Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 4/1/10 07:43 AM, Ytaker wrote: The reason they receive incredible stocks of money is because their company is worth a lot.

So why shouldn't they be taxed a fuckton of money on their salaries again?

They do. Making companies gives something back.

I guess you don't understand the concept of taxes.

The government demands enormous amounts of money mostly because it pays its employees extremely high wages.

You think they spend so much money simply because they pay their employees too much??

And they already pay high taxes.

Yeah, I KNOW that. I'm telling you why I think it's fair and SadisticMonkey is yelling about how it's like "robing the rich at gunpoint".

You're still gonna take their money. Because it's really not about what they've taken from the system.

If you have 60 million dollars of free money, I think we know what you took from the system you live in: 60 million dollars.

they're not gonna be investing their money in a business.%u2248%u2248%u2248

Again like I said, there are tons of programs that let you re-invest in your business and that money is NOT taxed because it doesn't count as "profits".

The money is only taxed once you take it out of your business.

Which means they have EVERY INCENTIVE TO KEEP INVESTING IN THEIR BUSINESS.

---

At 4/1/10 06:21 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 4/1/10 07:43 AM, Ytaker wrote: The reason they receive incredible stocks of money is because their company is worth a lot.

So why shouldn't they be taxed a fuckton of money on their salaries again?

Because it lessens their incentive to work, encourages them to spend more of their money on a mix of non taxable material goods and various useless things that lets them evade taxes, and encourages them to move states, or country, to find a lower tax rate, thus loweirng the tax income.

Also, high taxes have an effect on growth. If you have growth of 1.03, then in forty years you'll have 3.2 times the money, minus whatever effect inflation has. If you have growth of 1.04, you'll have 4.8 times the money. A big difference, a lot more money for your purposes.

They do. Making companies gives something back.

I guess you don't understand the concept of taxes.

You take money away from people to fund government agencies and subsidize things?

The government demands enormous amounts of money mostly because it pays its employees extremely high wages.

You think they spend so much money simply because they pay their employees too much??

It's a huge part of it. Spending 40000 extra per employee has a big effect. Public sector unions allow the unions to take control of their paymasters. While the private sector has been shedding jobs, the public sector has expanded, and employeed more people. Biggest problem is pensions. They're not far from bursting.

And they already pay high taxes.

Yeah, I KNOW that. I'm telling you why I think it's fair and SadisticMonkey is yelling about how it's like "robing the rich at gunpoint".

This is in the context of tea partiers, and higher taxes for them in the healthcare bill.

You're still gonna take their money. Because it's really not about what they've taken from the system.

If you have 60 million dollars of free money, I think we know what you took from the system you live in: 60 million dollars.

They were given it because people wanted their goods- money serves as a way for lots of people to trade their servives for goods. They didn't take it. They were given it freely, and because the people valued whatever product they produced more than their money, the system is richer.

they're not gonna be investing their money in a business.%u2248%u2248%u2248

Again like I said, there are tons of programs that let you re-invest in your business and that money is NOT taxed because it doesn't count as "profits".

With lower taxes, that's mostly what they do. Invest it in businesses, and banks. So even if they're doing nothing with the money, it has some benefit to the economy.

The money is only taxed once you take it out of your business.

Which means they have EVERY INCENTIVE TO KEEP INVESTING IN THEIR BUSINESS.%u2248%u2248%u2248

The healthcare bill directly taxes businesses. It also enacts regulations that would cost them a lot, which essentially double as taxes- pregnant women have to have a specially built area for breast feeding, if you have over 50 employees, and if any of their employees don't have a healthcare plan, they get a 2000 dollar tax per employee. These taxes mean they'll have less money for growth, and a strong incentive to not grow, as growth means they'll be more heavily taxed.

This isn't just an abstract thing. Because of all these things, when a bill takes steps towards increasing taxes, people oppose it.

With another issue, the Bush tax cuts. He reduced the capital gains tax, which is the tax on investments. They are, generally taxed at a lower rate that normal income, for the reasons you mentioned. If the bush tax cuts are repealed, then people will have less incentive to invest their money. And the healthcare bill adds 3.8% to the capital gains tax, again encouraging people not to invest money in their companies. This was done because the previous tax on expensive insurance policies (for rich people) hit public unions, who are the democrat party's main funders. Democrats prefer to hit business, than the public sector.

---

At 4/1/10 09:50 PM, Ytaker wrote:

Because it lessens their incentive to work,

And you can demonstrate this how?
I'm waiting for this "hard work vs taxation" study the people who claim heavy taxes somehow drain the entrepreneurial spirit of individuals.

It's a huge part of it. Spending 40000 extra per employee has a big effect.

Wow sweet, that means they have that much more to spend!
As you were just saying, an individual should have as much money to spend as possible!

They were given it because people wanted their goods- money serves as a way for lots of people to trade their servives for goods.

It's not that simple -_-

With lower taxes, that's mostly what they do. Invest it in businesses, and banks. So even if they're doing nothing with the money, it has some benefit to the economy.

No, it's got nothing to do with lower or higher taxes on income.
The money you PUT BACK IN THE BUSINESS is NOT TAXED.

The healthcare bill directly taxes businesses.

Yeah there's tons of regulations if you want to run a business that are unrelated to the healthcare bill. A bill which also introduces tax cuts for small businesses.

These taxes mean they'll have less money for growth, and a strong incentive to not grow, as growth means they'll be more heavily taxed.

Never heard of this and I'm not here to discuss specific rules of the healthcare bill.

You just have to realize at some point that the well-being of a working population is worth more than growth at all costs. If you want to see why, go to China, India, Africa or the Industrial Revolution era.

---

At 4/1/10 10:30 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 4/1/10 09:50 PM, Ytaker wrote:

Because it lessens their incentive to work,

And you can demonstrate this how?
I'm waiting for this "hard work vs taxation" study the people who claim heavy taxes somehow drain the entrepreneurial spirit of individuals.

I do not know how one measures "entrepreneurial spirit" but I would point to the relatively higher unemployment in countries with Social democracies (During 'good' economic times), that are so generous with their unemployment benefits and so puntative with their taxes that people do not feel very inclined to work.

A more extreme example would be the case of the pilgrims, since their crop yields were put into a common stock and distributed equally, that is essentially the equivalent of 100% Tax rates with the government providing your income. A standard cost benefit analysis reveals that it is in every person's interest not to work, because if they do but no one else does, they get exploited.

It's a huge part of it. Spending 40000 extra per employee has a big effect.

Wow sweet, that means they have that much more to spend!
As you were just saying, an individual should have as much money to spend as possible!

Individuals are not states. Individuals do not get their income by simply commanding themselfs an extra 40000 dollars. If You and your friends had acess to a printing press how judicious with that money would you be?

With lower taxes, that's mostly what they do. Invest it in businesses, and banks. So even if they're doing nothing with the money, it has some benefit to the economy.

No, it's got nothing to do with lower or higher taxes on income.
The money you PUT BACK IN THE BUSINESS is NOT TAXED.

Oh come on this is so obvious. If you're taxing individual's incomes or a company's income in general you are taxing their ability to invest those funds back into the company. Higher taxation also makes it more difficult to create a business in the first place. The money they earn that is taxed IS what is that money that would have been put into business. Either in the form of Corporate income Tax, or the Capital gains tax, or in any form of tax on savings or investment.

If you are talking purely about individual's income being taxed, perhaps less of it is being invested in their business than what other kinds of taxes are aimed at, But even then that income should have been income that would have been put into a bank (countries with higher taxes generally have lower savings rates) and that money would, or should have been invested in businesses.

The healthcare bill directly taxes businesses.

You just have to realize at some point that the well-being of a working population is worth more than growth at all costs. If you want to see why, go to China, India, Africa or the Industrial Revolution era.%u2248%u2248%u2248

I used to think you had some semblance of intelligence in your arguments. Every developed society today exists because their labor was made more productive by improvements in capital. Growth in the economy is the ability of an Economy's ability to produce more with less time and labor, greater production necessarily leads to a greater ability to consume and thereby a greater well-being of the working population. The two go hand in hand. And all developed society's had to go through some sort of industrial revolution in order to have such a well being.

---

At 4/1/10 11:06 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: that are so generous with their unemployment benefits and so puntative with their taxes that people do not feel very inclined to work.

Doesn't that just support even MORE the idea that the tax burden should be shifted on the rich?

A more extreme example would be the case of the pilgrims

Now you're talking about communism.

Individuals are not states. Individuals do not get their income by simply commanding themselfs an extra 40000 dollars.

Oh, they don't? How do you think the CEO of GM decides his salary? Offer and demand?

If You and your friends had acess to a printing press how judicious with that money would you be?

What world are you living in where government employees set their own wages?

Oh come on this is so obvious. If you're taxing individual's incomes or a company's income in general you are taxing their ability to invest those funds back into the company.

I repeat: profits made and invested back into the company ARE NOT TAXED.
That means that you have a vested interest in funneling as MUCH of your profits back into the company.

and that money would, or should have been invested in businesses.

All money eventually returns to a business.

Every developed society today exists because their labor was made more productive by improvements in capital.

3% economic growth didn't free slaves and give black women the right to vote.
Get it now?

Anyone who thinks economics just magically regulates a society and rids it of all its problems through the sheer power of supply and demand SUCKS AT ECONOMICS.

Capitalism fuels the greed of individuals to an extend where it becomes destructive to a society. Every time capitalism runs rampant, it happens.

---

At 4/1/10 11:47 PM, poxpower wrote: Capitalism fuels the greed of individuals to an extend where it becomes destructive to a society. Every time capitalism runs rampant, it happens.

Pox man, this is why you need to read books. Tsk.

---

At 3/31/10 05:42 PM, Ytaker wrote:

You are assuming he's entitled to have money and that he's an individual and not a part of the larger community. The more appropriate viewing of this issue is that a man with more money has more responsibility to the people to which he belongs and the system to which the money belongs. If he fails to meet those responsibilities, then it should come as no surprise when society demands it of him and is in turn willing to take what the society needs to survive, in this case by taxes.

The value of money comes from businesses, productivity, and work. The government can't set the value of money. If they tried, that would cause rampant hyperinflation. And quite possibly, as a businessman, he may well be supplying a valuable service to people already. By taxing him more heavily, you're encouraging him to provide that service less (just as smoking taxes encourage people to smoke less), and narrowing the tax base. And the US has either the second or fifth highest corporate tax rate in the world, depending on the measure you use.

ME: People are part of a society and must contribute to it for their own well being. A society will ensure they do if the individual is unwilling.

YOU: value of money blah blah blah irrelevant.

*THUMBS UP* ;D

In a perfect society private industry would take care of all of the public's needs. Since they haven't and can't, a public institution (or government) has been established to ensure these things happen.

US dollars would still have a great deal of value, and he may well have substantial assets which are recession/ war proof in other countries, or material assets to support him

That's nice and everything, but no, if the U.S. fails so does the dollar. Please see Zimbabwe for more info. :D :D :D

And regardless of his substantial assets, it does not remove his responsibility to his community and workers. But its nice that you believe people of wealth are free to fuck over everyone else. Its pretty clear now why we have such problems will wall street and corrupt business. They think like you! I'm not denying that they could commit a morally bankrupt crime and take wealth with them and live in a fortress while their people starve, but you know, it would be morally bankrupt (Enron) by our society's standards.

And in the new, more perfect society of Obamacare, a public institution has been created to funnel vast sums of money to the insurance industry. And a great deal of the tax costs are from paying huge public sector wages (on average, including benefits, 30000-40000 dollars more than equivelent private sector jobs). A rich person has no certainty that their money is actually gonna help anyone- more likely, it's gonna go fund a rich government official's job, because the government allocates the money.

Then it would behoove those rich people to make sure some trusted people are part of the process instead of just a wall attempting to block something. And you clearly missed the point of health insurance reform if you think its being done to line insurance companies' pockets. As far as your claim on public sector jobs, I'd like to see proof because I've never heard such a thing before.

He may even be funding morally corrupt practises. So the rich person is paying more to, say, fund a teacher in DC who has campaigned to end the DC scholarship program for black kids because the teacher prefers high wages to good safe education for kids. Or 4.7 billion dollars in bribes to the Stupak dozen, to convert their votes to pro choice ones.

You're falling back on the argument that some people are corrupt so all people are, which is bankrupt because that would mean you are too and I could disregard all of your arguments because you might be after something and lying to me. Not all rectangles are squares.

---

At 4/1/10 11:47 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 4/1/10 11:06 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: that are so generous with their unemployment benefits and so puntative with their taxes that people do not feel very inclined to work.

Doesn't that just support even MORE the idea that the tax burden should be shifted on the rich?

We're talking work in general. If we're talking about the up-and-coming rich, the people who earn between 200,000 (And are single, and live in areas where the cost of living is low) and 1,000,000 dollars a year, Their incentive to work is reduced if you have tax rates of 60-70%.

In fact you don't even have to be that wealthy. My father earns, gross income, about 160-170K per year, but we happen to live in an area with fairly high state taxes and the highest local taxes in the country bar none. Once i graduate College, My father will retire, he will earn a pension 2/3rds of what he earns now, and move to north Carolina, where the taxes and cost of living are only 40% of what they are here. He will also move into a lower tax bracket and on top of that, because he is retired and earning less income, My sister and I are more likely to receive money from the government to go to college.

Someone who earns alot more than my father does and thus is taxed a lot higher only has greater incentive to not work and simply collect a pension if he can. (or save his money in a foreign bank or invest in foreign stocks which are much lower priced and much higher yielding than American stocks)

He has calculated that he can earn more money by retiring than he can by working.

A more extreme example would be the case of the pilgrims

Now you're talking about communism.

We're talking about degrees, people act on the margins. The most extreme example is a 100% tax rate on everyone, it makes sense, you can't go higher than 100% unless you want to talk about a Gulag. Ratcheting down from that, 90, 80, 70, 60, Etc. Are simply milder forms of the same problem. And when people decide whether or not they should work, OR, what work they should take, They factor in to consideration how much effort and investment they have to put into something, and than how much are they going to get out of it. Now if you are advocating a heavy INCOME tax, then we are not talking about taxing someone who is already rich and simply lives off the interest he collects on savings of some money he or whoever gave him the money accumulated in the past. Then taxes on their income will affect their decision not to work.

Individuals are not states. Individuals do not get their income by simply commanding themselfs an extra 40000 dollars.

Oh, they don't? How do you think the CEO of GM decides his salary? Offer and demand?

Less than idealistically, The CEO can tell his board of directors he is worth paying X million dollars per year based on his record, and how much money he added to the company. Michael Eisner took huge checks from Disney through the 80's and 90's for increasing the value of that company significantly under his dirrection, and was eventually replaced by the board of directors around 2003-5 i believe because He wasn't doing as good a job. He was paid a lot but it was several times less than the actual increased value of the company itself.

This is assuming the company runs a narrow profit margin and isn't declared 'too big to fail'. A Board of directors would be foolishly harming their company if they overpaid a CEO who did less than what a lower manager would be willing to do at lower pay.

If we assume they are running a wide profit margin and are declared too big to fail, the CEO can say that he correctly assessed that the Company would not have to adjust itself in any way as a result of changing market conditions because what matters in the New economy is whether you can get Washington to right your company a giant check.

If You and your friends had acess to a printing press how judicious with that money would you be?

What world are you living in where government employees set their own wages?

Government unions are quite powerful. They don't SET their wages per say in the same way CEOs don't set their own wages, per say. They say 'This is what i want to get paid'. Of course comparing CEOs to government employees would be a bad comparison, Senators and congressman would be a better example. And yes, they DO set their own wages.

Oh come on this is so obvious. If you're taxing individual's incomes or a company's income in general you are taxing their ability to invest those funds back into the company.

I repeat: profits made and invested back into the company ARE NOT TAXED.
That means that you have a vested interest in funneling as MUCH of your profits back into the company.

and that money would, or should have been invested in businesses.

Not under the present tax system.

All money eventually returns to a business.

Explain how. Because all money runs in circles but that doesn't mean that shifting it around will have no affect on who gets it in the end.

Every developed society today exists because their labor was made more productive by improvements in capital.

3% economic growth didn't free slaves and give black women the right to vote.
Get it now?

Anyone who thinks economics just magically regulates a society and rids it of all its problems through the sheer power of supply and demand SUCKS AT ECONOMICS.

Capitalism fuels the greed of individuals to an extend where it becomes destructive to a society. Every time capitalism runs rampant, it happens.

---

At 4/1/10 10:30 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 4/1/10 09:50 PM, Ytaker wrote:

Because it lessens their incentive to work,

And you can demonstrate this how?
I'm waiting for this "hard work vs taxation" study the people who claim heavy taxes somehow drain the entrepreneurial spirit of individuals.

http://www.fraseramerica.org/Commerce.we b/product_files/ImpactofTaxesonEconomicb ehavior.pdf

Higher taxes on businesses and rich people decrease growth, and higher taxes on worker's wages decrease the number of hours they work. People have better things to do. Have sex. Chat with family members. If they get less money, they work less.

It's a huge part of it. Spending 40000 extra per employee has a big effect.

Wow sweet, that means they have that much more to spend!
As you were just saying, an individual should have as much money to spend as possible!

Well, it's a money transfer from the rich and the poor to them. Both the rich and the poor are better for the economy. The rich invest better, and the poor spend better. And they both work harder for their money, if they have more money.

They were given it because people wanted their goods- money serves as a way for lots of people to trade their servives for goods.

It's not that simple -_-

Unless there's a monopoly, it is. Cheap products, which help everyone. And technological advance.

With lower taxes, that's mostly what they do. Invest it in businesses, and banks. So even if they're doing nothing with the money, it has some benefit to the economy.

No, it's got nothing to do with lower or higher taxes on income.
The money you PUT BACK IN THE BUSINESS is NOT TAXED.

If Phil Blokes invests 200000 back in the business, and it expands from 19 staff members to 20, his taxes vastly go up. LIkewise from 49-50. In the healthcare bill. There are direct taxes on business.

The healthcare bill directly taxes businesses.

Yeah there's tons of regulations if you want to run a business that are unrelated to the healthcare bill. A bill which also introduces tax cuts for small businesses.

These taxes mean they'll have less money for growth, and a strong incentive to not grow, as growth means they'll be more heavily taxed.

Never heard of this and I'm not here to discuss specific rules of the healthcare bill.

It's what inspired the debate. Increased taxes on investment and businesses. Think they're a good idea? Does the fact that we're in a recession make it a better or a worse idea?

You just have to realize at some point that the well-being of a working population is worth more than growth at all costs. If you want to see why, go to China, India, Africa or the Industrial Revolution era.

China and India, heavily socialist countries, they've chosen extreme environmental degredation and with china extreme human rights abuse. Given that I'm a capitalist, you can't really blame me for socialism. That's more your department. In a capitalist society, with free government, there are ways to stop companies dumping waste in your land. Outry by the workers has massively improved their lifestyle. In capitalist societies, workers rights tend to be much greater.

Africa is a mix of governents. Their problems are more extreme heat and regular wars than capitalism and socialism. Business investments do however help them a lot, with improving quality of life.

For the industrial revolution, there's little debate that now we've mechanized a lot of it, and now the workers have improved safety, our quality of life is vastly, vastly better. E. A. Wrigley and Roger S. Schofield estimated that between 1781 and 1851 life expectancy increased from 35 to 40. There's lots of evidence their real wages increased. And all this happened despite sharp population increases, which should have lowered life quality immensely.

that are so generous with their unemployment benefits and so puntative with their taxes that people do not feel very inclined to work.

Doesn't that just support even MORE the idea that the tax burden should be shifted on the rich?

Rich people work too.

Individuals are not states. Individuals do not get their income by simply commanding themselfs an extra 40000 dollars.

Oh, they don't? How do you think the CEO of GM decides his salary? Offer and demand?

He'd come from the financial side of GM, and he'd had substantial success cutting costs. He worked for the NAO, turning a loss of several billion a year into a profit of several billion a year. He was then tapped for CEO, for his policies of centralization of the business. The board offered him a substantial salary, likely so that their competitors couldn't peel him off, as he was a huge asset. He then started a long campaign of buying the services of people from other businesses, and was praised for it. He increased profits from 600 million to 1.8 billion, from their global sales of 180 billion.

They lost profits because of anti trust laws. They could have, from the 1920s ish, have taken over the car market. They were the only company that did much technological research. But if they expanded too much, anti trust rules would have broken them up into smaller companies. So they had to keep a constant size. They, as a result, accepted increasingly high worker wages, invested less in technology, to keep their company from growing. Their profit margins shrank. The japanese, aided by a government which spent 150 billion to keep their money low against the dollar, began to undercut them. Their profit margin shrank. The government increasingly forced them to produce green cars, which they sold at a loss. There wasn't much the CEO could do.

What world are you living in where government employees set their own wages?

One where the democrat party's main funders are public unions, who elect people who will promise them more money?

All money eventually returns to a business.

Except that which is taxed away.

3% economic growth didn't free slaves and give black women the right to vote.
Get it now?

Christianity was the biggest push for that. People like Harriet Beecher Stowe, who Abraham Lincoln praised as the woman who started the civil war. Or William Lloyd Garrison, the great reformer. They saw the murders, kidnappings, and violence, and sought to end it.

I'm not sure how that is relevent.

Anyone who thinks economics just magically regulates a society and rids it of all its problems through the sheer power of supply and demand SUCKS AT ECONOMICS.

Capitalism fuels the greed of individuals to an extend where it becomes destructive to a society. Every time capitalism runs rampant, it happens.

Strawmen are fun. Moral problems =/= economic problems. The values a society possesses are immensely important.

Who said that economics regulates a society and rids it of all its problems? Technology is the biggest ridder of problems, anyway, driven by economic growth.

And in non capitalist societies, people don't have problems? In capitalism, you have long periods of stability followed by brief periods of lesser stability. In non capitalist societies, you have brief periods of stability followed by long periods of anarchy. Like communism. Mildly socialist countries weren't spared from the recession, by the way. The problem which sparked the downspiral was high oil and food prices, caused by a mix of efforts to go green, droughts, terrorist attacks, increased asian demand, and multiple attacks on the supply of oil. It affected everyone. Capitalism can't shield us from the fact that the world isn't perfect. Nothing can.

---

At 4/2/10 09:00 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

We're talking work in general. If we're talking about the up-and-coming rich, the people who earn between 200,000 (And are single, and live in areas where the cost of living is low) and 1,000,000 dollars a year,

No, I never mentioned any of these numbers.

Someone who earns alot more than my father does and thus is taxed a lot higher only has greater incentive to not work and simply collect a pension if he can.

Yeah no shit he does, HE'S RICH.
If I have a million dollars in my bank account, that's my incentive to not work anymore.

I don't think the CEO of GE works because he needs the money.

He has calculated that he can earn more money by retiring than he can by working.

Again you're just talking about that razor-thin margin of people sitting on the edges of tax brackets in the netherworld between well-off and rich.

I'm talking about RICH. Plain ole' money out the ass rich.

The most extreme example is a 100% tax rate on everyone,

This has nothing to do with anything we've talked about.

Less than idealistically, The CEO can tell his board of directors he is worth paying X million dollars per year based on his record, and how much money he added to the company.

Not every company has a board and not every board has complete control over the CEO.
The the board gets to put cash in their pockets too. Not to mention bribes and shady stock exchanges.

Senators and congressman would be a better example. And yes, they DO set their own wages.

Right so we're back to "they do the same thing as wealthy CEOs" as some kind of "hey don't let the government run money!" argument. Yeah don't let those guys near my money, they act like CEOs! Nooooo!

Not under the present tax system.

What do you mean?
You're saying that right now, you can re-invest your cash in your company and avoid it being taxed?

Explain how. Because all money runs in circles but that doesn't mean that shifting it around will have no affect on who gets it in the end.

At 4/2/10 09:16 AM, Ytaker wrote:

At 4/1/10 10:30 PM, poxpower wrote:

http://www.fraseramerica.org/Commerce.we b/product_files/ImpactofTaxesonEconomicb ehavior.pdf

Damn it I don't have acrobat on this comp.
And I see most Google links go to pdfs.... great..

Well anyway I can concede that generally, heavier taxes stunt economic growth but.. yeah my argument isn't really about economics anyway. Or.. taxing everyone. Or businesses.

If Phil Blokes invests 200000 back in the business, and it expands from 19 staff members to 20, his taxes vastly go up. LIkewise from 49-50. In the healthcare bill. There are direct taxes on business.

It's what inspired the debate. Increased taxes on investment and businesses.

No I'm talking about taxing rich people's salaries.
You and the other guys constantly bring it back to business regulations and taxation on dentist salaries.

China and India, heavily socialist countries,

China and India do not have a socialist economy. It's pure cutthroat capitalism.

For the industrial revolution

You're making the wrong points. If you invent a cure of polio but it's manufactured by children chained to machines 12 hours a day, you'll pick the "yeah but there's no polio" statistic and pretend the system kicked ass without governments and unions stepping in and saying "enough of this shit".

Rich people work too.

I don't think Aerosmith or Elton John work because they need the money.

He'd come from the financial side of GM, and he'd had substantial success cutting costs.

Or maybe he's the founder of GM and says whatever he wants. Yaaay.

The government increasingly forced them to produce green cars, which they sold at a loss. There wasn't much the CEO could do.

Yeah we already know that you can speed up growth by ignoring human rights and making everyone's life shittier.

All money eventually returns to a business.

Except that which is taxed away.

Where does that money go? Heaven?

Christianity was the biggest push for that.

That's why slavery is detailed and promoted in the Bible yaay.
Anyway I'm not getting into that.

Who said that economics regulates a society and rids it of all its problems?

I don't know what you've been arguing but that's been my point all along. Why else would you tax anything but to fund institutions for the well-being of a population like roads and schools?

Well you could tax just to be a dick I guess....

---

At 4/2/10 07:13 PM, poxpower wrote:

Yeah no shit he does, HE'S RICH.
If I have a million dollars in my bank account, that's my incentive to not work anymore.

I don't think the CEO of GE works because he needs the money.

As you get richer, there's a lot of fun things you can buy. Plus, money provides a way to prove yourself- the more you have, the better you look to your father who never loved you, the more secure you feel. They tend to be workaholics (a lot who are forced out of the business will keep their secratory, and go to the same restaurants, try to keep talking to contacts, to try and feel the same) , so they don't have many friends, often have stale marriages. So they need to spend money to buy friends and love.

Sadly, all of this is subtantiated by interviews by Robert Mintz of extremely rich people. Actual reasons. He needs the money. Otherwise his self worth will go down. And he'll go to another company. And he is extremely smart, and extremely innovative, and very devoted to his work. They don't want him to go.

At 4/2/10 09:16 AM, Ytaker wrote:

At 4/1/10 10:30 PM, poxpower wrote:

http://www.fraseramerica.org/Commerce.we b/product_files/ImpactofTaxesonEconomicb ehavior.pdf

Damn it I don't have acrobat on this comp.
And I see most Google links go to pdfs.... great..

Well anyway I can concede that generally, heavier taxes stunt economic growth but.. yeah my argument isn't really about economics anyway. Or.. taxing everyone. Or businesses.

More progressive tax rates inhibit growth. More taxes on the rich. So yeah.

If Phil Blokes invests 200000 back in the business, and it expands from 19 staff members to 20, his taxes vastly go up. LIkewise from 49-50. In the healthcare bill. There are direct taxes on business.

It's what inspired the debate. Increased taxes on investment and businesses.

No I'm talking about taxing rich people's salaries.
You and the other guys constantly bring it back to business regulations and taxation on dentist salaries.

A lot of the rich are business members, and as the above link showed, taxing rich people more has an adverse effect on the economy.

China and India, heavily socialist countries,

China and India do not have a socialist economy. It's pure cutthroat capitalism.

There's extreme government control of businesses, heavy state involvement, and a lot of regulation. They just chose to cut throats, because communists are generally dickheads. A more cuttthroat capitalist society would be one with less nationalism.

India has huge numbers of trade unions. Bottoms up socialism.

Anyway, when your examples of capitalist societies are a communist one and a socialist one, I don't feel that much of an urge to challenge. More likely, if they fail, it's the socialism's fault.

For the industrial revolution

You're making the wrong points. If you invent a cure of polio but it's manufactured by children chained to machines 12 hours a day, you'll pick the "yeah but there's no polio" statistic and pretend the system kicked ass without governments and unions stepping in and saying "enough of this shit".

I have no idea what point you're making. How are we going to manufacture a cure with slave children?

Besides, it was capitalism which ended child labour. By the 1930s, only 6.5% of kids between 10 and 15 were employed. About 4.5% of those were in the farming industry. People were a lot more wealthy, and there was an increasing sense that education was key to jobs. By the time FDR made it illegal there were hardly any. And an exemption was made for family farms. It was a cute measure to cut unemployment, but entirely pointless.

Rich people work too.

I don't think Aerosmith or Elton John work because they need the money.

They need cocaine, expensive clothes, private jets. I remember at least half of my flat (not including me) at unnie said they'd smoke crack out of Elton John's ass for £1000, as he once asked a man to do.

He'd come from the financial side of GM, and he'd had substantial success cutting costs.

Or maybe he's the founder of GM and says whatever he wants. Yaaay.

I checked his history.

The government increasingly forced them to produce green cars, which they sold at a loss. There wasn't much the CEO could do.

Yeah we already know that you can speed up growth by ignoring human rights and making everyone's life shittier.

Not many people bought the green cars, anyway. They're a lot less safe, as they have less mass. And less powerful. People want gas guzzlers.

All money eventually returns to a business.

Except that which is taxed away.

Where does that money go? Heaven?

To up the wages of public sector employees, and hire new ones. It's very inefficient, and there's no guarantee they'll get it back.

Christianity was the biggest push for that.

That's why slavery is detailed and promoted in the Bible yaay.
Anyway I'm not getting into that.

Israeli slavery was willing for the enslaved, illegal to hurt the person, and they could leave at any time.

If you're ever bored, check out the pro slavery christians and the anti slavery christians. It's pretty clear how stupid the pro slavery christians arguments are, from a basic reading of the text, as they make stuff up that's not there and assume everyone is white (what, you mean jesus isn't a white american with a beard!!??!), and it's clear why they lost.

Who said that economics regulates a society and rids it of all its problems?

I don't know what you've been arguing but that's been my point all along. Why else would you tax anything but to fund institutions for the well-being of a population like roads and schools?

Well you could tax just to be a dick I guess....

Well, economics can supply those, but, no one particularly cares about them. They're fairly cheap. And they provide a boost to the local economy. My back of the paper calculations indicate that to rebuild every school in the US you'd just need 500 billion and about 1.5 trillion for all the highways. The fact that only about 10% of the stimulus money actually went to such things in the USA and most went to propping up state finances (read- paying high wages) was a source of annoyance to many.

Since many believe with the healthcare bill, that it's going to worsen their healthcare (say, with a doctor shortage) they're adverse to higher taxes for that purpose, given that they believe the rich's wealth has a benefit. The fact that people don't trust the government to spend their money well is is a big part of why people object to such taxes.

---

Ytaker i think you exaggerated the extent to which people wanted gas guzzlers and underestimated the extent to which the CEOs of certain companies just made idiotic business decisions.

---

We are entitled to our money and how we choose spend it. If you don't want to pay for services, goods, or taxes, go do something else somewhere else.

