Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Is worldwide Capitalism impossible?
    #1687529 - 07/05/03 05:13 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

In a recent thread, GazzBut wrote about Capitalism:

The way I see it, it is impossible for everyone to be inside the system as there has to be those outside of it who can be exploited to maintain the system.

In other words (please correct me if I am misrepresenting your position, GazzBut), GazzBut's premise is that a Capitalist society can survive (be maintained) only as long as there are non-Capitalist societies in existence to trade with. It follows then that if every nation on Earth were to become Capitalist, at least some of them would soon fall apart and have to change over to some other system of government.

I think this is a premise worth examining in more detail, so I decided to open a new thread.

Comments?

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1687531 - 07/05/03 05:16 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

I think there is definitely some merit to it. I think we need to celebrate difference and diversity. For every Yin there must be a Yang.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1687608 - 07/05/03 07:31 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Well I think it could be possible to create the illusion of a capitalist world, I think there would still need to be those players on the fringe, the perenially exploited who would always have a much lower standard of living to those central to the capitalist syststem.

Capitalism is about acquiring as much as you can. So you end up with the Bill Gates types who are worth more than the combined GDPs of several countries. Obviously at the other end of scale you will get the opposite extreme those living on less than a a dollar a day. This is why third world countries face so many difficulties trading with us in the shape of subsidised imports and unweildy trade regulations. There are many countries who could theoretically trade themselves out of trouble but are prevented from doing so as the west makes sure that the situation is ripe for us to make the money instead.
Minus any unfair trading restrictions and minus obscene greed I think some form of capitalist system could exist worldwide and include the whole within it. But they are a couple of big asks!


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRhizoid
carbon unit
Male

Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 3 months, 7 days
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1687654 - 07/05/03 08:24 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

I know some antiglobalists claim that capitalism must always involve that "insiders" take an unfair advantage of "outsiders". I think this has its roots in marxism, and the erroneous marxist idea that it is possible to define a metaphysical absolute exchange value for any commodity that is sold, and that capitalists always sell for a higher price than this metaphysical exchange value and therefore take all the profit in any trade. If that were true, it would certainly be exploitation.

Since Karl Marx defines this exchange value as "the socially necessary labor time" to produce the commodity, there will be no trading profits made from the creation of non-labor values (like capital dividends) in a marxist economy. And that removes the incentives to create such values, which is exactly why marxism sucks.

Now of course people still take unfair advantage of others anyway in capitalist societies, even though the marxist explanation is wrong. This happens in all types of societies, and there is no reason to think that the problem can be magically made to disappear just by abolishing capitalism. We should instead try to fix the real problems in our markets, like for example find out how to create stability in financial markets. Because as George Soros said a long time ago, and as everyone else noticed three years ago, the financial markets are inherently unstable.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBetMomIsProud
Journeyman ofMycology
Registered: 05/15/03
Posts: 172
Loc: MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1687828 - 07/05/03 10:37 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

If everyone was a capitalist you'd begin to see the huge clumps of wealth we have now grow to unreasonable levels. The money would collect in these few huge pools to the point where it would cease to be valuable to those who didn't have it, defeating the idea of capitailism. It's like if you ever found a genie and wished for all the money in the world, everyone else would have to find other forms of money and that would make yours useless...


--------------------
Nothing is idiot proof. Just need a real talented idiot.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMalachi
stereotype

Registered: 06/19/02
Posts: 1,294
Loc: Around Minneapolis.
Last seen: 14 years, 11 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: BetMomIsProud]
    #1687838 - 07/05/03 10:50 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

it's impossible as long as there are people who care about each other.

capitalism is a phase, when amerika matures we'll be alot like europe. hopefully.


--------------------
The ultimate meaning of our being can only be fulfilled in the paradoxical leap beyond the tragic-demonic frustration. It is a leap from our side, but it is the self-surrendering presence of the Ground of Being from the other side.
- Paul Tillich

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1687840 - 07/05/03 10:52 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Just for the record im not anti-globalist. Im anti greed.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Malachi]
    #1687843 - 07/05/03 10:57 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

when amerika matures we'll be alot like europe. hopefully.




As a European I wouldnt say thats such a great thing to look forward to. We are all playing the same game. The US happens to be "winning" right now. Give any of the European states that much power and they would act in the same way except we'd all be eating McPierres!


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRhizoid
carbon unit
Male

Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 3 months, 7 days
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: BetMomIsProud]
    #1687852 - 07/05/03 11:09 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

But you can have capitalism and redistribution of wealth at the same time. It's impossible only in laissez-faire capitalism without any taxation at all, but I don't think such a system exists anywhere. Check out the writings of Buckminster Fuller and Robert Anton Wilson on the idea of a "national dividend", or Milton Friedman's proposal for a negative income tax. Both are ways to redistribute wealth without implementing expensive and counterproductive welfare schemes.

It is still capitalism, not socialism, because trade is still done on free markets, and it still gives economic rewards to entrepeneurs and individual investors, who can invest in corporations. The problem with socialism is that power is handed over to the representative of some collective, instead of directly to the individuals themselves.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMalachi
stereotype

Registered: 06/19/02
Posts: 1,294
Loc: Around Minneapolis.
Last seen: 14 years, 11 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: GazzBut]
    #1687929 - 07/05/03 11:46 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

I wouldn't say we're all playing the same game.  sweden?  common.  sweden doesn't play games :smile:


--------------------
The ultimate meaning of our being can only be fulfilled in the paradoxical leap beyond the tragic-demonic frustration. It is a leap from our side, but it is the self-surrendering presence of the Ground of Being from the other side.
- Paul Tillich

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Malachi]
    #1688167 - 07/05/03 02:40 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Swedes play curling alot!


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomebodyelse
In_Is_Out

Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 296
Last seen: 20 years, 10 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Malachi]
    #1688177 - 07/05/03 02:46 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

With capitalism you need a healthy consumer class to keep the cycle rolling. Even in the US where we don't have many low income manufacturing jobs, we still have a rapidly dividing society, which the current Junta is attempting to fix with a trickle-down patch. For two years they've been saying the recession will be over "in 6 month's time"...with no results so far. Does the recession represent a flaw in the system, a flaw in our culture, or just an unfortunate fluctuation?

Take this world wide and how could it happen any differently?

Worldwide capitalist democracy I don't think is possible. Capitalist fascism, on the other hand, seems quite tenable, although not desirable.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineatomikfunksoldier
T'was born oftrue in the yearof the cock!

Registered: 04/07/03
Posts: 1,500
Loc: a human-infested anthill
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: somebodyelse]
    #1688256 - 07/05/03 03:22 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

worldwide capitalism is most definitly "possible", but is it probable? no, not in our current situation. In our current situation, rich countries, specifically the US protect corporate interests by impeding democracy in poor countries, so that labour costs and production can be controlled. but that has nothing to do with the theoretical possibility of world-wide capitalism.

if everyone was allowed to play on the same level, that would be great, too bad all the greedy fucks have all the military and economic influence.


--------------------
enjoy the entertaining indentity i have constructed for you while you can.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinerommstein2001
Rise ye Must!
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/10/01
Posts: 3,182
Loc: South GA
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? Quic-reply [Re: atomikfunksoldier]
    #1689124 - 07/05/03 11:00 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

I'd say it is very much possible, but not through many individual capitalist governments, but one large one. Trade would still be very possible. That's sounding pretty creepy if u ask me.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1690446 - 07/06/03 03:17 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

I would be interested to hear your opinions on this pinky! Congratulations on being made a moderator - I must have missed that vote!  :grin: 


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: GazzBut]
    #1691118 - 07/06/03 08:07 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

GazzBut writes:

Congratulations on being made a moderator - I must have missed that vote!

Thanks. I was asked to accept the position. There was no vote of general members, so you didn't miss anything. I don't anticipate having to do much, since most of the posters here are pretty good about following Rono's guidelines in the sticky post at the top of the page.

I would be interested to hear your opinions on this pinky!

Whenever I speak of Capitalism, I always speak of Laissez-faire Capitalism. In the interest of saving keystrokes, I usually just write "Capitalism" with a capital C. It is important to bear that in mind when reading my reply.

It must be noted that there is currently no Capitalist nation on Earth, and in actual fact there never has been, although the United States of America in its first century or so of existence was the closest thing to it yet seen. Many of the objections posters here raise to "Capitalism" are not in fact objections to Capitalism at all, but to policies promulgated by the mixed-economy interventionist governments in charge of all "free" nations today. As just one of many examples, notice the frequency of the term "corporate welfare" in this forum. Corporate welfare is no more a part of Capitalism than is individual welfare or other forced income redistribution schemes. In a Capitalist society, the government has no power over the economy at all -- not even the authority to coin an official currency.

With that preamble out of the way, let me comment on the question at hand -- is the existence of non-Capitalist nations essential to the survival of Capitalist nations?

No.

Any nation of sufficient size can survive quite readily with no need of trade or even contact with other nations. As long as there are all the necessary resources within its borders (arable land, potable water, energy resources, minerals, and a population of productive individuals), the nation can survive and even thrive. Free trade between nations is of course advantageous, but not essential.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: GazzBut]
    #1691157 - 07/06/03 08:20 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

GazzBut writes:

Capitalism is about acquiring as much as you can.

Incorrect. Capitalism is about being left alone.

If you choose to dedicate your entire life to acquiring as much as you possibly can, you are left free to attempt to do so. If you choose to instead acquire the bare minimum needed to eke out a subsistence lifestyle, you are likewise left free to attempt to do so. The point is that in a Capitalist society, whatever you acquire honestly is yours, not part of a common pool to be "redistributed" as others see fit.

Minus any unfair trading restrictions and minus obscene greed I think some form of capitalist system could exist worldwide and include the whole within it.

As I pointed out in my previous post, under Capitalism there are no trading restrictions, "unfair" or otherwise. As for "obscene greed" (as personified in your example by Bill Gates), could you please explain to us how Bill Gates's greedy possession of three enormous mansions, seven Ferraris and bathtubs full of champagne prevents anyone else from acquiring enough to live well? Thanks.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1691182 - 07/06/03 08:26 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

excellent, as usual.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 20 years, 1 month
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1691233 - 07/06/03 08:58 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

...Could you please explain to us how Bill Gates's greedy possession of three enormous mansions, seven Ferraris and bathtubs full of champagne prevents anyone else from acquiring enough to live well? Thanks.

Gates' purchase, as well as mine and anyone's can prevent someone else from acquiring enough to live well. For example, if I buy a Persian rug and don't inquire about how it was made--or check for a "RugMark"--I might be passively supporting slavery or other work situations that are immoral by my own views of morality. With products coming to a Western market from all over the world, it isn't easy to be sure just what that product "represents" in terms of equity and the environment.

That is, I confess, a different matter than the actual volume of goods a person buys, but I just wanted to throw it in--in this thread on Capitalism, and you and others hashing it out, I'd like to read some comments on how this matter should be addressed. The market is so spread out, it's a many-tiered, many-fold system, and even if a consumer wants to be responsible (take ethical considerations when purchasing a product) it is difficult.

(This subtopic came up recently in another thread discussing consumer groups.)

hongomon

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: hongomon]
    #1691328 - 07/06/03 09:29 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

hongomon writes:

Gates' purchase, as well as mine and anyone's can prevent someone else from acquiring enough to live well. For example, if I buy a Persian rug and don't inquire about how it was made--or check for a "RugMark"--I might be passively supporting slavery or other work situations that are immoral by my own views of morality.

How does your purchase of a product prevent the worker involved in making the product from taking a job with better working conditions?

in this thread on Capitalism, and you and others hashing it out, I'd like to read some comments on how this matter should be addressed.

Well, I hesitate to point out the obvious, but if every nation were Capitalist, there would be no slave labor.

