sup /pol/
>>56545541
based big bill
The easy argument is that the owners found the money and organization to create the mine, but that's just the government being lazy and not getting into the resource extraction industry.
>Be me
>Work hard and make some cash
>Take a loan out from the bank to buy some land
>Buy a large plot of land and learn there's gold under it
>Hire a few people to dig it out for me
>All of a sudden they say that they own the mine.
Why are socialist such scum?
>>56547973
Bam
>>56545541
Nobody's making them work for the mine owners
But it's easy to believe in sharing when you have nothing. Fuck socialists, lazy scum.
>>56547973
Unless the mine owner is somehow operating a one man business, he will always be only partially responsible for the wealth created. There's really no way around that.
>>56547973
why not share in cost and wealth with them?
>>56548354
The workers are paid, you retard.
>>56548254
>Nobody's making them work for the mine owners
Actually they were
Because of the Company Store system getting the miners and their families into debt, when the father died in a mine collapse his kid would have to go work in the mine in a futile self perpetuating effort to pay off the debt
>>56547973
Because it is easier to steal shit than actually make shit.
>>56548408
That choice is up to the mine owner
>>56548254
>Nobody's making them work for the mine owners
They either get a job, or they don't eat. Back in those days the other mine owner was just as likely to let his workers dig in equally bad conditions at equally unacceptable wages.
I can guarantee you 100-150 years ago people involved with Unions and Socialist movements were not lazy, they worked their asses off all day for nothing. People in Haywood's day were victims of genuine exploitation.
>>56545541
Perhaps if the laborer would like more access to capital he can offer to be paid in equity instead of cash :^)
>>56548408
Why not shut the fuck up until they buy shares in the company?
>>56548707
>they either got a job or didn't eat
Wow its nice to know people back then were about as self reliant as people now
>>56548707
Oh I'm sorry
I didn't realize the mining industry was the sole source of employment in the USA
There's nothing wrong with *private* unionization of labor for legitimate grievances, but claiming that you own the property you produce is stupid.
>>56548510
At wages not decided by the workers, and the big guy in charge always wants to make a buck. Naturally, for the mine owner to do that he will give his workers less than what they produced.
>>56548674
And if he doesn't make that choice, it is immoral. Every mansion purchased by that big Capitalist represents a waste of wealth that could be used for the welfare of the lest fortunate.
>>56548408
The 13th Amendment says I'm not allowed to not pay them for their work.
>>56548408
>why not share in cost and wealth with them?
Those are called investors. If the workers wants to put some money they make off their job into the company they work for they're more than welcome too.
>>56548354
People are getting paid for an amount that they agree with if they're still working there.
>>56545541
It's okay miners will be phased in the coming days and people will shift around like zombies with no direction in life
Sure there may be more artists... Maybe but you'll also have nice underclass almost completely dependent on the government
Think niggers only slightly better because this underclass actually won't have any jobs
That or a bunch of them die mysteriously
We won't have to worry about who owns what or worker rights or any such things
>>56549116
>At wages not decided by the workers
They agree to them when they take the job, dipshit
If they think it's unfair they can look elsewhere, they're not forced to work for anyone
>And if he doesn't make that choice, it is immoral
You're not the judge of what people should do with what they earn.
>>56548588
And with that debt you couldn't just decide to leave!
In case people don't understand what the Company Store was it was a model of indentured servitude
You were charged the use of all mine equipment
You were charged the use of mine housing
You were charged the use of the mines grocery store (and you can bet no outside competition was allowed)
And guess what: it all added up to more than what you could ever make of the couple cents per kilo or ton you managed to haul out
Ensuring you got into permanent debt to the mine
Ensuring you didn't leave
Ensuring your kids followed you down into the mine
>>56549116
>At wages not decided by the workers
You want workers to decide their own wages? kek
>hurr durr profit is exploitation
go to bed marx
>>56548958
Well theres always cannibalism I suppose
>>56549246
>Those are called investors.
