sweatshop Conditions at IPod Factory Reported
   
By Mike Musgrove
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 16, 2006

Apple Computer Inc. is having an iPod-related public relations headache this week, following a report by a British newspaper on working conditions at Chinese factories where the popular music player is built.

The Mail on Sunday reported that a Chinese factory that manufactures iPods employs 200,000 workers who live in dormitories where visitors are not permitted. Workers toil for 15-hour days for as little as $50 per month, according to the article.

As Mac fan sites buzzed with debate over the report, Apple issued a statement saying it is investigating the matter.

"Apple is committed to ensuring that working conditions in our supply chain are safe, workers are treated with respect and dignity, and manufacturing processes are environmentally responsible," the company statement said.

Apple said it is "investigating the allegations regarding working conditions in the iPod manufacturing plant in China." It added, "We do not tolerate any violations of our supplier code of conduct."
ad_icon

IPod factory workers are employed by Taiwanese contract manufacturer Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., also known by the brand Foxconn Electronics Inc. The relationship between Apple and Hon Hai is typical in the electronics industry, where manufacturing is frequently handled by contract builders.

The working conditions, as described in the British newspaper article, aren't unusual, said Karin Mak, a project coordinator at a nonprofit watchdog organization called Sweatshop Watch.

"It's very common," she said. "These types of conditions are very typical, unfortunately."

Apple's six-page "Supplier Code of Conduct" -- posted at http://www.apple.com/environment -- would seem to prohibit the sort of treatment described in the article.

"Apple suppliers must uphold the human rights of workers, to treat them with dignity and respect as understood by the international community," reads a passage near the beginning of the document. The guidelines dictate that workers should be restricted to 60-hour workweeks except in unusual circumstances.

Apple has often celebrated its anti-corporate image, with its "Think different" marketing slogan and its use of figures such as John Lennon and Gandhi for ad campaigns.

That Northern California sensibility makes it all the more noticeable when activists accuse Apple of having bad karma.

Over the past year, environmentalists went after Apple for not having a full-fledged computer recycling program, unlike its competitors. In May, Apple beefed up its recycling program, in which customers can recycle old machines for free with the purchase of a new one.

More recently, some activists are going after the company for imposing digital-rights-management software on iTunes and the iPod, which some are portraying as a way to prevent consumers from using other software or hardware to enjoy their music collections in the future. Last weekend, activists turned up at Apple stores in seven cities across the country to protest the company's tactics.

On Mac user Web sites, the debate over the Chinese iPod factory article has some customers accusing the British newspaper of picking on their favorite company's hot product. "I think this is a piece of sensationalist journalism which uses the ipod popularity to make a catchy headline and make a story," wrote one reader at the Web site for Macworld magazine.

The people I listed are also philanthropists of the highest degree.  They give back quite a bit...

Agreed, the Bill and Malinda Gates foundation is doing really great work.  But again, for every one philanthropist their are many many people who are hording valuable resources while others starve!

There are some great examples of participatory economics, such as Mondragon, Black Spot and so forth.

Then there is of course "true" cost economics, where by the actual cost of a good or service from inception to elimination is attached to the retail price.

There are other models, but this one is not the best.  Also, I am not necessarily anti capitalist, I am more anti corporatist and against top down decision making, I am sure there is a word for that but I don't necessarily like to use it because all the other connotations that come along with it.

[BridgeTroll]

are you serious, Bridge?

Not entirely...  Most give for the right reasons.  They structure the trusts and donations as they do because of our tax laws... and they are smart... or smart enough to hire more smart people to structure them properly.

[Tripoli1711]

Stephen-

Maybe I am just totally uninformed, as tax law and I have always avoided each other like the plague.. but it seems to me that attributing the donations to charity of any person to tax benefits is total folly.  Let me see if I get this right:

Let's say I am taxed at 30%.  I have $1,000 that I made.  I should have to pay $300 in taxes on that.  That would leave me with $700.

If I donate $900 of that $1000 to charity, I get to write that off my taxes, which means I do not pay 30% tax on that money.  Now I am left with $100, on which I pay 30% leaving me with $70.

I am $630 behind.  Why did I donate that money to charity solely for tax benefits?