Dear capitalists,

[pce]

dear capitalists,

without getting into an arguement of the u.s.'s foreign policies which result from capitalism (or as they say economic imperialism), i was wondering why you support capitalism at all. even in your own country? do you like how a select few in the united states itself have so much riches and luxury while the majority barely get off? what do you have against leftist (if not communist views) views as pertaining to equality and justice to all who live in the u.s.? don't you agree that capitalism depends on and promotes the subjucation of the masses in the u.s. itself so that a few can reak the benifits and live in the highest luxuries? don't you think this should be changed, regardless of whether the changes are leftist or not? or do you just think that just because capitalism has been the best way so far, it is the best way possible?

these are just some questions i've been wondering about, they are not at all ment to be incriminating.

[AgustoSandino]

In a very hasty reply since I belive we've answered everyone of these points in many different threads.


do you like how a select few in the united states itself have so much riches and luxury while the majority barely get off?

Completely untrue, the US has the wolrds largest middle class and most upward mobility. Don't think so, ask any american whose grand parents came in the 20's or 30's, did their economic lives improve. Still don't think so, well why do you think immigrants continue to come to america. Moreover if you look at global inequality trends you will see that since the late 70's inequality has decreased the world over. Often when you hear inequality statistics you are hearing studies based on nations and not on individuals, in such studies a nation that is small like Djibouti carries as much weight as a large nation like China. This negates china's advances. take a look:

http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/columbia/ec3.../inequality.htm (http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/columbia/ec3213/convergence/inequality.htm)

Inequality has gone down because china and india begun liberalizing their economies and introduced capitalist reforms in the 80's. One billion people have been lifted out of poverty.


what do you have against leftist (if not communist views) views as pertaining to equality and justice to all who live in the u.s.?

Im not sure I understand the question, but I dont think any of us has any against leftist views but I don't belive the espousal of the overthrow of the US government is a leftist ideal. Moreover can you claim that freedoms guaranteed under the constitution are "leftist", it seems that is implicit in your message, but admited conservatives, like the lawyers of the federalist society will defend those rights as would any ACLU lawyer. American political system progress through the synthesis of oppossing ideas. It progress through compromise between "left" and "right" if thats what you want to call it. I have nothign wrong with the left, and despite what many here may think, I consider my self quite liberal and am compared to most people in the US.


don't you agree that capitalism depends on and promotes the subjucation of the masses in the u.s. itself so that a few can reak the benifits and live in the highest luxuries?

NO. How do you justify the claim, have you noticed that the majority of people in the US live pretty well off. Yes you are right in that some people get more than others, in many cases considerably more than others. But membership into that economic bracket is not closed off, I mean 100 years ago it was WASP's that dominated that bracket. Today all groups from southern europeans to blacks to hispanics and asians have broken into the upper classes and many have dropped out. You see there is a lilttle secret social phenomenom called social mobility, it is not perfect but it exists in america more than anywhere else.



or do you just think that just because capitalism has been the best way so far, it is the best way possible?

YES and no, there are better forms of capitalism that we can hope to achieve.

[pce]

perhaps you are right in many points...but my major point is that capitalism is built on keeping a certain number of people (whether that is the majority or minority) in poverty so that they can do the work for the rich.

"NO. How do you justify the claim, have you noticed that the majority of people in the US live pretty well off. Yes you are right in that some people get more than others, in many cases considerably more than others. But membership into that economic bracket is not closed off, I mean 100 years ago it was WASP's that dominated that bracket. Today all groups from southern europeans to blacks to hispanics and asians have broken into the upper classes and many have dropped out. You see there is a lilttle secret social phenomenom called social mobility, it is not perfect but it exists in america more than anywhere else. "

whether it is the majority or a large minority doesn't matter. as long as people benefit off the suffereing of others i will call the system unfair. you have to agree that it is unfair. also how do you define 'pretty well off?' i'd say the majority don't live pretty well off as compared to the bill gates and donald trumps of the country. you might call a family that makes $90,000 a year pretty well off but what about the college, home, electricity, water, car, etc payments that have to be taken care of with that money? are these families pretty well off as compared to someone who makes $100,000,000 a year for doing less work and/or respectable work?

as for your comment about immigrants, the reason immigrants come to this country is because the possibility of succes does exist. but that is not to say the possibility is here for everyone. in other countries even the possibility of having a comfortable life is nonexistant.

i am not trying to put the u.s. down. i respect and love the u.s. for many reasons, perhaps even more than many american's i know. i only say there is a lot of room for improvement.

forgive me if what i'm saying doesn't make complete sense, i am tired and there is a lot of commotion around me...

[Jurhael]

Let's not forget medical bills(44 million people have no health insurance) and just WHY other countries have such high poverty rates. (And it's not because they're "stupid" or "lazy").


And Agusto, you are doing NO ONE any favors patronizing people.


I agree with PCE, there's a TON of room for improvement. It's no lie when people claim that the US is the "Land of Opportunity", but it pissess me off when other countries get spit on just because they're not the same.

Work or Die
Conform or Die
Get a "real job"

That doesn't sound like a system worth keeping much longer.

If it's any consolation to the revolutionaries on this board, Capitalism will die eventually just as all the systems before it.

[Chancho]

Capitalism should be renamed to reflect its structure and its principles. I propose 'Pyramidism' as a more accurate name, since it operates in exactly the same way as a pyramid scheme.

[rebel7609]

But what about a field like medicine? To be a doctor you have to go to school for many, many years. Then you train on the job for years. Then you work ungodly hours. I think they SHOULD get paid more. It makes it an incentive. If you didn't get paid much, I can't imagine getting very highly qualified people into the field. It takes a lot of dedication and training.
Working in a field doesn't take a lot of training. I should know. I came from a farm community and made $4/hour detassling corn when I was young. The work was hard, dirty, gross and it sucked. But I got paid for the skill it took to do it. That's what gives you the desire to study, go to college, improve your mind and get a better job. I like a system that rewards you for working hard and improving yourself.
We've been saving 4 years to buy a house. Our friends bought one right when they got married. But John's an accountant. I certainly wouldn't want to do that for a living. If I wanted to be rich and be at the top of the heap, I would have either married a doctor or lawyer or become one myself instead of marrying a teacher and studying communications. You get what you earn. Everyone here has choices. ANYONE can have money here if you want to work hard and get it. What is wrong with that?
And it's not like rich and ambitious people are slave drivers. You specifically mentioned Bill Gates and Donald Trump. I'm sure their employees aren't suffering. Just because you make minimum wage for someone who owns a company doesn't mean you are suffering.

[Anonymous]

i think its importante to be objective and clear about this. I dont opose capitalism for some irrational reason or for the sake of agree with some leftist theories and individuals. I will explain the problems and injustices raised by capitalism and i will also speak of some things that i think should existe and dont.


On the matter of problems raised by capitalism you have frist of all the issue of exploration, exploration because if you analise the relations between workers and bosses this is case and let us not be naive. Yes there is a large middle class in america and most people have the basic needs and even some more, but frist of all this is not even close to enof and second of all to limit this discution to one contry, the one that most exploits people in the frist place, is not responsible. I state that the capitalist relations between bosses and workers is one of exploitation, this is true in an american factory but it is a thousand times more true and more serious in the relations between the rich of industrialized nations and the poor and workers of third world nations. This happens because you combine capitalism with globlisation, an explosive combination. You see in the US or in europe the goverments protect to a certain extent the unskilled worker for total and outragous explotation because they have to, if they didnt they would have serious problems. Unions and worker movements have struggled and do so everyday to gain small victories such as less hours and more pay and so fourth. In a third world contry none of this exists and goverments can easily be corrupted into closing there eyes to the slavery of there poor and the luting of there national resourses. Lets understand one thing, the corporations that undertake these enterprieses are powerfull, powerfull because some of them make more money a year that my contry`s (portugal) national product. This represents an extremely powerfull organisation with actions that afect milions of people AND it also represents, make no mistake about it, a very powerfull and influencial political influence. They pull there strings in the back stage to make sure certain things go there way. In few words they protect there intrests, but we need protection from them and not all goverments and nations are capable of giving there people this.

As for social mobility, yes there is some in some places. But life is difficult and lets not have ilusions. In real life if you have responsibilities, kids and a house to suport, it is very hard to provid and climb the social ladder at the same time.

And yes a doctor should make more that a factory worker. But there is world of difference between this and bilionares that give notting to society and get there weath form especulation and exploitation. Why is such inequality necessary? why do we need these individuals and organisations? do wee need them like this? dont we have a responsibility to the human race to refrain and control them? i think we do. I think all these problems and other need attention. I think the world is in a seriously fucked up state and its about time we started getting out act together.

[pce]

"ANYONE can have money here if you want to work hard and get it. "

rebel7609 i agree with most of what you say but not with this. this is simply not true. just think about it logicaly. what if everyone tried to work hard and 'earn' a lot of money? what if every factory worker wanted to become a manager, every mcdonald worker wanted to become an owner, etc. then who would do the work? who would do what the businessmen order? the truth is that anyone CAN'T earn all the money they deserve. it is set up this way. that to me is the biggest lie and fault of capitalism. there is an illusion that everyone can make it if they try hard but it is simply not true and therefore inredibly unfair.

[Chancho]

Quote: from pce on 12:15 am on Oct. 24, 2001
"ANYONE can have money here if you want to work hard and get it. "

rebel7609 i agree with most of what you say but not with this. this is simply not true. just think about it logicaly. what if everyone tried to work hard and 'earn' a lot of money? what if every factory worker wanted to become a manager, every mcdonald worker wanted to become an owner, etc. then who would do the work? who would do what the businessmen order? the truth is that anyone CAN'T earn all the money they deserve. it is set up this way. that to me is the biggest lie and fault of capitalism. there is an illusion that everyone can make it if they try hard but it is simply not true and therefore inredibly unfair.

Thank you pce - That is precisely what I mean when I suggest that capitalism is merely one big pyramid scheme.

[AgustoSandino]

PCE, rebel is right when he says that the key to success is hard work and that the system here is geared for that. I understand the logic behind your argument that if everyone worked hard the system would falter, but unfortunately you came to that conclusion with out taking all the information into account.
You have made the assumption that the "pie", or the aggragate wealth of the world or of the US in this case, is of a constant size. In reality the aggragate wealth of a nation can grow and does, one of the major reasons for such growth are increases in productivity. What does an increase in productivity mean, mainly they mean increases in efficiency. Despite the assertions that you may have heard on this site that increases in efficiency can only be brought about by "layoffs" there are other more preferable ways(even for "businessmen") to raise prodcutivity. For example technological advances. Despite what we think are trivial advances in technology, like our ability to play better games etc., computers have introduced tremendous efficiency in the economy. From filing systems to communications(are you not communicating with people from around the world here) computers have made difficult tasks easier and increases worker productivity. Of course computers are not the only aspect of technology that increases productivity, better health care techonologies and more fuel efficient cars are also small examples. Aside from technological growth "harder" work is also a way to increase productivity, it sounds silly but if the hamburger maker at mcdonalds can make 20 hamburgers an hour but he chooses to make 10 he is being unproductive, if he chooses to make 20 instead he increases his productivity. Well extrapolate this example to the car manufacturer, if he chooses to produce more the economy will grow (GDP=production) and the pie will get bigger. Now as the pie gets bigger wages increases. Look at history, between 1969 and 1980 productivity went down in the US, wages remained stagnant (ratchet effect does not allow them to decrease) after the 80's and through the 90's productivity went up and wages skyrocketed.
Well you say there are still poor people whose wages haven't gone up. Well PCE your "what if everyone wanted to become an owner etc. " must be reexamined. Why? Because in actuality this tends to be the case, everyone wants to be the boss, nobody is typically satisfied with where they are, even the communist here on che lives have their own vision for social mobility that is founded on a revolution they will lead. So since it is the case that everyone want's to be the boss you have to rephrase your question to What if everyone tries to be the boss? Here I will tell you that if everyone tried to do so the system will still not falter, the pie would get incredibly bigger. I would be the first to say that it'd be a wonderful thing if everyone tried to increase their "human capital" through higher education, unfortunately, at the expense of sound insensitive higher education is not for everyone. That is why there are people whose wages have not increased.
And believe it or not higher education for those who deserve it is not far away, yes college is expensive, but universities have expansive endowments with which to feed and supplement their financial aid rolls.
To end this post, since I have the apparent tendency to digress, "Anyone can have money here if [they] work hard and get it" it is the truth. Look at the generations of immigrants that have suceeded in making their lives and their childrens lives better.

[pce]

"What if everyone tries to be the boss? Here I will tell you that if everyone tried to do so the system will still not falter, the pie would get incredibly bigger."

please explain to me, and everyone else, how exactly does a civilization work if everyone is a boss? who will actually DO stuff in this large pie? the problem with your theory of a pie that gets bigger and bigger is that the bigger the pie gets, the bigger the pieces get. so the businessmen still get the largest proportion as compared to the workers. it doesn't matter how big the piece is, it matters how fair the piece is and how it compares to expenxes and the pieces of others. this is like the idea that all you have to do is raise the minimum wage and poverty will be reduced. this is not true because inflation will just go up and the dollar that you needed for a cup of coffee is now five dollars. by making your pie larger, everyone's pieces get bigger proportionally and as a result nothing changes. the poor are still poor and the rich still rich.

"Look at the generations of immigrants that have suceeded in making their lives and their childrens lives better. "

the beauty of that defense is that people who disagree cannot point to a group of immigrants that have not suceeded. you know why? because they have not succeeded, they are DEAD. those families are no longer here. you see the successes because that is all that is left. you don't see the failures because they are dead!

"unfortunately, at the expense of sound insensitive higher education is not for everyone"

aside from being insensitive, not SOUNDING but BEING, there are other problems with this idea. if we assume that this statement is true at the expense of sounding downright fascist, then it should be true that all the highly educated people should be rich and all those who aren't should be poor. however let's look at that, after all the main arguement seems be that people who work hard and put themselves through education deserve better salaries. let's look at one small group of rich people in this country - actors. jim carey (who i think is in fact a talented and funny man) makes $20 million dollars per movie. yes that's $20,000,000. jim carey is a college dropout yet he gets $20,000,000 million dollars for roughly two months of "work" on a movie. my dad on the other hand is one of those immigrants you speak of. he came to the u.s. with about twenty bucks in his pocket. he worked hard, HARD to put himself through college and he got a higher education. he got a PhD. he worked hard as a professor for years and then as a pharmicuetical chemist in various companies helping sick people get better. he makes about $90,000 a year and all he has to answer for this hard work is debts on top of debts. he owns practically nothing. meanwhile he sees a bunch of 25 year old kids with barely a b.s. driving around with top of the line porsches and ferrari's wondering how this is possible. these kids who have done nothing but fool people into buying a house or some other product have more to show for their "work" than my dad. and people like jim carey who have done even less for society, who have done nothing but sold their idiocy on t.v. have even more to show than they do. so how does the arguement of "To be a doctor you have to go to school for many, many years. Then you train on the job for years. Then you work ungodly hours. I think they SHOULD get paid more." fit in with that equation?

P.S.- i don't mean to say that my family is poor and that we deserve pity and charity, and i don't mean to complain. i have it easy. i know that there are millions of people far, FAR worse off than i am and it is not my place to complain. my point was merely to show that the system does not think that someone who has gone through higher education deserves more prosperity. it is the people who are the best at fooling others who deserve prosperity in this system.

[rebel7609]

A person makes $90,000 a year and has nothing because of debts upon debts? I don't make nearly that much and think I'm doing pretty good. And yeah, I had to work summers to get my own money for college. I'm still paying my loans. And a car payment and insurance. And rent and utilities. And groceries and other bills but I still put money away. Like I said, we've been saving for years for a nice house. What kind of debts does he have? And how is that the fault of capitalism? The kids with fancy cars probably don't even make $90,000. Don't get me wrong- he's your dad and all so I'm pretty sure he's a really nice guy like you. I'm just confused on this point.

And higher education ISN'T for everyone. I don't think Agusto meant that it isn't allowed for everyone. Some people don't WANT to study and learn after the required years of school. It's not something they want to do. That's what he means by "it's not for everyone." (At least that's what I THINK he means.) Like I said before, it's about opportunity. Law school sure as hell "isn't for" me. Not because I'm not allowed to go, but because I don't have the dedication or passion that is required. If someone like me who wouldn't be dedicated to law like Nik. and Chancho but still gets a law degree because of some silly system that says that everyone is equal and should get the same treatment.... then that cheapens those two girl's degrees. Higher education is a privilege, not a right. (which is different that saying it's for the "privileged" )
A good example of immigrants are the recent Mexican immigrants. There came in droves to central and southern Indiana over the last couple of years because of the availability of jobs. There have been a lot of news stories about how they have left shithole jobs and lives in Mexico and have come here and made money and bought homes. That's "making it" to them. I know this is one small group, but I just wanted to let you know that not all immigrants who have left their homes and come to the U.S. and made successes out of their lives are not all dead.
And Jim Carrey makes $20 mil a picture because people like you and I are dumb and dumber enough to pay the $8/ticket to see him. (heh)
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go polish my rose-colored glases.

[pce]

aahh...he refused to fire employees which were barely making a living even though his boss told him to do so. he was fired and as a result he had to start his life over with two kids and a wife to support and house and car payments which hadn't been made yet and a major move in search of another job (which brings about new house and other payments) on top of that. because he was a human being and didn't want to fire another, he was fired by a businessman, a capitalist. because he didn't think like a capitalist and instead thought like a human being, he suffered. there are many more details which i don't feel comfortable getting into, forgive me.

in anycase, i am not saying we have a bad way of life, in fact we have a great way of life compared with many, many, many others. our problems are trivial compared to others'. however compared with people who didn't work half as hard and didn't do anything to help others in their jobs, his treatment was not fair to say the least.

agusto was saying that people don't WANT to learn. i am saying that people aren't allowed EVEN if the wanted to. further more, i propose that they are made to THINK that they don't need to learn as i will try to illustrate soon. since people aren't allowed, it is easy to sit back and say they don't want to.

let me give you another example regarding immigrants, and mexican ones at that. here in california the whole agriculture business depends on uneducated mexicans who pour into this country. mexicans who will do anything for money so they can survive have almost no option (at least most of them) other than to bend to the rules of the agriculture business. they are kept low with low wages and as a result they will remain poor and as a result they can never get an education and as a result they will be forced to continue working in an oppressive industry. furthermore, when the mexicans come to this country they don't speak english. if they learn english they will be able to get better jobs. however since they come into a society and an industry filled with other immigrant mexicans they don't need to learn english to get along, they just continue speaking spanish to their fellow workers because that's all they need to know. and since they don't have an education, they don't know that by learning english they can get better jobs. it is an endless cycle...

and i think the population of mexicans that live like this is much greater than the population of mexicans who live like those in indiana. that's just a guess, i don't know for sure...

as for jim carey, you make a good point. however, doesn't the system, from the time we are born, tell us that going to the movies on friday nights is cool? this is the same consumer system that makes us "need" coka-cola and nike. afterall, jim carey is just another product and we consume him because he is force fed to us. you can replace "jim carey" with all the arguements in the image and consumerism threads.

[pce]

aahh...he refused to fire employees which were barely making a living even though his boss told him to do so. as a result, he was fired and as a result he had to start his life over with two kids and a wife to support and house and car payments which hadn't been made yet and a major move in search of another job (which brings about new house and other payments) on top of that. because he was a human being and didn't want to fire another, he was fired by a businessman, a capitalist. because he didn't think like a capitalist and instead thought like a human being, he suffered. there are many more details which i don't feel comfortable getting into, forgive me.

in anycase, i am not saying we have a bad way of life, in fact we have a great way of life compared with many, many, many others. our problems are trivial compared to others'. however compared with people who didn't work half as hard and didn't do anything to help others in their jobs, his treatment was not fair to say the least.

agusto was saying that people don't WANT to learn. i am saying that people aren't allowed EVEN if the wanted to. further more, i propose that they are made to THINK that they don't need to learn as i will try to illustrate soon. since people aren't allowed, it is easy to sit back and say they don't want to.

let me give you another example regarding immigrants, and mexican ones at that. here in california the whole agriculture business depends on uneducated mexicans who pour into this country. mexicans who will do anything for money so they can survive have almost no option (at least most of them) other than to bend to the rules of the agriculture business. they are kept low with low wages and as a result they will remain poor and as a result they can never get an education and as a result they will be forced to continue working in an oppressive industry. furthermore, when the mexicans come to this country they don't speak english. if they learn english they will be able to get better jobs. however since they come into a society and an industry filled with other immigrant mexicans they don't need to learn english to get along, they just continue speaking spanish to their fellow workers because that's all they need to know. and since they don't have an education, they don't know that by learning english they can get better jobs. it is an endless cycle...

and i think the population of mexicans that live like this is much greater than the population of mexicans who live like those in indiana. that's just a guess, i don't know for sure...

as for jim carey, you make a good point. however, doesn't the system, from the time we are born, tell us that going to the movies on friday nights is cool? this is the same consumer system that makes us "need" coka-cola and nike. afterall, jim carey is just another product and we consume him because he is force fed to us. you can replace "jim carey" with all the arguements in the image and consumerism threads.


sorry for the double post :biggrin:

(Edited by pce at 10:27 pm on Oct. 24, 2001)

[vox]

"PCE, rebel is right when he says that the key to success is hard work and that the system here is geared for that."

If hard work paid, there would never have been a poor coal miner. Capitalist lackeys always like to forget about economic social relations.

[SNIP]
"Of course computers are not the only aspect of technology that increases productivity, better health care techonologies and more fuel efficient cars are also small examples."

What has been failed to be mentioned here is that an increase in efficiency, while it may very well increase profit, is not then reflected in wages for the employee, but rather in stock price and bonuses for the CEO. Indeed, increasing wages would then be counterproductive to the rise in efficiency.

See here. If one person, thanks to a capital investment in a PC, can now do the work of 1.5 persons, and there are fifteen people in the office, one of two things may happen. One, five people may be laid off, since the same amount of work can now be done by ten, and that's sufficient for the company, as it was when there were fifteen people employed. Two, the PCs were purchased because of an increase in demand, so the fifteen people are now capable of doing the same job that they were doing plus more. This company's "pie" is now bigger, but where is the benefit to labor? Nowhere, of course. It's the same job that they had the day before, but now with more work, without more pay. Efficiency is not gained by increasing wages. The pie may indeed get bigger, but labor's percentage of the pie then shrinks.


"Aside from technological growth "harder" work is also a way to increase productivity, it sounds silly but if the hamburger maker at mcdonalds can make 20 hamburgers an hour but he chooses to make 10 he is being unproductive, if he chooses to make 20 instead he increases his productivity. Well extrapolate this example to the car manufacturer, if he chooses to produce more the economy will grow (GDP=production) and the pie will get bigger. Now as the pie gets bigger wages increases. Look at history, between 1969 and 1980 productivity went down in the US, wages remained stagnant (ratchet effect does not allow them to decrease) after the 80's and through the 90's productivity went up and wages skyrocketed."

Agusto, again very conveniently, discounts inflation. Would any rational person here say that a worker making seven dollars an hour in 1973 and a worker making seven dollars an hour in 1993 were making the same amount of money? Of course not. Agusto wants us to believe that, however.

Though wages rose, the disparity between the rich and the rest of us grew. The pie got bigger yet again, and people went hungry for want of pie.

A bigger mistake that is made, however, is in the idea that efficiency is always good. Anyone else ever hear about the crisis of overproduction? I sure hope so.

See, suppose I, to use Agusto's example, can make not ten, not twenty, but a whopping 100 hamburgers an hour, which, given the size of the grill and the thinness of the patty, isn't an outrageous belief at a typical McDonald's. I've increased production, I've increased effeciency, but I've lost the boss some money, because we didn't have customers to eat those burgers I so valiantly cooked! Instead, we had to throw them away.
Based on this absurdity, Agusto states that if a car manufacturer "chooses to produce more the economy will grow." No, that's not a given at all.

Not only can more cars be produced, like so many hamburgers, than are needed, it's this very crisis of overproduction that leads to recession. Too many cars does not equal a growing economy, but a shrinking one. As cars are overproduced, the price goes down (recall the very basic concept of supply and demand between seller and buyer). As the price goes down, and cars sit on the lot, auto producers have to lay workers off in order to maintain the correct amount of profit. This leads to economic instability. As fewer cars are produced, not just auto workers, but workers in all the associated industries have less work to do. It's because of this overproduction, not in spite of it, that the pie then shrinks, and some people are kicked out of the dining hall altogether.


"Well you say there are still poor people whose wages haven't gone up. Well PCE your "what if everyone wanted to become an owner etc. " must be reexamined. Why? Because in actuality this tends to be the case, everyone wants to be the boss, nobody is typically satisfied with where they are, even the communist here on che lives have their own vision for social mobility that is founded on a revolution they will lead. So since it is the case that everyone want's to be the boss you have to rephrase your question to What if everyone tries to be the boss? Here I will tell you that if everyone tried to do so the system will still not falter, the pie would get incredibly bigger. I would be the first to say that it'd be a wonderful thing if everyone tried to increase their "human capital" through higher education, unfortunately, at the expense of sound insensitive higher education is not for everyone. That is why there are people whose wages have not increased."

The paragraph I just quoted, originally written by Agusto, is a real gem, comrades. Read it very carefully, for seldom are the capitalists so careless.

Agusto makes the "human capital" argument, for in the view of the capitalist, one's value is only determined by how one can serve capital, which is the exact opposite of how I view things, which is how capital can serve humanity. This is the extreme, and irreconcilable, difference between a Marxist and a capitalist. Rather than an economy which serves humankind, we are expected to kneel at the altar of the Free Market, and pray that we are found worthy. For someone like Agusto, it's "unfortunate" that there are poor people, but his solution is for them to remain poor.

Let's take a closer look.

Agusto states that if everyone wanted to be the boss, the pie would get "incredibly bigger," but he makes no mention of how. I suggest that if everyone got a college degree, then college graduates would be sweeping the floors.

I've always maintained, as did Marx, that there is a great amount of social mobility in a capitalist society. It's often said that "anyone can make it," right? Let's say that's true. The fact remains that not EVERYONE can make it. Verily, PCE spells out the problem. Capitalism requires, by its nature, that there be a large underclass dependent upon employment by the capitalist. If this situation did not exist, then capitalism itself could not exist. The US would be a society of artisans, but the division of labor, Agusto's vaunted "efficiency," makes sure that is not the case.


"And believe it or not higher education for those who deserve it is not far away, yes college is expensive, but universities have expansive endowments with which to feed and supplement their financial aid rolls."

Does this even need a comment?

Financial Aid has been cut (remember Ronald Reagan?) and more people than ever are going into debt, with the hope of getting a job that very well may not exist.

Too, this points out the true meaning of humanity for the capitalist: education is to make more money, not to learn more about humanity.


"To end this post, since I have the apparent tendency to digress, "Anyone can have money here if [they] work hard and get it" it is the truth. Look at the generations of immigrants that have suceeded in making their lives and their childrens lives better."

Perhaps anyone can have enough money on which to live, but the other question, not asked by capitalists for it does not serve the cause of capital, is whether anyone would want, or should have, to live these lives. Quality of life means nothing to the capitalist. Quantity of money is all that is important. It is the standard by which everything is judged.

Of course, immigrants also follow the money which has been taken from their native land and brought to the capitalist, but that's another post.

vox


(Edited by vox at 8:09 pm on Oct. 24, 2001)

[Chancho]

In relation to computers increasing productivity - let's not forget that computers were hailed (before the advent of their mass application) as the means to finally reduce working hours and permit workers to unshackle themselves - more work done yet more free time - it sounded like working man's nirvana.

The reality has been the opposite. Computers have led to unprecedented increases in productivity which have merely given the employer an unparalleled opportunity to generate profits. No one's working hours were reduced as a result of the advent of the computer age (unless you want to count redundancies) - but productivity was increased exponentially. Where are the commensurate wage increases? That capital is doing its free market duty in the service of those capitalists at the top of the food chain.

[AgustoSandino]

Do we have to do this again. Well I'll be brief

One big list of misconceptions by vox

If hard work paid, there would never have been a poor coal miner. Capitalist lackeys always like to forget about economic social relations-vox

There are certain things that are unfortunate, in capitalist, mercantilist or communist societies, this is one of them. Fist off let me congratulate you for your astute editorial choice, using coal miners, who make up a small percentage of the workforce but obviously evoke more emotion than say a sales associate at staples. Sorry for digressing. In reality while the physical labor of a coal miner is greater than that experienced by say a lawyer, the believe that the coal miner should receive greater compensation is wrong. Why? Because it is easier to become a coal miner than become a lawyer. Obviously gross numbers in the US do not indicate this today, that is because of the increase in efficiency in the coal industry along with the use of other fuels makes it less necessary to employ as many coal miners. If you think coal miners should make more than lawyers or other white collar professionals, although their compensation is very good because they are unionized, you are wrong. The argument should not be about how much more coal miners should be paid, but rather it should be about them having the opportunity to, if they choose, not to be coal miners. In this respect the US does very well, our universities have magnificent financial aid programs, granted we don't have the subsidy support of european universities but has anyone ever wondered why american universities remain preeminent in the world of academia.

What has been failed to be mentioned here is that an increase in efficiency, while it may very well increase profit, is not then reflected in wages for the employee, but rather in stock price and bonuses for the CEO. Indeed, increasing wages would then be -counterproductive to the rise in efficiency-vox

again wrong, vox how many times do we have to discuss your knowledge, or lack thereof, in respect to economics. Increases in wages always result from increases in productivity. Yes, really? Need convincing, look at worker compensation over the last decade when we experienced the greatest productivity increases of the century. The wage increases were so great that in the true spirit of capitalism now over 50 percent of the american public owns stock, that number will hopefully get bigger. But you say the market is doing bad those people lost their money, listen over the course of 200 years the american economy has done nothing other than expand and grow, it has had its ups and downs, but if one looks at the logorithmic growth functions it is always increasing. Furthermore you will claim that the minimum wage has not increased substantially, you are right it has not, but should it. Factory worker productivity has increased, their wages have gone up. Information technologies were invented as a field and their productivity increased wages went up. Service industry productivity increased and their wages went up and above the minimum wage, here in manhattan service jobs, cashiers etc. were hiring at 10 dollars an hour. The minimum wage as a law has not increased but many people make more than the minimum wage, furthermore those that choose to work at the minimum wage often do so because they can not work elsewhere. Again the question becomes not how do we give them more money, but how do we give them more opportunity to increase their human capital.

The pie may indeed get bigger, but labor's percentage of the pie then shrinks-vox

VERY TRUE VOX, but why, is it possibly because every year less and less people in the US are employed under what you would according to your stereotype classify as labor which it seems you make synonimous with the proletariat. Geez vox what is labor, believe it or not labor is not just a factory worker, it is the doctor, the engineer, all these people who are bourgoise are labor as well. Marxist analysis of class is defunct.


Agusto, again very conveniently, discounts inflation. Would any rational person here say that a worker making seven dollars an hour in 1973 and a worker making seven dollars an hour in 1993 were making the same amount of money? Of course not. Agusto wants us to believe that, however

Ah vox, if you knew anything about economics you would know i didnt discount inflation. Did I not say that if productivity went up wages went up and if they went down wages went down. The reason inflation occurs is because there is a surplus of money, sure any elementary school child knows that, but how does that surplus come about, it comes about because of decreases in efficiency, because people produce less efficiently and because of the ratchet effect (ilve no time to explain myself) http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine/ec320/r...t&inflation.htm (http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine/ec320/ratchet&inflation.htm)
wages remain at level.


Though wages rose, the disparity between the rich and the rest of us grew. The pie got bigger yet again, and people went hungry for want of pie. -vox

yes, once again hit the nail on the head vox. The wages of the highest level and of the lowest level have diverged dramatically, but this statement does not take into account the fact that the majority of people are in the middle, and while they may not be obscenely rich, they are much better off than before. Vox you can disagree with this simple statement all you want but, assuming you're an american, things are pretty good here, even in the traditionally poorer arease. I live in Harlem and let me tell you about witnessing the progress brought about by capitalism.

See, suppose I, to use Agusto's example, can make not ten, not twenty, but a whopping 100 hamburgers an hour, which, given the size of the grill and the thinness of the patty, isn't an outrageous belief at a typical McDonald's. I've increased production, I've increased effeciency, but I've lost the boss some money, because we didn't have customers to eat those burgers I so valiantly cooked! Instead, we had to throw them away.
Based on this absurdity, Agusto states that if a car manufacturer "chooses to produce more the economy will grow." No, that's not a given at all.-vox

ah what an absurdity it is, now you've truly shown the level of ineptitude your wallow around in when it comes to economics. The most fundemental thing you learn in any Macro course is the gdp=y=production=I+G+S+(xport-import). yes vox everytime something is made the economy grows. Everytime that money exchanges hands vox the economy grows, its crazy I know, hold on to your armrests before you fall over. Your remember my sock merchant who you so cursorily dismissed, well vox let me refresh your memory about the principle that i was trying to impart before you closed the shutters. A sock merchant sells socks for 10 dollars, you buy them for that price, that means one thing for you, you valued the socks at more than 10 dollars. Why if you valued them less you would never have paid ten bucks, and if you valued them at 10 bucks you would've been indifferent to sock or money. On the other side of the transaction the merchant values the 10 bucks more than the sock, other wise he would just hoard all the socks. I suppose you felt socks were trivial so lets do the auto thing you seem to be into. An auto, at its purest, is raw material, steel and other nice shiny things. Well in order for the factory worker to make autos the auto company has to buy steel from the steel company, well when the auto company does that it gives x amount of money for x amount of steel, yet the same holds, if the auto company did not value the steel more than x units of value it would let it be. But again everytime money changes, everytime something is made, the economy increases. Don't think so still, well remeber the equation, I didn't make it up, its what our national accountants use to determine GDP.



Not only can more cars be produced, like so many hamburgers, than are needed, it's this very crisis of overproduction that leads to recession. Too many cars does not equal a growing economy, but a shrinking one. As cars are overproduced, the price goes down (recall the very basic concept of supply and demand between seller and buyer). As the price goes down, and cars sit on the lot, auto producers have to lay workers off in order to maintain the correct amount of profit. This leads to economic instability. As fewer cars are produced, not just auto workers, but workers in all the associated industries have less work to do. It's because of this overproduction, not in spite of it, that the pie then shrinks, and some people are kicked out of the dining hall altogether. -vox

hahaha, as cars are overproduced price goes down, so cars sit on the lot, is that your understanding of supply and demand. This is a simple shift within the supply schedule of a good, the price goes down the demand shifts within the schedule accordingly and the cars don't sit in a lot they're bought up a new equilbrium is established. The car manufactures just produce less cars, they don't fire workers because they're unionized (which i never said is a bad thing as a matter of fact unions as an instrument of capitalism help insure that there is fairness in the labor market, so long as unions do not take things to the extreme) and the consumer benefits. And who are the consumers vox, would they happend to be people that produce in other sectors. You see this is where your marxist analysis of class fails, you see things simply in two groups, workers and owners. Yet workers are employed in different sectors and so are owners, interest conflict all over the place. I recommend a book- capitalist development and democracy by ruschemyer, stephens and stephens.

Financial Aid has been cut (remember Ronald Reagan?) and more people than ever are going into debt, with the hope of getting a job that very well may not exist.

well vox, the gipper didnt cut financial aid, because financial aid is largely part of an institutions endowment. Furthermore if you want to look at govts hand learn about HEOP of EOP, higher education opportunity programs and educational opportunity programs. Although I don't want to refer to personal experience and other biographical I'll just say that as a recent immigrant to the US, well not that recent i've been here for a decade now, and was employed throughout highschool as a member of the oil industry if you get my drift, and am employed through college. I who come of the class you say you fight for, have found substantial help from government and private institutions, and know countless individuals who have done the same. Listen if you want to succeed in this country, it is very true you just have to strive to achieve. I mean look at PCE's dad, came with "20 bucks" and now make 90 thousand a year, thats not bad, thats opportunity.

Too, this points out the true meaning of humanity for the capitalist: education is to make more money, not to learn more about humanity

Well personally Im studying to improve the collective good of humanity, want to see what Im into, visit www.ild.org
the institute of liberty and democray based in lima peru. or read the MYSTERY OF CAPITAL by HERNANDO DE SOTO. Listen we both have ideas of how to improve the world, only mine have been shown to work and yours, collectivization,nationalization, from each according to their ability to each according to their need, those ideas that you seem to espouse, have failed (i know you'll retort rudely about how i shouldn't assume what you think, but listen dude, vox, thats what you've been espousing)

Perhaps anyone can have enough money on which to live, but the other question, not asked by capitalists for it does not serve the cause of capital, is whether anyone would want, or should have, to live these lives. Quality of life means nothing to the capitalist. Quantity of money is all that is important. It is the standard by which everything is judged. -vox

I think i refered to this immigrant thing before, but lets handle the other issues brought up. quality of life? do I have to refer you to reality, look around wake up, life is better because of capitalism, life has always been better in areas where capitalism along with governmental institutions that maintain the rule of law and preserve competition (ie the US, western europe and japan) exists. Life is so much better that formerly socialist nations are emulating, look at china, better yet look at india (what india wasn't socialist, well the government owned everything, those are socialist economics my friend owner ship by the masses, isn't nationalization what castro and allende did first weren't they socialist). Yes vox again you are right it "Is this standard by which everything is judged" and last I checked, and let me tell you cause I think I mentioned were I live, things are getting better, in here.


Of course, immigrants also follow the money which has been taken from their native land and brought to the capitalist, but that's another post.

Actually it is common economic knowledge that migration is inversely raleted to K capital. The richer a country gets the less people immigrate, Case in point Europe and Japan. What happened, ah i see, they became efficient capitalist, then jobs became available. The same will eventually happen to latin america, as their capitalism develops (something that if you look at the instituto de libertad i democracia, you will see that I am personally going to help to do) I didn't come here to follow the money that the US was taking from my country, there was no money in my country to begin with, the only money there was came from the minerals that the capitalist nations bought. They were oh so horrible, if they hadn't bought those minerals then we would've been able to keep them and do absolutely nothing with them because we had a corrupt and inneficient government and were plagued by misguided marxist insurgents. You see it was the fact that other industrialized nations bought these goods that employed people in the first place.

Damn, now it just got into a rant, well not quite, looking at it I kept my coherence. later.

[gooddoctor]

the myth that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed under the capitalist class is totally unfounded. the economic success of a person born into a poor family in the west is purely down to luck. there is hard work involved, but in the end of the day no amount of hard work in a factory will get you anywhere unless you have capital to invest.
augusto, you are the worst kind of apologist. you sit there and say exactly what the fatcats want you to say. they are laughing at you, not agreeing with you. i know of not one impartial capitalist economist worth his mettle who will not concede that marx got it exactly right. he is the greatest capitalist economist there is. he predicted 150 years ago the mechanisms that operate today under globalisation. i know you have read some,why don't you make the connection? i'd recommend francis wheen's biography of marx. he has a very dry wit and highlights some of the more important aspects of marx's work whilst trying to discover the man behind the myth.
furthermore, why do you waste your time here? you should go out and do something useful instead of polluting this board with your wholly unwelcome, ignorant and brainwashed ideas. you spend so much time here, i can't believe that you're that sad that you don't have anything better to do. i used to come here to escape your kind of ignorance, but it seems even here the lies of capitalism rule.

[vox]

Do we have to do this again. Well I'll be brief

One big list of misconceptions by vox

Comrades, I will show here how Agusto has to lie in order to maintain his stance. He attributes to me things I didn't say and then tells me I'm wrong. Agusto is fighting strawmen, which, of course, is the only way he can feel he wins.


"There are certain things that are unfortunate, in capitalist, mercantilist or communist societies, this is one of them. Fist off let me congratulate you for your astute editorial choice, using coal miners, who make up a small percentage of the workforce but obviously evoke more emotion than say a sales associate at staples. Sorry for digressing."

This is actually an old saying. Agusto may not be familiar with it, but even if he isn't that doesn't excuse what comes next. Anyone can see that I was making the point that hard work results in greater profits for someone else, not for the worker. Agusto chose to ignore that and take it literally.



"In reality while the physical labor of a coal miner is greater than that experienced by say a lawyer, the believe that the coal miner should receive greater compensation is wrong. Why? Because it is easier to become a coal miner than become a lawyer."

Who is Agusto talking to here? Surely it's not to me, for I didn't claim such a thing, not at all. Agusto's first strawman.

Even this, however, is telling. Agusto is arguing that it's okay, in a capitalist society, for people who work full-time to be poor. I say it is not okay at all. That's another major difference between me and the capitalists. The market determines everything rather than people determining anything. It's a backwards system.



"Obviously gross numbers in the US do not indicate this today, that is because of the increase in efficiency in the coal industry along with the use of other fuels makes it less necessary to employ as many coal miners. If you think coal miners should make more than lawyers or other white collar professionals, although their compensation is very good because they are unionized, you are wrong."

Still pounding on that strawman.

Efficiency did not raise workers wages, by the way. I know that RedCeltic has done some reading about the labor movement. Wages were increased by fighting, hard and long, against the capitalists. The mineworkers were at the front of this struggle, and they paid in blood for their rights as human beings. Perhaps Agusto would like to explain how being paid in script that is only accepted at the company store helps workers, for this happened, folks, right in the good ole USA.



"The argument should not be about how much more coal miners should be paid, but rather it should be about them having the opportunity to, if they choose, not to be coal miners."

Perhaps Agusto would like to trot out that bit of Utopian fluff in front of people working two jobs just to get by. Tell them that it doesn't matter how much they get paid. Am I the only one here that sees the absurdity of Agusto's claim?

The other side of this, of course, is that low wages=higher profits. The worker is good enough to labor, but not good enough to be paid a living wage.


"again wrong, vox how many times do we have to discuss your knowledge, or lack thereof, in respect to economics. Increases in wages always result from increases in productivity. Yes, really?"


Agusto's weak economics fail him here.

Wages increase as the price of labor goes up due to a shortage of workers, not because of efficiency. Agusto himself said that "because of the increase in efficiency in the coal industry along with the use of other fuels makes it less necessary to employ as many coal miners."

Yet somehow we're expected to believe that lower demand for labor is going to increase wages. It simply doesn't wash.


"Need convincing, look at worker compensation over the last decade when we experienced the greatest productivity increases of the century. The wage increases were so great that in the true spirit of capitalism now over 50 percent of the american public owns stock, that number will hopefully get bigger. But you say the market is doing bad those people lost their money, listen over the course of 200 years the american economy has done nothing other than expand and grow, it has had its ups and downs, but if one looks at the logorithmic growth functions it is always increasing."

Well now, let's take a closer look at these numbers.

In 1992, the average after-tax income of the richest 1% of the US population was $398,000. In 1997, it was $518,000, for an increase of 30.1%, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities using IRS data. By contrast, the bottom 90% saw their after-tax income simply skyrocket by a whopping 3.6%! Hmmm, methinks Agusto is not giving us the truth here.

But let's dig deeper.

Robert Reich wrote that, "According to recent data from the congressional budget office, this year (2000) the richest 2.7 million Americans, comprising the top 1 percent of the population, will have as many after-tax dollars to spend as the bottom 100 million put together. Meanwhile, the poorest one-fifth of households will have an average income of $8,800 this year, down from $10,000 in 1977 (in current dollars)."

So, in the best times that capitalism has ever seen in the USA, while productivity was increasing year after year and the economy was going full steam ahead, the poorest workers lost ground. Agusto can cite as many adages as he wishes from Utopian college texts, but people living in the real world know the truth, something Agusto doesn't seem to be too familiar with.

Lest anyone think those numbers Reich gave are cooked, take a look at this: "This calculation doesn't even include deferred income and other perks, such as stock options, which have gone mostly to people at the top. And, notably, it does not include increases in the values of rapidly growing stock portfolios--add these into the mix, and the wealth gap turns into the Grand Canyon. At the start of the Clinton administration, the Dow stood at 3,300. Now it's hovering around 10,800. Eighty-five percent of this windfall has gone to the top 10 percent of earners--and over 40 percent to the top 1 percent."

Agusto harps on about the middle class, but always fails to define it. One way of defining it is to take the median income and include everyone who has an income of at least half the median to no more than twice the median. Figuring the middle class that way, we find that the percentage of US workers in the middle class actually shrank from 71.2% in 1969 to 61.6% in 1997.

Another way of looking at the middle class is to divide earners into five groups and look at the middle twenty percent of earners. (Note: the top 5% and top 1% are often separated out of these breakdowns, for the superrich skew the numbers and deliver a less than accurate portriait of income distribution.)

Looking at the middle twenty percent, we find that real annual income, in constant 1996 dollars, actually FELL from 1989-1996 by 3.0%!!! This is the best that we can do? I'm not so sure.

Taking a longer view, the middle twenty percent saw their annual income increase from 1973-1996 by 2.6%. Meanwhile, the top five percent saw an increase of 49.8% during those same years, and an increase of 15.1% during the years 1989-1996, while the middle class lost ground.


"Furthermore you will claim that the minimum wage has not increased substantially, you are right it has not, but should it. Factory worker productivity has increased, their wages have gone up. Information technologies were invented as a field and their productivity increased wages went up. Service industry productivity increased and their wages went up and above the minimum wage, here in manhattan service jobs, cashiers etc. were hiring at 10 dollars an hour."


For a rather interesting look at low-wage workers, I strongly urge everyone to read Nickel and Dimed (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805063889/qid%3D1004012011/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F0%5F1/104-4978248-7607151) by Barbara Ehrenreich.

Oh, and Agusto speaks an untruth when he talks about rising wages. Wages didn't really start to rise until 1998, well into the economic expansion, and the rise was meager at best.



"VERY TRUE VOX, but why, is it possibly because every year less and less people in the US are employed under what you would according to your stereotype classify as labor which it seems you make synonimous with the proletariat. Geez vox what is labor, believe it or not labor is not just a factory worker, it is the doctor, the engineer, all these people who are bourgoise are labor as well. Marxist analysis of class is defunct."

I suggest that Agusto not pretend to know what I'm thinking when he can't even grasp basic economics. I also suggest that he should look at income distribution charts for the Eighties and Nineties.

When I speak of labor, I speak of factory workers, yes, but also of janitors, secretaries, dental assistants, maids, fast food workers, and all of my working brothers and sisters in the retail industry, plus many more. I spoke of labor, and Agusto needs to reduce it to one specific occupation. His need to misrepresent is so great because his arguments are so weak.

"Ah vox, if you knew anything about economics you would know i didnt discount inflation. Did I not say that if productivity went up wages went up and if they went down wages went down. The reason inflation occurs is because there is a surplus of money, sure any elementary school child knows that, but how does that surplus come about, it comes about because of decreases in efficiency, because people produce less efficiently and because of the ratchet effect (ilve no time to explain myself) http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine/ec320/r...t&inflation.htm (http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine/ec320/ratchet&inflation.htm)
wages remain at level."

In terms of buying power, the middle twenty percent of earners in the late Nineties were just getting back to where they were in the early Seventies. This is the sad fact of capitalism. Agusto's textbooks can't change that reality.


"yes, once again hit the nail on the head vox. The wages of the highest level and of the lowest level have diverged dramatically, but this statement does not take into account the fact that the majority of people are in the middle, and while they may not be obscenely rich, they are much better off than before."


I've shown Agusto's assertion to be false already, but I can always do more.

The amount of private debt in the US is higher now than ever before, and saving is at an all-time low. The "great" economy of the Nineties was fueled by consumer debt. Now that the economy isn't doing so well, and people are being laid off, this debt burden has become a very real problem.

Just how is the economy supposed to expand when the market has shrunk? This is one of the contradictions inherent in capitalism and a symptom of the crisis of overproduction.

What's truly amazing is that Agusto doesn't seem to mind that the poor have become even poorer during this boom time. This is capitalism at its very best, folks, and we can all see what the results are. There is a reason why "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is a cliche, of course. It's true.


"ah what an absurdity it is, now you've truly shown the level of ineptitude your wallow around in when it comes to economics. The most fundemental thing you learn in any Macro course is the gdp=y=production=I+G+S+(xport-import). yes vox everytime something is made the economy grows. Everytime that money exchanges hands vox the economy grows, its crazy I know, hold on to your armrests before you fall over."

Ah, my witless foil thinks he has a point.

If we limit our understanding of the economy to the GDP, Agusto is correct. However, the economy is greater than just a simple economic indicator.

If I produce a million widgets and there is no market for widgets at all, the GDP has grown, but would we say that I've contributed to the economy? Of course not. Indeed, the economy is that management of capital, not the capital itself. To speak of a growing economy is to talk of an increase in wealth and how the wealth is distributed. If every company, every seller, were to sell the exact same amount of goods this year as last, would we say that the economy grew? No, we would not. We'd say it was stagnant. However, money exchanged hands and products were made, which is all that Agusto requires.



"Your remember my sock merchant who you so cursorily dismissed, well vox let me refresh your memory about the principle that i was trying to impart before you closed the shutters. A sock merchant sells socks for 10 dollars, you buy them for that price, that means one thing for you, you valued the socks at more than 10 dollars. Why if you valued them less you would never have paid ten bucks, and if you valued them at 10 bucks you would've been indifferent to sock or money. On the other side of the transaction the merchant values the 10 bucks more than the sock, other wise he would just hoard all the socks."

As I recall, I answered this. Maybe not. Which thread was it in?

Anyway, the idea Agusto tries to pass off here is that in a transaction, both buyer and seller profit. Ignored, of course, are the social relations of buyer to seller. Capitalist apologists always want things to happen in an idealized Utopia, for that is the only way their system works.

If I need socks, for I have to go to work to feed myself and socks are required at the workplace, then I have to buy socks. I do not want to pay ten dollars for socks, I only value them at five dollars. I do not, however, have the choice of paying five dollars for socks. I am forced to purchase, due to the social relations of capitalism, socks at a higher price than I wish to pay. Socks can be sold for ten dollars because many people are willing to pay ten dollars, and sellers will charge whatever the market will bear. The idea that individual consumers have some sort of power over the seller is absurd, but it's often used by capitalists to defend their cherished system.


"hahaha, as cars are overproduced price goes down, so cars sit on the lot, is that your understanding of supply and demand. This is a simple shift within the supply schedule of a good, the price goes down the demand shifts within the schedule accordingly and the cars don't sit in a lot they're bought up a new equilbrium is established. The car manufactures just produce less cars, they don't fire workers because they're unionized (which i never said is a bad thing as a matter of fact unions as an instrument of capitalism help insure that there is fairness in the labor market, so long as unions do not take things to the extreme) and the consumer benefits. And who are the consumers vox, would they happend to be people that produce in other sectors. You see this is where your marxist analysis of class fails, you see things simply in two groups, workers and owners. Yet workers are employed in different sectors and so are owners, interest conflict all over the place. I recommend a book- capitalist development and democracy by ruschemyer, stephens and stephens."

Agusto's ignorance is truly stunning.

First, auto workers get laid off all of the time in the real world. That doesn't fit in with Agusto's textbook understanding of life, so he claims that unions protect jobs. Not when the company moves it's factory overseas, it doesn't, but that's another issue.

What Agusto fails to realize is that the cars were overproduced in the first place because the buyer's market dried up. His argument is that just because there is a slow down in one sector doesn't mean that there is in all sectors. Apparently, Agusto's prof hasn't gotten to the part of the text about recession, for, from what Agusto has written on this board, he doesn't seem to believe that recessions can possibly happen.

The idea that consumers benefit from economic slowdowns doesn't hold true, of course. It's the worker that gets hurt the most, and in times of slow economic growth, or in times of economic contraction, the worker ceases to buy as much, which means that the domestic market shrinks. Agusto seemed to understand this in another thread.

So, because the buyer's market has gone away, the cars that were being overproduced now sit unused and, along with this lower demand comes a smaller need for autoworkers, as I've already stated, and workers in all of the associated fields. This then leads to lay offs and shrinking payrolls through attrition, and that, of course, means fewer people who have the financial amility to buy a car, which leads again to fewer cars being produced. This should be common knowledge.


"well vox, the gipper didnt cut financial aid, because financial aid is largely part of an institutions endowment."

Jesus....

Reagan cut federal financial aid. It's very simple. Look it up.


"I think i refered to this immigrant thing before, but lets handle the other issues brought up. quality of life? do I have to refer you to reality, look around wake up, life is better because of capitalism, life has always been better in areas where capitalism along with governmental institutions that maintain the rule of law and preserve competition (ie the US, western europe and japan) exists. Life is so much better that formerly socialist nations are emulating, look at china, better yet look at india (what india wasn't socialist, well the government owned everything, those are socialist economics my friend owner ship by the masses, isn't nationalization what castro and allende did first weren't they socialist). Yes vox again you are right it "Is this standard by which everything is judged" and last I checked, and let me tell you cause I think I mentioned were I live, things are getting better, in here."

This kind of propaganda is truly sick-making garbage.

Nowhere, of course, does Agusto mention the role of the US in the economies of other countries. Nowhere is the CIA mentioned. Nowhere is the IMF mentioned, or the World Bank.

Agusto wants us to believe that these countries exist in some sort of vacuum and the US does not interfere with them at all. This is, of course, capitalist propaganda at its most egregious. We've been through this before, and the fact remains that I was right and Agusto was wrong.

Things are always better where capitalism prospers. Tell it to the sweatshop worker. Tell it to the people in Mexico. NAFTA has been a dismal failure for my working brothers and sisters in Mexico, unless you think that life around the maquiladora is beautiful.


"Actually it is common economic knowledge that migration is inversely raleted to K capital. The richer a country gets the less people immigrate, Case in point Europe and Japan. What happened, ah i see, they became efficient capitalist, then jobs became available. The same will eventually happen to latin america, as their capitalism develops (something that if you look at the instituto de libertad i democracia, you will see that I am personally going to help to do) I didn't come here to follow the money that the US was taking from my country, there was no money in my country to begin with, the only money there was came from the minerals that the capitalist nations bought. They were oh so horrible, if they hadn't bought those minerals then we would've been able to keep them and do absolutely nothing with them because we had a corrupt and inneficient government and were plagued by misguided marxist insurgents. You see it was the fact that other industrialized nations bought these goods that employed people in the first place."

What did the CIA do in your country, Agusto? Let's hear about it.

By the way, notice the parts of my post that Agusto didn't answer. It's quite telling.

vox



(Edited by vox at 10:20 am on Oct. 25, 2001)

[Guest]

agusto here:

okay, points to be made:

gooddoctor, thanks for contributing nothing yet again.


vox, did you read my post, why do you have to fragment my quotes, and if you do so at least be so kind as to include ellipsis so people know you cut out information.

Secondly wages and standard of living have both gone up. As a matter of fact wages for the middle class went up far more than 3.6 percent you claim. Do you know anything about statistics or just math. The larger you make your set the less reliable your information becomes. If you look at the bottom 90 percent, as opposed to the top 10 percent you will get skewed results because the large set will include extranalities, in this case the very bottom brackets. Look at this:

http://www.heritage.org/library/cda/cda99-07.html

if you don't read it, let me sum it up, it shows that the middle class, according to census figures, controls nearly 50 percent of the wealth of this nation. Furthermore this census data does not take into effect the income redistribution that takes place after taxes. If this is taken into account the difference between top and bottom decreases.

In respect to the working class, your solidarity with people in the service industry is commendable, I thank you, being that I've worked various service industry jobs. But I don't believe that service industry people deserve the same compensation as professionals. Think about it, if the govt., lets say, said that everyone would get equal amounts of compensation for whatever work they did, wouldn't people perform the easiests jobs. What would be the incentive to become a professional vox? You dismiss incentive as a tool of the capitalist, blah, blah, blah, but by dismissing it so easily you fail to understand not human nature, but reality. We are not Kantians, there is no categorical imperative.

Finally vox, regarding your widget venture, perhaps you didn't see the part where I elaborated on how production is the economy. But let me simplify, if you make widgets and in order to do so you've purchased widget making material from some other entity, then yes, despite the fact that no one buys widgets, you've increased the economy. If you simply make widgets out of the lint in your belly button, then no, no amoung of widgets will stimulate the economy. The economy is production vox, get it straight, it is legitemate and illegitamate production. what we have to do is help make illegitamate production legitamate, not drug dealers, but take a trip to the third world, see how many people work off the books. It has to be cost effective for them to be on the books, right now its not, that is something that has to be alliviated, so that they may produce more capital out of the dead capital they now have. I don't agree that the world is perfect but I have my own ideas on how to improve it, you think capitalism has been in place for centuries, my friend capitalism as we know it began in the 80's, when China and India left socialism behind.

Finally vox look at the financial aid rolls of the 50 most selective institutions in the US, you will see they are quite charitable. And yes reagan did cut federal grants( which then grew again under clinton) but he replaced federal grants with loans, sucks if you want to study sanskrit and then have no job to pay back your loan, but listen there is no such thing as a free lunch.

"I think i refered to this immigrant thing before, but lets handle the other issues brought up. quality of life? do I have to refer you to reality, look around wake up, life is better because of capitalism, life has always been better in areas where capitalism along with governmental institutions that maintain the rule of law and preserve competition (ie the US, western europe and japan) exists. Life is so much better that formerly socialist nations are emulating, look at china, better yet look at india (what india wasn't socialist, well the government owned everything, those are socialist economics my friend owner ship by the masses, isn't nationalization what castro and allende did first weren't they socialist). Yes vox again you are right it "Is this standard by which everything is judged" and last I checked, and let me tell you cause I think I mentioned were I live, things are getting better, in here."-qtd from my previous post

This kind of propaganda is truly sick-making garbage.-vox

I think it makes you sick cause despite the fact that its true, you can not dissuade yourself from walking down your path of folly. You say i ignore things, why do you ignore the fact that income inequality has gone done why do you always gleam by this.

http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/columbia/ec3.../inequality.htm (http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/columbia/ec3213/convergence/inequality.htm)

here lets discuss how ridding themselves of socialism india and china have brought nearly a million people out of poverty.


Finally vox, tell me about cia involvement in peru. As a matter of fact it would've been welcome, because the shinning path and tupac amaru had free rein for way too long.

later.

[Chancho]

Agusto, please don't speak for others - in fact I am a Kantian. It is an absolute fallacy that financial incentives are the only motivating factor in seeking out better skills, better education etc, in order to acquire a better job. I will not be graduating in 3.5 weeks as a lawyer in order to earn more - and yes, if lawyers' salaries were capped at, let's say, $25K per annum, I would be on the same path exactly. The fact that you do not value moral and intellectual incentives reveals your pure capitalist thought - which by its nature is devoid of humanity.

How does capitalism make 'illegitimate' production legitimate? By creating false markets. There is no universal truth of supply and demand in capitalism - there is merely the Fordian/Keynsian legacy of gross over production whose surplus is absorbed only by the distortion of human nature and desires - the majority of demand is artificial. Capitalism cannot exist without the perpetual creation of false markets and exponential growth - it is not the noble entrepreneurial libertarian utopia you believe it is.

Furthermore, a capitalist state does not exist in a vacuum - you never discuss who exactly must pay the costs (environmentally, economically) of the capitalist state. How do you answer the enormous problems of sustainability with your economic rationalism? The truth that you do not acknowledge is that capitalism is unsustainable and it dissociates the human from nature.



(Edited by Chancho at 1:44 am on Oct. 26, 2001)

[AgustoSandino]

hey

Long time no speak chancho, congratulations on your upcoming graduation.

Are you a Kantian? I mean you claim to be one, but are all of your actions motivated solely by the desire to do good. I don't think you are a Kantian and I think I can prove it despite the fact that I don't know you. Lets set up a scenerio, you are in Amsterdam in 1943, out of the benevolence of your heart you decide to harbor Jews in your attic and hide them from the SS. One day the SS comes and knocks on your door, they ask "are you harboring any jews?" What do you do? I would like to think that you would say no I'm not harboring any jews. Now you might be saying to yourself how is that bad, well according to Kant it is, you just lied, and furthermore you made your decision based not on Kant's categorical imperative, but rather on a Utilitarian cost benefit analysis. In your head your faculties for moral reasoning said there are two bad things, I could lie, a "bad" or I could tell the truth and send people to their deaths, another "bad", well you chose the thing that was least bad, that is a utilitarian analysis. Listen, all I'm saying is that you're not a Kantian, its not bad thing, but you're a utilitarian. Now this relates to incentive because the principle of incentive is based on Utility, when you make choices you pick what will result in the highest utility to you. Now I like to contribute to charity and volunteer, thatl is a personal choice, that is based on my utility I receive "something" back for those deeds. Under socialism you would have everyone contribute to charity since they would not receive the value of their labor, but rather what is according to their need. You see the difference in the scenerios is CHOICE. a socialist system would eliminate choice from economic decisions, there would be a tyranny of charity that would minimize the utility derived from work and decrease the overall standard of living. This was the case in all socialist countries in eastern europe, asia and latin america.

Further more how does capitalism make illegitamate production legitamate you ask, first off I never said capitalism makes illegitamate production legitamate, I said "we" in reference to those of us that care to effect positive change, let me explain. Pardon if I seem overly enthusiastic or bring in lots of personal information. I am becoming ever more involved with an organization, a think tank in lima peru, called the institute for liberty and democracy. Fifteen years ago a peruvian economist, Hernando de soto, begun a study in various third world nations. Peru, Haiti, Egypt and the Phillipines. De soto initiated his study when he realized that so many of the people in the Peruvian capital of Lima worked "illegitamate" jobs, things from fruit vendors to construction and dentistry. De soto felt that although money was being exchanged in transactions the fact that these economic activities were not recognized meant two things.
A) the government did not collect correct information which meant it could not collect tax revenue, and that this lack of information seemed to exaggerate the poverty of the third world in World Bank and IMF stats. B)Since people did not posses legal titles to their property and business the productive faculties they controlled were basically "dead" capital, meaning they could not go to the bank and get a loan using their fruit cart as collateral, this meant that people could never expand their enterprises.

De soto decided to calculate how large the illegitamate economy was in various third world countries. Because national accounting is a difficult thing to do in legitamate sectors, and de soto's resources were at the begining of the study limited, he decided to concentrate on one segment of the illegitamate economy, namely real estate. You see it is easy to calculate real estates values, you add the value of the construction materials and include the value of the labor then subtract depreciation. Furthermore houses don't move around as often as fruitstands. Looking at the underground real estate market which is only a portion of the illegitamate economy de soto found some very interesting evidence. The poor are not as poor in gross assets as people believe them to be, they just can't use the assets they have to create more assets. Let me give a quick account of his data, egypts illegitamate real estate market based mostly in the Nile Delta area was valued at 241 BILLION dollars, to put that in perspective the poor of egypt, in their housing alone, control more than 55 times ALL(really all) of egypts recorded foreing investment, since suez. numbers are similar for the phillipines, at around 33 times, haiti is at a surprisingly high 14 times, and Peru is at 44 percent. In more detailed studies de soto found that in peru a largely agricultural nation, 90 percent of that sector is illegitamate, and 60 percent of the fishing fleet, one of the worlds larges, is illegitamate.
Now this abundance of illegitimacy in the economy is a problem and a blessing. It is the latter because it provides hope for bringing billions of more people out of poverty, even greater hope when you remember that it is only the real estate market of which we speak. but it is a problem because the assets remain illegitamate. Like I said before when an asset is illegitamate it cannot be used to create more assets.
Now the solution to the problem is very clear, and as a lawyer who is motivated by altruism and not financial reward this might be appealing, reform property law. De soto did a further study, he saw that the illegitamacy was detrimental, but he wondered what could be putting people off to legitamizing their assets, after all that is what the government is for, right? well it seems that the governments regulations were the problems, using a number of lawyers desoto found that the path to legitimazing one's assets was not only prolonged, taking dozens of legal steps with on the average nearly 30 government entities, but it was ridicuously expensive costing much more than the average salaries. Well what De soto hopes to do, and what I hope to do, and if you're interested in helping people what you can join and do, is help reform property law, make it more efficient and make it serve the general good, not just those who are in the bell jar of legality.

Now that I've answered that question let us move to the next challenge, "demand is artificial", listen I might concede to you that commercialization is perhaps too effective, I resent that people would rather watch pokemon than read kundera, but the bottom line is that i respect freedom of choice. Now don't tell me that this is not a right, because you would be pissed off if the government took away your right to choose, wether it be in regard to abortion or in regard to disposable income. So if you make the assertion that "demand is artificial" brought about by a "distortion of human nature and desire" first define human nature. Quite hard, people with far greater credentials, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Kant, Hume, Rousseu, Locke and Hobbes, haven't agreed on a definition. Personally, and perhaps because I tend to be mildly aristotelian and so tip-toe on empiricism, I think fundemental to human nature is choice, and people choose what they want-demand.

"capitalism can not exist without the creation of false markets and exponential growth"-chancho,

what are you saying? what does this mean? Did you hear this at an ISO meeting and thought it made sense, because it doesn't. lets take the second part of the statement first, "exponential growth", you seem to imply that it is a bad thing that capitalism can not exist without exponential growth, well not only are you right, but listen up, society can not exist without economic growth, be it linear, exponential, quadratic, whatever. Society can not exist if "things" do not get better, if there is no growth. People like things like medicine, food, clothes.

The second part of the statement where you say that capitalism can not exists without "false markets" is only a half-truth which is ironically enough revealed in whole if you understood what was meant by exponential growth, or growth at all. You're right, capitalism needs markets to exist, we wont go into the fact that humans need to interact, and every time they exchange something that is a market as well, we'll ignore that. again, capitalism needs markets to exist because once it fills up a market and saturates it(this comes about by K capital accumulation, in which growth only increases by capital accumulation and no other factors) needs to move into a new one, eventually I think you imply, markets will run out. WELL THIS IS THE CASE IF AND ONLY IF THERE IS NO TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS. One thing that has been constant throughout the history of humanity is that we create and invent, "new better things"


Finally you say my thougt is devoid of humanity. Listen, that is quite a serious statement, really insulting as you are in essence calling me not human. It's fine if you think so, but just know that while I consider you human, it is you that is removing the humanity from another individual.

later

[Chancho]

[quote]Quote: from AgustoSandino on 8:44 am on Oct. 26, 2001
hey
Long time no speak chancho, congratulations on your upcoming graduation.

Please don't address me personally with your contemptuous sarcasm - you have no interest in the human that I am so your artificial mocking is simply repugnant.

Are you a Kantian? I mean you claim to be one, but are all of your actions motivated solely by the desire to do good. I don't think you are a Kantian and I think I can prove it despite the fact that I don't know you.

Note the absence of logic in that statement - Agusto doesn't think I am a Kantian - BUT Agusto doesn't know me - BUT he can prove what he merely thinks but does not know. This deficiency in logic undermines your arguments from the start.

Furthermore, the categorical imperative is not simply about 'doing good' - how can you discuss the concept when you don't even understand it?

Lets set up a scenerio, you are in Amsterdam in 1943, out of the benevolence of your heart ...

More typically sneering sarcasm.

...you decide to harbor Jews in your attic and hide them from the SS. One day the SS comes and knocks on your door, they ask "are you harboring any jews?" What do you do?

I say 'No, I am not harbouring any Jews'. Agusto, you are distorting your already inaccurate understanding of the categorical imperative for your own ends...

Your attempt to disprove me relies only on the maxim of 'don't lie' and you therefore claim that I would be in breach of that universal imperative. But all you are doing is selecting a maxim that suits your argument - this alone renders your argument false but I'll continue anyway...

Kant's overriding principle was respect for persons: "Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only". Therefore, resolving your hypothetical according to the foremost Kantian imperative is simple.

Thus, the relevant maxim applicable to your hypothetical is not 'don't lie' but 'respect for persons'. It is disturbing that you feel the need to manipulate language so and present false definitions of ethical theory in order to make points (which are fundamentally flawed anyway).

I would like to think that you would say no I'm not harboring any jews. Now you might be saying to yourself how is that bad, well according to Kant it is, you just lied,...

Refuted above. Ethics are far more complex than your simple understanding of them would have you believe Agusto.

...and furthermore you made your decision based not on Kant's categorical imperative, but rather on a Utilitarian cost benefit analysis.

False - as indicated above. Agusto, you have also manipulated utilitarianism to suit your argument...

If I were to make a decision based on a consequentialist utilitarian analysis I would choose the path that would maximise my self-interest. However, this would require a calculation of the consequences of the actions available to me. But, as anyone who understands why utilitarianism is discredited knows, such a calculation is not possible. Therefore, it is false logic for you to conclude that a decision to lie would necessarily be the result of calculated consequentialism.

Even if I attempted to apply utilitarian calculus, it is also a false conclusion that it would necessarily lead to the outcome of lying. In fact, utilitarianism does NOT accomodate the defence of the vulnerable as they are uneconomic.

In your head your faculties for moral reasoning said...

By all means put forward your ideas, but do not tell me what I think - you only reveal your presumptuousness.

...there are two bad things, I could lie, a "bad" or I could tell the truth and send people to their deaths, another "bad", well you chose the thing that was least bad, that is a utilitarian analysis.

Already addressed as false - but note that it would have been far more persuasive to have phrased this dilemma as the 'don't lie' maxim versus the 'respect for persons' maxim. To which I say, Kant NEVER offered a decision making mechanism for conflicting imperatives. That does not mean that the impasse cannot be resolved, however. Following the deontological path - which I regard as the most intellectually and ethically sound - I must balance competing imperatives to best fulfil my ethical duties. The choice in your hypothetical is clear.

Listen, all I'm saying is that you're not a Kantian, its not bad thing, but you're a utilitarian.

This is presentation of opinion as fact and is therefore worthless in terms of argument.

Now this relates to incentive because the principle of incentive is based on Utility, when you make choices you pick what will result in the highest utility to you.

Does one? Another opinion masquerading as fact. In fact my decision making process is deontological - to the point where I am often personally inconvenienced in order to satisfy ethical duty. Eg - studying law (in order to work in human rights) has cost me significant time and money that could have been utilised in much more personally pleasurable ways - contrary to the principles of utilitarianism.

Now I like to contribute to charity and volunteer, thatl is a personal choice, that is based on my utility I receive "something" back for those deeds.

I am genuinely sorry for you that your motivation is so utterly selfish - you fail to account for the fact that some of us can see past our own navels.

Under socialism you would have everyone contribute to charity since they would not receive the value of their labor, but rather what is according to their need....

What is the value of labor exactly? Do you really believe that labor is valued equitably under capitalism? Do you truly believe that market forces are the best way to arrive at a fair valuation? I'm sure you do - we'll have to agree to disagree.

You've made NO point re charity - yes, socialism involves contribution to society - but you discount how such contribution can flow back to the individual in a far more satisfactory way than contributions to a capitalist state. What do you think tax is, if not 'charity'?

You see the difference in the scenerios is CHOICE. a socialist system would eliminate choice from economic decisions, there would be a tyranny of charity that would minimize the utility derived from work and decrease the overall standard of living. This was the case in all socialist countries in eastern europe, asia and latin america.

What choices do you honestly believe you have in capitalism that you don't have under socialism? In the final analysis, you only have greater choices of consumption - what a libertarian utopia. Your expression 'tyranny of charity' is emotional opinion - not fact. You discount the motivation and outcomes of socialist contribution that do not necessarily reduce the standard of living. Capitalists love talking about 'standard of living', however, this is only ever measured in material terms - hardly a guage that encompasses the spectrum of human fulfilment.

Further more how does capitalism make illegitamate production legitamate you ask, first off I never said capitalism makes illegitamate production legitamate,...

I did not ask - I said outright that capitalism makes illegitimate production legitimate..

...I said "we" in reference to those of us that care to effect positive change,...

as opposed to whom?

...let me explain. Pardon if I seem overly enthusiastic or bring in lots of personal information. I am becoming ever more involved with an organization, a think tank in lima peru, called the institute for liberty and democracy. Fifteen years ago a peruvian economist, Hernando de soto, begun a study in various third world nations. Peru, Haiti, Egypt and the Phillipines. De soto initiated his study when he realized that so many of the people in the Peruvian capital of Lima worked "illegitamate" jobs, things from fruit vendors to construction and dentistry. De soto felt that although money was being exchanged in transactions the fact that these economic activities were not recognized meant two things.
A) the government did not collect correct information which meant it could not collect tax revenue, and that this lack of information seemed to exaggerate the poverty of the third world in World Bank and IMF stats. B)Since people did not posses legal titles to their property and business the productive faculties they controlled were basically "dead" capital, meaning they could not go to the bank and get a loan using their fruit cart as collateral, this meant that people could never expand their enterprises.

De soto decided to calculate how large the illegitamate economy was in various third world countries. Because national accounting is a difficult thing to do in legitamate sectors, and de soto's resources were at the begining of the study limited, he decided to concentrate on one segment of the illegitamate economy, namely real estate. You see it is easy to calculate real estates values, you add the value of the construction materials and include the value of the labor then subtract depreciation. Furthermore houses don't move around as often as fruitstands. Looking at the underground real estate market which is only a portion of the illegitamate economy de soto found some very interesting evidence. The poor are not as poor in gross assets as people believe them to be, they just can't use the assets they have to create more assets. Let me give a quick account of his data, egypts illegitamate real estate market based mostly in the Nile Delta area was valued at 241 BILLION dollars, to put that in perspective the poor of egypt, in their housing alone, control more than 55 times ALL(really all) of egypts recorded foreing investment, since suez. numbers are similar for the phillipines, at around 33 times, haiti is at a surprisingly high 14 times, and Peru is at 44 percent. In more detailed studies de soto found that in peru a largely agricultural nation, 90 percent of that sector is illegitamate, and 60 percent of the fishing fleet, one of the worlds larges, is illegitamate.
Now this abundance of illegitimacy in the economy is a problem and a blessing. It is the latter because it provides hope for bringing billions of more people out of poverty, even greater hope when you remember that it is only the real estate market of which we speak. but it is a problem because the assets remain illegitamate. Like I said before when an asset is illegitamate it cannot be used to create more assets.
Now the solution to the problem is very clear, and as a lawyer who is motivated by altruism and not financial reward this might be appealing, reform property law.

Define 'illegitimate'.

If the land you speak of is owned 'illegitimately' that implies that the land 'owner' in fact has NO legal title and is therefore NOT the owner - making your 'stats' completely bogus.

As interesting as this disinformation may be (but it's not because it is clearly unauthoritative), you reveal your ignorance of the philosophy of 'property' if you, on the one hand, discuss the alleged barriers to realisation of 'illegitimate' assets, and on the other, speak of reforming property law. Whose legal concept of property would you like me to begin with? - for there are many. Until you clarify your stance on the concept of property, I cannot comment - but would be happy to do so once you define your position.

De soto did a further study, he saw that the illegitamacy was detrimental, but he wondered what could be putting people off to legitamizing their assets, after all that is what the government is for, right?

Well, clearly we will disagree that the government's purpose is to assist in the realisation of assets.

well it seems that the governments regulations were the problems, using a number of lawyers desoto found that the path to legitimazing one's assets was not only prolonged, taking dozens of legal steps with on the average nearly 30 government entities, but it was ridicuously expensive costing much more than the average salaries. Well what De soto hopes to do, and what I hope to do, and if you're interested in helping people what you can join and do, is help reform property law, make it more efficient and make it serve the general good, not just those who are in the bell jar of legality.

Agusto, your utterly unconvincing cited 'study' aside, you have yet to state the property model you speak of and precisely what kinds of reform you propose. I find all conceptions of private ownership problematic, therefore, I doubt we would agree on what path to take.

Now that I've answered that question...

In fact, you didn't - you went off on your own tangent irrelevant to illegitimate demand and supply of consumables.

...let us move to the next challenge, "demand is artificial", listen I might concede to you that commercialization is perhaps too effective, I resent that people would rather watch pokemon than read kundera, but the bottom line is that i respect freedom of choice.

You are equating the problems of gross over production to choice - nonsensical. It is a fallacy that you can only have choice in a free market economy dependent upon mass surplus. This is a non sequitur.

Now don't tell me that this is not a right, because you would be pissed off if the government took away your right to choose, wether it be in regard to abortion or in regard to disposable income.

I have never stated, impliedly or expressly, that I am against choice - this is redundant and follows on from your previous nonsensical assertion.

So if you make the assertion that "demand is artificial"

I said the MAJORITY of demand is artificial - indeed, I stand by that - please quote me accurately.

...brought about by a "distortion of human nature and desire" first define human nature...

You know exactly what I meant by this and attempting to engage me in a semantic debate is a mere device to distract. Creating a market by creating wants that did not previously exist is to distort human desire. It is incredibly disingenuous of you to manipulate my meaning.

...Quite hard, people with far greater credentials, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Kant, Hume, Rousseu, Locke and Hobbes, haven't agreed on a definition.

This statement has merely been inserted in your argument to gratify your self-perceived superiority.

Personally, and perhaps because I tend to be mildly aristotelian and so tip-toe on empiricism, I think fundemental to human nature is choice, and people choose what they want-demand.

As already indicated, I haven't argued against choice at any point. However, it is a fallacy that within a capitalist system people have freedom of choice - as vox has already explained.

"capitalism can not exist without the creation of false markets and exponential growth"-chancho,

what are you saying? what does this mean? Did you hear this at an ISO meeting and thought it made sense, because it doesn't. lets take the second part of the statement first, "exponential growth", you seem to imply that it is a bad thing that capitalism can not exist without exponential growth, well not only are you right, but listen up, society can not exist without economic growth, be it linear, exponential, quadratic, whatever. Society can not exist if "things" do not get better, if there is no growth. People like things like medicine, food, clothes.

More insults - very revealing.

Ecologically sustainable growth/consumption and unconstrained growth/consumption are mutually exclusive

You also falsely equate 'growth' with things getting 'better'.

The second part of the statement where you say that capitalism can not exists without "false markets" is only a half-truth which is ironically enough revealed in whole if you understood what was meant by exponential growth, or growth at all. You're right, capitalism needs markets to exist, we wont go into the fact that humans need to interact, and every time they exchange something that is a market as well, we'll ignore that. again, capitalism needs markets to exist because once it fills up a market and saturates it(this comes about by K capital accumulation, in which growth only increases by capital accumulation and no other factors) needs to move into a new one, eventually I think you imply, markets will run out. WELL THIS IS THE CASE IF AND ONLY IF THERE IS NO TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS. One thing that has been constant throughout the history of humanity is that we create and invent, "new better things"

Right - new false markets based on new artificial wants.

This is so laughable I don't know where to begin. I wish these false markets would run out but the reality is that perversion of desire ensures they don't. What DOES run out, however, are resources. You always manage to omit resources from your 'arguments' - typical rightwing selectivity - you know environmental reality would fatally undermine your entire 'philosophy'.

Finally you say my thougt is devoid of humanity. Listen, that is quite a serious statement, really insulting as you are in essence calling me not human. It's fine if you think so, but just know that while I consider you human, it is you that is removing the humanity from another individual.

Another inaccuracy. You are obviously a 'person' - but in so far as you evaluate people's natures, desires, political and social systems according to economic calculus, you are yourself rejecting and denying humanity.

Yes, I stand by what I said - you have never displayed a shred of humanity here.



(Edited by Chancho at 1:46 pm on Oct. 26, 2001)

[AgustoSandino]

I see only one objection to the statements I've posted regarding economics, that:
"Ecologically sustainable growth/consumption and unconstrained growth/consumption are mutually exclusive"
Well perhaps, if your living in the time of Malthus, but this is not the case today when we have the benefit of human technological achievement. Resources are not infinite, but they are reusable; even resources such as fossil fuels are able to be manufactured in labs through manipulation of Carbon chains. At the moment this process is quite expensive, but the PC was quite expensive at one point, look at us now.

Since none of the economic arguments I've presented were mildly refuted, lets move on to the challenges you managed to concoct.

Rather than challenge my assertion that assets in the third world were undercounted because they belonged to an 'illegitamate' sector of the economy you decided to haggle over what it meant to be 'illegitamate'. First lets disregard the fact that for all the preaching about helping the poor, etc. when an actual idea for doing as such was presented you dismissed it by arguing around it, by arguing not the idea but its presentation. So now let us continue, so we may turn back your feeble semantical sally.

When I say that an asset is 'illegitmate, I mean that the 'owner' doesn't have legal title. As an aspiring law student you fall hard on the fact that if there is no legal title there is no owner. Yet, because the people to whom we are referring live outside the 'bell jar' of legality, you must try your hardest chancho to think outside the box, to move out of the 'bell jar' of legality yourself in order to help people. Yes, by your de jure standards these people are not 'owners', but in reality, they are the de facto owners of their property.

What do I mean by property, you asked? Well it's going to be hard to explain this to someone that doesn't believe in any concept of property at all, althought that's kind of like not believing in the sun. By property I mean tangible assets (that have intangible qualities, such as the ability to become capital) that are controlled, de facto or de jure, by an individual or a consortium of individuals.

Then you attempt to assail me for not providing concrete policy. Well were do we begin? The answer is with that 'bell jar' of legality I asked you to step out of before. Are you Canadian, or was that Nickademus, I don't remember, regardless, living in the US and Canada, or basically anywhere in the 'first-world' you find that all of society is basically within the 'bell jar' of legality. The law applies to all, there are instances where people are outside the laws protection, such as migrant workers in the US, and it generally is good policy to expand the bell jar to bring them in. Well the case for the third world is no different. We need to expand the bell jar.

This is done in a variety of ways, the first is to make the process of property enfranchisement easier, cut beauracratic red tape by eliminating many of the government intermediaries involved in enfranchisement. In many third world nations, as I noted above, the red tape is so thick that there are dozens of agencies with jurisdiction. What is needed is the consolidation of jurisdiction within one govt. entity.

The second phase is proactive, get out and encourage people to become enfranchised, this has already helped tremendously in Peru, where legality is being expanded into the agricultural sector, allowing farmers to then draw loans on their property and buy better equipment. Furthermore, the proactive approach has to come along with subsidized law services.

Thirdly, the development of new laws. You see in the glory days of communist ineptitude the catch phrase was "agrarian reform" split up land and give it to the peasants was ussually the first step of the revolution, before collectivization. Well what has to be realized now is that the revolution is over, the peasants have land, they have houses, they've been squatting there for decades, they simply lack legal title. New laws have to be made not according to the ideal situation, for instance giving everyone forty-acres and legal title, but according to the current situation, giving people legal title to what they own. You might ask, what if people claim more than the actually 'own', well these people are quite resourceful, they have underground methods of property accounting. These things range from neighborhood NGO type organizations in the phillipines, that recognize what belongs to who but don't have the ability to give legal title, to barking dogs in Peru, that bark everytime one moves from field to field (rather funny, but that was how peruvian farmers recognized what field belonged to whom).

Now let us leave the topic of economic reform and move to the more fluttery matters of philosophy. Claiming that you are a Kantian, in reference to Kant's moral analysis as was the case, is a pretty big claim to make Chancho.

This means that all your actions are made,not even for the greater good, but out of a sense of duty, similar to the Hindu ideal of caste roles, Kantian morality is similar to that in the Bhagavadgita. Again if that is the case it is quite commendable, although rather odd that one finds being a lawyer their duty. But again, you are NOT A KANTIAN, that was what I intended to prove, and what I did prove. Let me recount how.

I don't think I need to reestablish the 'anne frank' scenerio. Lets just say that between upholding two "goods", not lying, and protecting the jewish people you harbor in your basement you can only choose one. As anyone would you decided to save lives rather than not lie. Yet this directly violates Kant's moral analysis.
Firs off you say that my "attempt to disprove me[chancho] relies only on the maxim of 'don't lie' and you therefore claim that I would be in breach of that universal imperative. But all you are doing is selecting a maxim that suits your argument
Do you know what a MAXIM means, it means: fundemental principle, general truth. The Maxim doesn't suit my argument, it is a maxim, my argument is based around that "fundemental principle, general truth".

Furthermore lets see what Kant himself has to say about lying:
"Every lie is objectionable and contemptible in that we purposely let people think that we are telling them our thoughts and do not do so" (p. 228 Kant, I. (1978). Lectures on ethics. (L. Infield, Trans.). Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.)

Moreover that if he were lying he would "act against the right of mankind, since I set myself in opposition to the condition and means through which any human society is possible" (p. 227 Kant). "

I am not saying you made the right choice, neither am I saying tha Kant is right, all I have proved is that you are not a Kantian, I don't have to know you to know this, I can be one of those objectivist that vox dislikes. After all wasn't it Kant, in his CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON, that reconciled empiricism and reason.
And finally you made a choice based on utility, you placed a higher utility on the lives of people than on upholding the categorical imperative. How could you not after all you quote Kant when you say

"Always act so that you treat humanity ... as an end, and never merely as a means."



"What choices do you honestly believe you have in capitalism that you don't have under socialism? In the final analysis, you only have greater choices of consumption"-Chancho

Well Chancho you answered your own question. You act as if this were bad, it is the essence of human progress, other wise we'd still be living in caves. It is the human desire to have more that has motivated humanity to progress. I don't claim to have a definition for human nature, but since thanks to Kant I can be an empiricist and logician, I choose empiricism now to say that inherent in whatever human nature is, there is the desire for more.

"Right - new false markets based on new artificial wants." -chancho

If by artificial wants you mean that people want more than is necessary to survive then by all means I'm all for artificial wants, and you know what,you are too. Hey you bought your computer, not I, and you buy or pirate the music you listen to. I guess those are artificial wants too, or do you need them to survive. Are you superior to the "masses", how do you know what is best for them, what they really want?

[gooddoctor]

you're so smart, agusto, answer me one simple question without prevaricating: why is it that in the most succesful capitalist state, your beautiful us, pillar of democracy and freedom, friend to ordinary people, home to a vast amount of wealth where the richest 50 people individually hold more wealth than all the world's gdp's put together, 10-15% of the us population lives under the poverty line as defined by the un? stumped? let me enlighten you; capitalism and liberal economics don't work no matter how much you apologise for it, so stop it.
agusto, utter waste of space that you are, i will not indulge you for the simple reason that i've heard all of your arguements before. i am fully aware of all the apologies for the inhuman nature of capitalism. i grew up in the system as one of you, but i believe in truth and justice and self-education, not the spoon-fed kind that you rely on, and i see the hypocracy inherent in globalisation. i come here to augment my stance against capitalism and arm myself with words, not to retread the same tired old unending discussions. perhaps i am guilty of not meeting you face-on, but time is precious to me and i hate to waste it on hopeless cases like you.

(Edited by gooddoctor at 7:48 pm on Oct. 26, 2001)

[AgustoSandino]

Well assuming that all socialist experiments have ended in failure I think that the only ones here that are "retread[ing] the same tired old unending discussions," are those here who feel that socialism is a fruitful endeavor. I do not in anyway feel that all the values inherent in socialist thought are deviant, I don't think poverty is a good thing. Rather I am against the coercive nature of socialism.
Furthermore, some will argue that the reason there is existing poverty in the US, is because socialistic programs take away incentive for people to work. I don't believe in this assertion completely, but I will say that it is interesting to note that the poverty rates of socialist nations are greater. Look at China, Poland and India to see how capitalism has benefited those that rid themselves of the yoke Maoism, Marxism-Leninism, and socialism. Sure you might retort that socialist nations are poor because the capitalist world cuts them off, well first of all this isn't true. Cuba can trade with any nation that it wants to trade with save the US. The US provided the USSR with nearly all of its grain in the 70's and the 80's and Yugoslavia as well as other European nations exported everything from arms to autos. The capitalist world doesn't cut socialism off, socialism cuts its people off, by having an impersonal entitiy, known as the state, determine their needs and represent them.

[reagan lives]

[ass pat]

[gooddoctor]

agusto, i am glad, we are making some headway. you agree that the notion of socialism is good. the next step is making the connection between capitalism and the current global situation where gross inequalities have lead to most of our brothers around the world living in poverty and powerlessness, at home and abroad.
you have to recognise that we, as socialists, completely reject the past where national socialist (nazi) states have claimed to be socialist. i celebrate the successes of the socialist elements of these regimes that have won through despite the repression of their political representatives. this is because i believe that it hints to a possible system of democratic socialism to come that will be a resounding success too. on the other hand, the only arguements against socialism come from its various manifestations in the past, but the past of the west is equally as shady, if not more so.
we are about a brighter future and the future is red and getting closer and closer as we speak. you cannot hold back the overwhelming will of the people.

(Edited by gooddoctor at 12:22 am on Oct. 27, 2001)

[AgustoSandino]

You can deny that states like the USSR, the PRC, the PRK, or countless other people's republics were socialist untill you're red in the face, it doesn't change the fact that they were indeed socialist.
You see, often the contributors to this site like to distinguish socialism from communism by saying the first is economic while the latter is political. This distinction is made because it is believed to distance their stances from the atrocities of the past. Yet you can deny that you are communist and political descendants of Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, et al. But you can not deny that the economic systems of the communist states, who you ridiculously claim are 'nazi states', were socialist. And these economic systems were failures.
Your naive assertion that "the only arguements against socialism come from its various manifestations in the past" not only betrays a lack of consideration for history, but also ignorance of the conflict you THINK you wage. The objections to socialism come about not because of its manifestations, but because of its failures. And today socialists cling on to economic theories that have proven only one thing: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". While free-enterprisers are proposing and enacting the new and untried ideas of liberalization thereby lifting people out of poverty; socialist are only proposing ideas that have not only killed hundreds of millions through their political consequences, but impoverished billions through their economic idiocy.
My 'concession' to the "notion" that socialism is good is simply an admittance that its goals sound noble. Nobody is going to adhere to an ideology that they feel will destroy humanity. Look at what I said:

I do not in anyway feel that all the values inherent in socialist thought are deviant, I don't think poverty is a good thing. Rather I am against the coercive nature of socialism.

If you understood this as an acceptance of socialism you are mistaken. What I did is similar to saying, the goals of Christianity are noble, that doesn't mean that I have to accept Christianity. Think about it, the goals of Christianity are quite similar to those of socialism, does that mean that if someone came to you and said that they wanted to run society under a Christian model you'd agree?

Finally gooddoctor 'edumacate' me. Tell me about increasing inequality the world over. I will tell you that is a lie, since the early 80's income inequality has gone done. Want to see:

http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/columbia/ec3.../inequality.htm (http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/columbia/ec3213/convergence/inequality.htm)

And Chancho, I'm still waiting for you to prove yourself as a Kantian.

[pce]

"You can deny that states like the USSR, the PRC, the PRK, or countless other people's republics were socialist untill you're red in the face, it doesn't change the fact that they were indeed socialist. "
-agustosandino

so what, what's your point? even if they were socialist, let's say we are promoting a new kind of socialism. obviously we don't like the socialism of the past, we are going to start a new kind that respects human rights and freedom of speech, etc. it must be obvious from all our posts, you must agree that none of us are against human rights. that, if nothing else, should be obvious. who cares what you call it, socialism, communism, fascism, capitalism. you know what we here want, we don't want an authoritarian government anymore than you do. stop refering to the past and listen to what we are saying now. (and don't give me the old speech of how we can't ignore the past, that's not what i'm saying and you know it) you guys keep refering to the corruption of the past and that seems to be your only arguement, so why don't you help us create and come up with a new form of fair socialism?

what do you say to this? what if we start a new type of socialism? one that fights for equality while maintaining human rights? who cares what socialists (again if we assume that is what they really were) of the past did? why do we have to blindly follow ideologies? lets start a new one. what do you say?

[vox]

Agusto,

Did you read my post?

Your assertion, false, as usual, that I only talked about the bottom ninety percent makes me think that you missed the part about the bottom fifth doing worse than before. Or the middle twenty percent, for that matter. Actually, you avoid the whole subject of economics, really, and that's what the post was about.

I expected more from you, but I shouldn't have. When push comes to shove, you've always tried to change the subject. Now it's about quoting you, huh? I suspect that people had already read your post, Agusto, and, in commoc Internet fashion, the quotes are understood to be reminders.

You avoided all of the main issues. I can only surmise that you've no answer at all.

vox

[The Invisible Hand]

Hi-

1) For the record, the categorical imperative Kant advances is best summed up as "act always such that what you do could be made a universal principle" which is not the same as respecting fellow man. It is really impossible to live by the categorical imperative if you are a normal, ignorant human being...Kant emphasizes that devotion to the idea of the imperative is the realistic challenge.

2) I think it should be clear by now that socialism cannot exist without capitalism, and vice versa. In the first half of the twentieth century, many nations (America is a good example) began the development of a socialistic "safety net" for the populace. I think it is important to remember that every nation falls inside a spectrum where socialism and capitalism are the poles. This is necessary. Don't ignore these facts...they are perhaps the greatest accomplishment that leftists aided in before mainstream lawmakers pulled the rug out from under them.

4) PEOPLE NEED FINANCIAL INCENTIVES. We can talk about laziness if you like, or insecurity, or the importance of the individual as an individual, but it is a fundamental fact that society is held together largely by economic forces. Without a market in which people are rewarded for exactly what is demanded inefficiency always increases. I am sure you heard many of the examples from the USSR towards the end. Trying to replace market forces we still don't understand with an institution of man that controls and configures a massive economy is infeasible. As an Industrial Engineer, I cannot conceive of how such a system will ever work. Supply and demand must be free to meet...history has taught every nation that to pin down one economic variable by force inevitably causes another to bite you in the ass.

Income redistribution is a far better idea. I really think that taxes should be higher in the U.S., that government should be bigger, and that social security and affirmative action policies must be refined and enlarged. However there is a limit...every portion of a dollar you take from someone lowers the incentive to obtain that dollar. Sweden has done a damn good job in this balancing act, but it is an exception to the rule. Im not sure how well it would work here in America.

5) POVERTY- it has always existed, and is less bad now than it ever has been...not to say that less bad is tolerable. If we're talking about just food and shelter, then I would note that many of the worst places for poverty are in regimes that advanced to power under force and rooted campaigns in bastardized notions of the very ideals many purport to support on this list. Where political freedom is not guaranteed, no corporation or individual is likely to stick their neck out on investments that can be seized on a moments notice. Humanitarian relief from developed nations is often seized and sold in order to by weapons and God knows what else.

There are exceptions to these examples, but I think that the argument that a smaller portion of world population controls a higher portion of the wealth does not logically require that the base standard of living is not moving up throughout the world. The rising tide has lifted many of the boats...not categorical, but pretty damn good.

Modern socialistic pop culture still has way too much of the revolutionary in it. Politics has long been a game of continuous compromise, and requires patience, vision, and a powerful unifying principle. Institutions like the U.S. are far to powerful and established to be revolted against...however, they do change, and require citizens to introduce new ideas and foresee problems pending. My question for all of you is how you plan to enact change within the rule of law? How can you move part of the populace toward a new, more leftist center? Socialists need some new fuel, a new face or two, and an understanding that, even if socialism is the absolute way to go, most people still aren't ready for it.

[gooddoctor]

1) why can't respecting your fellow man be a universal principle you selfish bastard?

2) we aren't even arguing that socialism will exist without capitalism. i personally support the idea that in the future socialist society there will be capitalist elements. but as a basis for society, liberal capitalism has grievously failed and is running rampant, destroying the enviroment, causing huge instability for workers, widening the gap between rich and poor, preventing science advancing, destroying the socialist aspects of our economy. socialism must be the basis for a democratic society. (america is not a good example of socialism under capitalism, they don't even have free healthcare for fucks sake.)

you can't even count you stupid idiot!

4?) it is capitalism which takes away financial incentive, not socialism which gives back the incentive to those people who do the actual work i.e. factory workers, farmers, office workers, labourers. right now, the only people with the incentive to do work are the bosses, and they don't do or create the work, they just buy it and then exploit it. we can live without the bosses forever, but how long would we last without people to grow our food, build our homes, make our clothes, run our shops and factories? they are the ones who need the incentive.

5) poverty will not always exist. there is currently enough food on the planet to feed it three times over.

it's the us government who supports undemocratic regimes and terrorists according to their whims and because they tend to be more receptive to liberal economics: the taliban, osama bin laden, saddam hussein, general musharaf, yeltsin, pinochet, sharon, mugabe, suharto, arab despots in saudi, kuwait, oman etc... to name but a few. all of these regimes were either originally put in power by the us or are propped up by them. some of these people were helped into power because they overthrew social democracies. all socialist want to do is stop exploitation, build hospitals, homes and schools, feed and clothe everyone, make sure everyone who needs it has land. why are the yanks in such a hurry to kill them? what are they so afraid of?

the ownership of wealth by a miniscule elite of businessmen and power politicians must be stopped because it affords them too great a power to exploit everyone else. it happens, money is power and it takes precedence over the enviroment, world peace, the workers and democracy. power corrupts, and that is why the world is in such a mess.

i say stop the fucking compromise you ignorant selfish bastards and give power to the people who deserve it!

(Edited by gooddoctor at 12:28 am on Oct. 29, 2001)

[AgustoSandino]

1) I don't think HAND said "respecting your fellow man" couldn't be a universal principle he simply said that it is not what Kant proposed. You should read carefully gooddoctor, clauses are important.

2)You state "Socialism must be the basis for a democratic society" yet I don't think the issue of democracy being compatible with socialism has been resolved. Please elaborate since all empirical evidence shows that the opposite is quite true.

you can't even count you stupid idiot! - gooddoctor

Amen to that brother!

4")it is capitalism which takes away financial incentive, not socialism which gives back the incentive to those people who do the actual work..."-gooddoctor

obviously this is true since socialism created tremendous incentive for the soviet and eastern european workers. I don't know if you know this yet, but socialism has failed to provide the needs of societies in Europe, Africa, Asia and the America's that is why it has been discarded.

5) You are right about poverty not needing to exist and that there is enough food to feed the world three times over. But understand the whole truth, this food rather than remain in govt. storehouses would be put on the market if globalization and free trade were allowed to take place. Globalization would remove parity restrictions on agriculture and allow food prices to go down. As it is in the US and Europe some of the most ardent opponents of globalization are those in agri-business. Lets take a case in point, Senegal.

If one goes to Dakar and tries to buy milk they will notice something odd. All of Senegal's milk is imported, namely from the netherlands and belgium. Why should a country that is 20 percent agricultural have to import its milk, the reason is that it is cheaper to import its milk.

Why then is it cheaper to import milk to senegal? The reason for this is that the governments of Europe subsidize their dairy farmers, as well as their whole agricultural sectors. Since the dairy farmers of Europe are subsized they can sell their milk cheaply and undersell the senegalese farmers despite the shipping costs to africa.

NOW IF THERE WAS GLOBALIZATION

If free trade was instituted the governments of Europe (along with the government of America) would have to stop subsidizing their agricultural sector according to free trade treaties, WTO rules and IMF and World Bank suggestions. The prices of European milk would go up, but as these prices went up the Senegalese and in fact all african farmers would be able to start developing their agricultural industry. Eventually supply from africa would not only provide growth and escape from poverty for millions of africans, but would bring down the price in the first world.

THAT WOULD ONLY BE THE FIRST STEP

eventually, once africans(and third worlders) have established an agricultural sector they would accumulated capital and move to create an industrial sector and so on and so on. This is the same pattern that was taken by Western nations during the industrial revolution. Furthermore the agriculturalization and industrialization of the third world is not against the wests interests, the west would not stop this, they are the ones promoting it.

BUT I THOUGHT GLOBALIZATION WAS BAD AND MADE PEOPLE POOR

this is completely unproven, i read in mother jones today that globalization was making africa poorer. Then I thought to myself, how can this be, since africa hasn't experienced globalization. How can something they haven't had make them poorer. What is making them poorer is the fact they they havent experienced globalization.

WHAT THEN IS GLOBALIZATION, IF YOU SAY IT ISN'T MAKING POOR COUNTRIES POORER?

well glad you asked? now if we look at free trade agreements like Nafta we can see what globaliation's goals are and define it.

1)freedom of movement for Labor
2)freedom of movement for capital
3)freedom of movement for technology
4)freedom of movement for goods
5)freedom of movement for information

Now if one looks at Africa one can see plainly that the itlacks these freedoms.
1)there is very little native capital in africa, and there is almost no foreign investment, How can Multi-Nationals be exploiting the african worker if they have no presence in africa.

2)Labor African labor is stagnant, they can't move around the continent and they can't leave the continent easily

3)Africa lacks many technologies that are common place in the west

4)goods there are little exports to africa, and there are little imports from africa. Furthermore what there is, is greatly restricted by tariffs and quotas

5)information, there are very few outlets of information in africa, and in most nations information is controlled by the government

So as one can see africa hasn't experienced globalization, but what about other parts of the third world, have they benefited from globalization. Well let us gloss over areas in asia like hong kong, S.Korea, and singapore and see other nations in south east asia were multinationals have gone to. Bangladesh for instance does not have all the freedoms of globalization, but it has experienced the presence of american companies. In what appeared to be a horrendous turn of events the american companies begun employing children in their factories, under pressure, rightfully applied if you ask me, the companies stopped employing children. What happened. Well things went from bad to worse, the children as Paul Krugman notes did not go back to school, rather, according to OXFAM, many were forced to go into prostitution.
http://makethemaccountable.com/topic_FreeTrade.htm

Now the idea of child labor does not appeal to me, but I find it more attractive than that of child prostitution. In that sense, even the presence of foreign capital has benefited people if only slightly (thought I would say that while it remains alot to be desired, child labor is better than child prostitution).

WELL THEN IF IT DOES HELP WHY DONT WE GO FORTH.

Well unfortunately there are too kinds of people that protest against globalization, there are those like Gooddoctor, who have their hearts in their right place, but just don't know better. and there are those, like US farm and Union interests and their european counterparts who use the first group to their own ends. For instance look at who the darling of the European anti-globalization movement is, Jose Bove, a french farmer. A man who vandalizes Mcdonalds one day, and asks the french government for farm subsidies the next. He has no love for third worlders, rather he is looking out for his own economic interests. The same goes for union activists in america, they are not fighting for third worlders when they oppose free trade, but for their own jobs. Now, you might think that is noble, but it is actually rather silly. Think of it this way, 15000 years ago agriculture was discovered in Mesopotamia, until that time, people had been hunter gatherers. Now when agriculture was discovered the hunter gatherers lost their jobs, maybe some were pissed, maybe some resisted, but in the end everyone was beter off because they found something more productive. Now american and western workers are in the same position as those hunter gatherers, our economies have found more productive endeavors and our employment reflects that, as it is minimally industrial now and more service and technology oriented. Yet small group, rather than let their jobs go naturally to those in the third world that need them and would do them more efficiently, fight for their jobs tooth and nail, using misguided activist like gooddoctor. I think it is rather greedy and rather sad.

So yes poverty exists, and rather than stand in the way of things would solve it you should attempt to understand the solutions, FREE TRADE, so you can do more to help.

[gooddoctor]

agusto, you claim that it is i who don't know any better but i insist it is you who are mistaken. you are ignoring what is going on in the outside world, and that is the main problem with the american electorate as a whole. you must look to reality for your answers, but all of these arguements for globalisation are purely theoretical and that is where you get bogged down. i have chosen to ignore them because in today's big issue in scotland, a highly respected and worldwide street publication which reports on poverty at home and abroad, i read an artical written about a ugandan agricultural cooperative worker who was educated at birmingham and is currently touring scotland campaigning for responsible consumerism and fair trade (basically the opposite of globalisation in his opinion). ask him if he agrees with you, because whilst he is not anti-globalisation in principle like me, he recognises that reality is worlds apart from what the politicians or text books are telling us, and what you are so eager to believe. he understands globalisation better than you or me because he is at the sharp end of the stick. i will trust him over you if you don't mind.
yes, in the case of agriculture, globalisation removes restrictions on the movement of produce, but only in developing nations. we in europe have extreme barriers to trade in the form of the cap (common agricultural policy), and i'm sure that the us is even more stringent. on the subject of technonlogy, what use is it to the third world when they cannot even feed themselves or sell the little surplus produce to us at fair prices because mncs control distribution, the imf forces them to remove social development programs and facilitate the exploitation of the mncs and capital is flowing to and fro unhindered, always in favour of the mncs. you cannot argue with the people who are the victims of globalisation, they know nothing of what you and the textbooks say, just the grim reality. you can take my word for it, if you don't believe me i can transcribe the article for you, it is quite enlightening. it is the best description of the true nature of globalisation that i have read because it is by someone at the root of the problem in reality. the editorial of the big issue (the us has a sister mag btw, i'd recommend it) tends to be anti-capitalist in principle but is unfortunately more reformist in nature and ignores the viable alternatives.
the difference between the ugandan and me is that he believes that he can change the nature of globalisation by raising consciousness amongst consumers and lobbying at wto meetings and so forth. i on the other hand see no solution other than the changing of the fundamental nature of society where currently profits come before people.
agusto, if you want to understand what globalisation does to people who have no power then you must speak to those people rather than rely on theory and power politicians. buy alternative media, speak to enviromentalists and aid workers like i do. trust me, they are in a better position to comment than you. you must eliminate your arrogant sureness because you are equally as responsible for the plight of the ugandan and the millions of others as the mncs.

(Edited by gooddoctor at 7:41 pm on Oct. 29, 2001)

[AgustoSandino]

again I refer you to my endeavors in the Peruvian Institute for Liberty and Democracy, and yes unlike you who propose winded rhetoric I propose solutions. And, I will reiterate my question, how has globalization hurt africa, if africa hasn't felt globalization, there is no free trade in africa, how does it hurt them. I'll give you a hint the its the lack of free trade that hurts africa.

[pce]

agusto, i'd like to know what you thought about my post. if you didn't see it, i posted it again in quotes. i'd like to hear your reply.....


"You can deny that states like the USSR, the PRC, the PRK, or countless other people's republics were socialist untill you're red in the face, it doesn't change the fact that they were indeed socialist. "
-agustosandino

so what, what's your point? even if they were socialist, let's say we are promoting a new kind of socialism. obviously we don't like the socialism of the past, we are going to start a new kind that respects human rights and freedom of speech, etc. it must be obvious from all our posts, you must agree that none of us are against human rights. that, if nothing else, should be obvious. who cares what you call it, socialism, communism, fascism, capitalism. you know what we here want, we don't want an authoritarian government anymore than you do. stop refering to the past and listen to what we are saying now. (and don't give me the old speech of how we can't ignore the past, that's not what i'm saying and you know it) you guys keep refering to the corruption of the past and that seems to be your only arguement, so why don't you help us create and come up with a new form of fair socialism?

what do you say to this? what if we start a new type of socialism? one that fights for equality while maintaining human rights? who cares what socialists (again if we assume that is what they really were) of the past did? why do we have to blindly follow ideologies? lets start a new one. what do you say? "

[AgustoSandino]

We'll do this in that popular format of contesting points seperately.

so what, what's your point? even if they were socialist, let's say we are promoting a new kind of socialism.-PCE

My point is that socialist economies do not work, look at India and China, their recent success has come about not because of socialism, but because of the capitalist reforms that they've instituted. Look at the USSR, sure on the surface they appeared to be an economic powerhouse, but they were not, they were unable to provide their citizens with basic consumer products. What good is it being an engineer if you increased economic status gets you nothing. I mean the Soviets were rich, rich enough to start importing all of their grain from the USA. So my objections are not only based on the heinous crimes of socialism, but on is subtle crime of being economically incompatible with reality.

obviously we don't like the socialism of the past, we are going to start a new kind that respects human rights and freedom of speech, etc. it must be obvious from all our posts, you must agree that none of us are against human rights. that, if nothing else, should be obvious. -PCE

Although I don't believe that this holds true for the most of you, there are individuals here who hold a dangerous Manichean outlook. They see things in terms of good vs. evil, and such a vision inevitably leads to intolerance of diverging opinions, as has been demonstrated. In addition to those people there are individuals here that hold very violent opinons. On a thread in "theory" or "che" I read an explanation on why it is good to imprison people during the revolution, as they would be people who stood against the ideal society. Fidel Castro Ruz for instance advocates violence in nearly all of his posts, and Tavereeshkamo introduced himself by advocating violent revolution. I don't know if Kamo has noticed, but most people like the system, nearly everyone does, the reason people vote with parties like gooddoctors is not to get rid of the system, but to nudge it.


who cares what you call it, socialism, communism, fascism, capitalism. you know what we here want, we don't want an authoritarian government anymore than you do. stop refering to the past and listen to what we are saying now-PCE

What are you saying now, so far nobody on this forum has put a single socialistic policy forth. Sure they make generalizations like the 'workers need to control the capital' and we need to get rid of corporate tyranny, but they don't explain how. What am I supposed to be listening to vein glib rhetoric? By nature I think socialism is authoritarian, the creedo which is espoused by some on this site, and I believe agreed upon by most, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" is coercive. How can you take from someone to give to someone, how do you decide what is just. There is an underlying believe to all this that lets say a miner works harder than a lawyer, that is wrong. In order to become a lawyer an individual has to pay with years of training. the reason professionals make more than blue collars is because there are less of them, and their job is harder to undertake.

stop refering to the past and listen to what we are saying now. (and don't give me the old speech of how we can't ignore the past, that's not what i'm saying and you know it) you guys keep refering to the corruption of the past and that seems to be your only arguement, -PCE

Have you ever read the story of oedipus rex (giving credit where it is due, it is a story by sophocles and here i paraphrase kunder). Well Oedipus the King of Thebes, he was an honarable king who intended to do good for his people. But little did Oedipus know that in order to become King he had killed his father and slept with his mother (let us not go into detail how this occured, just take my word for it). Because of this the Gods punished him and laid waste to all of his kingdom. The people suffered greatly. When Oedipus found out that despite his good intentions it was he who was the cause for the disaster that befell his kingdom he could not take it. Picking up his wife's (mother's) bracelet he gouged out his eyes and left his kingdom, walking the land as a blind beggar for the rest of his life.
I think this story is quite pertinent for those that espouse communism and or socialism. The ideas that they've proposed despite the good intentions they held have cause nothing but misery where ever they've been applied. We can ignore the heinous crimes of purges and imprisonment since you say new socialist disavow such methods, but these new socialist still hold dear the economic theories of the past, and these theories caused as much misery and continue to do so. Now rather than seek justice like Oedipus, who gouged out his eyes, these new socialist make excuses. Following stalin, the CP members of eastern europe, when they found out the atrocities commited by their Marshall, said they did not know they were going on, they made excuses. Today, you disavow people like stalin and mao. I don't doubt that you find their actions abhorrent, but I think you still don't realize that the economic policies you propose would be similar to the ones they've inacted. I've heard people here promote collectivization, and things of the sort, and frankly, if I didn't think many here to be like sysyphus, I would be disgusted. Rather than make excuses, like Socialism has been perverted in the past, etc. You should fess up to the fact that even if you remove the totalitarian policies, the economic policies of socialism have brought nothing but misery as well.
Like I said before you are not proposing "a new" kind of socialism, I've heard no new revolutionary economic ideas, I've heard more of the same garbage that has killed and impoverished millions, for the sake of an experiment.


what do you say to this? what if we start a new type of socialism? one that fights for equality while maintaining human rights? who cares what socialists (again if we assume that is what they really were) of the past did? why do we have to blindly follow ideologies? lets start a new one. what do you say? "-PCE

I think I've summed up my objections so I can only reply with a 'no'. By the way, if you haven't noticed, the only one here that has proposed new ideas on how to help the poor is me, so if you claim such solidarity with the disenfranchised, come and JOIN ME, make them 'franchised'.

[pce]

"My point is that socialist economies do not work, look at India and China, their recent success has come about not because of socialism..."

okay, so let us change socialism. let us change it so much that we don't even call it that anymore. i don't know what that thing is going to be and i don't know how to implement it. but i do think socialism is the thing to build on because its aimes are good.

"Although I don't believe that this holds true for the most of you, there are individuals here who hold a dangerous Manichean outlook. They see things in terms of good vs. evil, and such a vision inevitably leads to intolerance of ..."

you are right, i am absolutely against any kind of violent or sudden change. that will never work. i am 100% for nudging things in the right direction like you said. but i think that direction is towards socialism (or whatever evolution of it, as i stated above).

"What are you saying now, so far nobody on this forum has put a single socialistic policy forth..."

no, I'M saying that we shouldn't label ourselves and be free to suggestions.

Sure they make generalizations like the 'workers need to control the capital' and we need to get rid of corporate tyranny, but they don't explain how. What am I supposed to be listening to vein glib rhetoric?"

basicaly people are saying we need to end the exploitation of workers. i don't know how to reach these goals, i don't think anyone does for sure. but everyone here thinks that these goals are good goals. they are goals that are worth working towards, and THAT is what i'm saying, we should work towards these GOALS not towards socialism or communism or whatever. socialism is something to build upon because socialism also has these same goals but as you say they haven't reached them because of socialism's problems.

"By nature I think socialism is authoritarian, the creedo which is espoused by some on this site, and I believe agreed upon by most, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" is coercive. How can you take from someone to give to someone, how do you decide what is just."

well, i believe, that socialism says that what you are saying is true for capitalism. workers who work to produce a product (whether that is a shoe or a report) that is worth $50 are paid only $20 dollars so that the capitalist can make a profit. the capitalist is stealing the $30 profit from the work of the worker. socialism says that capitalists steal from the workers.

"There is an underlying believe to all this that lets say a miner works harder than a lawyer, that is wrong. In order to become a lawyer an individual has to pay with years of training. the reason professionals make more than blue collars is because there are less of them, and their job is harder to undertake. "

i think the arguement is that the miner is not allowed to become a lawyer and therefore is not allowed the luxuries of the lawyer and the money of the lawyer. because look at it this way, obviously we need miners, right? and SOMEONE has to fill that shoe, SOMEONE. even if everyone in the world works just as hard as everyone else, there will be someone who will have to become a miner because that role just HAS to be filled. now that person who worked just as hard to try to get into college is stuck in a job that pays less than someone who by working just as hard just happened to be in the right place at the right time. now you'd probably say that this doesn't make sense because in the real world, everyone doesn't work just as hard and that the people that work as miners didn't necissarily try to go through college. well that is were capitalism smoothes things out. by keeping certain people poor and keeping education expensive so that there literally is no way for certain people to get an education, it insures that there will be a group of people who will HAVE to take a low paying job such as mining through no fault of their own. then the capitalists can sit back and say the miner didn't work hard and that is why he is in such a terrible position. (obviously the miner is a very extreme example and miners make up a small percentage of the work force, but you brought the example up and i just went with it. in any case, i don't think it is much different from any other workers' case)

as for oedipus. i haven't read sophocles yet so i will have to go off what you wrote.

if what you wrote is correct, in that oedipus slept with his mother and killed his father without knowing it and through no intention or fault of his own, then i think it is ridiculous that he (or his people) should be punished. likewise, i think it is ridiculous that the new left has to be punished for (or has to fess up to) problems that have been brought about without their agreement or invovlement. furthermore, i don't think it is the economic policies (everyone being equal) that have caused misery, it is the way these policies were tried to be enforced and the way they were carried out that caused misery. and i say that we shouldn't follow these same methods but go about our own way (using the model of socialism to build upon). and again, i don't know what this new method should be and i don't think anyone else knows either (hence you have "heard no new revolutionary economic ideas" on this board) any ways, trully revolutionary ideas are pretty hard to come up with ;)

i am don't agree with the people who keep recycling the theories of the past. the reason i am discussing and using these theories is because i want to fully understand the theories before i try to change what i find wrong with them. this, i think is true for everyone. we have to keep discussing what we know and have tried so far before we can move to the next thing.

somehow i get the feeling we are saying the same thing...or maybe i'm just confused :)

[Jurhael]

Bla bla bla "socialism doesn't work" bla bla bla. Everytime I hear that, it makes me want to fight harder FOR socialism. Of course it "doesn't work" because the ones that were ELECTED and/or popularly supported were either overthrown or sabotaged either covertly or subvertly because they were immedietly equated with Stalinsm. Gee...if socialism is so unworkable, then why so much effort into trying to destroy it and demonize it?


Capitalism will not last forever. It's been around for 400 years. SOMETHING will replace it. So, unless people want to go back to feudalism or barbarism, socialism is what's available AFTER capitalism finally goes bye bye.

[AgustoSandino]

Hey PCE,
I think you are right, in some way we are saying the "same thing". We both feel that helping the disenfranchised is a good thing. My point is that despite the lines you hear here, socialism is not the only way, actually it is not a way to help the poor. If you feel that socialism holds as one its values the advancement of the poor, I won't disagree, but there are more effective and just methods. First, as I pointed out, no one here has proposed any ideas just made generalizations. First of all, the few suggestions they have made such as 'collectivization' and such, are so devoid of any intellect that I cannot even call them ideas. Suggesting 'collectivization' is like suggestiong 'genocide'. The problem is that the economic failings of socialism are as bad as its political failings. On the other hand, capitalism as is being proposed now has never been tried. Jurhael said that capitalism has been around for '400 year', how can that be if until 1945 less than a billion people on eart lived under capitalism- a free market system were government is used to maintain competition. Capitalism as a system did not win out in 1992, when the USSR feel, it won out in 1980 when China and India began privatizing. I heard, I think on another threat, that shift to Capitalism that has made China the fastest growing economy and lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty is bad. That people lose jobs. Yes people lose the jobs which they once held as guaranteed, jobs that provided nothing for society, actually drained resources from society. Yes unemployment in China has increases, but a middle class has grown. People would be better off, not if China gave up its market reforms and created useless jobs simply to maintain employment, but if China expanded its advanced industries so that productive jobs are created.
Yes PCE, we're saying very similar things. You want a new socialism, I think you want something to help people. Well if helping people is what you want to do, the answer is market capitalism. I don't know if it was on this thread that I mentioned it, it might of being under the "altruism vs capitalism" thread. But if you're interested in helping people, rather than protest against employment in the third world which you think is unfair (productive employment is better than starvation), help expand capitalism as it exists in the US everywhere in the world. Look at this site, this is what I like to do: www.ILD.org.pe
Listen, look at America right now, the economy is not doing great, I don't think I need to explain how it got that way. But if you want to see how capitalism works, look how a republican administration will introduce limited Keynsian policies in their economic stimulus package. Capitalism is a pragmatic system, within it to maintain competition, government does what it thinks is good for people, wether they be keynsian policies or neo-liberal policies (there are no distinctions of left and right in economics).

[pce]

agustosandino, i saw ILD last night and read most of it (i was wondering if you were actually hernando de soto, i don't know if you read my message) while i agree that capitalism has helped peru a lot and has helped really poor nations like india and china as you mentioned, there is a certain level of fairness it will never reach. a capitalist nation might be better off as a whole than any socialist one so far, however under capitalism there will always be people who are taken advantage of. this is, of course, unless we change capitalism somehow (i don't know if that is what you want to do, change capitalism). it is that group that is taken advantage of that i don't approve of. i don't like that there will always be a large quantity of people who have to have low paying jobs in order for the majority or the country as a whole to be well off.

i think the problem with socialism is the transition period. if we could some how instantaneously jump to a truly socialist country, then i think it would work beautifuly. however, i think because the transition from capitalism to socialism is so hard, that socialism is never truly reached and the people suffer before socialism ever exists. it is this transition period and its effects that you are against. and even if socialism is reached afterward, everything is already so exhausted from the transition period that there is no way socialism can save it. after all, socialism (if i'm not mistaken) needs to evolve from a very strong, industrialized and wealthy country.

what do you propose should be done in the u.s. itself to end the exploitation of the poor by the rich?

to me, the best solution is the huey long idea. as you said on that thread, it seems unfair to take money from someone to give to another as the original "share the wealth" policy promotes, but it can be made to be more along the lines of a higher tax on the rich and a big rebate for the poor.

[AgustoSandino]

Well I am not Hernando de Soto, but I am very much in favor of his ideas, and look foward to helping Mr. de Soto. Anyway, the problem is that you have to examine the reality behind a statement like "exploitation of the poor by the rich" I don't agree that such a thing is good, but I don't feel it is bad, yes I am saying this, so long as neither class is set in stone. For instance, if the poor and their children were always the poor, and the rich and their progeny always the rich, than such inequality would be bad for society. But as I see it that isn't the case in capitalism, look at the US, italian and irish immigrants who were dirt poor one hundred years ago are now wealthy, look at me, I've been here for 11 years, worked as a gas station attendant through high school, studied hard, now I go to a great university. Look at your dad, his humble origins, and where he is now. That is capitalism, if there is equality of opportunity based on competition you will have a healthy society that strives for progress as individuals strive for success. I believe in equality of opportunity, not in equality of outcome, I believe everyone should have a shot at succes, but not that everyone should be successful, I believe everyone should have an opportunity to be wealthy, but not that everyone should be wealthy. And finally I believe that is the case in the US, we adhere, in my estimation to Aristotle's idea of justice, "it is equality for equals, and inequality for unequals". In short, if you work hard you will receive your due, but if you don't you will not.

[pce]

but for every example you give of people "making it" through capitalism and competition there are examples of people who don't make it even though they work just as hard, if not harder, than the people who did. also, the odds are stacked incredibly against the poor (and those born into poverty) in their quest to become wealthy. the rich work hard so that there is always a group that is kept poor so that they can do the dirty work that the rich don't want to do. education, the key to becoming successful, depends so much on money that some people just simply can't go to school. meanwhile, for the people who can afford it, education is no longer about being an educated and knowledgable person, it is only geared towards getting a job as soon as possible - but that's a whole different arguement.

[pce]

here's what i'm trying to say:

so far, i like what i've read about hernando de soto.
however, i think what he wants to do is only a step in the right direction
i don't think people who don't deserve it, people who don't work hard should be able to leech off the hard work of others. i don't think anyone here does. i just think those who work hard, should be rewarded. right now, only those who work hard within the capitalist system are rewarded. some people don't have that capitalist train of thought and they won't be allowed to succeed.

[RedCeltic]

I don't like the idea of saying that the Italian immigrants who came here 100 years ago... and Irish who came here in 1847 - 50's are now all wealthy. Sure many did acheve, but still many are still are working class people in the lower job spectrum.

In 1847 some of my Irish ancestors came to New York... while some went to Glasgow Scotland... only to come to New York in the '20's... I wasn't raised by wealthy parents, and am a working person myself... funding my own education...

I get your point however, I'm just saying... don't say all Italians and Irish are wealthy.

[Jurhael]

Quote: from pce on 2:48 am on Nov. 1, 2001
here's what i'm trying to say:


"i don't think people who don't deserve it, people who don't work hard should be able to leech off the hard work of others. i don't think anyone here does."

No one here I know of. The problem is that people do anyway and I'm not talking about those on welfare.


As for taxes,
http://zompist.com/richtax.htm

This is the best article about why the wealthy should pay the most taxes. Has a great article about welfare too and about how it's bullshit when people claim that taxes somehow equals theft or "stealing from the rich".



"i just think those who work hard, should be rewarded. right now, only those who work hard within the capitalist system are rewarded."

Some are, but a lot aren't. There's a lot of people who feel like they're not getting anywhere or anything by working long hours for low pay. Sure, they can get another job, but that's assuming that they can even FIND one that's any better. Sure, they can get an education, but that's assuming that will get them better jobs.

[pce]

"Some are, but a lot aren't. There's a lot of people who feel like they're not getting anywhere or anything by working long hours for low pay. Sure, they can get another job, but that's assuming that they can even FIND one that's any better. Sure, they can get an education, but that's assuming that will get them better jobs."


exactly, what i mean by "within,' isn't just having a job in a capitalist society. i mean working capitalistic and working like a businessman. they are the ones who succeed.

[Kez]

The reason why many immigrants in the USA and the around the world may seem wealthy is due to the fact that the vast majority of first generation immigrants worked their backsides of to help their children grow up in the best possible environment

I say this from experience
Comraed Kamo

[AgustoSandino]

exactly Kammo, you work hard, and things are better.

[RedCeltic]

Quote: from AgustoSandino on 11:41 pm on Nov. 1, 2001
exactly Kammo, you work hard, and things are better.

And so..... for those that thing aren't better... I suppose that's just because they just didn't work hard enough?

[Jurhael]

That, and they're just "losers" or "stupid" or all the other rationalization used to write off an entire group of people just to keep them and future generations in low paying jobs that no one else wants to do so others can have a nice product at a cheaper price.

*pant* *pant*

Hey, like I said, I have no problem with hard work and dedication, but good gods, SOMETHING is not right here. I just can't be as praising of capitalism as others.

[Chancho]

Sorry for the lack of reply Agusto - there's that niggling business of a 'life' to attend to...

Let's see, I could present my arguments further, which you would read selectively, ignore the crucial parts of, distort, pretend explanatory things weren't said at all etc etc. Then you would respond by saying something along your usual lines of 'Well, it seems that nothing was said and nothing was refuted <insert illogical rant here replete with personal insults>'

OR I could accept the fact that you are the worst kind of human being - one who never listens - one who's entire purpose in speaking is to demonstrate how 'RIGHT' they are, with no regard for logic, no interest in better arguments, no concern for accuracy and a pathological compulsion to disrespect others. You must be so oppressed in your little life Agusto that you are driven to come here - and no doubt, in actual life too, in order to rant and insult. How does it feel to be a person who contributes only toxicity to others' lives? What a sorry individual you are. Yes, acceptance of your unevolved person is the most judicious path.

By the way, for those of you who doubt that Kant emphasised respect for persons, I was quoting Kant directly - not some bogus 4th hand dis-authority. Respect for persons is Kant's ultimate imperative. No doubt those to whom this paragraph is addressed will ignore that piece of actual information too.

[AgustoSandino]

Uh, Chancho, have you realized that in your bitterness you've described yourself. I mean did you notice that the only insult, if you can call it that, which I am guilty of tossing your way is that "you are not a Kantian". The reason for this is that since we are in a bb on the internet, insults don't mean a thing and it would be useless for me to call you a name, as you feel it is useful to do. Furthermore, I don't think you have proven that you're a Kantian, and since it is probably impossible to prove that anyone is, it should just be dropped. Oh and this is pre-emptive, nice last word.

[AgustoSandino]

Quote: from vox on 9:56 pm on Oct. 27, 2001
Agusto,

Did you read my post?

Your assertion, false, as usual, that I only talked about the bottom ninety percent makes me think that you missed the part about the bottom fifth doing worse than before. Or the middle twenty percent, for that matter. Actually, you avoid the whole subject of economics, really, and that's what the post was about.

I expected more from you, but I shouldn't have. When push comes to shove, you've always tried to change the subject. Now it's about quoting you, huh? I suspect that people had already read your post, Agusto, and, in commoc Internet fashion, the quotes are understood to be reminders.

You avoided all of the main issues. I can only surmise that you've no answer at all.

vox



Hey I think in the Ugandan farmer thread or something you said that i didn't respond to your last post in dear capitalist. Did you see what you wrote, whats there to respond to. Whenever you feel to lazy, or rather unable to respond to what I write you simply attack my rhetorical skill and hide behind the brevity of your statements. Below I will copy the post that elicited that response from you.


Quote: from Guest on 12:44 pm on Oct. 25, 2001
agusto here:

okay, points to be made:

gooddoctor, thanks for contributing nothing yet again.


vox, did you read my post, why do you have to fragment my quotes, and if you do so at least be so kind as to include ellipsis so people know you cut out information.

Secondly wages and standard of living have both gone up. As a matter of fact wages for the middle class went up far more than 3.6 percent you claim. Do you know anything about statistics or just math. The larger you make your set the less reliable your information becomes. If you look at the bottom 90 percent, as opposed to the top 10 percent you will get skewed results because the large set will include extranalities, in this case the very bottom brackets. Look at this:

http://www.heritage.org/library/cda/cda99-07.html

if you don't read it, let me sum it up, it shows that the middle class, according to census figures, controls nearly 50 percent of the wealth of this nation. Furthermore this census data does not take into effect the income redistribution that takes place after taxes. If this is taken into account the difference between top and bottom decreases.

In respect to the working class, your solidarity with people in the service industry is commendable, I thank you, being that I've worked various service industry jobs. But I don't believe that service industry people deserve the same compensation as professionals. Think about it, if the govt., lets say, said that everyone would get equal amounts of compensation for whatever work they did, wouldn't people perform the easiests jobs. What would be the incentive to become a professional vox? You dismiss incentive as a tool of the capitalist, blah, blah, blah, but by dismissing it so easily you fail to understand not human nature, but reality. We are not Kantians, there is no categorical imperative.

Finally vox, regarding your widget venture, perhaps you didn't see the part where I elaborated on how production is the economy. But let me simplify, if you make widgets and in order to do so you've purchased widget making material from some other entity, then yes, despite the fact that no one buys widgets, you've increased the economy. If you simply make widgets out of the lint in your belly button, then no, no amoung of widgets will stimulate the economy. The economy is production vox, get it straight, it is legitemate and illegitamate production. what we have to do is help make illegitamate production legitamate, not drug dealers, but take a trip to the third world, see how many people work off the books. It has to be cost effective for them to be on the books, right now its not, that is something that has to be alliviated, so that they may produce more capital out of the dead capital they now have. I don't agree that the world is perfect but I have my own ideas on how to improve it, you think capitalism has been in place for centuries, my friend capitalism as we know it began in the 80's, when China and India left socialism behind.

Finally vox look at the financial aid rolls of the 50 most selective institutions in the US, you will see they are quite charitable. And yes reagan did cut federal grants( which then grew again under clinton) but he replaced federal grants with loans, sucks if you want to study sanskrit and then have no job to pay back your loan, but listen there is no such thing as a free lunch.

"I think i refered to this immigrant thing before, but lets handle the other issues brought up. quality of life? do I have to refer you to reality, look around wake up, life is better because of capitalism, life has always been better in areas where capitalism along with governmental institutions that maintain the rule of law and preserve competition (ie the US, western europe and japan) exists. Life is so much better that formerly socialist nations are emulating, look at china, better yet look at india (what india wasn't socialist, well the government owned everything, those are socialist economics my friend owner ship by the masses, isn't nationalization what castro and allende did first weren't they socialist). Yes vox again you are right it "Is this standard by which everything is judged" and last I checked, and let me tell you cause I think I mentioned were I live, things are getting better, in here."-qtd from my previous post

This kind of propaganda is truly sick-making garbage.-vox

I think it makes you sick cause despite the fact that its true, you can not dissuade yourself from walking down your path of folly. You say i ignore things, why do you ignore the fact that income inequality has gone done why do you always gleam by this.

http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/columbia/ec3.../inequality.htm (http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/columbia/ec3213/convergence/inequality.htm)

here lets discuss how ridding themselves of socialism india and china have brought nearly a million people out of poverty.


Finally vox, tell me about cia involvement in peru. As a matter of fact it would've been welcome, because the shinning path and tupac amaru had free rein for way too long.

later.


So rather than you asking where my response to your post is, you should know that I am still waiting for your response.

[Chancho]

Quote: from AgustoSandino on 5:15 am on Nov. 7, 2001
Uh, Chancho, have you realized that in your bitterness you've described yourself. I mean did you notice that the only insult, if you can call it that, which I am guilty of tossing your way is that "you are not a Kantian". The reason for this is that since we are in a bb on the internet, insults don't mean a thing and it would be useless for me to call you a name, as you feel it is useful to do. Furthermore, I don't think you have proven that you're a Kantian, and since it is probably impossible to prove that anyone is, it should just be dropped. Oh and this is pre-emptive, nice last word.


Dearest Agusto, no bitterness - that would require repression of hatred - I am incapable of hating you for I am indifferent to you - I am also the least repressed individual that you can imagine (if you can imagine such a thing). I call it as I see it - I'm not surprised that the truth makes you uncomfortable.

The only insult is 'you are not a Kantian'?? oh, Agusto, you are good for a laugh, if nothing else ...

[vox]

Agusto,

Your non-response is what I'm talking about. Your cooked numbers from the far-right Heritage Foundation are, of course, worthless. It looked more like gymnastics than mathematics.

I'll repost some of the facts and figures for you:

"According to recent data from the congressional budget office, this year (2000) the richest 2.7 million Americans, comprising the top 1 percent of the population, will have as many after-tax dollars to spend as the bottom 100 million put together. Meanwhile, the poorest one-fifth of households will have an average income of $8,800 this year, down from $10,000 in 1977 (in current dollars)."

I'll take the CBO over the Heritage Foundation, which pushes, pulls and stretches data to fit their ideology. Hey, that's a lot like you, Agusto.

When we look at incomes in constant dollars, there's no way around the fact that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

Of course, Agusto, you typically resort to distorting what I wrote in order to argue against the truth. I understand that you have to, but it's becoming rather tiresome.

You wrote, "As a matter of fact wages for the middle class went up far more than 3.6 percent you claim."

This was in response to what I wrote, "By contrast, the bottom 90% saw their after-tax income simply skyrocket by a whopping 3.6%!"

Now, Agusto, you're claiming the the bottom 90% is the middle class?!?!? How terribly foolish of you!

You seem to need constant reminding, so I'll remind you of what I wrote about the middle class:

"Agusto harps on about the middle class, but always fails to define it. One way of defining it is to take the median income and include everyone who has an income of at least half the median to no more than twice the median. Figuring the middle class that way, we find that the percentage of US workers in the middle class actually shrank from 71.2% in 1969 to 61.6% in 1997.

"Another way of looking at the middle class is to divide earners into five groups and look at the middle twenty percent of earners. (Note: the top 5% and top 1% are often separated out of these breakdowns, for the superrich skew the numbers and deliver a less than accurate portriait of income distribution.)

"Looking at the middle twenty percent, we find that real annual income, in constant 1996 dollars, actually FELL from 1989-1996 by 3.0%!!! This is the best that we can do? I'm not so sure.

"Taking a longer view, the middle twenty percent saw their annual income increase from 1973-1996 by 2.6%. Meanwhile, the top five percent saw an increase of 49.8% during those same years, and an increase of 15.1% during the years 1989-1996, while the middle class lost ground."

The only thing I need to change about my above quote is that now, Agusto, you're on record as defining the middle class as the bottom 90%. Make sure you do that on a paper for your economics class, please.

vox

[El Che de Boca Jrs]

What the fuck is a capitalist doing in this page anyhow. Anyways, yes it is true that some labours are more skilled than others and should have LIMITED advantage because of that but even if the labour is not so skilled it is still hard work and deserve good recognition. People call the US the "land of equal opportunity", and there obviously is an opportunity to be very successfull but is it EQUAL? You tell me, does a poor kid born in the streets who is struggling to survive and will no way in hell afford to go to school have the same opportunity as a loaded kid born to millionares who dosent even have to work because his parents will pay every skyrocket price for him to freeload on everything? There cant be equal opportunity without at least a base of economic equality. Why do you think black people in America have a high poverty rate, because their ancestors were brought here as slaves 300 years ago and then were released with JACK SHIT, did the poor black families who have lived the poor legacy for over 300 years ever have a chance to strive? No. And dont even get me started on the "hard work as a labourer" thing, the bosses, while sitting their fat, lazy asses on their expensive chairs and playing mini-golf, are making making money as if they worked 500 times as much as all their workers put together.

[Chancho]

Agusto - the 'defence' you always present to vox of 'you haven't replied' does not stand up to even light scrutiny - vox's replies are always comprehensive. It's time to give that one up and admit that it is only you who replies selectively.

The responses you sought from me in this thread are all there if you care to apply your mind to them.

You might take some time to consider the numerous points (particularly in response to vox) that you have simply ignored because when proved wrong, you desperately hope that no one will remember the details and that it will simply slip unnoticed into the ether. See the tiny sampling of examples in my signature for guidance...