Hey, politicians! Want to create jobs!

[The Black Forrest]

Simple competition is not going to convert the market to a "completely free market"

It's sounds nice in text, people are the problem......

Nobody said that competition is the creator of the free market, it is simply one of the most important aspects of how and why the free market would work, if allowed to.

Getting the violence initiators(government) out of the market on the other hand, would free up the market.

Not as much as you would hope. Especially when you have companies like Disney who have the power to have a staff of 600 Lawyers just to protect the Disney name.

How do you start a company against them?

[Wienholdland]

Nobody said that competition is the creator of the free market, it is simply one of the most important aspects of how and why the free market would work, if allowed to.

Getting the violence initiators(government) out of the market on the other hand, would free up the market.

Not as much as you would hope. Especially when you have companies like Disney who have the power to have a staff of 600 Lawyers just to protect the Disney name.

How do you start a company against them?

By starting a company... If there weren't endless amounts of regulations and taxes it wouldn't be so hard. Then if people become dissatisfied with Disney, they are free to pick an alternative.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

Not as much as you would hope. Especially when you have companies like Disney who have the power to have a staff of 600 Lawyers just to protect the Disney name.

How do you start a company against them?

By starting a company... If there weren't endless amounts of regulations and taxes it wouldn't be so hard. Then if people become dissatisfied with Disney, they are free to pick an alternative.

What regulations are stopping you from starting a company competing with Disney?

[Trotskylvania]

Maybe straw-communism, but actual communism not so much.

How so?

Greed ultimately means that people will not be satisfied with a classless society.

Why? Greed is just one facet of human behavior, and it can be accented or minimized, depending on the social relations that a person is socialized in.

But even if that were not the case, why should that mean communism is impossible? It clearly isn't, since prior to the rise of states and then private property, early humans lived in communistic social arrangements for thousands of years. But when critics of communism talk about human "greed", they invariably are not talking about the actual definition of greed: the propensity to take actions for their own benefit that are harmful to other, but rather to simply state that "People like things".

So? Having a classless society in no way impedes people's ability to have things.

[Wienholdland]

By starting a company... If there weren't endless amounts of regulations and taxes it wouldn't be so hard. Then if people become dissatisfied with Disney, they are free to pick an alternative.

What regulations are stopping you from starting a company competing with Disney?

Well that depends on exactly what part of what Disney does that you would like to see competition in.

[Sociobiology]

You make the gigantic assumption current players want the market working correctly.

So your view is to concede defeat to those criminals by continuing the road to tyranny?

when you start a business you dont say I want people not to steal so I won't lock my doors or install cameras. No, you work form what people actually do, and then try to prevent them from doing the things you dont want.

[Moral Libertarians]

Why? Greed is just one facet of human behavior, and it can be accented or minimized, depending on the social relations that a person is socialized in.

Maybe in individuals. But for a whole society, greed will always exist, especially in someone raised in a Western culture, where materialism, individualism and personal wealth are largely seen as the goal.

But even if that were not the case, why should that mean communism is impossible? It clearly isn't, since prior to the rise of states and then private property, early humans lived in communistic social arrangements for thousands of years. But when critics of communism talk about human "greed", they invariably are not talking about the actual definition of greed: the propensity to take actions for their own benefit that are harmful to other, but rather to simply state that "People like things".

Humans lived in situations where they essentially worked to give the products of their labour to an upper class of some sort (nobles, chiefs, kings etc.) Every was equal because everyone was poor (not much difference between that and modern communism then ).

Also, greed doesn't necessarily have to be evil; in the capitalist sense, we aren't taking about sin or anything. We're simply saying that people have an innate desire for more: more food, more toys, more things...

[Zhou Renmin Pingdang]

KEEP THE JOBS HERE

[Wienholdland]

So your view is to concede defeat to those criminals by continuing the road to tyranny?

when you start a business you dont say I want people not to steal so I won't lock my doors or install cameras. No, you work form what people actually do, and then try to prevent them from doing the things you dont want.

Your point being?

[Keronians]

How so?

Greed ultimately means that people will not be satisfied with a classless society.

Why? Greed is just one facet of human behavior, and it can be accented or minimized, depending on the social relations that a person is socialized in.

But even if that were not the case, why should that mean communism is impossible? It clearly isn't, since prior to the rise of states and then private property, early humans lived in communistic social arrangements for thousands of years. But when critics of communism talk about human "greed", they invariably are not talking about the actual definition of greed: the propensity to take actions for their own benefit that are harmful to other, but rather to simply state that "People like things".

So? Having a classless society in no way impedes people's ability to have things.

Because people aren't satisfied. We have a desire for more. And not just to be at an equal level, but to be able to be, so to speak, superior to others.

[Moral Libertarians]

Because people aren't satisfied. We have a desire for more. And not just to be at an equal level, but to be able to be, so to speak, superior to others.

Exactly. It's nothing to be ashamed of; it's our nature. And that's why communism will always fail at our current technological and cultural level - it tries to suppress this instinct and force people to work for others rather than themselves (which is when they are most productive).

Okay, deep thought for the day completed

[Rainbows and Rivers]

KEEP THE JOBS HERE

Even if it means an overall lower standard of living?

[Greater Cabinda]

KEEP THE JOBS HERE

Even if it means an overall lower standard of living?

How so?

[The Black Forrest]

KEEP THE JOBS HERE

Even if it means an overall lower standard of living?

Standards of living aren't declining now?

[Wienholdland]

Even if it means an overall lower standard of living?

Standards of living aren't declining now?

Not in China they aren't.

[The Black Forrest]

Standards of living aren't declining now?

Not in China they aren't.

So we should destroy ours to match Chinese pay?

[Greater Cabinda]

Not in China they aren't.

So we should destroy ours to match Chinese pay?

Before he answers, I think we should force the Chinese to import goods at reasonable prices.

[Wienholdland]

Not in China they aren't.

So we should destroy ours to match Chinese pay?

Where'd you come up with that?

[Moral Libertarians]

Standards of living aren't declining now?

Not in China they aren't.

Not anywhere they aren't. No economies are in recession (apart from Greece and a few others I may have forgotten).

[Keronians]

So we should destroy ours to match Chinese pay?

Before he answers, I think we should force the Chinese to import goods at reasonable prices.

How about floating their currency?

Though I do love me a good out of the box thinking.

[Robert Magoo]

So we should destroy ours to match Chinese pay?

Before he answers, I think we should force the Chinese to import goods at reasonable prices.

How?

[Moral Libertarians]

Before he answers, I think we should force the Chinese to import goods at reasonable prices.

How about floating their currency?

Though I do love me a good out of the box thinking.

America could just nuke China... because quite clearly, if they're stealing American jobs, then if you kill them all, America will have jobs YAY!
Some people just don't get it.

[Sibirsky]

Every time you look at the news, all you see is some politician talk about creating jobs. They do not realize that many jobs have been assigned to Asia, where labor is cheap?

I would like to know what the denizens of Nationstates think is the solution to this. Personally, I would fight fire with fire. If the labor is cheap there, then the minimum wage should be reduced here. I know it sounds scary, but companies will produce more (with more employees) and make more profit, even if products are sold at a lower price. And since they benefit more, prices will plummet, which correspond to the reduction of wages.

What does everyone else think?

Most people would not be affected by lowering the minimum wage. You'll get the teen unemployment rate down with that, but most in the labor force are not teens.

Cut or eliminate payroll taxes. Reduce burdensome regulations.

[Sibirsky]

:rofl:

You can't compete with Asia and Africa. Period. Deal with it.

Even if the minimum wage was $1 a day, you'd still be slightly behind places like China and India in terms of output.

Also, outsourcing does not really cause many jobs to be lost. The balance is more or less the same. Wait while I look for a sauce.

We can and we do. Cheap toys is not where the competition is.

[Wienholdland]

No economies are in recession