It takes 5000 calories a day to survive in the wilderness. Good luck!

---

At 4/2/10 09:07 PM, Ytaker wrote:

As you get richer, there's a lot of fun things you can buy.

He doesn't need the money, he uses it as a status. If he makes X money after taxes, he doesn't care how much it is as long as it's more than the next guy.

More progressive tax rates inhibit growth. More taxes on the rich. So yeah.

I'd counter but I can't read PDFs and I'm just plain old lazy today.
And pure economic growth really isn't what this is about.

Anyway, when your examples of capitalist societies are a communist one and a socialist one, I don't feel that much of an urge to challenge. More likely, if they fail, it's the socialism's fault.

China is communist like North Korea is atheist.

Besides, it was capitalism which ended child labour.

Whaaaa
A 10 seconds google search gives you a pretty damn good idea why there was children and slave labor and it's not "communism".
http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu/lab orctr/child_labor/about/us_history.html

Your argument is basically that ultra-capitalism created child labor, but by the same principles, abolished it!

It didn't come about as the natural hand of the market dictated that children should be educated, it happened because people got ANGRY and demanded the laws be changed. Laws were passed to FORCE companies to have practices which lowered their productivity and increased their costs.

That's how child labor ended.

Seriously you just tried to pass me a super-sized turd sandwich :o

To up the wages of public sector employees, and hire new ones.

Who then do what with their money?

Israeli slavery was willing for the enslaved, illegal to hurt the person, and they could leave at any time.

Nope, don't know who told you that.
http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

There were rules on when and how you could beat them without getting into trouble and you could enslave your slave's children.

Christians supported slavery for, what? 1700 years before suddenly finding out the bible was against it? 1700 years of Popes couldn't read the bible properly?
Gimme a break.

The fact that people don't trust the government to spend their money well is is a big part of why people object to such taxes.

Not what I'm talking about.

---

At 4/3/10 12:19 AM, poxpower wrote:

Your argument is basically that ultra-capitalism created child labor, but by the same principles, abolished it!

It didn't come about as the natural hand of the market dictated that children should be educated, it happened because people got ANGRY and demanded the laws be changed. Laws were passed to FORCE companies to have practices which lowered their productivity and increased their costs.

You're knowledge of history is as Wrong and Anecdotal in this situation as it was when you told me that the education of the Dark Ages was private. (And I seem to recall you never replying to my rebuttal)

if a Man and his family are sustenance farmers, which most of humanity was for most of its miserable existence, You are going to have a great deal of children (most of whom will die before maturity) To take care of the farm as free laborers. Hence, the origins of child labor. In the middle ages in Europe when there was none of what you would call industry, there was none of what you would consider unemployment except perhaps in large cities and children worked as well as their parents, unless the children were very very wealthy. Because there was no way in hell with the productivity at the time that a couple could feed themselfs and their children with one or two of them working.

Prior to the industrial revolution and in some areas you may have also had apprenticeships, which were essentially non-farming child labor, but child labor none the less. The conditions of these apprenticeships were undoubtedly poor though it is difficult to say considering you wouldn't have that many children working as apprentices for the 'master'. If the master physically abused or even raped the child there would be very little public outcry against it.

Large populations created by the agricultural revolutions created large populations that were not as inhibited by factors such as high food prices and disease as much as they had been during the middle ages, and suffice to say this created a population surplus of laborers. Thus creating the first phenomenon of unemployment. (People who do not have a job yet somehow don't die instantly of starvation) Why? The industrial revolution.

in early industrial society's you had the same problem but society was finally pulling itself out of it. Poor laborers were still not productive enough to support their children by themselves and the children themselves would have found no use in spending 12 years of their lives studying 'literature' 'physical education' and 'physics' (or what little of the sciences existed at the time) And studying more professional fields was probably not on their mind per-say mainly because professions were often passed down through heredity, that is, even if they could have afforded the professional education.

The key here is that ending child labor at this time would have done no good for these people, they were not being forced into the factors at gun-point, per say, but they were forced by the state of nature at the time to work.

But as labor became more productive, and machines became more complex, you eventually needed more skilled laborers, (adults) and Likewise the parents themselfs were becoming productive enough that they could reasonably work without having their children work as well, and it made more sense for them at this point to get their children educated, and so they did. And that is what, eventually, brought down the number of child laborers.

Child labor in a factory was terribly but in relative terms an improvement to farm labor. Farmers were entirely self sufficient and did not enjoy the benefits of the division of labor. The income of a farmer was inconsistent from season to season and since the family farm was the only employment opportunity a child laborer working on a farm could work on, You can reasonably say there was Zero competition with respect to farm labor.

But since this process doesn't happen evenly throughout an economy, you had some children who didn't have to work and some who did, and this is where you start getting complaints about child labor. The complaints didn't come from the laborers themselves, but from social reformers who were wealthy enough at this time that they could no longer empathize with people who had to work out of necessity. Combine that with the development of mass journalism, and photography, and you see why people eventually came to dislike child labor.

You also obviously had laborers themselves who wanted to ban child labor because it would reduce competition for jobs and raise their salaries.

But child labor itself had already largely been solved by the time the actual 'laws' were put in place, parents preferred to send their children to school rather than have them work, provided they could afford it. And as Ytaker mentioned the abolition of child labor officially was done by the Roosevelt Administration for the same reasons that Hitler outlawed the employment of Women; a way to raise the employment statistics in a way that would have been popular at the time. Note that child labor at the time did not include Acting, because during the depression the Cinema (including Shirley Temple) was incredibly popular.

And here's my Anecdote of the day; You don't get rid of something by passing laws prohibiting it, you get rid of it by making it economically obsolete, and socially unacceptable.

---

At 4/3/10 12:19 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 4/2/10 09:07 PM, Ytaker wrote:

As you get richer, there's a lot of fun things you can buy.

He doesn't need the money, he uses it as a status. If he makes X money after taxes, he doesn't care how much it is as long as it's more than the next guy.

Then why does taxing him more decrease business growth? That's what the stats. The psychology of it is secondary to the maths. If he can make more money by going elsewhere, he'll get more status by going elsewhere, and happily do it. It's called the brain drain.

More progressive tax rates inhibit growth. More taxes on the rich. So yeah.

I'd counter but I can't read PDFs and I'm just plain old lazy today.
And pure economic growth really isn't what this is about.

More economic growth means more tax income, especially in the long run, since it's cumulative.

Anyway, when your examples of capitalist societies are a communist one and a socialist one, I don't feel that much of an urge to challenge. More likely, if they fail, it's the socialism's fault.

China is communist like North Korea is atheist.

There's a reason most people are atheist there. They killed the christians, buddhists, imprisoned them, drove them away. Because the government is atheist. Being forced to love their leader doesn't change the fact that they don't believe in God. It's kinda hard to argue if everything that's against your case is rejected because the people there are retarded. That's standard with communist governments. The worker's representitives take control, they're self centred bastards.

Besides, it was capitalism which ended child labour.

Whaaaa
A 10 seconds google search gives you a pretty damn good idea why there was children and slave labor and it's not "communism".
http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu/lab orctr/child_labor/about/us_history.html

What do you think the children were doing on the farms before they went into the factories? The reason people used to have lots of kids was because they made good labour. And slavery has existed with and without capitalism. It's an easy way to do a lot of labour regardless. And Marxist communism directly states that children should be put into school/factories to work.

Your argument is basically that ultra-capitalism created child labor, but by the same principles, abolished it!

Children worked long, dangerous hours on farms before they worked in factories. The change came when people got rich enough that education came better than working children.

It didn't come about as the natural hand of the market dictated that children should be educated, it happened because people got ANGRY and demanded the laws be changed. Laws were passed to FORCE companies to have practices which lowered their productivity and increased their costs.

Long before that happened, people put their kids into schools. People are smart.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whapl es.childlabor

It wasn't till 1938 that child labour was banned. If child labour was still being used en masse, the senators and congressmen would have blocked it, because angry factory workers, owners, parents, farmers and such who needed money would have blocked it. And, adults were quite willing to take the jobs at child wages then. Unemployment was real high.

That's how child labor ended.

Seriously you just tried to pass me a super-sized turd sandwich :o

It ended for the most part long before it was banned. Farming labour is till legal.

To up the wages of public sector employees, and hire new ones.

Who then do what with their money?

Buy things, get a pension plan. There's little political impetus to put money into things like roads, maintainance, and such, things that actually help people. Roads don't vote for you.

Israeli slavery was willing for the enslaved, illegal to hurt the person, and they could leave at any time.

Nope, don't know who told you that.
http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him. (Deut 23.15)

"If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth. (Ex 21.26-27)

So, you can leave at any time, and if they do any damage to you, you're free. Slavery then was for the poor, not the rich. They'd get the benefit of a rich person's household. Or leave voluntarily. In america, the idea was that you stole them from their land packed them in a big ship, had lots of them injured in the journey, and then whipped them till they worked, and with dred scott, if they fled you had to return them to their master. Don't trust attack website which show no historical context.

There were rules on when and how you could beat them without getting into trouble and you could enslave your slave's children.

Yeah, but you could beat your servents too. You just had to compensate them for their time. They were pretty light on mild physical violence. Men will be men and all. As long as you cause no permament damage. Hell, if you were rich enough, you could beat some random person, and pay them back till they're fully healed.

Every seven years you got freed. You could leave at any time. You could buy your freedom, if you earned enough, or got your family to buy you (and they had to let you go).

Christians supported slavery for, what? 1700 years before suddenly finding out the bible was against it? 1700 years of Popes couldn't read the bible properly?
Gimme a break.

Everyone supported it. There were always opponents. It got really bad, and people decided to change the laws. You know. Some popes cared, some didn't. Slavery was useful. Some popes hated it. Pius II, say. Most didn't say anything about it. That doesn't change the fact that christians were the main people who ended it.

The fact that people don't trust the government to spend their money well is is a big part of why people object to such taxes.

Not what I'm talking about.

You've been trying to say subtly that when the government takes the rich person's money, society will be better off, so it's all toopsy doovey. If people believe it will make society worse off, they're going to have double the reasons to oppose it. If people believe the rich people can spend it better, they're going to oppose the government taking their money. This is a fairly standard feature of everyone right wing, and a lot of left wingers. A lack of trust of government. More so if the government is left wing, and actively opposes them in favour of it's voters.

Left wingers also hate government, though not as much, when a right winger is in power.

---

At 4/3/10 10:22 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

You're knowledge of history is as Wrong and Anecdotal in this situation as it was when you told me that the education of the Dark Ages was private. (And I seem to recall you never replying to my rebuttal)

I'm sure.

The key here is that ending child labor at this time would have done no good for these people, they were not being forced into the factors at gun-point, per say, but they were forced by the state of nature at the time to work.

Nice story except children were paid crap compared to adults for sometimes comparable labor.
Yeah I'm sure textile factories just HAD to pay them less :,(

Child labor wasn't ended because "the market" offered the kid's parent an opportunity to make enough money and send them to school, it was stopped because of the PUBLIC OUTRCY, UNIONIZING and LAWS PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
As soon as 1802
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_Act s

What's your next story? How slavery was abolished due to the free hand of the market?

Child labor in a factory was terribly but in relative terms an improvement to farm labor.

Haha bullshit.
Factory work and coal mining was some of the hardest, most dangerous work you could do at the time in return for stable employment... for as long as you could last.

Doesn't even compare to the jobs a kid would have to do around a farm, not to mention the health risks.

The complaints didn't come from the laborers themselves,

From the children you mean?

But child labor itself had already largely been solved by the time the actual 'laws' were put in place,

The laws started in 1802 while child labor went on into the 20th century.
You're demonstrably WRONG.

And as Ytaker mentioned the abolition of child labor officially was done by the Roosevelt Administration

You're just talking about the USA for some reason when it's well-known that the core of the industrialization happened in Europe.

And here's my Anecdote of the day; You don't get rid of something by passing laws prohibiting it, you get rid of it by making it economically obsolete, and socially unacceptable.

Women suffrage, slavery, freedom of religion, end of child labor, end of segregation were all enacted by social activism and changes of laws.
Market forces? Bullshit.

---

At 4/3/10 11:38 AM, Ytaker wrote:

Then why does taxing him more decrease business growth?

I got a PDF reader. Your study ( or.. article ) didn't deal with that. All it talks about is increased taxation of everyone equally.

There's a reason most people are atheist there.

In North Korea?
Haha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea #Religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea #Personality_cult

I don't know of any place that sounds more religious on the face of the earth. The entire country is a giant cult to the "Dear Leader" ( who is dead btw but still technically leading the country ).

Calling North Korea atheist is just PR from the religious trying to blame the ill of North Korea on atheism ( idiots ) just like you're trying to pass the ills of China, which works pretty much exactly like Europe at the turn of the 19th century as "communist" or "socialist".

Get real. There has never been a true communist economy on a scale larger than a frickin village as far as I know. If China is communist, then everyone else on the planet is like SUPER MEGA COMMUNIST.

What do you think the children were doing on the farms before they went into the factories?

I replied to that whole thing to smilez.

Long before that happened, people put their kids into schools. People are smart.

Completely irrelevant.

Buy things, get a pension plan. There's little political impetus to put money into things like roads, maintainance, and such, things that actually help people. Roads don't vote for you.

Ok so let me get this straight, we should NOT tax them more so that they spend their extra money on useless things that don't help people.
Is that what you just said?

Anyway the point is that taxing doesn't take money out of the system. You have to actually pay someone to build roads and that person is a worker who now has spending money. Spending money taken from taxes. Yay. Circle of life.

So, you can leave at any time, and if they do any damage to you, you're free.

lie

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)"

You could leave at any time.

Where did you read that in the bible?

You know. Some popes cared, some didn't.

It's hella stupid and in no way excuses that they did in fact support slavery for however long it was popular to do so. Freeing the slaves as a result of Christianity? Give me a fucking break.

If people believe the rich people can spend it better, they're going to oppose the government taking their money.

And how exactly do you figure rich people would spend money better?

I can't think of any country where the rich just organized and filled the role of a government. Sure, they build a hospital here and a bridge there, but philanthropy and charity don't run a country.

Anyway I doubt you're arguing for an abolition of governments but it seems fairly obvious to me that people like Michael Jackson and Kevin Federline can't spend money worth a shitlick and that if you really want corporations to invest money back into an economy, you tax salaries heavily and give wide tax breaks to businesses.

If they take the money out of their business, it's taxed. If they keep it in, it's not.

Yay.

---

At 4/3/10 05:22 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 4/3/10 10:22 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

Nice story except children were paid crap compared to adults for sometimes comparable labor.
Yeah I'm sure textile factories just HAD to pay them less :,(

I don't know where you got the idea that children are better laborers than adults. I'm almost suspect that you pulled that out of your ass. The difference has to do with experience. You pay people more as they get older, this is nothing new. Note how the income of these child laborers slopes upward with age

http://www.galbithink.org/child_files/im age001.jpg

Tell me poxpower, if the factory owners could get away with paying children less on their own, why pay them more with age? and why pay them more at all? Hell why not make it 1 penny a day?

Now i will grant you that it is possible for a particular group to be underpaid, if everyone in society genuinely believes that that labor is inferior , but it is not possible to underpay someone under free conditions simply because you want to cut some off the top for yourself. And if the former case is the case, then no government law would possibly get passed since it would be met with universal hostility.

Child labor wasn't ended because "the market" offered the kid's parent an opportunity to make enough money and send them to school, it was stopped because of the PUBLIC OUTRCY, UNIONIZING and LAWS PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

You're arguing by assertion, the only worse argument i can think of is an Ad Hominem. Ytaker already pointed out that child labor was virtually gone by the time the laws were passed, public outcry about child labor would have never taken place if there weren't a large portion of children who weren't already NOT in the work force, (And we know that illegalizing something that everyone participates in never works) And how was that possible? Improvements in capital.

As soon as 1802
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_Act s

You're confusing private factories with parish based factories, i.e. Government run factories.

Private factory owners could not forcibly subjugate "free-labour" children; they could not compel them to work in conditions their parents found unacceptable. The mass exodus from the socialist Continent to increasingly capitalist, industrial Britain in the first half of the 19th century strongly suggests that people did indeed find the industrial order an attractive alternative. And no credible evidence exists which argues that parents in these early capitalist days were any less caring of their offspring than those of pre-capitalist times.

The situation, however, was much different for "apprentice" children, and close examination reveals that it was these children on whom the critics were focusing when they spoke of the "evils" of capitalism's Industrial Revolution. These youngsters, it turns out, were under the direct authority and supervision not of their parents in a free labor market, but of government officials. Many were orphans; a few were victims of negligent parents or parents whose health or lack of skills kept them from earning sufficient income to care for a family. All were in the custody of "parish authorities." As the Hammonds wrote, ". . . the first mills were placed on streams, and the necessary labour was provided by the importation of cartloads of pauper children from the workhouses in the big towns. London was an important source, for since the passing of Hanway's Act in 1767 the child population in the workhouses had enormously increased, and the parish authorities were anxious to find relief from the burden of their maintenance . . . . To the parish authorities, encumbered with great masses of unwanted children, the new cotton mills in Lancashire, Derby, and Notts were a godsend."[4]

Source; http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/
child-labor-and-the-british-industrial-r evolution/

Child labor in a factory was terribly but in relative terms an improvement to farm labor.

Haha bullshit.
Factory work and coal mining was some of the hardest, most dangerous work you could do at the time in return for stable employment... for as long as you could last.

Coal mining is not a factory job, it's resource extraction. People mined for coal prior to the industrial revolution, and yes, Conditions were bad; bad for anyone regardless of the time period and who was actually entering the coal mine. I fail to see why coal mining is relevant.

The laws started in 1802 while child labor went on into the 20th century.
You're demonstrably WRONG.

Aside from the points I made before, Those laws were not lobbied for by the children or the women themselves. but by Wealthier adult male laborers working in the same industries. There was no compassion behind it, it was nothing more than a tariff, an effort to make certain groups more expensive to employ in order to bolster your own wages.

You're just talking about the USA for some reason when it's well-known that the core of the industrialization happened in Europe.

The core of industrialization happened in Britain, Germany, and the United States*

Europe had more laws about labor than the United states, their governments were more controlling. And yet even with child labor more permissive in the United States, American laborers were still paid more than British or other European laborers. And so the whole "The core of industrialization happened in Europe." line strikes me as pointless if not self defeating.

Women suffrage, slavery, freedom of religion, end of child labor, end of segregation were all enacted by social activism and changes of laws.

Suffrage - The right to vote is a political matter. Voting on who gets to control the guns may be better than not having any say on who gets to control the guns at all, but we're still talking about the same institution. And historically democratic governments have not shown themselves any less murderous or imperialistic.

Slavery - Slavery was unsustainable on a free market. Slave masters would have to spend a great deal of money trying to hunt their slaves down, with their own money. This would have been incredibly expensive. Instead, fugitive slave laws made it so that the rounding up of slaves was placed on to the taxpayers. You also had laws in the south prohibiting the construction of factories which could have employed freemen.

Freedom of Religion - Who is it exactly, Poxpower, that for thousands of years had been responsible for the various acts of murder and mayhem associated with religions wars: The State. Freedom of Religion came when PEOPLE (Not the state) refused to support a government that promoted intolerance. People changed before the laws did, and so thanking the state for protecting people against the state itself is absurd.

Civil Rights - Segregation was a government enforced policy. It's no different than freedom of religion. The Racists in the government were the last people to change, It wasn't private businesses (Some may have, but it wasn't universal or monopolistic like the black codes) that were refusing Blacks from using their utilities and services. Slavery, the Black Codes, the Jim Crow Laws, and Segregation were all problems maintained or fostered by the State.

---

At 4/3/10 07:36 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

I don't know where you got the idea that children are better laborers than adults.

I didn't say better, I said "sometimes comparable".

but it is not possible to underpay someone under free conditions simply because you want to cut some off the top for yourself.

I guess women earning less than men for the same job is just a fluke of the market too.

Ytaker already pointed out that child labor was virtually gone by the time the laws were passed,

Again, blatantly FALSE.
A complete lie.

You're confusing private factories with parish based factories, i.e. Government run factories.

No, it applied to ALL factory owners.
The quote you fished out predates even 1802 and it's not what I'm talking about and I fail to see how it strenghtens the "children were only banned from working in factories by Roosevelt" point.

From 1800 and onward, progressively more restrictive laws were put into place and didn't just apply to apprentice children, but to ALL children.

I fail to see why coal mining is relevant.

Because the Industrial revolution basically ran on coal?

Aside from the points I made before, Those laws were not lobbied for by the children or the women themselves.

Who lobbied for it is entirely irrelevant as it defeats your "the market fixed it" argument.
No, the market DID NOT fix it, people fixed it by passing laws against it.

Suffrage - The right to vote is a political matter.

Yeah and? Children not working in a coal mine isn't an economic matter, it's a social matter.

Slavery - Slavery was unsustainable on a free market.

Bwahahha. It's still going on TODAY. Do you know how much a slave costs today in the third world? Peanuts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUM2rCIUd eI

Freedom of Religion -Freedom of Religion came when PEOPLE

Again, it's guaranteed by LAWS, not the market. That's the only point I'm making.

Civil Rights - Segregation was a government enforced policy.

I'll give you that one.

---

At 4/3/10 07:36 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: if the factory owners could get away with paying children less on their own, why pay them more with age?

Well, as the children mature, they're able to do more things. I doubt that a 10 year old can lift as much as a 14 year old, so they'll get paid more since they're doing more productive labor. It's also incentive to stay at the factory longer, rather than just hop from job to job. Of course, that's ignoring the fact that I have no idea what kind of labor that chart is tracking, and from what time period.

Hell why not make it 1 penny a day?

Because no one would ever send their children to work there. People work to live, and even back then, a penny a day wouldn't help sustain a family.

but it is not possible to underpay someone under free conditions simply because you want to cut some off the top for yourself.

Look at John D. Rockefeller. What he did was undercut his pricing on oil by slashing wages (and a few other cost-saving methods, but mostly through wages). this pushed competitors out of business, but left his workers hurting for cash. If they went on strike, he would just fire them and hire new workers who needed any money at all.

Child labor wasn't ended because "the market" offered the kid's parent an opportunity to make enough money and send them to school, it was stopped because of the PUBLIC OUTRCY, UNIONIZING and LAWS PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

You're arguing by assertion

No, he's arguing by truth.

public outcry about child labor would have never taken place if there weren't a large portion of children who weren't already NOT in the work force,

The government also mandated that fire escapes be installed in all multi-story buildings, not because a majority of people already had them, but because very few had them.

Same with meat inspection. It wasn't mandated because factors made sure their meat was fresh, clean, and full of exactly whatever they said they put in it; the laws were passed because of the complete opposite.

And of course, the 18th Amendment, the prohibition of alcohol.

Just because everyone does it, doesn't mean that laws can't be passed to make it illegal.

And how was that possible? Improvements in capital.

Technically, it was deprovements (?) in capital. The Great Depression forced adults to work for the same wages as children, making child labor unnecessary.

As soon as 1802
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_Act s

You're confusing private factories with parish based factories, i.e. Government run factories.

Maybe in England. But a lot of atrocities done to child laborers in America were from private industry. 14 hour work days, no breaks, no schooling, loss of limbs, and usually given the most dangerous jobs.

Factory work and coal mining was some of the hardest, most dangerous work you could do at the time in return for stable employment... for as long as you could last.

Coal mining is not a factory job, it's resource extraction. People mined for coal prior to the industrial revolution, and yes, Conditions were bad; bad for anyone regardless of the time period and who was actually entering the coal mine. I fail to see why coal mining is relevant.

Maybe because you said that it was an improvement to farm work? Coal mining was also ramped up in during the Industrial Revolution across the world, so more laborers (including children) were needed.

The laws started in 1802 while child labor went on into the 20th century.

Aside from the points I made before, Those laws were not lobbied for by the children or the women themselves. but by Wealthier adult male laborers working in the same industries. There was no compassion behind it, it was nothing more than a tariff, an effort to make certain groups more expensive to employ in order to bolster your own wages.

You do realize that women and children didn't have a voice in the government, whether through protests and lobbying, or through voting.

Besides, what you have is a theory, or at the very least an idea that may or may not have been what a majority of child labor law supporters were thinking when they voted for these laws.

American laborers were still paid more than British or other European laborers.

It could be because Europe was going through an economic depression, what with the Potato Famine and widespread drought all over the continent. Besides, just because you're the tallest midget doesn't mean that you aren't a midget.

Suffrage - The right to vote is a political matter.

It still took the same activism and protesting to get suffrage as child labor. Besides, it's a social issue - having women, minorities, and the poor the same rights as wealthy white males.

Slavery - Slavery was unsustainable on a free market.

You apparently missed the part where the American South's economy was destroyed once abolition went into effect. For a large plantation or a wealthy man (such as a very successful lawyer, banker, or businessman), slaves were easy labor that was infinitely cheaper than hiring someone.

You also had laws in the south prohibiting the construction of factories which could have employed freemen.

Ummm...no? There just wasn't a desire for factories. It was much easier and more profitable for southerners to own or work on a farm/plantation then to own a factory or work in one.

Freedom of Religion - Freedom of Religion came when PEOPLE (Not the state) refused to support a government that promoted intolerance. People changed before the laws did, and so thanking the state for protecting people against the state itself is absurd.

Almost as absurd as your argument? Many people were happy under a single-religion government back then, and the few countries left that do do that have citizens who love it. It wasn't the fact that the government was sending people on holy wars. It started when a few people (definitely not a majority; probably numbering in the low hundreds) got together, came to America, and founded Pennsylvania and Maryland. Eventually the hate of the Puritan way of life led to Rhode Island joining PA and MD.

Civil Rights - Segregation was a government enforced policy.

I will admit, it was, to a degree, a government policy. But it was also upheld by whites that weren't in the government. It wasn't government sponsored lynching that kept blacks from speaking up or acting in an "unsuitable" way. It wasn't government sponsored mobs that attacks peaceful demonstrations at lunch counters. So while it was a government fostered policy, it was also a public supported policy until the apathetic saw the brutality faced by blacks.

---

At 4/3/10 08:29 PM, poxpower wrote: I didn't say better, I said "sometimes comparable".

Unless you can point to something concrete, the pay graph I showed above shows no income anomolies as far as I can tell. Women were paid less, but society at the time felt women were inferior to men, whether that is true or not is irrelevant; If it's a presupposition that is a matter of culture No one can change it until people themselves change their mind. I.e. if everyone believes in slavery, the government will not abolish slavery. Even if the government was enlightened (Which it never is) changes in the Status Quo would be met with strong hostility.

I.e. Do you expect that there is going to be a movement in Parliament to ensure that women are paid the same as men? No, probably not. A minority may agitate for it but only until they garner majority support could they get a law to pass that would 'equalize pay' And if a majority of people already believe that women are as valuable in terms of labor as men businesses that employ women at their actual marginal revenue product will perform better than (See freakanomics and the economics of discrimination)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2006/07/07/AR2006070701105.
html - Not directly related to the topic but germane none the less.

So by the time any law is put into place the 'Market' (Simply the voluntary interactions of people) is already solving the problem.

You're confusing private factories with parish based factories, i.e. Government run factories.

No, it applied to ALL factory owners.
The quote you fished out predates even 1802 and it's not what I'm talking about and I fail to see how it strenghtens the "children were only banned from working in factories by Roosevelt" point.

If you didn't realize, changes in laws are agitated for outside and inside the Government before the law is put into effect. Much the complaints about the factories, were directed specifically at parish run factories. I.e. agents of the state were running factories which fell into the cross hairs of criticism

From 1800 and onward, progressively more restrictive laws were put into place and didn't just apply to apprentice children, but to ALL children.

The whether the law itself was aimed at children in private or public factories was not relevant to me pointing out that the impetus for passing these laws was based on a report of conditions in government run factories.

And that these laws were passed does not answer the question of what Happened to these children after they became unemployable. Unless they had been marched into the factories at gunpoint, (Which was only the case with the state run institutions) Assuming they were there at their own volition, they probably needed the money. Children who cannot find work become thieves, beggars, and prostitutes. Women who cannot find work become thieves, beggars, and prostitutes.

Therefore, those child labor laws did NOT solve the problem of child labor, they only solved the symptom. The PROBLEM of child labor, poxpower, is poor children. Children who cannot be supported by their parents go to the factories - The fact that children have to work in factories is the symptom. You abolish the Symptom does not abolish the problem, and because the problem persists, children will simply find ways to feed themselves illegally, or just die, in which case child labor hasn't been ended because children are still working, just under worse conditions. (Congradulations). Western society's did away with the PROBLEM of child labor by ending the PROBLEM of poor children, and they did that by increasing the wealth of their parents. Something that is not achieved by limiting the work hours of anyone. When i say Child labor was abolished by the Market throughout most of the western world i mean that child labor was abolished by Abolishing poor children.

Because the Industrial revolution basically ran on coal?

The industrial revolution also ran on farming. you need food surplus to feed laborers, otherwise you can't have a factory at all. The industrial revolution also ran on long distance transportation (something dangerous when done at long distances). Therefore we should decry the horrible conditions of farming and sailing as proof that the industrial revolution was a societal bad.

Suffrage - The right to vote is a political matter.

Yeah and? Children not working in a coal mine isn't an economic matter, it's a social matter.

Yes it is. It's a social matter to YOU because it pulls at your moralistic heart strings. You don't want to see a world where children have to work. And a world where children don't have to work (legally or no) to survive was not made possible by laws.

Slavery - Slavery was unsustainable on a free market.

Bwahahha. It's still going on TODAY. Do you know how much a slave costs today in the third world? Peanuts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUM2rCIUd eI

Slavery in places like Sudan and other regions of Africa are a product of Civil wars. It's easy to enslave people en-mass when you're government is supported by foreign interventions and finances; just look at Zimbabwe, it's one giant plantation.

Freedom of Religion -Freedom of Religion came when PEOPLE

Again, it's guaranteed by LAWS, not the market. That's the only point I'm making.

The only people who seem to be threatening freedom of religion are states, historically this has been the case. And religious wars have very strongly been influenced by control of the state. Fanatics can exist in a society, and if they are small the majority of people can deal with them. When a large number of fanatics enter a country, for example, in the instance of Islamic migration, states seem to fail to recognize the danger they pose and refuse to allow private institutions to discriminate against them, If they really are harmless this would be uneconomical and thus would not happen. By creating a system in which people are forced to associate with one another against their will, you leave opportunities for hostile interactions that would not have otherwise taken place.

And this is why I oppose the public education system, It has already been Hijacked by communists, It could easily be Hijacked by christian or Muslim fundamentalists. I'm not going to force anyone who go to a school that teaches them one philosophy or another, and in return i expect the same luxury, but under authoritarian absolutism this is not possible.

---

Child Labor is alive & well in both the US & Canada.

One only needs to look at any family owned farm & you'll see it.
THere are a great many Quakers, Mennonites etc. these people at planting & harvest need their children to help out & they are taken out of school until they get the job(s) done. Here in the agricultural area I live in you see kid's who maybe 10 or 11 driving tractors & hauling hay etc on farms & in my immediate area there are no Menonites, or Hutterites here, they are over in the Annapolis/Berwick area. So these kid's around here are school kids who use modern technology...& still work on the farm !

Here in Canada (I'm positive it's going on elsewhere) there are family owned stores...aka convenience stores where the children have to attend school, but they are permitted to work in the family run stores when they are outside of regular school hours.

Sorry to interupt, you can all go back to lala land where child labor is (at least in your minds) an early 18th century practice no longer happening in more prosperous Nations & only found in 3rd world shitholes....

but all of you are -- - - W R O N G !

---

At 4/3/10 05:58 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 4/3/10 11:38 AM, Ytaker wrote:

I got a PDF reader. Your study ( or.. article ) didn't deal with that. All it talks about is increased taxation of everyone equally.

It referenced multiple studies that said that more progressive taxation (taxation on the rich) reduced growth.

There's a reason most people are atheist there.

In North Korea?
Haha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea #Religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea #Personality_cult

I don't know of any place that sounds more religious on the face of the earth. The entire country is a giant cult to the "Dear Leader" ( who is dead btw but still technically leading the country ).

Cult worship. Also, hostile to any established religion. Religions involve worship of a god. Richard Dawkings has his own cult of personality, but we call his followers atheists.

Calling North Korea atheist is just PR from the religious trying to blame the ill of North Korea on atheism ( idiots ) just like you're trying to pass the ills of China, which works pretty much exactly like Europe at the turn of the 19th century as "communist" or "socialist".

Eh. They're a communist nation which has fanatical worship of their leader. Happened with Stalin, always happens. There are religious elements of it. You mention in the below comments, that your idea of communism is a little village. That's not what Marx talked about, mostly. He talked a lot about the workers taking control of the means of production, but very little about how you'd get to the final stage. You might be thinking more of Mikhail Bakunin's anarcho-communism. Marx was all for big government.

Whenever the marxian government heavy communism has arrived, religion has been crushed, socialism imposed. It's been done by atheists, with unlimited faith in some group of enlightened humans (scientists, engineers, teachers). A government has emerged, with atrocious human rights, (to religion, a lot) not because of capitalism or socialism or anything, but because dictatorships care more about their nation than the people.

And, while their cult worship has religious elements, and probably utilizes the religious parts of the brain, it is lead by, forced on the people by atheists. The practical upshot is, I don't want utopian minded atheists running my government.

I personally think they have a lot of atheistic characteristics, even with their cult worship, but whatever. The exact demographic characteristics are way off topic.

Get real. There has never been a true communist economy on a scale larger than a frickin village as far as I know. If China is communist, then everyone else on the planet is like SUPER MEGA COMMUNIST.

They had attrocious worker and farmer rights long before they went semi-capitalist, same as russia. There are many heavy socialist countries with excellent human rights, like Denmark. It's a moral issue, not an economic one, whether you screw over your workers. Doesn't matter what businesses want, if the government say no. Communism fails a lot on the moral issues, strangely.

I replied to that whole thing to smilez.

1. There was oh so very little enforcement. Because they didn't care. Most of it was to preserve victorian values. A bunch of people would die, they'd pass some law, and nothing would happen. Plus, there were lots of exceptions in all the laws, and I don't think the ages were ever raised beyond 12.

2. Farming requires extremely long hours, handling of often dangerous animals, and increasingly involved heavy machines, always involved sharp objects that could easily crush or cut children. It requires carrying heavy loads, like with coal farms. It involves dangerous chemicals, to kill pests (pyrethrum and rotenone were popular back then- pyrethrum isn't too bad, but rotenone is pretty toxic, though luckily you vomit if you take in too much.) and they were beginning to make fertillizers.

Buy things, get a pension plan. There's little political impetus to put money into things like roads, maintainance, and such, things that actually help people. Roads don't vote for you.

Ok so let me get this straight, we should NOT tax them more so that they spend their extra money on useless things that don't help people.
Is that what you just said?

No, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned politicians. Rich people tend to put their money in companies, stocks. I was referring to our esteemed public servants.

Anyway the point is that taxing doesn't take money out of the system. You have to actually pay someone to build roads and that person is a worker who now has spending money. Spending money taken from taxes. Yay. Circle of life.

Builders, yes. They tend to be poor, spend it quickly on things like food, simple products that help. Public workers save a lot of it in government plans, and aren't as good as rich businessmen at investment.

So, you can leave at any time, and if they do any damage to you, you're free.

lie

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)"

Iffy translation. NIV is better. Relied more on scholars. Replace survives with gets up. Here's the full passage

If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist and he does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed. If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property (ksph--"silver"; not the normal word(s) for property,

A freeman's time is his own, but a slave's time is the master's and so he's not required to compensate him for his time

You could leave at any time.

Where did you read that in the bible?

I showed you the verse. They could leave at any time, and the people they resided with couldn't turn them away. Slaves escaped a lot back then, since there was never any real way to keep them from going, but they tended to be returned, since there were harsh laws about executing anyone who left, or harbored an escaped slave. In the bible, it says they have to harbor the slave- which makes slavery voluntary.

You know. Some popes cared, some didn't.

It's hella stupid and in no way excuses that they did in fact support slavery for however long it was popular to do so. Freeing the slaves as a result of Christianity? Give me a fucking break.

Look at the statements of the emancipation people. It was very mixed in with their philosophies. And, people are people. Christians did lots of bad things. Everyone did

And how exactly do you figure rich people would spend money better?

They hire people to do it for them. They tend to be smarter, minus celebs. Businessmen.

I can't think of any country where the rich just organized and filled the role of a government. Sure, they build a hospital here and a bridge there, but philanthropy and charity don't run a country.

Well, oligarchy, but yeah, i wouldn't want them too. Welfare is the expensive bit.

Anyway I doubt you're arguing for an abolition of governments but it seems fairly obvious to me that people like Michael Jackson and Kevin Federline can't spend money worth a shitlick and that if you really want corporations to invest money back into an economy, you tax salaries heavily and give wide tax breaks to businesses.

Yeah. That'd be fine. Never happens like that though, sadly. For, understandable reasons. People would put all their money in shares, and businesses would boom, but the government would get little money. It would favour the rich a lot too, since they're better at investment.

Celeb taxes, whatever. Sure.

---

Whenever the marxian government heavy communism has arrived, religion has been crushed, socialism imposed. It's been done by atheists, with unlimited faith in some group of enlightened humans (scientists, engineers, teachers). A government has emerged, with atrocious human rights, (to religion, a lot) not because of capitalism or socialism or anything, but because dictatorships care more about their nation than the people.

I think the unlimited faith in some group of enlightened humans is misleading. Mao's Cultural revolution saw a rejection of anyone who was considered an 'intellectual'. Unless you believe Mao was not a communist.

Anyway the point is that taxing doesn't take money out of the system. You have to actually pay someone to build roads and that person is a worker who now has spending money. Spending money taken from taxes. Yay. Circle of life.

Builders, yes. They tend to be poor, spend it quickly on things like food, simple products that help. Public workers save a lot of it in government plans, and aren't as good as rich businessmen at investment.

More Importantly, merely paying SOMEONE to do SOMETHING does not make society better off. You can tax the entire economy to the hilt to build up munitions but society is not wealthier as a result. And the idea of taxing income to stimulate business is absurd. J.S. Mill puts it better than I can.

"It is no longer supposed that you benefit the producer by taking his money, provided that you give it to him again in exchange for his goods. There is nothing which impresses a person of reflection with a stronger sense of the shallowness of the political reasoning of the last two centuries, than the general reception so long given to a doctrine which, if it proves anything, proves that the more you take from the pockets of the people to spend on your own pleasures, the richer they grow; that the man who steals money out of a shop, provided that he expends it all again at the same shop, is a public benefactor to the tradesman whom he robs, and that the same operation, repeated sufficiently often, would make the tradesman a fortune. "

It's this logic that makes me despise the dreaded circular flow model.

Anyway I doubt you're arguing for an abolition of governments but it seems fairly obvious to me that people like Michael Jackson and Kevin Federline can't spend money worth a shitlick and that if you really want corporations to invest money back into an economy, you tax salaries heavily and give wide tax breaks to businesses.

Yeah. That'd be fine. Never happens like that though, sadly. For, understandable reasons. People would put all their money in shares, and businesses

More importantly, investment in business is done under the assumption that the rewards of that investment will be reaped for the personal benefit of the investor. Income and business taxes are tied. Taxing heavily a person's income but not taxing businesses, per say, is like telling a farmer that he can grow as many crops as he likes but as soon as he tries to harvest them, the government will come and confiscate them.

---

At 4/4/10 04:08 PM, Ytaker wrote:

It referenced multiple studies that said that more progressive taxation (taxation on the rich) reduced growth.

Right

Cult worship.

Yeah that's not atheism by any stretch of the imagination.

The practical upshot is, I don't want utopian minded atheists running my government.

And also people who don't believe in unicorns.

I personally think they have a lot of atheistic characteristics

You can only have one atheist characteristic: not believing in God.
There are no other atheist characteristics.

They had attrocious worker and farmer rights long before they went semi-capitalist, same as russia.

Having laws =/= communist.

1. There was oh so very little enforcement.

It was gradual. The point is: it was passed into law 100 years before you said it was.

2. Farming

No one said farming was easy, but it sure beat coal mining.

No, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned politicians. Rich people tend to put their money in companies, stocks. I was referring to our esteemed public servants.

So rich people spend their free income in companies ( not offshore accounts apparently ) and public servants squander it ... somehow... ?
What do you have to back that up?

Builders, yes. They tend to be poor, spend it quickly on things like food, simple products that help. Public workers save a lot of it in government plans, and aren't as good as rich businessmen at investment.

Being good at investment doesn't pump money into an economy, it pumps money into your pockets. A pension plan is a good idea since it means the government doesn't have to pay these guys when they can't work anymore. While the money is in retirement plans, it gets invested ANYWAY and the people who make those investments are often private companies or people who came from the private sector and who have a knowledge of such things.

A freeman's time is his own, but a slave's time is the master's and so he's not required to compensate him for his time

I'm pretty sure you didn't quote the same passage, which is
Exodus 21:20-21

Which says "if you beat your slave to death, you'll be punished, but if you beat him and he doesn't die, then it's all good!".

I showed you the verse.

No, all you put was "if you beat him so bad you fuck him up, you have to let him go".

Regardless of how it worked back then, we're talking about what the bible says about slavery and it
quite clearly states that you OWN then and you can BEAT them.

Look at the statements of the emancipation people. It was very mixed in with their philosophies. And, people are people. Christians did lots of bad things. Everyone did

Well don't praise Christianity for freeing the slaves when it's Christianity that kept it going for 1700-1800 years.
If you don't blame it for the bad, don't blame it for the good.

