England UK

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:38:32 +0100, "John Wane" <frangepan@onetel.com>
wrote:
>
>>"Socialists are Miserable Thieves" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
>>news:4ig1b1df99am52nn2r1g24j96cuuikfejo@4ax.com...
>
>>Power to do what, end the contract? The employee has the same power, no?
>
>The employer can hire and fire and controls the wages and working
>conditions, in all workplaces. If the employee quits, he or she has to find
>another job somewhere, and the cycle perpetuates itself.
>

Why are you quoting your own words?

Anyway, the employer can hire and fire the employee the same way the
employee can hire and fire the employer, no? And the wages and working
conditions are something to be agreed upon during the hiring phase. It
works both ways. And, if the employee quits, which he should have the
right to do at any time, he doesn't have to find a job elsewhere, he
can create one for himself, if he so desires. To have an employer is
not a right. Neither is to have an employee.

>
>>Profits tend to be higher compared to what? And wages tend to be lower
>>compared to what? And job security is a means for the employee to enslave
>>the employer. Would you accept the reverse? And, if the employee feels
>>exploited, he's free to leave, is he not?
>
>Compared to the status quo ante, before economic liberalisation takes
>place. Again, if the employee quits, he has to find another job somewhere,
>and the cycle perpetuates itself.
>

Your "reverse" quoting is still driving me nuts. SO much so, I am
correcting it as I go.

Before economic liberalization, you have the opposite of freedom. How
is having *MORE* freedom a bad thing for anybody? I don't have any
clue about the cycle you keep talking about.

>
>>*ALL* Governments in Europe have a huge control of the economy with loads of
>>rules, regulations and taxes. They are all socialist in this respect. Now,
>>the idea that "Socialism tends to find jobs for people" is just to laughable
>>for me to comment on. In any case, you could have every single individual
>>employed and still have a crappy economy. Why? Because what's important is
>>productive production, not drones checking in and out at 9 and 5,
>>respectively.
>
>It may not be so laughable. Compare: "For most countries in Central and
>Eastern Europe, unemployment as such was virtually unknown prior to 1989.
>In the early years of the transition period when unemployment was still
>low, many countries in the region established "funds that provided
>unemployment benefits and labour market support". But rising unemployment
>soon put these systems under strain in Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and
>Slovakia "leading to tighter eligibility rules, lower levels of
>replacement, shorter duration of benefits and lower beneficiary rates"
>This, says the report, "has led to the growing impoverishment of those who
>are without work."" Source:
>http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inf/pkits/wlr2000/wlr00ch3.htm
>

Your reverse quotation reversed again.

Those countries produced virtually no wealth while under socialism.
But those countries produced a bunch of bureaucrats. It's no wonder
they are now unemployed. Capitalism is a natural aversion to
bureaucrats.

>
>And: "Inhabitants of the village of Maszow [in Poland], which lies perched
>atop a hill near Rudnik, fondly remember the communist era when farmers
>had a sure market for their crops and made a comfortable living. "Today,
>the price of wheat has plummeted, while fertiliser and fuel prices do not
>stop going up," village Mayor Jan Bujnowski, 50, said. "The land can no
>longer feed us. Without social security, we would surely have died of
>hunger by now," he said." Source: "In southeast Poland, EU's poorest
>region still waits for development aid", www.eubusiness.com
>

If that line of work is no longer lucrative, they should find another.
The same happened to those who manufactured buggy whips and it was a
good thing.

>
>Britain's unemployment benefit system has one of the lowest net
>replacement rates (33%) for wages in Europe; lower than Hungary (36%),
>although it rises to 45% with Social Assistance. It is very unfair, and
>when cyclical downturns occur all the claimants suffer more here than
>practically anywhere else, except possibly the US.
>

Yet, Britain has the best economy in Europe. Can't you see the light?

>
>>Now, care to guess, compared to Europe, the amount of job security people
>>have in the US?
>
>I've no idea.
>

None! And the US is the Superpower! Don't you see the light yet?

>
>>Is it, really? The US is a political and economic Union of 50 States with a
>>great deal of variance. It has almost 300 million people and growing.
>
>
>The federal, or 'United States of Europe' concept, is not very popular
>here, especially in Britain, except in the minds of the technocrats.
>Besides the EU is hardly growing at all, economically.
>

Of course Europe is not growing. Growth requires innovation,
creativity, change. And Europeans are afraid of all these things.

>
>>By the way, have you considered why the more economically liberal of those
>>countries, Britain, is the most prosperous?
>
>Actually, the most prosperous is Luxembourg (see below), which has a social
>model economy.
>

Luxembourg is a small European "city" with a vast confluence of
foreign investment. It's too much of an isolated case to be of
significance.

>
>A). World economic growth, viz. "the EU lacks the capability to cope with
>negative economic shocks and its slow growth is vulnerable to international
>turbulences". (Gabriel Rozenberg, The Times, 25 May 2005, page 47).
>

The rigidity of socialism explains it.

>
>B). The huge rise in Chinese textile exports this year has hurt Portugal
>(-30.5%), Greece (-12%), Slovenia (-8%), and France. The dumping of shoes
>below production cost by China has hurt the style houses of Italy.
>

Now, why would the Chinese sell below cost? Are they trying to starve
themselves to death or something? Those stupid Chinese! In any case,
it should be good for Europeans that get shoes at lower prices, no?

>
>C). There is an ageing, non-earning population. Europe needs to grow at
>2.5%, not 1.2%, a year to cope.
>

Ah, social security, another socialist invention!

>
>D).The Euro. "[A strong currency] fits only an economy bursting at the seams
>with export-led growth". (Graham Searjeant, The Times 03 June 2005, page
>59).
>

I thought the Eurocrats wanted a strong currency?

>
>E). ECB price and stability targets produce conflict. Low growth Germany
>faces highest real interest rates. High growth Spain faces lowest real
>interest rates. Negative growth Italy faces high real interest rates.
>

Didn't those countries agree to join the Euro?

>
>F). Your US Dollar! Weakness in US$ of 30% would cause a decline in EU GDP
>growth of more than 1%.
>

Ah, finally! Of course it is the United States of America fault!

>
>H). Lastly, the demands and conflicts of the member states themselves. 5
>countries want to cut their EU Budget contributions.
>

Good! Less money means less power.

>
>So, Britain is part of all of this, and certainly not immune to the threats
>listed.
>

Reduce the size of Government and let individuals do their own thing.
That's my prescripti8on for success.



--
"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand