smiley face legal dispute

[pianistimo]

wal mart has always handed out smiley faces.  why should they stop?  it makes my four year old want to shop there - knowing she'll get a smiley face sticker at the door.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4984138.stm

what do u think? 

[monsieurrenard]

Hi pianistimo,

Why do you want your 4 year old to shop there? I have a deep disprespect for how walmart treat workers abroad, and their oppositions to unions. In china employees work 12 hour days only to be payed about a dollar an hour.

As for smileys, I'd rather not feel like I'm using a corporate trademark everytime I want to express myself online 

-Monsieur le Renard.

[pianistimo]

agreed about child labor, etc.  but - for our family -it's a cheap place to buy birthday stuff - and generally most anything.  talk to any young family - and u'll find they shop at wal mart for diapers and stuff to stay within their budget.  if we had no wal-mart - people would be destitute from spending too much on essentials for daily living.

but, then again - third world countries have an up for not wasting so much either.  if things were not double wrapped for safety and all - we'd have less waste.  and, probably kids don't need as much stuff as they say they need (for school, etc).  sometimes i wonder why we pay tax dollars and still have to buy so many school supplies.  but that's another subject.

ok.  smiley faces.  trademark.  what if someone had come up with the smiley face BEFORE it was trademarked?  like cave men?  what if someone found one in a cave in france?

[musik_man]

Hi pianistimo,

Why do you want your 4 year old to shop there? I have a deep disprespect for how walmart treat workers abroad, and their oppositions to unions. In china employees work 12 hour days only to be payed about a dollar an hour.

As for smileys, I'd rather not feel like I'm using a corporate trademark everytime I want to express myself online 

-Monsieur le Renard.

You'd much have their workers work for much less than a dollar at farming?  If conditions at Wal-mart weren't better than conditions in other areas, Wal-mart would be unable to staff its stores.

I think the distinction in this debate needs to be made between a trademark and a copyright.  A trademark doesn't grant total control over the use of whatever is trademarked.  It simply means other businesses in similar fields can't use that symbol.  A good example would be Starbucks and 'Venti.'  Venti is a Italian term for 20 and it is also the largest size of coffee offered at Starbucks.  Starbucks has a trademark on the term and it simply means that no other coffee shop can sell 'Venti' coffees.

[musik_man]

agreed about child labor, etc.  but - for our family -it's a cheap place to buy birthday stuff - and generally most anything.  talk to any young family - and u'll find they shop at wal mart for diapers and stuff to stay within their budget.  if we had no wal-mart - people would be destitute from spending too much on essentials for daily living.

but, then again - third world countries have an up for not wasting so much either.  if things were not double wrapped for safety and all - we'd have less waste.  and, probably kids don't need as much stuff as they say they need (for school, etc).  sometimes i wonder why we pay tax dollars and still have to buy so many school supplies.  but that's another subject.

ok.  smiley faces.  trademark.  what if someone had come up with the smiley face BEFORE it was trademarked?  like cave men?  what if someone found one in a cave in france?

Abolition of child labor is only feasible because of our wealth.  Telling some family in the 3rd world, who may barely have enough money to eat, that they cannot use their children's labor is offensive.

[pianistimo]

do u think wal-mart should have asked this before relatively unknown man who trademarked the smiley face if they could use it.  was it that they truly thought it was public domain?  what makes things public domain?  isn't it the idea that someone came up with this idea before and it isn't an original idea?  just wondering.

also, what gets me is that this frenchman is one of 'a number of people' who claims to have come up with the idea.  here, a us person claims to have already come up with the idea in 1963:  www.cnn.com/US/9807/07/fringe.smiley.face.off/

and yet - don't u think someone before him came up with it?  more like a three year old?  i mean - it was one of the first things my daughter drew.  the face.

[monsieurrenard]

agreed about child labor, etc.  but - for our family -it's a cheap place to buy birthday stuff - and generally most anything.  talk to any young family - and u'll find they shop at wal mart for diapers and stuff to stay within their budget.  if we had no wal-mart - people would be destitute from spending too much on essentials for daily living.

Pianistimo,

If Wal*Mart didn't exist, then small convenience stores would have a chance to thrive, and you would be able to buy products for no more than you currently pay for.

You'd much have their workers work for much less than a dollar at farming?  If conditions at Wal-mart weren't better than conditions in other areas, Wal-mart would be unable to staff its stores.

Musik_Man,

The theory Captialism says it's the responsibilty of big corporations to work for the good of the people, and Wal*Mart is doing quite the contrary by banning worker Unions and underpaying their workers. Being the lesser of two evils in no way justifies their behavior.

As for trademark, I you are right. I was unfairly biased in my first reply. Let them have their smiley for all I care .

-Monsieur le Renard.

[pianistimo]

convenience stores never have thrived past the fifties because they were taxed under the ground.

shall we fight about something else - since u are so polite to agree?  i feel that this war was too short. 

[musik_man]

Musik_Man,

The theory Captialism says it's the responsibilty of big corporations to work for the good of the people, and Wal*Mart is doing quite the contrary by banning worker Unions and underpaying their workers. Being the lesser of two evils in no way justifies their behavior.

-Monsieur le Renard.

Capitalism says that Wal-mart has two responsibilities.  The first, obey the law.  The second, make a profit.  They have no need to work towards something a vague as the 'good of the people.'  Let me ask a couple questions.  Exactly how much should Wal-mart be paying its employees?  How did you arrive at this figure?  Why shouldn't they pay them $1 more an hour than your figure?  Why not $10 more?  Who would decide what constitutes a fair wage for Wal-mart to set in the real world?  Government?

I can give the simplest and best answer to all of those questions.  Wal-mart should pay enough so that it can fill all its positions.  If they pay less, they'll be short staffed.  If they pay more they're throwing away money.  As for unions, Unions usually form in industries with high-skilled blue-collar workers.  They cause these workers to get paid more, and thereby lower the total number of jobs available in these fields.  The workers who would have taken high skilled blue collar jobs are then forced into lower skilled jobs decreasing the wages for low skilled workers.  So unions basically end up redistributing wealth from the poor to the middle class.  Of course, even though I find them harmful, unions should every right to exist, just as Walmart has every right to fire any worker who joins one.

[musik_man]

Pianistimo,

If Wal*Mart didn't exist, then small convenience stores would have a chance to thrive, and you would be able to buy products for no more than you currently pay for.

Wrong, Wal-mart is able to charge less because of its size.  It allows it to work more efficiently and operate on a thinner profit margin than convenience stores could ever hope to achieve.

[monsieurrenard]

shall we fight about something else - since u are so polite to agree?  i feel that this war was too short. 

Haha  .

I don't fight wars, I merely discuss things and come to conclusions, Pianistimo. But surely if you have an interesting subject, I will be glad to debate with you.

Capitalism says that Wal-mart has two responsibilities.  The first, obey the law.  The second, make a profit.  They have no need to work towards something a vague as the 'good of the people.'  Let me ask a couple questions.  Exactly how much should Wal-mart be paying its employees?  How did you arrive at this figure?  Why shouldn't they pay them $1 more an hour than your figure?  Why not $10 more?  Who would decide what constitutes a fair wage for Wal-mart to set in the real world?  Government?

Musik_Man,

You raise interesting points. However, those two responsibilities barely even being to describe capitalism. Such a statement may have been true 100 years ago, but it's horribly outdated and historical figures such as TR have made this very clear: Capitalism consists of serving the people through the pursuit of self-interest. A business cannot jeopardize the welfare of its workers to make profit, because it would be paradoxical and self descructive.

Who is to decide what constitutes a fair wage? My opionon is that the chinese wage-slaves who work obscene hours should have a right to fight for what they think are fair wages, and they should have the right to set-up unions to do so. I'm merely reflecting their opinions.

If they pay more they're throwing away money.

I sympathize more with thousands of poor chinese families struggling to stay alive, than with Wal-Mart multi-millionaire CEO Lee Scott throwing away money. Wal*Mart is a monopoly, monopolies are bad for capitalism.

-Monsieur le Renard.

[musik_man]

Musik_Man,

You raise interesting points. However, those two responsibilities barely even being to describe capitalism. Such a statement may have been true 100 years ago, but it's horribly outdated and historical figures such as TR have made this very clear: Capitalism consists of serving the people through the pursuit of self-interest. A business cannot jeopardize the welfare of its workers to make profit, because it would be paradoxical and self descructive.

A corporation's responsibility is not to serve the public through self-interest.  It is merely to pursue that self-interest.  In the process of doing that and that alone it benefits society.  If Wal-mart's wage policies were self-destructive, Wal-mart would adopt different policies, but they are not.

Who is to decide what constitutes a fair wage? My opionon is that the chinese wage-slaves who work obscene hours should have a right to fight for what they think are fair wages, and they should have the right to set-up unions to do so. I'm merely reflecting their opinions.

What is a 'wage slave'?  Is there a cutoff salary at which one is no longer a free person?  And yes, Chinese workers should have the freedom to set up unions, just as Wal-mart should have the freedom to fire anyone who tries to set one up.

I sympathize more with thousands of poor chinese families struggling to stay alive, than with Wal-Mart multi-millionaire CEO Lee Scott throwing away money. Wal*Mart is a monopoly, monopolies are bad for capitalism.

-Monsieur le Renard.

Wal-mart is not a monopoly.  In general it has competition like Sears, Target, and Amazon.  It also has to compete with more specialized firms like Best Buy, Circuit City, grocery stores, etc.  So yes, Monopolies are bad, but no, Wal-mart is not a monopoly.

Do you think that unions that hold monopolies are bad?  Such as United Auto Workers or the Teamsters?

[monsieurrenard]

A corporation's responsibility is not to serve the public through self-interest.  It is merely to pursue that self-interest.  In the process of doing that and that alone it benefits society.  If Wal-mart's wage policies were self-destructive, Wal-mart would adopt different policies, but they are not.

Musik Man,

We clearely hold different opinions here, and opinions are not a matter of argument ^_^. Progressives such as Roosevelt beleived it was the responsibility of big businesses to serve the people, and I completely agree with them.

What is a 'wage slave'?  Is there a cutoff salary at which one is no longer a free person?  And yes, Chinese workers should have the freedom to set up unions, just as Wal-mart should have the freedom to fire anyone who tries to set one up.

Ah, this definetly needs to be clarified before we move on: https://www.whywork.org/about/faq/wageslave.html

Wal-mart is not a monopoly.  In general it has competition like Sears, Target, and Amazon.  It also has to compete with more specialized firms like Best Buy, Circuit City, grocery stores, etc.  So yes, Monopolies are bad, but no, Wal-mart is not a monopoly.

Wal-Mart is a monopoly in places where it holds wage-slaves.

Do you think that unions that hold monopolies are bad?  Such as United Auto Workers or the Teamsters?

Unions are not God's droppings, what we should be striving for is that we don't even need unions  because they can definetly be a bad thing. I'm not sure what you mean by Unions holding monopolies.

-Monsieur le Renard.

[musik_man]

"Wage slavery is the state where you are unable to perceive choices and create courses of action different from the grind of the job."

  This is nothing more than a meaningless platitude. 

"Wage slave: A wage earner whose livelihood is completely dependent on the wages earned."

To rephrase...  A wage slave is someone whose consumption of goods and services is dependent on his creating goods and services.  Having to earn the things you want is not slavery.

We clearely hold different opinions here, and opinions are not a matter of argument ^_^. Progressives such as Roosevelt beleived it was the responsibility of big businesses to serve the people, and I completely agree with them.

If businesses exist to serve the public, why should they be owned by private individuals?  If they exist to serve the public, the public should own them.

Wal-Mart is a monopoly in places where it holds wage-slaves.

