Why does capitalism only seem to work in the West?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

'What the masses in the post- communist and developing worlds lack above all is property rights'

By Donald Macintyre

29 August 2000

Question: if the construction industry in Brazil in 1995 was reporting no growth, why did sales of cement increase in the same year by more than 20 per cent? Why do peasants at the source of the Amazon take huge risks by growing coca for the international drug market when they could make six times as much money, medium term, by legally growing oil palms?

Answer: Because cement was being bought by the - mainly urban - poor to build flats, buildings and businesses which are outside the formal legal system, have no permits, and never find their way into official statistics. And because the Amazonian peasant can never use the land he tills as collateral to borrow the money he would need to make the five-year investment necessary to make a success of oil- palm growing.

These are among scores of examples which illuminate the central thesis of a revolutionary new book to be published next week: that what the overwhelming masses in the developing and post- communist worlds lack above all is a legal system that allows uniform property rights, which in turn mean that the poor can convert their actually huge collective assets into working capital.

Not many economists need the protection of armed police in their own country. But then the Peruvian Hernando de Soto was for several years top of the hit-list drawn up by the Maoist Shining Path guerrillas. Although he brings a neo- Marxist, demystifying, rigour to his analysis of the rapidly growing inequalities between the small numbers of rich and the vast numbers of the poor in the developing world, he dared to suggest that they existed because the masses are being prevented, by the deficiencies of their countries' legal systems, from participating in what we call capitalism.

De Soto's The Mystery of Capital may not be in the class of Das Kapital, Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations or Keynes's General Theory. But if the criterion for joining that exclusive club is a capacity not only to change permanently the way we look at the world, but also to change the world itself, then there are good grounds for thinking that this book, subtitled "Why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere else", is surely a contender.

Essentially, what de Soto has done is to document the extraordinary vitality and scale of what he calls the extra-legal economy in the developing world and the former communist countries and then suggest ways of demolishing the barriers which still exclude its billions of protagonists from sharing in the spoils of conventional global capitalism.

De Soto is no mere theoretician. He has now been retained as a consultant to the new Mexican presidency. In Peru, where 90 per cent of the agrarian land is untitled, he helped to draft laws to bring both the rural and the urban extra- legal sector - massively expanded by migration from the countryside - into the economic mainstream.

And his book comes at you from the favelas of Brazil, the shanty towns of southern Africa, the barrios marginales of Mexico, the pueblos jovenes of Peru, everywhere in fact where local economies flourish but without the legal rights which would allow them credit and the right to transact in the formal market place. It isn't that the poor in the developing or post-communist world own nothing. Haiti is a classic example - in which de Soto estimates that the assets of the poor are 150 times greater than the total of foreign investment over the last two centuries. And for the local economies to function at all the poor have well-developed local informal trading practices and unwritten laws. But because their property rights are not recorded, and because they cannot rely on the legal systems which global capitalists take for granted, those assets can't be grown in the way those of the conventional global capitalist can. They are "dead capital".

In a dazzling history lesson, de Soto demonstrates how the process he envisages for the developing world parallels that in England from the 16th century - when there was a flourishing extra-legal sector of industry outside municipal regulation and the guild system - and in the US from the 17th century - where the pioneers, squatters and gold miners established through possession, hard work - and sometimes downright violence - their rights to property to which they had no titles.

There are omissions. Many economists would regard liberal democracy and uncorrupt government at least as high a priority as property law. But de Soto's thesis is thrillingly subversive in the way it demolishes some of the standard myths about Third World poverty - first and foremost that of "culture".

Entrepreneurship, he argues persuasively, exists all over the world. The problem of the developing world is that it lacks a legal system to underpin it. OK, says de Soto, Bill Gates is a genius - but his success stems not because of that mystical construct, the "protestant work ethic", but because of the US legal system. He has the patents, enforceable contracts, limited liability and property records he needs to accumulate capital and make it sweat.

Next week de Soto will discuss his ideas in public with the Downing Street Policy Unit's innovative Geoff Mulgan, part of whose interest lies in whether the ideas have an application for social exclusion within the West itself. Partly on account of the way the benefit system penalises those with savings, the proportion of the UK population without realisable assets has grown about threefold from 15 per cent in the past 20 years. At the same time "off-the-books" black economy - some of it merely cash-based tax- avoiding services from plumbing to child care, and some of it overlapping with drug-based criminal activity - has doubled.

Gordon Brown is seeking to put moral pressure on the banks to release capital into deprived neighbourhoods for legitimate business, rather as the US is doing with its Community Reinvestment Act. At the same time, experiments are under way to allow - say - informal childminders drawing benefit to continue working for a prescribed period while they put their profits to one side to allow them to start businesses legitimately. And the Social Investment Task Force under the venture capitalist Ronald Cohen is seeking ways of making communities less in thrall to loan sharks, channelling small-scale credit for legitimate self-employment and small businesses, and trying to ensure that public money for alleviating poverty stays in the local economy - and isn't just spent at Tesco's.

This seems a world away from de Soto's prescriptions for the favelas of Rio or the extra-legal world which accounts for at least 50 per cent of Russia's gross domestic product. But in fact both are attempts to apply a similar kind of transformation. De Soto says for him capitalism is not a credo; freedom, respect for the poor and equal opportunity are much more important. But it is, he says, the "only game in town" - the one tool we know for creating surplus value.

The challenge for the politicians is to create the legal and moral framework in which it works for the masses and not just the élite few.


http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/2629/876.html

[Enragé]

didnt read it

regardless

it doesnt work in the west either

it just sucks less cuz we get higher wages because of superprofits

read some lenin ;)

[black magick hustla]

The West gets super profits because of economical imperialism.

Easy.

[VonClausewitz]

You should read the article, it's quite interesting.

Lack of a proper legal system being a bugbear to proper economic development, interesting.



it doesnt work in the west either

So the current economic setup is a mirage then ?


The West gets super profits because of economical imperialism.

I'll take the sloganising to mean that you didn't bother reading the article either ?

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:26 PM
didnt read it

regardless

it doesnt work in the west either

it just sucks less cuz we get higher wages because of superprofits

read some lenin ;)
no, the artilce makes good points. maybe if you read it you would understand the real world,instead of that failure lenin whos programs caused mass starvation.

no marmot, its gets economci imperalism because its companies can work better because of teh rule of law

[chaval]

no marmot, its gets economci imperalism because its companies can work better because of teh rule of law

this is absolutely true and i know from experience. regardless of what economic situation you prefer how can you do business when nothing is guaranteed. in many developing countries, if i sign a contract it means shit. they can rip it up, they can make up some crazy loophole or they can frankly just not give a damn and you cant do anyhting about it cause no one cares, not even the police. in states run by unstable governments you get a serious lack of investment, both national investment and foreign investment (though i am aware that most of you think foreign invetment is the devil)

right of properties are completely imbeded into the western system thanks to Lockean philosophy which was grounded so well into the english system. thats why it works in the west.

[Publius]

You should read the book, the Mystery of Capital.

Most of you are pitifully ignorant of economics; it's an education.

[Publius]

didnt read it

regardless

it doesnt work in the west either

it just sucks less cuz we get higher wages because of superprofits

read some lenin ;)

Actually, we'd have higher wages if 'superprofit' didn't exist, but don't let simple logic get in the way of your Godhead's mantra.

[Publius]

The West gets super profits because of economical imperialism.

Easy.

Well, that settles it.

Some amatuer-academic Marxist says something so it must be true.

The term Imperialism is so abused on here that it becomes meaningless.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 08:49 PM

didnt read it

regardless

it doesnt work in the west either

it just sucks less cuz we get higher wages because of superprofits

read some lenin ;)

Actually, we'd have higher wages if 'superprofit' didn't exist, but don't let simple logic get in the way of your Godhead's mantra.
Why? it sounds perfectly logical.

The west has economical hegemony over the neocolonies, therefore it can profit from cheap labor and bring enough capital to give better wages to western workers.

Also yeah, I didn't read the article. I am reading it right now though!

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 08:54 PM

The West gets super profits because of economical imperialism.

Easy.

Well, that settles it.

Some amatuer-academic Marxist says something so it must be true.