Worker owned. Ever hear of it?
>>56549116
>lest fortunate
I could explain in depth how giving poor people money won't make them less poor, but I fear it would be a waste of energy.
>>56549116
Actually I'd say that the mansions are actually very stimulating to the economy
People have to build and maintain that shit same with yachts
The one thing celebs actually tend to do right is spend the money they make and not just sit on it
/pol/ should watch this before they talk out of their arse about labor conditions in Murika at the turn of the century
>>56545541
That's a cool quote but the 'weird alchemy' is just that they finance all of it.
>>56549442
investing on societies infrastructure is stimulating to the economy
>>56549382
Or you know hunting and farming since this is fucking America
>>56547973
>>Take a loan out from the bank to buy some land
>>Buy a large plot of land and learn there's gold under it
>>Hire a few people to dig it out for me
>>All of a sudden they say that they own the mine.
You own the surface, the mineral rights belong to the state.
>>56549415
Yes, I have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Leyland
Did not work so well.
>>56549574
>hunting
>on someone elses property
oh okay
>farming
where do you get the land? the money?
you walk off the mine, with no money, and go buy some farmland?
>>56549351
>If they think it's unfair they can look elsewhere, they're not forced to work for anyone
Says who? Everyone has to work to make a living. And unless there's a law in place, there's no guarantee a worker could find work at an acceptable wage.
>>56549362
>You want workers to decide their own wages
Worker's councils, some form of democracy. That's all Socialism is, the next step to abolishing monarchy/feudalism.
>>56549650
Mondragon
Recovered Factories
WinCo
>>56549626
You could buy the mineral rights from the country. Although it's usually very expensive.
>>56549494
Lovely propaganda about mongoloids that, were it not for physical labor, would have no use in this life at all.
Troll harder, faggot.
>>56549626
>stake mining claim
>own the mineral rights
checkmate atheists
>>56549556
So is building a mansion no?
Not to mention the wealthy are who built pretty much all of the first big libraries in America so its not like they don't invest in the community
In fact rich people are a big reason why my state relevance since they got the railway built down here for their vacations
>>56549494
>written and directed by John Sayles
>winner of an Edgar award
>a prize awarded by the Mystery Writers of America
>an organization based in New York City
>>56549740
>buying the mineral rights from the government
and who do you think they favor? some dirt poor workers co-op? or a mining executive they went to harvard with?
>>56549861
And?
>>56549861
edgar award does not appear anywhere on that page what are you blathering about?
>>56549894
Are you retarded?
He owns the economic rent of the land. The right to extract resources and use the land for economic activity.
If anything, you should take the Georgist position that he did not create the gold and therefore the surplus value created by nature should be redistributed to the citizens who constitute the state and own the land in allodium.
>communist shit about workers doing the work but not owning anything
The funny part is, smart miners and oil workers who realized this started their own companies and competed, driving more growth and expansion.
Capitalism, ho!
>>56549687
Oh any old property
Literally not that hard since the government owned most of the land and had no way to govern it
Farming is a bit more of an investment but even wasn't an impossibility if the worker was wise with money (usually people like farm hands either eventually purchased land or were forever wasting their money on booze, women, and gambling)
>>56549740
>You could buy the mineral rights from the country. Although it's usually very expensive.
It's more or less been impossible for 100 years as the government got smart and holds all the wealth (minerals) in trust for the people and leases access to interested parties.
But because the private interests are such fucking cry babies they have pressured the government (the people) into not developing their own resources and going into profitable business. Instead they get a few pennies on the dollar leasing the rights to private operators that extract the natural wealth of the nation for the profit of a limited few.
>>56549728
>Everyone has to work to make a living
Obviously, but they have a choice of their employer if they have labor to sell.
It's a core tenet of capitalism called "competition," look into it
>there's no guarantee a worker could find work at an acceptable wage.
"Acceptable wage" is a buzzword, there's no objective measure of what it means.
Furthermore, a worker is welcome to open his own business and do it better if he's so inclined to try.
Anyone who offers an "acceptable wage" by your standards would quickly suck up all the most valuable laborers
>>56548408
That's called wages.
>>56550115
As keked as Canada is I'm glad I'm still able to stake claims
>>56549914
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-gaymarriage-newyork-idUSTRE75N5ZA20110629
>>56549974
Also Vincent Canby writes for the New York Times.
>>56550133
>Obviously, but they have a choice of their employer if they have labor to sell.
>you have a choice as to who will exploit you
lolbertarian freedom :^)
And you're forgetting the company store practices common on the mines
>>56550185
>As keked as Canada is I'm glad I'm still able to stake claims
Nope. Check you laws. After the construction of the railroads the government stopped giving away rights to minerals. Everything belongs either to the government the RR trusts or a limited number of private freeholders.
You can't just claim mineral rights in Canada don't be stupid.
>>56550306
And the background for this board is RED!
>>56550329
I own two mining claims. I don't feel particularly obligated to check the laws in this case.
>>56550133
>open his own business
This desu
In fact that shit was significantly easier back then since there was WAY less government hoops
You literally just bought a plot of land looked for oil/resources (maybe built a farm) and exploited it
It's way harder to do that kinda shit nowadays
Just being a small business owner is hard
Fuck some industries are so tied up in government control that you already have to be rich to break into it (pharmaceuticals)
>>56547973
They just are, m8.
>>56548254
Try not having a job in the early 1900s. See how that goes. Even today unemployment is shitty.
>>56550391
>I own two mining claims. I don't feel particularly obligated to check the laws in this case.
How did you get those mining claims, what is your location?
The miners are either:
A. Being paid by the owner to mine and has an agreement to a certain % if found
B. Paying for the privilege to mine on the land
>>56550323
>you have a choice as to who will exploit you
What a stupid argument. If you don't want to work for anyone and be "exploited" (i.e. work for an agreed upon wage) then open your own damn company
Or would it be a better idea to nationalize industry, so you can be exploited without an option for who you work for?
The company store practice was unfair but not nearly as common as you'd like to think
You could probably get a handful of examples at most, they were in fact quite rare. Especially after private unionization.
Not to mention that anyone who agreed to working for a company that exercised such an obviously one-sided agreement is a fucking idiot
>>56549650
>cherry picking
>>56550355
It's more of a pastel pink, but I'm glad you aren't color blind. That would suck, to be liberal AND color blind.
>>56548408
Because ENTERPRISE is worth a whole lot more than performing menial labour. Fuck off with your what's mine is yours shit.
It works great for Medicare and Schooling and does not work at all in business.
> unions
Not even once
>>56550649
>Refusing to work for one person means you can't work for anyone
That's not how labor markets work
>>56549832
Ben Franklin founded the first public library in Philadelphia (possibly first in the country), and he didn't have money pouring out of his ears exactly.
>>56550750
It varies between provinces/territories. In BC you can just hop on a computer and draw your claim on a map if you're licensed as a free miner. In the Yukon, you have to physically put posts up on the area you're claiming.
I've done it in both.
>>56545541
>Union leader
Big surprise.
>>56550077
>calling people communist automatically refutes them
And why exactly does all the profit from those industries need to end up in the hands of a few? Why should workers not get their share in the ownership?
>>56545541
The miners in this situation are being paid by the owner of the mine, the gold in that land is already the mine owner's property before it's ever removed from the earth.
>literally complaining that you aren't allowed to steal from your boss
>>56545541
>I don't know what property rights is
>I don't know what bargaining is
>>56549650
>>56549731
Whether its a good idea or not, the point is that they have that as an option. The idea that menial laborers magically own anything they work on is ridiculous. By that logic Manwell owns my lawn.
The capitalist owns the mine because he provided the start-up capital and without him the enterprise would not exist.
>>56545541
The shit would have stayed in the fucking ground if not of the mine owner who risked a lot on the chance the enterprise would be successful.
What would people prefer? The gold stayed where it was so nobody could benefit from the wealth extracting it created?
Fuck.
>>56550133
>Furthermore, a worker is welcome to open his own business and do it better if he's so inclined to try
Obviously only a minority of people can ever own a business, unless it's a cooperative.
>Anyone who offers an "acceptable wage" by your standards would quickly suck up all the most valuable laborers
Seriously, are you totally ignorant of 19th and early 20th century history? Your ideal economic system was there in all industrial nations and yet it didn't work anything like you're saying it would. Oh yes, the Capitalists bumped the wages up all right, they bumped the wages up when the Socialists and Unions started popping up. They threw them a bone and it was efficient enough in most places to avoid revolution.
>>56550115
>leasing the rights
>private interests
>leasing
yeah, how can you not see its still the governments fault fuckface
>>56551252
Not necessarily the only other option. The gold could be extracted while the workers get a more proportional share of the profit.
>>56551252
Of course the mine owner deserves credit if he did some genuinely skillful and productive work, but the workers should be his equals, not slaves earning him wealth. And no, the workers are not the equals of the Capitalists in our system. Read the rest of the thread.
>>56550936
>It varies between provinces/territories. In BC you can just hop on a computer and draw your claim on a map if you're licensed as a free miner. In the Yukon, you have to physically put posts up on the area you're claiming.
>I've done it in both.
The Mineral Tenure Act doesn't allow you to just claim rights by clicking on a map otherwise someone would have claimed all of the rights to minerals in BC long ago.
You are leaving out huge sections of the process, ie the part where you lease the rights from the government.
>>56551034
Voluntary choices, subjective values and time preference.
>>56551309
>Seriously, are you totally ignorant of 19th and early 20th century history? Your ideal economic system was there in all industrial nations and yet it didn't work anything like you're saying it would. Oh yes, the Capitalists bumped the wages up all right, they bumped the wages up when the Socialists and Unions started popping up. They threw them a bone and it was efficient enough in most places to avoid revolution.
no you are the ignorant one. union membership in america has never been shit, nor did it ever correlate with wages
and for how supposedly shitty working conditions were, people still FLOCKED to these oppressive cities and factories, because I don't know, it was actually an improvement over the shitty farm life
so two questions. does consent exist? and is there a difference between sex and rape?
>>56551530
No, they should not be his equals. The value of a given piece of work is determined by supply and demand and anyone can do manual labor, therefore manual labor is next to worthless.
Every time we try and switch from a system based on merit and economic law that works, to a system based on 'fairness' it ends with gulags, shortages, and surpluses, because reality doesn't run on feelings.
>>56545541
because they own the land and paid for your equipment you commie piece of shit
you should be happy you're even allowed on the land in the first place.
>>56548354
the mine owners paid for all of the equipment, paid for all of the land, and paid for all of the mineral rights
he doesn't need the workers, the workers need him.
>>56548408
its called wages retard
>>56548588
>>56548707
nobody forced them into that employment in the first place
there were plenty of farms they could have worked on.
>>56549116
>At wages not decided by the workers
then maybe they should have negotiated better or found somewhere else to work
>>56549415
worker owned businesses are all shit and only competitive at small scales. if they were actually competitive in a free market, they'd be everywhere.
>>56549494
>muh poor working conditions 100 years ago
listen you little faggot, the working conditions in 1905 were a thousand times better than the working conditions 30 years prior
at least these people were actually able to get a fucking job.
>>56550323
>muh work is exploitation
go starve in a ditch wretch
work is work. if you want something in this life you have to suffer a little for it, nothing is simply handed to you.
>>56551434
>yeah, how can you not see its still the governments fault fuckface
It's the government's fault for leasing the rights rather than trying to establish it's own public extraction? Yeah because private industry never takes the government to court for them trying to provide services to the citizens claiming damage in the the form of lost potential profits.
>>56551574
>otherwise someone would have claimed all of the rights to minerals in BC long ago.
You have to show that you're actively working on the claim to keep it. You can't just buy it and let it sit. You have to keep a pretty detailed record of how much stuff you're pulling out of the ground.
It's not worth purchasing mineral rights as a larger business to places where there's nothing profitable to mine, or the access is limited. It works out fine for people like me who run smaller scale operations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGdH7iGNqlY
>>56551309
>Obviously only a minority of people can ever own a business, unless it's a cooperative.
You're correct in that assessment, but nothing prevents people from opening their own business.
Performance and structure permitting, they can out-do their competitors and be successful
>are you totally ignorant of 19th and early 20th century history
That's funny, I was going to ask you the same thing.
The "Robber Baron epidemic" is largely a myth, sans a few cherry-picked examples.
The reality is that the period provided the highest rate of growth in technology and prosperity in history. Those conditions allowed the USA to become the leading industrial power in the world.
>>56551485
>>56551530
Shit niggers labour is subject to the forces of supply and demand.
Lots of cunts can swing a pick axe.
Are you being intentionally dense or do you seriously think like this.
I mean c'mon, it's 2015.
>>56551741
>listen you little faggot, the working conditions in 1905 were a thousand times better than the working conditions 30 years prior
>hurrr be glad it's not worse! you should be GRATEFUL that things are this bad!
Also
>negotiations
That's what unions are for. The problem was that business owners regularly tried to shut down unions and jail their members. There were miniature wars that killed hundreds.
>>56549728
Workers councils = unions? I am okay with that concept, it gives workers more leverage in negotiations. Again, they would have to be competing against nonunionized competitors so they can't set their wages too high but if they can find a happy medium then good for them.
>>56545541
They own the land, therefore they own the gold, and the workers are being paid for their labor. That said, treating your workers like shit is bad business.
Threads like these always remind me that these 14 year old "socialist" kids are fucking retarded.
>>56551794
>You have to show that you're actively working on the claim to keep it. You can't just buy it and let it sit. You have to keep a pretty detailed record of how much stuff you're pulling out of the ground.
That's the key word, buy. Or rather buy the rights under set conditions.
You don't just get to claim it as your own and say that because you called it it's yours. As was alluded to in >>56550185 .
If you owned the rights rather than rented them from the government you wouldn't have to develop it and keep a process log. It would just be yours.
>>56551741
wew
>>56551941
>>hurrr be glad it's not worse! you should be GRATEFUL that things are this bad!
IT WAS BETTER THAN EVERYTHING THAT CAME BEFORE IT
your whole position is tantamount to complaining about modern working conditions because in the future they might be better and completely ignoring how shitty things were in the near past.
you focus on one tiny aspect and throughout all context except what came after.
were the conditions unimaginably shitty? yes absolutely, but the conditions only a few decades before that were much shittier.
go back far enough and you have most people completely unemployed and the vast majority that were employed were practically slaves who were paid with a fraction of the food they produced. but nooooooooooooooo lets not compare the industrial revolution with serfdom, lets compare it with the fucking space age and look like retards.
why in the fuck do you think half, FUCKING HALF, of Ireland fled to america to work for a single dollar a day? it sure as fuck wasn't because the conditions in america were worse.
>muh unions needed for negotiations
you can walk into any mcdicks in america and negotiate with the manager for your wage. you don't a union to have your wages negotiated for you unless you're an idiot or a baby.
>>56549359
Don't waste your time explaining reality to /pol/. The hivemind is made of libertarian children who wouldn't know the real work if it bit their tiny dicks off.
>>56552319
If you owned your property and didn't have to pay property tax on it, then you would own it rather than just renting it from the government too.
What's your point?
>>56551702
>because I don't know, it was actually an improvement over the shitty farm life
This doesn't imply it was in any way acceptable your arguments have less and less substance. Mine are too but I'm trying to quickly juggle between all these repliers here.
>>56551727
>Every time we try and switch from a system based on merit and economic law that works, to a system based on 'fairness' it ends with gulags, shortages, and surpluses, because reality doesn't run on feelings.
Monarchy isn't meritocracy, though in some very rare cases such as Napoleon (Carnegie in the Capitalist case) men can rise despite the odds.
>>56551741
Well this might be the most batshit crazy post in the whole thread so far.
>the mine owners paid for all of the equipment, paid for all of the land, and paid for all of the mineral rights.
And where did all this wealth he used come from? Most likely inherited, in some extremely rare situations the big Capitalist started off with wealth he earned, but as he expands the rest of the wealth acquired is mostly due to the labor of his workers.
>nobody forced them into that employment in the first place
>then maybe they should have negotiated better or found somewhere else to work
I've been over these points already. Your notion that within the Capitalist system worker exploitation in somehow impossible is nothing more than a Utopian fantasy.
>>56551847
Friedman was no historian my friend, it's best if you don't take everything he says as the word of god. Even as a Leftie I never bought into the cult of Marx myself.
>>56552831
Get a job you lazy fuck.
>>56548408
Because there will be someone who will do it for less
>>56552865
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ttbj6LAu0A
work is not exploitation
there is nothing without sacrfice
if you don't like your job, than quit and start your own business.
>>56552865
>This doesn't imply it was in any way acceptable
thats why you need to answer these questions. does consent exist? is there a difference between sex and rape?
>>56545541
ITT
How many times can I try to justify being a gibsmedat nigger?
>>56547973
As a geologist I will explain how it actually works.
I can get hired by a firm looking for mineral resources. I've trained pretty well, I know how to find pretty much anything if I have access to the right equipment or if I have enough time.
I CAN find stuff on my own. A colleague of mine did just that about 2 years ago. He found copper, silver, and gold in an area which had previously been unexplored using water chemistry and sluicing
So what do we do then?
We either sit on the information and do nothing.
Sell the information to a company so they can prospect.
Or as you say, take out a loan to buy the ... yeah, we don't do that.
It costs tens of millions of dollars to mine. Your
>hire a few people to dig it out for me
is laughable at best.
Don't believe me? There's tens of thousands of mines for sale. Why haven't you gone out and bought one? There's minerals in them I guarantee you. Even if most of the gold and silver is gone there's money in them.
Don't believe me? Here you go sweetheart
http://minelistings.com/mines-and-claims-for-sale/
>>56554475
At what point did I say it was cheap?
>>56554867
When you pretended that people can find gold on their property and hire a few guys to dig it up.
The point I made is the cost is so prohibitive the only people who can purchase and mine resources are people who are already rich.
Money begets money. The rich get richer, blah blah blah, this is an untenable situation, we cannot keep this up forever, it's ridiculous you people think we can.
OP's quote is 100% accurate.
>>56545541
that wierd alchemy is called infrastructure, real estate and financial.
Fucking Bill, marx's theory of value is proven false.
sure
>the operational fictionally mechanized monetary system causes real estate and financial infrastructure to flow into the hands of a select few
hmmm, what rhymes with few..?
get a grip you aussie shrimpfucker
>>56555247
>The rich get richer, blah blah blah, this is an untenable situation,
Right, that's why by the age of 21 I bought a mobile crane and own my own crane business. Get fucked. It's extremely easy to make money. Just finish high school, live at home until you have a decent amount of savings, buy a place instead of renting, and don't have a child before getting married.
>>56550910
What are you talking about? He was one of the few that had a printing press, essentially corning the market with Poor Richard's Almanac.
He also sold his inventions, like the fucking lightning rod.
>Capitalism
>company pays for the rights to explore/extract minerals from an area
>company ends up destroying the environment
>government fines the company and revokes their contract
>company sues the government for lost future profits, and asks for half a billion dollars
>government spends millions in taxpayer money fighting it in court
>ends up paying $50m to the company
This isn't even the future you chose. It's the present you currently live in.