And how exactly do you figure rich people would spend money better?

They hire people to do it for them. They tend to be smarter, minus celebs. Businessmen.

And that's better spent how? If anything, businessmen are worse since they know how to hide money in offshore accounts and they know how to slip into tax loopholes or how to funnel money out of a country.
In fact I'd be interested to know why the "income" rises when taxes are lower. Is it really economic growth or just less tax evasion?

---

At 4/4/10 04:35 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

Whenever the marxian government heavy communism has arrived, religion has been crushed, socialism imposed. It's been done by atheists, with unlimited faith in some group of enlightened humans (scientists, engineers, teachers). A government has emerged, with atrocious human rights, (to religion, a lot) not because of capitalism or socialism or anything, but because dictatorships care more about their nation than the people.

I think the unlimited faith in some group of enlightened humans is misleading. Mao's Cultural revolution saw a rejection of anyone who was considered an 'intellectual'. Unless you believe Mao was not a communist.

As, very confusing as his thinking was then, the down to the countryside movement wasn't the cultural revolution. The cultural revolution was aimed at consolidating his own power- killing off members of the party who didn't like him. His failed great leap forward, where he'd focused on making steel and as such, peasants had stopped making food, and burnt down their tools for steel, with oh so predictable consequences, had massively reduced his power. As such, it wasn't all intellectuals- only ones who opposed him. He then sent them into the countryside, so they'd starve or die.

It's this logic that makes me despise the dreaded circular flow model.

The idea is generally made most popular in a recession, when a lot of capacity isn't being used. I'm not sure of the exact theoretical possibilities. But since it's never really tried, it's fairly academic. It tends to be used to prop up rich people. At huge, huge cost. Inefficiently high cost.

---

At 4/4/10 10:20 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

I didn't say better, I said "sometimes comparable".

Unless you can point to something concrete

Again here we're talking about children doing jobs sometimes comparable to men with lower pay.
Obviously they can't shovel coal as fast but they can probably do certain things like tighten bolts or operate a loom at about the same rate after a couple months of practice.

If it's a presupposition that is a matter of culture

See what you did there?
Me: "Culture is what brought about X social changes"
You: "No it was the market. Except for this and this and this but let's ignore that..."

So by the time any law is put into place the 'Market' (Simply the voluntary interactions of people) is already solving the problem.

Again except for "this and this and this".

Much the complaints about the factories, were directed specifically at parish run factories. I.e. agents of the state were running factories which fell into the cross hairs of criticism

That was in the 1700s as far as I can tell. You still have 100 years of PRIVATE child labor after that to explain which was not centered around housing orphans.

they probably needed the money.

Now you're talking about "what happened to orphans if they weren't put to work for 0$ a week in factories".

Therefore, those child labor laws did NOT solve the problem of child labor,

Not the first ones.

Children who cannot be supported by their parents go to the factories

Yeah what sets the wages? The market. As long as children CAN work, they WILL work and all wages will be driven down by the increase of worker supply.

We're not talking about a poor country here.

and they did that by increasing the wealth of their parents.

Yeah and how?
No laws? No unions? No strikes? Just the invisible market forces at work?

The industrial revolution also ran on farming.

Which ran on coal too. Woohoo

Seriously guys don't try and defend that coal mining wasn't as bad as farming. It's like.. a LEGENDARY dangerous and shitty job.
Children on farms had SOME difficult and dangerous jobs, but more often than not they did the easier stuff like pick weeds, help out during harvest, milk cows etc.

Just being IN a coal mine kills you.

And a world where children don't have to work (legally or no) to survive was not made possible by laws.

See this is the crux of it. Your claim is that people got rich enough on their own that they no longer needed to send kids to work.

My claim is that children would have been put to work regardless as long as it was legal to do so.

Slavery in places like Sudan and other regions of Africa are a product of Civil wars.

No, slavery today is about money. A guy comes to your village looking for workers, you get on the truck and then you work and you don't leave.

It's easy to enslave people en-mass when you're government is supported by foreign interventions

There's slavery just about everywhere on earth.

The only people who seem to be threatening freedom of religion are states,

Theocratic states.
Yeah I wonder why they don't want freedom of religion....

And this is why I oppose the public education system, It has already been Hijacked by communists

oh noooooes!

---

At 4/4/10 06:04 PM, poxpower wrote:

Cult worship.

Yeah, I mentioned it. Atheist led religion, if you want. Vastly different from normal religion. Atheistic philosophies, atheistic general worldview, just with hero worship.

Yeah that's not atheism by any stretch of the imagination.

The practical upshot is, I don't want utopian minded atheists running my government.

And also people who don't believe in unicorns.

Yeah, but they'll come into your home and beat you to death. They might not believe in supernatural things, but if you're the wrong sort of person, special men will come take you away to prison or death.

I personally think they have a lot of atheistic characteristics

You can only have one atheist characteristic: not believing in God.
There are no other atheist characteristics.

Yeah, they don't. They believe mostly in Juche. They just love a person a lot.

They had attrocious worker and farmer rights long before they went semi-capitalist, same as russia.

Having laws =/= communist.

Indeed, good laws are an ananthema to communism.

1. There was oh so very little enforcement.

It was gradual. The point is: it was passed into law 100 years before you said it was.

I thought you meant america. And, yes, but because there was a strong need for children, it was massively weakened, and not enforced.

2. Farming

No one said farming was easy, but it sure beat coal mining.

Evidence? Dangerous chemicals, long hours, dangerous tools, crap working conditions?

No, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned politicians. Rich people tend to put their money in companies, stocks. I was referring to our esteemed public servants.

So rich people spend their free income in companies ( not offshore accounts apparently ) and public servants squander it ... somehow... ?
What do you have to back that up?

Well, to be precise, housing, cars, expensive medical care plans, and pensions. If you look at consumer spending charts. When you're poor, a lot of your income is spent on basic utilities. When you're rich, you have spare income, which goes wherever the taxes in your state say it should. Business investment offers the highest returns. Offshore is safest. Public workers get huge benefits, which is a lot of the cost of their wage (often as much as half) and spend it in non useful ways.

Plus, statistics. Do you have any that say spending more on the government increases growth?

Builders, yes. They tend to be poor, spend it quickly on things like food, simple products that help. Public workers save a lot of it in government plans, and aren't as good as rich businessmen at investment.

Being good at investment doesn't pump money into an economy, it pumps money into your pockets. A pension plan is a good idea since it means the government doesn't have to pay these guys when they can't work anymore. While the money is in retirement plans, it gets invested ANYWAY and the people who make those investments are often private companies or people who came from the private sector and who have a knowledge of such things.

Investment is how businesses get extra money.

Yeah. Private ones invest. Social security, less so. Their pension strategy is more, if they get short of money, raise taxes. The government normally has to fill the gaps in any pension schemes, if they're government ones.

A freeman's time is his own, but a slave's time is the master's and so he's not required to compensate him for his time

I'm pretty sure you didn't quote the same passage, which is
Exodus 21:20-21

Which says "if you beat your slave to death, you'll be punished, but if you beat him and he doesn't die, then it's all good!".

Yes. If you beat a random person, and they don't die, then it's all good as well. You just have to pay them back for their lost working hours, and for any recovery costs. Since the slave is working directly for you, then their lost time is yours.

Regardless of how it worked back then, we're talking about what the bible says about slavery and it
quite clearly states that you OWN then and you can BEAT them.

Yes, and you could beat random people too. Look at verse 19.

Look at the statements of the emancipation people. It was very mixed in with their philosophies. And, people are people. Christians did lots of bad things. Everyone did

Well don't praise Christianity for freeing the slaves when it's Christianity that kept it going for 1700-1800 years.
If you don't blame it for the bad, don't blame it for the good.

It's not christianity. Everyone used slaves. It's easier to force people to work than work yourself. Any sheer moral mandate of christianity is lessened, but they were the only ones that broke from the chain. Not atheists, not buddhists, not muslims. Could just be economics, though. Richer society means less need for slave labour, more need for willing, skilled labour- like how the south needed it to work fields, and the north didn't. Wouldn't say that with any certainty though, since the first bits were at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

And how exactly do you figure rich people would spend money better?

They hire people to do it for them. They tend to be smarter, minus celebs. Businessmen.

And that's better spent how? If anything, businessmen are worse since they know how to hide money in offshore accounts and they know how to slip into tax loopholes or how to funnel money out of a country.
In fact I'd be interested to know why the "income" rises when taxes are lower. Is it really economic growth or just less tax evasion?

A mix. More business growth, more money in the open, less evasion, lower evasion costs. It's why tax revenues soared after Bush's tax cuts. Then he spent it on education and medicare drugs. If taxes are lower, then the rewards for taking a risk in business are higher- the government takes more of your money if you win with a risk, and gives nothing back if you fail.

Celebs do that too. There's lots of tales you can see via google. Businessmen actually produce money though, make the economy more efficient, produce technology, and such, and so there's more purpose. Celebs don't particularly spend their money as well. They buy a lot of drugs, private jets, parties, and huge, huge houses. They value money as a status symbol less. They mostly buy luxury goods that cost a huge amount to make, or use black market drug stuff.

---

At 4/4/10 07:14 PM, Ytaker wrote:

Yeah, but they'll come into your home and beat you to death.

Because they're atheist or because they're assholes?
If it's not the first thing, why mention they're atheist other than to try and smear atheism?

it was massively weakened, and not enforced.

As far as I can gather, the reason it wasn't enforced was just because of lack of personnel put to the task of doing the enforcing.

Evidence?

There's a disease just for coal miners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalworker%
27s_pneumoconiosis
http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/mmh/gildedag e/content/HazardsCoal.cfm

Industrial work was an impersonal process where people were hired as tools and worked until they couldn't work anymore, then tossed aside.

Well, to be precise, housing, cars, expensive medical care plans, and pensions.

All of that drives the economy.

Plus, statistics. Do you have any that say spending more on the government increases growth?

It's not growth we're primarily interested in but standards of living.

Yes. If you beat a random person,

It specifically says that YOU CAN BEAT YOUR SLAVE which you claimed you COULDN'T DO.

It's not christianity.

That's what I said.

Richer society means less need for slave labour,

The richest of the rich were the ones who had slaves throughout history and it wasn't "for labor". They'd use them for anything you can imagine from teaching their kids to sucking their wangs.

Slaves have nothing to do with economics as far as I can tell. The poorest nations have slavery and the richest nations had slavery and in those nations, rich people had slaves and they weren't local people who just HAD to find work, they were treated as fine imported luxury goods in a lot of cases.

anyway