"Agora" Democratically Managed Soft Drink Company

[argeiphontes]

Just wanted to pass along this coolness, Agora. It's a participant-run democratically-managed soft drink company in the UK.

http://myagora.co.uk/run-the-business/

Cool.

[Schumpeter]

That is cool, though I can't help but be pessimistic about the extent to which the public will care about how the business is run. People don't seem to care for example look at Starbucks,proven to be tax avoiders on a massive scale, yet every time I walk past one of their shops they are packed with consumers who seemingly don't give a flying fuck.

[Per Levy]

yay, a slightly different run company, in other words capitalism, cool.

[Schumpeter]

yay, a slightly different run company, in other words capitalism, cool.

Meanwhile in communism...

http://econc10.bu.edu/economic_systems/Economics/Economic_History/FSU/echist1.gif

[Captain Red]

Meanwhile in communism...

http://econc10.bu.edu/economic_systems/Economics/Economic_History/FSU/echist1.gif
It's not really meanwhile if it took place 80 years ago.
Meanwhile in capitalism however:http://momsagainsthunger.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a7cb9b0e970b016764ff5fa9970b-800wi

[Halert]

Internet control over the means of production. Capitalism is on the way out.

[Schumpeter]

It's not really meanwhile if it took place 80 years ago. Meanwhile in capitalism however: http://momsagainsthunger.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a7cb9b0e970b016764ff5fa9970b-800wi

Capitalism has nothing to do with the plight of those children. I'm going to assmue they live in Africa, which is one of the most economically unfree contitnents, look at this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/GM_-_Countries_by_Economic_Freedom_Index.png

Furthermore as Asia becomes more developed the competitive advantage will shift to African nations as wages in Asia begin to rise, so manufacturing will shift to africa and asian economies will become more tertiary sector focused.

Read this http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/493b9a4c-2f5d-11e3-ae87-00144feab7de.html#axzz2u6TaW1e8

"High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/493b9a4c-2f5d-11e3-ae87-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2u6TqZYrs

"
Even after a decade-long period of strong economic growth, almost half of all Africans live in extreme poverty. Optimistically, that rate could fall to between 16 and 30 per cent by 2030 if strong economic growth continues.!"

[motion denied]

Just a quick reminder that Schumpeter is a troll and you should not let him/her derail the thread.

[Schumpeter]

Just a quick reminder that Schumpeter is a troll and you should not let him/her derail the thread.

No, you merely cannot tolerate anyone who doesn't share your narrow destructive world view. This is OPPOSING ideologies, if you can't deal with it then get out.

[Tim Cornelis]

Capitalism has nothing to do with the plight of those children. I'm going to assmue they live in Africa, which is one of the most economically unfree contitnents, look at this

Being "unfree" by liberal standards does not mean it's not capitalism. There's sufficient food to feed everyone, yet people die of starvation because of profits (it's unprofitable to provide them with sufficient food).

And yet somehow communism is to blame for a famine that did not even occur in communism.

Incidentally, this is why restrictions exist: to prevent every single thread devolving into communism vs. capitalism.

[Schumpeter]

Being "unfree" by liberal standards does not mean it's not capitalism. There's sufficient food to feed everyone, yet people die of starvation because of profits (it's unprofitable to provide them with sufficient food).

And yet somehow communism is to blame for a famine that did not even occur in communism.

Incidentally, this is why restrictions exist: to prevent every single thread devolving into communism vs. capitalism.

That food only exists because of the profits, the profit is the incentive to create the food this is basic economics. There is NO LUMP SUM of resources.
On restrictions its the admins site so they can do what they wish, all I see is a marginalized bunch of idealists completely out of touch with reality who cannot stomach the reality of their destructive ideology being exposed, so they censor those who would do so.

[Captain Red]

Capitalism has nothing to do with the plight of those children. Even after a decade-long period of strong economic growth, almost half of all Africans live in extreme poverty. Optimistically, that rate could fall to between 16 and 30 per cent by 2030 if strong economic growth continues.!"
If you think that capitalism is not responsible for the starving people in Africa you're an idiot. And poor African countries aren't growing because of capitalism they are growing despite of it. If it weren't for western countries exploiting there natural resources like diamonds and copper Africa would probably be extremely rich instead they put up tariffs so they can't sell their goods here. I don't really see how capitalism is helping Africa grow

[Schumpeter]

If you think that capitalism is not responsible for the starving people in Africa you're an idiot. And poor African countries aren't growing because of capitalism they are growing despite of it. If it weren't for western countries exploiting there natural resources like diamonds and copper Africa would probably be extremely rich instead they put up tariffs so they can't sell their goods here. I don't really see how capitalism is helping Africa grow

And how is that capitalism?? That is the GOVERMENT putting on the tariffs preventing FREE TRADE.

Look I completely agree with you, tariffs suck! I would do away with almost all protectionism if I could, we are on the same side, you are saying that you want to get rid of tariffs and this = more capitalism. You are a capitalist and you don't even know it! :D

[Captain Red]

And how is that capitalism?? That is the GOVERMENT putting on the tariffs preventing FREE TRADE No it's EU which is a capitalist organization. EU has no reason to buy goods from Africa and they put out tariffs because they don't want to be depending on African food that is Capitalism. Your dream world where everyone has free trade and there is no exploitation and monopoly is impossible because there really is no profit in it, it will never happen and meanwhile you keep jerking off to it ignoring every one who starves to death because of the capitalist system.

[Schumpeter]

No it's EU which is a capitalist organization. EU has no reason to buy goods from Africa and they put out tariffs because they don't want to be depending on African food that is Capitalism

The EU is not privately owned and yes it is disgusting that they put tariffs on goods from africa, it isn't capitalism as capitalism is based on the private property and free exchange of goods and services. The situation above violates both those conditions as the EU acts like a government by legislating laws and tariffs prevent the free exchange of goods and services.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

And how is that capitalism?? That is the GOVERMENT putting on the tariffs preventing FREE TRADE.

Look I completely agree with you, tariffs suck! I would do away with almost all protectionism if I could, we are on the same side, you are saying that you want to get rid of tariffs and this = more capitalism. You are a capitalist and you don't even know it! :D

Free trade ≠ Capitalism

Protectionism has been a part of capitalism since the rise of the bourgeois. But unless you're going by a libertarian's definition of capitalism as in the total hegemony of the free market, one has very little to do with the other. Capitalism is a mode of production and perfectly possible with tariffs and tons of other regulations.

[Schumpeter]

Free trade ≠ Capitalism

Protectionism has been a part of capitalism since the rise of the bourgeois. But unless you're going by a libertarian's definition of capitalism as in the total hegemony of the free market, one has very little to do with the other. Capitalism is a mode of production and perfectly possible with tariffs and tons of other regulations.

I agree

BUT

Affiliating protectionism with capitalism is STUPID as they are not idealogically affiliated.

Protectionism can occur amongst two socialist economies who are trading together, for example the USSR and it's 'partners' (who were shot if they didnt come to favourable terms) in comecon.

(though capitalism without the ability to privately exchange goods is unimaginable, it be like saying you can own stuff you just cant buy stuff to own. )

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

I agree

BUT

Affiliating protectionism with capitalism is STUPID as they are not idealogically affiliated.

Protectionism can occur amongst two socialist economies who are trading together, for example the USSR and it's 'partners' (who were shot if they didnt come to favourable terms) in comecon.

(though capitalism without the ability to privately exchange goods is unimaginable, it be like saying you can own stuff you just cant buy stuff to own. )

I'm not affiliating protectionism with capitalism, I'm simply stating that they're not mutually exclusive and protectionism can benefit capitalists even if it doesn't improve prosperity overall.

[Schumpeter]

I'm not affiliating protectionism with capitalism, I'm simply stating that they're not mutually exclusive and protectionism can benefit capitalists even if it doesn't improve prosperity overall.

Protectionism will not benefit capitalists as it is capitalists who are being made to pay to import/export their goods and services.

Protectionism will only benefit a small portion of capitalists, it is usually lobbied for by unions in order to retain employment in developed nations.
A recent example

"Support for labor unions
At the same time, Obama needs support from unions — also a key backer of the Democratic Party in elections — as he makes a high-stakes push for national health care legislation.
Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, D-N.Y., who chairs the House Rules Committee, said that although the 35 percent levy was less than the 55 percent recommended in July by the ITC, it was still a significant statement of administration support for organized labor.
To reach a compromise on health care, Obama may need concessions from pro-labor Democrats who support a strong stand against China.
The steelworkers union brought the original case in April, accusing China of making a recent push to unload more tires ahead of Obama's expected action. The union says more than 5,000 tire workers have lost jobs since 2004, as Chinese tire overwhelmed the U.S. market.
The U.S. trade representative's office said four tire plants closed in 2006 and 2007 and three more are closing this year. During that time, just one new plant opened. U.S. imports of Chinese tires more than tripled from 2004 to 2008 and China's market share in the U.S. went from 4.7 percent of tires purchased in 2004 to 16.7 percent in 2008, the office said.
"When China came in to the (World Trade Organization), the U.S. negotiated the ability to impose remedies in situations just like this one," U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said. "This administration is doing what is necessary to enforce trade agreements on behalf of American workers and manufacturers. Enforcing trade laws is key to maintaining an open and free trading system."
The new tariffs, on top of an existing 4 percent tariff on all tire imports, take effect Sept. 26."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32808731/ns/business-world_business/t/obama-imposes-tariffs-chinese-tires/#.UwlWBfl_uT8


Now lets analyse the effects of the tariffs

example of a chinese tire product

http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/916577636/top_10_tyre_brands_chinese_tires.html?s=p

Price: $200 dollars per unit for a 50 unit order

"35 percent in the first year"

so with the tariff a 35% increase in price which = $70, so the tires now cost $270 dollars per unit.

Data regarding Chinese tire exports to the USA

Company |2011 sales (million dollars)
Giti Tire (China) Investment Co. China | $2,890
Triangle Group Co. China | $2,520
Shandong Linglong Rubber Co. China 0 | $1,700
Aeolus Tyre Co. China | $1,580
Double Coin Holdings Ltd. China | $1,560
Xingyuan Tyre Co. China | $1,350
Qingdao Doublestar Industrial Co. China | $1,310


TOTAL CHINESE TIRE EXPORTS TO USA IN 2011 = $12910 million dollars.

+ 35% = 17428.5 million dollars.

So the US consumer is 4518.5 million dollars worse off.

That is $4518.5 million dollars that will not be spent on products harming businesses in other areas and as a result harming employment

So the only capitalists that stand to benefit are the US steel firms however ALL other firms in the US will be worse off. Companies such as Walmart who are very large will see a marked negative impact on their bottom line due to their enormity within the USA. It must be noted that this was not pushed by the steel firms but instead the unions who hold much more influence over Obama, and they are destroying jobs in other areas, so which unions are standing up for those workers?

[consuming negativity]

Capitalism has nothing to do with the plight of those children. I'm going to assmue they live in Africa, which is one of the most economically unfree contitnents, look at this

Furthermore as Asia becomes more developed the competitive advantage will shift to African nations as wages in Asia begin to rise, so manufacturing will shift to africa and asian economies will become more tertiary sector focused.

Read this http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/493b9a4c-2f5d-11e3-ae87-00144feab7de.html#axzz2u6TaW1e8

"High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/493b9a4c-2f5d-11e3-ae87-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2u6TqZYrs

"
Even after a decade-long period of strong economic growth, almost half of all Africans live in extreme poverty. Optimistically, that rate could fall to between 16 and 30 per cent by 2030 if strong economic growth continues.!"

Where is that image from (that I removed because big)?

[Schumpeter]

Where is that image from (that I removed because big)?

This?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indices_of_economic_freedom

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

Protectionism will not benefit capitalists as it is capitalists who are being made to pay to import/export their goods and services.

Protectionism will only benefit a small portion of capitalists, it is usually lobbied for by unions in order to retain employment in developed nations.
A recent example

Small businesses that produce things that would otherwise be imported, will generally benefit from trade regulations. This is especially true for farmers in te EU.

Also , I said 'can', not 'does always, without fail'.

[Schumpeter]

Small businesses that produce things that would otherwise be imported, will generally benefit from trade regulations. This is especially true for farmers in te EU.

Also , I said 'can', not 'does always, without fail'.

Oh those dreaded small business you gotta look out for them!

