Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Pharoah Bloomberg: Paying Workers Enough to Live Is 'Communism'

  1. #1

    Default Pharoah Bloomberg: Paying Workers Enough to Live Is 'Communism'

    AlterNet / By Sarah Jaffe

    Pharoah Bloomberg: Paying Workers Enough to Live Is 'Communism'

    New York's billionaire mayor is so opposed to a tiny raise for workers at companies that get public money that he's vowed to sue. What's the deal with living wage laws anyway?

    May 18, 2012
    | To a few hundred New York workers laboring for $8 or $9 an hour, a living wage bill recently passed by the city council means a raise, a few dollars more a week to help feed their families.

    To billionaire mayor Michael Bloomberg, it's a wedge to open the door to communism. That's right -- the mayor told a local radio program that requiring businesses that get taxpayer subsidies to pay their workers a little bit more is just like a centrally planned economy. “The last time we really had a big managed economy was the USSR, and that didn’t work out so well,” Bloomberg said.

    Bloomberg is just fine with handing over millions of New Yorkers' dollars in taxpayer subsidies to companies that threaten to flee the city -- no complaints about “free market” capitalism when it's wealthy real estate developers getting the dough. Requiring those businesses that are happily slurping at the public trough to pay their workers a dollar or two more an hour, though, is just opening the door to Stalin.

    More here.
    T-Cat - "Conservation of momentum applies to a system closed in kinetic energy, not a thermodynamically closed system."

    T-Cat on Potential Energy: "Which means that you aren't converting it all at any point until you reach the ground."

  2. #2

    Default

    i have many time make the visit of newyork ant i want to visit it again so i have need more information about that.

  3. #3

    Default

    "As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

    Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

    Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.

    Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. ... "

    http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

  4. #4

    Default

    T-Cat - "Conservation of momentum applies to a system closed in kinetic energy, not a thermodynamically closed system."

    T-Cat on Potential Energy: "Which means that you aren't converting it all at any point until you reach the ground."

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Dog
    "As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

    Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

    Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.

    Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. ... "

    http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
    Businesses competing in a free market should not need government assistance.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-...b_1466336.html
    T-Cat - "Conservation of momentum applies to a system closed in kinetic energy, not a thermodynamically closed system."

    T-Cat on Potential Energy: "Which means that you aren't converting it all at any point until you reach the ground."

  6. #6

    Default

    By providing the assistance, government is already interfering in a free market. A truly free market business would not want any government assistance. However, we all know that many of these businesses that preach the godliness of the free market are only too happy to get contracts and other assistance from the government. They like that type of interference.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-...b_1466336.html
    T-Cat - "Conservation of momentum applies to a system closed in kinetic energy, not a thermodynamically closed system."

    T-Cat on Potential Energy: "Which means that you aren't converting it all at any point until you reach the ground."

  7. #7

    Default

    The bottom line is that government assistance comes with a number of rules. Whether it is for reporting, procurement, accounting, equal rights or many other purposes, part of the contract any business makes with the government is to abide by the rules. Many rules are added that reflect the priorities of whichever legislature covers the body of government providing the money. For the New York City Council, one of its priorities is that people get paid a decent wage to live in this most expensive of cities. Therefore, they are requiring that businesses that get large contracts or other assistance from the city pay their workers this decent livable wage. So in return for getting a lot of money, businesses will have to pay their workers a little more. Not a bad deal.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-...b_1466336.html
    T-Cat - "Conservation of momentum applies to a system closed in kinetic energy, not a thermodynamically closed system."

    T-Cat on Potential Energy: "Which means that you aren't converting it all at any point until you reach the ground."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •