The Promise of Capitalism.

[Sultan Bhargash]

Well, I meant the "middle class" in a place like Africa, who indeed may enjoy electricity and television (interestingly, "cooling" oneself is primarily a western obsession), but who live in conditions of far worse environmental degradation, overpopulation, and are probably drinking less water, more polluted.

Good 1500s monarchy's included Japan, Incas, Polynesia, Songhay in Africa, etc. The monarch could expect to live at least as long as a third worlder (barring the usual monarch life expectancy threats), but you are right on health care, quality of diets in most third world countries have decreased considerably since colonialism reshifted the crop schemes, heated in the winter=very old tech, cooled in the summer, like I said, nobody had a problem with this till they came up with air conditioning (my personal favorite evil).

 

[GerrardCapashen]

Originally posted by Antonius Block
Well of course there's always been "poverty" since the rise of city states or whatever. But as far your comment on Kings, it really depends. Some kings maybe lived worse than some poor people, but I doubt that any kings lived as badly as the worst off peoples do today. And I know that in 1500 some kings in Asia, the Americas, and Africa, lived better than many "middle class" people in those locales do today.

Ah, I thought you were including the U.S. and Canada. I guess it meant South America when referring to the Americas. There is a large difference in middle-class lifestyle between the U.S.A. and Nigeria.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Originally posted by Greadius

Likewise, raw materials are worthless if you have no way of finding, extracting, harnessing, processing, and utilizing them.

The methods are also worthless without the raw materials...

Really? No clean food, no clean water, no heating, no A/C, no cars, no computers, no light, no indoor plumbing, no useful medical care. Just as bad: no potential to get any of them. The point is there really wasn't anything glorious by todays standards of being wealthy back then... it was all miserable.

Cleaner water. But as for the glory, it all depends. Some folks would die to go back and try it. Certainly I'd rather be Henry the Eighth than Saddam right about now.

Imagine how people in 2500 will view our standard of living?

Wow, they had houses like Roman villas! And only one family to a house! And they ate MEAT- sometimes several times a day! And only minute traces of uranium in most places!!!

And its economically disingenius to believe the $100 tag has much to do with the labor input.

Doesn't change my point. I agree the hundred dollar price tag is bull****, but so it the 3 cents for making the shoe.

For me, every minute I have to spend in the sun is torture (irony in that).

That explains why you post at all hours!

I thought belief in entitlements, idealism, and the Soviet Union lead to communist revolutions.

Nope it was pissed off poor people.

 

[Greadius]

Maybe its just me, but no amount of gold crowns substitute electricity.

I'd take Botswana over any crown back then.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Well if you took Botswana you'd not be guaranteed electricity anyway.

It isn't just you though, there is no question that modern life has its recompenses. Like I say, I don't take one day without either heating or air conditioning. But I am also one who has had to live and adapt in different conditions, and realized that in the end, being poor in any century really really sucks.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Antonius Block
The methods are also worthless without the raw materials...

And the beauty of the global market brings them together... they have a material they can't use, and we need. We have money they need, and we can't use better. Its just a beautiful, voluntary exchange that brings a tear to my eye.

Originally posted by Antonius Block
Cleaner water. But as for the glory, it all depends. Some folks would die to go back and try it. Certainly I'd rather be Henry the Eighth than Saddam right about now.

Some folks will try just about anything.

And, you know, back then they drank water straight from the nearest river, which is usually the same thing they used for sanitation. Water the mountains was cleaner, but you'd never know it.

Originally posted by Antonius Block
Wow, they had houses like Roman villas! And only one family to a house! And they ate MEAT- sometimes several times a day! And only minute traces of uranium in most places!!!

People have been declaring the end of the world since the dawn of time. I have yet to see any evidence supporting that the world has ended, so I'll operate under the assumption it hasn't.

Never underestimate the ingenuity of humans. Everything in our lives today was impossible when our parents were born.

Originally posted by Antonius Block
Doesn't change my point. I agree the hundred dollar price tag is bull****, but so it the 3 cents for making the shoe.

Its a beautiful business model, isn't it

There are much cheaper generic sneakers... or you can just buy 25 cent sandals like me. I KNOW my foreign slave laborer actually made a calculable percentage of profit of my footwear

Originally posted by Antonius Block
Nope it was pissed off poor people.

Poor people are always pissed off; I would be too if I were poor(er).

Its when the anger turns to violence and a belief some capital ought to give them free stuff just because they're alive when it turns ugly.

 

[Thadlerian]

Originally posted by Greadius
Wrong. Well, kind of wrong. That depends on your definition of poverty. The poverty line in America is higher than the average person in the world lives off...much higher. Poverty is a relative measure, not absolute. If people in poverty have a house, home, food, color TV, free education for their kids, and the OPPERTUNITY to lead a successfull lives... well, they're doing a heck of a lot better than people in the poverty line in Ethiopia.

You seem to know little about poverty in America. I think there's sort of a myth in there that poverty does not exist in US, and that everybody have their basic needs covered, simply because it is America. You might try looking elsewhere than the suburbs, like the city cores of the metropolises.

Blame God, not capitalism.

Sorta gives me the idea why religion was invented in the first place.

Better oppertunity than they had before. Those low paying factory jobs are coveted by locals because they're stable, better paying, and have better working conditions than the other jobs that are available.

Wrong. In Indonesia, young girls have to work at factories simply because their families are being forced from their property by big corporations needing room for their crops. To survive, they have to take lousy jobs in Free Trade Zones. The working conditions in those factories are lousy, even though it may not look that way in a corporation's advertisment brochures. Their pay is in many cases not sufficent for food, so people are starving. Anyone trying to demand improvements, are being fired. Trying to start an union likely means death by torture.

Now we come to the real cool thing about Free Trade Zones: They do nothing for the community. First of all, those companies paying the workers, are none you have heard of. They are independent companies, though they are dependent on those big brands that's a part of everyday life in the West. Big corporations like Nike, Disney and McDonalds (as for those little plastic toys, that is) need not care about worker rights, simply because they have no workers. They give money to the companies, and get goods in return.

But for the FTZs: A company erecting a factory (these constructions are easily moved, to ensure mobility for the corporation.) in an FTZ is not paying tax to the local community for 5 years. That means there is no development, no infrastructure, no welfare, no education. When those five years are spent, they fly away to another Zone, where they get another five free years. If the local community attempts to do anything about the working conditions, they're moving. There's always some community willing to offer cheaper workforce.

Oh yeah, and the workers are usually kids at age of 12-20.

Yeah, they're lives are miserable... if they want that to change in the long term its not going to happen if they cross their arms and demand handouts.

You might be right about that. Crossing their arms will instantly lose them their job, maybe life too. There is no increased wealth in these countries, simply because there is no way for the community to gain anything from the FTZ. Nothing is changing. It is like this now, it can proceed like this for 10 000 years.

If anyone's gonna do something about it, it is us, as customers.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Thadlerian
You seem to know little about poverty in America.

No, I know quite a bit. Been there, done that... still live near it.

Originally posted by Thadlerian
I think there's sort of a myth in there that poverty does not exist in US, and that everybody have their basic needs covered, simply because it is America. You might try looking elsewhere than the suburbs, like the city cores of the metropolises.

Poverty exists, but the level of poverty, relatively, isn't that bad.

Originally posted by Thadlerian
In Indonesia, young girls have to work at factories simply because their families are being forced from their property by big corporations needing room for their crops. To survive, they have to take lousy jobs in Free Trade Zones. The working conditions in those factories are lousy, even though it may not look that way in a corporation's advertisment brochures. Their pay is in many cases not sufficent for food, so people are starving. Anyone trying to demand improvements, are being fired. Trying to start an union likely means death by torture.

Are you going to credit newsocialist.org for this or just rip it straight off?

Originally posted by Thadlerian
Oh yeah, and the workers are usually kids at age of 12-20.

The population of those countries are kids 12-20.

What would you have them do? Sit around idle?

Originally posted by Thadlerian
Crossing their arms will instantly lose them their job, maybe life too. There is no increased wealth in these countries, simply because there is no way for the community to gain anything from the FTZ. Nothing is changing. It is like this now, it can proceed like this for 10 000 years.

If you weren't so general with your borrowed arguement I'd refute that with economic evidence... but, I'm certain you'd just cut & paste someone else's arguement about that too.

 

[Thadlerian]

Originally posted by Greadius
Are you going to credit newsocialist.org for this or just rip it straight off?

So you admit you have run out of plausible arguments to defend your own view, and have simply fallen back to the cheap strategy of accusing me of lying?

If you weren't so general with your borrowed arguement I'd refute that with economic evidence.. but, I'm certain you'd just cut & paste someone else's arguement about that too.

Again, you are accusing me of copying others work. Doesn't mean others haven't inspired me, though.

It's better to have opinions based on sources, than just basing all arguments on superstition, on some sort of religion saying that it will work, no matter what those commie terrorists may tell you about reality.

 

[Plastic]

In the US, the poor are only poor compared to other Americans. In the US, the poor have food, shelter, clothing, electricity, clean water, indoor plumbming, many have cars, television...

Anyway, the problem with capitalism is it acknowledges that it is a superficially immoral system (and therefore unpopular). On the other hand in the real world it seems to work. The most capitalist system in the world (which is not even a pure capitalist system) produced what is far and away the most powerful economy in the world, an economy that has far more production than any other country by percentage of population.

The problem with socialism it is a largely moral system (and therefore popular) despite its total real life failure to produce economic growth. The more socialist an economy becomes, the more it seems to fail.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Thadlerian
So you admit you have run out of plausible arguments to defend your own view, and have simply fallen back to the cheap strategy of accusing me of lying?

Again, you are accusing me of copying others work. Doesn't mean others haven't inspired me, though.

I won't argue with third party sources. If I'm going to spend the time to take the points and attempt to refute them in a dialogue, I want the other person to do the same. I don't want to argue with an article written by someone who doesn't know these boards exist.

Originally posted by Thadlerian
It's better to have opinions based on sources, than just basing all arguments on superstition, on some sort of religion saying that it will work, no matter what those commie terrorists may tell you about reality.

Hopefully my expensive education in the matter is worth more than that. I've spent year studying issues like these as practically a full time job. I didn't read two editorials I liked on an obscure internet website and adapt these as my worldview.

When I took my first Economics class a few years ago, I made many of the same 'facts' and arguements presented here.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Plastic
In the US, the poor are only poor compared to other Americans. In the US, the poor have food, shelter, clothing, electricity, clean water, indoor plumbming, many have cars, television...

Does this cover the thousands of tramps and down and outs?

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Plastic
Anyway, the problem with capitalism is it acknowledges that it is a superficially immoral system (and therefore unpopular).

Capitalism is not immoral. It does not purposedly look to harm people.
Capitalism is amoral. It does not CARE to harm people.

On the other hand in the real world it seems to work. The most capitalist system in the world (which is not even a pure capitalist system) produced what is far and away the most powerful economy in the world, an economy that has far more production than any other country by percentage of population.

Yes. Capitalism bother with EFFICIENCY. It rewards efficiency. It's based on having a better efficiency. Ergo, it will make an economic system more efficient.
The problem being, as you noticed, that it does absolutly not bother with the morality/justice.
A good economy is better for the well-being and the level of life of the population, so having a good economy is generally good for the people.
But to benefit the population, regulations and controls are NEEDED.
After all, slavery is more efficient than paid workers. It does not make it acceptable.

The problem with socialism it is a largely moral system (and therefore popular) despite its total real life failure to produce economic growth. The more socialist an economy becomes, the more it seems to fail.

I was not aware that France's or Germany's economies were more failing than Chile's or Brazil's ones.
I wasn't even aware they were THAT much a failure compared to USA.
Socialism can perfectly work, as long as we remember we are imperfect humans, and then we don't try to implant an idealistic version of it, but a realistic one - which include a certain deal of capitalism.

 

[redtom]

Capitalism in gansterism with a better name.

I am social democrat, so I belief that capitalism is alright in small doses.

"Give me a capitalist and I'll give you a leach". - Malcolm X

 

[HuckFinn]

Don't ignore the point that for general prosperity in society, capitalism and democracy must go hand in hand. While capitalism is the perfect engine at the core of a country's economic system, I think it is totally misguided to start talking about morals and right/wrong when it comes to it... a capitalist economy is merely a way of creating wealth, it is not the complete solution and definitely not a religion, like some people make it to be. It's the parliament's task to debate the morals issue and decide to what degree we will benefit from capitalism and to what degree we repair its ills.

I do believe that unfettered capitalism will lead to slave labour and such nastiness, simply because money rules and will consolidate power unless democracy is strictly adhered to. Those capitalists who oppose democracy by believing in plutocracy deserve, in my humble opinion, a socialist revolution their way. It is exactly when the poor become politically powerless that we have a socialist revolution...

As long as the people are accepted as sovereign, they will self-regulate, both ways, and find the best balance of things. I think Northern Europe and Canada have probably managed this best... and it shows. We're as prosperous as or more prosperous (I like to think) than the USA, and I get Americans telling me we're "socialist"... so, apparently, there is a point after which you just have to start making sure that people REALLY get that equal chance and that it is not just empty rhetoric...

 

[Cecasander]

The case with capitalism is that rich, powerfull people get more rich and powerfull, and that the 'lesser' majorty gets poorer, or at least have very little benevits from it.
Capitalism decreases equalty. The equalty in pure capitalistic countries like the US is way less than more social counties like Germany, Sweden or my own Netherlands. In the US there are several people who have even more money than an average developing country has BNP. They could almost BUY the country. I really wonder why people want to have - say - 40 billion dollar. I mean, having a million or ten is nice, you can do some nice things, but why the f*ck $40.000.000.000?
And then there are a lot of people who are poor in the US. According to UN figures, about 12% of the American population lives below the international live of poverness, of $2 a day...

I, personaly, consider capitalism worse then communism.
Capitalism, the draft to make as much money/profit as possible
ALWAYS lead to victims. There will always be people who get in missery.
Exemples are the begin age of capitalism, where factory workers get payed very less, and were treated like slaves. The factory director got al the money without doing a thing, over the backs of his workers. Another exemple of capitalism is slavery. Slaves were forced to work very hard for no money, and the profit went to the rich elite. Nowadays, when you buy stuff like clothing of music, most monet goes to the rich elite that has nothing to do with the process. When you buy a record, about half of the pofit goes as profit to the record company. When you buy a t-shirt the workers in Iran or India or Thailand only get a few cents from it, the rest goes to the big western company, to the bank accounts of the rich powerfulls...

That, ladies and gentlemen, is capitalism. Capitalism has nothing to do with equalty, actualy its pretty much the opposit.

 

[Thadlerian]

Originally posted by Greadius
I didn't read two editorials I liked on an obscure internet website and adapt these as my worldview.

This kind of response pretty much talks for itself. No comment necessary.

 

[metalhead]

Originally posted by Cecasander
The case with capitalism is that rich, powerfull people get more rich and powerfull, and that the 'lesser' majorty gets poorer, or at least have very little benevits from it.
Capitalism decreases equalty. The equalty in pure capitalistic countries like the US is way less than more social counties like Germany, Sweden or my own Netherlands. In the US there are several people who have even more money than an average developing country has BNP. They could almost BUY the country. I really wonder why people want to have - say - 40 billion dollar. I mean, having a million or ten is nice, you can do some nice things, but why the f*ck $40.000.000.000?
And then there are a lot of people who are poor in the US. According to UN figures, about 12% of the American population lives below the international live of poverness, of $2 a day...

I guess this view just boils down to a difference of opinion, but it smacks of self-righteousness. Nobody is guaranteed economic equality. Nobody has an inherent right to wealth or property, and I have a hard time understanding where this viewpoint comes from. You say you can't see why someone wants or needs $40 billion - who the hell are you, or anyone else for that matter, to dictate what someone else wants or needs to have? It's not up to a group of people to determine what amount of wealth another group of people should have.

You are also dead wrong about the poor getting poorer. The rich do get richer in the US - but the middle-class and lower-class does as well. The standard of living of ALL people living in the US, with the possible exception of those completely unwilling to improve their standing in life, has continuously risen, and quite substantially I might add, over the past century.

I, personaly, consider capitalism worse then communism.
Capitalism, the draft to make as much money/profit as possible
ALWAYS lead to victims. There will always be people who get in missery.
Exemples are the begin age of capitalism, where factory workers get payed very less, and were treated like slaves. The factory director got al the money without doing a thing, over the backs of his workers. Another exemple of capitalism is slavery. Slaves were forced to work very hard for no money, and the profit went to the rich elite. Nowadays, when you buy stuff like clothing of music, most monet goes to the rich elite that has nothing to do with the process. When you buy a record, about half of the pofit goes as profit to the record company. When you buy a t-shirt the workers in Iran or India or Thailand only get a few cents from it, the rest goes to the big western company, to the bank accounts of the rich powerfulls...

That, ladies and gentlemen, is capitalism. Capitalism has nothing to do with equalty, actualy its pretty much the opposit.

I agree that pure capitalism can lead to some serious ills, such as slavery, and we can't allow for the capitalistic system to run completely roughshod over the working class.

But here you have this idea of equality again. Where is it dictated anywhere that people should have economic equality? Men should be held equal before the law, but that has nothing to do with equal wealth. Man isn't entitled to anything just for being born. People in capitalistic systems get paid based on their ability and their work ethic, and what they can accomplish. How this is bad is really beyond me.

When most of the money you spend on books and CDs goes to the record company, how is that bad? Without the record company, the band whose CD you bought would have no radio play and no publicity, and nobody would be buying their music. The only reason bands get public attention is because of the record company, so they are absolutely entitled to a large share of the profits from those record sales. If you think otherwise, ask an unsigned band how profitable they are. This money goes to the rich elite, who are paying operating costs for the company that allows for musicians to get exposure, as well as funding the operation of a company that employs thousands of people in fairly well-paying jobs. Most people in the US make a damn good living in the employ of the "rich elites."

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Cecasander
The case with capitalism is that rich, powerfull people get more rich and powerfull, and that the 'lesser' majorty gets poorer, or at least have very little benevits from it.

*yawn* I firmly believe that in the United States, you can rise out of poverty if you have the conviction for it. But I probably give people more credit than you would. Sit on your a$$ and watch wrestling all day and you won't amount to anything.

Capitalism decreases equalty. The equalty in pure capitalistic countries like the US is way less than more social counties like Germany, Sweden or my own Netherlands. In the US there are several people who have even more money than an average developing country has BNP. They could almost BUY the country. I really wonder why people want to have - say - 40 billion dollar. I mean, having a million or ten is nice, you can do some nice things, but why the f*ck $40.000.000.000?
And then there are a lot of people who are poor in the US. According to UN figures, about 12% of the American population lives below the international live of poverness, of $2 a day...

Capitalism doesn't decrease equality. It rewards success, and is ambivilant to equality. Enforced equality is only an illusion of equality, and throws dirt in the face of freedom.

I, personaly, consider capitalism worse then communism.
Capitalism, the draft to make as much money/profit as possible
ALWAYS lead to victims. There will always be people who get in missery.

Do you believe that those "victims" in poverty have any responsibility for themselves?

Exemples are the begin age of capitalism, where factory workers get payed very less, and were treated like slaves. The factory director got al the money without doing a thing, over the backs of his workers. Another exemple of capitalism is slavery. Slaves were forced to work very hard for no money, and the profit went to the rich elite. Nowadays, when you buy stuff like clothing of music, most monet goes to the rich elite that has nothing to do with the process. When you buy a record, about half of the pofit goes as profit to the record company. When you buy a t-shirt the workers in Iran or India or Thailand only get a few cents from it, the rest goes to the big western company, to the bank accounts of the rich powerfulls...

That's laughable. Do a little research on the plight of the common man BEFORE the industrial revolution and the age of capitalism. Capitalism gave the common man the first real opportunity to succeed.

Good god, is there no limit to ignorance? You cite slavery?? Capitalism has NOTHING to do with slavery. If anything, the process of common people gaining power through acquisition of money, thanks to capitalism, ENDED slavery. And seriously, are you proposing that there were no slaves prior to capitalism??

That, ladies and gentlemen, is capitalism. Capitalism has nothing to do with equalty, actualy its pretty much the opposit.

No, that wasn't capitalism, was the ravings of a misguided and uneducated adolescent.

Hopefully adolescent.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

I'm sorry Greadius, but Thadlerian has you in this argument. I wish I had been as articulate but like a good American, I usually ignore poverty. I did used to live near projects in New Orleans that were worse equipped than African thatch huts, and I have heard stories about some of our native American reservations-- well, but they'll all get casinos sooner or later, right?

And the current state of "free trade" is indeed deplorable. I have read enough, and not from any particular website's skew, about the FTZ in Mexico, you know, where Ford is, and how indeed the shanty's erected by the workers themselves nearby so they can be slaves to Ford (and at least one of them shot to death for suggesting unionizing) are the worst living conditions in all of Mexico.

Now as Akka says, Capitalism is amoral, like guns (wait a minute, since guns only kill, I'll use a better analogy, how about, like nuclear power plants that could produce power but also must be bombed if they belong to bad guys). So the FTZ flaw is not an irremediable part of the system (and will not go on 10,000 years, Thadlerian, believe me!). It can be changed by consumer awareness, it could be changed by the will of the people as expressed in government, it can be changed by the course of histories interactions. The problem is that the "first world" today- US/Canada, Europe, Australia, Japan- is the same size as the "first world" eighty years ago, despite the long quest of nations like Brazil, India, Mexico, to join it. And that demonstrates some kind of flaw in the system...