Globalism destroys the welfare-state (the right cheered)
Immortalist
The welfare state is basically a cartel. The difference between it and
corporate cartels is that the welfare state benefits many, while the
cartel benefits only a few. The welfare state benefits all citizens
who qualify for government or company pensions, who take advantage of
government health-care programs, and who send their children to public
schools and universities. But even those who do not derive financial
benefit from the welfare state enjoy the protections it guarantees:
the right to experience childhood, the right to form labor unions, the
right to race and gender equality, and the right to legal minimum
wage.
Put simply, the modern welfare state has made us all parts of its
cartel. We benefit from its protections and its financial perks. We
enjoy the luxury of having company bathrooms for both men and women,
as our labor laws require, we are only too willing to take advantage
of our federal holidays, and if our lives suddenly fall apart we can
always fall back on government assistance programs. We may think
government assistance is poor in the United States, but from the
standpoint of a worker in China or India it is nothing short of big
government.
If this protective cartel, which imposes social costs that make the
price of labor more expensive, competes with countries where these
protections and the corresponding monetary costs to society are
nonexistent, the cartel is suddenly no longer protective but
threatening. One of the reasons for the differences in labor costs
between the old and new members of the global labor market is this
very welfare state. Workers in the West enjoy its fruits while it
remains distant and unattainable to those in Asia and Eastern Europe.
Nevertheless, those who currently benefit from the welfare state, in
one way or another, now face the constant threat of losing their
livelihood. A system that only yesterday was seen as one of
civilization's great achievements now seems like a millstone around
its neck.
The opponents of the welfare state welcome global labor inflation with
open arms, because it has proven to be the most effective method of
whittling down the welfare state. They no longer need to promote or
actively engage in its dismantling, because it appears to be
disintegrating entirely of its own accord. For them, the easiest
approach is simply to ignore the welfare state, and one way of
achieving this is to order goods and services from Asian suppliers,
countries where the welfare state is close to nonexistent. Doing so is
practically a vote against the many benefits and achievements of the
welfare state and, of course, in favor of lower wages.
In free markets with free consumers, the friends of the welfare state
are in fact the greatest threat to its very existence. Most of us who
walk into a supermarket or a department store are unwilling to pay
what we might call a social surcharge. Normal shoppers at Target, Wal-
Mart, or even a car dealership are in fact avid fans of globalization.
They compare prices and performance, but they couldn't care less about
nationalities or social welfare systems. Everyone wants a good deal,
but no one wants to pay a markup-for anything-nor does anyone want to
hear about the unsavory way of doing business elsewhere in the world
that makes the good deal possible in the first place. Consumers
looking to buy a new sound system will compare the performance and
features of different systems, but not the wages of the workers who
produced them. Those consumers may consider themselves to be
idealistic, but they are in fact card-carrying materialists who only
occasionally are overcome by moral qualms. They even feign surprise at
the seemingly phenomenal bargains to be had-the large, handmade rugs
for ridiculously low prices and the computers and mobile phones
available at bargain basement prices.
With each purchase of a product from the Far East, consumers are
driving yet another nail into the coffin of their domestic social
welfare state. They compare products on price and performance while
ignoring the true costs to their domestic economy. Today's
globalization wouldn't stand a chance without the active participation
of consumers in every Western country. Western consumers are, in a
sense, the unwitting allies of the emerging nations in the war for
wealth. We call ourselves smart shoppers, but our purchase decisions
are in fact not nearly as clever as we believe them to be.
Unless someone stops us, we will destroy our domestic industries with
our cool-headed purchase decisions. Practically everything on store
shelves nowadays is available in a form that lacks the welfare state
rate.
We can choose to buy a car from General Motors, in which case the
sticker price includes $1,600 in social costs, as the CEO of General
Motors mentioned in a recent speech to his employees. But it would be
cheaper to pay a visit to the local Kia dealer. The price of a Kia
will not include a comparable markup, because South Korean workers
aren't guaranteed the same benefits as their counterparts in Detroit.
We can feel good about buying a Whirlpool washing machine, because it
reflects American values and has the American social cost-higher wages
and trade unions-built in. But standing right next to it is a row of
washing machines made in Taiwan, China, or Poland-low wages, no legal
cap on weekly working hours, and few if any environmental restrictions-
that are pretty much washing machines and nothing else. There is no
built-in welfare state in a Chinese-made household appliance.
Today, 75 percent of the world's population still lacks any form of
unemployment insurance-clearly a disadvantage to workers, but a boon
to the products they make and to the companies that employee them. The
workers shoulder the risks of illness, poverty, and old age, but the
products they make do not. The opposite is true in the West.
Workers have no representation in the Far East. Instead, they work
under the watchful eyes of factory foremen who, in the best case, will
choose leniency over the rule of law. The law is not the worker's
friend in the factories of low-wage countries. Workers are permitted
to work, but they are barred from demonstrating. Their wages are set,
not negotiated. The family, not the company, provides their social
safety net. The practice of "reeducation" in China's roughly 300 labor
camps also helps bring down prices. According to the Hong Kong-based
organization China Labour Bulletin, about 300,000 forced laborers help
boost China's exports. By bringing down labor costs even further (to
zero, in this case), the practice makes Chinese products even more
competitive on the global market.
We should think twice before we condemn company executives and
consumers. It would be foolish to blame them for seeking to maximize
their own benefit. The political decision to allow the countries of
Asia and Eastern Europe access to the global labor market was reached
in both camps, theirs and ours. They wanted to become part of the
Western production network and stake out their piece of the pie. We
encouraged and supported them, sometimes even egging them on. There is
no wrong or right in this situation. It is, however, important to
recognize that the global labor market, at least the way it has been
structured until now, has created sovereign territories accessible to
labor worldwide. Demand for labor changes from one country to the
next. Capitalists, of course, prefer countries that can offer them the
lowest possible wages and do not impose the pesky burden of additional
social costs.
Those who have believed that a market economy with a human face and
compassionate capitalism represents a final stage in our history are
now recognizing their colossal error. With the help of a global labor
and financial market, capitalism has regained its former brutality
while many of the constituents of the welfare state have been
weakened. The market has picked up speed and, apparently, a certain
sense of inevitability. Meanwhile, yesterday's social achievements
have faded. Capitalism, which undoubtedly will have generated more
wealth worldwide by the end of this process, is returning to its
roots, at least for now.
The War for Wealth: The True Story of
Globalization, or Why the Flat World
is Broken by Gabor Steingart
http://www.amazon.com/War-Wealth-Story-Globalization-Broken/dp/0071545964
Vandals - Anarchy Burger (Hold The Government)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwuiHI0-z3c
http://www.lyrics007.com/Vandals%20Lyrics/Anarchy%20Burger%20Lyrics.html
Nickname unavailable
great article, and thank you. i have always thought free market
economics is really a version of fascism, and that article is spot on.
once capital has destroyed the modern welfare state, who are they
going to sell their products and services to?
the free market thinks that job will be picked up by the chinese and
indian worker. but of course that is a fantasy. both countries
combined have about 2 billion, 600 million workers that make $2.00 a
day or less. and the rest, about 3-400 million, make about 5k a year
or less.
the current spike in consumption in china is also a fantasy, that the
free market has grasped like someone who is desperate to grab
anything, when going under in quick sand. that consumption is because
of wild drunken sailor borrowing that in many cases, is a waste, and
cannot be paid back.
free market economics is so destructive, that as time goes on, even
the wealthy will start to lose their wealth. the depression proved
that. as the cranks kick and scream for more greed and selfishness,
they are actually digging their own graves.
Michael Price
> The Customer Is King-With or Without the Welfare State?
>
> The welfare state is basically a cartel. The difference between it and
> corporate cartels is that the welfare state benefits many, while the
> cartel benefits only a few.
Umm.... so the fact that poverty increased under the welfare state
in America
tells you what?
> The welfare state benefits all citizens
> who qualify for government or company pensions,
Except of course those who qualify because taxation destroyed their
jobs
and they had to go on welfare.
> who take advantage of government health-care programs,
Except of course those who die waiting.
> and who send their children to public schools and universities.
Except of course those who, if they didn't pay for public schools
in
their taxes could afford the private education they actually wanted
for
their kids.
> But even those who do not derive financial
> benefit from the welfare state enjoy the protections it guarantees:
> the right to experience childhood,
Which is nowhere guaranteed by the welfare state as any look at some
of those taken into care (often without good reason) proves.
> the right to form labor unions,
Which if anything the State restricts not protects.
> the right to race and gender equality,
Which has nothing to do with the welfare state.
> and the right to legal minimum wage.
>
Which is nothing but the right to be fired if you cannot achieve
productivity that justifies an arbitrary level of payment.
> Put simply, the modern welfare state has made us all parts of its
> cartel. We benefit from its protections and its financial perks. We
> enjoy the luxury of having company bathrooms for both men and women,
> as our labor laws require,
Well firstly labour laws and the welfare state are two different
things, but
if you need a law to get two bathrooms how worthwhile can it be? If
the
opportunity to employ women is less valuable to a company than the
cost
of a bathroom how much benefit can women derive from being employed
by
them?
> we are only too willing to take advantage
> of our federal holidays, and if our lives suddenly fall apart we can
> always fall back on government assistance programs.
Which encourages people to live lives that can fall apart.
> We may think
> government assistance is poor in the United States, but from the
> standpoint of a worker in China or India it is nothing short of big
> government.
>
> If this protective cartel, which imposes social costs that make the
> price of labor more expensive, competes with countries where these
> protections and the corresponding monetary costs to society are
> nonexistent, the cartel is suddenly no longer protective but
> threatening.
Nothing sudden about it.
> One of the reasons for the differences in labor costs
> between the old and new members of the global labor market is this
> very welfare state. Workers in the West enjoy its fruits while it
> remains distant and unattainable to those in Asia and Eastern Europe.
> Nevertheless, those who currently benefit from the welfare state, in
> one way or another, now face the constant threat of losing their
> livelihood. A system that only yesterday was seen as one of
> civilization's great achievements now seems like a millstone around
> its neck.
>
Yes it's called "waking up".
> The opponents of the welfare state welcome global labor inflation with
> open arms, because it has proven to be the most effective method of
> whittling down the welfare state. They no longer need to promote or
> actively engage in its dismantling, because it appears to be
> disintegrating entirely of its own accord. For them, the easiest
> approach is simply to ignore the welfare state, and one way of
> achieving this is to order goods and services from Asian suppliers,
> countries where the welfare state is close to nonexistent. Doing so is
> practically a vote against the many benefits and achievements of the
> welfare state and, of course, in favor of lower wages.
>
Yeah and you notice that everyone is voting that way? Notice how
everyone is buying things from places that don't have this millstone
around their necks? You're doing it as much as others I bet.
> In free markets with free consumers, the friends of the welfare state
> are in fact the greatest threat to its very existence. Most of us who
> walk into a supermarket or a department store are unwilling to pay
> what we might call a social surcharge. Normal shoppers at Target, Wal-
> Mart, or even a car dealership are in fact avid fans of globalization.
> They compare prices and performance, but they couldn't care less about
> nationalities or social welfare systems. Everyone wants a good deal,
> but no one wants to pay a markup-for anything-nor does anyone want to
> hear about the unsavory way of doing business elsewhere in the world
> that makes the good deal possible in the first place.
Of course they don't want to pay a markup, if they wanted to pay for
the
"benefits" of a welfare state they would have done so in the first
place. The
whole point of a welfare state is getting benefits without paying for
them, i.e.
stealing.
> Consumers looking to buy a new sound system will compare the performance
> and features of different systems, but not the wages of the workers who
> produced them. Those consumers may consider themselves to be
> idealistic, but they are in fact card-carrying materialists who only
> occasionally are overcome by moral qualms.
