SUPREME COURT SUPERTHREAD 2010

[shai]

i still fail to see why the new york times can say what they want but microsoft can't.

 

Newspapers should report the news and keep the opinion to the editorial pages. It doesn't always happen that way, but that's the idea.

 

On the other hand, Microsoft is free to say whatever it wants. Always has been, always will be. As a matter of fact, I encourage them to be completely honest so people would know what they're all about. Do I want them directly involved in government? Not on your life.

 

if any corporation or individual is guilty of an actual crime, they should be punished. but a company/group of individuals putting out a movie about hilary clinton before the election is surely not a crime in any sense of the word.

 

I agree with this in principle, but again in practice it creates some serious conflicts of interest.

 

anti trust is an entirely to in depth topic to debate in this thread in my opinion but suffice it so say i dont believe any company that has satisfied its customers enough to gain a large portion of market share is guilty of any crime.

 

I like the way they do it in Japan. There's no antitrust/monopoly laws, corporations are free to be as big as they want...so there's a few huge conglomerates (zaibatsu) and it's all right out in the open. They take care of their employees and work directly with the government for the common interest..after all, it's good for business. It's not perfect, but the level of corporate accountability and ethics is rather high.

 

Only thing is, we're not Japan...and a lot of corporations here don't care about holding themselves to a higher standard or about the community, they just want to grow and make money to the exclusion of everything else. And that's why we have antitrust laws...or at least until they get repealed, too.

[angelofdeath]

Freedom of the press isn't the same as a company having free speech.

 

in this case it is. the 'press' is all run by giant corporations. the leftists and moderates more or less want to abolish all 'rights' of 'corporations.' but there is a media exemption. the new york time is a huge corporation. this is the only point im trying to make... hypocrisy of being against some giant corporations having 'rights' but others having them.

 

in the supreme court case in question... a 'corporation' made a video about a political candidate. the gov. said it was illegal to release it because of the election being close. how is this NOT an infringement on free speech?

 

AOD I always think that when you argue for completely unregulated free markets and this issue of freedom of speech for companies, you seem to think that companies are looking to do what is best for the consumers and their customers, but that really isn't the case they are solely out for themselves and profit. I work for a large bank in the UK (not been there long and I fucking hate it) but they don't give a shit about the service they supply to their customers, all they see them as is a cash cow that they can sell products to and charge through the nose when they go overdrawn, the customers dont have any options because all banks are like this. So it isn't a free market because all the comapanies that offer that service are the same rip off merchants so you just have to settle with the best of the worst, and that is the same with all major companies.

 

not really. banks have more or less been an arm of the state for years. in the US if you are caught with basically any sum of cash over 1000$ you can be detained or arrested for drug trafficking, money laundering, structuring and any number of non crimes. there was one case of a mexican truck driver in texas a few years back that had his entire life savings in his truck with him at all times because a bank in mexico went under and he lost his money a long time ago. he was pulled over for a traffic infringement and he consented to a search which turned up 20K in cash. the property was immediately seized. charged with drug running or something like that. to my knowledge he was never convicted of a crime and never got his money back.

 

it is through bully tactics like this that almost force americans to have to use banks. not to mention they government makes banks spy on you, report your transactions, fill out suspicious transaction forms and have to allow govt agents without warrants to see your financial records without even telling you about it!

 

all this being said... im not against over draft charges and dont think anyone has a 'right' to be rid of them.

[angelofdeath]

On the other hand, Microsoft is free to say whatever it wants. Always has been, always will be. As a matter of fact, I encourage them to be completely honest so people would know what they're all about. Do I want them directly involved in government? Not on your life.

 

i thought the basic argument here is that corporations shouldnt have any rights? the main issue at hand was that a company couldnt put out a movie about a political candidate before an election. if this isnt an infringement on free speech, i dont know what is.

 

And that's why we have antitrust laws...or at least until they get repealed, too.

 

aside from basic economic arguments against anti trust law which can be explained in this joke...

 

3 men are in prison comparing notes as to why they are in jail.

 

guy 1 says: im in jail because i charged to much money and they charged me with being a profiteer and price gouger.

 

guy 2 says: i charged less than everyone else and they threw me in here because they said i was a predatory pricer and cut throat competitor

 

guy 3 says: im in here because i charged the same price as everyone else and they charged me with running a cartel.

 

 

but another thing about anti trust...

if they were serious about monopolies they would shut down the post office.

 

in short the mainstream opinion seems to be: companies who gain large market share by satisfying customers and beating the pants off the competition and provide a product that everyone wants... EVIL. monopolistic fascists.

these companies lose money if they provide bad services, shitty products or do things customers dont like.

 

companies who get exclusive monopoly privilege and protection from the government to act in the 'public good' that provide services that the market can provide better for much cheaper giving absolutely no consumer choice or incentives to provide any sort of a good product or service... GREAT. great humanitarian do-gooders.

these companies can provide whatever service they want and it doesnt matter because they wont lose money because they have monopoly privilege. examples include post office, motor vehicle admins, monopoly utility providers, water suppliers, etc.

[Decyferon]

in this case it is. the 'press' is all run by giant corporations. the leftists and moderates more or less want to abolish all 'rights' of 'corporations.' but there is a media exemption. the new york time is a huge corporation. this is the only point im trying to make... hypocrisy of being against some giant corporations having 'rights' but others having them.

 

in the supreme court case in question... a 'corporation' made a video about a political candidate. the gov. said it was illegal to release it because of the election being close. how is this NOT an infringement on free speech?

 

 

 

not really. banks have more or less been an arm of the state for years. in the US if you are caught with basically any sum of cash over 1000$ you can be detained or arrested for drug trafficking, money laundering, structuring and any number of non crimes. there was one case of a mexican truck driver in texas a few years back that had his entire life savings in his truck with him at all times because a bank in mexico went under and he lost his money a long time ago. he was pulled over for a traffic infringement and he consented to a search which turned up 20K in cash. the property was immediately seized. charged with drug running or something like that. to my knowledge he was never convicted of a crime and never got his money back.