Seriously though man, if I understand your argument is this

Protectionism is exacerbated by capitalism due to the pressures of small businesses.
However ultimately only government can enforce tariffs, businesses would not do so, see game theory.
The main driving force for protectionism are unions who wish to prevent the shift of labour abroad. E.g Miners strikes in England in the 80s or the recent example given for tires in the USA.
Protectionism would occur under socialist governments as the government would control the entire market so game theory would not come into play, so it could act to maximize its own interests at the expense of the global greater good and the quality of products/price of products available to consumers within that country. This is well documented to have happened within the USSR.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

Oh those dreaded small business you gotta look out for them!

Seriously though man, if I understand your argument is this

Protectionism is exacerbated by capitalism due to the pressures of small businesses.
However ultimately only government can enforce tariffs, businesses would not do so, see game theory.
The main driving force for protectionism are unions who wish to prevent the shift of labour abroad. E.g Miners strikes in England in the 80s or the recent example given for tires in the USA.
Protectionism would occur under socialist governments as the government would control the entire market so game theory would not come into play, so it could act to maximize its own interests at the expense of the global greater good and the quality of products/price of products available to consumers within that country. This is well documented to have happened within the USSR.

Dude, I'm not saying capitalism is in any way promoting trade regulations. I didn't say small businesses ask for tariffs (what's with your fixation on tariffs by the way, there's lots of other ways to limit trade), I was simply stating that they can potentially benefit from them when applied in certain sectors of the economy.

Also, the USSR wasn't a socialist country, just check the forum for more info on that. As a trotskyist, I'm generally not interested in 'socialism in one country' by the way. I believe in socialism as worldwide system, which is what capitalism is today. FYI, if you look it up you'll find that many socialists are very critical of protectionism.

[Schumpeter]

Dude, I'm not saying capitalism is in any way promoting trade regulations. I didn't say small businesses ask for tariffs (what's with your fixation on tariffs by the way, there's lots of other ways to limit trade), I was simply stating that they can potentially benefit from them when applied in certain sectors of the economy.

Also, the USSR wasn't a socialist country, just check the forum for more info on that. As a trotskyist, I'm generally not interested in 'socialism in one country' by the way. I believe in socialism as worldwide system, which is what capitalism is today. FYI, if you look it up you'll find that many socialists are very critical of protectionism.

Christ, you were blaming capitalist for poverty in Africa by arguing that protectionism was being used to oppress them.

I agreed that I did not like protectionism but I pointed out that it is not associated with capitalism so this could be occurring in a socialist economy too. So capitalism is not to blame, protectionism is.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

Christ, you were blaming capitalist for poverty in Africa by arguing that protectionism was being used to oppress them.

I agreed that I did not like protectionism but I pointed out that it is not associated with capitalism so this could be occurring in a socialist economy too. So capitalism is not to blame, protectionism is.

Errr, I think you've got me confused with someone else. I wasn't the person who blamed capitalism for poverty in Africa.

'Africa' is indeed 'oppressed' (How do you oppress a land mass?) and global capitalism made and makes this worse (colonialism anyone?). There are many other factors to take into account though.

You shouldn't forget that trade regulations are sometimes necessary, such as in the case of 'dumping', which can severely harm an economy.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

That food only exists because of the profits, the profit is the incentive to create the food
The incentive to create food is because it's a necessity of life. Capitalism has perverted that into creating food only for those who can afford it, which is why conservatives complain about food benefits being given to the poor, unemployed, disabled, etc.

[Per Levy]

Capitalism has nothing to do with the plight of those children. I'm going to assmue they live in Africa, which is one of the most economically unfree contitnents, look at this

if something bad happens under capitalism then its not realy capitalism.... yeah right. face it, the entire world is capitalist, so all these bad things, like starvations, hunger and the likes are faults of capitalism.


Furthermore as Asia becomes more developed the competitive advantage will shift to African nations as wages in Asia begin to rise, so manufacturing will shift to africa and asian economies will become more tertiary sector focused.

mmh where will the cappies go when wages rise in africa as well? there isnt so much left in the world.


That food only exists because of the profits, the profit is the incentive to create the food

so acording to you food didnt exist before capitalism? also danielle is absoloutly right in this "The incentive to create food is because it's a necessity of life."

[Prometeo liberado]

Meanwhile in communism...

http://ecdisease.bu.edu/economic_systems/Economics/Economic_History/FSU/echist1.gif

Everyday In America, ass, an elderly person dies of a very curable capitalist disease, exposure.
Maybe if we freed up the markets it would free up some shelter? Troll.