|
ClammyJoe
Azurescen Head



Registered: 11/03/05
Posts: 3,691
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: 4896744]
#13045318 - 08/13/10 08:24 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
My observation:
Years ago when we had a capitalist country, the government worked in the interest of industry and relied on the industry to take care of its workers.
Now, in our "Socialist" country, our government fights industry with regulation and taxation, and in turn promises people that the government will take care of them.
Now which system has served the American people better? Time will tell I suppose.
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Yrat]
#13045334 - 08/13/10 08:31 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Lol, talking to zealots makes my head hurt! have a pleasant day.
Edit: Apologies for the above. I dont really think you are a zealot Its just I have been round this particular merry-go-round many times before and the thought of doing it again tires me, plus I have had a long day at work! Apology over...carry on!
-------------------- Always Smi2le
Edited by GazzBut (08/13/10 08:45 AM)
|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: GazzBut]
#13045494 - 08/13/10 09:32 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
it probably gives you a headache because you are forced to examine the fundamentals you support when you advocate for "the greater good."
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Yrat]
#13045571 - 08/13/10 09:58 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Yrat, a review of GazzBut's posts over the years shows he cannot be convinced on this point, because he honestly believes there is no such thing as rights.
So when you argue against his preferred form of social organization by pointing out it violates the rights of humans, he brushes off everything you say as irrelevant. To him, your stance that the initiation of force against peaceful humans who have done no harm (thus violating their rights) should be forbidden, is a nonsensical stance, in the same way that to me the stance of the mullahs that un-burqa'd women appearing in public (thus offending Allah) are to be forbidden is nonsensical, and for the same reason: "rights" to GazzBut are every bit as imaginary as "Allah" is to me.
Phred
--------------------
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Shandy]
#13045587 - 08/13/10 10:04 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shandy said:
Quote:
In any case however, please explain how you must have very poor to have very rich in a capitalist system? This does not make sense to me, and I suspect it arises from the confusion (common on these boards) between currency and wealth, though you've not explained yourself so I don't know. As a counterexample, lets say I am working at my job stocking a bar. I convince the owner to pay me by my performance and the bartenders to tip me for the same. I keep my bars stocked better than my coworkers and therefore make more money, both in larger tips and because I do more useful work than my coworkers in a shift and therefore make more in wages from the owner. I take on extra shifts and now I have four times the money as my coworkers. How has this harmed my coworkers at all? How has this harmed the patrons at all? Where is the poor to my rich? Whether a product or a service, I see no reason why the existance of wealthy requires the existance of poor, presuming we're ignoring semantic arguments
Here's another example. I work for a multinational company which closes down all it's domestic based factories and outsources them to a special 'economic trading zone' in Asia, which has no labour legislation at all.
I am now unemployed, whilst a child in Nepal does my old job for about $0.80 a day, in dangerous conditions.
The CEO of that company doubles his salary and receives an $8m dollar bonus that year, because of the costs he has saved.
I'm sorry, what is the point here?
Ignoring the merit of your claim, this is irrelevant.
The post to which I responded claimed that to have rich you must have poor, in a capitalist economy. I said this does not seem to be the case and asked him to explain himself rather than make a naked assertion, and then proffered a counterexample.
You, then, offer a random situation that I'm guessing you allege shows a situation where someone made money and someone lost money, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. So what?
I was not making a positive assertion and therefore a counterexample does not refute my point at all. Simply because the post to which I responded claimed a particular truth and I refute it does not mean that a situation contrary to my refutation disproves the refutation.
As to the merits of your claim, what exactly are you claiming here? That you were somehow harmed by this situation? That Nepalese children have less moral right to employment or wealth than you? That it is better for a person in one country to be employed than in another?
We can't read your mind here, you need to make an argument.
|
Shandy
Reverse


Registered: 11/16/09
Posts: 45
Loc: UK
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
|
@ John214
You posted:
Quote:
In any case however, please explain how you must have very poor to have very rich in a capitalist system? This does not make sense to me
The example I posted was meant to show how some people's [extreme] wealth is gained by economically disenfranchising others. I thought that was fairly obvious.
Some capitalist corporations/individuals are genuine 'wealth creators' who help economies to grow - fair enough. But on the flip-side there are also those who accumulate wealth by outsourcing, downsizing etc - actions which leave a much larger proportion of their staff poorer. You can't ignore either aspect of capitalism, both are real.
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Shandy]
#13045680 - 08/13/10 10:32 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I agree, I'm just saying that I don't see it as negating my point.
I would also observe that while you are absolutely correct, it doesn't mean that this effect of capitalism is creating a sequestration of wealth as suggested. To view it that way requires you to constrainn your examination to the company and its employees domestically only, which is an artificial constraint- the system at work in your example is international and scope.
We might, as americans (for example) care more about our own country's citezins, but that doesn't mean we can ignore the entire economic system when evaluating the effects of this circumstance you mention. For example, the far more poor child in nepal now has much more money and the american consumers have goods at a far cheaper price due to the move you mentionf- making the poorest wealthier and the american consumer also wealthier (or at least inflating their purchasing power). This may not be politically desirable or even economically preferable from a domestic perspective, but it doesn't equate to producing a widening of the gap between rich and poor due to capitalist activity. If it did you would have to concede that blowing up China and taking all their mineral resources and importing them to America was a free benefit with no economic cost- this ignores the entire economic system, including the effect on the chinese who had their resources plundered.
|
Shandy
Reverse


Registered: 11/16/09
Posts: 45
Loc: UK
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
|
I wasn't speaking just domestically, the child in Nepal is victimised as well - because likewise in Nepal there will be a contractor who owns the factory making a profit for himself from the US multinational. He will in turn keep wages low, hours long, safety requirements minimal etc in order to make his factory cheap enough to win contracts.
It's lose-lose for both the original employees and the 'outsourced' employees oversees. The former have lost their jobs, the latter are trapped in crushingly bad jobs and a cycle of poverty. Meanwhile the company heads will profit directly from this.
The scenario I suggested is the unacceptable face of capitalism imo
|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Shandy]
#13045927 - 08/13/10 11:37 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
so the child is disadvantaged despite the fact that he now has a job and makes a wage? as opposed to having no job and zero income? you socialists sure are a confusing bunch.
you do realize his wage is his share of the profit, correct?
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
|
Noetical
Flip Horrorshow

Registered: 11/28/04
Posts: 9,230
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Yrat]
#13046036 - 08/13/10 12:08 PM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yrat said: so you're saying that the rail system was originally state-owned, and was being operated at a loss at tax-payer expense, so much so that once in private hands it was too far gone to operate at profit and thus couldn't sustain private ownership? so now, once again, it is back in state hands operating at a loss at taxpayer's expense?
sounds about right.
More like National Express won a tendered bid to operate one of the financial rail stars, the east coast route, in 06 (think easy money) - rapidly rising fuel costs and poor hedging strategies were compounded by tight credit markets and decreases in ridership brought about by the global economic downturn.
National Express walked away from the deal and the route was renationalized in 09 with plans to retender service bids for late 10 early 11.
|
Shandy
Reverse


Registered: 11/16/09
Posts: 45
Loc: UK
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Yrat]
#13046045 - 08/13/10 12:09 PM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yrat said: so the child is disadvantaged despite the fact that he now has a job and makes a wage? as opposed to having no job and zero income? you socialists sure are a confusing bunch.
you do realize his wage is his share of the profit, correct?
This is an excerpt from The Telegraph (which is a conservative newspaper btw):
Quote:
The Telegraph visited the complex posing as a buyer for a fictional boutique fashion outlet in London.
After negotiations with managers to view the quality of the workmanship and photograph samples, The Telegraph was shown to a series of 12 dingy rooms where both adults and children squatted on the floor performing delicate embroidery and stitching.
Photographs of the children, many of whom appeared shockingly young, were shown to the child rights charity Global March Against Child Labour, who immediately contacted police. Authorities raided the building a few hours later. The boys, some as young as eight, looked utterly terrified as a police inspector explained that they were working illegally and would shortly be returned to their families.
There were chaotic scenes as the children, many dressed in little more than their underwear, were given a few minutes to dress and gather their few belongings before being ushered from the premises in a pitiful crocodile.
"Once we saw the photographs we knew that we had to act fast," said Bhuwan Ribhu, a Delhi lawyer and activist with the Indian branch of Global March Against Child Labour.
"The children are aged eight to 15 and at least three of them have told me already that they were working for no pay at all."
After their rescue, the children, who come from impoverished families in rural West Bengal, eastern India, were taken to a local police station where they were processed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1567849/Gap-sweatshop-children-saved-in-India-raid.html
8 year old children ffs. "Their share of the profits" - You must be trolling. If you think that is acceptable in the 21st century then you're one horrible individual.
|
Noetical
Flip Horrorshow

Registered: 11/28/04
Posts: 9,230
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Yrat]
#13046060 - 08/13/10 12:12 PM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yrat said: you do realize his wage is his share of the profit, correct?
That is incorrect.
|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Shandy]
#13046078 - 08/13/10 12:17 PM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
you are changing the argument to an emotional appeal against child labor instead of debating capitalism.
let's say the worker is 18 and making $0.80 an hour. he is working there voluntarily. he can leave anytime he wants.
"so the worker is disadvantaged despite the fact that he now has a job and makes a wage? as opposed to having no job and zero income?"
pray tell, how would the factory even operate in a socialistic setting without a profit motive? who would be selling their labor (working) for free? you think you can convince people to do that?
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
Noetical said:
Quote:
Yrat said: you do realize his wage is his share of the profit, correct?
That is incorrect.
you are incorrect. what source of money is he paid from then?
you clearly have no idea about how a business operates. money doesn't grow on trees. it comes from sales. profits. are you thinking of net profit after wages are subtracted?
|
Noetical
Flip Horrorshow

Registered: 11/28/04
Posts: 9,230
|
|
I'm not your teacher or your tutor but maybe you should try and understand what profit is first.
|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
|
maybe you should try and understand that a worker wouldn't be employed at all if there wasn't enough overhead profit to pay his or her wage.
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
|
Noetical
Flip Horrorshow

Registered: 11/28/04
Posts: 9,230
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Yrat]
#13046105 - 08/13/10 12:24 PM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
haha
your cart and horses are falling all over the place
|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
|
right...
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
|
Shandy
Reverse


Registered: 11/16/09
Posts: 45
Loc: UK
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Yrat]
#13046127 - 08/13/10 12:30 PM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yrat said: you are changing the argument to an emotional appeal against child labor instead of debating capitalism.
let's say the worker is 18 and making $0.80 an hour. he is working there voluntarily. he can leave anytime he wants.
"so the worker is disadvantaged despite the fact that he now has a job and makes a wage? as opposed to having no job and zero income?"
pray tell, how would the factory even operate in a socialistic setting without a profit motive? who would be selling their labor (working) for free? you think you can convince people to do that?
No - child labour is a product of capitalism and so it is fair to debate it. These are US / British / western companies we are talking about here. That article is regarding Gap, from 2007. For the record I don't believe it is humane or civilised to pay a grown adult $0.80 a day for his labour either. That's why I believe in the minimum wage. These companies make astronomical profits, they can easily afford to pay more and should be made to. You were banging on about rights and 'slavery' under socialism before I believe. Now you think foreign kids should be sewing your clothes together for less than a pittance. What a callous hypocrite you are.
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Shandy]
#13046140 - 08/13/10 12:35 PM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shandy said: I wasn't speaking just domestically, the child in Nepal is victimised as well - because likewise in Nepal there will be a contractor who owns the factory making a profit for himself from the US multinational. He will in turn keep wages low, hours long, safety requirements minimal etc in order to make his factory cheap enough to win contracts.
It's lose-lose for both the original employees and the 'outsourced' employees oversees. The former have lost their jobs, the latter are trapped in crushingly bad jobs and a cycle of poverty. Meanwhile the company heads will profit directly from this.
The scenario I suggested is the unacceptable face of capitalism imo
Ok, your going to need to clearly specify what your argument is and what your supporting logic is, then.
I thought we were discussing whether capitalism creates a widening between the rich and the poor. I disagreed that this was the effect, in fact is was exactly the opposite, in youre example and explained why. Now, you have changed the argument to claim that one of the parties was victimized.
If you are going to claim capitalism leads to victimization, that's fine, but you should do so in a clearlly-delineated argument and not switch your thesis in the middle of a discussion.
I presume we are in agreement then that my claim that the situation you mention has narrowed the rich-poor gap has gone unanswered, yes? I do not see that you have answered this at all, meerly claiming, for the first time, that some party is victimized and at the end making a naked unsupported allegation that they are trapped in a "cycle of poverty" and that the company somehow gains due to this.
As an aside, how is the child victimzed by having a job? If they don't want the job then they can quit. I note again how socialism is incompatible with freedom. You appear to be clearly arguing that it is "best" to decide for the worker whether the job is helpful and if not to fire the worker and close the factory rather than have the person decide for themselves whether they wish to continue their employment. What I don't get is how taking the job from the worker and closing the factory somehow helps alleviate the "cycle of poverty" whilst in another country you are claiming that the same closing of the factory and removal of the job is in fact creating such poverty. This contradiction is ubiquitous when examining any socialist theory.
|
|