 

it is through bully tactics like this that almost force americans to have to use banks. not to mention they government makes banks spy on you, report your transactions, fill out suspicious transaction forms and have to allow govt agents without warrants to see your financial records without even telling you about it!

 

all this being said... im not against over draft charges and dont think anyone has a 'right' to be rid of them.

 

While you may have a point about people being forced to use banks, it is just impractical to not use banks, most companies nowadays will only accpet Direct Debits/Cards payments and not cash. A lot of the banks were not government owned before the economic crisis and they still had to comply to fraud/money laundering laws etc and to be honest that is just sensible, they have moved with the times just like criminals have moved more into fraud/financial crime.

 

But you didn't answer the question about the free market and how the banks have essentially colluded together to make a market place that is favourable only to them and not the consumer, this goes against your arguement about a free economy and consumers being able to vote with their feet.

 

I am not against bank charges per se, however my employer could not justify to me in any way that I would consider a legitimate answer when I questioned them about charging a woman £33 for being 40pence overdrawn. I am against the fairness of the charges and the cost of the charges.

 

I do find it strange how you seem very pro big business basically doing whatever they want and then being against government. When it comes down to it I think government is more trustworthy than big business. At leaqst the government has to answer to the public at elections etc whereas business just goes on screwing the consumer unchecked.

[Decyferon]

 

but another thing about anti trust...

if they were serious about monopolies they would shut down the post office.

 

in short the mainstream opinion seems to be: companies who gain large market share by satisfying customers and beating the pants off the competition and provide a product that everyone wants... EVIL. monopolistic fascists.

these companies lose money if they provide bad services, shitty products or do things customers dont like.

 

companies who get exclusive monopoly privilege and protection from the government to act in the 'public good' that provide services that the market can provide better for much cheaper giving absolutely no consumer choice or incentives to provide any sort of a good product or service... GREAT. great humanitarian do-gooders.

these companies can provide whatever service they want and it doesnt matter because they wont lose money because they have monopoly privilege. examples include post office, motor vehicle admins, monopoly utility providers, water suppliers, etc.

 

I disagree. These companies that gain market control are there because they have then underpriced and beaten all competition out of the marketplace, they then supply a sub standard product because the consumer has nowhere else to go because the large company has destroyed the competition, or the few largest companies who control the whole market sell their products at a price that is reasonable for all companies and put up the front of it being a free choice market with the best being available to everyone, when in actual fact it is a shitty product on offer from all the major companies because they know the customer has no real choice.

[angelofdeath]

W

But you didn't answer the question about the free market and how the banks have essentially colluded together to make a market place that is favourable only to them and not the consumer, this goes against your arguement about a free economy and consumers being able to vote with their feet.

 

if banks colluded together to make the market place only 'favorable' to them why are people still using them? are people not getting anything out of using banks? (this is of course if you leave out what i said about money laundering, cash, etc etc) if you have a free market and the market works in such as fashion as you describe, it must be that people like what is going on. it must be the best allocation of resources and best scenario to satisfy consumer demand. otherwise it wouldn't exist. at walmart we have cheap prices, but the lines are long. so we have target. little more expensive, less lines.

 

I am not against bank charges per se, however my employer could not justify to me in any way that I would consider a legitimate answer when I questioned them about charging a woman £33 for being 40pence overdrawn. I am against the fairness of the charges and the cost of the charges.

 

im not in the banking business. i do not know what a 'just' over draft charge is. it is subjective. some might think a good charge is 500$ others might think that any overdraft charge at all is theft. lets face facts, if you over draw your account, you must be held accountable in some way because the bank has to cover it for you. isnt this service worth something? you know the best way to avoid an overdraft charge? dont over draw your account.

 

I do find it strange how you seem very pro big business basically doing whatever they want and then being against government. When it comes down to it I think government is more trustworthy than big business. At leaqst the government has to answer to the public at elections etc whereas business just goes on screwing the consumer unchecked.

 

how is big business screwing the consumer other than fairy tale scenario's of having to pay overdraft fees at a bank when you over draw your account? this is not 'screwing' the consumer. they voluntarily contracted with the bank and were aware of any over draft charges. there is a difference between having to pay atm fees and being beaten and robbed. do you atleast recognize this? this is the difference between the government and the market. you are free not to participate in the market at all if you dont want to. if you dont pay taxes, go into the army when drafted, dont follow regulations, the government claims the right to rob you, beat you, throw you in jail and/or kill you if you resist forcibly enough. NO PRIVATE COMPANY CAN DO THIS! IF THEY DID THEY SHOULD BE PROSECUTED AND LOCKED THE F UP. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. government is legalized violence.

[angelofdeath]

I disagree. These companies that gain market control are there because they have then underpriced and beaten all competition out of the marketplace, they then supply a sub standard product because the consumer has nowhere else to go because the large company has destroyed the competition, or the few largest companies who control the whole market sell their products at a price that is reasonable for all companies and put up the front of it being a free choice market with the best being available to everyone, when in actual fact it is a shitty product on offer from all the major companies because they know the customer has no real choice.

 

 

as i've stated numerous times... many economists have looked throughout history to investigate the predatory pricing myth. it is just that. a myth. no one can find any examples where evil monopolists have under cut the competition, run them out of business then started charging 50 times the previous price or in this case made a 50 times worse product.

 

so since this claim is false, there is no real need to continue. but....

 

i think its funny. i hear this all the time from hippy type organic food people. they run around talking about how 3 companies in the entire US control all food production and distribution and how they have put all local producers out of work, etc. (im just summarizing for the sake of argument, dont quote me on the exact number) yet these same hippies all shop at huge organic grocery food chains that are providing organic and natural products to consumers that want it. they are complaining about nothing. a problem that doesnt exist.

 

but if you are talking about 'choice' being eliminated in the market because customers buy more of one guys products over the other, isnt this just simply markets weeding out the inefficient? weeding out the ones that cant compete? instead of getting mad at companies and coming up with ways to infringe upon that group of individuals rights, why not infringe on the consumers rights and lock up the people who shop where you dont want them to?

companies are merely satisfying consumer wants and desires. it is the consumers who are lining up at the evil monopolists to by the much better (apparently in there eyes if they are lining up) products at better prices. you cannot blame the company for satisfying consumer wants. if there is a profit to be made and resources can be allocated properly to the smaller market who want a different product or service than the more efficient company im sure they will be taken care of just like people who want organic food have been taken care of.

 

in fact the organic food types have gotten real creative. in most states raw cow's milk is illegal to be sold. but they devised a capitalist way to buy shares of a cow, in order to get raw milk. pretty ingenious eh? since they own the cow, they can consume the milk, possess the milk and even pay themselves *wink wink. for the milk. of course the farmer who raises the cows has to get paid for his services too...

 

the market solves just about any real problem there is.

[Decyferon]

if banks colluded together to make the market place only 'favorable' to them why are people still using them? are people not getting anything out of using banks? (this is of course if you leave out what i said about money laundering, cash, etc etc) if you have a free market and the market works in such as fashion as you describe, it must be that people like what is going on. it must be the best allocation of resources and best scenario to satisfy consumer demand. otherwise it wouldn't exist. at walmart we have cheap prices, but the lines are long. so we have target. little more expensive, less lines.]

 

 

[im not in the banking business. i do not know what a 'just' over draft charge is. it is subjective. some might think a good charge is 500$ others might think that any overdraft charge at all is theft. lets face facts, if you over draw your account, you must be held accountable in some way because the bank has to cover it for you. isnt this service worth something? you know the best way to avoid an overdraft charge? dont over draw your account. ]

 

 

 

how is big business screwing the consumer other than fairy tale scenario's of having to pay overdraft fees at a bank when you over draw your account? this is not 'screwing' the consumer. there is a difference between having to pay atm fees and being beaten and robbed. do you atleast recognize this? this is the difference between the government and the market. you are free not to participate in the market at all if you dont want to. if you dont pay taxes, go into the army when drafted, dont follow regulations, the government claims the right to rob you, beat you, throw you in jail and/or kill you if you resist forcibly enough. NO PRIVATE COMPANY CAN DO THIS! IF THEY DID THEY SHOULD BE PROSECUTED AND LOCKED THE F UP. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. government is legalized violence.

 

Because you cannot exist in the modern society without a bank account, very few employers pay wages in cash, very few compaines will allow you to pay their bills via cash, there is no choice for the consumer unless they don't want to exist in modern society. People DO NOT like what is going on, I would say 80% of the people I speak to at work are unhappy about banks, but they also realise their hands are tied because they would recieve the same shit just a different brand name if they moved banks. Hell most companies actually credit check you before employment, if you don't play the game you have no credit ating and therefore wont get the job

 

 

While I agree to an extent, as in don't go overdrawn, I cannot justify the costs they charge, there is no measurable calculation for the figures they come up with and they are not a fair representation of how much some people go over draw (the 40p example for instancebeing charged £33, percentage wise that is stupid high APR)

 

 

I suppose it is how you look at it, my view is that no big company is looking out for the consumer, they are only interested in profit and making money, they can afford to lose customers because there really isn't that much choice when it comes to essentials like Gas, Electric, Water, Banks, Insurance, while there may be lots of companies the products do not change and they are not the best for the consumer but what can the consumer do when that is all the choice in the marketplace.

 

I did try the multiquote thing to answer each point but I always fuck it up lol

[angelofdeath]

 

 

While I agree to an extent, as in don't go overdrawn, I cannot justify the costs they charge, there is no measurable calculation for the figures they come up with and they are not a fair representation of how much some people go over draw (the 40p example for instancebeing charged £33, percentage wise that is stupid high APR)

 

prices are determined by the transactions of millions of people. im quite positive if i was the owner of a bank i would have a means to assess how much it would cost me to cover over drafts and would charge accordingly.

 

in the US, not to long ago... there was a similar outcry over ATM fees. people thought 2$ was highway robbery. i think that paying 2$ to get out money when you were stupid enough not to have any one your is a damn good deal.

 

when people used to come in my work (service station)after they had ran out of gas... they would ask to borrow the gas can. after we lost 3 cans almost in a row, we decided to take some sort of collateral. after people gave us a few junk watches, and kept our cans we upped the anti. we required either 20$ in cash to cover the cost of a new can or they couldnt borrow it. by simply helping people out, we were losing money having to buy new gas cans all the time. we lost money and people lost a free community service.

not to mention, half the people who borrowed the can, would get a gallon of gas, dump it in their car, drop off the can, get their collateral back, then go to the next gas station that was .01 cheaper to fill up.

 

its safe to say if you know your business, you know what you have to charge to stay in business.

 

I suppose it is how you look at it, my view is that no big company is looking out for the consumer, they are only interested in profit and making money, they can afford to lose customers because there really isn't that much choice when it comes to essentials like Gas, Electric, Water, Banks, Insurance, while there may be lots of companies the products do not change and they are not the best for the consumer but what can the consumer do when that is all the choice in the marketplace.

 

sure companies are trying to make profits. isnt that why YOU work? couldnt someone just easily say....'these damn workers... always trying to make money and make profits. they arent looking out for the best interest of others, they just want to make money. damn profiteers!' ??

[Decyferon]

There is earning a living and then there is profiteering, there is a complete difference in my opinion. Also, when I work I try and do the best that I can, a company does not give the same respect to it's employees or it's customers.

 

Having grilled people fromthe bank there really is no justification for their charges, it is something that is completely made up, this is why the banks lost the early vourt cases over charges because they couldn't justify how they came to these figures.

 

I agree with the people that think paying to use an ATM is disgusting, there is no reason to charge people to have access to their own money.

 

I am just glad I'm not a small business owner, they get completely screwed by the banks, you want to pay money into your own account they will charge you, you want to take the same money out, they will charge you again, you want to pay a bill, yep they will charge you.

 

The marketplace we live in is not a fair market place, it is huge multinational companies squeezing the most profit out of the lowest level product they can offer.

[angelofdeath]

There is earning a living and then there is profiteering, there is a complete difference in my opinion. Also, when I work I try and do the best that I can, a company does not give the same respect to it's employees or it's customers.

 

who is to say, when it is entirely subjective? the millionaire making 800K a year could easily just say...'he is making a living.'

profit is profit. you are making it off your employer. and he is making it off of you. it is a mutually beneficial transaction in the ex ante sense otherwise the transaction wouldnt happen.

 

Having grilled people fromthe bank there really is no justification for their charges, it is something that is completely made up, this is why the banks lost the early vourt cases over charges because they couldn't justify how they came to these figures.

 

completely made up? i find that extremely hard to believe. i think whoever you talked to just doesnt know. there is a reason for everything. even a 5th grader could figure out that if a person uses more money in their account than they have, a bank will cover the transaction for a fee. and they have every right to charge for their time, money, operations, etc. it is a totally legitimate fee. besides... it is the freedom of peoples to contract with whoever they want to. if people want to contract with a bank that charges over draft fees... whos business is it really?

 

i've never had a problem with over draft fees, because i dont over draw my account. its pretty simple.

 

I agree with the people that think paying to use an ATM is disgusting, there is no reason to charge people to have access to their own money.

 

what? come again? do you understand where money comes from? the bank is holding your money. a 2 dollar charge so you can get money out of their system, in nearly any location isnt worth paying 2 dollars for? are you kidding me? are you serious? funny thing is, you dont even pay the bank for anything as it is i bet. you give them your money to store. you can write checks. etc. all across america people have free checking accounts and they earn interest on their savings. you dont pay the bank in most cases at all. they loan money to make their returns.

and asking someone to pay 2 dollars for an atm transaction to get instant cash is an injustice? would you rather drive across the state to go to the bank and get your money for "free" or would you rather pay 2 bones at an atm? it is perfectly legitimate. you dont even pay to maintain the ATM's if you dont use them.

 

i dont know. 2 dollars for instant cash when i forgot mine is a deal. if i dont want to pay it, i keep cash on me. problem solved. i dont see a big deal at all.

 

as usual... people think workers should be paid 90 times their marginal productivity rate yet not have to pay for any goods or services at all because evil capitalists are 'exploiting' everyone.

this goes to show one thing. people dont know anything about economics.

 

I am just glad I'm not a small business owner, they get completely screwed by the banks, you want to pay money into your own account they will charge you, you want to take the same money out, they will charge you again, you want to pay a bill, yep they will charge you.

 

i dont know what you are talking about here. any time i made deposits into the small business owners account... the bank treated me like royalty.

 

The marketplace we live in is not a fair market place, it is huge multinational companies squeezing the most profit out of the lowest level product they can offer.

 

if the market is not fair, the government is tied to it.

 

proper resource allocation is what you are describing as 'squeezing the most profit out of the lowest level of product they can offer'

isnt that what you do at work? you try to do as little as possible but get paid the most? do you work 95 hours when you are only required to work 40?

 

why the double standard.

i guess just class warfare rhetoric that has been pushed on the globe for centuries

[Decyferon]

As for your comments about Banking, I do work for a bank and small business owners (well all business owners but it affects smaller business more) get charged for everything, in the words of the guy who trained us (as he laughed) " If they (businesses) wanna do anything we will charge them for it.

 

They have ATMs that charge you to use in the UK, there is no way I would use them, there is no way I will allow the bank to charge me for getting my money out and I have never and will never use an ATM that charges. The banks make so much money off of us that it is just another way to make you pay for them. Mayeb banking is different in the US but in the UK they make money off of all your cash, as soon as you deposit it it is working for them not you, they use your money to invest and make their profits, then they use you wanting to access your money as another source to squeeze you more.

 

Interest rates are remarkably low so the interest the bank pays is nothing compared to what they make from your money.

 

No when I am at work I work as best I can for the time I am there and being paid for. I don't believe the marketplace isn't fair because the governemnt is involved, it is unffair because the comapines hold everything and they know it.

 

While I may blame big business for a lot it is no different to you blaming government.

[angelofdeath]

As for your comments about Banking, I do work for a bank and small business owners (well all business owners but it affects smaller business more) get charged for everything, in the words of the guy who trained us (as he laughed) " If they (businesses) wanna do anything we will charge them for it.

 

so people should work for free and/or charge nothing for their goods and services, yet people should all make 'living wages?'

 

Mayeb banking is different in the US but in the UK they make money off of all your cash, as soon as you deposit it it is working for them not you, they use your money to invest and make their profits, then they use you wanting to access your money as another source to squeeze you more.

 

sure they make money off of loaning your money.

i have comments about fractional reserve banking being fraud, but that is another topic.

the point i was making is that you are not paying the bank for any of the stuff they do for you. so crying about 2 dollar atms is pretty silly. a bank holds you money. you can write checks. you can withdraw it anywhere you want. and you almost literally dont pay for these services. what more could you want?

While I may blame big business for a lot it is no different to you blaming government.

 

i feel like im talking to a post. you refuse to acknowledge the differences between government and business. the first operates on coercion exclusively. the second acts on voluntarism. this is the difference between freedom and slavery. the fact that slaves had to work wasnt the bad part, its the fact taht they were FORCED to work against their will and beaten if they didnt do what they were told.

its that simple.

[Decyferon]

I don't acknowledge that busines acts on voluntarism, you have to, to live deal with these companies and they know it, you need power, you need a bank account, you need water supplies you don't have an option you need these things, I don't see any difference between your government analogy and the business analogy that I use.

 

You talk about a working wage, well I beg to differ, the wages that are paid to the majority of people are hand to mouth wage, you cannot save, afford luxuries, you literally have enough for bills and food, if these companies actually paid a decent living wage then maybe I wouldnt be so angry/have such issues against them, but as with all big comapnies they care about nothing but profit so that means employees have shit wages.

 

Your bank doesn't give you a cheque book, or a card where you can take your money out everywhere because they decide what services you can use, that isn't fair, your money is as good as the next mans but the bank decides what you can have with no justification about it, yea sure they may say oh credit check says this is what you can have, but none of these services are credit based.

 

Why should I pay to use an ATM, I don't give the bank permission to use my money in investments or take interest in the time while funds clear, so why should I be forced to pay to get my money.

 

I know you and I have very different views on things but I would have thought the greed of the banks was a given, everyone knows they are about making money over everything else, even at the detriment to the consumer, my experience is first hand as a customer and now seeing how the banks are behind the scenes as an employee.

[Decyferon]

just for the record I do think government is just as corrupt as big business but I think without regulation on big business things would be much worse.

[angelofdeath]

"Why should I pay to use an ATM, I don't give the bank permission to use my money in investments or take interest in the time while funds clear, so why should I be forced to pay to get my money."

 

sure you give them permission to loan out your money. that is the contract you and a banker engage in when you give him your money. all banks loan money. it is part of the agreement you sign when you open an account. if you dont like this, you dont give them your money. no one is forcing you to give your money to a bank.

i'd like to talk about how fractional reserve banking is a fraud to begin with, but it is on to much of a tangent.

 

so let me get this straight.

you NEED a bank to survive, but the bank provides absolutely NO service to you at all, they stole your money, they loan it out WITHOUT your approval, yet you are able to write checks, access your money at atms across the world, etc, for free BUT they force you to use these ATM's and RAPE you with atm fee's?

 

how would you feel if everyone decided that the services you provide to your employer are worthless, that you are raping them with your labor services by getting over paid?

 

your arguments are simply fueled by some sort of marxist populist rage without any thought at all given as to why people charge money for services and why people give companies money for goods and services. you dont understand why trade happens in the first place.

 

as for working wages... most of the 'robber barons' started out with nothing. with literally nothing. they worked hard, they saved, they didnt have iphones or equivalent, they invested their money in themselves, took extreme risk, built businesses and satisfied their customers by providing goods at low prices everyone could afford. they made money because they increased their productivity. the people of the west are the richest anywhere. why dont we 'level the playing field' with the workers of third world countries? why dont you split the difference between what a western cashier makes and what a third world cashier makes.... i mean you are some rich bastard basking in capitalist goodness. those people are the ones getting paid very little. they dont have running water and live in tents.

you cant bemoan people working as cashiers making a certain amount of money when they refuse to increase their productivity. if an employees marginal revenue product is 15 dollars an hour they cannot pay them 20 otherwise they will lose 5 dollars an hour. do this long enough, they go broke.

 

it is silly to complain about the 'rich' and how they 'rape' the poor by charging 'high prices' then turn around and complain when the 'undercut the competition' and drive others out of business. you cant have it both ways. if you have low prices for everything, you cannot pay employees 30 times their marginal revenue product. you cant have your cake and eat it too.

you guys are never happy. one day the capitalists are charging to much. they start charging less and you start talking about how employees dont make anything. the employees get a raise, then you start talking about health care. then the prices go up 1% and you complain about how the rich are raping the poor.

its all ridiculous.

[Decyferon]

No the bank offers me nothing, OK well that isn't really true haha I have a bank account, but I don't have that by choice I have that because I need my wages paid somewhere and employers don't pay cash.

 

I am for fair terms for everyone, I am not denying big business making money, I am all for it, however what I am against is the how it is done. Employees are given rubbish wages, plain and simple, that is unarguable, I know no one that works for the bank I am in that is able to reasonably live off of their wages. The bank is pulling in more than enough money to pay their employees a fair price for their labour. This is just my job it is the 'market' average for the job role, so basically all employers aren't paying enough wages to their staff to what is the cost of living.

 

You talk about productivity is mute, I used to work for an insurance company where I worked damn hard knew my shit and did a tonne more work than most other employees but that made no difference to wages, no company pays by productivity anymore they just play a flat wage for the job role you are doing whether you are shit or amazing you earn the same, sure the good employees last longer in the role, but they don't get paid for doing a better job.

 

To say I don't understand why people pay for services is stupid, I understand it what I am saying is people are paying for poorer services and there is nothing they can do about it. They cannot go somewhere else as they will pay the same fee for the same shit service. People pay for services because they NEED them not WANT them there is a major difference and luxury products like clothes etc then yea I agree pay more for Armarni less for primark etc but it is the services that you NEED that I have an issue with and those companies are some of the worst offenders (having worked in Insurance/Banking/Energy I know this first hand)

[angelofdeath]

No the bank offers me nothing, OK well that isn't really true haha I have a bank account, but I don't have that by choice I have that because I need my wages paid somewhere and employers don't pay cash.

 

allow me a chance at some class warfare rhetoric. you cant have all the fun.

it is bullshit that you NEED a bank account. i know of at least 10 people that have had cash economy businesses their entire lives. i dont know about the UK, but in america, you dont need a bank. if you dont want to use a bank or dont have enough money for banks (banks are only for the RICH) you see... you have check cashing joints. you take your pay check to the check cashing place and they take 5 bucks and give you the rest of your check in cash. if you need to mail it, you get a money order. to say you NEED a bank account is laughable at best. it is still a total choice on the part of the consumer.

 

Employees are given rubbish wages, plain and simple, that is unarguable, I know no one that works for the bank I am in that is able to reasonably live off of their wages. The bank is pulling in more than enough money to pay their employees a fair price for their labour. This is just my job it is the 'market' average for the job role, so basically all employers aren't paying enough wages to their staff to what is the cost of living.

 

it is quite natural to want more money for your work. it is natural human self interest. GREED. but a company cannot pay you more than your marginal productivity value. this is how wages are determined. its like how you wont pay 90$ for a 1$ item. if you arent making enough money to keep up with your lifestyle, you need to increase your productivity. become a manager at hte bank instead of a desk jockey. (or insert whatever jobs necessary to prove the point)

also you must keep in mind, that some people are quite happy with the wages they make. illegal immigrants in the US love making these high paying jobs in the US. they make piss poor wages according to most, but always have a wad of cash. when they buy a vehicle they pay CASH. no loans.

 

You talk about productivity is mute, I used to work for an insurance company where I worked damn hard knew my shit and did a tonne more work than most other employees but that made no difference to wages, no company pays by productivity anymore they just play a flat wage for the job role you are doing whether you are shit or amazing you earn the same, sure the good employees last longer in the role, but they don't get paid for doing a better job.

 

i am talking about marginal productivity cost, not if you are doing your job at hand. if you are good at your job, you stay working, if not you get fired. its pretty simple.

if you can make the company more money you get paid more. when i worked flat rate as a mechanic, the more work i did with the less screw ups (high productivity) i got paid more.

its simple economics. if you are a cashier for 3 weeks or 20 years it doesnt really matter.. you productivity is only so high.

 

in fact one time we hired a helper. he made 3 dollars an hour less than me and no commission. he kept talking about needing more money. so we gave him an ultimatum. we'll pay you the same amount of salary and commission as AOD makes. this will be a 2 week trial. if you do as much work as he does, you can keep making the same rate. after the 2 weeks i had done twice the work he did with no come backs. he had 3 come backs. needless to say he went back to his original salary. humbled. he quit soon after to take a higher paying job at a dealership. he was fired in 2 weeks and came back wanting his job back. we already filled it and he had to take a job make 2 dollars an hour less at a tire store. unless you know how businesses operate you dont know how prices are determined. i know how it all works. its not as simple as you make it out to be.

 

They cannot go somewhere else as they will pay the same fee for the same shit service. People pay for services because they NEED them not WANT them there is a major difference and luxury products like clothes etc then yea I agree pay more for Armarni less for primark etc but it is the services that you NEED that I have an issue with and those companies are some of the worst offenders (having worked in Insurance/Banking/Energy I know this first hand)

 

people dont NEED most of the shit they consider essential today. 50 years ago no one hardly had a telephone yet it is considered a necessity to have a cell phone today along with the internet. hell im sure obama considers it a 'right' of every american to have these paid for by the 'rich.'

[Decyferon]

I have never worked anywhere that would even give you the option of paying via cheque or cash, apart from when I worked in Record Shops over a decade ago, and shops do not pay a living wage either which is why I had to move into the financial system, no major company will pay you via anything but into a bank account.

 

No one in the UK can get away with not having a bank account, even if you are on unemployment that needs to get paid into an account, if you are a pensioner you need to have it paid into the bank, it is simply impossible to live and survive without a bank account, therefore all choice in the matter is gone.

 

I agree it is quite natural to want more money, I am not denying that whatsoever. I certainly do not live above my needs and do not buy luxuries other than what we need, but I still don't have enough money to last an entire month, obviously the company thinks that is enough and I did accept the job, only because it is more money than unemployment and I have a family to think of. But it certainly isn't a wage where I could support my family, my wife HAS to work, because my wages would be eaten by rent and household bills, food doesn't even come into play with that (and by household bills I mean electricity/water/council tax not anything like paying loans etc or credit cards because I do not believe in them). This is where I find it unfair, the bank (and it is a huge bank) makes a fucking fortune and squanders money on the management and top brass who do fuck all to deserve the wages/bonuses they earn, they should be paying the staff a decent wage as we are the ones that do the work simple as that.

[shai]

you refuse to acknowledge the differences between government and business. the first operates on coercion exclusively. the second acts on voluntarism.

 

A good question to consider is "do anti-competitive practices qualify as coercion in the marketplace?" In some cases- say, a small town with one store/gas station- your choice in _____________ is limited by whatever is cheapest/most available at the wholesale level. You may say "Well, that's how business works" but that kind of flies in the face of a free marketplace and the freedom to choose...and sometimes the option to simply not buy what's available isn't an option (gasoline, baby formula, medical care). This doesn't seem voluntary at all to me.

 

As I mentioned before, if your typical American corporation had any sense of obligation to its consumers and the law beyond the bottom line I'd have nothing to say about them pursuing whatever level of profit they see fit. But they don't, and they CONSTANTLY get busted for it.

[angelofdeath]

A good question to consider is "do anti-competitive practices qualify as coercion in the marketplace?" In some cases- say, a small town with one store/gas station- your choice in _____________ is limited by whatever is cheapest/most available at the wholesale level. You may say "Well, that's how business works" but that kind of flies in the face of a free marketplace and the freedom to choose...and sometimes the option to simply not buy what's available isn't an option (gasoline, baby formula, medical care). This doesn't seem voluntary at all to me.

 

if there are 3 people living in the small town, the town should be happy they have a gas station and a store. there is 1 restaurant in the town closest to where my family grew up. this is because there is NOT A MARKET for it. entrepreneurs respond to market demand. the consumer rules the free market.

 

you could extend your argument to anything and say... 'why isnt there an outback, olive garden, ruths chris, sheetz, citgo, bp, large mall with every store imaginable right next to my property in no where, idaho. my rights are being infringed upon!'

 

this is just a faulty understanding of the market and rights

[angelofdeath]

I have never worked anywhere that would even give you the option of paying via cheque or cash, apart from when I worked in Record Shops over a decade ago, and shops do not pay a living wage either which is why I had to move into the financial system, no major company will pay you via anything but into a bank account.

 

wow. the US is still somewhat free then i guess. you can still use legal tender ala US federal reserve notes in the US for payment of all debts public and private. however what you are describing will be in the US within no time.

but even this problem is solved by the market. prepaid reloadable or non reloadable debit and/or credit cards.

 

since the big banks and federal reserve play a huge role in the government it would be no surprise to me that the cashless society is upon us in the near future. but the badness once again stems from the banks being in bed with the government. in a free market the bank holds no coercive power over you. the government is the only monopoly on force.

 

But it certainly isn't a wage where I could support my family, my wife HAS to work, because my wages would be eaten by rent and household bills, food doesn't even come into play with that (and by household bills I mean electricity/water/council tax not anything like paying loans etc or credit cards because I do not believe in them). This is where I find it unfair, the bank (and it is a huge bank) makes a fucking fortune and squanders money on the management and top brass who do fuck all to deserve the wages/bonuses they earn, they should be paying the staff a decent wage as we are the ones that do the work simple as that.

