On Apr 18, 8:10=A0am, "J.H.Boersema" <jo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >On Apr 17, 10:40=3DA0am, solon fox <solon...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> The only legal way to redistribute wealth is through taxation. Any
> >> other method violates property rights and is theft. Hmm... makes you
> >> wonder about the morality of using the tax code as a lever against
> >> property rights. We need fairness in the tax code.
>
> Natural resources can be distributed fairly to everyone, thus putting
> a bottom in the economy against unfair power differences. Unfair
> power differences make the economy unfair: some people will have to
> work tremendously much more at higher quality to get the same money.
> That is theft. Since a natural resource is merely a capacity to do
> something you are not infringing on the principle that only he/she
> who works gets money. =A0If you call the initial taking over of all
> natural resources for re-distribution "theft," then that's fine by
> me: we will steal all natural resources, in order to distribute them
> fairly. It matters 0 how a thing is called, only what it is and does.
> The fact that there are property rights in a Nation is the result of
> laws that decide there are such rights. When the law is changed,
> those rights can be altered any which way.
>
> This is a simple property right law:
>
> http://www.jhwh.be/law.html#2.1.d
> _2.1.d Property Right
> =A0Your legal property can not be taken away from you. You can not
> =A0take away the legal property of someone.
>
> "Legal property": basically whatever you have bought or otherwise
> legally acquired. That can be anything from candy to homes and even
> businesses (depending, some limitations there). The one thing that
> you can't "own" just like that by buying more is `natural resources,'
> which is typically soil.
>
> http://www.jhwh.be/law.html#9.1.a
> _9.1.a Structure of Resources
> =A0Every person has the natural and practical right to use its equal
share=
of
> =A0the available natural resources.
>
> This means whatever persons have in excess of this rule will be taken
> away from them, because that excess creates a power imbalance in the
> economy (between that have passive natural resource rights and those
> that for whatever reason don't have them) that will later be cashed in
> on: theft.
>
>
>
>
>
> >Our main area of disagreement, Mr. Fox, seems to be the degree to
> >which we think the government should regulate property rights. =A0You
> >think as little as possible, I think it depends a great deal on
> >cir***stances. =A0For example, I think the desirability of outsourcing
> >-- allowing American companies to hire foreign workers to produce
> >"American" products for the American market -- is highly dubious.
> >Nevertheless, for the moment, it is quite legal. =A0It allows companies
> >to produce products more cheaply, but at the cost of decimating the
> >U.S. labor market, and of catastrophically reducing American
> >salaries. =A0It leads to an enormous transfer of Capital into the hands
> >of the senior executives of cor****ations, who can search for the
> >cheapest workers around the world, and then sell their products on the
> >U.S. market at virtually whatever profit margin they choose.
>
> >Yes, American products would be more expensive. =A0But, Capital
wouldn't
> >be transferred en masse into the hands of foreign workers and wealthy
> >American CEO's. =A0Vastly more American workers would benefit. =A0And,
th=
e
> >American economy would benefit from more people having more money to
> >spend. =A0Making outsourcing illegal is a simple example of how I
> >believe, reduced property rights would benefit the U.S. population as
> >a whole.
>
> Maybe the real problem is the management-labor antagonism. Suppose
> that most (larger) businesses were all democratic, would they volunteer
> to be outsourced ? I think most of them would definitely not vote for
> outsourcing (since that means being layed off.)
Many managers dislike offshoring as well (outsourcing includes
services provided by domestic onshore resources, i.e. Americans as
well as offshoring jobs). The problem is that companies must compete
for business within the states and globally. If a competitor
offshores, even a global competitor headquartered in another country,
then the company cannot compete on a cost basis against the cheaper
services. The choice is lose the business to a company that does
offshore, or offshore as well. The problem is driven by clients and
consumers who want the cheapest products and services.
An argument may be made for quality: "you get what you pay for."
Unfortunately, the quality argument has consistently lost contracts.
