Do or Die
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-10-2016, 05:18 PM
RE: Do or Die
(01-10-2016 12:56 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(01-10-2016 12:33 PM)tomilay Wrote:  I am just asking for evidence. I want to avoid a discussion unfettered by facts.

Sorry, but it's almost like you are asking me for evidence that water exists,
It is so obvious and so easy to find the evidence that I'm not going to bother. Sorry, but I'm not. If you think everyone loves America then great for you.

You are right. It was easy to find the information. My bad.

Here is a list of countries facing a US trade embargo. https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/embargoed_countries/

The only country that has anything approaching economic parity with the US on that list, China.

The embargo against China is a ban on military exports from the US to China. I think it's the same thing for quite a few of those countries on the list including Russia. Hurting US exports in the process. It neither bans nor puts penalties on anything imported from China or Russia.

To put it another way, there is no country on that list that has been embargoed to protect the US economy as you claimed. You don't have evidence for what you are spewing but you are determined to believe it. There is a name for that sort of thing.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like tomilay's post
01-10-2016, 05:36 PM
RE: Do or Die
(01-10-2016 12:31 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(01-10-2016 09:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  Are you really this dim-witted?
Look Chas, I'm trying real hard to be civil with you. If your going to get personal like this then I'm just not going to bother again.

Time for you to concede that you are wrong about pollution.

Quote:
(01-10-2016 09:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  Why do you worship free trade?
Because when you put trade embargoes and tariffs on a country you make life very difficult for them,

They would know that the path to trade with a civilized nation is to be a civilized nation.

Quote:and you then create enemies, who perhaps become terrorists.

Lie all those Cuban terrorists killing Americans over the last 50 years? Consider

Quote:In a free market economy, places that are most efficient at producing certain goods and services are the places that naturally do them. In a market with embargoes and tarrifs you end up creating a false economy where you need to continually prop up an industry that your are not good at. You put tarrifs on them, they retaliate by putting tarrifs on you. Much resentment ensues.

The embargo or tariff we are talking about is not for propping up domestic business, it is to discourage harmful business practices.

Quote:NZ is one of the more free trade countries in the world, much more so that USA. But anyway, the context was using it in order to put pressure on other countries to behave in the way that you want them to. In effect pushing your "Western" ways on the rest of the world.

It is not pushing "Western ways, it is about stopping pollution and human rights abuses.

Quote:Why do you think so many countries hate (Oh sorry, I mean LOVE) America and the west? Why do you think we are all targets of terrorism?

Religious indoctrination is a big part of it.
But it has very little to do with tariffs or embargoes. It is much more to do with rapacious business practices.
Remember Bhopal? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
01-10-2016, 06:43 PM
RE: Do or Die
(01-10-2016 05:18 PM)tomilay Wrote:  To put it another way, there is no country on that list that has been embargoed to protect the US economy as you claimed. You don't have evidence for what you are spewing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargoes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2016, 06:58 PM
RE: Do or Die
(01-10-2016 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  Time for you to concede that you are wrong about pollution.
What was my claim regarding pollution?

(01-10-2016 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  They would know that the path to trade with a civilized nation is to be a civilized nation.
Huh? Who gets to determine what a civilized nation is?
(01-10-2016 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  The embargo or tariff we are talking about is not for propping up domestic business, it is to discourage harmful business practices.
USA put massive tarrifs onto NZ kiwifruit, once NZ had helped some American orchardists to grow kiwifruit. There reasoning was that we were dumping onto their market. What actually happened is that we sold kiwifruit at USA prices rather than Japan prices. USA wanted to protect their own orchardists.

USA put tarrifs on NZ meat. If they sign up to TPP then they will remove the tarriifs, but although Obama supports TPP, Trump doesn't and it now appears that Clinton is backing away from it.
USA scared of NZ.

NZ aren't about to jump into terrorism over it, but I can easily see why poorer countries and muslim countries etc will.

(01-10-2016 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is not pushing "Western ways, it is about stopping pollution and human rights abuses.
You say "tomato"


(01-10-2016 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  But it has very little to do with tariffs or embargoes. It is much more to do with rapacious business practices.
Remember Bhopal? Consider

Rather than a negative sanction, to me it makes much more sense to do something like the TPP agreement. It comes up with standardised business and foreign policy practices that members agree to, and the then benefit from free trade.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2016, 07:15 PM
RE: Do or Die
(01-10-2016 06:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(01-10-2016 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  Time for you to concede that you are wrong about pollution.
What was my claim regarding pollution?

Your implication was that it was a local problem. It is not.

Quote:
(01-10-2016 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  They would know that the path to trade with a civilized nation is to be a civilized nation.
Huh? Who gets to determine what a civilized nation is?

We all do.
It is one that adheres to the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
one that doesn't pollute our one shared planet.

Quote:
(01-10-2016 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  The embargo or tariff we are talking about is not for propping up domestic business, it is to discourage harmful business practices.
USA put massive tarrifs onto NZ kiwifruit, once NZ had helped some American orchardists to grow kiwifruit. There reasoning was that we were dumping onto their market. What actually happened is that we sold kiwifruit at USA prices rather than Japan prices. USA wanted to protect their own orchardists.

USA put tarrifs on NZ meat. If they sign up to TPP then they will remove the tarriifs, but although Obama supports TPP, Trump doesn't and it now appears that Clinton is backing away from it.
USA scared of NZ.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

Quote:NZ aren't about to jump into terrorism over it, but I can easily see why poorer countries and muslim countries etc will.

A country so poor that it already engages in human rights abuses? One of those?

Quote:
(01-10-2016 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is not pushing "Western ways, it is about stopping pollution and human rights abuses.
You say "tomato"

The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights is just that - universal.

Quote:
(01-10-2016 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  But it has very little to do with tariffs or embargoes. It is much more to do with rapacious business practices.
Remember Bhopal? Consider

Rather than a negative sanction, to me it makes much more sense to do something like the TPP agreement. It comes up with standardised business and foreign policy practices that members agree to, and the then benefit from free trade.

The TPP has serious problems (especially regarding human rights) and should not be adopted.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
01-10-2016, 07:46 PM
RE: Do or Die
(01-10-2016 06:43 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(01-10-2016 05:18 PM)tomilay Wrote:  To put it another way, there is no country on that list that has been embargoed to protect the US economy as you claimed. You don't have evidence for what you are spewing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargoes

None of the countries in your wikipedia link are embargoed in order to protect the US economy. Have you bothered to read what your link says?

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like tomilay's post
01-10-2016, 10:18 PM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2016 11:57 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Do or Die
(01-10-2016 12:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(01-10-2016 02:50 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Oh, and you still haven't answered what your definition of evil is. Or what you would call intentionally causing needless harm for personal gain. Drinking Beverage
WTF, we are talking about the best economic solution, whether to support businesses and drive a sustaining economy or to make it difficult for businesses by driving up costs, milking the "rich" and giving their money away to those who don't work.

Because simple answers are best left for simple minds, like your own.

It's not "milking" the rich to give money to those who don't work, it's about having them pair their fair share. They do not. Like I've already said, the workforce of the United States already puts in more time with better productivity than any other workforce in the developed world, and yet we have less to show for it. The country is rife with the working poor, people who have to juggle multiple part times jobs and still fall below the poverty line; and a large part of that stems from stagnant wages, their increasing tax burden, and underfunded social services and an eroding infrastructure.

There's a difference between supporting a business, and letting them strip-mine your nation and citizenry. So often all that accommodating corporations boils down to it "who is stupid enough to let themselves be exploited the most". People the world over all deserve better than that, the world's ecosystem needs better than that, if we ever hope to reach a sustainable equilibrium on this planet. That the best defense you can mount in the face of such calamitous and world threatening destruction is the paltry defense of sub-par self serving infrastructure (more roads, yay!) is telling.


Everything has a cost. What I find so utterly arresting with you is your total obliviousness to it.



(01-10-2016 12:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What does "evil" have to do with this? Your the idiot talking about "evil", come up with your own definition.

I did. Causing intentional and needless harm for personal gain. It's not an all encompassing definition of evil, but I think the label is rather apt descriptor for such callous and premeditated behavior. You seemed to take umbrage with my labeling the actions of corporations as such, but you failed to ever do more than flail your arms and squawk. So I asked you to supply a definition, or otherwise back up your objection to my classifying, once again, the intentional causing of needless harm for personal gain as 'evil'.



(01-10-2016 12:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  And the concept of "intentionally causing needless harm for personal gain" and the idea that all businesses are doing this is YOURs. I have no interest in that.

Not all businesses are, that's why I used the word "corporations", denoting specifically those business who answer to shareholders and the incessant desire for profits and competing in the stock market. We both acknowledge that corporations have no pretext to moral accountability. I recognize that this is a problem, that unfettered greed with no ethical obligation inevitably leads to exploitation, abuse, and destruction if left unchecked. Meanwhile you seem oblivious to the innumerable examples of this throughout history, and seem to take offense that I demand better than to simply roll over and become yet another exploitable resource for the wealthy.

Yeah, fuck that.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
01-10-2016, 11:58 PM
RE: Do or Die
(01-10-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It's not "milking" the rich to give money to those who don't work, it's about having them pair their fair share.
Oh, ok, if you say so.

(01-10-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  and a large part of that stems from stagnant wages, their increasing tax burden, and underfunded social services and an eroding infrastructure.
You put wages up, then businesses shut down or go off shore, you are pricing yourself out of the global market place.

"underfunded social services" isn't the problem, it is the amount of people going on the social services. It happens because businesses are closing down, going off shore and not starting up or growing in sufficient numbers to provide demand for labour. If you have higher demand for labour then wages will go up naturally, if you raise them artificially then businesses shut down.
It also happens because many people get used to getting money for nothing, they have no incentive to work.

(01-10-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  There's a difference between supporting a business, and letting them strip-mine your nation and citizenry.
This seems to be a thing with you. A very negative perception of businesses.

(01-10-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So often all that accommodating corporations boils down to it "who is stupid enough to let themselves be exploited the most".
Again, a very negative perception. Businesses create value, they bring money into the country, they create jobs, they create goods and services.

(01-10-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  the world's ecosystem needs better than that,
If you are worried about the environment, then great, try to do something about it, perhaps vote for environmental policies, perhaps invent cleaner and greener technology.

(01-10-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Everything has a cost. What I find so utterly arresting with you is your total obliviousness to it.
Our discussion has been about whether govt ought to support the commerce of the country by supporting businesses or by giving money away to the poor. I still don't see, if your approach is that they should give it away, where the money comes from, and how that goes towards creating jobs and skills etc, how does that work?

Seems you are just interested in bitching and moaning about corporations and rich people.


(01-10-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(01-10-2016 12:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What does "evil" have to do with this? Your the idiot talking about "evil", come up with your own definition.

I did. Causing intentional and needless harm for personal gain. It's not an all encompassing definition of evil, but I think the label is rather apt descriptor for such callous and premeditated behavior. You seemed to take umbrage with my labeling the actions of corporations as such, but you failed to ever do more than flail your arms and squawk.
I have no interest in talking about "evil" theology, or in labelling people or businesses as "evil" that's your pet project, I have no interest in it.

(01-10-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So I asked you to supply a definition, or otherwise back up your objection to my classifying, once again, the intentional causing of needless harm for personal gain as 'evil'.
My objection is that I have no interest in this overly emotive label, it has no place in this discussion.

(01-10-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(01-10-2016 12:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  And the concept of "intentionally causing needless harm for personal gain" and the idea that all businesses are doing this is YOURs. I have no interest in that.

Not all businesses are, that's why I used the word "corporations", denoting specifically those business who answer to shareholders and the incessant desire for profits and competing in the stock market. We both acknowledge that corporations have no pretext to moral accountability. I recognize that this is a problem
I'd rather the term "morality" be removed from language and use, its time we all grew up and gave up on such childish ideas.

(01-10-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  that unfettered greed with no ethical obligation inevitably leads to exploitation,
Businesses aren't inherently greedy. They take an investment (capital) and look to turn a profit, there is nothing greedy or evil about that.


(01-10-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  if left unchecked.
No one is arguing for removal of all laws. If you think we need environmental protection laws then vote for them, implement them as a constraint of doing business. But, bear in mind, with this global world, if you make things too expensive in your own country then you lose the industry to other countries, you lose the income, the jobs, the taxes. It is a fact of life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2016, 12:15 AM (This post was last modified: 02-10-2016 12:19 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Do or Die
(01-10-2016 12:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Are these the questions you are hoping I will answer?


(30-09-2016 10:25 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Do you honestly think business decisions don't have moral or ethical dimensions?

Are you honestly comfortable with profit being the sole input for any business decision?

1. I don't believe in morality. There is no moral standard, only individual beliefs in morality. You can't please everyone. Businesses are there to make profit not meet everyone's moral beliefs. Business need to work within the laws of the land in order to avoid penalties. If your govt puts some laws down i.e. environmental protection etc the the businesses will need to operate within those constraints or face the penalties.

Well, just because morality is not absolute does not mean it doesn't exist in the minds of people -- and because we're talking about a social phenomenon, that is germane. Furthermore, it so happens that even with the many individual moralities in play, there is broad overlap on key issues -- for instance, killing people for money being wrong.

Now, if businesses are only motivated by profit (and that's not necessarily the case, as has already been shown), then you would think that something like the disaster at Bhopal would be perfectly acceptable. But it isn't, and not only because such disasters impede profits, but also because businesses are staffed by people, with their individual moralities which (of course) have overlap.

Being an upstanding member of the community may reduce a business's profitability, but it allows the business tax write-offs (for charity), good PR (the dollar-value of which is extremely vague), and engenders goodwill amongst the people at large, even those who don't shop at that business for other reasons. And yet many businesses engage in exactly these activities, to their detriment financially. Why is that?

Precisely -- because there are other motivations in play besides pure profit.

(01-10-2016 12:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  2. I think profit and long term outlook should be the sole goal of any business decision. For example, I wouldn't piss off a customer for short term gain if I can please then now and they keep coming back for more.

Of course you don't shit on your customers. But if you shit on non-customers, your opportunity to grow your business is going to be limited, and even in your "profits are the sole motive" outlook, deleterious. Being a good business citizen can open up opportunities.

The problem is, not every business has that outlook, which is why things like environmental laws, market regulations, employment laws, and so forth are pretty much required to prevent abuses. You needn't go back too far to find historical examples.

As a registered Libertarian who has drifted a bit from the party line, I'll say that both libertarianism and Marxism suffer the same flaw: neither outlook takes into account human nature and the role that greed plays in it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
02-10-2016, 12:46 AM
RE: Do or Die
(01-10-2016 11:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It also happens because many people get used to getting money for nothing, they have no incentive to work.

Perhaps labor would be incentivized by paying a living wage? What's that? That'd cut into profits?

Perhaps if there were more disposable income aside from rent, utilities, etc, then profits might rise?

Look at a company like Patagonia, which invests in their employees by paying them well, has a relaxed regimen including versatile hours, has on-site daycare for the workers' children. All those things cut into profit, yet they assent to them anyway -- because they incentivize labor in ways that employees appreciate.

I have yet to meet a single person who ever wanted to grow up and become a welfare recipient. Pay like that is an incentive to find work, not abjure it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: