| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
old hand Registered: 04/14/02 Posts: 910 Loc: comin' at ya Last seen: 20 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
How does your purchase of a product prevent the worker involved in making the product from taking a job with better working conditions?
Let's use as an example the suit filed by the United Steelworkers of America et al against CocaCola. Let's presume CocaCola, inc. is guilty to some degree of the charges being brought against it in Colombia--at the least, of knowingly allowing the violence against union activists and leaders to continue; at the worst, of orchestrating the activity. If CocaCola was paying groups to terrorize, murder, etc. union organizers/activists, (remember we are assuming for the moment) then am I funding terrorism when I buy a Coke or another CocaCola product? And does that terrorism interfere with the workers from unionizing to gain a political voice? What if a company such as CocaCola seeks out places in the world with such conditions of unemployment that they have a bargaining arrangement very much in their favor. People may take work at wages that do little more than keep them from starving--that may constitute a legal arrangement but it might not be an ethical arrangement. We would like those companies to actually offer more than that, but we don't want to force them, right? Besides unions, what can we do to encourage those companies to raise their wages, include benefits, improve work conditions, or whatever? Maybe the ideal method might be those watchdog groups combined with consumer demand. But if a consumer makes no such demand and buys based on quality, price, and convenience (or some other criteria which don't consider morals), then I can see how he or she might wind up "funding" actions like CocaCola is accused of, or of other practices that be morally offensive. Well, I hesitate to point out the obvious, but if every nation were Capitalist, there would be no slave labor. Why is that obvious? There might be slave labor, but it would be illegal. Yet we would still be faced with the same challenges of stopping it and bringing violators to justice. But I'd like to hear why you think it's obvious that it wouldn't exist. Slavery is illegal now, and I don't think the fact that it still exists has anything to do with the "non-Capitalist" quality of our arrangement. But actual slavery is an extreme case, and the bulk of the problem, I think, lies in more difficult to identify matters. Yes, I do remember your efforts to avoid supporting something you are morally opposed to. Good for you--that's the type of attitude I wish were more common, for even though our morals may differ, that seems like a healthy component of the free-market system. To bring this thread back on track, what is your opinion on the possibility of worldwide Capitalism? First of all, I think there are two kinds of Capitalisms: the kind theorized about, which is a superior model; and the kind wound up with when applied to the, um, interesting world we live in. The former type has as much potential of making it into the practical world as a religious order. Both may seem compelling in theory. When you consider, as you mentioned, the divergence from that more intact form of Capitalism that has taken place in the U.S. over the last couple hundred years, what kind of cause-effect chain do you see taking place? To me, it seems that you and other proponents of Capitalism take on a stoic, even dismissive attitude when talking about labor equity and human rights issues where it isn't so black-and-white as outright slavery and such. It would be a good thing to address more sincerely, since it seems that extreme leftist ideals and movements find their strength among the "oppressed." hongomon
| |||||||
|
In_Is_Out Registered: 06/12/03 Posts: 296 Last seen: 20 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Unless you believe that there is infinite wealth, then you have to accept that one man with a billion dollars represents X people with Y less dollars (where X * Y = one billion). Or, an alternate way of looking at this: the 200 richest people in the world possess the equivalent wealth of the 2.5 billion poorest. Economies have to be closed systems. A concentration in one area causes a sparseness in others.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
hongomon writes:
What if a company such as CocaCola seeks out places in the world with such conditions of unemployment that they have a bargaining arrangement very much in their favor. People may take work at wages that do little more than keep them from starving--that may constitute a legal arrangement but it might not be an ethical arrangement. You haven't answered the question. How does your purchase of Coca Cola's products prevent the worker from seeking employment with someone other than Coca Cola? Why is that obvious? There might be slave labor, but it would be illegal. Yet we would still be faced with the same challenges of stopping it and bringing violators to justice. But I'd like to hear why you think it's obvious that it wouldn't exist. Because it doesn't exist now in the quasi-capitalist nations. It certainly wouldn't be reinstated in Capitalist ones. When you consider, as you mentioned, the divergence from that more intact form of Capitalism that has taken place in the U.S. over the last couple hundred years, what kind of cause-effect chain do you see taking place? Politicians, like most people, enjoy being secure in their employment. In the case of a politician in a democratic country, to have job security he must be re-elected. An easy way to get elected is to pander to the wishes of the electorate, whether those wishes run counter to the spirit and letter of the Constitution he swore to uphold or not. A really great way to great re-elected is to promise to solve peoples' problems, even though nowhere in the Constitution are the words "solve" or "problem" mentioned. To me, it seems that you and other proponents of Capitalism take on a stoic, even dismissive attitude when talking about labor equity and human rights issues where it isn't so black-and-white as outright slavery and such. I have no problem with people trying to improve their working conditions through propaganda, persuasion, withholding their labor or whatever. My problem is with government interfering in the economy. As for human rights, since Capitalism is the only politico-economic system in existence that fully recognizes human rights, I fail to see your objection to it. What other system allows you to do whatever you choose as long as you leave others free to do the same? If you violate someone's human rights, you are punished. This you see as problematical? Explain, please. It would be a good thing to address more sincerely... Why do you feel I am insincere? I assure you I am not. ... since it seems that extreme leftist ideals and movements find their strength among the "oppressed." The quotation marks tell the tale. Extreme leftist movements have a novel definition of the word. Capitalists are against oppression. But the fact that a given individual is unable to find an employer willing to hire him does not make him oppressed. Inhabitants of a totalitarian country are oppressed. Inhabitants of a Capitalist country are not. pinky
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
somebodyelse writes:
Unless you believe that there is infinite wealth, then you have to accept that one man with a billion dollars represents X people with Y less dollars (where X * Y = one billion). The amount of wealth is not static, and the economy is not a zero-sum game. It's not as if wealth is a pizza and if I eat two pieces you have to eat the box. Wealth is created through the productive effort of humans. Or, an alternate way of looking at this: the 200 richest people in the world possess the equivalent wealth of the 2.5 billion poorest. If true, so what? What they possess in no way hinders the ongoing creation of more goods and services. Economies have to be closed systems. A concentration in one area causes a sparseness in others. Incorrect. If this were the case there would be no way there could be the number of inhabitants on the planet that there are. Ten thousand years ago there was not enough wealth in existence to allow six billion people to survive. Today there is. Where did that wealth come from? It wasn't just taken from the original owners and handed down for ten thousand years, being redistributed in smaller and smaller slices with each new generation. pinky
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
We would like those companies to actually offer more than that, but we don't want to force them, right? Besides unions, what can we do to encourage those companies to raise their wages, include benefits, improve work conditions, or whatever?
The unions are up against it to be honest. When you've got corporations in bed with brutal dictators if anyone even breaths the word "union" they risk the slaughter of their entire family. It would take bravery on an epic scale to try and form unions in such a situation. What happens is "the race to the bottom". One corporation pays 10 cents an hour, the other does it's best to pay 8 cents an hour. One lets adults handle deadly chemicals with no gloves, the other thinks "lets make 10 year olds do it and pay them even less". There doesn't appear to be anyway around this situation with "capitalism" in the state that it's in at the moment. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 4 months, 13 days |
| ||||||
Quote: I understand there are no restrictions in your form of capitalism but there patently are many restrictions in the current brand of capitalism employed world wide. Quote: Simple, I think it was Bucky Fuller who said that if the wealth of the world was divided equally then every single person on the planet would effecvtively be a millionaire. Now the figure could be incorrect but I dont think its far wrong. So, if individuals control more wealth than entire countries it goes without saying that there will by neccessity be those at the other extreme who are as poor as these people are rich. Also, the main point I am actually making is that under the current captialist system there will always have to be those who are exploited but not neccessarily non-capitalist. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
old hand Registered: 04/14/02 Posts: 910 Loc: comin' at ya Last seen: 20 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
You haven't answered the question. How does your purchase of Coca Cola's products prevent the worker from seeking employment with someone other than Coca Cola?
Wait a minute--are you saying that workers shouldn't be allowed the option of unionizing since they're free to seek other employment (or, for the nobler, opt for unemployment if necessary)? That's pretty harsh. That's the stoic-dismissive attitude I referred to. And I'm sure your stoicism and dismissiveness are sincere (to clear up that confusion)--yet I question the sincerity of stoicism and dismissiveness in addressing labor equity. You just said it yourself: as far as you're concerned, the responsiblity rests with the poor, uneducated, bottom-level working class to refrain from accepting work that they consider unfair or exploitative. Is that how it goes? I'm all for that level to play a part, but in itself it doesn't seem whole. (Add to that the terrorism of union organizers--which you haven't commented on--and it gets even less whole.) To a lot of people, that attitude--as in your question that opens this post--is feigned obtuseness of real situations around the world. Do you hope to promote capitalism? That's not a good approach. In your past, you had a lot of options, and you were able to be picky, even as a low-level job seeker. Not every human can enjoy that blessing, and if all capitalism's adherents/proponents can do is appeal to the honor and stamina of the starving unemployed, it doesn't speak well for capitalism. You'd think you would offer--or at least acknowledge the need for--some more viable solutions. Because [slavery] doesn't exist now in the quasi-capitalist nations. It certainly wouldn't be reinstated in Capitalist ones. Help me understand this: if I'm in a quasi-capitalist country (or a capitalist one) and I buy a Persian rug that was woven by slave children in a non-capitalist country, am I and my quasi-capitalist system absolved of responsibility? That would be nice because it does keep the price down. If you argue that in that example of exchange the capitalist or his system are free of blame, that's another poor showing of capitalism. Why would I want to consider that system? In addition, I disagree that slavery doesn't exist in these nations. It's illegal, and it's surely minimal, but I know you aren't saying that capitalism somehow frees itself of illegal activity. By saying "reinstate" I think you're thinking of a more institutionalized slavery. In your hypothetical world-wide capitalism scenario, there will obviously still be poverty, and there will probably still be whole regions of poverty. So, there will still be opportunities for slavery, indentured servitude, or less striking instances of exploitation. Politicians, like most people, enjoy being secure in their employment. In the case of a politician in a democratic country, to have job security he must be re-elected. An easy way to get elected is to pander to the wishes of the electorate, whether those wishes run counter to the spirit and letter of the Constitution he swore to uphold or not. A really great way to great re-elected is to promise to solve peoples' problems, even though nowhere in the Constitution are the words "solve" or "problem" mentioned. Fine answer. How would a capitalist country avoid the same fate over generations? Imagine we even had the opportunity to magically clean the slate of a lot of our notions and preconceptions that run counter to those notions and attitudes that might be more suitable to a healthy Capitalist system (e.g. what the government should and shouldn't do). How do we keep politicians and the electorate from running away from it again? I'm not asking these questions rhetorically--that is, I'm not trying to say, "What's the point, it'll just fall apart." What I'm saying here about global trade ethics, union and worker terrorism, and consumers with no sense of accountability, and so on (I haven't even mentioned the environment here), are things I think will bring a system down. I have no problem with people trying to improve their working conditions through propaganda, persuasion, withholding their labor or whatever. I'm glad you don't. It's apparent that some do, enough so to have people murdered. I know you want to dissasociate that with Capitalism, but like I've already said, I notice more stoicism than concern when considering how or if the two might be entangled. My problem is with government interfering in the economy. "Economy" can be a pretty broad word. I asked you recently to give me an example of a legitimate environmental law. I already know the standard capitalist catch-phrase for determining laws--thing is, it becomes open to interpretation, and a lot of debate goes on as to what constitutes a violation of another's rights and what does not. Are fishing regulations government interference? How about laws requiring logging companies to replant at a certain rate? As for human rights, since Capitalism is the only politico-economic system in existence that fully recognizes human rights, I fail to see your objection to it. It's okay to fail sometimes. It's not your fault anyway--my objections are randomly inserted throughout these two posts. Sorry, in a writing class I would be hoping for a C. I hope you have a lot of fun spotting them. (I wrote:) ... since it seems that extreme leftist ideals and movements find their strength among the "oppressed." pinky: The quotation marks tell the tale. Extreme leftist movements have a novel definition of the word. Your observation of Extreme lefists' novel definitions is more telling. That was my point--that people might feel oppressed, though not within your definition (hence the ""s). Remember that it is their perception that motivates their choices, not yours. You go on, however, to fail to adequately capture the leftist concept of oppression: But the fact that a given individual is unable to find an employer willing to hire him does not make him oppressed. Don't worry, I know how much trouble libby-speak gives you. I see this as another example of the feigned obtuseness I mentioned earlier. Please try to consider that some people in Thailand or Mexico or Spain or wherever who feel oppressed might actually have a case. Consider the situation with CocaCola workers in Colombia. And this is plain old dogma: Inhabitants of a Capitalist country are not[oppressed], especially when we turn from a national level to a worldwide capitalism. If you violate someone's human rights, you are punished. This you see as problematical? Where did I say I saw that as problematical? I've listed examples of what I do see as problematical--add to them the sophistry of your nut-shell description of Capitalism, I think that's enough to go on for tonight. hongomon Edited by hongomon (07/07/03 03:52 AM)
| |||||||
|
carbon unit Registered: 01/22/00 Posts: 1,739 Loc: Europe Last seen: 3 months, 7 days |
| ||||||
Quote: I think the figure must be much lower. If we take the world GNP (about 30,000 billion dollars) and divide with the world population (about 6 billion), that's $5000 each. And the total financial capital should be in the same ballpark as the GNP.
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 4 months, 13 days |
| ||||||
|
I dont think it is simply a matter of dividing the GDP of the world by the world population.
http://www.geocities.com/combusem/WORLDGDP.HTM The following tabulations compile the basic 1995 world economic information in terms of total GDP per country, population, per capita income and ratio of country per capita income/average world per capita income. Note: GDP data is expressed in 1987 equivalent US$. This information allows to appreciate the world economic maldistribution in its full dramatic perspective. To summarize, we may extract the following facts: 1. The G7 countries account for 67% of the world GDP. 2. A group of 9 nations representing the highest per capita income account for 60% of the total world GDP. Extending this to 43 rich nations accounting for 20% of world population, they represent 84% of world GDP; 57 nations with 30% of world population account for 90% of world GDP. This amounts to saying that the poor 70% of world population receives only 10% of the total world income! 3. The gap between the richest and poorest is represented by the rich Switzerland with a per capita income of $ 26,716 (7.56 times the weighted world average) and the poor Mozambique with and income of $ 95 (0.027 times the world average). The ratio between these extremes is 275 times. 4. Even worse than the actual magnitude of the world economy maldistribution, is the continued tendency of the world economy to concentrate the wealth, thus to increase more the maldistribution. The combined condition of very high and ever increasing maldistribution is a clear indicator of the non sustainability of the actual world economic order. 5. The weighted Maldistribution index of the world nations income is 185.6%, the average world Gini index is 0.682, assuming that in each country there is a perfect internal income distribution; the economic Quality index of this Maldistribution level is 22.5%. 6. However, if we consider that income is maldistributed within each country, say that 30% of rich population takes the 70% of GDP and the balance 70% not rich population receives an income of 30% GDP, situation that would correspond to an internal Gini index of 0.4, then the real World income Maldistribution index reaches 261%, the overall population economic Quality index is only 12.8%, and the corrected overall Gini index becomes 0.767. 7. This means that with the same available world GDP evenly distributed the overall economic performance could be almost 8 times better. The potential supply of so many -today deficient- useful services (education, culture, science, sustainable technology development, sponsorship for arts, human health care, environment care and protection, etc.) would find an 8 fold increase in world consumers' capacity to pay for them. This additional 'production' and 'consumption' would practically eliminate national and international 'unemployment'. This canalisation of 'human employment' for useful purposes would also resolve radically the environmental crisis, as the 'new production' would create more culture, more knowledge, more art, more science and technology, etc., instead of more material glutonery, more weapons, more obsolete automobiles and more propaganda. However, such posibilities are blocked by minority interests. Ferdinand Lundberg (The Rich and the Super-Rich) has summarized the situation as follows: "If inequality of income is not the main question, what is? First, the present concentration of wealth confers self-arrogated and defaulted political policy-making power at home and abroad in a grossly disproporcionate degree on a small and not especially qualified mainly hereditary group; secondly, this group allocates vast economic resources in narrow, self-serving directions, both at home and abroad, rather than in socially and humanly needed public direction." Lets hope that economists and world leaders understand these basic facts to correct the economic model in quality and in time before a cathastropic international collapse occurs. It is probable that the economic collapse may arrive even before than the also foreseeable ecological collapse caused by the present blind growth economic system. -------------------- Always Smi2le Edited by GazzBut (07/07/03 08:01 AM)
| |||||||
|
In_Is_Out Registered: 06/12/03 Posts: 296 Last seen: 20 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Man, you *are* romantic. 1) Large scale, we live on a finite planet. It follows that everything bound to the planet it finite. 2) The amount of land is finite. 3) The amoung of "resources" to be exploited is finite. 4) In your vision of "wealth creation", does the new money suddenly appear with a flash of golden light in a circle drawn on the floor? No, it comes from somebody else. Yes, futures, derivatives, etc, allow trading based on future currency, i.e. currency that doesn't currently exist. This is the closest I can think of to "wealth creation" (i.e. the creation of currency out of nowhere); even this is limited term and extremely artificial, and in actual fact *creates* nothing. If I were to chop down a forect, make 2x4s, and sell them for profit, I still am not creating wealth. a) I am conglomerating wealth from other people to me; b) the trees and topsoil existed before me, and so if anything I'm merely selling part of the finite ecosystem. Quote: My point with this statistic is that conglomeration of wealth comes at the expense of many others. The supperrich are now in the position to deal with countries - the individuals of the countries have zero say about how their money is spent. (Literally of course their money is not *spent* , in that their bank accounts are not emptied; however when a currency is used to guarantee a loan which becomes impossible to repay, so that the country is forced into a position of just paying interest on the loan, the economy of that country nosedives along with the value of the currency.) This is one negative effect of such unbalanced wealth distribution. Quote: I presume you understand the mechanics of the federal reserve? Of currency trading? Etc etc. Money is "printed" (sometimes electronically, as I understand it) and added to the *closed system* of the economy to inflate it when necessary; deflation happens when the currency of a country leaves it. For example, when Russia opened up its currency, the traders quickly sold the rubles out of the country because of the favorable exchange rates, and (now having a vastly reduced pool of currency) the economy nosedived. The dotcom era, while speaking about *creating* wealth, in fact artificially inflated the economy with hubris and exuberance - the bubble created by this **unreal** inflation popped when reality started to seep into the picture. [Now of course my understanding of the mechanics of economy may be wrong - please feel free to refer me to links to good nonpartisan articles explaining it in detail. But from my current understanding, your view of economics is wrong.]
| |||||||
|
Registered: 04/01/02 Posts: 8,049 Last seen: 40 minutes, 44 seconds |
| ||||||
Quote: Oil, topsoil and useable fresh water and they're all disappearing quickly. Capitalism created the technology to use these resources, so far it hasn't done as well at replacing them.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 07/22/02 Posts: 1,516 Loc: -53.121600, 73.7 Last seen: 17 days, 21 hours |
| ||||||
|
boy o' boy...
im sure glad there are so many highly intelligent people around to run things, otherwise everything would be way too complicated.. ![]() -------------------- "Re-examine all that you have been told... dismiss that which insults your soul." -Walt Whitman
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
somebodyelse writes:
In your vision of "wealth creation", does the new money suddenly appear with a flash of golden light in a circle drawn on the floor? No, it comes from somebody else. Currency (money) is not wealth. Goods (and services) of use to humans are wealth. Currency is merely a medium of exchange. As for new money suddenly appearing with a flash of golden light, that is essentially what happens when currency is controlled by government. They print up more whenever they feel (rightly or wrongly) it is correct to do so. No, it comes from somebody else. Only if you yourself are unproductive. I create wealth if I am a farmer or a blacksmith or a potter. This is the closest I can think of to "wealth creation" (i.e. the creation of currency out of nowhere); even this is limited term and extremely artificial, and in actual fact *creates* nothing. The problem is that you are equating government fiat currency and even specie (such as gold bullion or diamonds) with wealth. In the absence of goods for which to trade it, currency is valueless. A warehouse full of wheat or lumber is wealth. A warehouse full of Confederate notes is not. If I were to chop down a forect, make 2x4s, and sell them for profit, I still am not creating wealth. Yeah, you are. You have created that wealth whether you choose to sell the lumber or not, by the way. a) I am conglomerating wealth from other people to me; No, you are exchanging your wealth (goods) for currency (paper dollars) with the expectation that the currency can then be exchanged for a more different and/or more varied wealth (a selection of goods). Your increase in wealth comes not when you have traded your 2x4s for dollars, but when you have finished creating them. b) the trees and topsoil existed before me, and so if anything I'm merely selling part of the finite ecosystem. Trees and topsoil are not finished 2x4s and never will be without human effort. Trees are not goods, they are potential goods. My point with this statistic is that conglomeration of wealth comes at the expense of many others. But it doesn't, always assuming of course that the exchanges involved in the accumulation of that wealth are voluntary. The supperrich are now in the position to deal with countries - the individuals of the countries have zero say about how their money is spent. That is arguably true of many countries, the US included. I remind you once again that Laissez-faire Capitalist countries have governments forbidden to involve themselves in economics. Literally of course their money is not *spent* , in that their bank accounts are not emptied; however when a currency is used to guarantee a loan which becomes impossible to repay, so that the country is forced into a position of just paying interest on the loan, the economy of that country nosedives along with the value of the currency. They are not "forced" to borrow a dime. They choose to do so. If one is not prepared to pay interest, one should not borrow money. I know your point is that the governments of non-Capitalist countries are borrowing that money without the consent of their citizens, but I point out yet again that a Laissez-faire Capitalist government cannot do so. I presume you understand the mechanics of the federal reserve? Of currency trading? Etc etc. Money is "printed" (sometimes electronically, as I understand it) and added to the *closed system* of the economy to inflate it when necessary; deflation happens when the currency of a country leaves it. For example, when Russia opened up its currency, the traders quickly sold the rubles out of the country because of the favorable exchange rates, and (now having a vastly reduced pool of currency) the economy nosedived. I repeat, currency is not wealth. pinky
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
hongomon writes:
Wait a minute--are you saying that workers shouldn't be allowed the option of unionizing since they're free to seek other employment (or, for the nobler, opt for unemployment if necessary)? Workers in a Capitalist society are of course free to attempt to persuade others to join their union. If for whatever reason the attempt fails, they are free to continue to work for the non-unionized company or to seek employment elsewhere. If the reason their attempt failed was that the workers were assaulted, they are free to take the assaulters to court. Your premise seems to be that customers of companies who violate human rights (through the use of slave labor or violence against union organizers) are somehow responsible for preventing workers from choosing a different way of make a living. You have yet to show how this is so. You just said it yourself: as far as you're concerned, the responsiblity rests with the poor, uneducated, bottom-level working class to refrain from accepting work that they consider unfair or exploitative. Is that how it goes? It is of course their choice whether or not to work under those conditions. Some may choose to accept employment even from those they consider unfair or exploitative. Others may choose not to. (Add to that the terrorism of union organizers--which you haven't commented on--and it gets even less whole.) Terrorism of union organizers is illegal. The terrorizers should be brought to court. Oh, wait a minute.... looks like they have been. Or at least the company alleged to have hired the terrorists has been. To get back to the point of the thread, how does the existence of violence against union organizers in a non-Capitalist country such as Colombia (note the use of the capital C) show that non-Capitalist countries are required in order for Capitalist countries to exist? To a lot of people, that attitude--as in your question that opens this post--is feigned obtuseness of real situations around the world. Since when do hypothetical questions illustrate obtuseness, feigned or otherwise? Do you believe it is impossible for every nation on the planet to run as Laissez-faire Capitalist societies? If the answer is yes, please explain why you believe so. In your past, you had a lot of options, and you were able to be picky, even as a low-level job seeker. Not every human can enjoy that blessing... I realize this. Certainly humans in totalitarian regimes have less options than I had. What I am disputing is that the existence of such "option-challenged" individuals is the fault of the Capitalist nations. You'd think you would offer--or at least acknowledge the need for--some more viable solutions. If you wish to discuss specific areas of Capitalism's shortcomings and offer some more viable solutions in a different thread, feel free to open a new one addressing the issue. The question asked in the opening post is -- "Is worldwide Capitalism impossible", not "Would worldwide Capitalism be Utopia". I have never said Capitalism was perfect. No system devised and populated by imperfect beings can be perfect. It is however better than any other system of which we are aware. Help me understand this: if I'm in a quasi-capitalist country (or a capitalist one) and I buy a Persian rug that was woven by slave children in a non-capitalist country, am I and my quasi-capitalist system absolved of responsibility? First, we are not discussing quasi-capitalism. We are discussing Laissez-faire Capitalism. However, for the sake of argument, let's set that aside for now. Responsibility for what? How are you responsible for the inhabitants of that country enslaving children? Let's use a specific example. Slavery is legal in Sudan. How is that the fault of the consumers in the quasi-capitalist countries of the world? Is it your contention that if every consumer in every quasi-capitalist nation were to refuse to buy Sudanese products, the Sudanese government would abolish slavery? If you argue that in that example of exchange the capitalist or his system are free of blame, that's another poor showing of capitalism. Why would I want to consider that system? The question asked is not "Does hongomon love Capitalism," the question is, "Is worldwide Capitalism impossible?" In your hypothetical world-wide capitalism scenario, there will obviously still be poverty, and there will probably still be whole regions of poverty. Probably. So, there will still be opportunities for slavery, indentured servitude, or less striking instances of exploitation. There will always be opportunities for individuals to attempt to act illegally, yes. What's your point? Fine answer. How would a capitalist country avoid the same fate over generations? Imagine we even had the opportunity to magically clean the slate of a lot of our notions and preconceptions that run counter to those notions and attitudes that might be more suitable to a healthy Capitalist system (e.g. what the government should and shouldn't do). How do we keep politicians and the electorate from running away from it again? I don't know. Jefferson foresaw exactly this problem. He was convinced there would have to be revolution (or at the least periodic dissolution and reconstitution of the government organs) every twenty years or so. One way to slow the process would be for the judiciary to rule in advance on the constitutionality of each new piece of legislation before it could be passed into law rather than waiting for the laws to be challenged post facto. Even then, mistakes would be made, as recent decisions by The Supremes demonstrate so clearly. Again, the question asked in the first post was "Is worldwide Capitalism impossible," not "How can we prevent Capitalism from being subverted over time?" I'm not asking these questions rhetorically--that is, I'm not trying to say, "What's the point, it'll just fall apart." What I'm saying here about global trade ethics, union and worker terrorism, and consumers with no sense of accountability, and so on (I haven't even mentioned the environment here), are things I think will bring a system down. So you believe Capitalist nations do not require non-Capitalist nations in order to be maintained, but you believe other factors will inevitably lead to Capitalist nations becoming non-Capitalist over time? Fair enough. That statement has some relevance to the topic under discussion. I'm glad you don't. It's apparent that some do, enough so to have people murdered. I know you want to dissasociate that with Capitalism... Such practices as murder are not only unnecessary to the existence of Capitalism, but are forbidden by it. ...but like I've already said, I notice more stoicism than concern when considering how or if the two might be entangled. So your beef is that I am advocating the rule of law? Are fishing regulations government interference? How about laws requiring logging companies to replant at a certain rate? Off topic. You may want to open a separate thread if you wish to discuss environmental regulations in detail. That was my point--that people might feel [emphasis added by psm] oppressed, though not within your definition (hence the ""s). Ah... Libbythink. Facts mean nothing -- emotions (feelings) trump everything, including reality. Anyone can claim they "feel" oppressed or even honestly feel they are oppressed. That does not mean they are. Lots of people "feel" they are oppressed because they cannot immediately land a six figure job the day after they leave high school. Others feel oppressed because MacDonald's won't hire them unless they take out their nose rings. Remember that it is their perception that motivates their choices, not yours. Which is why Capitalism protects people like that. Their life is not determined by my (or anyone else's) choices, but by theirs. You go on, however, to fail to adequately capture the leftist concept of oppression: Because the Leftist concept of "oppression" is a non-concept. See above. Quote: Think this through. Before the Coca Cola plant was opened, were they oppressed (or did they even feel oppressed)? If they were, it was certainly not Coca Cola doing the oppressing -- Coca Cola wasn't even there. If they weren't oppressed then, but are now, they are free at any time to stop being oppressed by going back to doing whatever they were doing before the Coca Cola plant opened. And this is plain old dogma: Inhabitants of a Capitalist country are not[oppressed], especially when we turn from a national level to a worldwide capitalism. Since the inhabitants are free to do whatever they choose (with of course the standard proviso that they not prevent others from doing the same), please explain to us how are they oppressed. Thank you. pinky
| |||||||
|
p_g monocle Registered: 04/13/01 Posts: 2,598 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
z -------------------- my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson Edited by Lallafa (02/24/10 09:01 AM)
| |||||||
|
(hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 15 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
The entire premise of this thread is misguided.
At present, worldwide Capitalism does not exist. It has never existed. No purely Capitalist country currently exists. No purely Capitalist country has ever existed. It follows then that the burden of proof does not fall upon those who argue that worldwide Capitalism (or even Capitalism in one country) is impossible, but rather upon those who argue that Capitalism, anywhere or everywhere, IS possible. Asking somebody to prove that something is impossible is out of court; because the potential number of impossibilities is infinite, the game can continue indefinitely with no profit for anybody. "Prove to me that it is impossible for humans to turn themselves into iguanas." I cannot do so. All I can say is that no such event has ever been recorded and verified. I may also add that such an event contravenes the physical laws of the universe as they are currently understood, but even this is not DEFINITIVE PROOF because our current understanding may later prove to be incomplete. No PURELY Capitalist country has ever existed. Prove to us first that even that much is possible. Then maybe we can worry about worldwide Capitalism.
| |||||||
|
In_Is_Out Registered: 06/12/03 Posts: 296 Last seen: 20 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Fair point, but it is the medium of exchange of wealth. Thus by studying the distribution patterns of currency, we can get a good idea about the distribution patterns of wealth. Unless you want to revert to a barter system, I have to exchange my 2x4s for currency. The currency I receive in exchange most likely comes from developers; in turn, their money comes from people buying their houses; in turn, their money comes from their paychecks; in turn, that money came from consumers buying their services; etc. That's how it is supposed to work. Great. But what about when we fuck our ecosystem to the extent that the amount of exploitable resources that can be converted to wealth starts to decline? Also, critics of communism point to the real life actual examples of communist countries, which as we all agree have about as much relation to Marx as chalk to cheese. Why are we then talking out of the other side of our faces about the virtues of capitalism, when the real life examples of capitalist countries have a decidely imperialist bent? Shouldn't we apply the same standards and say that really, capitalism doesn't work in the favor of the whole population, either?
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
EchoVortex writes:
It follows then that the burden of proof does not fall upon those who argue that worldwide Capitalism (or even Capitalism in one country) is impossible, but rather upon those who argue that Capitalism, anywhere or everywhere, IS possible. Although the title of the thread is "Is worldwide Capitalism impossible?", it could as easily have been "Is worldwide Capitalism possible." For those who missed the first post in the thread, here it is in its entirety: Quote: We have had many comments so far. I doubt anyone has proved that worldwide Capitalism is impossible, nor has anyone proved it is possible. What I was mainly interested in was readers' takes on GazzBut's premise that in order for the system (Capitalism) to be maintained, there must be people outside the system (non-Capitalists) which Capitalists can exploit. I could perhaps have chosen a title closer to that premise, but I was trying to be short and snappy. I suck at titles for threads. pinky
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
somebodyelse writes:
Thus by studying the distribution patterns of currency, we can get a good idea about the distribution patterns of wealth. True. This doesn't change the fact that the amount of wealth on the planet is an ever increasing one. It is not a fixed amount. But what about when we fuck our ecosystem to the extent that the amount of exploitable resources that can be converted to wealth starts to decline? We'll have to rely a lot more heavily on recycling, I guess. The only resources which are gone forever once used are the fossil fuels we burn. You can't recycle a gallon of burned gasoline or a ton of burned coal. Even then, Evolving posted an extremely interesting link to a guy who claims to have invented a method of economically turning just about any organic starter material into oil. I believe it can still be found with a bit of searching in the Science and Technology forum. Also, critics of communism point to the real life actual examples of communist countries, which as we all agree have about as much relation to Marx as chalk to cheese. Not all agree that the relation is that tenuous, but no sensible person will dispute that the countries calling themselves Communist differ substantially from Marx's description. Why are we then talking out of the other side of our faces about the virtues of capitalism, when the real life examples of capitalist countries have a decidely imperialist bent? If countries which people describe as Communist aren't really Communist, why are you surprised that countries which people describe as Capitalist aren't really Capitalist? That sword cuts both ways. Shouldn't we apply the same standards and say that really, capitalism doesn't work in the favor of the whole population, either? That is debatable. Depends on the definition of "in favor" I guess. However, as I pointed out elsewhere, I can't remember ever seeing a proponent of Capitalism claiming the system is perfect, just that it is better than any other system yet devised. My purpose in opening a separate thread to address GazzBut's comment rather than derailing the thread in which it appeared was not to ask for a shopping list of perceived imperfections of Capitalism, it was to see if anyone cared to comment on the premise that Capitalism cannot be maintained in the absence of non-Capitalists to be exploited. Do you have an opinion on that issue? pinky
| |||||||
|
p_g monocle Registered: 04/13/01 Posts: 2,598 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
z
-------------------- my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson Edited by Lallafa (02/24/10 09:01 AM)
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Capitalism leads to...(for Alcalagon) | 742 | 12 | 10/24/04 12:46 PM by silversoul7 | ||
![]() |
Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists ( |
6,866 | 63 | 11/01/02 08:19 AM by Innvertigo | ||
![]() |
The nightmarish reality of global capitalism | 982 | 7 | 08/19/07 05:27 PM by lonestar2004 | ||
![]() |
The United States is NOT Capitalist... ( |
16,720 | 133 | 09/28/09 11:34 AM by Phred | ||
![]() |
Corporations are not capitalism | 859 | 4 | 10/11/04 11:56 PM by Worf | ||
![]() |
Why Does Capitalism Get Such A Bum Rap? ( |
2,002 | 29 | 12/08/21 10:25 PM by CreonAntigone | ||
![]() |
Capitalism=Theft ( |
10,504 | 153 | 11/10/05 01:04 AM by Microcosmatrix | ||
![]() |
Is the drug war anti-capitalist? ( |
13,350 | 151 | 08/12/04 10:49 AM by CJay |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 5,689 topic views. 0 members, 6 guests and 12 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||



