After talking with a friend who is an economist, and as a partial although incomplete economist in training I had to agree with his argument of altruism being inferior to taking a selfish stance in life.

Nothing organizes labor and resources as well as the market. Where there is cheap labor that can be utilized (this is a big assumption that needs to be explained), then selfishness will bring about a greater degree of change than trying to directly help the poor. Me buying goods produced in China or India will bring about more change than trying to help the impoverished and poor more than simply trying to give or deliver money directly to poor and impoverished people. This is because that money that I am paying some company to produce some good will go much farther and improve more lives than had I simply gave it directly to some poor individual. Regarding the assumption that labor can and will be utilized assumes first that labor exists in a politically ready and willing environment. So, for example, a state that is oppressive to opening up its national, private, and inefficient industries will not be able to benefit from the efficiency of the invisible hand. This is a serious issue that needs global support in facilitating open and educated leaders to the benefits of cheap labor that some do not comprehend. The knee-jerk reaction of any politician to benefitting from the cheap labor that they represent is a simple, 'fuck you'. Most politicians aren't educated enough or impartial to realize that cheap labor is a good thing in the short run because it attracts investment. Wages remain low in the 3rd world due to discriminatory immigration policies in western countries and if there was free movement of people between countries the poor countries would receive much larger gains in wages. So, if you're going to attack low wages, then you might as well attack immigration policies that allow the rich to live behind gates communities.

Now given, that the state is open to external markets and the subsequent investments made by another market, the organizing power of money will target the most in need by the amount of labor they are able to produce. No matter how superior machines are to humans, there will be industries that machines cannot compete with in terms of the low cost and lack of maintenance of human beings producing some good. For example, we will most likely never see machines producing simple goods like toys and clothing no matter how low the competitive cost of human beings. There is simply an absolute advantage (at least within my lifetime) of humans producing some cheap good rather than having a machine do it. Some services are immune to mechanization of labor, like plumbing, electricians, HVAC, repair, home building, auto repair, and teaching.

So, my point is that investing and buying goods from another country makes your efforts to help the poor the most because it does not create dependency on government funds and brings about education in terms of job skills and creates competition that further drives down cost (in the short term). China and India are countries that have displayed profound economic growth due to the above-mentioned conditions. The amount of poverty in China has dropped astoundingly due to neo-liberalism and open and free markets.

A common theme is that a few managers benefit disproportionately from said conditions of exploiting cheap labor; however, the net effect is that poverty, disease, and death from poverty have likewise gone down to a similar if not greater measure. Your employer might not care about you, as you're a simple substitute in the grand scheme of things; but, the person buying from you wants you to be there, producing and living to produce the goods s/he demands from your employer.

So, in essence, be happy that you're able to post here or elsewhere at leisure, without having to toil to make bread and milk, and don't feel sorry for the poor. I mean, the state of mind of feeling sorry for the poor is important; but, not very productive. You buying goods produced in China or India is a better response. — Question

After talking with a friend who is an economist, and as a partial although incomplete economist in training I had to agree with his argument of altruism being inferior to taking a selfish stance in life. — Question

This is a serious issue that needs global support in facilitating open and educated leaders to the benefits of cheap labor that some do not comprehend. — Question

Is your friend Gordon Gekko? — Galuchat

So psychopaths control the markets; tell me something I don't know. Is your friend Gordon Gekko?
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0012282/quotes — Galuchat

Why waste time educating leaders? Just bribe, blackmail, or threaten them. There's plenty of money available for those kind of things, because it's not wasted on labour costs. — Galuchat

The only reason why poor countries remain poor is due to poor leadership and corruption. — Question

friend who is an economist — Question

An economist is to an entrepreneur like a boxing historian is to Muhammad Ali ;) — Agustino

Not having killer instinct. — Agustino

'The market' conjures an image of some version of the miner selling ore to the blacksmith, who sells tools to the farmer, who sells food them both, and money or barter regulates supply and demand such that everyone provides value to others and receives equivalent value from others. — unenlightened

Rather, the mine owner, the landowner, the 'entrepreneurs' literally take a cut between every exchange between others, impoverishing them all. — unenlightened

Again, the image one is supposed to have of the entrepreneur is of the shopkeeper, or travelling trader, facilitating the exchange between others and taking in exchange the means of their own livelihood. But in fact, the market makers are market fixers. — unenlightened

Not so much a marketplace then, as a battlefield, where rather than add value to the community, one seeks to take value from others. — unenlightened

Nothing organizes labor and resources as well as the market. — Question

Not so much a marketplace then, as a battlefield, where rather than add value to the community, one seeks to take value from others. And a battlefield is a place that adds no value, but destroys it, and redistributes the remains on an arbitrary and unequal basis. — unenlightened

Which is fair game unenlightened. The entrepreneur assumed the risk, bought the mine (or rights to exploit its resources), hired the miners (who have a guaranteed pay at the end of the day), negotiated the deals, established a distribution network for the products, hoped the products would sell in sufficient volume, etc. — Agustino

whereas starving miners, dead miners underground, miners dying of respiratory disease in poverty, are commonplace; these are the people taking the real risks. — unenlightened

But starving entrepreneurs who have lost everything,throwing themselves out of their high rise offices — unenlightened

And that would be Fascism. — Galuchat

Even those who succeed, they fail more times than they are successful. — Agustino

You confirm my point. If you can fail, and fail and fail and then succeed, then failure is not a serious risk. Clearly the penalty for failure is carried by others, who lose their livelihood, their health their pensions, their lives. — unenlightened

That is Fascism, I think you would have to say; I'm not talking about something that could possibly happen somewhere, but what is happening all the time and everywhere. — unenlightened

So, my point is that investing and buying goods from another country makes your efforts to help the poor the most because it does not create dependency on government funds and brings about education in terms of job skills and creates competition that further drives down cost (in the short term). China and India are countries that have displayed profound economic growth due to the above-mentioned conditions. The amount of poverty in China has dropped astoundingly due to neo-liberalism and open and free markets.

by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

And by the way, you're not addressing the fact that most miners would not even WANT to be entrepreneurs, much less succeed as ones. — Agustino

...the entrepreneur has no family and tugs away at it for many many years, only after years of hard toil to be rewarded with riches, that other snitches try to take away from him afterwards. If anyone doesn't have it fair, then it's certainly the entrepreneur. — Agustino

But there is a glut, and their value does not decline because they rig the market. — unenlightened

Yes, there is a glut who barely make a living out of it while working 10x harder than your average employee. — Agustino

But the clever business person get's around these things by setting up another, 'arms length' company to employ another 49 people with no health insurance, and another, and another... — unenlightened

And then they earn, not a bare living, not an average wage, not 10 times the average wage, not 100 times the average wage, but an obscene and unjustifiable amount. — unenlightened

Bernie is right to suggest that healthcare is one of the costs of labour, just as paying them enough to feed and shelter themselves is. And if you can't afford that, you can't afford to employ people. — unenlightened

That lady was full of crap, as was the idiot making the comments — Cavacava

Don't most (not all) companies sponsor insurance plans, with perhaps some contributions to the plan but typically very little contribution at the level being discussed here. — Cavacava

An employer should pay what the employee is willing to work for. Why should it be otherwise? I think even minimum wage levels are a problem. It makes starting a business more difficult. — Agustino

there's this totally idiotic notion around that the job of the entrepreneur is to create jobs. — Agustino

I who work as an entrepreneur (well self-employed really) get 0 benefits atm. Tough life being an entrepreneur eh? But I'm not complaining, unlike some people. — Agustino

It encourages an economy of desperation. — unenlightened

And of course low wages lead to low consumption which is bad for business. — unenlightened

It should be otherwise because it is unfair — unenlightened

I don't think I have forwarded that notion; — unenlightened

it is generally something that employers use to trumpet their social value, like they're doing their workforce a favour. — unenlightened

Yes you are complaining; your whole response to me is about how hard done by you and your fellow heroic business folk are. As a former business person myself, my heart bleeds, of course. — unenlightened

Can you explain why you consider it unfair? Granted that desperation is primarily something spiritual, and not material — Agustino

Well I don't know what kind of a business you used to run, or why you don't think it was hard (or at least harder than being an employee). — Agustino

If you happen to be a Jew fleeing Nazi Germany, or some other flavour of refugee, you are physically desperate and helpless and depend on the kindness of strangers in a strange land. — unenlightened

The conditions that allow and encourage exploitation and unfair dealing are many and varied; it is not the case that there is some economic system that is immune or that there is some market place that is inherently fair. Justice is something we can impose on the world to the extent that we value it, not something natural. — unenlightened

tax — unenlightened