Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: deeno who wrote (7987)	4/13/2006 2:28:35 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 24758

well perhaps i did not elucidate sufficiently but my greater point is that without property rights, those 'sweat shop' workers have absolutely no motivation or aspiration to move beyond simple 'wages' because true ownership is precluded by the state it seems pretty simple to me... by definition, communist china cannot be a true capitalist society without real human and property rights reform... for now they are just the cheapest sub contract bidder for manufacturing.... what happens when they are undercut by say, africa? or even the ME (once they lose their commodity edge with oil) without property rights, it is truly a 'race to the bottom' and as an entrepreneur who employs, i must disagree with 'labor at the cheapest possible price' meme as 'capitalistic' labor does not dictate what drives the capitalist... as a capitalist, i could not care less whether my labor is 'cheap' or not... what i care about is productivity and profit... cheap labor is by far no guarantee of that, in fact in this environment, it is the opposite obviously 'cheap' is in the eye of the capitalist beholder....what i look for is value....and i reward accordingly i can hire people all day long who are 'cheap' but will wreck my equipment, alienate my customers, and do nothing to engender growth.... but yippee! i can pay minimum wage with no bene's with all due respect get real

To: deeno who wrote (7987)	4/13/2006 2:54:46 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 24758

"without true property rights, there is no innovation, and without innovation, forget capitalism...." I agree ? Innovation does not need either capitalism nor property rights. Capitalism does not need property rights. It does not need rule of law. It works in spite of these structures which are put in place for other reasons. Also, rule of law and property rights do not coincide. Indeed, property rights are usurped by rule of law every day via, say, eminent domain. The point I was making was that getting labor at the cheapest possible price that they are willing to take (including bene's) without interference from the state (a sweatshop to you) seems like a pretty capitalistic trait. A sweatshop to you is salvation to another. You see her creeping socialism and you see it correctly.