Until such a situation comes about, those who wish to avoid buying products from producers with objectionable practices must expend effort on research. Fortunately, the proliferation of advocacy "watchdog" sites on the web makes it easier all the time. You will remember that I myself go to considerable lengths to avoid knowingly purchasing products manufactured in Communist countries.

To bring this thread back on track, what is your opinion on the possibility of worldwide Capitalism?

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 20 years, 1 month
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1691617 - 07/06/03 11:17 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomebodyelse
In_Is_Out

Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 296
Last seen: 20 years, 10 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1691632 - 07/06/03 11:25 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:


As I pointed out in my previous post, under Capitalism there are no trading restrictions, "unfair" or otherwise. As for "obscene greed" (as personified in your example by Bill Gates), could you please explain to us how Bill Gates's greedy possession of three enormous mansions, seven Ferraris and bathtubs full of champagne prevents anyone else from acquiring enough to live well? Thanks.





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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: hongomon]
    #1691687 - 07/06/03 11:46 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: somebodyelse]
    #1691725 - 07/06/03 11:57 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: hongomon]
    #1691751 - 07/07/03 12:06 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1692041 - 07/07/03 02:16 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

As I pointed out in my previous post, under Capitalism there are no trading restrictions, "unfair" or otherwise.




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:

could you please explain to us how Bill Gates's greedy possession of three enormous mansions, seven Ferraris and bathtubs full of champagne prevents anyone else from acquiring enough to live well?




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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 20 years, 1 month
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1692150 - 07/07/03 03:19 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRhizoid
carbon unit
Male

Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 3 months, 7 days
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: GazzBut]
    #1692338 - 07/07/03 06:21 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

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.




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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1692482 - 07/07/03 07:53 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomebodyelse
In_Is_Out

Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 296
Last seen: 20 years, 10 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1693256 - 07/07/03 01:41 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:


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.




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:


re: 2.5billlion = 200
If true, so what? What they possess in no way hinders the ongoing creation of more goods and services.





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:


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.





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.]


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,049
Last seen: 41 minutes, 7 seconds
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1694264 - 07/07/03 07:25 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Today there is. Where did that wealth come from?



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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinericyjo
I'm a teapot

Registered: 07/22/02
Posts: 1,516
Loc: -53.121600, 73.763943
Last seen: 17 days, 21 hours
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: falcon]
    #1695293 - 07/08/03 01:27 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

boy o' boy...
im sure glad there are so many highly intelligent people around to run things, otherwise everything would be way too complicated.. :rocket:




--------------------
"Re-examine all that you have been told...
dismiss that which insults your soul." -Walt Whitman

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: somebodyelse]
    #1695665 - 07/08/03 05:44 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: hongomon]
    #1695713 - 07/08/03 06:42 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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:

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.




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


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1696221 - 07/08/03 11:41 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)


z


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Edited by Lallafa (02/24/10 09:01 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1696314 - 07/08/03 12:26 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomebodyelse
In_Is_Out

Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 296
Last seen: 20 years, 10 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1696385 - 07/08/03 12:57 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:


I repeat, currency is not wealth.





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?




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1696956 - 07/08/03 04:20 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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:

In a recent thread, GazzBut wrote about Capitalism:

The way I see it, it is impossible for everyone to be inside the system as there has to be those outside of it who can be exploited to maintain the system.


In other words (please correct me if I am misrepresenting your position, GazzBut), GazzBut's premise is that a Capitalist society can survive (be maintained) only as long as there are non-Capitalist societies in existence to trade with. It follows then that if every nation on Earth were to become Capitalist, at least some of them would soon fall apart and have to change over to some other system of government.


I think this is a premise worth examining in more detail, so I decided to open a new thread.


Comments?




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


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: somebodyelse]
    #1697016 - 07/08/03 04:43 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1697479 - 07/08/03 08:35 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

z


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Edited by Lallafa (02/24/10 09:01 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Lallafa]
    #1697597 - 07/08/03 09:12 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Lallafa writes:

you write this as if you are opposed to the legal counterfeiting

I am.

with a growing population, and never-ending inflation, your "gold standard" libertarian philosophy is a joke.

Inflation can only occur with fiat currency.

you should make it clear, as a hardened defender of the capital order, that this governmental control is the ONLY way to prevent a complete economic collapse

Why would I attempt to make clear something that is patently untrue?

agreed?

Nope.

My purpose in opening a separate thread to address GazzBut's comment rather than derailing the thread in which it appeared was not to criticize the insanity of government control of currency, 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. As a courtesy, however, I addressed somebodyelse's points re currency. As a courtesy to you, I have addressed your points as well.

Do you have an opinion on the premise that Capitalism cannot be maintained in the absence of non-Capitalists to be exploited?

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1699060 - 07/09/03 07:59 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

As I have already said in this thread, In order to maintain the current form of captitalism I believe it is not so much non-capitalists that are needed just a segment of the system which is perennially exploited. At the moment the perennially exploited do not happen to be capitalists.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1699137 - 07/09/03 08:55 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

z


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Edited by Lallafa (02/24/10 09:00 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Lallafa]
    #1699145 - 07/09/03 09:03 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

its an imperfect model, as you have admitted


Still the best going.


Quote:

the world population is increasing at a steady rate, and the % of people in america is increasing even faster. if we didt have welfare, if we didt have government agencys, trqde barriers on imports with the hopes of increasing demand for domestically produced goods, and the government starting wars to create jobs, there would be massive unemployment, crime, famine, and what-have-you



The one does not necessarily lead to the other. If there was no welfare then perhaps welfare cows wouldn't be popping babies out they can't afford and there would be less people.


Quote:

there would probably be people shooting each other for food eventually.



That's a large leap.


Quote:






--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1699151 - 07/09/03 09:08 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

That's a large leap.




Not as large as....

Quote:

If there was no welfare then perhaps welfare cows wouldn't be popping babies out they can't afford and there would be less people.





--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: GazzBut]
    #1699154 - 07/09/03 09:09 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Perhaps you should look up the definition of "probably" and "perhaps".


EDIT: Lets make that you should probably look up those definitions.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Edited by luvdemshrooms (07/09/03 09:10 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRhizoid
carbon unit
Male

Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 3 months, 7 days
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Lallafa]
    #1699230 - 07/09/03 10:06 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

the world population is increasing at a steady rate, and the % of people in america is increasing even faster.




What statistics are you referring to here? If the % of people in america is increasing faster than the world population, then that can only be caused by immigration, because the US produces fewer babies per woman (2.07) than the world average (2.70).

I'm all for redistribution of income by the way, but not if the system rewards people for breeding like rabbits or staying unemployed. The redistribution should benefit all members of the state equally, no exceptions, no conditions.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1699408 - 07/09/03 11:33 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

a sinful solution or cold logic?



http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/2000/6/13_7.html



Quote:

Since 1979, China's strict birth limitation policy has become one of the most notorious ever enacted. All pregnancies must be authorized in order to maintain birth quotas and population goals. Women must obtain "birth coupons" prior to conception.








--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Lallafa]
    #1699420 - 07/09/03 11:35 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Both.

It's just a shame an IQ test and a steady source of income isn't required before having kids.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Lallafa]
    #1699989 - 07/09/03 02:51 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Lallafa writes:

libertarians believe that capitalism will solve everything.

Incorrect. I have done extensive reading of Libertarian and Laissez-faire Capitalist writers, and I have yet to see a single one opine that Capitalism will solve everything.

if we didt have welfare, if we didt have government agencys, trqde barriers on imports with the hopes of increasing demand for domestically produced goods, and the government starting wars to create jobs, there would be massive unemployment, crime, famine, and what-have-you

The US didn't have welfare, government agencies, or onerous trade barriers on imports in the late Eighteenth and Nineteenth century. The US didn't start wars to create jobs during that time either. There was no "massive" unemployment, runaway crime, famine or what have you then. Why would there be now?

any well educated economist will tell you that the gold standard thing wouldnt last very long without some sort of intervention

Incorrect. Maybe some economists educated in US government schools would say such a thing, but there are many highly regarded economists who have shown that fiat currency is entirely unnecessary to the health of a free economy. And of course, there are numerous examples of fiat currency devastating economies. It's happening right now in the Dominican Republic.

someone has to get paid less than 1 dollar an hour to make our 120$ nike shoes

Capitalism can be maintained and even flourish without the existence of $120 Nike shoes.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 20 years, 1 month
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1703290 - 07/10/03 04:10 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

What I was hoping to do in my posts was offer examples of resistence to Capitalism. In a lot of ways, Communism is a reaction by the lower economic classes against the higher economic classes. I'm not justifying anything, but that's what has happened. This may be too deterministic for you, I don't know. But look at the examples of supposed oppression--they both describe the same spoiled kid with a bloated sense of entitlement. That's not the same "oppression" that is felt, however accurately or unaccurately, in other parts of the world. I mean, really, some people get a really shitty end of the stick and no law is broken.

Capitalist apologists can sidestep the issue with examples out of left field, and they can continue to say "No one is forcing them..." or whatever (yes it's generally true but it doesn't adequately cover the situation), but it won't make the problem, if there is one, or one developing, go away.

But anyway, that's what I see as a possible obstacle to Capitalism. Where a Capitalist says "Your idea of 'oppression' is a non-concept" it might increase the possibility of something Marxist-ish from taking hold--a "dictatorship of the proletariat" or some other unrestful climate.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 7 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1704258 - 07/10/03 09:57 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

It's just a shame an IQ test and a steady source of income isn't required before having kids.




That's not very libertarian of you. Wouldn't that require governmental interference that you supposedly despise? As a matter of fact,that sounds pretty communist to me.


--------------------
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: hongomon]
    #1704611 - 07/11/03 12:26 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Capitalist apologists can sidestep the issue with examples out of left field, and they can continue to say "No one is forcing them..." or whatever

I suppose they'd say the same about child prostitution in south east asia where after working for 10 cents an hour all day kids still have to go out and sell their ass to earn enough to eat. "No-one is forcing that 10 year old to blow that 50 year old american, capitalism provides them with a choice..."


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 7 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Xlea321]
    #1704652 - 07/11/03 12:38 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

There is a fine line between force and coercion (sp?).


--------------------
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: monoamine]
    #1705086 - 07/11/03 03:54 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

grandmasterfat said:
Quote:

It's just a shame an IQ test and a steady source of income isn't required before having kids.




That's not very libertarian of you. Wouldn't that require governmental interference that you supposedly despise? As a matter of fact,that sounds pretty communist to me.



That springs from my personal dislike of stupidity, not any realistic political views.

Besides, if one wanted to really stretch the issue that stupidity harms the rest of us, that would fit in (remember we're stretching here) with anyone should be able to do anything they wish as long as no-one else is harmed.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomebodyelse
In_Is_Out

Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 296
Last seen: 20 years, 10 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1705133 - 07/11/03 04:55 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:


It's just a shame an IQ test and a steady source of income isn't required before having kids.

That springs from my personal dislike of stupidity, not any realistic political views.

Besides, if one wanted to really stretch the issue that stupidity harms the rest of us, that would fit in (remember we're stretching here) with anyone should be able to do anything they wish as long as no-one else is harmed.





Wow, I actually fully agree with you on this. So why can't we extend the desired IQ test to voting, too?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: somebodyelse]
    #1705159 - 07/11/03 05:30 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

I think you actually agree with me more often than you admit.

That having been said, there's a lot of things I'd love to see an IQ test for.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 20 years, 1 month
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Xlea321]
    #1708382 - 07/12/03 11:56 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Yes, it's very often the circumstances that are putting the pressure on the person. 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.

It seems we are only expected to appreciate these business for offering something. I don't always feel the gratitude.

Anyway, I wonder now if pinky might step away from the defense position and take on the "campaigner" role--to try and present Capitalism to a skeptical but interested "voter", just as an exercise. 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.

(Sorry to address you obliquely like this pinky, it's in the interest of time)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1708691 - 07/12/03 02:35 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

in order to have HAVES, you have to have HAVENOTS.

Besides, capitalism always reverts to communism over time, and vice versa. its just a cycle, and every part of that cycle has its pros and cons, just like everything else.

haven't you guys been paying attention?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1708717 - 07/12/03 02:41 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

>...Could you please explain to us how Bill Gates's greedy possession of three enormous mansions, seven Ferraris and bathtubs full of champagne prevents anyone else from acquiring enough to live well? Thanks<

Um...  yeah dude, its called "finite resources" and "exponentially increasing population"

Now, if somebody wanted to spend some serious money on physics research, terraforming Mars, and mining/building a zero-g launchpad on the moon, we could solve both of these problems, but most rich people I know are way more concerned about stuffing their faces, watching TV, and buying wasteful consumer products. 

not to mention the crapulence of our education system...  see? I actually think "crapulence" is a word :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1708798 - 07/12/03 03:19 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1708804 - 07/12/03 03:22 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1708915 - 07/12/03 03:59 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: hongomon]
    #1709009 - 07/12/03 04:27 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 7 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1709306 - 07/12/03 06:12 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1709392 - 07/12/03 06:31 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Besides, capitalism always reverts to communism over time, and vice versa. its just a cycle, and every part of that cycle has its pros and cons, just like everything else.



I don't recall any communist countries prior to the 20th century. Could you refresh my memory?


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: silversoul7]
    #1709676 - 07/12/03 07:48 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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 :smile: 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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: monoamine]
    #1710960 - 07/13/03 07:27 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1710978 - 07/13/03 07:58 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1712716 - 07/13/03 09:16 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

"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






Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 20 years, 1 month
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1714448 - 07/14/03 01:38 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1715181 - 07/14/03 04:57 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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 need to quite thinking in terms of absolutes. Whats good now isn't always good... there is no universal truth, there is only pragmatics.




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


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: hongomon]
    #1715485 - 07/14/03 06:15 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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 have no problem with people trying to improve their working conditions through propaganda, persuasion, withholding their labor or whatever.




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:

Workers in a Capitalist society are of course free to attempt to persuade others to join their union.




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:

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):


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:

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...


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


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly Flag
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1715738 - 07/14/03 07:28 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1715783 - 07/14/03 07:40 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

"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 :smile:
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 :smile:

"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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1716697 - 07/14/03 10:50 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1716833 - 07/14/03 11:37 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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 :smile: 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1716846 - 07/14/03 11:42 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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!! :grin:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 7 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Xlea321]
    #1716860 - 07/14/03 11:49 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Xlea321]
    #1716866 - 07/14/03 11:52 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

yup, god is a commie, lol!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 20 years, 1 month
Re: Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? [Re: Phred]
    #1717419 - 07/15/03 04:18 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

  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.

Where did I ever say I proposed to show the  cause  of the poverty and mass urbanization I've been discussing?  I have been criticizing a system which capitalizes on those circumstances.  What role in particular that capitalization has in perpetuating those circumstances, or in hindering their amelioration, or in contributing to others down the line--who can be exactly sure.  I did mention some possible links, but who the hell knows.  Your position seems to be that that role is zero, because what these people are doing is "minding their own business and living their entire lives trading with others through mutual consent -- never initiating physical force or fraud against another human."  Sorry, when did the discussion turn from the real world to Capitalistic utopia?  Come on, pinky!  Are you afraid to admit that perfectly "legal" business decisions might not always be ethically or morally sound, even by your Capitalistic standards?

Just to clear something up:
You wrote:
Evade? My initial response was:

I have no problem with people trying to improve their working conditions through propaganda, persuasion, withholding their labor or whatever.

Actually, your question to GazzButt earlier in the thread--the question I jumped in on--was (I added the bolding): ?Could you please explain to us how Bill Gates's greedy possession of three enormous mansions, seven Ferraris and bathtubs full of champagne  prevents anyone else from acquiring enough to live well ? Thanks.?

My reply: Gates' purchase, as well as mine and anyone's can prevent someone else from acquiring enough to live well. (Then I elaborated: it is essentially the customer?s money a company would utilize, were it to choose to fund illegal activity to suppress union activity.)

Your next post you restated (also my bolding): ?How does your purchase of a product  prevent the worker involved in making the product from taking a job with better working conditions??

This is a different question than the one I had addressed, it was asked in reply to another question of mine, it changes the subject, it is evasion.  So we end up, as so often, like two blind men arguing about what an elephant looks like.  But I feel the trunk, and I say to you, "You are right, the elephant can feel like a snake," but you just don't want to feel the leg.

To my: "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.

I was talking about the determinants for wages and work conditions.  I can see how you would have been confused.  It seems, like I have said, that the argument continually returned to is that those workers aren't obliged to keep those jobs if they're dissatisfied with them. 

You write,
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.

I guess you aren't familiar with the term "voluntarist."  It refers to decisions influenced by the company director's sense of morals, where profits went down as a result.  For example, if he doesn't feel it is morally right to pay the workers 30 cents an hour, he voluntarily pay something higher.  Quite a bit different than a wage difference based on his inability to know the magic number.  I'll track down the Milton Friedman essay in which he refers to this as taxation, and therefore, socialism.  It's in a book at the library, and if I can't locate it online, at least I can quote it and reference it for you.  It's actually a good article, as is the opposing one by Christopher Stone.

And yes, it's true that some shareholders vote to sacrifice profits in some other interest.  SRI (Socially Responsible Investment), to name an example, is a growing idea--what do you think about it?

There is nothing "obtuse" (feigned or otherwise) about making an offer of employment to someone at the wage rate you wish to pay.

First, I wasn't refering to the initial offer itself as obtuse, (although it applies) and I think it is clear what I was refering to; second, you may recall that this is in the context of the situation I layed out, where the hirer/firer can't possibly be unaware of the job market.  (Even here in the states, job security is a good thing to enjoy.)  So in that situation if the hirer/firer--or an apologist on an internet forum--uses the statement it certainly does come across as feigned (for I wouldn't consider you so daft, pinky to assume it were genuine) obtuseness.

I know I've skipped over a lot, and I don't want to, but my time is up.  Sometimes I fantasize about being paralyzed from the waist down so I'll left less reasons not to devote more time to internet forums.  I think I would miss the sex, though.

One last thing:

you wrote:
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.

My feelings and your feelings may have no relevance, but feelings certainly play a factor in social and political issues.  We may not approve of it, but that's the way it is.  Our history is full of reactions of one group against another--reactions being typically as much feeling-driven as rational (if not moreso). I'm not justifying anything, but that's what has happened.  Name one revolution, one riot, one general strike, one civil war, in which the way people felt wasn?t a significant factor.  I'm sorry I didn't do a better job distinguishing between my feelings and my observations about more general attitudes/feelings, as they applied to what I was saying.

That's all my juice,

hongomon   

[edited to change "charge the workers 30 cents an hour" to "pay the workers..."  sliiight difference.  :grin:

Edited by hongomon (07/15/03 01:14 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]

Shop: MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Capitalism leads to...(for Alcalagon) daimyo 742 12 10/24/04 12:46 PM
by silversoul7
* Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 6,866 63 11/01/02 08:19 AM
by Innvertigo
* The nightmarish reality of global capitalism carbonhoots 982 7 08/19/07 05:27 PM
by lonestar2004
* The United States is NOT Capitalist...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
trendalM 16,720 133 09/28/09 11:34 AM
by Phred
* Corporations are not capitalism Evolving 859 4 10/11/04 11:56 PM
by Worf
* Why Does Capitalism Get Such A Bum Rap?
( 1 2 all )
JesusChrist 2,002 29 12/08/21 10:25 PM
by CreonAntigone
* Capitalism=Theft
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
silversoul7 10,504 153 11/10/05 01:04 AM
by Microcosmatrix
* Is the drug war anti-capitalist?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
LearyfanS 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 ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.069 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 14 queries.