| 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: |
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
DoctorJ writes:
in order to have HAVES, you have to have HAVENOTS. Incorrect. This is true in a poker game; it is not true in life. Besides, capitalism always reverts to communism over time... Historically, this is true. It wouldn't be true if it weren't for the democratic process, however. Two Peters will ALWAYS eventually vote to rob one Paul. It's just a matter of time. When a country's voters allow the checks and balances of a constitution to be subverted through unlimited majority rule, Capitalism will always devolve into Socialism. pinky
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Just imagine how much the greedy bastard could improve the lives of all those brutalised slaves he's got in those microsoft factories in China with just ONE billion. Decent living conditions, paying enough that they can afford to eat, health care.
As long as he gets everything and they get nothing he's a happy bunny. Those pesky finite resources! I mean, if he paid them enough that they could afford to eat he'd be reduced to living in fifteen mansions! That really won't do will it. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
DoctorJ writes:
Um... yeah dude, its called "finite resources" and "exponentially increasing population" With the exception of fossil fuels which we currently burn to produce energy, the earth's resources, though finite, are sufficient to support a far greater population than exists today. Besides, mansions, champagne and Ferraris are not in danger of running out any time soon. ....most rich people I know are way more concerned about stuffing their faces... Food is not a finite resource. ... watching TV... No shortage of television sets either. ... and buying wasteful consumer products. No shortage of them either. I ask again -- how does the fact that some trustfunder in Los Angeles is snarfing a kilo of coke a year and filling his bathtub with champagne prevent a Mexican farmer from feeding his family? Let me move away from priciples and concepts for a moment and give a real life example, okay? I live in the Dominican Republic (almost sixteen years now) in a small village on the north coast that is famous for its windsurfing, surfing, and kiteboarding conditions. Windsurfing is not an inexpensive sport, and many of the wind addicts who come here every year are pretty well off. For the sake of argument, let's call them "rich", since some of them are. Before the "rich" started coming here, the few locals who were in this area lived a pretty subsistence lifestyle. The wind is brutal, the soil is sandy, the bay has no fish to speak of. There was really no way to make any kind of a living. There's a guy I see every day. I met him the first week I got here -- bought him a beer and a sandwich at the only bar in town at that time. His name is Felix, and he looks to be about sixty years old now. Felix is a pretty fair woodcarver and he makes some pretty neat masks and trinkets and such like. Before the "rich" started coming here and buying "wasteful consumer products", Felix was living off handouts from friends and relatives and soft touches like myself, since the Cabarete natives have no use for the kind of "art" that Felix produces. Now there is not a day of the year goes by that he doesn't sell at least fifty bucks worth of his knicknacks -- and that's all they are, really. I mean, they are better than the run of the mill mass produced ceramic crap they sell at the airport gift shops, but not exceptionally so. Where would Felix be without the "rich" who can afford to waste resources on a vacation to a Caribbean island; the "rich" who can afford to greedily amuse themselves by playing around like big kids on expensive assemblages of fiberglass, epoxy, kevlar, monofilm and carbon fiber? The "rich" who find his trinkets amusing (they certainly are not utilitarian) and think nothing of buying two or three to line the walls of their mansions? How does their five thousand dollars worth of windsurf gear which they purchased solely for their own personal amusement deprive Felix (or anyone else) of his livelihood? When I got here in early 1988, Cabarete had maybe a hundred and fifty residents, and that was a HUGE increase compared to the time when the first windsurfers from Quebec arrived in the early Eighties and there were maybe two dozen. Today there are thousands, and those thousands live far better lives (as cooks, waiters, bartenders, construction workers, guides, windsurf instructors, hotel maids, clerks in grocery stores and clothing stores and windsurfing shops, cigar rollers, etc.) than those living just ten miles in either direction. And the only reason they do is that the "rich" choose to spend their money on some stupid wasteful unnecessary (some even say "childish") consumer product -- a sailboard or a kiteboard or a surfboard. You want to guess what Felix would be doing if the "rich" didn't indulge themselves in their expensive, wasteful, and ultimately non-productive hobby, but instead gave the money they spent on their windsurfer equipment to UNICEF or CARE? pinky
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
hongomon writes:
Yes, it's very often the circumstances that are putting the pressure on the person. Of course. All I am asking is for you to show us how those who mind their own business and live their entire lives trading with others through mutual consent -- never initiating physical force or fraud against another human -- are to blame for those pressure-filled circumstances. And now, with capital as mobile as it is and companies as world-wide as they are, it's even less difficult to find and set up shop in areas with a lot of people facing starvation, with whom a business might be holding nearly all the bargaining chips. Two questions, which in all our conversations here you have always managed to evade answering (so why do I even make the effort to ask them again? *shrug*): 1) Why is it wrong for an individual or a giant corporation to provide those facing starvation the opportunity to avoid it? 2) If working for said company is so onerous, why do the workers not turn their backs on the company and go back to doing whatever they were doing before the company arrived on the scene? It seems we are only expected to appreciate these business for offering something. I don't always feel the gratitude. I (and the other residents of the Dominican Republic) couldn't care less whether hongomon and his colleagues "feel" gratitude or not. Feelings don't put food on the table, believe it or not -- the feelings of someone in a faraway land least of all. I can however assure you that at least in my little third-world country, the opening of a new factory (which you and your colleagues would doubtless consider a "sweatshop") is greeted with intense jubilation, and the closing of one with abject despair. He has made some good points, but maybe a compendium of sorts--or a link to where it's been done might go well here. I can't believe that in all your time here you have never perused the thread started by Trendal -- the one I refer to as "The Great Debate". It is titled "The United States is NOT Capitalist", and maybe it's time to bump it. pinky
| |||||||
|
umask 077(nonefo ![]() Registered: 09/06/02 Posts: 3,095 Loc: Jacksonville,FL Last seen: 18 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
Not to be a dick pinkshark,but you have a habit of referring to socialism and communism as the same thing. They clearly are not.
-------------------- People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything... Douglas Adams
| |||||||
|
Chill the FuckOu Registered: 10/10/02 Posts: 27,301 Loc: mndfreeze's pupp |
| ||||||
Quote: I don't recall any communist countries prior to the 20th century. Could you refresh my memory?
| |||||||
|
Registered: 06/30/03 Posts: 8,846 Loc: space Last seen: 1 year, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
pinksharkmark wrote:
With the exception of fossil fuels which we currently burn to produce energy, the earth's resources, though finite, are sufficient to support a far greater population than exists today. Besides, mansions, champagne and Ferraris are not in danger of running out any time soon. It seems that you are unfamiliar with the concept of exponential incrementation. what this means is that the population when I was a kid was 3.5 billion and today (20 years later) it is 7 billion, and in about 15 years it will be twenty billion... the number is not going up in small spurts, but in leaps and bounds. According to my own conglomeration of sources, the human race will be real close to running out of resources sometime around 2100... within my lifetime. I'm not looking forward to it. Farmable land, water, oil (and, by connection, plastic), and all kinds of other crap will be in short supply... As for your friend felix... I've never been fond of the concept of Art for money. Money corrupts art. Your friend should get a real job and make art in his spare time for his own amusement. I know that sounds harsh, but I'm a musician and I never get paid I just do it for the love of the craft. But I also acknowledge my responsibility to make this planet a better place than it was before I got here, or at least maintain some kind of stasis... most capitalists I know... thats the farthest thing from their minds. their only god is self indulgence. I grew up rich, and I know for a fact that the rich are not nice people. Oh yeah- money and living well should not be you're ruler for greatness. Don't you realize that the human race has work to do and things to accomplish? Again, I stand by my commitment to science- Once they figure out gravity and sub-sub-atomic particles, no resource will be scarce and energy will be free. try to make a buck off that! But seriously, my problem with rich people is that they spend too much time and resources distracting themselves from the work that needs to be done... Right now we are spending 367 billion dollars on defending the wealthy's unearned money from the legitimately angry armies of the world... and we only spend 15 billion on NASA. you see, america is a system, and every system has a product. I just wish that product were worthwhile accomplishments instead of a huge middle class that does nothing but stuff their face with the blood and sweat of the impoverished working class. you can call me a commie if you want, but I've seen the politburo and it ain't trade unionists.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Not to be a dick pinkshark,but you have a habit of referring to socialism and communism as the same thing. They clearly are not.
I know that. That is why, when I replied to DoctorJ's assertion that "capitalism always reverts to communism over time", I deliberately used the word Socialism rather than Communism -- because I do recognize the distinction between the two. However, when compared to Laissez-faire Capitalism, the differences between Socialism and Marxism (which I presume you mean when you refer to Communism) are merely a matter of degree. The principle behind them is the same -- private ownership is anathema. pinky
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
DoctorJ writes:
It seems that you are unfamiliar with the concept of exponential incrementation. what this means is that the population when I was a kid was 3.5 billion and today (20 years later) it is 7 billion, and in about 15 years it will be twenty billion... It will be nowhere near 20 billion in fifteen years. Ever since I was in school the doomsayers have been saying the population would increase faster than it has, and they have been wrong every time. In the early Seventies there were numerous books predicting the population would reach ten or fifteen or twenty billion or whatever by the turn of the century. In actual fact it was just over 6 billion. Other authors said there would be food riots, wars started over farmland, and worldwide famine before the year 2000. They too were wrong. the number is not going up in small spurts, but in leaps and bounds. Incorrect. The curve has been flattening for some time now. If this wasn't true, the doomsayers' predictions would have been correct. I started this thread to see if anyone cared to comment on GazzBut's premise that Capitalism cannot be maintained without non-Capitalists to exploit. Would you care to give us your opinion on that point? Your friend should get a real job and make art in his spare time for his own amusement. Why? He's not particularly young, not particularly strong, not particularly attractive, so there are a whole range of jobs for which he is less suited than the job of successful artist. But I also acknowledge my responsibility to make this planet a better place than it was before I got here, or at least maintain some kind of stasis... most capitalists I know... thats the farthest thing from their minds. their only god is self indulgence. You must know some posers, then. It's easy to call yourself a Capitalist. The Capitalists I know work their asses off to support themselves and their families. I personally know none who are polluting the air and the water or exploiting the downtrodden. I grew up rich, and I know for a fact that the rich are not nice people. The question is not "Are the rich nice," the question is "Do the rich prevent others from living their lives to the best of their ability". How does the fact that some rich girl (or even all the rich girls) you know is a raving bitch prevent Felix from making a living? Oh yeah- money and living well should not be you're ruler for greatness. I could have made substantially more money than I did. I decided I had made enough for the moment, so I left an extremely well-paying career behind and came here to chill. I'm still here. But just because I followed that path doesn't mean I think less of those who do. That's their business. Don't you realize that the human race has work to do and things to accomplish? No human need work harder than he chooses, nor accomplish more than he wishes. Can you please tell us who has the authority to force people to work? Who has the authority to force people to accomplish things? But seriously, my problem with rich people is that they spend too much time and resources distracting themselves from the work that needs to be done... What work needs to be done? From what you have told us so far, it seems your big concern is that too much is being done already -- too much reproduction, too much transformation of sand into silicon, farmland into food, ore into vehicles. Right now we are spending 367 billion dollars on defending the wealthy's unearned money... Unearned? Please elaborate. ...from the legitimately angry armies of the world... Examples, please. I would really like to know which armies are legitimately angry. I just wish that product were worthwhile accomplishments instead of a huge middle class that does nothing but stuff their face with the blood and sweat of the impoverished working class. Ah. You are a Marxist, then. Why didn't you say so at the beginning? pinky
| |||||||
|
Registered: 06/30/03 Posts: 8,846 Loc: space Last seen: 1 year, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
"Ah. You are a Marxist, then. Why didn't you say so at the beginning? "
Ive said it before, and I'll say it again: ISMS ARE BUNK!!!! I'm sorry If I gave you the impression that I was speaking in absolutes. You should Know that I hold no permenant alliances to... well, anything at all, really. I'm all about what works for the situation. If you were in the same situation as me, my points would be blatantly obvious to you. But you are in your situation and I'm sure you are quite capable of handling it. I'm just representing what I see on my end of things. " Can you please tell us who has the authority to force people to work? Who has the authority to force people to accomplish things?" Circumstances. You'll see. "You must know some posers, then. It's easy to call yourself a Capitalist. The Capitalists I know work their asses off to support themselves and their families. I personally know none who are polluting the air and the water or exploiting the downtrodden." I live in the northern burbs of a large urban area down south is the city, with all the heavy traffic and factories along the river. But when I look at the air pollution data on the internet (its a constant stream) I see that its all red and orange downtown, but up north in the yuppie burbs, thers a big purple patch (purple is the worst, red and orange arent good). The yuppie purple patch, I believe, is solely caused by SUVs and Humvees, and Big Redneck pickup trucks with American flag stickers on the back. "What work needs to be done? From what you have told us so far, it seems your big concern is that too much is being done already -- too much reproduction, too much transformation of sand into silicon, farmland into food, ore into vehicles. " All of the activities that you mentioned are fine. But they need to be counterbalanced by investments in our future. This involves figuring out how to do things more efficiently and cleanly and finding newer, better sources of energy and matter. The wealthy have a vested interest in protecting the status quo. A switch in say, the type of energy we use, or the type of software our computers run, or the development of a new metal that makes steel obsolete, to name a few examples, could seriously shake up the money. If said developments were to happen, certain people's entire businesses would be obsolete, and other people would get their money. Therefore, people with money, who are just protecting their money instead of using it for advancements have an interest in keeping things exactly the way they are. Thay CAN BE a huge impediment to development, and in many situations, indeed they are. As for the work that needs to be done, let me remind you that right now the human race only inhabits a small speck of sand in an infinite desert that is the universe. Believe me, there are much better places than this planet, but it will take work to get there. "I started this thread to see if anyone cared to comment on GazzBut's premise that Capitalism cannot be maintained without non-Capitalists to exploit. Would you care to give us your opinion on that point?" I already did. I stated that capitalism and communism have a symbiotic relationship in which one succeeeds the other in a never ending cycle. I just wish we could control the phase of that cycle to better suit our needs at the current moment in human history. "Examples, please. I would really like to know which armies are legitimately angry." I would say that most of the world is pretty angry that America holds 5% of the world's population and consumes 30% of its resources. Not to mention the fact that we routinely use our military and intelligence organizations to to control the politics and economies of foriegn countries. "Incorrect. The curve has been flattening for some time now. If this wasn't true, the doomsayers' predictions would have been correct." The source I'm using is Stephen Hawkings new Book, The Universe in a Nutshell. If you want to disagree with a man whose IQ is 216... be my guest. "Unearned? Please elaborate." My apologies for using generalities. Of course, not all of the wealthy's money is unearned, and there are a lot of wealthy people who work their ass off and get a lot of things done. But, in my experience, in America these are a minority. When I said that rich people aren't nice, I really meant that they are stupid and tend to manage things badly. A lot of them haven't really ever had to work hard in their lives. A lot of them haven't had to figure anything out bevcause they have people to think for them. Its not that I dont like them, its that they are the wrong people to be in charge of all those resources. Inheritance is a big problem. Even Jefferson opposed inheritance- he thought that estates should be distributed amongst the community upon the deaths of their owners. Because money (power) should not be transfered arbitrarily from one generation to the next. That is a monarchy. anywho, thats my 2 cents on things
| |||||||
|
old hand Registered: 04/14/02 Posts: 910 Loc: comin' at ya Last seen: 20 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Pinky:
Of course. All I am asking is for you to show us how those who mind their own business and live their entire lives trading with others through mutual consent -- never initiating physical force or fraud against another human -- are to blame for those pressure-filled circumstances. You make it sound so peachy here. How could anyone find a problem in that? Two questions, which in all our conversations here you have always managed to evade answering (so why do I even make the effort to ask them again? *shrug*): Funny, in this thread you asked that question to evade my discussion of unionizing as a means to win a better work arrangement. I can't believe all the onus in that situation is expected to rest on the lowest socio-economic class, with the lowest education and literacy rates. And I feel like I have taken stabs at this, but it resists remaining reductionist the way you resist abandoning reductionism. But okay, I'll try to be more succinct this time: 1) Why is it wrong for an individual or a giant corporation to provide those facing starvation the opportunity to avoid it? Let?s wait on the ?wrong? part for now. First, an objective observation; later I'll say what I don't like (even though you have eloquently shown how it doesn't put any food on your plate what I feel about this): A corporation seeking lower production costs (labor being a significant cost) can identify a place in the world where there are large numbers of people unable to provide for themselves. This could be for a number of reasons: rapid urbanization, war, famine, failed economic policies?just to name a few of the factors that may have contributed to the situation. In an ideal Capitalistic system, the determinant in setting the wage is a person?s willingness to exchange his or her labor: if a person accepts a job paying thirty cents an hour, then thirty cents an hour is what the company should offer. According to a strict free-marketer, any ?voluntarist? action by the company?s management that affects profit is, in effect, unwarranted taxation of shareholders. In that system, there is no need to determine a ?poverty level?, since the workers are free to take their labor elsewhere if they aren?t satisfied. If enough people accept the wage, it is presumable they considered it their best option. It doesn?t mean, however, that the wage will be sufficient to provide basic needs for the worker and/or the worker?s dependents. Okay now here?s why I think it?s wrong when this happens: First, this is obviously a lot of burden to place on a desperate human. Telling a starving person, ?Hey, if you don?t agree to the conditions, fine. We?re not forcing you to work here,? is the epitome of feigned obtuseness, especially for a corporation that has researched the area and has come for the very reason that there is a ripe labor market. And to go farther, as Friedman does, for example, and explain why any decision of an executor of a corporation must be purely profit-motivated; a moral or ethical decision which will reduce profits is branded as ?Socialism?. I suppose Friedman assumes his readers will share his negative view of socialism, but some people will look at that argument and think, ?Hmm?socialism, huh? Maybe that?s not such a bad idea.?? Relying on the labor to ?determine? the wage and work conditions in this way is further undermined as companies spread around the world. If enough factory workers in one country actually do refuse to work for certain wages to theoretically put pressure on the employer(s) to offer higher wages, they might find that the system failed to function as they hoped?the factory may shift production to another country. I don?t know how often there are cheers of jubilation for incoming factories in your D.R., or cries of despair for closing ones, but they do move around quite a bit. So in a global economy, the world-wide level of grit required among prospective laborers is simply unrealistic. 2) If working for said company is so onerous, why do the workers not turn their backs on the company and go back to doing whatever they were doing before the company arrived on the scene? I?ve already said what I think about that. You Capitalists can continue to hide behind your obtuseness as it serves your self-interests, of course. No one is forcing you to stop. I'm saying that I see it as a contributor to the system going to shit. And the system going to shit translates, in the extreme, to populist support of shitty leaders, revolts, reactionism, unrest, wars. Which, over time, contribute to the climate favorable to multi-national companies seeking cheap labor and access to plenty of resources. I can't believe that in all your time here you have never perused the thread started by Trendal -- the one I refer to as "The Great Debate". It is titled "The United States is NOT Capitalist", and maybe it's time to bump it. Actually I have visited it. It's a very long thread. I'll check it some more. But I asked for a compendium, not a book. Really, though, don't think you can switch stances, and try to "sell" capitalism like I suggested--in any case, you've made it clear you don't think what critics "feel" has any bearing on the situation. hongomon Edited by hongomon (07/14/03 02:57 PM)
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
DoctorJ writes:
Ive said it before, and I'll say it again: ISMS ARE BUNK!!!! You think so? Even Relativism and Pragmatism? Let me quote you (the bolding is my emphasis) -- Quote: You should Know that I hold no permenant alliances to... well, anything at all, really. That must make for a convenient fluidity in debate. Tough to find out what someone really believes when he professes to believe nothing -- except that the questioners beliefs are erroneous, of course. I'm all about what works for the situation. So you are a Pragmatist, then. Whatever works. The ends justify the means. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. Slavery "works" real well if your goal is to build a buncha pyramids cheaply. The divine right of kings "works" real well if your goal is to oppress the populace and deflower their daughters. Human sacrifice works real well for the Priest class maintaining their religious hold on a cowed congregation. Infanticide works real well for a country trying to lower its birthrate. If you were in the same situation as me, my points would be blatantly obvious to you. How do you know I have never been in your situation? I am in my second half century on this planet, and have lived many places and had many jobs and spoken with many people and read many books. Your points are far from blatantly obvious to me not because I am not in your situation, but because they are not defensible. Circumstances. You'll see. In other words, you have no answer. Fine by me. The yuppie purple patch, I believe, is solely caused by SUVs and Humvees, and Big Redneck pickup trucks with American flag stickers on the back. Air pollution migrates depending on local weather conditions. Your belief is just that -- your belief. I know you have no alliance to anything, so I guess there is no point suggesting you check your premise with a meterologist. I will point out that it is impossible for the relatively few SUVs and pickups driving in the burbs to produce more pollution than the constant stream of heavy trucks, buses, and factories on the other side of the river. All of the activities that you mentioned are fine. But they need to be counterbalanced by investments in our future. This involves figuring out how to do things more efficiently and cleanly and finding newer, better sources of energy and matter. Why are you convinced no one is doing that now? Let me guess -- you have never worked for a manufacturer, have you? Or sought out the "Research and Development" line item on an annual report? The wealthy have a vested interest in protecting the status quo. Actually, the wealthy need do nothing but buy stuff. By definition, being wealthy, they no longer have to produce. If the status quo changes, why should Bill Gates and his ilk care? Whatever changes occur, they are set. A switch in say, the type of energy we use, or the type of software our computers run, or the development of a new metal that makes steel obsolete, to name a few examples, could seriously shake up the money. Leading to new fortunes being made. Would Bill Gates and the other dotcom millionaires and billionaires have more money than you or I if businesses were still doing their accounting by abacus? If said developments were to happen, certain people's entire businesses would be obsolete, and other people would get their money. And this is a problem because...? Therefore, people with money, who are just protecting their money instead of using it for advancements have an interest in keeping things exactly the way they are. Thay CAN BE a huge impediment to development, and in many situations, indeed they are. What is your point? Are you trying to say that there is an active conspiracy by the uber-rich to stifle technological development? Examples, please. Believe me, there are much better places than this planet, but it will take work to get there. Presuming there are such places, why do you feel it correct to initiate force against peaceful individuals on a massive scale in order to locate (and presumably colonize) them? I would say that most of the world is pretty angry that America holds 5% of the world's population and consumes 30% of its resources. "Most of the world"? Note that "envy" and "legitimate anger" are not equivalent. Not to mention the fact that we routinely use our military and intelligence organizations to to control the politics and economies of foriegn countries. Examples, please. Are you saying this is the case with most of the foreign countries in the world? The source I'm using is Stephen Hawkings new Book, The Universe in a Nutshell. If you want to disagree with a man whose IQ is 216... be my guest. Either you misread his words or he is in error. He is a brilliant cosmologist, but I doubt he is an expert on population growth. Besides, there is no way that the population of the earth will hit the number you quoted in the timespan you quoted. Do some searches yourself. The information is readily available. The growth curve is flattening -- if it hadn't been flattening for quite some time now the numbers the doomsayers were throwing out in the early Seventies would have been reached and surpassed by now. But, in my experience, in America these are a minority. It may be... in your experience. This is why it is helpful to research stuff. The reality is that the vast majority of HWIs (high wealth individuals) are selfmade. They didn't steal money or inherit money or loot money or win it in a lottery or con the government into giving them money -- they earned it. This is easily checked. Get on Google and do some looking. When I said that rich people aren't nice, I really meant that they are stupid and tend to manage things badly. If this is the case, what's the problem? They will eventually piss away all their money and no longer be a threat, perceived or otherwise. A lot of them haven't really ever had to work hard in their lives. A lot of them haven't had to figure anything out bevcause they have people to think for them. Its not that I dont like them, its that they are the wrong people to be in charge of all those resources. What resources? Currency? Currency is not a resource. Land? Factories? Office buildings? Mines? Is your contention that someone has no right to own any of the above unless he is capable of using it with the utmost efficiency? If so, who decides what is the best use for it? Who decides what is the most efficient method of putting it to that particular use? Even Jefferson opposed inheritance- he thought that estates should be distributed amongst the community upon the deaths of their owners. Appeal to authority. Jefferson wasn't right about everything. Because money (power)... Money and power are not equivalent. ...should not be transfered arbitrarily from one generation to the next. Why not? Who has the right to tell me who I can and cannot give my stuff to? It's my stuff, and I have the right to give as much of it to whoever I want, whenever I want. That is a monarchy. Not even close. pinky
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
hongomon writes:
You make it sound so peachy here. How could anyone find a problem in that? So you are unable to show us how those who mind their own business and live their entire lives trading with others through mutual consent -- never initiating physical force or fraud against another human -- are to blame for those pressure-filled circumstances? Okay then, let's move on. Funny, in this thread you asked that question to evade my discussion of unionizing as a means to win a better work arrangement. Evade? My initial response was: Quote: I guess the "withholding their labor or whatever" wasn't a clear enough reference to what unions do, so I got more specific with: Quote: What more do you want? I can't believe all the onus in that situation is expected to rest on the lowest socio-economic class, with the lowest education and literacy rates. Sorry, I don't understand this sentence at all. Are you saying the onus in that situation (union organization) should rest on the employer? Employers are supposed to organize unions for their employees? I know that isn't what you mean, but that is how the sentence (in context) reads to me. Please clarify it for me. But okay, I'll try to be more succinct this time: Quote: Let?s wait on the ?wrong? part for now. First, an objective observation; later I'll say what I don't like (even though you have eloquently shown how it doesn't put any food on your plate what I feel about this): Ummm... okay. According to a strict free-marketer, any ?voluntarist? action by the company?s management that affects profit is, in effect, unwarranted taxation of shareholders. What? News to me. No shareholder expects a company director to be omniscient. If a director pays more for labor than he might absolutely have to, it's no big tragedy. It certainly isn't "unwarranted taxation", it's merely less than supernatural perfection in business management. If enough people accept the wage, it is presumable they considered it their best option. It doesn?t mean, however, that the wage will be sufficient to provide basic needs for the worker and/or the worker?s dependents. Correct. I'm with you so far. Okay now here?s why I think it?s wrong when this happens: First, this is obviously a lot of burden to place on a desperate human. Telling a starving person, ?Hey, if you don?t agree to the conditions, fine. We?re not forcing you to work here,? is the epitome of feigned obtuseness... This seems to be a favorite word of phrase of yours -- "feigned obtuseness". There is nothing "obtuse" (feigned or otherwise) about making an offer of employment to someone at the wage rate you wish to pay. And to go farther, as Friedman does, for example, and explain why any decision of an executor of a corporation must be purely profit-motivated; a moral or ethical decision which will reduce profits is branded as ?Socialism?. Which Freidman are you paraphrasing? My comment on this is that the decision-maker must follow the wishes of the shareholders. There have been examples of companies whose shareholders have voted to lessen profits in favor of other goals. And less-than-maximum profits are not the equivalent of Socialism. If enough factory workers in one country actually do refuse to work for certain wages to theoretically put pressure on the employer(s) to offer higher wages, they might find that the system failed to function as they hoped?the factory may shift production to another country. It is not as easy as just packing the factory on a barge and setting up shop elsewhere, especially if the startup costs have yet to be amortized. Many times it makes financial sense to raise wages instead. I don?t know how often there are cheers of jubilation for incoming factories in your D.R., or cries of despair for closing ones, but they do move around quite a bit. Some do, some don't. There are factories here that have been here over thirty years -- long past the time when the initial incentives offered by the government have passed; long past the time when the startup costs have been amortized, long past the time when all that was required was to pay the workers per hour or per item (there are now compulsory social security programs, severance pay, double pay for the entire month of December, double pay on public holidays, workman's compensation and more) -- yet the companies remain. So in a global economy, the world-wide level of grit required among prospective laborers is simply unrealistic. Okay. So if I comprehend your point correctly, you say it's wrong for an individual or a giant corporation to provide those facing starvation the opportunity to avoid it because: a) The wage offered might be less than that required to prevent starvation. b) The company may choose to close down. My reply to a) is -- the workers are free to continue doing what they were doing before the factory opened if by working there they cannot support themselves. They can also choose to work at the factory and take a second job. It may surprise you to find that I myself have worked multiple jobs at various points in my life. My reply to b) is -- (sorry to frame it as a question) if the factory closes down, how are they worse off than they were before the factory opened? Quote: I?ve already said what I think about that. You Capitalists can continue to hide behind your obtuseness... What is "obtuse" about asking that question? It is a legitimate question, asked sincerely. If you don't want to answer it, just say so. ...as it serves your self-interests, of course. No one is forcing you to stop. I'm saying that I see it as a contributor to the system going to shit. What system? Specifically how is it "going to shit"? And the system going to shit translates, in the extreme, to populist support of shitty leaders, revolts, reactionism, unrest, wars. Ah. So for the sake of the Capitalists' own self-interest, they should only offer employment in situations where they can achieve the simultaneous goals of generating profit while defusing revolts, preventing reactionism (a lovely vague term, that), avoiding unrest, and preventing wars. Gotcha. Which, over time, contribute to the climate favorable to multi-national companies seeking cheap labor and access to plenty of resources. Earth to hongomon -- businessmen generally avoid setting up shop in areas seething with revolt, reactionism, unrest, and wars, regardless of low labor costs and abundant resources. This is one reason why (despite Rono's insistence that "it was all aboot the oil") there has yet to be a single bid on the trans-Afghanistan pipeline. Actually I have visited it. It's a very long thread. I'll check it some more. But I asked for a compendium, not a book. If you have read much of that thread, you will have realized that it covers a HUGE variety of aspects of Capitalism from both sides of the fence. You want sound bites, hang out in OTD. Really, though, don't think you can switch stances, and try to "sell" capitalism like I suggested... My best selling points for Laissez-faire Capitalism are contained in that thread. Why type twice when a bump will suffice? ...in any case, you've made it clear you don't think what critics "feel" has any bearing on the situation. Correct. Emotions (feelings) are not tools of cognition. My feelings on the matter are every bit as irrelevant as yours, by the way. You will have noted by now that I have yet to make any argument in any thread on this board that involves my feelings. As soon as someone in a discussion says "I feel this is so," reality is nullified, and there is no point continuing. Support your case with fact and logic and I will do the same. Resort to trying to justify an economic or political position with "feelings" and I will tune out. pinky
| |||||||
|
p_g monocle Registered: 04/13/01 Posts: 2,598 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
go buy rations, quicker, it helps the economy flicker
-------------------- my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson Edited by Lallafa (09/11/03 03:45 AM)
| |||||||
|
Registered: 06/30/03 Posts: 8,846 Loc: space Last seen: 1 year, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
"Money and power are not equivalent. "
Maybe not on paper. But in reality this is the case. I've seen people and their souls bought and sold with money. I've seen money do much good and much evil. Money is like a handgun: it is a tool to be wielded carefully. <edit> money can be the power to start up a new business... Or shut down a rival startup. "When I said that rich people aren't nice, I really meant that they are stupid and tend to manage things badly. If this is the case, what's the problem? They will eventually piss away all their money and no longer be a threat, perceived or otherwise." but not before making costly mistakes, and doing terribly oppresive things to the little guy while trying to protect what shouldn't have been theirs in the first place. This is the kind of thing that slows the timeframe of our evolution. "Why not? Who has the right to tell me who I can and cannot give my stuff to? It's my stuff, and I have the right to give as much of it to whoever I want, whenever I want. " Actually, when you die, your stuff belongs to no one because you do not exist anymore. But if you leave it in lump sum to one person, it will probably corrupt them because they did not earn it. I told my father to give my inheritance to a list of charities. I don't want that money. It will make my purpose in life an option instead of a drive to survive. I'm here to do more than sip champagne and lay on a beach. "Not to mention the fact that we routinely use our military and intelligence organizations to to control the politics and economies of foriegn countries. Examples, please. Are you saying this is the case with most of the foreign countries in the world? " Examples: South America for the past 50 years. remember Iran-Contra? The united fruit military bailouts in the 1950's? Manuel Noriega? The many attempts on the lives of Pablo Escobar and Castro? What about the fact that we sold weapons to both Iraq and Afghanistan? What about the fact that the US is blackmailing Canada with economic sanctions if they officially legalize pot? What about ISRAEL for crying out loud? If you don't realize that America has a hefty influnce on world politics, you must be living in another dimension. What is your point? Are you trying to say that there is an active conspiracy by the uber-rich to stifle technological development? Examples, please." Examples: Hydrogen fuel. Hydrogen Cars. lack of NASA funding. failing to build the Superconducting Supercollider. Budget cuts in colleges and public schools. to name a few... "Actually, the wealthy need do nothing but buy stuff. By definition, being wealthy, they no longer have to produce. If the status quo changes, why should Bill Gates and his ilk care? Whatever changes occur, they are set." Actually, the wealthy need to use their wealth to to constructive things that no one else can for lack of capital. All I see right now is a lot of poor people with good ideas and no one to pay for them, no way to even get past the hurdles of starting an operation. And the wealthy could care less because they are simple minded human machines whose only concern is self indulgence. Bill gates wealth is mainly in stock. If another software company takes over the market, his stocks go down and he is poor. Therefore, he has an active interest in heading rogue startups off at the pass. Sometimes this is done peacefully and amicably, but most of the time it is sleazy and underhanded. Witness Microsoft and Intel's little "business arrangemant" that kept AMD processors from working properly with Windows. "Most of the world"? Note that "envy" and "legitimate anger" are not equivalent." Note that wealth and being deserving of it are not always equivalent. "Why are you convinced no one is doing that now? Let me guess -- you have never worked for a manufacturer, have you? Or sought out the "Research and Development" line item on an annual report?" I would consider most research money spent by companies in the US to be wasted on the life expenses of the robitic morons which our education system produces. Why don't you go to a nuclear power plant? Or NASA. Count the number of Americans you see. It will be a small number. Most will be Asian or Indian. India produces the top minds in the world because they sink all of their resources into education and science. They may be dirt poor, but their dedication to science will eventually manifest itself materially. Right now though, Indians with PhD's from IIT come to work at jobs in America that pay $60,000 a year and entail doing differential equations for ten hours a day. All while some corporate CEOs get paid millions a year to run their company into the ground and the employee stocks go to shit... "So you are a Pragmatist, then. Whatever works. The ends justify the means. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs." Don't try to label me and don't try to associate me with one thing because I say another. And for gods sake quit putting words in my mouth!!! Sometimes you have to be pragmatic about being pragmatic I'm just saying that every single second that passes in this universe is a unique situation that requires a unique solution. Flexibility is good. "Water breaks the branch but the reed bends and remains whole" "Do not confuse the sun with the finger pointing at the sun." -Some chinese proverbs you may benefit from "That must make for a convenient fluidity in debate. Tough to find out what someone really believes when he professes to believe nothing -- except that the questioners beliefs are erroneous, of course. " there are no such things as universally erroneous beliefs. There are only beliefs that are inapplicable to the situation at hand. "Presuming there are such places, why do you feel it correct to initiate force against peaceful individuals on a massive scale in order to locate (and presumably colonize) them?" you sure as hell have a twisted imagination because I never said such things. "How do you know I have never been in your situation?" My situation is uniques, as is yours. This is the source of our disagreement. "Slavery "works" real well if your goal is to build a buncha pyramids cheaply. The divine right of kings "works" real well if your goal is to oppress the populace and deflower their daughters. Human sacrifice works real well for the Priest class maintaining their religious hold on a cowed congregation. Infanticide works real well for a country trying to lower its birthrate." I am quite sure that we can achieve what needs to be achieved without resorting to slavery, and I'm quite sure that every person on this planet, not a single person excluded, could lead a very pleasant lifestyle while achieving these goals if only the resources of the planet were managed intelligently. <edit> "Either you misread his words or he is in error." Um, a J-shaped curve on a graph is pretty hard to misread. And my professors are teaching me the same data at the university I spend several thousand dollars a semester to attend grad school classes at. Edited by DoctorJ (07/14/03 08:21 PM)
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
DoctorJ, I had started to address your most recent comments one by one as usual, and then I thought to myself, "what's the point?" You clearly have a closed mind and are convinced no one can teach you anything, not even to question what your professors have told you. After all, you are paying thousands of dollars to a university -- it just can't be possible they are mistaken.
You admit to holding no principle any longer than is convenient for you. You go out of your way to avoid applying even the most basic rules of logic and non-contradiction to your answers. You have a fondness for making vague and cryptic statements about places better than Earth. You are convinced that since I am not in your precise and exact circumstances right this minute my points are invalid. You believe with absolutely no evidence that since I disagree with you, my points come not from a lifetime of experience and thought and experimentation and research, but from memorizing a textbook somewhere. In essence, your argument boils down to "I am right because I am me, and you are wrong because you are you." No logic, no reference to reality, no regard for historical fact -- just blind dependence on whatever the latest perceived "authority" happens to have mentioned to you. However, there are a few points in your latest post that I choose not to leave unchallenged on the off chance that some other reader might take them seriously: but not before making costly mistakes and doing terribly oppresive things to the little guy... What "oppressive things"? Specifics, man, specifics! Would you let me get away with saying something as vague as "while doing benevolent things for the little guy"? Didn't think so. ...while trying to protect what shouldn't have been theirs in the first place. Says who? If their money was either earned or given to them, why is it not theirs? Whose is it? This is the kind of thing that slows the timeframe of our evolution. Arbitrary assertion. It assumes : a) that humans are still evolving. b) that evolving further is a good thing. c) that the lifestyles of a few can affect evolutionary progress. Actually, when you die, your stuff belongs to no one because you do not exist anymore. Legal contracts can outlast the people that wrote them. But if you leave it in lump sum to one person, it will probably corrupt them because they did not earn it. Arbitrary assertion with no basis in fact. Besides, if it does, so what? Examples: Hydrogen fuel. Hydrogen Cars. lack of NASA funding. failing to build the Superconducting Supercollider. Budget cuts in colleges and public schools. to name a few... That is not examples, that is a list of words. Please provide us at least some evidence of an active conspiracy by the uber-rich to stifle the development of hydrogen cars, to sabotage the building of the Superconducting Supercollider. As for budget cuts in colleges and schools, do some freaking reading before you post. Spending on schools has been increasing ridiculously for a very long time now (reaching as much as $15,000 annually per student in Washington DC), while the academic results have dropped correspondingly. And the wealthy could care less because they are simple minded human machines whose only concern is self indulgence. An enormous generalization with no basis in observable fact. I could say (though I wouldn't) exactly the same of the permanent welfare class and be more accurate. I would consider most research money spent by companies in the US to be wasted on the life expenses of the robitic morons which our education system produces. So the R&D money spent on developing biotech, pharmaceuticals, computer and communications technologies (to name just a few) was wasted money? By the way, if you have such a low opinion of "our education system", why do you accept uncritically what your professors are teaching you at the university at which you spend several thousand dollars a semester to attend grad school classes? Don't try to label me and don't try to associate me with one thing because I say another. And for gods sake quit putting words in my mouth!!! Oh, sorry. I forgot that you hold alliance to nothing. So when you were espousing the Pragmatist line, it was just for the length of time it took to write the sentence, then you moved on to something else, i.e. -- "Sometimes you have to be pragmatic about being pragmatic I'm just saying that every single second that passes in this universe is a unique situation that requires a unique solution. Flexibility is good." If that is not a precise description of Pragmatism, it's as close as I've seen in such a short sentence. you sure as hell have a twisted imagination because I never said such things. Virtually everything you have written in this thread implies exactly that. You have stated we have no right to keep the stuff we earn or are given, and we have no right to give it to whom we choose, because if we do so, we will never reach the places so much better than the Earth. Does this not imply that someone must forcibly take our stuff from us and put it to use reaching these wonderful places? My situation is uniques, as is yours. Not so unique as to invalidate Natural Law. Um, a J-shaped curve on a graph is pretty hard to misread. It is true the curve of existing data is hard to misread. However, extrapolating that J-curve into the future is a crapshoot. As I have pointed out twice now, the doomsayers in the Seventies assumed the curve could be extrapolated indefinitely, hence their ridiculously exaggerated predictions of what the world population must be by the turn of the century. And my professors are teaching me the same data at the university I spend several thousand dollars a semester to attend grad school classes at. Here's a thought -- ask one of those professors to overlay one of Toffler's or Ehrlich's extrapolations of the J-curve from 1970 to 2000 with the actual population data from 1970 to 2000. Then ask him if it is accurate to say the curve is flattening. Observe his reaction and get back to us. pinky
| |||||||
|
Registered: 06/30/03 Posts: 8,846 Loc: space Last seen: 1 year, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
pinky:
listen man, I didn't mean to back you into a corner and force you to start attacking me like that. Of course your ideas are valid, but they are only one set of ideas in an infinite sea of valid ideas. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm simply saying that there are other ways of looking at it that are equally correct. Systems do break down and variables do have impact. And the only reason I say stuff like "I learned this from x source" is because I'm relaying that info to you so you can be your own judge of its legitimacy. Its not because I consider secondhand info to be the ultimate truth as you implied. And when I'm talking about what people should or shouldn't do with their money, I'm not talking about rights, I'm talking about practical morality. Practical because a corrupt human sociopolitical organism will fail, but one that functions well will thrive and reach its true potential. When resources get wasted this is a corruption of the organism that is the human race. it lessens our chance for survival. Of course I support individual rights. But I stop supporting individual rights when they infringe upon the good of the whole. Like I said, its all about balance. Oh yeah and you keep asking me whose money it is, whose decesion it is etc... my question to you: why does it have to be anybody's? did you pay for your birthing expenses? the universe is a free lunch. youre the one trying to put a dollar sign on it. Oh and yes I do believe it is a good thing for humans to evolve because unlike *some* capitalists I know, I am not afraid of a change in the staus quo
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
my question to you: why does it have to be anybody's? did you pay for your birthing expenses? the universe is a free lunch. youre the one trying to put a dollar sign on it.
You mean the universe gives people something for nothing???? Sounds like a damn commie!!
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
umask 077(nonefo ![]() Registered: 09/06/02 Posts: 3,095 Loc: Jacksonville,FL Last seen: 18 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
It's simple. We can live in mutual respect of each other or die. Greed is not a good thing.
-------------------- People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything... Douglas Adams
| |||||||
|
Registered: 06/30/03 Posts: 8,846 Loc: space Last seen: 1 year, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
yup, god is a commie, lol!
| |||||||
| |||||||
| 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 ] | ||





I just do it for the love of the craft. But I also acknowledge my responsibility to make this planet a better place than it was before I got here, or at least maintain some kind of stasis... most capitalists I know... thats the farthest thing from their minds. their only god is self indulgence.

