Globalisation, as I understand it, is nothing to do with governments. It's Big Capitalism maximising their profits by paying slave-level wages in poor countries and selling the workers' output at ridiculous prices to the spoilt residents of first-world countries. Then they move the profits through tax havens and avoid having to pay any nasty extra contributions which might benefit those slaves.
@kewpie said...and you of course have nothing in your house that came from a poor country, because you're true to your principles.
Globalisation, as I understand it, is nothing to do with governments. It's Big Capitalism maximising their profits by paying slave-level wages in poor countries and selling the workers' output at ridiculous prices to the spoilt residents of first-world countries. Then they move the profits through tax havens and avoid having to pay any nasty extra contributions which might benefit those slaves.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@kewpie saidIt is, but that's very much to do with governments. The neo-con movement which started in the 1980s with Reagan and Thatcher has done everything it could to sponsor these capitalist firms, and particular their share-holders, while coming down hard on their workers and smaller firms.
Globalisation, as I understand it, is nothing to do with governments. It's Big Capitalism maximising their profits by paying slave-level wages in poor countries and selling the workers' output at ridiculous prices to the spoilt residents of first-world countries. Then they move the profits through tax havens and avoid having to pay any nasty extra contributions which might benefit those slaves.
@shallow-blue saidYour phrase 'share holders' stands out. Libs never use that phrase. It refers to people who invest some of their money into some enterprise, thus buying a 'piece' of the company.
It is, but that's very much to do with governments. The neo-con movement which started in the 1980s with Reagan and Thatcher has done everything it could to sponsor these capitalist firms, and particular their share-holders, while coming down hard on their workers and smaller firms.
Tell us where there is something wrong with that, or more interesting would be for you to tell us what should change so that these investors change their positions regarding the actual 'workers' in the company.
Some of you think the company (shareholders) should share all their profits with the workers in the company, please don't bore us with that.....please give us a cogent answer. I have been trying to get that answer for years.
@averagejoe1 saidShareholders invest money in businesses expecting to get income in return.
Your phrase 'share holders' stands out. Libs never use that phrase. It refers to people who invest some of their money into some enterprise, thus buying a 'piece' of the company.
Tell us where there is something wrong with that, or more interesting would be for you to tell us what should change so that these investors change their positions regarding the actual 'w ...[text shortened]... us with that.....please give us a cogent answer. I have been trying to get that answer for years.
Workers invest time and effort in businesses expecting to get income in return.
We have no problem with that.
Where we do have a problem is where shareholders take bigger and bigger percentages of the profits, at the same time refusing to give any financial recognition to the working part of the business team. How often do we see profit bonuses paid to the ordinary average joe whose work has contributed to those profits? What we generally see is handouts to top executives, or employees only in the higher echelons of the company.
Democracy and capitalism is for everyone, not just the entitled few.