harry wrote:

The problem is the Chinese slave workforce. And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. These sort of things never went
on in Smith's day.

Wrong at least twice. The workforce in China is not slave. In many respects,
it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. The Chinese may take any job
they can get hired for, at any wage, and with any benefits they can negotiate.
True, in many cases, those wages are far less than the US or UK. But, in many
cases, it beats the hell out of working in a rice paddy.

And slavery certainly existed in Adam Smith's day, both in the US and the UK.

-- Doug

On 5/29/2010 2:34 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
wrote:

The problem is the Chinese slave workforce. And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. These sort of things never went
on in Smith's day.

Wrong at least twice. The workforce in China is not slave. In many respects,
it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. The Chinese may take any job
they can get hired for, at any wage, and with any benefits they can negotiate.
True, in many cases, those wages are far less than the US or UK. But, in many
cases, it beats the hell out of working in a rice paddy.

And slavery certainly existed in Adam Smith's day, both in the US and the UK.

-- Doug

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they can get hired
for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:50:23 -0400, Peter wrote:

On 5/29/2010 2:34 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
wrote:

The problem is the Chinese slave workforce. And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. These sort of things never went
on in Smith's day.

Wrong at least twice. The workforce in China is not slave. In many respects,
it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. The Chinese may take any job
they can get hired for, at any wage, and with any benefits they can negotiate.
True, in many cases, those wages are far less than the US or UK. But, in many
cases, it beats the hell out of working in a rice paddy.

And slavery certainly existed in Adam Smith's day, both in the US and the UK.

-- Doug

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they can get hired
for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Does the U.K. have Affirmative Action? In the USA, you can be hired
by the color of your skin (ancestry / lineage) , even if you get
scored 73 on your essay test.

Using a #2 pencil on the official application can get you into the
interview office.

On May 29, 9:34�pm, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:50:23 -0400, Peter wrote:
On 5/29/2010 2:34 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
�wrote:

The problem is the Chinese slave workforce. �And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. �These sort of things never went
on in Smith's day.

Wrong at least twice. �The workforce in China is not slave. �In many respects,
it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. �The Chinese may take any job
they can get hired for, at any wage, and with any benefits they can negotiate.
True, in many cases, those wages are far less than the US or UK. �But, in many
cases, it beats the hell out of working in a rice paddy.

And slavery certainly existed in Adam Smith's day, both in the US and the UK.

-- Doug

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they can get hired
for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Does the U.K. have Affirmative Action? �In the USA, you can be hired
by the color of your skin (ancestry / lineage) , even if you get
scored 73 on your essay test.

Using a #2 pencil on the official application can get you into the
interview office.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We have what's called "positive discrimination".
Of late this has been noticeable in the selection of political
canditates. The central party "parachutes in" some woman/black
person /faggot/cripple/retard.
Shortlists are sometimes produced that are all women.
The locals want a local person often, in some cases there has been a
rebellion & they have refused to accept them. Case in point here for
example:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lk-Swedes.html

A complete waste of time because the public know all the women in
government are selected for what's between their legs rather than
what's between their ears. We regard them with contempt. In B-liars
government there were B-liar's babes, useless scheming bitches to a
woman.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4698222.stm

Same with blacks, faggots and the rest.

This Positive Discrimination extends to large organisations too,
especially public funded ones.
Complete load of ********. Part of the PC syndrome.

On May 29, 7:50�pm, Peter wrote:
On 5/29/2010 2:34 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:

�wrote:

The problem is the Chinese slave workforce. �And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. �These sort of things never went
on in Smith's day.

Wrong at least twice. �The workforce in China is not slave. �In many respects,
it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. �The Chinese may take any job
they can get hired for, at any wage, and with any benefits they can negotiate.
True, in many cases, those wages are far less than the US or UK. �But, in many
cases, it beats the hell out of working in a rice paddy.

And slavery certainly existed in Adam Smith's day, both in the US and the UK.

-- Doug

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they can get hired
for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

In China as in Victorian England/America the population are largely
job slaves. There is no minimum wage, people are in an economic trap
on starvation wages. They have few rights and workplace health and
safety is non-existent. Child labour is common.
Eg all the coal mining accidents and poisonous toys the send over.

On May 29, 7:34�pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:
harry wrote:
The problem is the Chinese slave workforce. �And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. �These sort of things never went
on in Smith's day.

Wrong at least twice. �The workforce in China is not slave. �In many respects,
it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. �The Chinese may take any job
they can get hired for, at any wage, and with any benefits they can negotiate.
True, in many cases, those wages are far less than the US or UK. �But, in many
cases, it beats the hell out of working in a rice paddy.

And slavery certainly existed in Adam Smith's day, both in the US and the UK.

-- Doug

Bit about Chinese workers rights here. You are in cloud cuckoo land.
Do you just make these statements to be contrary?
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/work...a/wr_china.htm

There was no slavery in the UK, laws prevented it, unlike in the USA.
However these laws did not extend to places like Jamaica where slavery
certainly went on.

Bit here on the topic if you're that interested.
http://www.lonympics.co.uk/serfdomadefinition.htm

Why don't you check out your facts before blurting out such crap?
Took me two minutes to find these.


This one is of interest too.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...uk-429939.html

On Sun, 30 May 2010 00:00:35 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Does the U.K. have Affirmative Action? ?In the USA, you can be hired
by the color of your skin (ancestry / lineage) , even if you get
scored 73 on your essay test.

Using a #2 pencil on the official application can get you into the
interview office.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We have what's called "positive discrimination".

You guys use "positive discrimination"?!

Shocks the **** out of me, but being the Brit, your are, I understand.

P.S. Catch a flight from Paris or London into Las Vegas.!!

Who made up that comment -- "positive discrimination" ?

harry wrote:


No, the idea is not to subsidise manufacturing. The idea is what we
do best. Innovation.

Ah, good. I didn't understand what it was you were subsidizing.

The banking/commerce wheeze being such a
failure. We still do a lot of manufacturing in the UK.

The problem is the Chinese slave workforce.

No, the Chinese workforce is not a slave group. They are more free than the
workforces in either the U.S. or the U.K. For example, there are no trade
unions or minimum wage. The worker is free to negotiate his remuneration to
the advantage of both himself and the company.

And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. These sort of things never went
on in Smith's day.

Uh, there was not such thing as currency float, at all, in Smith's day.
Transactions were based on credit, gold, or silver. There was no "I'll give
you so many pounds for so many francs."

They are bent on destroying the West. They don't care how many
Chinese have to die to achieve this. Given this, protectionism might
help until they desist.


Destroying the west is the farthest thing from the Chinese mind. If the west
ceased to exist, to whom would China sell its products?

Peter wrote:
On 5/29/2010 2:34 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
wrote:

The problem is the Chinese slave workforce. And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. These sort of things never
went on in Smith's day.

Wrong at least twice. The workforce in China is not slave. In many
respects, it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. The
Chinese may take any job they can get hired for, at any wage, and
with any benefits they can negotiate. True, in many cases, those
wages are far less than the US or UK. But, in many cases, it beats
the hell out of working in a rice paddy. And slavery certainly existed in
Adam Smith's day, both in the US
and the UK. -- Doug

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they can
get hired for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Uh, no, not by a long-shot.

First, you have minimum-wage laws and all sorts of nanny-state workplace
rules. Then there are unions. Next is government licensing and permitting
for many occupations. Some jobs are intrinsically illegal! On and on.

harry wrote:

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they
can get hired for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

In China as in Victorian England/America the population are largely
job slaves. There is no minimum wage, people are in an economic trap
on starvation wages. They have few rights and workplace health and
safety is non-existent. Child labour is common.
Eg all the coal mining accidents and poisonous toys the send over.

And yet, during the Victorian era, every time Big Ben tolled the hour, the
British Ensign was being raised at dawn somewhere in the world.

Then England got trade unions...

On 5/30/2010 8:25 AM, HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:


No, the idea is not to subsidise manufacturing. The idea is what we
do best. Innovation.

Ah, good. I didn't understand what it was you were subsidizing.

The banking/commerce wheeze being such a
failure. We still do a lot of manufacturing in the UK.

The problem is the Chinese slave workforce.

No, the Chinese workforce is not a slave group. They are more free than the
workforces in either the U.S. or the U.K. For example, there are no trade
unions or minimum wage. The worker is free to negotiate his remuneration to
the advantage of both himself and the company.


And that certainly is a good thing for people who aren't affected by it
except in a good way. You can get cheap stuff at Harbor Freight because
workers in China are able to "negotiate" for $0.80/hour jobs and sleep
in the factory at night. If we could only lower ourselves that far here
so we can compete..



And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. These sort of things never went
on in Smith's day.

Uh, there was not such thing as currency float, at all, in Smith's day.
Transactions were based on credit, gold, or silver. There was no "I'll give
you so many pounds for so many francs."

They are bent on destroying the West. They don't care how many
Chinese have to die to achieve this. Given this, protectionism might
help until they desist.


Destroying the west is the farthest thing from the Chinese mind. If the west
ceased to exist, to whom would China sell its products?

harry wrote:

Bit about Chinese workers rights here. You are in cloud cuckoo land.
Do you just make these statements to be contrary?
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/work...a/wr_china.htm

There doesn't seem to be any mention of slavery in that article. Yes, Chinese
workers have fewer rights than US or UK workers. That was one of the points I
was making. "Workers Rights" require restrictions on employment, such as
minimum wages. Whether that is a good thing or not depends on your point of
view. Actually, I think the debate is more about how much rights/restrictions
are a good thing.

There was no slavery in the UK, laws prevented it, unlike in the USA.
However these laws did not extend to places like Jamaica where slavery
certainly went on.


Bit here on the topic if you're that interested.
http://www.lonympics.co.uk/serfdomadefinition.htm

Why don't you check out your facts before blurting out such crap?
Took me two minutes to find these.

Actually, I did. You said that

harry wrote:
The problem is the Chinese slave workforce. ?And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. ?These sort of things never went
on in Smith's day.

Adam Smith wrote "Wealth of Nations" in 1776. The UK did not abolish slavery
until 1833 in most of the Empire. They outlawed the slave trade in 1803. The
US did not outlaw it until 1865. So it certainly went on in Smith's day. Even
your second citation says "1799 Scotland ends serfdom again, after James VI
restarted it in the 1600s"

-- Doug

On 5/29/2010 4:34 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:50:23 -0400, wrote:

Wrong at least twice. The workforce in China is not slave. In many respects,
it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. The Chinese may take any job
they can get hired for, at any wage, and with any benefits they can negotiate.
True, in many cases, those wages are far less than the US or UK. But, in many
cases, it beats the hell out of working in a rice paddy.

And slavery certainly existed in Adam Smith's day, both in the US and the UK.

-- Doug

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they can get hired
for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Does the U.K. have Affirmative Action? In the USA, you can be hired
by the color of your skin (ancestry / lineage) , even if you get
scored 73 on your essay test.

Using a #2 pencil on the official application can get you into the
interview office.

Your reply (immediately above) still doesn't change my contention that in the
U.S. you can take any job that you can get hired for.

Your earlier comments never mentioned that the criteria for hiring in the U.S.
differ from those in China. That's an entirely different issue. By introducing
new issues (in effect, changing the subject) at this point doesn't change the
validity of my reply.

By the way, I suspect that Han Chinese get hired for most jobs in China more
easily than do Tibetan Chinese and other minority Chinese sects. So they too do
not have a level playing field when it comes to job opportunities.

On 5/30/2010 8:27 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Peter wrote:
On 5/29/2010 2:34 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
wrote:

The problem is the Chinese slave workforce. And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. These sort of things never
went on in Smith's day.

Wrong at least twice. The workforce in China is not slave. In many
respects, it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. The
Chinese may take any job they can get hired for, at any wage, and
with any benefits they can negotiate. True, in many cases, those
wages are far less than the US or UK. But, in many cases, it beats
the hell out of working in a rice paddy. And slavery certainly existed in
Adam Smith's day, both in the US
and the UK. -- Doug

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they can
get hired for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Uh, no, not by a long-shot.

First, you have minimum-wage laws and all sorts of nanny-state workplace
rules. Then there are unions. Next is government licensing and permitting
for many occupations. Some jobs are intrinsically illegal! On and on.


How does that change the basic fact that anyone in the U.S. can take any job
they can get hired for? You are arguing that the hiring playing field is not
level. That's a completely different issue. Bottom line, you are free to
change jobs to any job an employer is willing to pay you to do. Restrictions on
the employer's hiring choices is a different subject entirely. Stop changing
the subject every time someone catches an inaccuracy (or worse) in what you say!

On May 30, 2:13�pm, George wrote:
On 5/30/2010 8:25 AM, HeyBub wrote:





harry wrote:

No, the idea is not to subsidise manufacturing. �The idea is what we
do best. Innovation.

Ah, good. I didn't understand what it was you were subsidizing.

The banking/commerce wheeze being such a
failure. �We still do a lot of manufacturing in the UK.

The problem is the Chinese slave workforce.

No, the Chinese workforce is not a slave group. They are more free than the
workforces in either the U.S. or the U.K. For example, there are no trade
unions or minimum wage. The worker is free to negotiate his remuneration to
the advantage of both himself and the company.

And that certainly is a good thing for people who aren't affected by it
except in a good way. You can get cheap stuff at Harbor Freight because
workers in China are able to "negotiate" for $0.80/hour jobs and sleep
in the factory at night. If we could only lower ourselves that far here
so we can compete..





And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. �These sort of things never went
on in Smith's day.

Uh, there was not such thing as currency float, at all, in Smith's day.
Transactions were based on credit, gold, or silver. There was no "I'll give
you so many pounds for so many francs."

They are bent on destroying the West. �They don't care how many
Chinese have to die to achieve this. �Given this, protectionism might
help until they desist.

Destroying the west is the farthest thing from the Chinese mind. If the west
ceased to exist, to whom would China sell its products?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly so.

On May 30, 2:47�pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:
harry wrote:
Bit about Chinese workers rights here. You are in cloud cuckoo land.
Do you just make these statements to be contrary?
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/work...a/wr_china.htm

There doesn't seem to be any mention of slavery in that article. �Yes, Chinese
workers have fewer rights than US or UK workers. �That was one of the points I
was making. �"Workers Rights" �require restrictions on employment, such as
minimum wages. �Whether that is a good thing or not depends on your point of
view. �Actually, I think the debate is more about how much rights/restrictions
are a good thing.

There was no slavery in the UK, laws prevented it, unlike in the USA.
However these laws did not extend to places like Jamaica where slavery
certainly went on.
Bit here on the topic if you're that interested.
http://www.lonympics.co.uk/serfdomadefinition.htm

Why don't you check out your facts before blurting out such crap?
Took me two minutes to find these.

