Need help with a debate

[bur372]

Need some help

I have goten into a debate with a resonably clever conservative who wants to get rid of trade unions ( he does not work or have a job) thinks george bush is a good president and america is the best country to live in ( Has not read "stupid white men")

He then showed me that america has a higher GDP per capita than sweden does anyone have any proof to show that actully the average (modal) wage for people in scandinavia is much higher than those in america.

Thank you in advance

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 06:13 PM
Need some help

I have goten into a debate with a resonably clever conservative who wants to get rid of trade unions ( he does not work or have a job) thinks george bush is a good president and america is the best country to live in ( Has not read "stupid white men")

He then showed me that america has a higher GDP per capita than sweden does anyone have any proof to show that actully the average (modal) wage for people in scandinavia is much higher than those in america.

Thank you in advance
It's really a matter of theory (so to speak). In a redistributive, or semi-redistributed, average wage is irrelevent if everything is provided for you. That's what communism hopes to acheive by eliminating wages and money altogether.

Speaking of GDP however, China and India are predicted to surpass the US in GDP by 2040.

[ComradeRed]

1. Sweden is capitalist, irrelevant to whatever your friend or you say. They are a welfare state. That is not socialism, it is vulgar reformism.
2. George Bush is responsible for the deaths of 100000+ civilians. That is a genocide.
3. George Bush has declared war illegally.
4. Bush has suspended illegally habeus corpus. And it's looking like it's permanent[thank you Patriot Act].
5. GDP is a tool for vulgar economists. Why the GDP blows (http://dieoff.org/page11.htm).

[pandora]

That link provides the usual information on GDP such as it doesn't cover work in the home, gardens, non-profits, environmental concerns, etc. It also can be played with by driving up inflation or lowering wages and increasing productivity. If you have most of your manufacturing done overseas and put the pieces togehter here for a huge mark up that denotes a lot of suffering but looks real good by GDP. By GDP renovations of old houses or buildings don't show very much but new constructions do. Sometimes loans can only be gotten for new building for the economic reason of driving GDP. GDP is not the friend of the worker, only the owner in terms of profit.

The stock market going up may even drive up inflation for the poor. And making one working do the job of two or work long hours without pay also drives up GDP, as does lack of holiday time, sick time, and vacation time. It's all about unlimited growth, but not smart growth and certainly not environmentally sustainable growth.

We're really going to get screwed in that GDP does not allot for the lost resource that is difficult to replace in terms of biomass. When you sell your last red wood forest dirt cheap youre an idiot in terms of destroying the reproduction of the commodity and in underselling your product not just to mention the children no longer have redwoods to play in and that has a value to people. If GDP is not good for people who is it good for?

[bur372]

Right now he is arguing if someone works hard and gets rich and then there is a revoloution should he be forced to give all is money to the state?

Good question. Got answers

1. Must rich people haven't worked hard and got rich they are the bougeroise

2. it is fundemetally against the ideas of communisim and marx to force communisim on people

3. If we had a slow transitional period where they could go and live abroad then there would be no debate. Of course you would only have this in a democratically elected communist or socialist party and all to often these are banned by neo-liberal goverments. In america in the 1960's and in germany in the 1930's

[act_5]

and if all else fails throw glitter in his face and run away!
that stuff is impossible to get off!


you may lose the debate but he still has to walk around all day with a sparkly face! :D

[Abstrakt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 06:58 AM
Right now he is arguing if someone works hard and gets rich and then there is a revoloution should he be forced to give all is money to the state?

Good question. Got answers

1. Must rich people haven't worked hard and got rich they are the bougeroise

2. it is fundemetally against the ideas of communisim and marx to force communisim on people

3. If we had a slow transitional period where they could go and live abroad then there would be no debate. Of course you would only have this in a democratically elected communist or socialist party and all to often these are banned by neo-liberal goverments. In america in the 1960's and in germany in the 1930's
Why would neo-liberal's ban it?