From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on


Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>Eeyore wrote:
> >>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>If China and India threaten to get too expensive - not likely in China
> >>>>with the gov't setting the (low) wages
> >>>
> >>>Actually I'm not sure they do.
> >>
> >>The "unions" are gov't-controlled. And gov't (and military) fat cats
> >>are the ones with ownership of the companies.
> >
> > No. What gave you that idea ?
>
> Global consumers buying $25 Chinese-made DVD players usually assume
> Chinese labor is cheap because the country has a limitless supply of
> poor workers. But the morally cumbersome truth is that the Chinese
> government systematically prevents workers from being paid the full
> value of their labor.
>
What does that mean, "the full value of their labor"? You sound like a
commie, Turner. When you work for pay, you engage at a wage you agreed
to with the employer. Now if the employer then cheats you on pay or
something like that, you have a good argument, but the idea that someone
should pay you some magical amount that equals all the value you add,
why should they hire you in the first place? What is the reason for
having employees if you can't make a profit on what they do?
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on


Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>>>>>Eeyore wrote:
> >>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Losing your job to someone who'll work for half the wages *so* often
> >>>>>>>>leads to prosperity.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Why stop at half the wages. China and India can do it for far far less.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It just as clearly applies to Chinese workers eventually losing their
> >>>>>>jobs to people in Burma or Nigeria thanks to "free trade."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>What's interesting, because that did happen already in Japan, is that
> >>>>>eventually you run out of dirt poor people to shift the work to and then
> >>>>>every group on the planet is suddenly better off. The people of Japan
> >>>>>aren't in a state like the people of Nigeria even though the people of
> >>>>>the worse world took their old jobs.
> >>>>
> >>>>But Japan never subjected itself to "free market" principles.
> >>>
> >>>Within Japan, you are correct the economy is pretty controlled. And
> >>>you'll notice they've had serious problems.
> >>
> >>Not as serious as "free trade" countries like Mexico and Peru.
> >>Argentina had so much "free market" they had to close the banks.
> >
> > Argentina hardly had a free market since their money wasn't floating.
>
> Mexico's currency was floating, and their economy sank. Clinton had
> to bail out American bankers.
>
What was your point again?
From: Clark F Morris on
On Tue, 22 May 2007 09:20:17 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpaint(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> >>Eeyore wrote:
>> >>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>If China and India threaten to get too expensive - not likely in China
>> >>>>with the gov't setting the (low) wages
>> >>>
>> >>>Actually I'm not sure they do.
>> >>
>> >>The "unions" are gov't-controlled. And gov't (and military) fat cats
>> >>are the ones with ownership of the companies.
>> >
>> > No. What gave you that idea ?
>>
>> Global consumers buying $25 Chinese-made DVD players usually assume
>> Chinese labor is cheap because the country has a limitless supply of
>> poor workers. But the morally cumbersome truth is that the Chinese
>> government systematically prevents workers from being paid the full
>> value of their labor.
>>
>What does that mean, "the full value of their labor"? You sound like a
>commie, Turner. When you work for pay, you engage at a wage you agreed
>to with the employer. Now if the employer then cheats you on pay or
>something like that, you have a good argument, but the idea that someone
>should pay you some magical amount that equals all the value you add,
>why should they hire you in the first place? What is the reason for
>having employees if you can't make a profit on what they do?

His point is or at least what I interpret to be his point, is that the
agreement is forced and the government can cheat the workers. Take a
look at Friday's Wall Street Journal article on how people were not
even allowed to petition the government about evictions and
expropriation related to a port facility. By not allowed, I mean they
got prison sentences.
From: Matthew T. Russotto on
In article <465112E9.31509487(a)hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>
>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Here's a classic example. It's all but the same chemical but the new version
>> >gets a new period of patent protection which inflates profits for the drug
>> >company and costs for the patient.
>> >
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escitalopram
>>
>> From that article:
>>
>> "However preclinical as well as various clinical studies have shown
>> differentiated effects of citalopram and escitalopram"
>
>Damn subtle ones maybe !

If there's no difference, just use citalopram; it didn't go away
because the drug company invented a derivative. If there is a difference, the
patent makes sense. Either way, you're complaining about nothing.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on


Clark F Morris wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 09:20:17 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyltinpaint(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >> >>Eeyore wrote:
> >> >>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>If China and India threaten to get too expensive - not likely in China
> >> >>>>with the gov't setting the (low) wages
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Actually I'm not sure they do.
> >> >>
> >> >>The "unions" are gov't-controlled. And gov't (and military) fat cats
> >> >>are the ones with ownership of the companies.
> >> >
> >> > No. What gave you that idea ?
> >>
> >> Global consumers buying $25 Chinese-made DVD players usually assume
> >> Chinese labor is cheap because the country has a limitless supply of
> >> poor workers. But the morally cumbersome truth is that the Chinese
> >> government systematically prevents workers from being paid the full
> >> value of their labor.
> >>
> >What does that mean, "the full value of their labor"? You sound like a
> >commie, Turner. When you work for pay, you engage at a wage you agreed
> >to with the employer. Now if the employer then cheats you on pay or
> >something like that, you have a good argument, but the idea that someone
> >should pay you some magical amount that equals all the value you add,
> >why should they hire you in the first place? What is the reason for
> >having employees if you can't make a profit on what they do?
>
> His point is or at least what I interpret to be his point, is that the
> agreement is forced and the government can cheat the workers. Take a
> look at Friday's Wall Street Journal article on how people were not
> even allowed to petition the government about evictions and
> expropriation related to a port facility. By not allowed, I mean they
> got prison sentences.
>
I don't dispute that China abuses its people, its workers, etc. They
have a long history of this including treating people like they are of
little value when working in dangerous conditions such as the coal
mines. The issue I was dealing with is Turner's claim that workers
should be paid "the full value of their labor". This is right out of the
"workers will rise up" nonsense that should have long ago been
discarded.


--
"There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed
and drug into buses in the middle of the night."
"How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.",
George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"