A monopoly is defined as a business supplying some good without competition.  It has nothing to do with 'wage slaves.'

Unions are not God's droppings, what we should be striving for is that we don't even need unions  because they can definetly be a bad thing. I'm not sure what you mean by Unions holding monopolies.

Labor is a commodity just like any other.  When you work a job, you are trading your labor for cash.  Unions can have monopolies on labor just as a corporation can have a monopoly on goods.  For example, the UAW's held a monopoly on labor in the field of automobiles.

I'd like to add that 'capitalism' is not truly a system in the way that Socialism or Communism are.  Capitalism is what happens when people have freedom.  In a capitalist system anyone is free to do and produce what they want.  They are free to exchange anything they produce and free to purchase what they want.  I'm going to throw in a quote that I think sums up what the free market is about.

    “So long as effective freedom of exchange is maintained, the central feature of the market organization of economic activity is that it prevents one person from interfering with another in respect of most of his activities. The consumer is protected from coercion by the seller because of the presence of other sellers with whom he can deal. The seller is protected from coercion by the consumer because of other consumers to whom he can sell. The employee is protected from coercion by the employer because of other employers for whom he can work, and so on. And the market does this impersonally and without centralized authority.”

    “Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task so well. It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”
    -Milton Friedman Capitalism and Freedom

[monsieurrenard]

Musik_man,

I will stop the quoting pattern because it leads to absolutely no conclusion, and instead takes our arguments out of context.

It seems  to me here that you aren't fully understanding  the situation in China. You speak with the worldview of a smart and educated but obviously young mind. I don't mean to be condescending but that you cannot understand what a wage slave is I think exemplifies what I mean.

There are two kinds of Captialism just like there are two kinds of any other "system:" The one on paper and the one that's actually concrete. I don't know if you've ever taken American history (I won't assume you are American) but over a 100 years ago Captialism stopped being about "pursuit of self-interest through whatever means." Why? Outraged unions, child labor, monopolies, unrealistic work hours, sinking health standards in the food industry, environmental impact (pollution, deforestation, etc...) and so forth. It's the job of the philosopher to idealize a system and its our job to implement it realistically.

It's unresponsible of you to say "You'd much have their workers work for much less than a dollar at farming?" when you're sitting in a comfortable chair in a comfortable home. And once you learn what a wage slave is you'll realize those people have much less opportunities than you do. Wal*Mart shouldn't be taking advantage of the situation.

Some quotes of interest:

On December 15, 2005 China Labor Watch and the National Labor Committee released two reports on Wal-Mart factories in Southern China. One factory manufactures stationary, such as notebooks and holiday cards. The other produces toys, such as battery-operated trucks (see picture above). In both factories workers receive dismal wages, are cramped into hot dormitories and work exhausting hours at an unbelievably fast pace. Workers are working up to thirteen hours a day, six to seven days a week. Workers are denied health insurance, maternity leave, paid holiday leave, marital leave or leave to bury family members. In both factories workers are told exactly what to say to inspectors, making it clear that factory inspections are not working. These factories must be opened to China Labor Watch to conduct independent investigations and thorough worker trainings.

SHENZHEN, China -- Inside the factory, amid clattering machinery and clouds of sawdust, men without earplugs or protective goggles feed wood into screaming electric saws, making cabinets for stereo speakers. Women hunch over worktables, many hands bandaged and few covered by gloves, pressing transistors into circuit boards.

Most of the 2,100 workers here are poor migrants from the countryside who have come to this industrial hub in southern China for jobs that pay about $120 a month. A sign on the wall reminds them of their expendability in a nation with hundreds of millions of surplus workers: "If you don't work hard today, tomorrow you'll have to try hard to look for a job."

Sources: Washington Post, www.chinalaborwatch.org

Nothing that Milton Friedman has said can make this okay.

-Monsieur le Renard

[musik_man]

Monsieurrenard,

I actually am rather young (19,)  but I don't think that this is why I don't understand what a 'wage slave' is.  I don't understand because you haven't given a clear definition of it.  Even the site you linked to admitted it was a nebulous term.  Honestly, I'd group it with terms like 'price gouging.'  Items that people can feel passionately opposed to without really knowing exactly what they are.  Can you give a clear definition of what constitutes a wage slave?

I also can't agree that my positions are due to my youth.  All of the views I hold are the views that most mainstream economists hold.

The items that you list as failures of capitalism really need to be sorted into two groups.  The first are market failures.  This includes monopolies, health standards and environmental impact.  Monopolies because they by definition lack the choice and competition that a free market has.  Health standards because without them, a consumer will lack the knowledge(whether this particular product is safe to eat) to buy the food they want.  Environmental degredation because of ill-defined property rights (ie no one owns the air, so no one has the incentives to keep it clean.)

The other items are not examples of market failures.  An outraged union tells us nothing other than the fact that the union is angry, not whether there's a good reason.  Child labor has nothing to do with corporations.  It has to do with how wealthy a society is.  Studies have shown that as soon developing economies get past survival level incomes, child labor drops very quickly.  Unrealistic work hours is a silly claim.  No one has to work 70 hour weeks.  People do it because they want the money.  Our first world countries are so well off that we'd rather have the free time than the extra income, but if you can barely feed and clothe your family, a 7 day work week is very attractive.  I have no problems with the idea that the markets are imperfect, but it's not as simple as bad situation=market failure.  I need to see a reason why the market isn't able to address this need and then proof that government can meet it better than the market.

As far as US history is concerned, it'd be more accurate to say that the US moved away from a purely Free Market during FDR.  I could go into how absolutely damaging that was to our nation(both in prolonging the Great Depression and in abusing the Constitution) but that would be better saved for another thread.

It's certainly not easy to sit hear and argue that it's ok to pay Chinese workers a low wage.  It'd be much easier to blame a scapegoat for the fact that the world isn't ideal.  If Wal-mart doesn't 'take advantage' of the situation, what will happen? 

1) Corporations won't invest in poor economies.  This will slow down the growth and development of infrastructure and keep the nation poorer for longer.

2) Corporations pay Chinese workers comparable rates to American workers.  As with number one, corporations won't invest in poor nations.  They'd be better off investing in America, since we have a stable government, a more productive work force, and no costs for transportation of goods(assuming they're to be sold here.)

3) Corporations don't pay Chinese workers the same salaries as Americans, but still raise their wages.  If the cost of labor rises in China(without any corresponding increase in productivity,) projects that previously would have been more profitable in China move to America.  China gets reduced investments, and fewer positions in sweat shops would be available(although the ones that do exist would pay better.)  Since sweat-shop jobs are already high-paying compared to the rest of China's economy, this would essentially be a redistribution of wealth from the Chinese that would have had jobs in American-owned factories, to the ones that still have their jobs.  Robbing from the poor to feed the less poor doesn't sound to attractive to me.

[BoliverAllmon]

I heard a statistic recently on bloomberg that said Americans work more hours a week than any other country. even with myself between school and work I have next to no time for myself. i also agree with the statement about child labor. I think it is wrong for us to tell a poor struggling family that they cannot make more money by letting there child work. We did it in America for a long time. Most sons began working with there father at the age of 7 or so.

[prometheus]

Capitalism was meant to balance out governmental power, at least in the eyes Adam Smith. He feared that private power may at some point actually become the problem it was meant to fix. He already warned for this eventhough he must have had a very limited idea about how it would actually turn out. But he did predict that global corporations destroy local economies and ecosystems. He feared that private power would turn into permanent immortal persons. Corporations have more rights than people.
There is a two volume book describing how in the US these laws were being created through non-democratic ways.

Jefferson lived later in a time where private power was already more developed. This is what he said:

"The country is moving towards a single and splendid government of an aristocracy founded on banking institutions and moneyed in corporations. If this tendency continues, it will be the end of democracy and freedom. The few would be riding and ruling over the plundered plowmen and the beggard yomanry"

“Men by their constitution are naturally divided into two parties. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all power from them into the hands of the higher classes. Secondly, those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak and write, they will declare themselves.”


The nightmares of the fathers of capitalism worst nightmares have come true.

Corporations used to be public intrest groups but they have been turned through undemocratic ways, by the government, into immortal persons with vast rights.


And this doesn't even consider the problem of subsidization and protectionism. Adam Smith would not have recognised capitalism in our world.

[musik_man]

Prometheus, perhaps you could show us in what ways Corporations run America?

Boliver, the difference in work hours between Americans and Europeans goes away if you factor in time spent improving private property.  Americans are much more likely to pay others to paint walls, cut grass and other such items.  And of course, we make up for it by working more.

BTW Jefferson and Adams did not live in seperate times.  They were contemporaries.  They literally died within hours of each other(and exactly 50 years after the Declaration of Independence.)  And actually considering that they lived before corporations became a common form of business, neither could have opinions on the matter.

[prometheus]

I meant Adam Smith. Not John Adams.
Actually the second quote of Jefferson is from his speech at the 50th anniversary of the declaration of independence, hours before his death like you said.


Their comments on the subject is clear to me. Smith opposed joint stock companies. Expescially if they became personified, permanent. Like I pointed out. This was his fear already. If he knew how it would have turned out today he would hae been even stronger opposed to this.

Classical libertarians and classical democratic were opposed to private power.

If you look at the top 100 transnationals then 80 of them have a 'nanny state' and 20 of them have been saved from absolute destruction by the 'nanny state'.
According to research: "virtually all appeared to have sought and gained from industrial and/or trade policies [of their home government] at some point," and "at least 20...would not have survived as independent companies if they had not been saved in some way by their governments." Ruigrok, W. (1996) FT, Jan. 5. McQuaid, K. (1994) Uneasy Partners Baltimore-London, Johns Hopkins University Press

The free market was not an aim of itself for people like Adam Smith.

[BoliverAllmon]

Prometheus, perhaps you could show us in what ways Corporations run America?

Boliver, the difference in work hours between Americans and Europeans goes away if you factor in time spent improving private property.  Americans are much more likely to pay others to paint walls, cut grass and other such items.  And of course, we make up for it by working more.

BTW Jefferson and Adams did not live in seperate times.  They were contemporaries.  They literally died within hours of each other(and exactly 50 years after the Declaration of Independence.)  And actually considering that they lived before corporations became a common form of business, neither could have opinions on the matter.

alot of people still do the work themselves. We can't and don't hire others to do the work for us, so the hours still remain the same.

[musik_man]

Ironically, I originally misread 'John Adams' as 'Adam Smith' and responded.  After reading your post again, I edited mine. 

In all honesty, I've never read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, so I'll have to take your word for what his opinions were; however, I don't see why that matters.  Adam Smith, as brilliant as he was, was hardly infallible.  His ideas on absolute advantage in free trade, for example, were proven wrong by David Ricardo.

The examples that you list are in no way connected to the free market.  Government subsidies and trade protection are anathema to a free marketer.  The solution to these problems is of course to keep a free market.  I have a hard time thinking that an expansion of government will make subidies less of a problem.

[prometheus]

Try to find a relevant politician that argues for free markets that is really against subsidization.

I mean, those corporations also argue for free market; Though love for everyone else while they get state support. Free markets get abused just like any other power system. Capitalism is just as much an utopia as communism. Like monsieurrenard said; there is the one on paper and the one in the real world. They differ greatly.

The multinationals just get the best from free markets and from subsidization. I don't see what problem has been solved. We had monarchical tyrranies way back then. So we got rid of them. We tried to organise in forms of companies. And then the same type upper class that ruled through royalty now rules through private power. Private power is as tyrranical as monarchs were. We can be proud about our partly democratic governments but power is being shifted away from governments because they are democratic and to multinationals because they are tyrranical.

[pianistimo]

agreed to a point about certain things with monseiurenard and prometheus, but tend to side more with musik-man and boliver because here the corporations are taxed (and not subsidized) just like everyone else.  there's really not the amount of subsidizing corporations by politicians as people think.  everyone is broke around here - that i can see.  they (corporations) have to have foresight financially because things change every two years in terms of tax laws and how to do business.  and, yes, we have entered the great 'beast' too.  but, on limited terms.  we don't want to give up our national identity. 

CLAWS seems a little humorous to me because it says 'we're pro-leisure.'  maybe the top echelon here is, too.  but, in american - if u strike it rich - it isn't because u've gotten kickbacks from the government (although the more children u have the more $500. dependent u can claim on ur tax return - but how much is that really going to help with expenditures for each child over a lifetime considering doctors, dentists, food, clothing, shelter, and all the things they seem to 'need').

maybe i understand financial things in a primitive way (as our forefathers) - but the goal isn't to get rich for most people.  it's to cover basic needs at the rate of inflation and to cope with surprise price gouging.  right now, people are burdened by gas prices.  it's eating into the extra income we usually have to pay unexpected bills, or eat out, and sometimes groceries at the end of the month.  so, we cut back and try to think of more efficient or economical ways to do things.  it's probably a good thing that there seem to be financial cycles--but with the government debt and individual debt as high as it is -- america may be headed for less of a national flavor and more foreigners taking over everything - so even though we think we are autonomous - we may be decieved and find ourselves suddenly dependent in many more areas than we thought.  i heard on the radio something about our dependence on the japanese yen.  that if they had a deflation - our dollar would soon follow because of how much they've invested here.
 

[pianistimo]

ps  i don't want to start this fight all over again since monseiurrenard is a charmer (and i don't want to fight with him either)...but wal mart was handing out smiley faces at twice the usual rate last night.  this one lady was handing out two at a time.  it just doesn't feel right to have someone trying to put stickers on u. 

gustav climt's painting.  135 million.  an american bought it?  at least someone around here is rich.  it's called 'portrait of adele bloch-bauer.  just saw it on the news this morning and thought it was a beautiful painting.  i really had no idea of the background of the painting. 
www.artdaily.com/section/lastweek/index.asp?int_sec=11&int_new=16241&int_modo=2

[pianistimo]

altman, who is the 90 year old niece of bloch-bauer sold it to ronald s. lauder (relative of estee lauder) and it now resides in east manhattan in an art museum.  i guess when i see things like this - it makes me glad that someone is rich in america.  otherwise the painting might have left again.  private ownership is good.

[BoliverAllmon]

there are 270 million people in america I think it is okay for some to be millionaires. We are not a third world country, but we don't all drive corvettes

[musik_man]

Prometheus, you can't just proclaim that a theory is imperfect and act like it proves you right.  The burden is upon you to demonstrate why the rules don't apply in this case.  Please show us how the laws of supply and demand do not apply to low-wage labor.  The only way I could see this occuring is if employers conspired to pay poor people less, but I see no evidence of this.  I doubt you have any yourself (and no a vague dislike of business is not evidence.)

There may be utopians among capitalists(I believe they're called 'libertarians'), but that proves nothing.  There is a difference between saying capitalism is perfect and saying that it's the best system around. 

You apparently think that the problem with multinationals is subsidies.  Let me ask you then, how is shrinking government not the answer to this problem?  Government is the problem.  The more a government interferes in the private sector, the greater the incentives for corporations to try and corrupt it.

As for your challenge about free market politicians, how about this example.  The line item veto that congress passed in the 90's.  This gave the president the power to veto individual sections of budget bills.  The point was to keep pork(which consists of funding useless projects in a congressperson's district) from being attached to bills that the president had to sign(like budget bills, highway bills.)  What about NAFTA? or more recently CAFTA?  The last 100 years have seen a strong move away from trade protectionism.

Now, please, please, explain to me exactly how we are ruled by the upper class.  No vague ideas.  I want concrete examples.