organized labour is the only reason we have minimum wage, health and saftey standards,
Those aren't good things.
i would rather not eat rancid meat thank you (see "The Jungle")
BTW just saying no is not a debate, if you choose not to respond to me in a coherant fashion i will assume you concede the point.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:19 am
Machiavelli wrote:
i would rather not eat rancid meat thank you (see "The Jungle")
You realize two things about that book, right?
1. It's fiction.
2. Sinclair did no research.
Thus, any idiot who brings up
The Jungle
as some sort of point exposes him or herself as someone just regurgitating bullshit.
Machiavelli Post Noob
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 57
Posted:
Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:39 am
coincidently, the rise in living standards also coincides with the reforms of the New Deal and the Progressive era. i dont think that the rise in prices is proportional to the increase in wages.
Machiavelli Post Noob
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 57
Posted:
Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:44 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You realize two things about that book, right?
1. It's fiction.
so is 1984 and Uncle Tom's Cabin
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
2. Sinclair did no research.
from what i understand he actually toured the factories
from what i understand he actually toured the factories
You understand incorrectly. The wikipedia article is just flat-out wrong because of the source. All of his information was 2nd or 3rd-hand, or he just made it up. All. Of. It. In fact, the then-current and later showed every one of his claims to be either blatantly false or misrepresentations. Every. Single. One.
You might want to read
Of Meat and Myth
, which, ironically enough, is linked in the wiki article, but no one has yet decided to clear up the wiki article to show just how shitty the stupid book is.
But, reading Of Meat and Myth would destroy your worldview. So I know you won't read it.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:58 am
Machiavelli wrote:
coincidently, the rise in living standards also coincides with the reforms of the New Deal and the Progressive era.
No it doesn't.
Hint: you made an unsupported claim. Gainsaying is proper.
you on the other hand simply say "no" and pretend that it is sufficient, and if you are serious about discussing this issue i suggest that you make a claim of your own rather than responding as the simpleton does when he is told something he does not care to acknowledge. maybe you are the one who should reconsider your "worldview"
if you want to talk about making unsupported claims take another look at those essays you link to.
I have. They are true.
Machiavelli wrote:
my assertions are widely understood to be true,
...by people who have not done any research, but rather swallow whole any bullshit that comes their way.
I have Congressional testimony on my side, as well as reports from federal investigators. What do you have? Nothing. Period. Your links contain no information of anything that Sinclair said that was substantiated. Please stop making a fool of yourself.
Notice that neither of your links cites a source, while the essay Knight linked to cites several. A widely accepted myth is a myth nonetheless.
Machiavelli wrote:
you on the other hand simply say "no" and pretend that it is sufficient, and if you are serious about discussing this issue i suggest that you make a claim of your own rather than responding as the simpleton does when he is told something he does not care to acknowledge. maybe you are the one who should reconsider your "worldview"
I see, so you should be able to make all the unsubstantiated claims you want, and the burden of proof should be on us to prove you wrong. Gotcha.
You know, those poor, exploited migrant workers voluntarily come to the US to work in these horrific conditions. Just something you might want to consider.
Machiavelli Post Noob
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 57
Posted:
Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:37 pm
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
I have. They are true.
but they do not draw a convincing line between caplitalism and the rise in living standards, it could just as well have been other factors. it put it to you that it was the reforms of the period that caused the rise in living standards, for example after the new deal and second world war (classic examples of state intervention) there was a rise in standards of living. in fact it was at this point that a large number of americans moved into the middle class
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Machiavelli wrote:
my assertions are widely understood to be true,
...by people who have not done any research, but rather swallow whole any bullshit that comes their way.
like PBS? we all know those people at PBS just make shit up
PBS is nothing? every text book from every history class i have ever taken is nothing?
the goverment of the time was in the pocket of the big trusts and very little that comes out of that could
be accurate. no your sources all come from people who have already swallowed free market ideology/
from fast food nation:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/What's_In_Meat_FFN.html
and if conditions are like this now, they were certainly worse before.
and if this is true why cant the the information contained in the jungle be true?
Machiavelli Post Noob
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 57
Posted:
Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:46 pm
offsprng46 wrote:
Notice that neither of your links cites a source, while the essay Knight linked to cites several. A widely accepted myth is a myth nonetheless.
I see, so you should be able to make all the unsubstantiated claims you want, and the burden of proof should be on us to prove you wrong. Gotcha.[/quote]
all of the essays the knight sited are from people commited to free market ideology, certainly they do not offer an acurate picuture because they are written by people with a preset agenda.
i dont think the meatpacking would allow rumors of this size to continue if they contained no truth, they probably remain silent so as to not draw attention the subject.
offsprng46 wrote:
You know, those poor, exploited migrant workers voluntarily come to the US to work in these horrific conditions. Just something you might want to consider.
a choice between backbreaking work and starvation is no choice at all
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Mon Mar 26, 2007 1:22 pm
offsprng46 wrote:
Notice that neither of your links cites a source, while the essay Knight linked to cites several. A widely accepted myth is a myth nonetheless.
I see, so you should be able to make all the unsubstantiated claims you want, and the burden of proof should be on us to prove you wrong. Gotcha.
Machiavelli wrote:
all of the essays the knight sited are from people commited to free market ideology, certainly they do not offer an acurate picuture because they are written by people with a preset agenda.
This is known as the poisoning the well fallacy. If you didn't know, that kills your argument.
offsprng46 wrote:
You know, those poor, exploited migrant workers voluntarily come to the US to work in these horrific conditions. Just something you might want to consider.
Machiavelli wrote:
a choice between backbreaking work and starvation is no choice at all
Yes, it is. How sad that you believe it isn't. How sad that you believe people have the right to be provided with a high-paying, cushy job.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Mon Mar 26, 2007 1:28 pm
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
I have. They are true.
Machiavelli wrote:
but they do not draw a convincing line between caplitalism and the rise in living standards,
Whereas the
post hoc ergo propter hoc
of "unions lobbies for shorter hours, therefore we had a rise in living standards does? Please.
Machiavelli wrote:
it could just as well have been other factors.
It's up to you to show that it was the laws. Hint: you can't, since the laws are protectionist in nature.
Machiavelli wrote:
it put it to you that it was the reforms of the period that caused the rise in living standards, for example after the new deal and second world war (classic examples of state intervention) there was a rise in standards of living.
If you believe the two are at all connected--Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Machiavelli wrote:
my assertions are widely understood to be true,
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
...by people who have not done any research, but rather swallow whole any bullshit that comes their way.
Machiavelli wrote:
like PBS?
PBS just gave a synopsis of what's taught in schools.
But, far be it from you to actually READ what you post.
Machiavelli wrote:
and if this is true why cant the the information contained in the jungle be true?
Because the investigations showed that it's not, that's why. Reality has a really fucking harsh way of destroying fantasy.
Machiavelli Post Noob
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 57
Posted:
Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:42 am
the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" is very cute considering that is exactly what yuor essay does here:
"In the capitalist society there prevails a tendency toward a steady increase in the per capita quota of capital invested. . . . Consequently, the marginal productivity of labor, wage rates, and the wager earners’ standard of living tend to rise continually."
here:
"The shorter work week is entirely a capitalist invention. As capital investment caused the marginal productivity of labor to increase over time, less labor was required to produce the same levels of output. As competition became more intense, many employers competed for the best employees by offering both better pay and shorter hours. Those who did not offer shorter work weeks were compelled by the forces of competition to offer higher compensating wages or become uncompetitive in the labor market."
and here:
" Young people originally left the farms to work in harsh factory conditions because it was a matter of survival for them and their families. But as workers became better paid—thanks to capital investment and subsequent productivity improvements—more and more people could afford to keep their children at home and in school."
note the pro-child labour tone of the piece:
"child labor laws have always been protectionist and aimed at depriving young people of the opportunity to work"
"unions have long sought to use the power of the state to deprive young people of the right to work"
it was not just the laws but also the fact that workers started to have the ability to win concessions from their employers through collective bargaining. ithink that generally it is agreed that high wages+shorter hour=better standards of living. how did workers get higher wage/shorter hours? though strikes. notably through the struggle for the 8 hour day:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_hour_day
employers did not raise wages but rather were in the buesness of slashing wages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike
"Hint: you can't, since the laws are protectionist in nature. "
???????
"How sad that you believe people have the right to be provided with a high-paying, cushy job."
yes how incredibly ridiculous that i think people should not have to choose between food and medicine or food and housing
the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" is very cute considering that is exactly what yuor essay does here:
"In the capitalist society there prevails a tendency toward a steady increase in the per capita quota of capital invested. . . . Consequently, the marginal productivity of labor, wage rates, and the wager earners’ standard of living tend to rise continually."
here:
"The shorter work week is entirely a capitalist invention. As capital investment caused the marginal productivity of labor to increase over time, less labor was required to produce the same levels of output. As competition became more intense, many employers competed for the best employees by offering both better pay and shorter hours. Those who did not offer shorter work weeks were compelled by the forces of competition to offer higher compensating wages or become uncompetitive in the labor market."
and here:
" Young people originally left the farms to work in harsh factory conditions because it was a matter of survival for them and their families. But as workers became better paid—thanks to capital investment and subsequent productivity improvements—more and more people could afford to keep their children at home and in school."
You haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. The
post hoc ergo propter hoc
fallacy means "after this, therefore because of this." That may be the case, but it may also be something else entirely that was the cause of the event in question. So your claim that unions are responsible for the general rise in living standards qualifies as a
post hoc ergo propter hoc
fallacy because it doesn't make sense deductively. DiLorenzo, on the other hand, states precisely why free markets tend to increase the well-being of individuals using deductive reasoning. For instance, it is axiomatic that if we have more capital goods, we can produce more goods, since the very nature of capital is to increase production. Ergo, more capital goods in the present mean more consumer goods in the future; in other words, a higher standard of living.
Machiavelli wrote:
note the pro-child labour tone of the piece:
"child labor laws have always been protectionist and aimed at depriving young people of the opportunity to work"
"unions have long sought to use the power of the state to deprive young people of the right to work"
In certain cases, child labor may be more beneficial to than other options. Who are you to make that determination for others?
Machiavelli wrote:
it was not just the laws but also the fact that workers started to have the ability to win concessions from their employers through collective bargaining.
ithink that generally it is agreed that high wages+shorter hour=better standards of living. how did workers get higher wage/shorter hours? though strikes. notably through the struggle for the 8 hour day:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_hour_day
So consumption can exceed production in the long run? How exactly does that work? You also commit the
post hoc ergo propter hoc
fallacy again. And a fallacy of composition: all of these things
overall
happened in spite of unions, not because of them, since unions restrict the supply of labor to increase their own wages at the expense of the general public. Your argument just doesn't hold up to any kind of rational analysis.
So one company cutting wages is indicative of the entire economy? If you knew what you were talking about (which you obviously don't), you would know that the period of the "robber barons" saw the largest increase in real wages and living standards ever at that point in history. Furthermore, this also occurred during a period of deflation, as the Treasury was taking the greenbacks from the Civil War out of circulation. Which means that the value of money was increasing, thus the wage cut was at least partially a necessary correction to bring wage rates back in line with the marginal productivity of labor.
Machiavelli wrote:
"Hint: you can't, since the laws are protectionist in nature. "
???????
"How sad that you believe people have the right to be provided with a high-paying, cushy job."
yes how incredibly ridiculous that i think people should not have to choose between food and medicine or food and housing
I prefer that we create enough wealth so that people can have all of the above and more. And the only way towards that end is capitalism. If you disagree, please provide a single example of a socialist country prospering.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file