Why should they feel a "moral qualm" at buying something that
someone
is happy to sell at that price? If the worker wants to sell his
labour at a price,
why would it be immoral to buy it? Now you might say it's morally
preferable
that he get more money, but that's true of many people around the
world. There
is no coherent moral reason why we should prefer enriching the
deserving poor
that we have some indirect economic relationship with. Those who lack
such
a relationship tend to be poorer and thus more in need of help.
> They even feign surprise at the seemingly phenomenal bargains to be had-the
> large, handmade rugs for ridiculously low prices and the computers and mobile
> phones available at bargain basement prices.
>
> With each purchase of a product from the Far East, consumers are
> driving yet another nail into the coffin of their domestic social
> welfare state. They compare products on price and performance while
> ignoring the true costs to their domestic economy.
So then they should ignore the costs to the foreign economy instead?
> Today's globalization wouldn't stand a chance without the active participation
> of consumers in every Western country. Western consumers are, in a
> sense, the unwitting allies of the emerging nations in the war for
> wealth.
Yes, the war between those who think they're owed a living because
they
live in a rich country and those who actually provide value to western
consumers.
> We call ourselves smart shoppers, but our purchase decisions
> are in fact not nearly as clever as we believe them to be.
>
> Unless someone stops us, we will destroy our domestic industries with
> our cool-headed purchase decisions. Practically everything on store
> shelves nowadays is available in a form that lacks the welfare state
> rate.
>
> We can choose to buy a car from General Motors, in which case the
> sticker price includes $1,600 in social costs, as the CEO of General
> Motors mentioned in a recent speech to his employees.
By "social costs" he means "costs that resulted from short sighted
dodges
around moronic government policies that are now eating us alive".
GM's
pension schemes aren't about being nice, they're about giving some of
the
best paid workers in America more despite their labor not producing
anything
profitable*.
> But it would be cheaper to pay a visit to the local Kia dealer. The price of a Kia
> will not include a comparable markup, because South Korean workers
> aren't guaranteed the same benefits as their counterparts in Detroit.
> We can feel good about buying a Whirlpool washing machine, because it
> reflects American values and has the American social cost-higher wages
> and trade unions-built in. But standing right next to it is a row of
> washing machines made in Taiwan, China, or Poland-low wages, no legal
> cap on weekly working hours, and few if any environmental restrictions-
> that are pretty much washing machines and nothing else. There is no
> built-in welfare state in a Chinese-made household appliance.
>
So in other words nothing we don't actually want to pay for. I mean
why
do you think the welfare state is paid for by progressive taxation in
the first
place? Because nobody likes the benefits enough to pay for them.
> Today, 75 percent of the world's population still lacks any form of
> unemployment insurance-clearly a disadvantage to workers, but a boon
> to the products they make and to the companies that employee them. The
> workers shoulder the risks of illness, poverty, and old age, but the
> products they make do not.
All these risks are lowered by the wealth going into these countries
due to
globalisation.
> The opposite is true in the West.
>
> Workers have no representation in the Far East. Instead, they work
> under the watchful eyes of factory foremen who, in the best case, will
> choose leniency over the rule of law. The law is not the worker's
> friend in the factories of low-wage countries. Workers are permitted
> to work, but they are barred from demonstrating. Their wages are set,
> not negotiated.
You really have no idea how a market works do you?
> The family, not the company, provides their social
> safety net.
And how is that bad?
> The practice of "reeducation" in China's roughly 300 labor
> camps also helps bring down prices. According to the Hong Kong-based
> organization China Labour Bulletin, about 300,000 forced laborers help
> boost China's exports. By bringing down labor costs even further (to
> zero, in this case), the practice makes Chinese products even more
> competitive on the global market.
>
Which is what is bad with the State not the lack of a State.
> We should think twice before we condemn company executives and
> consumers. It would be foolish to blame them for seeking to maximize
> their own benefit. The political decision to allow the countries of
> Asia and Eastern Europe access to the global labor market was reached
> in both camps, theirs and ours. They wanted to become part of the
> Western production network and stake out their piece of the pie. We
> encouraged and supported them, sometimes even egging them on. There is
> no wrong or right in this situation. It is, however, important to
> recognize that the global labor market, at least the way it has been
> structured until now, has created sovereign territories accessible to
> labor worldwide. Demand for labor changes from one country to the
> next. Capitalists, of course, prefer countries that can offer them the
> lowest possible wages and do not impose the pesky burden of additional
> social costs.
>
> Those who have believed that a market economy with a human face and
> compassionate capitalism represents a final stage in our history are
> now recognizing their colossal error.
No they're recognizing that enormous wealth is going to workers in
the poorer
countries and that people like you are trying to stop that. Why? Not
to benefit
the poor country's workers, they're benefited by the exact opposite.
> With the help of a global labor
> and financial market, capitalism has regained its former brutality
> while many of the constituents of the welfare state have been
> weakened.
Yes it's "brutal" how capitalism is improving lives all over the
world at the cost of
your unemployment cheque.
> The market has picked up speed and, apparently, a certain
> sense of inevitability. Meanwhile, yesterday's social achievements
> have faded. Capitalism, which undoubtedly will have generated more
> wealth worldwide by the end of this process, is returning to its
> roots, at least for now.
>
> The War for Wealth: The True Story of
> Globalization, or Why the Flat World
> is Broken by Gabor Steingarthttp://www.amazon.com/War-Wealth-Story-Globalization-Broken/dp/007154...
>
> Vandals - Anarchy Burger (Hold The Government)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwuiHI0-z3chttp://www.lyrics007.com/Vandals%20Lyrics/Anarchy%20Burger%20Lyrics.html
* To be fair this is largely the result of boneheaded management.
Michael Price
> On Sep 29, 8:39 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> great article, and thank you. i have always thought free market
> economics is really a version of fascism,
And the fact that fascism is specifically an anti-free market
doctrine
and that everything it does interferes with the free market doesn't
change
that opinion. This is because you're an idiot.
Nickname unavailable
> On Sep 30, 12:13 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 29, 8:39 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > great article, and thank you. i have always thought free market
> > economics is really a version of fascism,
>
> And the fact that fascism is specifically an anti-free market
> doctrine
> and that everything it does interferes with the free market doesn't
> change
> that opinion. This is because you're an idiot.
>
idiot. mussolini said fascism was really corporatism. you are really a
closet fascist.
David P.
> Imp <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >[...]
> Great article, thanks. I've always thought free market
> economics is really a version of fascism...
"Competition is the absence of oppression."--F. Bastiat
.
.
--
Michael Price
> On Sep 29, 11:34 pm, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Sep 30, 12:13 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 29, 8:39 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > great article, and thank you. i have always thought free market
> > > economics is really a version of fascism,
>
> > And the fact that fascism is specifically an anti-free market
> > doctrine
> > and that everything it does interferes with the free market doesn't
> > change
> > that opinion. This is because you're an idiot.
>
> and you thought that somalia was a great place,
No I didn't and I never said I did. I merely suggested that it was
a lot
better without a State.
> and you call me a idiot.
And a liar. If you say another stupid thing I'll call you stupid
again.
> mussolini said fascism was really corporatism. you are really a
> closet fascist.
You're stupid. Corporatism is not the free market and Mussolini
consistently opposed the free market. Name one policy of mine
that is closer to fascism than your equivalent preferred policy.
Rod Speed
> The Customer Is King-With or Without the Welfare State?
> The welfare state is basically a cartel.
Nope, there is still quite a bit of charity along side govt welfare.
> The difference between it and corporate cartels is that
> the welfare state benefits many, while the cartel benefits
> only a few. The welfare state benefits all citizens who
> qualify for government or company pensions,
Company pensions arent anything to do with the welfare state.
They are another form of remuneration.
And stuff like social security isnt welfare either, since
you basically pay for what you end up receiving.
> who take advantage of government health-care programs,
That isnt necessarily welfare either when the voters decide
that that is how they want health care to be done.
> and who send their children to public schools and universities.
And that welfare either when the voters
decide that that is how they want it done.
> But even those who do not derive financial benefit from
> the welfare state enjoy the protections it guarantees:
Not necessarily either, most obviously those who chose to
not put their hand out for what they are legally entitled to.
> the right to experience childhood, the right to form labor unions, the
> right to race and gender equality, and the right to legal minimum wage.
None of that is welfare. Its just what the voters have decided you are legally entitled to.
> Put simply, the modern welfare state has made us all parts of its cartel.
None of what you listed is anything like a cartel.
> We benefit from its protections and its financial perks.
We benefit from good govt that facilitates a viable economy too.
> We enjoy the luxury of having company bathrooms
> for both men and women, as our labor laws require,
That aint a luxury either. Neither are the desks etc and the roof.
> we are only too willing to take advantage of our federal holidays,
Not everyone chooses to do that.
> and if our lives suddenly fall apart we can always
> fall back on government assistance programs.
Plenty make their own provision for that sort of situation.
> We may think government assistance is poor in the United States, but from the
> standpoint of a worker in China or India it is nothing short of big government.
> If this protective cartel,
It aint anything even remotely resembling anything like a cartel.
> which imposes social costs that make the price of labor more
> expensive, competes with countries where these protections
> and the corresponding monetary costs to society are nonexistent,
> the cartel is suddenly no longer protective but threatening.
Mindlessly silly when the unemployment rate bottomed
at 4.x% with an immense legal and illegal immigration rate.
> One of the reasons for the differences in labor costs between the old
> and new members of the global labor market is this very welfare state.
It is in fact a completely trivial part of the real reason why US labor
costs are more than 10 times those in china, even for say an engineer.
> Workers in the West enjoy its fruits while it remains distant
> and unattainable to those in Asia and Eastern Europe.
Depends on how you measure the fruits.
> Nevertheless, those who currently benefit from the welfare state, in one
> way or another, now face the constant threat of losing their livelihood.
Only temporarily. And that threat is there for the others in spades even
just a significant medical problem can produce extreme poverty for them.
> A system that only yesterday was seen as one of civilization's
> great achievements now seems like a millstone around its neck.
Only to fools.
> The opponents of the welfare state welcome global labor
> inflation with open arms, because it has proven to be the
> most effective method of whittling down the welfare state.
Mindlessly silly. That hasnt happened much at all anywhere in the west.
> They no longer need to promote or actively engage in its dismantling,
> because it appears to be disintegrating entirely of its own accord.
Only for the fools like you.
> For them, the easiest approach is simply to ignore the welfare state,
> and one way of achieving this is to order goods and services from Asian
> suppliers, countries where the welfare state is close to nonexistent.
Thats a lie too, particularly with education that you claim is part of the welfare state.
> Doing so is practically a vote against the many
> benefits and achievements of the welfare state
Wrong.
> and, of course, in favor of lower wages.
And that in spades. US wages will never ever be anything like what they are in china.
> In free markets with free consumers,
No such animal.
> the friends of the welfare state are in fact
> the greatest threat to its very existence.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
> Most of us who walk into a supermarket or a department store
> are unwilling to pay what we might call a social surcharge.
Wrong again. You pay that every time you patronise the store, fool.
> Normal shoppers at Target, Wal-Mart, or even a
> car dealership are in fact avid fans of globalization.
Not avid fans, just consumers of what globalization produces.
> They compare prices and performance, but they couldn't care
> less about nationalities or social welfare systems. Everyone wants
> a good deal, but no one wants to pay a markup-for anything-
Plenty do.
> nor does anyone want to hear about the unsavory
>way of doing business elsewhere in the world
> that makes the good deal possible in the first place.
Wrong again. Hordes have enough of a clue that the
realise that buying stuff produced in china does provide
employment for those who would otherwise have to do
much heavier work in the fields in rural areas etc.
> Consumers looking to buy a new sound system will compare
> the performance and features of different systems, but not
> the wages of the workers who produced them.
What matters is that buying those products does provide employment
for others who would otherwise have to do much worse work.
> Those consumers may consider themselves to be idealistic,
> but they are in fact card-carrying materialists who only
> occasionally are overcome by moral qualms. They even
> feign surprise at the seemingly phenomenal bargains to
> be had-the large, handmade rugs for ridiculously low prices
And buying them is a lot better for those that make them
than buying machine made rugs made in a US factory etc.
> and the computers and mobile phones available at bargain basement prices.
> With each purchase of a product from the Far East, consumers
> are driving yet another nail into the coffin of their domestic social
> welfare state. They compare products on price and performance
> while ignoring the true costs to their domestic economy.
There is no 'true cost' when the unemployment rate bottomed
at 4.x% with an immense legal and illegal immigration rate.
> Today's globalization wouldn't stand a chance without the
> active participation of consumers in every Western country.
Must be one of those rocket scientist fuckwits.
> Western consumers are, in a sense, the unwitting
> allies of the emerging nations in the war for wealth.
And its them that are lifting the real living standards in those countrys dramatically.
> We call ourselves smart shoppers, but our purchase decisions
> are in fact not nearly as clever as we believe them to be.
What we believe them to be is completely irrelevant.
> Unless someone stops us, we will destroy our domestic
> industries with our cool-headed purchase decisions.
We did that with the industrialisation of agriculture too.
> Practically everything on store shelves nowadays is
> available in a form that lacks the welfare state rate.
Yes, but buying them does improve the real living
standards in the countrys that make them dramatically.
That approach leaves welfare hand outs for dead unless you are just
another mindless racist that doesnt care about their living standards.
> We can choose to buy a car from General Motors, in which case
> the sticker price includes $1,600 in social costs, as the CEO of
> General Motors mentioned in a recent speech to his employees.
Just because that fool claims that doesnt make it gospel.
> But it would be cheaper to pay a visit to the local Kia dealer. The price
> of a Kia will not include a comparable markup, because South Korean
> workers aren't guaranteed the same benefits as their counterparts in Detroit.
But unless you are a rabid racist, their benefits matter too.
Why are americans more entitled to their third
SUV and a south korean is to their first car ?
> We can feel good about buying a Whirlpool washing machine,
> because it reflects American values and has the American social
> cost-higher wages and trade unions-built in. But standing right
> next to it is a row of washing machines made in Taiwan, China,
> or Poland-low wages, no legal cap on weekly working hours,
Thats a lie.
> and few if any environmental restrictions
Their choice.
> - that are pretty much washing machines and nothing else. There
> is no built-in welfare state in a Chinese-made household appliance.
Wrong with your claim that education is part of the welfare state.
> Today, 75 percent of the world's population still lacks any form
> of unemployment insurance-clearly a disadvantage to workers,
But buying what they produce leaves unemployment insurance for dead, fool.
> but a boon to the products they make and to the companies that employee them.
And to those who are employed to make them, fool.
> The workers shoulder the risks of illness, poverty, and old age,
> but the products they make do not. The opposite is true in the West.
Yes, our standard of living allows that. Theirs
doesnt. They care much more about the jobs.
> Workers have no representation in the Far East.
Another pig ignorant lie.
> Instead, they work under the watchful eyes of factory foremen
> who, in the best case, will choose leniency over the rule of law.
Another pig ignorant lie.
> The law is not the worker's friend in the factories of low-wage countries.
Another pig ignorant lie.
> Workers are permitted to work, but they are barred from demonstrating.
Another pig ignorant lie.
> Their wages are set, not negotiated.
Another pig ignorant lie.
> The family, not the company, provides their social safety net.
Another pig ignorant lie.
> The practice of "reeducation" in China's roughly
> 300 labor camps also helps bring down prices.
Not anymore.
> According to the Hong Kong-based organization China Labour
> Bulletin, about 300,000 forced laborers help boost China's exports.
Just because those fools claim something doesnt make it gospel.
> By bringing down labor costs even further (to zero,
> in this case), the practice makes Chinese products
> even more competitive on the global market.
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
> We should think twice before we condemn company executives
> and consumers. It would be foolish to blame them for seeking
> to maximize their own benefit.
True in spades of the consumers that buy the products, fool.
> The political decision to allow the countries of Asia
> and Eastern Europe access to the global labor
> market was reached in both camps, theirs and ours.
Wrong again. We've never been stupid enough to ban all imports.
> They wanted to become part of the Western production
> network and stake out their piece of the pie.
You dont stake out pieces of pie, you illiterate clown.
> We encouraged and supported them, sometimes even egging them on.
Another pig ignorant lie.
> There is no wrong or right in this situation.
Must be one of those rocket scientist fuckwits.
> It is, however, important to recognize that the global labor
> market, at least the way it has been structured until now, has
> created sovereign territories accessible to labor worldwide.
Meaningless waffle.
> Demand for labor changes from one country to the next.
Must be one of those rocket scientist fuckwits.
> Capitalists, of course, prefer countries that can offer them the lowest possible wages
So do consumers.
> and do not impose the pesky burden of additional social costs.
They all do that. They just vary too.
Even HongKong before it was handed back to china did.
> Those who have believed that a market economy with a human
> face and compassionate capitalism represents a final stage in
> our history are now recognizing their colossal error.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
> With the help of a global labor and financial market,
> capitalism has regained its former brutality
Those that no longer have to work in the fields dont agree.
> while many of the constituents of the welfare state have been weakened.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
> The market has picked up speed and, apparently, a certain sense of inevitability.
Must be one of those rocket scientist fuckwits.
> Meanwhile, yesterday's social achievements have faded.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
> Capitalism, which undoubtedly will have generated more wealth worldwide
> by the end of this process, is returning to its roots, at least for now.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
> The War for Wealth: The True Story of Globalization,
Complete pack of pig ignorant lies, actually.
> or Why the Flat World is Broken
Wota fucking wanker...
> by Gabor Steingart
> http://www.amazon.com/War-Wealth-Story-Globalization-Broken/dp/0071545964
Just another completely mindless steaming turd.
> Vandals - Anarchy Burger (Hold The Government)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwuiHI0-z3c
> http://www.lyrics007.com/Vandals%20Lyrics/Anarchy%20Burger%20Lyrics.html
Just another completely mindless steaming turd.
ZerkonXXXX
> The Customer
implies product purchase. This is not the capitalists economy of today.
'Wealth' another dangling relative.
Unless debt is put front and center, all references to economy and wealth
and 'free market systems' have little to no grounding.
lorad
The bottom line is that the WTO treaty - which removed national
protection for US industries - opened the US up to competion against
slave labor wages.
.. which US workers cannot match until they too can work for 25 cents
a hour. Which is impossible.
The sooner that the imbeciles in governement realize this, and
withdraw from the WTO, the more likely it will be that the US will
survive.
It's that simple.
Beam Me Up Scotty
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
When you hold me at gun point and take my money and then hand my money
over to someone that you think needs it more than I do... that's armed
robbery and is illegal for private criminals and government criminals
alike.
Rod Speed
> The bottom line is that the WTO treaty
No such animal.
> - which removed national protection for US industries
Like hell it ever did.
> - opened the US up to competion against slave labor wages.
Like hell it ever did. That had happened LONG before the WTO ever showed up.
> .. which US workers cannot match until they too
> can work for 25 cents a hour. Which is impossible.
And the unemployment rate bottomed at 4.x% with an immense legal and illegal immigration rate ANYWAY.
> The sooner that the imbeciles in governement realize this, and withdraw
> from the WTO, the more likely it will be that the US will survive.
It'll survive fine anyway.
> It's that simple.
Nope.
lorad
> No such animal.
It would be nice if you studied the subject before popping off about
it.
WTO was negotiated by US officials, ratified by congress, and signed
by Clinton.
According to Constitutional law that makes it a 'Treaty'.
> > - which removed national protection for US industries
> Like hell it ever did.
It did. The US cannot set quotas or tariffs on any imported product
usless it negotiates such quotas or tariffs with the source country.
> > - opened the US up to competion against slave labor wages.
> Like hell it ever did. That had happened LONG before the WTO ever showed up.
The WTO treaty *codifies* the economic undermining of US labor into
treaty (law) form.
> > .. which US workers cannot match until they too
> > can work for 25 cents a hour. Which is impossible.
> And the unemployment rate bottomed at 4.x% with an immense legal and illegal immigration rate ANYWAY.
What are you burbling about?
The current unemployment rate is about 20% - and increasing.
The immigration fiasco is a separate neocon project.
> > The sooner that the imbeciles in governement realize this, and withdraw
> > from the WTO, the more likely it will be that the US will survive.
> It'll survive fine anyway.
Only in mud huts.
> > It's that simple.
> Nope
Yep.
Wiki "WTO" for a clue.
Rod Speed
>> No such animal.
You in spades.
> WTO was negotiated by US officials,
No such 'treaty' ever was.
> ratified by congress, and signed by Clinton.
Utterly mangled all over again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTO
> According to Constitutional law that makes it a 'Treaty'.
Wrong, as always.
>>> - which removed national protection for US industries
>> Like hell it ever did.
> It did.
Like hell it ever did.
> The US cannot set quotas or tariffs on any imported product
> usless it negotiates such quotas or tariffs with the source country.
Wrong, as always. Have fun explaining what Obummer has just done with care tire imports.
>>> - opened the US up to competion against slave labor wages.
>> Like hell it ever did. That had happened LONG before the WTO ever showed up.
> The WTO treaty
No such animal.
> *codifies* the economic undermining of US labor into treaty (law) form.
Pity that opening up the US to competition happened LONG before the WTO ever showed up.
>>> .. which US workers cannot match until they too
>>> can work for 25 cents a hour. Which is impossible.
>> And the unemployment rate bottomed at 4.x% with an
>> immense legal and illegal immigration rate ANYWAY.
> What are you burbling about?
> The current unemployment rate is about 20%
Wrong, as always.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm
And that aint what it BOTTOMED at anyway.
> - and increasing.
> The immigration fiasco is a separate neocon project.
Still continues with Obummer.
>>> The sooner that the imbeciles in governement realize this, and withdraw
>>> from the WTO, the more likely it will be that the US will survive.
>> It'll survive fine anyway.
> Only in mud huts.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasyland.
>>> It's that simple.
>> Nope
> Yep.
Nope.
> Wiki "WTO" for a clue.
Even that wont work for someone as stupid as you.
Les Cargill
Rod Speed
> Exclusive video footage of Rod Speed
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
John Stafford
>When you hold me at gun point and take my money and then hand my money
>over to someone that you think needs it more than I do... that's armed
>robbery and is illegal for private criminals and government criminals
>alike.
When has anyone held a gun to your head like that?
But more to the point - why aren't you smart enough to know what is
really happening so that you have more time making money and success
than you have time being a fucking loser on usenet?
Mason C
Tell my I'm wrong, but my impression is that NAFTA and WTO are
not *treaties* Treaties require the advise and consent of two-thirds
of the Senate. There was no such consent. It was obvious that such
consent would not happen so it was not even requested.
They are *Agreements*. The President signing an Agreement does
not make it a treaty. Agreements do not have the constitutional
weight of treaties. They can be changed by law and do not
override state laws as treaties do.
Nickname unavailable
correct, its pretty simple to see. in fact, it was pretty simple to
see in the first place. and i saw nothing but so-called intelligent
people pooh pooh everyone who warned them it was a race to the bottom.
the amount of outrageous statements about how free trade would cure
all of the ills in the world, and the win win crap, it spreads
democracy, completely silly stuff. now to save it they are trying to
get to our selfish side.
the free marketers destroyed the demand of the western worker, and
now the free market cult is running around blaming protectionism,
completely insane.
Nickname unavailable
dog.com> wrote:
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 11:34 pm, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 30, 12:13 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 29, 8:39 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> great article, and thank you. i have always thought free market
> >>> economics is really a version of fascism,
> >> And the fact that fascism is specifically an anti-free market
> >> doctrine
> >> and that everything it does interferes with the free market doesn't
> >> change
> >> that opinion. This is because you're an idiot.
>
> > and you thought that somalia was a great place, and you call me a
> > idiot. mussolini said fascism was really corporatism. you are really a
> > closet fascist.
>
> The only thing I hate more than corporations, are Socialist collectives.
>
then don't invest in the stock market.
Nickname unavailable
i could be wrong, but nafta never made the 2/3rds requirement, but
hey, the constitution to conservatives(and yes the clinton wing of the
democratic party is conservative)is just a god damned piece of paper.
Rod Speed
> They are *Agreements*.
The WTO isnt even an agreement.
> The President signing an Agreement does not make it a treaty.
> Agreements do not have the constitutional weight of treaties.
> They can be changed by law and do not override state laws as treaties do.
And are meaningless with just a presidential signature.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Sep 30, 11:59 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> dog.com> wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>> On Sep 29, 11:34 pm, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 30, 12:13 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 29, 8:39 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> great article, and thank you. i have always thought free market
>>>>> economics is really a version of fascism,
>>>> And the fact that fascism is specifically an anti-free market
>>>> doctrine
>>>> and that everything it does interferes with the free market doesn't
>>>> change
>>>> that opinion. This is because you're an idiot.
>>> and you thought that somalia was a great place, and you call me a
>>> idiot. mussolini said fascism was really corporatism. you are really a
>>> closet fascist.
>> The only thing I hate more than corporations, are Socialist collectives.
>>
>
>
> then don't invest in the stock market.
>
I'm not. I tend to collect commodities like Gold
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
*A LIBERTARIAN BAIL-OUT PLAN*
Reducing regulations is primary since regulation is what stifles
commerce, the more regulations, the more it costs our economy. Most
regulations are used by existing businesses to reduce competition, and
competition would help us get out of this depression.
End the "war on drugs" make them legal(increase competition) and sold at
any drug store and make prostitution legal too, that will take the BIG
money out of trafficking in drugs, and that will reduce the
gangs/dealers income and that should reduce the value of sex slaves and
hurt the slavery business income also. Why have illegal prostitutes
when there are so many legal tax paying prostitutes out there?
Have the States Ratify an amendment withdrawing the 16th amendment...
Maybe enact the http://fairtax.org (Federal sales tax) with the same
amendment that
removes income tax. This will reduce the number of tax crimes that
people are in jails for.
Then cut every single expenditure of the government by 10%, and begin
to draw
down troops as needed from around the world.
This tax policy will financially assault the drug dealers and hookers
and other underground economy's by forcing them to have to pay tax when
they spend their money, which will further reduce the benefit of dealing
in other illegal stuff. We are "right now" taking money from peoples
pay checks before they get them and at the same time we don't tax drug
dealers or hookers and illegals or others at all. Sales tax will also
encourage saving money rather than encouraging the leveraging of every
dime you can get like income tax does.
This will drive people in the underground economy to become part of the
real economy. It will stop most of the turf killings and end our
Immigration problems with illegals stealing identities since they will
be paying tax(as sales tax). Offer illegals low welfare and charge them
tax and they won't be so eager to come here and we won't need to chase
them......
End social security, grandfather it out of existence.
Pass an amendment to the constitution that makes all laws have a four year
sunset clause, and it requires that each law be voted by a seperate roll
call
vote every four years to continue to be maintained in our laws.
Pass another amendment creating term limits on congress so the House has
4 terms and the Senate has 2 terms.
We need to quit filling the jails with people over *social taboos* , we
need to take away congress' ability to "regulate" businesses/people
using tax code. Government needs to spend 10% less every year until they
meet the income of the government. And we need to give up our roll as
the police man of the world, let them fight their own fights. We need
fewer people committing crimes, we need fewer police and prisons....this
drug and tax plans.... will reduce police and prison needs by at least
that 10% that this plan suggested cutting.
NO welfare to corporations, and cut welfare to people by 10% each year
until it is 10% of what it is today.
Any way you look at it, we're in DEEP for a long time.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Beam Me Up Scotty said:
>
>> When you hold me at gun point and take my money and then hand my money
>> over to someone that you think needs it more than I do... that's armed
>> robbery and is illegal for private criminals and government criminals
>> alike.
>
> When has anyone held a gun to your head like that?
>
Refuse to pay your tax and see if they come to your house with guns to
move you out. Then get back to me.
> But more to the point - why aren't you smart enough to know what is
> really happening so that you have more time making money and success
> than you have time being a fucking loser on usenet?
Freedom is a beautiful thing, I don't need to live up to your standards.
Michael Coburn
> Exclusive video footage of Rod Speed
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJJA1vvMc4I
Other than the unfortunate coincidence that the virus is being played by
a donkey it is pretty darned close.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Les Cargill
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:14:14 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> Exclusive video footage of Rod Speed
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJJA1vvMc4I
>
> Other than the unfortunate coincidence that the virus is being played by
> a donkey it is pretty darned close.
>
Scary, innit?
--
Les Cargill
Rod Speed
> John Stafford wrote:
>> Beam Me Up Scotty said:
>>
>>> When you hold me at gun point and take my money and then hand my
>>> money over to someone that you think needs it more than I do...
>>> that's armed robbery and is illegal for private criminals and
>>> government criminals alike.
>>
>> When has anyone held a gun to your head like that?
>>
>
> Refuse to pay your tax and see if they come to your house with guns to
> move you out. Then get back to me.
Taxation aint illegal for govt, fool.
>> But more to the point - why aren't you smart enough to know what
>> is really happening so that you have more time making money and
>> success than you have time being a fucking loser on usenet?
> Freedom is a beautiful thing,
You're free to fuck off to somalia where you can have as much freedom as you like.
> I don't need to live up to your standards.
And we can make an obscene gesture in the general direction of yours.
Nickname unavailable
dog.com> wrote:
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 11:59 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> > dog.com> wrote:
> >> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> >>> On Sep 29, 11:34 pm, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Sep 30, 12:13 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sep 29, 8:39 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> great article, and thank you. i have always thought free market
> >>>>> economics is really a version of fascism,
> >>>> And the fact that fascism is specifically an anti-free market
> >>>> doctrine
> >>>> and that everything it does interferes with the free market doesn't
> >>>> change
> >>>> that opinion. This is because you're an idiot.
> >>> and you thought that somalia was a great place, and you call me a
> >>> idiot. mussolini said fascism was really corporatism. you are really a
> >>> closet fascist.
> >> The only thing I hate more than corporations, are Socialist collectives.
>
> > then don't invest in the stock market.
>
> I'm not. I tend to collect commodities like Gold
>
ever hear of the buy low, sell high statement. there is another one,
bought high, forced into selling low. you are the other side of the
buy low equation.
we are in a deflationary pattern, cash is king.
> --
>
> *BE VERY CONCERNED*
>
> *A LIBERTARIAN BAIL-OUT PLAN*
>
> Reducing regulations is primary since regulation is what stifles
> commerce, the more regulations, the more it costs our economy. Most
> regulations are used by existing businesses to reduce competition, and
> competition would help us get out of this depression.
>
> End the "war on drugs" make them legal(increase competition) and sold at
> any drug store and make prostitution legal too, that will take the BIG
> money out of trafficking in drugs, and that will reduce the
> gangs/dealers income and that should reduce the value of sex slaves and
> hurt the slavery business income also. Why have illegal prostitutes
> when there are so many legal tax paying prostitutes out there?
>
> Have the States Ratify an amendment withdrawing the 16th amendment...
>
> Maybe enact thehttp://fairtax.org(Federal sales tax) with the same
Beam Me Up Scotty
Go for it.... get a wheelbarrow full of cash and roll in it.
You are free to "invest" in any dying economy you want to.
To me, money backed by a Socialist is worthless. I have no use for
anything socialism offers and that includes their paper promise notes.
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
"It is not a right if someone else has to pay for it"
~Ayn Rand~
Me
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Rod Speed wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> John Stafford wrote:
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty said:
>>>
>>>> When you hold me at gun point and take my money and then hand my
>>>> money over to someone that you think needs it more than I do...
>>>> that's armed robbery and is illegal for private criminals and
>>>> government criminals alike.
>>>
>>> When has anyone held a gun to your head like that?
>>>
>>
>> Refuse to pay your tax and see if they come to your house with guns to
>> move you out. Then get back to me.
>
> Taxation aint illegal for govt, fool.
The "Rod Speed FAQ" read it below or at the URL for yourself.....
- - - - - - - - -
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.internet.wireless/2006-07/msg00462.html
- - - - - - - - - -
After its recent emergence in the thread "How to calculate increase
of home wireless router range?", readers of this group may find
this useful. [based on a post in comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage]
Who or What is Rod Speed?
Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod
Speed is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered
he can enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the
big, hard man" on the InterNet.
Rod is believed to be from Australia.
Rod certainly posts a lot. Why is that?
It relates back to the point about boosting his own self esteem by
what amounts to effectively having a wank in public. Rod's
personality, as exemplified by his posts, means he is practically
unemployable which means he sits around at home all day festering
away and getting worse and worse. This means he posts more and
more try and boost the old failing self esteem. Being unemployed
also means he as a lot of time on his hands to post in he first
place.
But maybe Rod really is a very clever and knowledgable person?
Clever? His posts wouldn't support that theory. As far as being
knowledgable, well, Rod has posted to various aus newsgroups
including invest, comms, and politics. He has posted to all as a
self professed "expert" and flames any and all who disagree with
him. Logically, here's no way any single individual could be
more than a jack of all trades across such a wide spread of
subject matter.
But maybe Rod really is an expert in some areas?
Possibly. However, his "bedside manner" prevents him from being
taken seriously by most normal people. Also, he has damaged his
credibility in areas where he might know what he's on about by
shooting his self in the foot in areas where he does not. For
example, in the case of subject matter such as politics, even a
view held by Albert Einstein cannot be little more than an
opinion and to vociferously denigrate an opposing opinion is
simply small mindedness and bigotry, the kind of which Einstein
himself fought against his whole life.
What is Rod Speed's main modus operandi?
Simple! He shoots off a half brained opinion in response to any
other post and touts that opinion as fact. When challenged, he
responds with vociferous and rabid denigration. He has an
instantly recognisable set of schoolboy put downs limited pretty
much to the following: "Pathetic, Puerile, Little Boy, try
harder, trivial, more lies, gutless wonder, wanker, etc etc".
The fact that Rod has been unable to come up with any new insults
says a lot about his outlook and intelligence.
But why do so many people respond to Rod in turn?
It has to do with effrontery and a lack of logic. Most people
who post have some basis of reason for what they write and when
Rod retorts with his usual denigration and derision they respond
emotionally rather than logically. It's like a teacher in a
class room who has a misbehaving pupil. The teacher challenges
the pupil to explain himself and the student responds with "***
off, Big Nose!" Even thought the teacher has a fairly normal
proboscis, he gets a dent in his self-esteem and might resort to
an emotional repsonse like "yeah? well your *** wouldn't fill a
pop rivet, punk", which merely invites some oneupmanship from the
naughty pupil. Of course, the teacher should not have justified
the initial comment with a response, especially in front of the
class. The correct response was "please report to the
headmaster's office right NOW!"
What is a "RodBot"?
Some respondents in aus.invest built a "virtual Rod" which was
indiscernable from the "real" Rod. Net users could enter an
opinion or even a fact and the RoDBot would tell them they were
pathetic lying schoolboys who should be able to do better or some
equally pithy Rod Speedism.
Are you saying that Rod Speed is a Troll?
You got it!
What is the best way to handle Rod Speed?
KillFile!
Nickname unavailable
star trek was socialist.
Rod Speed
delusions about being a dog, desperately cowering behind
Me desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way out of
its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
No surprise that it got the bums rush, right out the door, onto its lard arse.
No surprise that its so pathetically bitter and twisted about it.
Mumia W.
>
> The bottom line is that the WTO treaty - which removed national
> protection for US industries - opened the US up to competion against
> slave labor wages.
> a hour. Which is impossible.
>
> The sooner that the imbeciles in governement realize this, and
> withdraw from the WTO, the more likely it will be that the US will
> survive.
> It's that simple.
>
The "imbeciles" in government /know/. They've been bought off by big
business and "free" marketers.
Nickname unavailable
correct.