Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
 Silversoul
Rhizome
 
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,569
Loc: The Barricades
|
 Re: capitalism  [Re: CJay]
#3782616 - 02/15/05 10:29 AM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
CJay said:
Nature isn't all tooth and claw though - there is this wonderful thing that is often undertaken by nature. It's called symbiosis.
Agreed. And despite popular belief, capitalism also is not all about survival of the fittest. There is plenty of room for compassion and cooperation, provided there's a big enough market for it(I use the term "market" loosely here). The thing about the free market is that the producers and consumers ultimately decide through supply and demand what direction capitalism will take. Capitalism in itself is morally neutral. Depending on the consumer's wants and needs, and the producer's willingness to fulfill those wants and needs, capitalism can be used for either good or evil.
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against capitalism, like you I think it is the greed inherent in mankind that is the problem, and that that is what will destropy any political ideal. I certainly feel that capitalism offers a great model, but that its rapacious side needs to be tempered. That requires humanity to reach a more conscious level, for politics to hybridise and capitalism take on wider values, for people to find strength in themselves to listen to their souls and not just their desires.
I think one of the main adjustments I'd make to capitalism is True Cost Economics, where a product's true cost to society--environmental, medical, social, etc.--would be added onto its regular price by means of a consumption tax. Even here, though, I'm worried that an item's "true cost" might be a little too subjective for me to trust politicians to decide it. If marijuana were legalized, I could see politicians taxing it well beyond its true societal cost.
Another problem I have with modern capitalism is it doesn't make the proper distinction between landed property(owning land) and other forms of private property. The Earth belongs to all people in common, and we should act as stewards, not owners, of that land. This is where I might normally go off on a tangent about Georgism, but I'll spare you the long lecture.
Quote:
I don't think most people 'single out' capitalism for criticism, it is just that capitalism is the prevailing paradigm, and it seems to be failing us as a species and a planet. Therefore many become bitter, and yes become 'anti'. Most though look at the paradigm and perhaps find reasons to criticise. This is really an attempt to see beyond into a future possibility.
Yes, that occured to me too. If socialism were the prevailing norm, I'm sure that would be the target of all this criticism. I've come to the conclusion that capitalism probably needs some reform, primarily on environmental issues, but definitely should not be done away with.
--------------------
|
 juende
feministpresence
Registered: 02/20/04
Posts: 729
Last seen: 10 months, 30 days
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said:
Quote:
juende said:
a aweatshop. i'm srry i throw around words and such. i am use to being around ppl who would know what that is [and i don't mean that in a bad way]
Everyone who uses that word seems to think they know what it means, but often it's simply used as a derogatory word for a Third World factory.
Quote:
a sweatshop is a factory usually, but not always, overseas where the people working there are not getting the basic rights of their counrty. like getting paid 18 cents an hour. forced overtime, no benefits at all. blacklisting of ppl who try to start a union, womyn being fired for being pregenat [or losing their jobs because of it] unsafe machinery, and the list goes on.
Again, if a company decides that their labor is worth 18 cents an hour, and the people decide they are willing to work for that much, who is being forced? Sure, they could theoretically be paid 20 cents or $2 or $100 an hour, but the company has decided that 18 cents an hour is what it is willing to invest in labor, and the workers have decided that they are willing to work for that much. It may not be an ideal arrangement, but since when are we guaranteed an ideal choice? Like anyone else, these workers have limited choices, and 18 cents and hour the best option they have. If they didn't have that choice available to them, they would be worse off.
As for blacklisting unions and firing pregnant women, since when do people have a right to be employed against the employer's will? I would think that those who use their money to pay people's wages should have a say in who they employ. Now, there are some factories that engage in more violent means of coercion, such as raping women and getting police to beat protestors and union organizers, and I am in no way condoning these actions, but you must understand that such practices are in no way inherent nor unique to capitalism.
As for unsafe machinery, the fact is that some jobs are more dangerous than others, and some people are willing to take that extra risk. You don't see people complaining about how unsafe police work of firefighting is, because we all know that those people choose to take those risks. As for forced overtime, it may suck, but is in no way unique to sweatshops. My friend got forced overtime frequently when he worked at Walmart, which is part of the reason why he quit and found work elsewhere. And as for benefits, the most employee benefits I've ever gotten was half price on all food in the snack shop.
Quote:
and i sgree it is for them to decided and this is not what they want.
I didn't want to be losing sleep trying to finish my schoolwork and pass all my classes, but I've decided I want a college degree, and thus have decided that it is the best option available for me. Getting what you want is a utopian fantasy that will never come to fruition under any system. Taking what limited options you have and choosing the best one available, however, is easily attainable under capitalism.
Quote:
i work with a group called USAS [united student against sweatshops] and currently on getting my school to be on the list of over 150 other schools that have the WRC [thats the workers rights consortium] i'll post a bunch of links afterwards. and these conditions happen becasue these factories either are located in free trade zones or the corporations like nike, gap, new era etc have made agreement with the country.
These agreements are examples of government intervening on behalf of these companies. This goes directly against free market capitalism. This is one of this biggest misunderstandings people have about capitalism. Sweetheart deals made between governments and businesses are not what capitalism is about. In a free market, the government is neutral to all economic agents.
Quote:
as for capitalism and rape. its is all about power. and control.
Yes, rape is all about power and control, but what does that have to do with capitalism? How is non-intervention in voluntary market transactions about power and control?
Quote:
i brought up slavery because that was one whole big forcing ppl to do something against there will.
Again, what does this have to do with capitalism?
Quote:
and i guess it is my responsibilty to make sure the ppl i talk to know my backround and foundation for my thining. like if i was to pput things like NFTAA, WTF anarcho-feminism, seatshops, etc would everyone know what i'm talking about.
and i am not trying to be condescending i am just talking for granted what ppl do and do not know.
You are not just taking for granted what people do and do not know, but you are also taking for granted the fact that some people might know more about the subject than you do, and that things you consider to be obvious are, in fact, dead wrong.
wtf are you pulling out here. i don't know what a shweatshop is?!?!? HA talk to a colombian coke cola worker who's fellow union organizers have been killed for speaking out. i have met ppl first hand. say what yer saying here to someone who has risked their life to speak out. "third world factory". i'm not speaking on theory. i have seen this shit first hand, so do not come and tell me that i am dead wrong.
and you obviously do not understand. if you have a family to feed, and a company/factory come to town with these conditions. it is your only choice in a sitiuation like this. if you are black listed that means other companies will not hire you. so sorry its not as easy as your buddy get another min wage job somewhere.
just because you talk alot doesn't mean that you are right. give me proof or first hand experience to back your claims.
it is not up to the company to decided what their labour is worth. would you work in a job that paid below 5 dollars an hour.
so you are saying that these american companies have the right to pay 18 cents an hours and the other conditions because that is what 3rd world is. its ok to go angainst their countries law and the US's. and trust me sweatshops are not limited to overseas. look at new era cap and their factory in derby ny... yes New York of the good u s of a.
never once did i say utopian. if having the basic liberities and rights of your own country is utopian then i thnk you need to have another look.
|
juende
feministpresence
Registered: 02/20/04
Posts: 729
Last seen: 10 months, 30 days
|
Re: capitalism [Re: CJay]
#3782653 - 02/15/05 10:41 AM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
CJay said:
Eventually we can hopefully hit the intelligent anarchy we could be capable of if we become conscious enough as a species.
Might take a few hundred thousand years though.
agreed
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,569
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: capitalism [Re: juende]
#3782750 - 02/15/05 11:32 AM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
wtf are you pulling out here. i don't know what a shweatshop is?!?!? HA talk to a colombian coke cola worker who's fellow union organizers have been killed for speaking out. i have met ppl first hand. say what yer saying here to someone who has risked their life to speak out. "third world factory". i'm not speaking on theory. i have seen this shit first hand, so do not come and tell me that i am dead wrong.
Whoa, calm the fuck down! I never said you don't know what a sweatshop is. Only that the word tends to get thrown around a lot.
and you obviously do not understand. if you have a family to feed, and a company/factory come to town with these conditions. it is your only choice in a sitiuation like this.
I have said all along that people choose the best option available to them. If the choice is between 18 cents an hour or no money at all, they'll choose 18 cents an hour.
if you are black listed that means other companies will not hire you. so sorry its not as easy as your buddy get another min wage job somewhere.
I'm sure it's not easy, and I never said it was. But that still doesn't obligate a company to hire you. It's their money. They decide who to spend it on.
just because you talk alot doesn't mean that you are right.
I never claimed I was right(though if I didn't think I was, I wouldn't be arguing). I simply was getting tired of you so arrogantly assuming that your ideas were so obviously right that any other ideas could be brushed aside as nonsense.
give me proof or first hand experience to back your claims.
Ask and ye shall recieve. Which specific claims would you like me to back up?
it is not up to the company to decided what their labour is worth.
Their money, their decision. Sorry. 
would you work in a job that paid below 5 dollars an hour.
Well, that would depend on a few factors:
1. How badly I need the money
2. What kind of work it entails
3. What other options are available
In short, yes, I could easily see situations where I would work for less than $5 an hour. Hell, my dad's paid me less than that to mow both lawns and trim the ivy. But even if I wasn't willing to work for that amount, I guarantee you there's plenty of people who would. Who are you to deny them that opportunity?
so you are saying that these american companies have the right to pay 18 cents an hours and the other conditions because that is what 3rd world is.
No, they have a right to pay 18 cents an hour because it's their money and they choose what to do with it. They're under no obligation to hire anyone, so why is it that when they do, they are suddenly obligated to pay however much you think they should be paying?
its ok to go angainst their countries law and the US's. and trust me sweatshops are not limited to overseas. look at new era cap and their factory in derby ny... yes New York of the good u s of a.
Oh, I wouldn't be surprised. You see, some poor people don't have time to wait around for some minimum wage job to open up, so they're willing to work for less. They do it because it's worth it to them, and it's not for you to decide what's best for them.
never once did i say utopian. if having the basic liberities and rights of your own country is utopian then i thnk you need to have another look.
It is utopian to think that people deserve to get what they want. Life just doesn't work that way. You are given a certain range of options, and you decide which of those options, whether they're great or really shitty, is the most beneficial for you. It's the same for these people working in sweatshops. Sure, it'd be great for them if they were making $10 an hour, but the world just doesn't work that way. People choose the best option they can get. If a company is offering work for 18 cents an hour and someone is willing to work for 18 cents an hour, then that's a good deal for both parties. Sure, the company may be getting the better deal out of it, but the workers are better of too, or else they wouldn't have taken the job.
--------------------
|
BanJankri
FreefallerUpwards
Registered: 07/27/04
Posts: 1,392
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
|
Re: capitalism [Re: juende]
#3783049 - 02/15/05 01:02 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I would like to agree with some of the points made regarding capitalism. it was indeed with good intentions by the makers, but the carriers out(humans) distorted it. but this does not mean we cannot critisize it.
capitalism doesnt need adjustments in the environemntal area. Paradigm your insisting on there being a choice to make. it may seem that capitalism is offering a choice, and that ind's are free to choose, sitting in western rich nations. the choice they make there is to die, lose their family, or work in the worst conditions you can think of. hmm not a very nice choice.
you may again say how can we blame capitalism for this. well for it to be unable to prevents things like this happening. for actually encouriging the big firms to maximize their profits, by going finding the lowest labor cost, and thereby legitimizing the current system of exploiting that goes on.
it is generally argued that capitalism offers states, ind that are weak, poor potential to become rich and powerful. although this may be the case in theory, in the reality, it only makes the powerful
stay in power and accumulate more capital, thereby forming powerful corporations that are able to distord measures and use their powers to stay as powerful and not let competition to be pursued in an efficient and fair manner.
therefore I believe capitalism dosnt only lack some env standarts. it lacks a concept of justice. you may still go on that this isnt the job of capitalism. well, I am critical against a system that lacks a undertanding of justice, therefore creating the things we attribute to the negative sides of capitalism.
we must try to see the broader picture. if as john rawls suggests we go back to the point of constructing societies, we must make the decisions dropping the identities we have. we may become an african american, we may be a person living in africa, someone that is part of the image of weak and poor. if we simply say that in capitalism, there is always the possibility of development, people are really blind to what is actually going on. we must build a new system that can create an opportunity in a fair and just way. capitalism obviously has become a tool for the powerful and rich. we must construct a new system that would take into consideration all the faults achieved in various systems whether it be capitalism, communism or anything else.
thats my view anyways.
--------------------
Just let everything flow, just flow right to the center of everything. You gotta turn off your mind and relax, and then just float downstream...
|
cb9fl
Senior ChildMolestationExpert
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Loc: florida
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
|
|
it lacks a concept of justice. you may still go on that this isnt the job of capitalism. well, I am critical against a system that lacks a undertanding of justice
Whose justice?
--------------------
It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not. -Andre Gide
"Generosity is nothing else than a craze to possess. All which I abandon, all which I give, I enjoy in a higher manner through the fact that I give it away. To give is to enjoy possessively the object which one gives."
|
BanJankri
FreefallerUpwards
Registered: 07/27/04
Posts: 1,392
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
|
Re: capitalism [Re: cb9fl]
#3783418 - 02/15/05 02:50 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
well cb9fl I think on this issue, as I said, the solution proposed by john rawls is quite good. it is his conception of of veil of ignorance or the Original position. He proposes an original state in which actors are asked to select a social order into which they will be born while lacking foreknowledge of the human capital that they will bring to their station. From this position, they eventually arrive at a reflective equilibrium and agree to universal ethical principles.
so yes, there is different conceptions of justice for different groups and so on, but I believe in the time we have come, there can be articulated universal principles. of course not regarding everything, but I believe there is much to be articulated regarding the points I mentioned in my previous post.
--------------------
Just let everything flow, just flow right to the center of everything. You gotta turn off your mind and relax, and then just float downstream...
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,651
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
|
BanJankri writes:
"it was indeed with good intentions by the makers, but the carriers out(humans) distorted it."
Nobody "made" Capitalism. Capitalism is nothing more than people being allowed to do what they please so long as they don't forcibly prevent others doing what they please. It's not a system so much as it is a lack of system.
"the choice they make there is to die, lose their family, or work in the worst conditions you can think of. hmm not a very nice choice."
Yet without Capitalists, there are just two choices -- die or lose their family. No, to be fair, there is a third choice -- seize by force (either directly or through agents) the belongings of others.
"although this may be the case in theory, in the reality, it only makes the powerful stay in power and accumulate more capital, thereby forming powerful corporations that are able to distord measures and use their powers to stay as powerful and not let competition to be pursued in an efficient and fair manner."
You are not referring to Capitalism. You are referring to government-supported Corporatism. Not the same thing at all. Under Capitalism, the only "power" one has -- no matter how successful -- is the power to attempt to persuade others to trade with you.
"you may still go on that this isnt the job of capitalism. well, I am critical against a system that lacks a undertanding of justice, therefore creating the things we attribute to the negative sides of capitalism. "
What is more just than being left free to trade with others? How is it "justice" to be forced to trade with someone you don't wish to trade with? How is it "justice" to be forcibly prevented from trading with someone who wishes to trade with you? Explain, please.
"capitalism obviously has become a tool for the powerful and rich."
And this makes it different from Socialism, Communism, Fascism, etc. how, exactly? Note that Capitalism is the only system that cannot be subverted by those with guns. The instant you introduce forced transactions into the equation it is no longer Capitalism.
"we must construct a new system that would take into consideration all the faults achieved in various systems whether it be capitalism, communism or anything else."
There is no such system. The only "fault" in Capitalism is the fact that humans vary in their abilities and cannot choose the environment into which they are born. All they can do is to move elsewhere once they have the stamina to do so. That is not the fault of Capitalism, but of the nature of reality.
Phred
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,569
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
I would like to agree with some of the points made regarding capitalism. it was indeed with good intentions by the makers, but the carriers out(humans) distorted it. but this does not mean we cannot critisize it.
Criticize all you want. I'll be right here with my rebuttal.
capitalism doesnt need adjustments in the environemntal area. Paradigm your insisting on there being a choice to make. it may seem that capitalism is offering a choice, and that ind's are free to choose, sitting in western rich nations. the choice they make there is to die, lose their family, or work in the worst conditions you can think of. hmm not a very nice choice.
No one said every choice is going to be a nice one. If something is the best choice that is available to someone, they'll take it, no matter how awful that choice seems to us.
you may again say how can we blame capitalism for this. well for it to be unable to prevents things like this happening. for actually encouriging the big firms to maximize their profits, by going finding the lowest labor cost, and thereby legitimizing the current system of exploiting that goes on.
There is no law requiring a business to maximize profits, unless they are a corporation, which, iterestingly enough, is a product of government intervention in the economy. You see, the government issues charters to a company so it can become a corporation, and this charter requires them to maximize the returns for stockholders. If you have a problem with this, tell the government to stop issuing charters.
it is generally argued that capitalism offers states, ind that are weak, poor potential to become rich and powerful.
As was the case for one Andrew Carnegie. A rags to riches story if there ever was one, and all thanks to capitalism.
although this may be the case in theory, in the reality, it only makes the powerful
stay in power and accumulate more capital, thereby forming powerful corporations that are able to distord measures and use their powers to stay as powerful and not let competition to be pursued in an efficient and fair manner.
One reason you don't see many Andrew Carnegies today is because business regulations have made it damn near impossible for the poor to start up their own businesses the way Carnegie did. As far as monopolies go, they can come about and be maintained in two ways:
1. They make the best product/service for the best price at the best quality(or if you're cynical, replace "best" with "most popular")
2. They enlist the government to intervene on their behalf.
The first method benefits society, and the minute it ceases to do so, it falls prey to competition. The second goes completely against what capitalism is about.
therefore I believe capitalism dosnt only lack some env standarts. it lacks a concept of justice. you may still go on that this isnt the job of capitalism. well, I am critical against a system that lacks a undertanding of justice, therefore creating the things we attribute to the negative sides of capitalism.
Correction: it lacks your understanding of justice, whatever that might be.
we must try to see the broader picture. if as john rawls suggests we go back to the point of constructing societies, we must make the decisions dropping the identities we have. we may become an african american, we may be a person living in africa, someone that is part of the image of weak and poor.
Just because some people are more poor than us doesn't make them as unhappy as we might be in their shoes. And even if they are unhappy, I don't see why it is the fault of those who provide employment opportunities--the best option available to them, even if it is far below our standards.
if we simply say that in capitalism, there is always the possibility of development, people are really blind to what is actually going on.
What's actually going on in Hong Kong is Britain turned the place with little going for it into an economic powerhouse essentially by butting out of the economy. The whole country became better off, and the gap between rich and poor shrank.
we must build a new system that can create an opportunity in a fair and just way.
I'm assuming you mean your definition of fair and just, which I don't believe you've clarified yet.
capitalism obviously has become a tool for the powerful and rich.
No. Corporatism--the unholy alliance of corporation and state--has become a tool for the rich and powerful. Capitalism--true capitalism--is an effective means of pulling a nation out of poverty. In the short term, that may mean more of these sweatshops you people so despise, but as they provide employment for more and more people, and attract investors to the country, the economy will grow, and the country as a whole can become more prosperous. Now, it's more likely that the net gain will benefit the poor if there's some sort of land reform, but that's whole other thread.
we must construct a new system that would take into consideration all the faults achieved in various systems whether it be capitalism, communism or anything else.
Capitalism's main fault is the absense of economic incentives for conservation and certain other causes. I have no problem tweaking it a little to correct this problem, but no major overhaul is necessary.
--------------------
|
BanJankri
FreefallerUpwards
Registered: 07/27/04
Posts: 1,392
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
|
Re: capitalism [Re: Phred]
#3783804 - 02/15/05 04:10 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
free trade does not mean fair trade. I want and support fair trade.
when someone uses rich getting rich at the expense of the poor, they are most likely referring to marx's critique of law of concentration, which holds that capitalism tends to produce increasing inequality in the distribution of wealth and income. as the bourgeoisie continue to exploit the proletariat and weaker capitalists are swallowed by the stronger, bigger ones, therefore wekath and ownership of capital becoming concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
also I did not say socialism was good or in fact better. communism is also a nice utopia, but obviously, there must be other things tried to get to such a point.
capitalism has failed also regarding the current state the world is in(and yes I do believe this is a product of capitalism). yes you are right about gov supported corparations I'm talkin about. but still it doesnt refute the point that there is nothing to prevent this from happening.
--------------------
Just let everything flow, just flow right to the center of everything. You gotta turn off your mind and relax, and then just float downstream...
Edited by BanJankri (02/15/05 04:47 PM)
|
cb9fl
Senior ChildMolestationExpert
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Loc: florida
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
|
|
Does laissez faire capitalism provide for corporations or are they seen as government intervention?
Also how would laissez faire capitalism deal with patents and IP rights?
--------------------
It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not. -Andre Gide
"Generosity is nothing else than a craze to possess. All which I abandon, all which I give, I enjoy in a higher manner through the fact that I give it away. To give is to enjoy possessively the object which one gives."
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,651
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
|
BanJankri writes:
"I want and support fair trade."
Explain the difference between the Capitalist concept of free trade and BanJankri's concept of fair trade, please.
"they are most likely referring to marx's critique of law of concentration, which holds that capitalism tends to produce increasing inequality in the distribution of wealth and income."
Under Capitalism, the hardworking competent tend to end up with more capital than lazy incompetents, yes. If you weave and sell ten beautiful baskets a day and the guy across the street from you only weaves and sells six ugly baskets a day, then inevitably as time progresses the gap between the amount of wealth you possess and the amount he possesses will widen. Why should it not?
"as the bourgeoisie continue to exploit the proletariat and weaker capitalists are swallowed by the stronger, bigger ones, therefore wekath and ownership of capital becoming concentrated in fewer and fewer hands."
And this is just one of the many flaws in Marx's fevered imaginings. Wealth and capital are not in fact concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer, but the reverse. Under Capitalism, almost everyone's wealth increases. The fact that some have more than others doesn't mean that what they have was taken from those others. It wasn't.
"capitalism has failed also regarding the current state the world is in..."
Seeing as how there is no Capitalist state in the world today, and in fact even the closest states to being Capitalist (Hong Kong and the US) get less and less Capitalist by the day, your statement is indefensible on the face of it. However, we can observe a trend. Nations closest to Capitalism do well. They have no problems in comparison to the nations which are the furthest from Capitalism. Totalitarian and chaotic states are the ones which have problems. That is so readily observable a fact I am surprised to see you attempt to argue otherwise.
Phred
--------------------
|
cb9fl
Senior ChildMolestationExpert
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Loc: florida
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
|
Re: capitalism [Re: Phred]
#3784206 - 02/15/05 05:51 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
From this chart it would appear many countries that lean towards Socialism do very well.
--------------------
It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not. -Andre Gide
"Generosity is nothing else than a craze to possess. All which I abandon, all which I give, I enjoy in a higher manner through the fact that I give it away. To give is to enjoy possessively the object which one gives."
|
BanJankri
FreefallerUpwards
Registered: 07/27/04
Posts: 1,392
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
|
Re: capitalism [Re: cb9fl]
#3784366 - 02/15/05 06:24 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
my consept of fair trade is making possible that the producers who produce in 3rd world countries get a fair deal, while making sure its doesnt come from a sweat shop, encouraged by free trade.
it is obvious that the developed states have no intention in assisting these poor regions. they are only resources and they are not willing to give their technical expertise so to enable the weaker regions, firms, ind's to compete in a more just basis.
and what does the capitalist institutions do about this? not make trade freerer. they want the states facing financial crises to open up as much as possible, while the trade giants get to have all sorts of trade barriers.
--------------------
Just let everything flow, just flow right to the center of everything. You gotta turn off your mind and relax, and then just float downstream...
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,651
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
|
BanJankri writes:
"my consept of fair trade is making possible that the producers who produce in 3rd world countries get a fair deal..."
What makes you think they are not currently getting a fair deal?
"... while making sure its doesnt come from a sweat shop..."
What is your definition of a sweatshop?
"... encouraged by free trade."
Free trade means people trading with whom they want, when they want, at mutually agreed upon prices. How can trade be "free" if people are not allowed to deal with sweatshops?
"it is obvious that the developed states have no intention in assisting these poor regions."
It is actually far from obvious, considering the amount of foreign aid given to these regions by the developed states. But since foreign aid isn't a part of Capitalism, let's move on.
"they are only resources and they are not willing to give their technical expertise so to enable the weaker regions, firms, ind's to compete in a more just basis."
"Give"? You are correct in saying most companies don't want to give all that much of their technical expertise away. They are however willing to trade for it.
As for "just", I cannot help but note you have yet to define your idea of what is "just". Is it not just that when someone offers to sell them a ton of cocoa for X dollars they agree to exchange the dollars for the cocoa? What more is required of the buyer in order for him to meet your definition of "just"?
"they want the states facing financial crises to open up as much as possible, while the trade giants get to have all sorts of trade barriers."
Again, what you are condemning is not Capitalism but government intereference. Capitalism by definition doesn't allow government intervention in transactions between buyer and seller. Government has no say in the economy whatsoever.
Phred
--------------------
|
juende
feministpresence
Registered: 02/20/04
Posts: 729
Last seen: 10 months, 30 days
|
|
when you say its up to a company to decied how much to pay their workers, be it 18 cents or 10 dollars...
here you are saying that they are above the law of their and the country that they are set up in. the US is not the only place that has min wage or unions. and a company has to follow those laws. yes they can decied to pay how much they want ABOVE the min wage. they do not have the right to pay below. by law. but with free trade and other loop holes in this capitalistuc state it occurs.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,651
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: capitalism [Re: juende]
#3784620 - 02/15/05 07:09 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
What type of government operates in the countries where companies (foreign-based or indigenous) get away with paying less than the minimum wage as set out by the government of that country?
I'm guessing it's not a Capitalist government.
Phred
--------------------
|
juende
feministpresence
Registered: 02/20/04
Posts: 729
Last seen: 10 months, 30 days
|
Re: capitalism [Re: juende]
#3784643 - 02/15/05 07:12 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
paradigm said
Oh, I wouldn't be surprised. You see, some poor people don't have time to wait around for some minimum wage job to open up, so they're willing to work for less. They do it because it's worth it to them, and it's not for you to decide what's best for them.
i agree that when you are in need in money for your family, for survival you take what you can.
but this is where the whole promblem lies. a company goes to colombia for example and sets up a factory in a poor area, the ppl go there because they need the money. agreed?
is it right for the corporations to pay the least amount becasue of these ppl's situations? do they not have the same rights as someone who is already better off?
what if that would to happen here. lets just say you are working at the local SHroomery, the shroomery corporation open factories and stores knowing ppl need money but only pay $1 an hour with no benefits. some one will take that job. and there will be no other options because this big super store has run out/or bought out other businesses because it can have lower prices due to the huge profit margin of paying low wages. but as banjakri said it leads to legitimizing the current system of exploiting that goes on.
so if they can get away with it because some ppl have reach the level of despresation doesn't make it fair, right or legal.
|
juende
feministpresence
Registered: 02/20/04
Posts: 729
Last seen: 10 months, 30 days
|
Re: capitalism [Re: Phred]
#3784694 - 02/15/05 07:21 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said:
What type of government operates in the countries where companies (foreign-based or indigenous) get away with paying less than the minimum wage as set out by the government of that country?
I'm guessing it's not a Capitalist government.
Phred
not always. these are countries that are most often 3rd owrld or struggling, so in search for aid go the place like the world bank or the imf... or an agreement is made with company A. company A says that they'll bring jobs to the country only if they can set it up in free trade zones [areas of land where the coutries laws do not apply] or are given money but can only use it for lets say roads to the factory or the building of the factory. not for schools or education etc.. progrmas the country needs. so it looks like these companies are bring money and labour to these countries but it turns out that it ends up screwing the country in the end. because the only way to survive is in these sweatshop factories... and the company knows this. so they can pay 18 cent wages and get away with it......
|
juende
feministpresence
Registered: 02/20/04
Posts: 729
Last seen: 10 months, 30 days
|
Re: capitalism [Re: juende]
#3784725 - 02/15/05 07:26 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
phred said:
But since foreign aid isn't a part of Capitalism, let's move on.
how is is not apart of it???
Government has no say in the economy whatsoever.
yes capitlism by DEFINITION doesn't allow gov't intervention... but i mean, look at our president's track list, i'll bet you'll find a lot of [publically know] interactions....
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Phred, Prisoner#1
6,631 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
| | |
|
|
|
Images only 
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