>
> http://www.jhwh.be/law.html#6.3.a
> _6.3.a Reaching Democracy
> =A0When the person or persons which has originally started a business
> =A0(see Article 6.2.a, Establish business) ends regularly working for
the
> =A0business, and the business has more employees then a number to be
> =A0determined by the People or in their absence the Two Third majority
> =A0of Government, control and owner****p of the business is transferred
> =A0to the employees, in good faith, fairness, transparency and equality.
> =A0The starter is compensated fairly out of the value of the company,
and/=
or
> =A0the private value of employees, and/or the value of future profits
> =A0generated by the company.
This is an interesting proposal that is worth consideration. Off the
cuff, my concern is that an employee owned company might tem****arily
preserve jobs, but ultimately fail due to an inability to compete on
price of services that have been offshored. They will face the same
problems that management faces today in competing with other companies
that do offer services more cheaply through offshoring.
>
> =A0When there are: ..[10]. or more employees, the employees gain control
> =A0as described.
>
> I propose a law that makes it illegal for the management of a business
> to be located outside of the Country, so that the profits will be
> gained to a point inside the Country. That is not outsourcing but the
> territorial reverse: foreign management and local production
> (no "outprofits"). I figure it be better in management is within reach
> and profits worked for are gained/spend/taxed within the Nation.
Such a strategy may be partially effective. The problem will be in
defining which managers must be located in country? The drain of
offshoring has grown beyond manufacturing - how would a manager
supervise an out-of-country plant from thousands of miles away? - to
professional services. Along with the drain of manufacturing jobs,
goes IT jobs, project managers, consultant services, even medical
services are being offshored. Where does it end?
>
> http://www.jhwh.be/law.html#6.3.b
> _6.3.b No International Businesses
> =A0Productive activities which help to create the marketable product of
a
> =A0business, taking place on the territory of the country, are organized
> =A0in a business incor****ated within the Nation. The business acts
> =A0independently in its own best interest with respect to businesses in
ot=
her
> =A0countries, with which it can interface at its own pleasure through
free=
> =A0trade, within the context of the Law.
>
> (By the way "free" trade there isn't supposed to mean evading border
> tariffs and other taxation.)
Granted.
>
> Within the given capitalist "trade everything until the system breaks
> apart and we can start over"-system it could be a good idea to pass laws
> against outsourcing to protect the domestic production / consumption
> cycle. Other protections can be: attempt to stimulate fair wages and
> conditions in the other countries, heightening tariffs on the border.
Agreed. We are ultimately at the mercy of those countries, their
governance, their economies to act in a responsible manner to improve
the quality of life for their workers - which is in their self-
interests and they want to do anyways. In the professional services
market, India has seen a 30% wage growth without considering the
weakened dollar. However, this only means that professional services
will move to the next cheaper market in China making India the next
victim of outsourcing.
To simply say that capitalist markets will even this out is to say
that we will wait until the entire global economy becomes one and we
all share the same global quality of living (I am agreeing with you
here). This would mean a better quality of life for some and a worse
quality of life for others.
> One could also implement a special "slave labor" taxation, so that
> the products made by slave labor won't be cheaper. One could also demand
> slave labor products are adequately marked as such, which gives the
> consumer the choice. Quite a few products can easily be traced to the
> originating country, maybe a public awareness program will help reduce
> sales of slave made products. Labor fairness accross the world would
> solve the problem entirely. One idea for that: all countries ratify
> my proposed Constitution, or implement the major parts somehow until the
> economy becomes rational & fair.
> --
> _ _ /_\ _ _http://www.jhwh.be=A0sign
petition for Democratic
> \ /v`vvv\ / =A0 =A0Authorities Ventures Investments Demarcations
> /_\_#_#_/_\ =A0constitution today:http://www.jhwh.be/petition
> =A0 =A0 \ / =A0 =A0#165http://www.xs4all.nl/~joshb/no-id-theft.html-
Hide =
quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
At least, you are thinking about the problems and presenting some
practical suggestions. I don't happen to believe that any amount of
imposed border tariffs, "slave" labor taxes or other protectionist
measures will stop outsourcing or globalization, but that doesn't mean
there aren't some real benefits to slowing it down and allowing
American workers to find their competitive place in the global economy
while continuing to improve our own economic conditions.
-solon fox
|