 

one thing i would like to point out about prices and your take home pay.

in the US a middle class worker has roughly 30-50% of their income taken in the form of a myriad of taxes and inflation. businesses are also taxed heavily. i've seen the checks business owers have to write out to the state and federal government. unemployment insurance being levied on employers... adds to the prices of products. taxes... add to the price of products. this is also a case of having your cake and being able to eat it too... people want the milk and honey but want to pay nothing for goods and services. the general public knows not where money comes from and the costs it takes to do business.

if you believed in lower taxes and if you expected less from the state, you would have 30-50% more in your pocket! businesses would also be taxed less... resulting in dramatically lower prices.

 

when hurricane katrina hit gas prices went through the roof. the easiest thing the .gov could of done was repeal its gas tax. but noooooo way. that would of lowered the price immediately 40-60 cents per gallon. money they didnt deserve in the first place.

 

i used to believe that the execs were worthless as well. until i heard of the GE exec who made a company worth millions into 500 billion in a relatively short amount of time. if he had that much of an increase in profit, i'd say his productivity is EXTREMELY high and should be compensated very well. whats a bunch of millions of dollars a year out of 500 BILLION for someone that turned a company completely around? i'd say its a bargain.

those execs are the guys who run things.

your lack of full knowledge on this subject goes back to you misunderstanding of how wages and prices are determined. marginal revenue product and labor theory of value.

[shai]

if there are 3 people living in the small town, the town should be happy they have a gas station and a store. there is 1 restaurant in the town closest to where my family grew up. this is because there is NOT A MARKET for it. entrepreneurs respond to market demand. the consumer rules the free market.

 

you could extend your argument to anything and say... 'why isnt there an outback, olive garden, ruths chris, sheetz, citgo, bp, large mall with every store imaginable right next to my property in no where, idaho. my rights are being infringed upon!'

 

this is just a faulty understanding of the market and rights

 

But the consumer doesn't control wholesale pricing and availability, and retail margins are pretty slim. I've dealt with wholesalers before for mom and pop operations, unless you're a very good customer you typically get what you get at the going rate and that's that.

 

This can't really be reduced to a "fish or cut bait" situation, especially when you have a customer asking for something your distro carries but they won't give you small lots or they want to charge you out the ass for it. You could go to another distro, but then you have to open an account and do a minimum order, so you're pretty much back to square one.

 

And this is just at the market level.

[Decyferon]

 

 

i used to believe that the execs were worthless as well. until i heard of the GE exec who made a company worth millions into 500 billion in a relatively short amount of time. if he had that much of an increase in profit, i'd say his productivity is EXTREMELY high and should be compensated very well. whats a bunch of millions of dollars a year out of 500 BILLION for someone that turned a company completely around? i'd say its a bargain.

those execs are the guys who run things.

your lack of full knowledge on this subject goes back to you misunderstanding of how wages and prices are determined. marginal revenue product and labor theory of value.

 

While I understand that some executives are amazing business men and a worth every single penny they are paid, not all of them are, some don't even have a solid grasp of the area in which they are working in (for instance Sir Fred Goodwin, the ex-head of RBS).

 

I find it rather condescending when you say my lack of full knowledge etc, because as always I talk about real world situations, I don't care about some theory that could easily be argued against. A Bank generates a huge amount of revenue, even after all the bonuses they pay to their high level execs/traders. They do not pay the average worker a decent living salary, obviously these companies can harp on about how wages are determined and prices are determined, but basically they look at the average wage in an area and pay that, they could easily afford to pay more, but why should they? This is exactly why people doing the same jobs in different areas of the country are paid different salaries. They try to get away with paying the lowest possible wage they can, I am against this, I believe workers deserve a fair deal in employment and a salary that is a livable salary. I am just thankful I don't have a lot of debt like some people because there would have been no point taking my current job.

 

I have spent more than a decade working in this area of work and know from the numerous companies I have worked for that that is how the wages are worked out, it has nothing to do with anything but the average wage of that particular area, the US may be different but in the UK they try and pay as low as posible because the people who actually do the work (generally the lowest workers, the 'faces' of the company', the front line) don't mean shit to the company and are expendable.

[angelofdeath]

While I understand that some executives are amazing business men and a worth every single penny they are paid, not all of them are, some don't even have a solid grasp of the area in which they are working in (for instance Sir Fred Goodwin, the ex-head of RBS).

 

those who suck, usually are demoted or go into other lines of work because they are no longer worth their pay.

 

A Bank generates a huge amount of revenue, even after all the bonuses they pay to their high level execs/traders. They do not pay the average worker a decent living salary, obviously these companies can harp on about how wages are determined and prices are determined, but basically they look at the average wage in an area and pay that, they could easily afford to pay more, but why should they?

 

the same could be said about you!

here we have workers in third world countries making a fraction of your monthly pair each year and they have to hear you complain about paying 2$ for an atm fee? you make alot of money, relatively and can easily pay much more for this service. i mean, you are just being GREEDY. plain and simple. you probably wont help out other people trying to make a living either. you probably complain how they are trying to rape you with high prices, even though you could PROBABLY afford to pay more for a cup of coffee. i mean, really. 1$ for a cup of coffee!? why are you being so greedy, you can easily afford to pay the store atleast 25$ so the guy can have a good living, cant you?

 

 

 

This is exactly why people doing the same jobs in different areas of the country are paid different salaries. They try to get away with paying the lowest possible wage they can, I am against this, I believe workers deserve a fair deal in employment and a salary that is a livable salary.

 

if you are serious about trying to learn about how things happen like this.... different factors like cost of living, etc, do you want me to send you some links to some literature to read? i can even send recorded podcasts of lectures and interviews that detail all of this economic stuff to you. if you really want to know, i can point you in the right direction. it will help your case alot more than just going into hysterics without any understanding of how things work.

 

in new york city, people are paying 2000 bucks a month for a 1 bedroom efficiency apartment. the same apartment in rural alabama might cost them 200$ bucks a month. but the people in new york are probably making 6000 a month and the people in alabama are probably making 1000 a month. this is just cost of living. can you not understand how this affects wages in certain areas?

 

I have worked for that that is how the wages are worked out, it has nothing to do with anything but the average wage of that particular area, the US may be different but in the UK they try and pay as low as posible because the people who actually do the work (generally the lowest workers, the 'faces' of the company', the front line) don't mean shit to the company and are expendable.

 

sure companies try to pay as little as possible. workers want as much as possible. this is typical market forces. which brings us back to the first example i threw at you.

if you were really serious about 'living wages' you would gladly seek out the most highest priced store that carries a given item and buy it there instead of buying it at the cheapest. everyone wants to sell high and buy low. typical market forces.

the problem is... if workers are really being paid below their productivity, another employer will higher the employee for more money. better to have the employee working for the new company @ 10.50 an hour than working @ the old company for 10.00 an hour. and this goes on and on and always tends to marginal revenue product. this is why you see profits tend to even out. take gas for example. competition 101. gas station A sells gas for 2.00 a gallon. gas station B says.. screw that, i'll take 1.98 and get more customers. they do this down to as low as they can go and still keep their lights on. the same is true with wages. they pay as much as they can to stay in business. they cant pay MORE than marginal productivity or they will go broke. then what will you do?

this is what happened to GM. union workers making 150K a year to run 5 lug nuts home on chevy cadillac wheels. now the company is bankrupt. because they paid their workers TO MUCH. above marginal productivity.

 

lets say you are a starting company and you sell oranges. wouldnt you just laugh if the government or lefties or interventionists in general came up to you and said... this is bullshit you have to pay your workers 500$ an hour. you are raping them! exploitation! what if your employees only bring you in 200 a day in orange sales? how long will you stay in business?

 

if marginal productivity is a myth, why do doctors make more money than cashiers? because they have a high productivity. if we decided that marginal productivity is a myth, why not cap doctors salaries for being greedy capitalists and pay them the same wage as everyone else whether it be a butcher, janitor or bank teller. we are all equal, right? wonder how many doctors we will have? wonder how good they will be?

[Decyferon]

sure by all means send me some links, you know I am always up to learn more.

 

Of course I understand the differences between the costs of living in certain areas, but what I am saying is the wages being paid are not livable wages, it isn't about having luxuries, it isn't about makingas much money as possible, I am not being greedy I am just requesting that I have a wage that means I am not struggling constantly to make ends meet and survive. I am talking about fairness, which there is none in business and this comes back to my earlier point that any big company is only interested in profit, not about the service they supply, conditions for the workforce, or consumer happiness.

 

A Doctor gets paid more because of the skilled nature of their job.

 

Personally I don't complain about the prices of things in shops at all, ever, if someone wants to and can afford to pay £150 for some jeans then more power to them, if someone wants to just buy the cheapest food items because they don't care about where the stuff comes from than that is up to them, I geberally try and shop with my mind and try to stay away from products/companies that I may disagree with, but unfortunately I cannot always afford the alternatives (not complaing just saying!!) and have to put my ethics to one side.

[Smart]

AOD is willfully ignorant. He lives and dies by the generalizations he invents to fit his worldview. His lack of even a basic understanding of contract law, much less than his understanding of the business world at large, simply proves that we're wasting our time arguing with a pig farmer who's never been to market.

 

How did Obama say it? He 'clings to his guns and old time religion'?

 

We can't be smarter than the people he knows in real life because he's never even seen us. We're prolly haints! Fancy ass computer haints w/ uppity ideas about how the real world works 'from beyond the ether'. He just doesn't have the vision to see beyond the mere clothes horse and fancy dress trotted out for a trial to recognize the actual implications of a SCOTUS ruling.

 

This is the person who thinks his DUI conviction is wrong because the cops weren't even supposed to pull him over. He'll spend his entire life telling everyone who'll listen that, even though he was drunk and driving, none of that matters because the cops 'done him wrong'.

 

He can't even decide what side of the fence he's on. He's so pissed at the 'liberal media' for having free speech and worried about Obama taking his rifle that he barely has time to demand Decy pay $25 for a cup of coffee so some farmer in Venezuela can give all his profits to the government (their government).

 

About that Venezuela thing, it's those farmer's own fault right? They should been around when we wrote the Preamble or some shit...

 

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest he may even be an active member over on the Stormfront boards, possible Tea bagger, Glenn Beck fan club member.

 

He MAY be North Korean, or at least in KJI's employ.

[Smart]

those who suck, usually are demoted or go into other lines of work because they are no longer worth their pay.

 

He's never had to wear a tie to work, probablly doesn't wear one at funerals. He's never seen even a single episode of 'The Office'. He's as paranoid but not as intelligent as Dwight Schrute... come to think of it, we're probably arguing with Mose.

 

[Decyferon]

 

This is the person who thinks his DUI conviction is wrong because the cops weren't even supposed to pull him over. He'll spend his entire life telling everyone who'll listen that, even though he was drunk and driving, none of that matters because the cops 'done him wrong'.

 

 

I have never heard this, but I do know he has strong views on what the police should be allowed to police, personally I think drink driving is so fucking irresponsible and the police should definitely be throwing the book at drunk drivers, they are putting themselves and more importantly others at danger with their recklessness.

[angelofdeath]

AOD is willfully ignorant.

 

wow.

this is just.... wow.

 

i dont know why this surprises me... its typical behavior of those who cannot argue the topic at hand, refute valid points of argument and they usually reside somewhere in the neocon wings of the left and right.

 

as usual, anyone someone like smart disagrees with is denounced as a member of the aryan nation

 

yeah. you are right. i 'invent' everything. my life is based around fear because i talk about things that are actually happening.... like illegal wars, infringements on civil liberties, rendition, the patriot act and military commissions act, that obama is simply carrying on the same things bush has done for years, that gun control exists in america and guns were confiscated during hurricane katrina, the government putting its nose in areas it was never given authorization to do so, and on down the list.

this is all made up, conspiracy nut, stuff. never happened. we are not fighting undeclared wars in the middle east. nope. patriot act is just a myth created by bunny huggers and nazi storm troops to scare the population. myth. yup.

 

this is good for a laugh though smart.... especially coming from someone with the screen name 'smart.'