They are guaranteed. You'd be suprised of how much diversity in food and beverages just single companies own. For example Pepsi does not only own its famous soda Pepsi it also owns Quaker oats, Gatorade, Frito-lays, Tropicana. And up unitl recently it owned fast-food chains like KFC, Taco bell, and Pizza hut. Some goes with Clothing companies like Old navy, The Gap, Ambercrombie etc. People may think that if they dont like a certain product they will go buy from somewhere else, little do they know the place they stopped going to because of "value" also owns the place they now go to as an alternative. That's why they diversify it and have seperate franchises all under the same roof. It's a marketing strategy.

First of all, Don Pope, slave labor was not "free".

Slaves had to be bought, fed, clothed, and housed

And in the north during the time of slavery, their manufacturing-based economy, which did not depend on slavery, was far healthier than the agriculturally-based economy of the south. That's one of the main reasons why the south lost the war.

If unskilled workers were paid more, then prices would be higher, but then people in the workforce would have more to spend, so the effect would kind of cancel itself out and corporations would still make a profit.

And I still don't see where unemployment is a necessary part of capitalism.

fuck this list
it depends often where exactly you live in those countries

but i agree with "4. Netherland", the country, where prostitution and weed is legal - it must be in the Top 6

Slave labor was free that's why they were called "Slaves" And no they were not fed, clothed and housed the slaves had to build their own houses, and mend their own gardens to grow their own food. And mend their own clothes from cotton.

First of all slavery started before the country even became a country. Im talking about the money that started capitalism came from the very first slave labors. How do you think the North even became Industrialized? From Triangular Trade and the slaves! If they didn't have the slaves to get the raw materials for them to sell to europe america wouldn't have developed.

Yes but that's not going to ever happen and I bet everyone here knows that. Their risking losing profit from losing customers, It's working fine the way it is for those companies to exploit the minimun wage workers and get rich off them, so why would they change it?

This is the most important part Plaw, If they have a percentage of unemployment so when their current minimum wage workers go on strike and demand higher pay and benefits etc. They can just fire them and hire the unemployed for less! The unemployed are thinking "Hey we don't have to starve now! This pay is better than not having anything at all!" It works perfectly for the companies.

I think something like 2% unemployed is considered "full employment" by most economists.

The poverty rate is something different than unemployment. There are plenty of people who are employed and living in poverty. If this country had a government with a smidgeon of compassion this would change. I expect when it hits 15% poverty or maybe 20%, people will come to their senses and throw these idiotic idealogues who are running the country out of office, and send them back to whatever hole they crawled out of.

The poverty level is alot bigger than what everyone thinks it is. Especially if you get your information from the media.

What exactly is enough for you? [/b][/quote]Enough is, to make a start, all the money that was given on the War in Iraq.
Not only US, other countries too. Jaoan eg.
My simple mind tells it will be good for economics. I heard economists talking about that, and their explanation sounded very reasonable. They might have been wrong tough, I'm the first to admit that economy is not something I'm good in.
And cause it is our right too give money to the poor, be it in the own country, or be it in a foreign country. But that's just me, a socialist.