|
Re^2: When are you moving to India to find a better job?
by Anonymous Monk on Sep 06, 2005 at 18:34 UTC
|
| [reply] |
|
|
Great link. I sorta had that sense, although not so clearly parablized.
Admittedly, I'm upset that jobs that were formerly done by my co-workers are now moving overseas, but when I step back, I can say "this is free market doing the right thing".
Business needs the ability to contract freely with resources, including the workforce. When regulations are applied, it simply becomes a special-interest tug-of-war, with the biggest contributions (bribes?) to the regulators gaining the most (unfair) ground. In a true free-market, everything will eventually find its own level. It may not be the level you want, or had last year, but it'll eventually level out.
| [reply] |
|
|
Although I agree totally with the economic reasoning the whole point of having a country is so that it can protect the citizens rights, way of life, and property. If your government doesn't regulate trade then it is not doing its job. The object being that people want to trade with you bad enough that you trade on favorable terms bringing in more money to your country than you output.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
When work goes overseas because a multinational corporation has means to underpay workers in another country, making them work in less protected environments and with less guarantees, I can say that "this is my goverment that gives the free market the right to do the wrong thing".
While I can partly agree with the mere economic argument (I've to think carefully about it, I admit), I really don't agree with the social implication of this "free market"; to this extent, regulation should be used to raise the conditions of the others and force corporations to treat them as they deserve. This is something to keep in mind the next time we eat a banana, for example.
Flavio
perl -ple'$_=reverse' <<<ti.xittelop@oivalf
Don't fool yourself.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In our global economy, capital is highly portable while labor is not, leaving "free market" to be nothing more than a high sounding euphemism for plutocracy. Neither you nor I is free to emigrate to the next hot ticket Third World low wage haven that will attract the capital of those who would otherwise pay us. This is a free market? Not for me, it ain't. I am constrained to selling my labor in one market only no matter what the global demand for my skills might be.
I happen to like many of those allegedly evil regulations that provide the benefits of workplace safety, labor protection (40 hour workweeks, social security, unemployment insurance), and environmental protection. If business is guaranteed the "ability to contract freely with resources", it will maximize its profit by seeking out low wage havens in which none of those regulations exist -- the good folks of Union-Carbide were free to contract with the resources of Bhopal, for example. For a more recent example, observe Nike just doing it to the people of Ho Chi Minh City.
The free market might just be doing its thing, but you'll never convince me that it's in any way right.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd agree with business being able to contract freely with workforces if workers were able to contract freely with businesses. Sadly, I am subject to all kinds of restrictions on where I can work - like work permits and visas - which are not applied to companies.
So yeah, free trade is great, as long as it's free.
| [reply] |
|
|
Interesting article, though I see at least two points unaccounted for there:
- If the boy had been paid, then that would have been money out of the glaziers pocket, and thus different to him just breaking windows by accident.
- What if the shopkeeper had money to spare, and the six francs would have just been collected under his mattress otherwise?
C.
| [reply] |
|
|
What if the shopkeeper had money to spare, and the six francs would have just been collected under his mattress otherwise?
Obviously, you don't know most shopkeepers. {grin}
Money is merely "frozen labor". Money sitting under a mattress is a potential future purchase, no different than money in a wallet or purse. Although, in some senses, it's worse because idle money can be rented out: that is, deposited into savings or an investment account.
Failure to do so actually depreciates the money because of inflation. Think of inflation as: "well, you worked for me for an hour last week, so I'll give you an hour's worth of goods this week, but when you worked for me five years ago for an hour, I can barely remember that, so you get a half hour's worth of goods today". Thus, no sensible person has idle money: it's all "in" something.
| [reply] |
Re^2: When are you moving to India to find a better job?
by tomhukins (Curate) on Sep 06, 2005 at 19:46 UTC
|
Huh? Many/most of us here don't live the US. | [reply] |
