Yes, it's better than slavery, but nowadays more and more often the master employs the slave on a casual basis, meaning they can flick them anytime they want.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
Yes, it's better than slavery, but nowadays more and more often the master employs the slave on a casual basis, meaning they can flick them anytime they want.
That's true but they are approaching this in the same way as the GFC. The GFC was a credit issue, the coronavirus is a jobs issue. Its totally different.
I mean lets just use the airline industry. Their revenue has fallen by 70-100% within a month. Will they borrow to keep people in jobs, or lay them off. The answer is very easy and will mean redundancies. It doesn't matter that credit is cheap, no-one will borrow if they have such a low prospect of revenue.
I think that's short sighted, some job losses will largely be short term, but short term in that they will take time to rebuild back up.
The whole point needs to avoid companies going out of business, and that should have provided more to cover a lot of businesses major costs, ie people.
I ask you again from the last post. Do you think airlines are going to borrow to keep people in jobs or terminate them and see where they are in a few months? They WILL NOT borrow to retain employees, simple as that. Again this IS NOT a credit issue, this is a jobs issue. I work for an industry where will rely on manual handling (I work in finance) so I know what questions are being asked. Its a very very different issue than what the issue was in the GFC and its a misconception to believe this is a credit issue. Remember Scomo said yesterday that they will keep job losses into the tens of thousands therefore his belief is companies will borrow to retain staff and I think he will find out that he is very very wrong.
I know that, they need protection from their largest costs. They get that from some parts (variable costs) but also need help with costs such as labour, and people need certainty in their earnings. Credit does not give them any certainty at all. Governments should be providing support for workers by providing cash to businesses in order to retain employees, ie, they should stump up some of their wages. This is an unprecedented issue and just raising access to credit will not do that.
You are making statements that are obvious and the government should be making policies based on what protects those industries, raising access to credit does not do that.
Reckon Quaintarse n Virign will be having more than enough fun trying to pay their repayments on their aircraft loans n rent on premises etc while no-ones working or flying, never mind trying to provide wages for thousands of employees on top. Small businesses will have the same problem just trying to cover the basic contractural overheads while being unable to generate an income. What goes first the employee or the family home, or worse the parents home if they've backed the small business person.
Shutting everything down for months on end will cripple economies world wide, small, medium, large businesses even Governments will be stone broke before long. Good luck finding ways to restart the world economy when it's smashed.
Exactly hence the reason for job preservation. The banks / financing companies, should be providing payment holidays not providing additional cheap debt to pay repayments on other financing obligations. Strong businesses will go down the toilet if not protected. Business models aren't at fault here and additional credit will not do anything to protect them.
Yes I'm speaking simplistically because I'm a simple person. Without companies there are no jobs. Government needs to balance protecting workers and companies. But this is a liberal government so it's natural their first move is to protect the businesses.
Both need help. Of that there's no doubt.
Both need help. Of that there's no doubt.
One involves a choice, the other involves no choice. One allows for productive people to flourish, the other for all to suffer. One involves wealth generation, the other impoverishment. One allows for different opinions, the other allows for approved opinions.
You can be a socialist in a capitalist society but you can’t be a capitalist in a socialist society.
Geez....0.25%.
Never thought it would drop this low, and will be interesting to see if the 4 fat cats lower their rate from here.
Never thought it would drop this low, and will be interesting to see if the 4 fat cats lower their rate from here.
Those of us with mortgages will be left out. I suspect.
A region local to me has been wiped out with a similar predicament. Once the boom stopped the town was practically handed to the banks, who have screwed all and sundry because well they gave loans to people who could not afford them should the rent dry up, or return to normal levels.
So now, all and sundry are potentially going to ne unable to pay the mortgage through job losses etc from Covid 19. CBA refused to pass on to all but those who can fix a loan, the rest lets wait and see. Fingers crossed the banks take a bit of the pain.
Choice of Authoritarianism A or Authoritarianism B.
And you lot call yourselves libertarians, is this some sort of a joke?
When one person claims what was previously common property they deprive others of the right to use that property and force them into having to enter into a coercive employment relationship. This whole notion that you magically own something when you "mix your labour" with it is a farce, and it is the basis used to claim original property rights. After all, if I fish in a river, do I then own the river?
The whole Lockean edifice of property is built on the notion that when you labour on common property not only do you own the fruits of your labour, but, magically, also the raw materials which were previously common property. It's b****smile* pure and simple.
DS
Really?
I didn't see the bailed out banks taking much pain from the GFC they caused. I have also noticed how badly they have been doing since too!
DS
Common property rights? I think you mean unclaimed property rights. Nothing is stolen under original appropriation. If someone works originally appropriated land to produce something, they aren’t being coercive to stop others from doing so or from taking their produce. They are bearing the fruits of their hard work. You would have man perpetually live in destitution under your theory of property rights.
What a load of rubbish.
They are denying others the ability to use what was common property, "unclaimed property" is just an excuse for theft. Claiming common property as exclusively one's own is theft no matter how you dress it up. Then when you use that property to provide a choice of slave masters to the rest of the people apparently this is libertarianism.
They can bear the fruits of their work, but not the raw materials.
How is denying the right of others to what was, up to that point, common property, not coercive when others may also be relying on the very same common property for their livelihood?
Also, you do realise that under feudalism, when this supposed "original appropriation" occurred, there was no land without its Lord. Nothing to do with mixing labour with "unclaimed" property, all to do with aristocratic power and seizure of what was common property.
Again I ask: if you fish in a river, do you then own the river?
DS
