Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Workers are enslaved, exploited and under attack
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="brett636" data-source="post: 571659" data-attributes="member: 249"><p>You really need to go take a basic economics class. Scarcity of resources means there are only so many resources available to make the goods and services that are available today. The more rare a resource the more expensive that resource is. There are not enough resources to give everyone the luxuries of the rich. That $100 steak would not cost $100 if it were not the one of the rarest pieces of beef on the market. There are certain breeds of cows whose meet pulls that kind of value. </p><p></p><p>Lets not forget that the luxuries of today eventually become common for everyone to have. 100 years ago it was a luxury to have running water ane electricity in your house. Today most houses have both running water and electricity. 20 years ago only the most expensive luxury cars came with features that are now common on even the most inexpensive of cars like anti-lock brakes and airbags. It is the wealthy which demand these "luxuries", and they have the money to pay for them which trickle down to everyone else over time. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>A motorcycle should be produced for everyone who can afford to purchase one. That is the only way to be sure that the resources needed to make those motorcycles are used efficiently. If a motorcycle were produced for everyone who wanted one then people who otherwise would have no interest in motorcycling would take a motorcycle just to try it out. They would probably crash it or decide its too dangerous and not ride it soon after receiving it. If its given to them it has no value to them therefore they will not take care of it or maybe not even use it. Lets not forget that not everyone wants the same style of motorcycle. If the resources to produce them are being used to produce the motorcycles for everyone then someone who wants a sportbike will be stuck with a cruiser, or vice versa. Uniqueness is a quality every human desires, and riders show that in their motorcycles. There would not be as many producers of motorcycles if they had to produce them for everyone who wanted one. Not to mention quality of these motorcycles would suffer as well since the remaining producers have no incentive to improve their designs or manufacturing processes or even differentiate the style of motorcycles they produce. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Its exactly the natural state of things. Its unequal when someone is born with a mental or physical handicap keeping them from performing the same tasks you and I do. Peyton Manning has the athletic abilities which make him the star he is today; athletic abilities you and I do not possess. The world is naturally unequal. </p><p></p><p>So all those wars, and failed attempts at conquests which litter history books is humanity working to provide each other with food and shelter? </p><p></p><p>That is exactly what you are alluring too. One should only have 1.1 pounds of meat if they have the means to afford it. If they work, they earn money. That money is the fruit of their labor. They use that as a means to purchase however much meat they need or desire. That is how the most successful economies work. If they worked how you describe them the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cuba should all be world superpowers today. They are not because their system of government is inherently flawed. </p><p></p><p>Why should workers get to control production when they did not bring the means of production together? They didn't come up with something to produce, they didn't purchase the machinery to produce the goods in question, they did not hire the individuals to work that machinery to produce goods. They did nothing to earn the power to control the production because they just showed up and were given a set of tasks to complete at an already functioning business. </p><p></p><p></p><p>This is impossible. There are too many goods and services being produced for the society as a whole to be able to decide what should be produced and what should not. If there is a demand for a product or service it will ultimatly be produced, and without someone willing to find out if the demand exists, or willing to take the risk of producing said good for a possible future reward(wealth) nothing will get produced. </p><p></p><p>The problem is selfishness. If a store is giving away free tennis rackets to everyone who comes in they will run out very fast. While if they charge for them a market price then everyone who both wants and can afford one will purchase those tennis rackets giving the store owner time to manage their inventories, and order more when necessary. Its impossible to determine how many people want tennis rackets as people who would normally not want one would take one anyway because it costs them nothing to have. </p><p></p><p>So what is rich? I remember reading that if you have some money in the bank and a few coins in your pocket you are among the richest people in the world. Even the poorest of our nation don't have to endure the conditions the poor in other countries do. If someone has a house in a nice neighborhood should they be considered rich? How about someone who has more than one car? I have 4 vehicles in my name, am I rich? </p><p></p><p> Apparently you are not familiar with all the scandals involved in U.N. food programs such as food for oil. </p><p></p><p>Actually they cannot. In some places Land is the restricting factor. For example, in Japan they do not have enough open land to build houses for everyone. Some goes for states like Hawaii, or large cities like New York or Chicago. In most of those places only the most wealthy can afford to purchase a house in those places because land is such a premium. Hell, it costs more per year for a parking space in New York City then I earn in a year. Without market controls to efficiently distribute homes and land who determines who gets to live in the nice neighborhoods versus the bad ones? In your perfect world who gets to live close to the city and who has to drive 100 miles to get to the city? </p><p></p><p>Thats the beauty of the freedom we have in this nation. Nobody has a good excuse why they cannot make it. Every person born here has access to education, and the opportunity to pursure their dreams no matter what they are. Other nations, especially those in Africa, don't have the political stability or societal fabric we have here in order to produce those same opportunities. Perhaps one day they will, but that takes time and you cannot force them to be any different. </p><p></p><p>I recently watched a show on National Geographic called "Ultimate Factories: Ferrari" which of course was all about how Ferrari sports cars are produced. The car highlighted was the new Ferrari 599 which was only supposed to have a production run of 250. The factory had over 3000 workers there to produce those cars. If they had to produce one for everyone in the factory they would need more workers, and a larger factory. By the time they were able to produce one for everyone in the factory they wouldn't have any left over for those who actually can afford them outside the factory. And if they had to produce them for everyone who wanted one everybody would be clamoring for a ferrari and production would never be able to keep pace with demand. A capitalist society is necessary to efficiently distribute goods to those who can afford to purchase them. Otherwise you completely destroy the desire to produce those goods and the desire to work to own those goods making the world very dull compared to how it is today.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="brett636, post: 571659, member: 249"] You really need to go take a basic economics class. Scarcity of resources means there are only so many resources available to make the goods and services that are available today. The more rare a resource the more expensive that resource is. There are not enough resources to give everyone the luxuries of the rich. That $100 steak would not cost $100 if it were not the one of the rarest pieces of beef on the market. There are certain breeds of cows whose meet pulls that kind of value. Lets not forget that the luxuries of today eventually become common for everyone to have. 100 years ago it was a luxury to have running water ane electricity in your house. Today most houses have both running water and electricity. 20 years ago only the most expensive luxury cars came with features that are now common on even the most inexpensive of cars like anti-lock brakes and airbags. It is the wealthy which demand these "luxuries", and they have the money to pay for them which trickle down to everyone else over time. A motorcycle should be produced for everyone who can afford to purchase one. That is the only way to be sure that the resources needed to make those motorcycles are used efficiently. If a motorcycle were produced for everyone who wanted one then people who otherwise would have no interest in motorcycling would take a motorcycle just to try it out. They would probably crash it or decide its too dangerous and not ride it soon after receiving it. If its given to them it has no value to them therefore they will not take care of it or maybe not even use it. Lets not forget that not everyone wants the same style of motorcycle. If the resources to produce them are being used to produce the motorcycles for everyone then someone who wants a sportbike will be stuck with a cruiser, or vice versa. Uniqueness is a quality every human desires, and riders show that in their motorcycles. There would not be as many producers of motorcycles if they had to produce them for everyone who wanted one. Not to mention quality of these motorcycles would suffer as well since the remaining producers have no incentive to improve their designs or manufacturing processes or even differentiate the style of motorcycles they produce. Its exactly the natural state of things. Its unequal when someone is born with a mental or physical handicap keeping them from performing the same tasks you and I do. Peyton Manning has the athletic abilities which make him the star he is today; athletic abilities you and I do not possess. The world is naturally unequal. So all those wars, and failed attempts at conquests which litter history books is humanity working to provide each other with food and shelter? That is exactly what you are alluring too. One should only have 1.1 pounds of meat if they have the means to afford it. If they work, they earn money. That money is the fruit of their labor. They use that as a means to purchase however much meat they need or desire. That is how the most successful economies work. If they worked how you describe them the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cuba should all be world superpowers today. They are not because their system of government is inherently flawed. Why should workers get to control production when they did not bring the means of production together? They didn't come up with something to produce, they didn't purchase the machinery to produce the goods in question, they did not hire the individuals to work that machinery to produce goods. They did nothing to earn the power to control the production because they just showed up and were given a set of tasks to complete at an already functioning business. This is impossible. There are too many goods and services being produced for the society as a whole to be able to decide what should be produced and what should not. If there is a demand for a product or service it will ultimatly be produced, and without someone willing to find out if the demand exists, or willing to take the risk of producing said good for a possible future reward(wealth) nothing will get produced. The problem is selfishness. If a store is giving away free tennis rackets to everyone who comes in they will run out very fast. While if they charge for them a market price then everyone who both wants and can afford one will purchase those tennis rackets giving the store owner time to manage their inventories, and order more when necessary. Its impossible to determine how many people want tennis rackets as people who would normally not want one would take one anyway because it costs them nothing to have. So what is rich? I remember reading that if you have some money in the bank and a few coins in your pocket you are among the richest people in the world. Even the poorest of our nation don't have to endure the conditions the poor in other countries do. If someone has a house in a nice neighborhood should they be considered rich? How about someone who has more than one car? I have 4 vehicles in my name, am I rich? Apparently you are not familiar with all the scandals involved in U.N. food programs such as food for oil. Actually they cannot. In some places Land is the restricting factor. For example, in Japan they do not have enough open land to build houses for everyone. Some goes for states like Hawaii, or large cities like New York or Chicago. In most of those places only the most wealthy can afford to purchase a house in those places because land is such a premium. Hell, it costs more per year for a parking space in New York City then I earn in a year. Without market controls to efficiently distribute homes and land who determines who gets to live in the nice neighborhoods versus the bad ones? In your perfect world who gets to live close to the city and who has to drive 100 miles to get to the city? Thats the beauty of the freedom we have in this nation. Nobody has a good excuse why they cannot make it. Every person born here has access to education, and the opportunity to pursure their dreams no matter what they are. Other nations, especially those in Africa, don't have the political stability or societal fabric we have here in order to produce those same opportunities. Perhaps one day they will, but that takes time and you cannot force them to be any different. I recently watched a show on National Geographic called "Ultimate Factories: Ferrari" which of course was all about how Ferrari sports cars are produced. The car highlighted was the new Ferrari 599 which was only supposed to have a production run of 250. The factory had over 3000 workers there to produce those cars. If they had to produce one for everyone in the factory they would need more workers, and a larger factory. By the time they were able to produce one for everyone in the factory they wouldn't have any left over for those who actually can afford them outside the factory. And if they had to produce them for everyone who wanted one everybody would be clamoring for a ferrari and production would never be able to keep pace with demand. A capitalist society is necessary to efficiently distribute goods to those who can afford to purchase them. Otherwise you completely destroy the desire to produce those goods and the desire to work to own those goods making the world very dull compared to how it is today. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Workers are enslaved, exploited and under attack
Top