Pages:
Author

Topic: I hate socialism but..... shouldn't a nations resources be nationalized? (Read 2526 times)

hero member
Activity: 632
Merit: 500
Last century, Americans company were coming in Canada, pumping iron and buying mining companies for cheap. With the same iron, they shipped it back into the US, made steel with it and sold it back to us at like 5x times the original price. I know "capitalist/freedom/etc", but this type of business doesn't create any plus-value.

That's a rather ignorant statement on your part.  No added value?  Try building something out of iron ore.  As it comes out of the ground, it's rather useless. Refining ore into steel is an energy-intensive process.  Try telling me with a straight face that there's no value in that.


Maybe I was not clear.

If you take the whole process (mining iron, processing it, selling it), you create value, I agree with that. But to get this value, you have a part of cost and a part of profit. The problem in the situation I exposed is that the biggest part of the cost was on our shoulders and the biggest part of the profit was in the pockets of the Americans. By cost, I'm talking about health cost like injuries or illnesses due to the mining part that need to be assumed by the society. I'm also talking about environmental damage and the fact that these resources are non-renewable.

Miners were treated like shit back in the days. It wasn't until they started to fight back and unionized themselves that the situation changed for the best. Today, we have knowledge, expertise and technology to do the same job a lot more efficiently.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Does someone who owns property have a right to the air over their property? Can they charge people to breathe it? could they somehow harvest it and create a permanent oxygen vacuum so nothing alive could reside in it? do they have a right to airspace over their property? If they don't own the oxygen over their property why do they own the precious metals or oil below it? do they own the magma really really below it? At what point does that stop? 100 feet? The radius of the earth?

"Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad caelum et ad inferos"
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
Does someone who owns property have a right to the air over their property? Can they charge people to breathe it? could they somehow harvest it and create a permanent oxygen vacuum so nothing alive could reside in it? do they have a right to airspace over their property? If they don't own the oxygen over their property why do they own the precious metals or oil below it? do they own the magma really really below it? At what point does that stop? 100 feet? The radius of the earth?



 
newbie
Activity: 34
Merit: 0
Well again no, value of something has always been how someone is prepaird to pay. You can value your car to 50k $$$ but its worth how much is someone willing to pay. Also no, i'm richer on paper but in fact i lost 99billion and my country lost even also, while company and that country is getting richer. Also when you are occupied you cant say no, even if that occupation is not military. Thus you have Giffen goods such as Oil where price is rising and demand is rising also. And who has oil, well satellite states owned by USA.

If you consider that every time you sell something and someone is able to sell it for more that you lost something, you are calculating things wrong and in for a disappointing life. Why would anyone wish to purchase your labor if they were not able to profit off of it somehow?

We are not talking about selling something. If you have a problem to understand then well... Im talking about exploiting country rich in reasurces and without cash to start production by the country with large pockets. Who is talking about use of labor and making money that way. Large companies are only interested in making cash/money and thats the reason why are they moving entire facotries to a country that has low wages, we are talking about a company that wants to earn 10$ for every 1$ invested.  Profit is Ok, but profit made by exploting other countries is not. Thats the reason why globalization is bad. EU market is a prof of that. Small countries cant compete with big countries

I think you'd like what Herman Daly says: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3941

Will read it whn i get back home. Need to take GF to dinner Sad
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
Well again no, value of something has always been how someone is prepaird to pay. You can value your car to 50k $$$ but its worth how much is someone willing to pay. Also no, i'm richer on paper but in fact i lost 99billion and my country lost even also, while company and that country is getting richer. Also when you are occupied you cant say no, even if that occupation is not military. Thus you have Giffen goods such as Oil where price is rising and demand is rising also. And who has oil, well satellite states owned by USA.

If you consider that every time you sell something and someone is able to sell it for more that you lost something, you are calculating things wrong and in for a disappointing life. Why would anyone wish to purchase your labor if they were not able to profit off of it somehow?

We are not talking about selling something. If you have a problem to understand then well... Im talking about exploiting country rich in reasurces and without cash to start production by the country with large pockets. Who is talking about use of labor and making money that way. Large companies are only interested in making cash/money and thats the reason why are they moving entire facotries to a country that has low wages, we are talking about a company that wants to earn 10$ for every 1$ invested.  Profit is Ok, but profit made by exploting other countries is not. Thats the reason why globalization is bad. EU market is a prof of that. Small countries cant compete with big countries

I think you'd like what Herman Daly says: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3941
newbie
Activity: 34
Merit: 0
Well again no, value of something has always been how someone is prepaird to pay. You can value your car to 50k $$$ but its worth how much is someone willing to pay. Also no, i'm richer on paper but in fact i lost 99billion and my country lost even also, while company and that country is getting richer. Also when you are occupied you cant say no, even if that occupation is not military. Thus you have Giffen goods such as Oil where price is rising and demand is rising also. And who has oil, well satellite states owned by USA.

If you consider that every time you sell something and someone is able to sell it for more that you lost something, you are calculating things wrong and in for a disappointing life. Why would anyone wish to purchase your labor if they were not able to profit off of it somehow?

We are not talking about selling something. If you have a problem to understand then well... Im talking about exploiting country rich in reasurces and without cash to start production by the country with large pockets. Who is talking about use of labor and making money that way. Large companies are only interested in making cash/money and thats the reason why are they moving entire facotries to a country that has low wages, we are talking about a company that wants to earn 10$ for every 1$ invested.  Profit is Ok, but profit made by exploting other countries is not. Thats the reason why globalization is bad. EU market is a prof of that. Small countries cant compete with big countries
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
Why do people buy at market tops?
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 2267
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
Well again no, value of something has always been how someone is prepaird to pay. You can value your car to 50k $$$ but its worth how much is someone willing to pay. Also no, i'm richer on paper but in fact i lost 99billion and my country lost even also, while company and that country is getting richer. Also when you are occupied you cant say no, even if that occupation is not military. Thus you have Giffen goods such as Oil where price is rising and demand is rising also. And who has oil, well satellite states owned by USA.

If you consider that every time you sell something and someone is able to sell it for more that you lost something, you are calculating things wrong and in for a disappointing life. Why would anyone wish to purchase your labor if they were not able to profit off of it somehow?
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
I categorize you as someone who can't think clearly on the subject, given your general worship of the free market.

Fortunately, I categorize you as someone who's categorizations have no relevance so, meh...

I wouldn't expect you to be able to effectively categorize me given your starry eyed views of markets.

You're clearly lacking some information in your analysis, as are market participants.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 2267
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
I categorize you as someone who can't think clearly on the subject, given your general worship of the free market.

Fortunately, I categorize you as someone who's categorizations have no significance so, meh...
newbie
Activity: 34
Merit: 0
Last century, Americans company were coming in Canada, pumping iron and buying mining companies for cheap. With the same iron, they shipped it back into the US, made steel with it and sold it back to us at like 5x times the original price. I know "capitalist/freedom/etc", but this type of business doesn't create any plus-value.

That's a rather ignorant statement on your part.  No added value?  Try building something out of iron ore.  As it comes out of the ground, it's rather useless. Refining ore into steel is an energy-intensive process.  Try telling me with a straight face that there's no value in that.


Well you are ignoring the fact that phase products arent calcualted into GDP. You cant calculate iron ore 2x 3x 4x or even more. You can opnly calcualte it 1 time and you will chose when. So a company that buying iron ore and making ingots is contributing to GDP more then a miner mining that iron ore. You cant add value of iron ore and iron ingots. When you use that iron to make cars, bridges, building then its a new process thus it is calculated gain, Its not cumulative number...
newbie
Activity: 34
Merit: 0
My country has cash so i go to you and tell you, Ok sir will you sell me, lease me or anything similar your land for 1billion $. You rub your hands thinking how good deal that was but in fact real value of your land is lets say 100billion $.


Free & fair trade leaves both parties the richer.

The value of a good is what the market settles on. If you sell your land for 1 billion, that's what it's worth to you.

Again worng. there is no fair trade when one side is getting richer and one losing money.

Well again no, value of something has always been how someone is prepaird to pay. You can value your car to 50k $$$ but its worth how much is someone willing to pay. Also no, i'm richer on paper but in fact i lost 99billion and my country lost even also, while company and that country is getting richer. Also when you are occupied you cant say no, even if that occupation is not military. Thus you have Giffen goods such as Oil where price is rising and demand is rising also. And who has oil, well satellite states owned by USA.

hero member
Activity: 651
Merit: 501
My PGP Key: 92C7689C
Last century, Americans company were coming in Canada, pumping iron and buying mining companies for cheap. With the same iron, they shipped it back into the US, made steel with it and sold it back to us at like 5x times the original price. I know "capitalist/freedom/etc", but this type of business doesn't create any plus-value.

That's a rather ignorant statement on your part.  No added value?  Try building something out of iron ore.  As it comes out of the ground, it's rather useless. Refining ore into steel is an energy-intensive process.  Try telling me with a straight face that there's no value in that.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
My country has cash so i go to you and tell you, Ok sir will you sell me, lease me or anything similar your land for 1billion $. You rub your hands thinking how good deal that was but in fact real value of your land is lets say 100billion $.


Free & fair trade leaves both parties the richer.

The value of a good is what the market settles on. If you sell your land for 1 billion, that's what it's worth to you.

Such are the naive views of those who worship the free market.

Let me correct you: the value of a good is not what the market settles on. The market settles on what the knowledge between two parties have about a good and it's supply and renewability, their perceived individual projection of their need for the good in the future and the unique economic and often peculiar situations both parties find themselves in. Their knowledge is also almost certainly devoid or significantly lacking in the ramifications of the consumption of that good, both in terms of depletion and effects on the world, and furthermore, even if not lacking, often indifferent. Anyone who can think clearly can see that.

Since you clearly cannot see that, I categorize you as someone who can't think clearly on the subject, given your general worship of the free market.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 2267
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
My country has cash so i go to you and tell you, Ok sir will you sell me, lease me or anything similar your land for 1billion $. You rub your hands thinking how good deal that was but in fact real value of your land is lets say 100billion $.


Free & fair trade leaves both parties the richer.

The value of a good is what the market settles on. If you sell your land for 1 billion, that's what it's worth to you.
newbie
Activity: 34
Merit: 0
Corporatism is a different thing than globalization. Corporations are better placed to take advantage of globalization, it's true but that doesn't make globalization itself a bad thing.

Well there isnt much difference. many countries are runned by big corporations thus goal of that corporation is same as goal of entire countrie. thats the reason why some countries are occupied with or witout military presence. Globalization is bad, very bad since the only goal of globalization is to drain one country and fill pockets of rich countrie. Think like this. You have a big land, thousands oh acres rich with oil, mines...  but you dont have cash to start production. My country has cash so i go to you and tell you, Ok sir will you sell me, lease me or anything similar your land for 1billion $. You rub your hands thinking how good deal that was but in fact real value of your land is lets say 100billion $.

Globalization helps rich countries keep poor countries as subjects and its a nice way to leach their ppl giving them flase hope and left overs by filling own pocket. I gave you example of Germany in Europe.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 2267
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
Corporatism is a different thing than globalization. Corporations are better placed to take advantage of globalization, it's true but that doesn't make globalization itself a bad thing.
newbie
Activity: 34
Merit: 0
Poorer countries get richer too. Working long hours in a factory may not be fun but slaving away in a field is no picnic either. It's something the first world went through a couple of hundred years ago and look where we are now.

Industrial revolution and progress after that when World wasnt owned by a company or multile companies that share interest only to gain more profit are 2 different things. Now you have companies that generate more money then entire countrie. Poor countries work for rich, thats the fact and that will never change. Thats why USA still has so many satellite states, draining reasurces from them ( oil, copper, gold... )
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 2267
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
Poorer countries get richer too. Working long hours in a factory may not be fun but slaving away in a field is no picnic either. It's something the first world went through a couple of hundred years ago and look where we are now.
newbie
Activity: 34
Merit: 0
It seems kind of wrong to me to see nations around the world with the most resources being the poorest.  I love capitalism but ... should national resources really be exploitable? To me it means it will lead to two things: environmentally destructive practices possibly. But also the siphoning of wealth from one country to another country.

Consider this. Japan was poorest country decades ago but they changed their internal politics and changed their way of transfer of technology. What they did is implemented science and made progress with that. Japan doesnt have resources but it has amazing techological progress and GDP of japan is amazing and its growing ( getting higher ). https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:JPN&dl=en&hl=en&q=japan%20gdp

But i agree with you. Globalization is bad. Rich countries get richer while poor get well.. Also globalization is a way to keep other countries occupied without the use of military power, just take a look at Germany now and some 70 years ago. Same thing only without mass murders, war and such....

Pages:
Jump to: