What Baggins says about Nafta is true.

Cheaper labor leads to greater profits.

Isn't that what trickle down economics/Reagenomics (that all of the conservatives love) is all about?

I'm surprised to hear from conservatives here who are against it.

JJ, you're a funny guy, really. :p

Cheaper labor rates do lead to bigger profits. But at the expense of American jobs? That may be a good thing for the corporations, but not for the American worker.

Plaw, just a reminder. Clinton was the one who hawked this NAFTA to the American people telling them how good it would be for them. Not Reagan. It was under the Clinton administration that NAFTA was implemented. One of Bill's great acheivements for the American working man. :rolleyes:


DS

Meaningless help offered there! Chavez wants to make himself look good in the public eye by offering us Oil. But what the average person does not realize is that the oil that is being offered by Chavez is worthless. It needs to be refined and converted into gasoline, and right now that is our problem, no refineries! All the oil in the world would not help right now because it cannot be refined and converted into Gasoline or Heating Oil. And Chavez damn well knows this.


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]Mexico has the capabilities to convert and refine oil into gasoline and heating oil. And at a much lower cost than within the USA, due to thier lower enviremental standards.

Why haven't they offered to help us by sending us gasoline and heating oil? They are willing to send us thier 20 million illegals, but are not willing to offer us any converted oil.

I'm sick of it. Plaw is right. It's time that we tell the rest of the world SCREW OFF and start taking care of our own first.

DS

That's not good thinking. Solidarity is always good.
Very simple said:
The USA is the richest country, they must give the most.
UK is slightly less rich, they still must give much.
A country like Egypt is poor, but not unhumanly poor, they can take care of their own, and need help sometimes.
A country like Sierra Leone has nothing, and should get help, and give nothing.

Solidarity is not a one way street. And just because the US is a rich country does not mean that we HAVE to give a lot. You are typical of the attitude from that part of the world. When the US flexes it's muscle, people from that part of the world call us bullies and cowboys. but when people from that part of the world get into trouble, then it's call 1-800-United-States to help you! It's a one way street and I'm tired of it.

DS

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Don Smitty:
I'm sick of it. Plaw is right. It's time that we tell the rest of the world SCREW OFF and start taking care of our own first.

DS

Amen Brother

Outsourcing may cause short term job loss, but as I have stated previously, it eventually results in net job growth, as companies can continue to expand their businesses within our borders without experiencing the crippling costs of manufacturing products within the United States. In the end, outsourcing results in long term job growth, despite short term job losses. If companies were forced to keep jobs here in the United States, they would be forced to cut back on costs in order to stay profitable, which would result in job losses, but without new jobs being created elsewhere.

Solidarity is not a one way street. And just because the US is a rich country does not mean that we HAVE to give a lot. You are typical of the attitude from that part of the world. When the US flexes it's muscle, people from that part of the world call us bullies and cowboys. but when people from that part of the world get into trouble, then it's call 1-800-United-States to help you! It's a one way street and I'm tired of it.

DS [/b][/quote]Belgium, France, UK, Germany, and Russia all offered help. Bush said first: "Nice, but the only thing we need is your sympathy, we can take care of ourselves."
Later he accepted it, and I'm not talking about the sympathy.

Rich countries MUST give money to poor countries, cause
A: many, many million people in continents like Africa live a life that is so terrible that you can't even imagine it
B: it will help the world-economy if those countries can recover and make money on their own, which will eventually be a good thing for western countries

My mistake, I didn't make myself clear. I'm not only blaming the USA for giving too less solidarity. I'm blaming all western rich countries, including mine. Since the majority here is American, I only speak about America. I could speak about France, but I don't think there any French in here, so no one would care about that.

So my posts about solidarity, giving money to Africa, all seemed anti-American. Not that I think America is heaven, but subsequent anti-Americanism was not what I meant to carry out, I was criticizing all western countries.
Okay?

DS,

You have to realize that Enzo is from a different part of the world and sometimes the language barrier prevents him from clearly expressing what he is really trying to say in our language, and we misinterpret what he is really trying to convey. I've made that mistake myself in the past with him.

Now I don't agree with some of those statements myself, but at the same time I think that all he was really trying to say is that he feels for the poor of those other nations and it is his feeling that those who are more fortunate should be looking after those who are less fortunate. And that in itself is not a bad way to feel. That is somewhat true.

But I do believe, in regards to helping the poor and poverty stricken, that the head of a household must make sure that his OWN family is taken care of first and that his own house must be in order before he can start feeding and taking care of another house outside of his own. And that is where I agreed with Plaw's statement.

I have nothing against helping poverty stricken nations around the world. But at the same time I feel that there are poverty stricken and starving people right here in our own country that need to be taken care of first.

Enzo, what would you think of a person that would let his own family starve while going around feeding everybody else?

Don Cardi

Thanks Don Cardi, for being so kind. I only know you by the internet, but I have experienced you always have respect for people.

So ... what I said may have looked somehow radical, which was not what I meant to be.

I do want poverty solved (but I guess that's not only me ), in the USA, in Europe, in Africa, everywhere. That would be a Utopia of course, since I think poverty can't be solved completely but we must try.

What I blame western countries for, is that they're not doing enough to help poor countries. I'm not saying all money must go to solve poverty in other countries, and leave the poor in your own country starve.

What I am saying is that the percentages 1 - money for the 'own' poor; and 2 - money for other countries, are now out of balance.
And in western countries, poor people are in the minority . The country can still function, there is economy...
In many African countries, the majority is very poor. There is no economic life, no work, nothing, and diseases, ... Such countries are not standing where they are, they're going instead backwards.

But since the USA have to deal with increasing poverty theirselves, they must certainly continue to help the own people too. And Katrina isn't helping the problem.

So I don't want less money for the own, American people, more money for others. No, I want: more money for people in the own country, more money for other people.

Where does Bush has to get that money? For me: The money he had put in the war in Iraq. But that's another discussion... :p

Which, we do, so please...

But not enough, and that is also true for other countries.

But there are more important things going on now (Katrina).

Oh, isn't that the way! Yes! The US still gives more foreign aid than any other nation, but alas, it apparently still isn't enough.

Please show me where in the Constitution is says we have to be the world's piggy bank?

Or, better yet - tell me what "enough" is, so we can keep giving until it hurts, or until we're dead.

I hate to admit it, but I have to agree with JJ on this one.

I wouldn't give out ten cents in foreign aid until our problems at home that require more money are fixed.

You get a tsunami or something, and a country needs some immediate assistance, that's one thing.

But the way we give away money to foreign countries while children in the U.S. go hungry, old people try to get by on nothing but social security, people live without adequate medical care, etc., etc........

I hate to admit it, but I have to agree with Plaw on this one. Help our own people first, and if any money is left over, then use it as foreign aid.

JJ, please read my whole post.

" ALSO true for other countries "

more important things going on now (Katrina).

Poveryy in some African countries is SO devastating, that we (= total western world, not only USA) could easily miss more of the luxuary we have now.
But I agree on the point of helping the own poor.
So where do we have to get all that money?
From the rich maybe?

It bothers me that we are a country of such waste. I am appalled at the amount of food and clothing that we, as Americans, feel free to toss out on a daily basis. I was on a cruise this summer. Although, believe me, I did my fair share of eating (we won't go into that right now), I was shocked at how much must've been thrown away. It was the epitome of conspicuous consumption. I shudder to think how many homeless shelters could've survived on the leftovers alone.

Capitalism demands that a percentage of the population be in poverty and unemployed. Otherwise our economy will collapse. Im not saying it's right, but it's the way it is.

That's a new one on me. How and why does that work?

I did read your post, which still states:

What exactly is enough for you? Why should the US continue to give more? I would think, in the grand scheme of things, the nations who are far (yes, FAR) behind in the monetary total given to foreign aid should be giving more and try to establish some form of parity with the US.

But no, alas, the US still must give 'till it hurts, taxpayers be damned.

It's works because major corporation company's like mcdonalds, burgerking, basically all fast food chains, All clothing companies etc. don't make their profit from what they sell, they make their profit from how they pay the people who manufacture the food, from the people who pick the cotton for making the jeans. For example they pay the people who work in the fields who pick that cotton 3 dollars a DAY. So basically they spend just $10 bucks to pay a single employee and to ship the cotton to manufacturers. Then when they make the jeans they sell them in malls and clothing stores at $100 -$150. Thats where the profits being made. So those people who work in the fields are living in poverty, so when they go on strike and demand a raise, they just fire them then hire the unemployed and pay them even less. From the unemployed's point of view thats better than starving to death. That's why if you go to certain areas in newyork low-income areas you will find sweatshops all over with illegal immigrants who have no where else to work legally, That means lots of money to be made off those people. They exploit everyone who works minimum wage. Congress recently declined a bill to raise the minimum wage, so you know the corporations are involved with it. You can actually break capitalism down into a formula, M- C= M1 basically what that means is you have Money - You buy a commodity. Then you sell the commodity which equals = Profit (M1) But the big flaw is where do you get the money to buy the commodity to sell to make the profit?? From the exploitation of minumun wage workers. And that's why capitalism needs the poverty and unemployed for a functioning economy.

I read your post twice and I'm not sure I understand why you think that poverty and unemployment is necessary in a capitalistic society.

If everyone were employed and there were no poverty, the corporations would sell more and make greater profits, or be able to charge more for what they sell, and make greater profits.

It seems to me that if unemployment and poverty are good for these companies, then more unemployment and poverty would be better. And everyone unemployed and impoverished would be the best case, which obviously is not so.

I'm no economist, of course, but this makes no sense to me.

Foreign aid solves no problems. The money goes to some African nation and a few hours later they are in a Swiss bank account. That's reality. Corrupt dictators take the money and nothing happens. Actually, I saw some stats a while ago pointing out that there was a connection between the level of aid and poverty of African nations - the more aid the poorer people.

USA already gives most money, yes, and with their big budget deficit, how can you argue they should start giving out even more?

And guys, you are wrong, we DO care in Europe. We care much, actually, and aid has been sent to you. I don't know exactly how you guys responded but I know that many offers were turned down by George W. We sent a part of our air force to help you btw. Even tsunami-devastated Sri Lanka offered you money!

My country is not the health paradise that some of you guys say it is. Our dental health care is for example not free, and poor people can't afford getting their teeth fixed and some lose their teeth and shit. The quality of our health care is also declining, and the Social Democrats have in their eleven straight years in power failed in fighting unemployment and segregation (they have btw been in power for 64 of the latest 73 years and they were the ones who created our good welfare state, but in recent years they've become corrupted and suck, therefor the liberal-conservative coalition probably will win the elections). So you left wing socialist guys should beware of using the recent development in my country as an example. But overall, our mix between socialism and capitalism has been very succesful.

Plaw, Let me try to explain alittle better. Capitalism means you make your money how you want and can do whatever you want with it with no govermental interference. Lets go back when america first formed and started capitalism. Keep in mind the formula for capitalsim M-C=M1(You have money to buy a commodity, you sell the commodity and make profit) So on that first day how did america setup an economy from capitalism which REQUIRES you to have money to buy the commodity in the first place? Your answer is slavery. The slave trade basically turned america into a developed country and got the ball rolling for capitalism. And it then just progressed to how it is today. Just think these guys had slaves they didnt have to pay a cent to to pick their cotton, pick their food, so their owners can sell the materials overseas to europe and make their profit. Thats how our country got its money in the beginning. They called it the "Triangular Trade" (Europe send slaves to America, America uses slaves to harvest raw materials, America sells to europe) That's the foundation of capitalism, that's how it all started. It's just only changed slightly to how it is today, the exploited are born and raised here and are the minority minimum wage workers, nowadays is not pure slavery, but basically a form of it.

Sorry, Don Pope, but I must disagree with your analysis of the US economy and capitalism. Yes, there is always pressure to increase profits. There are only two ways to do it: Cut operating costs or raise prices. You can only raise your price to a certain extent before people will no longer realize a value, which will mean a decrease in sales (bad). This means cutting costs, which is why the US has moved away from manufacturing and is outsourcing more and more of what was once made here.

Yes, there was a fairly recent defeat of a raise in the minimum wage; however, much of the pressure to do so came from the small business community. Since they run on the slimmest profit margin, they were terrified of an increase in wages.

While there will ALWAYS be a poor working class, I agree with PL that, in order for companies to sell products, they need customers with money. And while many immigrants do hold the lower paid jobs, that's just the way it works. Immigrants come here, do the jobs that we no longer want or have become too skilled for, and then they educate their children so that they don't hold those jobs either. That's what my grandparents did, anyway, and the grandparents of most of the people I know.

That's how this country was built. That's how the skyscrapers of Manhattan were built, that's how the railroad was laid, that's how the pretty much everything was made. So far, it's worked for us.

PS Where are you buying $150 jeans? Mine cost thirty bucks.

But in a capitalist economy Corporate companies dont make their money from sales. They make it from how they pay their minimum wage workers. Even if value went down their still not losing money because of how they pay their minimum wage workers.

The people who run their own business's (Middle class people etc.) Are just a step up the latter from the minimum wage workers. Things are better but they too are still getting screwed by the people on the next step up of the latter. (Upper Class)

Yes but where do the customers get their money? It all stems to the birth of capitalism with the slave trade. The "Triangular Trade" Money just didn't appear on trees. Your right they did use the immigrants to build skyscrapers and railroads etc. Because they could pay them LESS than the average american. They exploited them. That way they would profit.

The point I was trying to come across is that the jeans people are buying can be made for less than $10. (Which is salary for workers and manufacturing and shipping costs COMBINED. Thats's where the money is made for the companies.)

Don Pope, How can you say that in a capitalist society, companies don't make their money from sales, but from how they pay their workers? If they don't grow their sales, then they can't pay their workers. As for value, if the consumer doesn't perceive a value for their money, then they won't buy the product, which leads to declining sales, which leads to loss, which leads to no longer being in business.

As for immigrants being exploited, I don't know if they feel that way. I believe that my grandparents were pretty happy to get those jobs. Yes, they worked hard, but they came here to make a better life for themselves and their families. They came because they believed that hard work and this country would afford them more opportunity.

But their sales are Guranteed! People NEED to eat, people NEED clothing. The companies can't lose. If they wanted to they could pay the minimum wage worker's salaries from their own pockets and still profit. And if certain companies products do lose value from customers then the more succesful ones just buy them out.

Yes their was the honest hard-working immigrants who didn't mind it because what they were being paid here in america is much better then what they were being paid from where they came from. They want to survive so working for that little money is better than having nothing to eat. (If you refer back to a couple of my posts back I refer to when people dont like how their being paid and speak up about it the companies fire them then hire the unemployed for even less. That's where the immigrants came in during those times.) Then their were the immigrants that realized they didn't want to be screwed and looked to crime. That's where your irish, jewish, and italian gangsters came from. They realized they could be wealthy but couldn't because their stuck at minimum wage level, they formed their own business's whether it was legal or not to survive!. After awhile yes things did change for them and things got better. If you look at today it's still the same going on and in the same areas! except now their the blacks, Spanish, the chinese etc. They realized just as the immigrants did from earlier times they can't move up from minimum wage. So they go to crime. Sell drugs, rackets. Make their own business's even if illegal. They dont want to live in poverty for the rest of their lives. Same as some of those earlier immigrants did. And it all still comes from the same areas of New york the ghettos, upper Manhattan, the Harlem area, Brooklyn, Bronx, queens etc. Now that americas grown bigger every city has crime ridden ghetto areas. It's almost like every new generation they find new minorities to exploit! And thats the way it will always be as long as capitalism is our economy!

Guaranteed? Tell that to the genius who came up with New Coke! In today's competitive marketplace, no sales are guaranteed. Yes, people need to eat and be clothed, but there's an incredible amount of choice out there, which is one of the beauties of capitalism. If a supplier doesn't provide some value for the consumer, then they're just going to buy someone else's product.