Actually, I did. � �You said that

harry wrote:
The problem is the Chinese slave workforce. ?And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. ?These sort of things never went
on in Smith's day.

Adam Smith wrote "Wealth of Nations" in 1776. �The UK did not abolish slavery
until 1833 in most of the Empire. �They outlawed the slave trade in 1803. � The
US did not outlaw it until 1865. �So it certainly went on in Smith's day. � Even
your second citation says "1799 Scotland ends serfdom again, after James VI
restarted it in the 1600s"

-- Doug

Serfdom is not slavery. Not that I consider eithr to be a good
thing. There's people babbling away here seem to want it for America.

On May 30, 4:58�pm, Peter wrote:
On 5/29/2010 4:34 PM, Oren wrote:





On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:50:23 -0400, �wrote:
Wrong at least twice. �The workforce in China is not slave. �In many respects,
it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. �The Chinese may take any job
they can get hired for, at any wage, and with any benefits they can negotiate.
True, in many cases, those wages are far less than the US or UK. �But, in many
cases, it beats the hell out of working in a rice paddy.

And slavery certainly existed in Adam Smith's day, both in the US and the UK.

-- Doug

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they can get hired
for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Does the U.K. have Affirmative Action? �In the USA, you can be hired
by the color of your skin (ancestry / lineage) , even if you get
scored 73 on your essay test.

Using a #2 pencil on the official application can get you into the
interview office.

Your reply (immediately above) still doesn't change my contention that in the
U.S. you can take any job that you can get hired for.

Your earlier comments never mentioned that the criteria for hiring in the U.S.
differ from those in China. �That's an entirely different issue. �By introducing
new issues (in effect, changing the subject) at this point doesn't change the
validity of my reply.

By the way, I suspect that Han Chinese get hired for most jobs in China more
easily than do Tibetan Chinese and other minority Chinese sects. �So they too do
not have a level playing field when it comes to job opportunities.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There is no such thing as Tibetan Chinese. Tibet is an occupied
country.

On May 30, 9:18�am, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2010 00:00:35 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Does the U.K. have Affirmative Action? ?In the USA, you can be hired
by the color of your skin (ancestry / lineage) , even if you get
scored 73 on your essay test.

Using a #2 pencil on the official application can get you into the
interview office.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We have what's called "positive discrimination".

You guys use "positive discrimination"?!

Shocks the **** out of me, but being the Brit, your are, I understand.

P.S. Catch a flight from Paris or London into Las Vegas.!!

Who made up that comment �-- �"positive discrimination" ?

Shocks the **** out of us. This was a thing invented by B-liar and New
Labour.
It's called Social Engineering. Coming your way soon;-)

On May 30, 1:27�pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Peter wrote:
On 5/29/2010 2:34 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
�wrote:

The problem is the Chinese slave workforce. �And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. �These sort of things never
went on in Smith's day.

Wrong at least twice. �The workforce in China is not slave. �In many
respects, it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. �The
Chinese may take any job they can get hired for, at any wage, and
with any benefits they can negotiate. True, in many cases, those
wages are far less than the US or UK. �But, in many cases, it beats
the hell out of working in a rice paddy. And slavery certainly existed in
Adam Smith's day, both in the US
and the UK. -- Doug

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they can
get hired for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Uh, no, not by a long-shot.

First, you have minimum-wage laws and all sorts of nanny-state workplace
rules. Then there are unions. Next is government licensing and permitting
for many occupations. Some jobs are intrinsically illegal! On and on.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I see you are one of those greedy Americans thaty wants everything.
Even steal the food out of your nieghbour's children's mouth.

This is the black side of America. Greed, aquisitivity, damn your
neighbour attitude.

On May 30, 1:31�pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they
can get hired for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

In China as in Victorian England/America the population are largely
job slaves. �There is no minimum wage, people are in an economic trap
on starvation wages. �They have few rights and workplace health and
safety is non-existent. �Child labour is common.
Eg all the coal mining accidents and poisonous toys the send over.

And yet, during the Victorian era, every time Big Ben tolled the hour, the
British Ensign was being raised at dawn somewhere in the world.

Then England got trade unions...

And you don't have them in America?
The British Empire was destroyed by the economic effort of fighting
tyranny. Some thing the US also once did, except when republicans
were in power.
Then they ground down their own population to enrich a tiny majority
that already had more than they needed.

On 5/30/2010 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
On May 30, 4:58�pm, wrote:
On 5/29/2010 4:34 PM, Oren wrote:





On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:50:23 -0400, �wrote:
Wrong at least twice. �The workforce in China is not slave. �In many respects,
it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. �The Chinese may take any job
they can get hired for, at any wage, and with any benefits they can negotiate.
True, in many cases, those wages are far less than the US or UK. �But, in many
cases, it beats the hell out of working in a rice paddy.

And slavery certainly existed in Adam Smith's day, both in the US and the UK.

-- Doug

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they can get hired
for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Does the U.K. have Affirmative Action? �In the USA, you can be hired
by the color of your skin (ancestry / lineage) , even if you get
scored 73 on your essay test.

Using a #2 pencil on the official application can get you into the
interview office.

Your reply (immediately above) still doesn't change my contention that in the
U.S. you can take any job that you can get hired for.

Your earlier comments never mentioned that the criteria for hiring in the U.S.
differ from those in China. �That's an entirely different issue. �By introducing
new issues (in effect, changing the subject) at this point doesn't change the
validity of my reply.

By the way, I suspect that Han Chinese get hired for most jobs in China more
easily than do Tibetan Chinese and other minority Chinese sects. �So they too do
not have a level playing field when it comes to job opportunities.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There is no such thing as Tibetan Chinese. Tibet is an occupied
country.
I was talking from the perspective of the Chinese authorities and you knew it!
Why are you so argumentative?

On 5/30/2010 1:29 PM, harry wrote:
On May 30, 1:27�pm, wrote:
Peter wrote:
On 5/29/2010 2:34 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
�wrote:

The problem is the Chinese slave workforce. �And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. �These sort of things never
went on in Smith's day.

Wrong at least twice. �The workforce in China is not slave. �In many
respects, it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. �The
Chinese may take any job they can get hired for, at any wage, and
with any benefits they can negotiate. True, in many cases, those
wages are far less than the US or UK. �But, in many cases, it beats
the hell out of working in a rice paddy. And slavery certainly existed in
Adam Smith's day, both in the US
and the UK. -- Doug

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they can
get hired for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Uh, no, not by a long-shot.

First, you have minimum-wage laws and all sorts of nanny-state workplace
rules. Then there are unions. Next is government licensing and permitting
for many occupations. Some jobs are intrinsically illegal! On and on.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I see you are one of those greedy Americans thaty wants everything.
Even steal the food out of your nieghbour's children's mouth.

This is the black side of America. Greed, aquisitivity, damn your
neighbour attitude.

Yeah, it goes back at least as far as the 1620s when the New England colonists
started stealing from the natives. Don't know why we developed the national
myth of manifest destiny and all that other crap that this country has used over
the centuries to justify our plunder. It's a really sad record. However, I
would not be too self-righteous. The excuses your homeland used to justify the
Empire was equally absurd. Throughout history, there have been many
imperialistic states, all who felt that they were better and therefore justified
in forcing their culture on everyone else.

harry wrote:

Then England got trade unions...

And you don't have them in America?

Yeah, but they're mostly moribund. The union-dominated states are failing
like Britain (New York, California, Michigan, etc.).

The British Empire was destroyed by the economic effort of fighting
tyranny. Some thing the US also once did, except when republicans
were in power.

Agreed.

Then they ground down their own population to enrich a tiny majority
that already had more than they needed.

"Need" has nothing to do - or should have nothing to do - with western
economic thought. The only thing that reasonably counts is "want."

I agree that there's some waste. A rich person can only live in only one
mansion at a time. While he's at villa "A," the 57 rooms in chateau "B" are
going to waste. Maybe he could be encouraged to open those 57 rooms to the
local destitute?

Same with his yachts. While he's lollygagging with the "Pacific" yacht, the
"Atlantic" cruiser could take the water-deprived fishing.

Peter wrote:

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they
can get hired for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Uh, no, not by a long-shot.

First, you have minimum-wage laws and all sorts of nanny-state
workplace rules. Then there are unions. Next is government licensing
and permitting for many occupations. Some jobs are intrinsically
illegal! On and on.
How does that change the basic fact that anyone in the U.S. can take
any job they can get hired for? You are arguing that the hiring
playing field is not level. That's a completely different issue. Bottom
line, you are free to change jobs to any job an employer is
willing to pay you to do. Restrictions on the employer's hiring
choices is a different subject entirely. Stop changing the subject
every time someone catches an inaccuracy (or worse) in what you say!

No, restrictions on the employer interfere with the negotiations.

Further, the restrictions apply to the applicant also. For example, an
applicant cannot demand to being paid less than the minimum wage or insist
on not wearing the government-mandated safety helmet.

harry wrote:

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they
can get hired for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Uh, no, not by a long-shot.

First, you have minimum-wage laws and all sorts of nanny-state
workplace
rules. Then there are unions. Next is government licensing and
permitting
for many occupations. Some jobs are intrinsically illegal! On and
on.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I see you are one of those greedy Americans thaty wants everything.
Even steal the food out of your nieghbour's children's mouth.

This is the black side of America. Greed, aquisitivity, damn your
neighbour attitude.

Greed is good. A wise sage once said "Were it not for greed, no man would
build a house, take a wife, or father a child." Greed is a normal human
emotion, given by God - and God does not make junk (except for the gall
bladder).

George wrote:

No, the Chinese workforce is not a slave group. They are more free
than the workforces in either the U.S. or the U.K. For example,
there are no trade unions or minimum wage. The worker is free to
negotiate his remuneration to the advantage of both himself and the
company.


And that certainly is a good thing for people who aren't affected by
it except in a good way. You can get cheap stuff at Harbor Freight
because workers in China are able to "negotiate" for $0.80/hour jobs
and sleep in the factory at night. If we could only lower ourselves
that far here so we can compete..



First, eighty cents an hour is better than nothing per hour.

Second, we SHOULDN'T compete with the Chinese at those endeavors in which
they are clearly superior, such as most manufacturing. Doing so only causes
great difficulty, maybe even ruination, for both countries.

We should do what we do best and let the Sri Lankans do what they do best.

And as for sleeping at the job site, I've done that many times.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:



Greed is good. A wise sage once said "Were it not for greed, no man would
build a house, take a wife, or father a child." Greed is a normal human
emotion, given by God - and God does not make junk (except for the gall
bladder).

And the appendix. Although I have long suggested that the real function
of both is to give general surgeons a certain floor under their
earnings.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

On 05/30/10 06:32 pm, HeyBub wrote:

... we SHOULDN'T compete with the Chinese at those endeavors in which
they are clearly superior, such as most manufacturing. Doing so only causes
great difficulty, maybe even ruination, for both countries.

We should do what we do best and let the Sri Lankans do what they do best.

What precisely is it that we do so well that cannot be outsourced?

Perce

On Sun, 30 May 2010 10:29:07 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

I see you are one of those greedy Americans thaty wants everything.
Even steal the food out of your nieghbour's children's mouth.

This is the black side of America. Greed, aquisitivity, damn your
neighbour attitude.

Brit's were greedy. A colonist killed his wife for food. He gets burnt
on the stake.

Harry! How do you get your head through the door? As big as it is, an
all?

On Sun, 30 May 2010 10:01:11 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Serfdom is not slavery. Not that I consider eithr to be a good
thing.

Now you want too weasel.

Ever here of an indentured servant? Pay my passage to the colonies
and I will work for X number of years...

Essentially a contract.

In article , HeyBub wrote:
Peter wrote:

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they
can get hired for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Uh, no, not by a long-shot.

First, you have minimum-wage laws and all sorts of nanny-state
workplace rules. Then there are unions. Next is government licensing
and permitting for many occupations. Some jobs are intrinsically
illegal! On and on.
How does that change the basic fact that anyone in the U.S. can take
any job they can get hired for? You are arguing that the hiring
playing field is not level. That's a completely different issue. Bottom
line, you are free to change jobs to any job an employer is
willing to pay you to do. Restrictions on the employer's hiring
choices is a different subject entirely. Stop changing the subject
every time someone catches an inaccuracy (or worse) in what you say!

No, restrictions on the employer interfere with the negotiations.

Further, the restrictions apply to the applicant also. For example, an
applicant cannot demand to being paid less than the minimum wage or insist
on not wearing the government-mandated safety helmet.

If I was impacted by a mandate to wear a stinking helmet in order to
work a job that I could get hired for and that I desperately needed, I
would wear the steenkin' helmet!

I would rather do that than demand to be paid 50 cents an hour less
than the minimum wage - heck, I beat minimum wage in a job where I would
rather wear a helmet, the law has yet to require one my way, and I like my
helmet in my "day job"! (Delivering restaurant food by bicycle in the
University City area of Philadelphia - and Philadelphia has its way of
having no shortage of bad drivers and genuorous jurors and lawyers.
Meanwhile, I would rather work for a living than get paid to survive a
skull fracture / brain injury that can get blamed in court on someone
with a deep pocket.)

So I spend on average adjusted-for-inflation about $7-$8 per year on
helmets, even when spending more for more aerodynamic ones or to get
hardshell ones (better survivability of hits by low tree branches and
being knocked down from a popular risky short-term-storage shelf 2 meters
above the floor). I even spent a little more for my most recent helmet
purchase, for better fit and better feeling of fit and better appearance
according to my sense of of how well I sense it to make me "look good"
according to some bit of sense of clothing appearance that I recently
developed.

--
- Don Klipstein )

In article , HeyBub wrote:

SNIP to here in my 2nd response to the same article

First, eighty cents an hour is better than nothing per hour.

Second, we SHOULDN'T compete with the Chinese at those endeavors in which
they are clearly superior, such as most manufacturing. Doing so only causes
great difficulty, maybe even ruination, for both countries.

We should do what we do best and let the Sri Lankans do what they do best.

And as for sleeping at the job site, I've done that many times.

OK, as for my possibly-prospective negotiations for terms of hiring:

Can I sleep overnight in your workplace?

Can I bring in a sleeping bag and a blanket and a couple pillows?

Can I loiter in your workplace when not being on the job and not
needing to get in some sleep?

Is there a laundramat within walking distance?

Can I store clothes in your workplace somewhere other than on my body?
Can I store my sleeping bag and blanket and pillows in your workplace?

Can I have my wife sleep with me or "sleep with me" where I get to sleep
in your workplace? What if that's not a legal wife of mine, but someone
I could not legally marry due to matching gender? Can I get a xx % raise
if he helps me getting xx % more work done?
(I surely think that gay couples are good at getting other couples in
the area into a good mood. If not, do you allow the gays or the wierdos
to get a sleeping area separate from the one for "normal people"?)

Can I store electronic test equipment, soldering iron, solder and
electronic components and electronic product parts in my sleeping bag, and
operate these (build electronic devices and/or products and operate them)
while my sleeping bag is deployed?
You wanna fire extinguisher - how 'bout I get me one? Will you let me
store it with my sleeping bag and set it out in my sleeping area when I
deploy my sleeping bag?

If the capitalist side of "Red China" does not look good according to my
above, then I think they deserve what USA does to Cuba. Otherwise, I
think Cuba deserves from USA what China achieves, unless someone can say
how Cuba is worse than China. (In ways other than ones resulting from
USA treating Cuba as an enemy more than doing so to China.)

--
- Don Klipstein )

On May 30, 8:58�pm, Peter wrote:
On 5/30/2010 1:19 PM, harry wrote:



On May 30, 4:58 pm, �wrote:
On 5/29/2010 4:34 PM, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:50:23 -0400, � wrote:
Wrong at least twice. The workforce in China is not slave. In many respects,
it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. The Chinese may take any job
they can get hired for, at any wage, and with any benefits they can negotiate.
True, in many cases, those wages are far less than the US or UK. But, in many
cases, it beats the hell out of working in a rice paddy.

And slavery certainly existed in Adam Smith's day, both in the US and the UK.

-- Doug

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they can get hired
for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Does the U.K. have Affirmative Action? In the USA, you can be hired
by the color of your skin (ancestry / lineage) , even if you get
scored 73 on your essay test.

Using a #2 pencil on the official application can get you into the
interview office.

Your reply (immediately above) still doesn't change my contention that in the
U.S. you can take any job that you can get hired for.

Your earlier comments never mentioned that the criteria for hiring in the U.S.
differ from those in China. That's an entirely different issue. By introducing
new issues (in effect, changing the subject) at this point doesn't change the
validity of my reply.

By the way, I suspect that Han Chinese get hired for most jobs in China more
easily than do Tibetan Chinese and other minority Chinese sects. So they too do
not have a level playing field when it comes to job opportunities.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There is no such thing as Tibetan Chinese. �Tibet is an occupied
country.

I was talking from the perspective of the Chinese authorities and you knew it!
Why are you so argumentative?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Don't fall into their propaganda trap. The Chinese gov. is truely
evil. When they were a communist society, every person in China was
entitled to a job, a house, education and free medical treatment. It
was of course a repressive society but people had rights.
Now however these rights are disappearing and it is still repressive.
As I said before, like the nineteenth century in the West.
Just because these guys provide you with cheap goods, don't imagine
they are your friends. America is in the greatest danger it has ever
been through it's own avarice. They have identified your weak point.
They want to own you.

On May 30, 9:04�pm, Peter wrote:
On 5/30/2010 1:29 PM, harry wrote:





On May 30, 1:27 pm, �wrote:
Peter wrote:
On 5/29/2010 2:34 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
� wrote:

The problem is the Chinese slave workforce. And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. These sort of things never
went on in Smith's day.

Wrong at least twice. The workforce in China is not slave. In many
respects, it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. The
Chinese may take any job they can get hired for, at any wage, and
with any benefits they can negotiate. True, in many cases, those
wages are far less than the US or UK. But, in many cases, it beats
the hell out of working in a rice paddy. And slavery certainly existed in
Adam Smith's day, both in the US
and the UK. -- Doug

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they can
get hired for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Uh, no, not by a long-shot.

First, you have minimum-wage laws and all sorts of nanny-state workplace
rules. Then there are unions. Next is government licensing and permitting
for many occupations. Some jobs are intrinsically illegal! On and on.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I see you are one of those greedy Americans thaty wants everything.
Even steal the food out of your nieghbour's children's mouth.

This is the black side of America. Greed, �aquisitivity, damn your
neighbour attitude.

Yeah, it goes back at least as far as the 1620s when the New England colonists
started stealing from the natives. �Don't know why we developed the national
myth of manifest destiny and all that other crap that this country has used over
the centuries to justify our plunder. �It's a really sad record. �However, I
would not be too self-righteous. �The excuses your homeland used to justify the
Empire was equally absurd. �Throughout history, there have been many
imperialistic states, all who felt that they were better and therefore justified
in forcing their culture on everyone else.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is in our nature to compete. Darwinism.

On May 30, 11:21�pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

Then England got trade unions...

And you don't have them in America?

Yeah, but they're mostly moribund. The union-dominated states are failing
like Britain (New York, California, Michigan, etc.).

The British Empire was destroyed by the economic effort of fighting
tyranny. �Some thing the US also once did, except when republicans
were in power.

Agreed.

Then they ground down their own population to enrich a tiny majority
that already had more than they needed.

"Need" has nothing to do - or should have nothing to do - with western
economic thought. The only thing that reasonably counts is "want."

I agree that there's some waste. A rich person can only live in only one
mansion at a time. While he's at villa "A," the 57 rooms in chateau "B" are
going to waste. Maybe he could be encouraged to open those 57 rooms to the
local destitute?

Same with his yachts. While he's lollygagging with the "Pacific" yacht, the
"Atlantic" cruiser could take the water-deprived fishing.

Need=greed in the case of the wealthy. Nobody needs a yacht. It is
a plaything, Somthing to impress the neighbours with.
It actually shows a mental sickness. An insecurity.
The fact that you treat the topic so lightheartedly indicates a flaw
in your own character. Sarcasm about poverty is unworthy.

Lollygagging. Hm. Haven't heard that word before.

On May 30, 11:27�pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they
can get hired for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Uh, no, not by a long-shot.

First, you have minimum-wage laws and all sorts of nanny-state
workplace
rules. Then there are unions. Next is government licensing and
permitting
for many occupations. Some jobs are intrinsically illegal! On and
on.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I see you are one of those greedy Americans thaty wants everything.
Even steal the food out of your nieghbour's children's mouth.

This is the black side of America. Greed, �aquisitivity, damn your
neighbour attitude.

Greed is good. A wise sage once said "Were it not for greed, no man would
build a house, take a wife, or father a child." Greed is a normal human
emotion, given by God - and God does not make junk (except for the gall
bladder).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Which sage was that?
I think it says in the bible that the rich go to hell. Something
about the eye of a needle.

On May 30, 11:32�pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
George wrote:

No, the Chinese workforce is not a slave group. They are more free
than the workforces in either the U.S. or the U.K. For example,
there are no trade unions or minimum wage. The worker is free to
negotiate his remuneration to the advantage of both himself and the
company.

And that certainly is a good thing for people who aren't affected by
it except in a good way. You can get cheap stuff at Harbor Freight
because workers in China are able to "negotiate" for $0.80/hour jobs
and sleep in the factory at night. If we could only lower ourselves
that far here so we can compete..

First, eighty cents an hour is better than nothing per hour.

Second, we SHOULDN'T compete with the Chinese at those endeavors in which
they are clearly superior, such as most manufacturing. Doing so only causes
great difficulty, maybe even ruination, for both countries.

We should do what we do best and let the Sri Lankans do what they do best..

And as for sleeping at the job site, I've done that many times.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's called exploitation. It leads to revolution.
The Chinese will endeavour to move into any area of commerce we invent
in the West by fair means or foul. They are more dangerous than
Hitler.

On May 31, 2:14�am, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2010 10:29:07 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

I see you are one of those greedy Americans thaty wants everything.
Even steal the food out of your nieghbour's children's mouth.

This is the black side of America. Greed, �aquisitivity, damn your
neighbour attitude.

Brit's were greedy. A colonist killed his wife for food. He gets burnt
on the stake.

Harry! How do you get your head through the door? As big as it is, an
all?

Interesting story about the colonist I haven't heard of. Was this in
America? Or did you just make it up?
There are greedy people everywhere. Only in America do you build a
culture on it. We had a short period over here of it. We called it
"Thatcherism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatche...erite_morality

However, we saw the flaws in many of it's ideals, it is largely
abandoned today.

On May 31, 3:24�am, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2010 10:01:11 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Serfdom is not slavery. � Not that I consider eithr to be a good
thing.

Now you want too weasel.

Ever here of an indentured servant? �Pay my passage to the colonies
and I will work for X number of years...

Essentially a contract.

Freely entered into.
So not serfdom, not freely entered into.
Not slavery. Kidnapping followed by forced unpaid labour.

BTW, have look at this. I'm sure you'll find it of interest. Neo
slavery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Children
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Humphreys

On 5/30/2010 6:27 PM, HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they
can get hired for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Uh, no, not by a long-shot.

First, you have minimum-wage laws and all sorts of nanny-state
workplace
rules. Then there are unions. Next is government licensing and
permitting
for many occupations. Some jobs are intrinsically illegal! On and
on.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I see you are one of those greedy Americans thaty wants everything.
Even steal the food out of your nieghbour's children's mouth.

This is the black side of America. Greed, aquisitivity, damn your
neighbour attitude.

Greed is good. A wise sage once said "Were it not for greed, no man would
build a house, take a wife, or father a child." Greed is a normal human
emotion, given by God - and God does not make junk (except for the gall
bladder).


Greed is good? For someone who is talking about what God has given, and who
cites God's production standards, you are probably a believer. Therefore, you
need be more familiar with another of God's products (according to your belief),
known as the Bible. Try reading it. Specifically the sections of both the Old
and New Testament that characterize greed. I don't think you will find any
support for your position. If you can't read well enough to do that, or if you
don't have the patience or intelligence to teach yourself, go ask a clergyman.
You might learned that the truth is quite the contrary!