The term Imperialism is so abused on here that it becomes meaningless.
Actually I am not a marxist, and I don't like Lenin either.

but you sure got me there! :lol:

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Publius

Most of you are pitifully ignorant of economics; it's an education. Economists are pitifully ignorant of the workings of the economy; it's neoclassical nonsense.

Look up Sraffa's criticism of Neoclassical economics as some extracurricular studies; you may actually learn something.

Or, if you are too lazy to do that, answer this: how do you measure demand?

"Real" economists simply use the diminishing marginal utility curve, but how do you measure utility? It's something subjective; I've yet to say "I get x units of utility from this" or even hear someone say that.

Why? It's subjective! But that means there is no way of measuring demand, and all of Neoclassical economics becomes unapplicable.

Such is the nature of the dismal science in the hands of dismal failures.

[theraven]

first: ask any economsi and they will tell you they are not doing math or a scienece...10 economcis with the same set of data will give ou 10 response

second: what exactly is "superprofit" i assuem ti jsut mean a lto of profit.

yes chaval your right

[YSR]

Originally posted by article
'What the masses in the post- communist and developing worlds lack above all is property rights'

that what the overwhelming masses in the developing and post- communist worlds lack above all is a legal system that allows uniform property rights, which in turn mean that the poor can convert their actually huge collective assets into working capital.

Holy shit! Proudhon hit it on the head all along! Eliminate property, eliminate capitalism. It was so simple.

[Publius]

Why? it sounds perfectly logical.

Indeed it does; it's sophistry.



The west has economical hegemony over the neocolonies,

How so?



therefore it can profit from cheap labor and bring enough capital to give better wages to western workers.

You're thinking in zero-sum terms.

Both sides are gaining, considerably.

[Publius]

Actually I am not a marxist, and I don't like Lenin either.

but you sure got me there! :lol:

Which does nothing to change the fact that Lenin's, and by proxy your, point isn't valid.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 09:01 PM




Economists are pitifully ignorant of the workings of the economy; it's neoclassical nonsense.


De Soto isn't a 'neo-classical'.



Look up Sraffa's criticism of Neoclassical economics as some extracurricular studies; you may actually learn something.

Or, if you are too lazy to do that, answer this: how do you measure demand?


How amusingly patronizing.



"Real" economists simply use the diminishing marginal utility curve, but how do you measure utility? It's something subjective; I've yet to say "I get x units of utility from this" or even hear someone say that.

Well yes, subjectivity of value is the norm today.

Obviously a Marxist, by nature a believer in the LTV, will disagree.

I guess the fact that the LTV is ignored by modern economists (Quite rightly, I might add) irks you?


Why? It's subjective! But that means there is no way of measuring demand, and all of Neoclassical economics becomes unapplicable.


Subjective != unmeasurable

The 'want of cheeseburgers' in you social group is subjective, but if you enter a restaraunt, you'll very quickly find out how many each want, even though the decision is subjective.

It would be very simple to apply basic supply and demand to this transaction.

There are numerous ways of measuring demand, namely, looking at demand.

You act as if this is somehow inscrutable or arcane.

Now yes, demand can change, but that can also be modelled, depending on your model.

And even IF what you're saying is true, it still doesn't matter because:

Not all economists are strict neo-classicals

There is no other alternative.

Even if current understanding of the subjectivity of value were false (It isn't, though. It's actually pretty obvious), it would do nothing to prove the value of any other method, such as the LTV.



Such is the nature of the dismal science in the hands of dismal failures.

Oh yes, because we know the resounding success Marxist economics was wrought over the last 100 years!

What absurd rubbish.

[ComradeRed]

Just to let ya know, I consider schools of economics which uses supply and demand curves to be "Neoclassical" as a general category; you may disagree, but that's what I define it to be.

[edited note: I'll be out for about a week, just to lettya know ;)]


Originally posted by Publius
De Soto isn't a 'neo-classical'. A Biography from Cato (http://www.cato.org/special/friedman/desoto/index.html) is more than enough to tell me that this man is following the economical "orthodoxy".

What denomination is irrelevant, since they all come to the same conclusion "capitalism is heaven on Earth" :lol:



Well yes, subjectivity of value is the norm today. Problem: nothing can be measured with this "theory".

How can anything be done mathematically? Or with any precision at all?

It's very much like the dialecticians, who tell us "Sometime, somewhere something will happen somehow." Great, how is this supposed to be of any use?

Likewise, saying "value is subjective" is equally nonsensical (if not, moreso).

Think of the absurdity of "If I think really really hard, I can walk through walls." Now, instead of walking through walls, have it be "change prices".

Hey, that's the effectiveness of "modern" economics! Good job!


I guess the fact that the LTV is ignored by modern economists (Quite rightly, I might add) irks you? No, the fact that economists haven't changed in over 100 years irks me. Look at any science: in 100 years, there have been revolutions.

In economics, only minor changes (like the addition of "rational expectations" or "Game theory" -- nothing new).

In physics, in the same time span, there was special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics (not to mention Quantum Field theory and QED).

In Chemistry, there was quantum chemistry and huge strides in biochemistry and medical chemistry.

Economics is simply an unscientific failure.



Subjective != unmeasurable Sorry, but there is no "units" of utility.

Please give them to me if there is any!

What is the "standard" for this measurement? How is it measured objectively?

How can you objectively measure a subjective quantity? *gasp* A contradiction!



The 'want of cheeseburgers' in you[r?] social group is subjective, but if you enter a restaraunt, you'll very quickly find out how many each want, even though the decision is subjective.
OK, how do you measure the utility per cheeseburger? Your dodging the point.



It would be very simple to apply basic supply and demand to this transaction.

There are numerous ways of measuring demand, namely, looking at demand.

You act as if this is somehow inscrutable or arcane. Your assuming some measurement of utility, which is nonsense!

Not to mention assuming a supply curve is nonsensical (the productivity would only change if there is a change in technology); the demand curve would end up being a plane, and there are infinite numbers of equilibrium points.

Ignoring this "minor" problem, there really isn't much left to stand on.

How do you measure demand? Measurements are objective quantities. Could you even point to one subjective measurement?

(And note that quantum physics is not involved with any "subjective measurements")

"Basic" supply and demand is basically fallacious; in reality there can be more than one intersection of the supply and demand curves. Which one is the "best" equilibrium position? And why is the demand curve assumed to be a nice line?

There is no sensical proof to answer any of these questions.



Now yes, demand can change, but that can also be modelled, depending on your model. No, it can't be modelled, because the sort of "change" that I am talking about is that there aren't any units of utility to begin with, thus demand cannot be modelled off of utility!

That's how economists get the demand curve, they just transpose the diminishing marginal utility curve onto the proper axes. Then they just multiply by market size.

That's pretty damn fallacious! It's like saying "You are all individuals, and you are all the same!" :lol:



Not all economists are strict neo-classicals

There is no other alternative.
True, not all economists are strictly neoclassical.

But there are alternatives. It's called "heterodox economics"; things like "Chaos economics" or "Neo-Ricardian economics" and (yes, even) Marxist economics are examples of heterodox economics.

Unlike the orthodoxy, these theories have the math to back it up. And still, unlike the orthodoxy, they are consistent in their theories(!).



Even if current understanding of the subjectivity of value were false (It isn't, though. It's actually pretty obvious), it would do nothing to prove the value of any other method, such as the LTV. Sorry, but math doesn't lie: subjective value theory is pretty damn wrong! A very simple proof of this is the inability to cope with the Euler-Lagrange equation for profit maximization.

This tells me something: either the Neoclassicals are right and physicists, mathematicians, and many others are wrong; OR maybe just maybe that empiricism that proved the equation right is correct and the Neoclassicals are wrong!

I wonder which!

In your own words, "What absurd rubbish": how could we even remotely think that economics could be wrong by its incompotent math?! :lol:

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 10:06 PM


Why? it sounds perfectly logical.

.



The west has economical hegemony over the neocolonies,




therefore it can profit from cheap labor and bring enough capital to give better wages to western workers.



Indeed it does; it's sophistry

You really know your words chap. :lol:



How so?

Becuase obviously underdeveloped countries are under tremendous disadvantege and therefore need to submit to capitalist powers?


You're thinking in zero-sum terms.

Both sides are gaining, considerably.

Depends.

I don't "hate" foreign investment, and it can be pretty useful in order to build infrastructure.

However, it is extremely important to not give the chicken that produces the golden eggs.

The best thing for underdeveloped countries right now is to adapt a protectionist capitalist economy similar to the one ALL economical superpowers had when they were beginning to rise. America in the 19th century was pretty protectionist, so was Great Britain.

This is why countries need to develop a national bourgeosie that occupies the infrastructure imperialist super powers won't yield.

That is why we communists support most anti-imperialist movements, even if they tend to be reactionary.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 10:44 PM





Just to let ya know, I consider schools of economics which uses supply and demand curves to be "Neoclassical" as a general category; you may disagree, but that's what I define it to be.

Fair enough.


is more than enough to tell me that this man is following the economical "orthodoxy".

What denomination is irrelevant, since they all come to the same conclusion "capitalism is heaven on Earth" :lol:


He won an award from Cato. I would hardly consider him to be in the mold of a 'Cato economist'.

He isn't libertarian and he certainly wouldn't agree with your last statment.


Problem: nothing can be measured with this "theory".

How can anything be done mathematically? Or with any precision at all?

It can be, and is, difficult, be it can be done.

I was in the library today, and because I'm such an assidious debater, read the relvent parts from Samuelson's Economics.

Like so much of economics, it can modelled on curves.

Now if you want to make the point that a subjective value can never really be 'known' to anyone but the person making the value, then you have a point.

But I think it's a minor one, as it can be approximated.



It's very much like the dialecticians, who tell us "Sometime, somewhere something will happen somehow." Great, how is this supposed to be of any use?

Dialectics does not accurately predict behavior.

Subjective value, and also marginal utility, does.

Are you honestly denying that economic value is subjective? If so, then tell me something's objective value.



Likewise, saying "value is subjective" is equally nonsensical (if not, moreso).

Think of the absurdity of "If I think really really hard, I can walk through walls." Now, instead of walking through walls, have it be "change prices".

But I can change prices very easily.

It happens all the time.

Prices change all the time.

Besides, 'price' =! 'value', per se.

If value really is objective, you should be able to find and absolutely prove its objective value.

Can you do that?

Because an unknown objective value is no better than a subjective value.


No, the fact that economists haven't changed in over 100 years irks me. Look at any science: in 100 years, there have been revolutions.

In economics, only minor changes (like the addition of "rational expectations" or "Game theory" -- nothing new).

In physics, in the same time span, there was special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics (not to mention Quantum Field theory and QED).

In Chemistry, there was quantum chemistry and huge strides in biochemistry and medical chemistry.

Economics is simply an unscientific failure.

Or maybe it's just that damn good.



Sorry, but there is no "units" of utility.

Please give them to me if there is any!

What is the "standard" for this measurement? How is it measured objectively?

How is something subjective measured objectively?

Obvious contradiction.



How can you objectively measure a subjective quantity? *gasp* A contradiction!


I don't think proponents of subjective value claim that they can always know the subjective value of any object, becuase, quite obviously, that's a contradiction.

Subjective values change and as such, measurements will change, will be innaccurate.

This certainly isn't ideal, but it's the way human's make value judgements.

It's really like morality.

Morality is subjective, but I hardly think we should dispense of it. It can't be objectively measured, but a world with a 'morality' is certainly 'better' (Subjectivity is so murky; subjective), than a world without one, isn't it?

I mean, I prefer life to death, order to chaos, morals to nihilism, etc.

These aren't inherently better -- you can't quantify them -- but I see no point in dispensing of morality just because it's subjective.

I believe you're asking economics to do something that it can't do.


OK, how do you measure the utility per cheeseburger?

However I want.

It's all meaningless.

The utility value of a cheeseburger is, obviously, subjective.



Your dodging the point.

The only point is that there isn't one.

Am I dodging that?


Your assuming some measurement of utility, which is nonsense!

Not to mention assuming a supply curve is nonsensical (the productivity would only change if there is a change in technology); the demand curve would end up being a plane, and there are infinite numbers of equilibrium points.

Ignoring this "minor" problem, there really isn't much left to stand on.

I don't follow.

Why would the demand curve become a plane?



How do you measure demand? Measurements are objective quantities. Could you even point to one subjective measurement?

Pointing to actual demand is, I believe, difficult.

Pointing to differences in demand isn't as hard.

Look at spending, saving, purchasing, etc.



"Basic" supply and demand is basically fallacious; in reality there can be more than one intersection of the supply and demand curves. Which one is the "best" equilibrium position? And why is the demand curve assumed to be a nice line?

How could there be multiple intersections?

What would they represent?



There is no sensical proof to answer any of these questions.

Then why ask me to answer them?

Publish your findings, don't argue with a teenager. You've got a field to revolutionize!


No, it can't be modelled, because the sort of "change" that I am talking about is that there aren't any units of utility to begin with, thus demand cannot be modelled off of utility!


When did I claim it was modeled on utility?


Sorry, but math doesn't lie: subjective value theory is pretty damn wrong! A very simple proof of this is the inability to cope with the Euler-Lagrange equation for profit maximization.

I'm unfamiliar.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

only works in the West? tell that to South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and now China, India, Thailand , Malaysia etc.. and also South Africa...

the things is, that most other countries in Asia, Latin America, and Africa that have "capitalism", are 3rd world countries, even if they had your beloved communism as their economic systems the population will still be poor with very low standards etc.. plus these countries have the most corrupt governmnets in the world, ravaged by famines and constant civil wars....

[Ol' Dirty]

Capitalism doesn't "work" anywhere, for most people. Capitalism can never work for etire countries, because it only services the bourgoise and petibourgiose. Do you know what the life of an average Chinese worker is like? Simply put, it ain't pretty.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

it aint pretty for American or European standards, but OHH BOY!! it's ANGELINA JOLIE BEAUTIFUL! compared to what they knew 10 and 20 years ago! you want the whole world to be like America or Western Europe, in living standards, and hey to tell you the truth i wish so too, but understand that it is simply IMFUCKINGPOSSIBLE!!!

[KC]

Capitalism works. If it didn't then the capitalist system wouldn't exist, and certainly wouldn't have lasted this long.

The problem, though, is how it works.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

and what seems to be that problem? that some are left behind unfairly? well sorry , if your work ethics suck you deserve it...whats better? communism? where even if your lazy it doesn't matter, your still gonna be rewarded with the same as those who work 10 times harder than you, how is that any more fair? :unsure: :rolleyes:

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 15 2006, 08:35 AM
and what seems to be that problem? that some are left behind unfairly? well sorry , if your work ethics suck you deserve it...whats better? communism? where even if your lazy it doesn't matter, your still gonna be rewarded with the same as those who work 10 times harder than you, how is that any more fair? :unsure: :rolleyes:
Believe me, the hardest working people are NEVER rewarded.

I am not speaking about some lazy ass service sector person (which I think deserves much more than a CEO fucknut anyway), I am speaking about the industrial proletariat and peasantry who work MANY hours just for bare survival. :(

Tell that shit about capitalism to a campesino here and he will fucking break your face.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 14 2006, 05:14 PM
only works in the West? tell that to South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and now China, India, Thailand , Malaysia etc.. and also South Africa...
(I notice your name comes from the movie Oldboy, I must say that's a very good movie.)

As far as Capitalism "working" (acquiring profits at the expense of the working class) it "works" fine in other places than the West. Ever hear of the East Asian Economic tigers? But the article does in a way posit this, as those countries were heavily indebted to the American system.

[KC]

and what seems to be that problem? that some are left behind unfairly?

No, that they're being trampled on until they die.


well sorry , if your work ethics suck you deserve it...

Yes, the family of 3 working 18 hour shifts at the local Nike shoe factory (including the kid), which has horrible working conditions (some are even chained to their machines, some people pull shifts longer than 24 hours!!!) has a shitty work ethic. They're so lazy, we should make them work harder!


whats better? communism?

Of course.


where even if your lazy it doesn't matter, your still gonna be rewarded with the same as those who work 10 times harder than you, how is that any more fair?

Well, what is laziness? Why are people lazy? Because they have a job they don't like. Who wants to work a shitty job they don't like for 8 hours a day 5 days a week for their whole life? That's where laziness comes from.

Why won't people be lazy in a communist society? Because they will be able to choose whatever job they want. They could even have multiple jobs if they wanted to. The workday would be shortened down to 4 hours a day (of course, if people wanted to work longer they obviously could). So people will be doing a job that they love, because they can do whatever they want, and they will only be doing it for 4 hours a day. The workplace will also drastically change according to how the workers want it to be. No more dealing with that shitty printer (PC Load Letter?!) or the shitty cafeteria food. No more dirty bathrooms.

So, in a society like this, who would want to be lazy? What would happen to lazy people, if there were any? In human society there are two types of law that govern: legal law and social law - what's legally right and wrong, and what's socially right and wrong. Going 5 over on the freeway is illegal, but everyone does it. It's socially acceptable. A communist society will be governed by social law. What do you think will happen to lazy people? They'll be ostracized. They will be shunned by the community, and the community might even refuse to give that lazy person the fruits of their labour because of their laziness.

So, in a society where you can have a job that you love, working in the best conditions, 4 hours a day and with social pressure making it wrong to be lazy, and rewarding those that aren't by accepting them into society, who would want to be lazy?

[Oh-Dae-Su]

yeah man , i got it from the cult classic Oldboy, ha im glad you know it man, it's the best movie ever :D

anyways, Marmot, for example take the campesino's you talk about, you think every campesino is hard working? in communism, they are all going to get the same benefits no matter what, while some work hard, and other's just laze off in the fields...so under communism what's going to happen if you laze off? be sentenced by the union of workers and sent to jail? :rolleyes: other workers are going to be pissed off if you are lazy, it's going to create tension, under communism if your lazy, your fired, let that be a lesson to you..

[Oh-Dae-Su]

No, that they're being trampled on until they die.

explain that to me?



Yes, the family of 3 working 18 hour shifts at the local Nike shoe factory (including the kid), which has horrible working conditions (some are even chained to their machines, some people pull shifts longer than 24 hours!!!) has a shitty work ethic. They're so lazy, we should make them work harder!

is this it?^ lol, chained to their machines?WTF! :blink: :lol: thats great man....anyways, let me ask you, do these people have any skills? take China for example, many people under the old Maost regime worked in factories in which you just learned the skill of working 1 machine, and thats pretty much what you did your whole life, now under the market economy China has, those people who were prevented from learning any skills are fucked......if you work a machine or a factory it's because you don't have skills, anyone can plant patatoes in a field, or learn how to operate a machine, but how many know how to run a business? exactly.... capitalism rewards your knowledge, who do you think is going to earn more? a guy with a PHD or a guy with a High school diploma? c'mon get real, and you think that they should be paid the same? so than whats the point of Universities and careers? whats the whole point than??

and please Lazar, never in my life will i buy the, "YOU WILL CHOOSE THE JOB YOU DESIRE", crap , so stop even trying, you know thats just lludicrous and highly ridiculous.....first of all, even if you were able to go to the university and graduate with the skills necessary to perform the job you desire, what about if you decide you don't like your job afterwards? you are going to go back to school to study another 10 years? get real man :rolleyes:

the world isn't fair, and you know why this world runs? because sometimes you have to do things you don't desire, you are dreaming of a hedonistic society, i think you have been reading to many Orwell and Huxley novels and shit....

[KC]

explain that to me?

It was explained later in my post when I talked about the working condition in these exploited countries.


lol, chained to their machines?WTF!

Yes, chained to their machines.


let me ask you, do these people have any skills?

They don't have time to go to school. They are forced to work at the factories to survive.


if you work a machine or a factory it's because you don't have skills

You don't have the skills because you need to work to survive. There is no time to go to school or read. Your kids are even working just to maintain the family.


anyone can plant patatoes in a field, or learn how to operate a machine

Yes, as the work becomes more basic and less specialized, competition between workers for those jobs increases.


but how many know how to run a business?

None. They don't have time or money. They barely have enough money to feed the family. Could they learn? Of course, if they had the time.


c'mon get real

You need to get real. These people aren't able to learn because of capitalism.


you think that they should be paid the same?

I think the monetary system should be abolished.


so than whats the point of Universities and careers?

To learn so you can get a job you like.


whats the whole point than??

Life!!! Are you saying that the only point that matters is money? That's a horrible outlook on life.


what about if you decide you don't like your job afterwards?

Then get a different job.


you are going to go back to school to study another 10 years?

If you want another job that requires it, sure. Although not many careers require 10 years of schooling.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

so basically your whole argument is that they don't get skills because they don't have the money and time to go to school, which franky i accept this is true, people in Africa etc., but how can this be a problem of capitalsim? in a sense it is, but the majority is because of their respective countries, how come this doesn't happen in Western Countries? or in other highly developed capitalist countries like Japan , South Korea etc. etc...listen it's a problem of the governments, of the corrupt officials, the government doesn't do anything to battle this...


Life!!! Are you saying that the only point that matters is money? That's a horrible outlook on life.

what does life have to do with what i said, what im trying to say is, that if i go to the university and learn to do a skill which i brake my ass to learn, i work myself hard to get the degree, while some guy who just likes to give tour guides of people in antique places is going to earn the same as me!!?? than what is the point of all this? it's not fair at all, see , this is why capitalism is not going to work, i dont care if people like their jobs, understand it!! hence why capitalism makes at least that part fair of life, although nothing in life is fair so.....



Then get a different job.If you want another job that requires it, sure. Although not many careers require 10 years of schooling.

you make it sound so easy Lazar, your just laughable, people would be trying out new jobs like trying out clothes in a Macy's store...you obviously don't understand the way society works unfortunately, so i think it's really pointless of me trying to make you understand the reprecussions that would occur if people lived like this...

[red team]

and what seems to be that problem? that some are left behind unfairly? well sorry , if your work ethics suck you deserve it...whats better? communism? where even if your lazy it doesn't matter, your still gonna be rewarded with the same as those who work 10 times harder than you, how is that any more fair?


Let's talk about this thing called a "work ethic" then. What's the purpose of it and which also leads to another question. What is the purpose of work? Sure you can work "hard". I have no doubt in the ability of people to do that, but a narcotic dealer, kidnapper, and burgler can also work "hard". You see, in this day and age of modern electronic anti-theft devices and police surveilance it takes a lot of ingenuity to defeat these counter-measures and get away with the loot. That requires a lot of intelligence and planning or in other words, work. You can even think of criminal activity as a boost to the economy. Without criminals to defeat do you know how many police officers will be unemployed? Also, the security and anti-theft industries which provides security guards, locks and alarms will be out of business overnight. But, seriously what does all this accomplish other than a waste of resources (including human resources) in what could be realistically be described as an economic shell game?

Besides criminal activity what else is simply a shuffling around of real material wealth with nothing actually of value produced which you seem to praise so much as "hard work"? I'll give you a hint. I delete it everyday from my email inbox. I hang up the phone everytime someone performing this "hard work" calls me everyday at home. I just reply, "No, I'm just looking", everytime I go into a store when someone gets paid to pester me. No doubt, these people, "work hard", but what does it do for me except annoy me on a daily basis?

Somebody who graduated from college and have useful technical know-how to actually produce goods, services and technology of tangible material or intellectual value now gets to participate in "working hard" playing the economic shell games of marketing and price manipulation while some exploited, illiterate kid gets to really WORK HARD in 14 hour shifts doing repetitive work which could be more easily accomplished with automated machines which could be designed with the same technical know-how that the recently graduated engineer or technician possess, but which is now useless for the current sales and marketing job in which he is engaged in. In the meantime, the overpaid (in the hundreds of millions) upper management of the company can oversee this whole international operation from the third world sweatshops filled with exploited, illiterate workers not given a chance at anything else other than to be little more than appendages to the factory machines to the over-educated, over-qualified sales floor people who now work as corporate whores. What a sick joke this whole economic order is and what is more worthy of my contempt than it's self-proclaimed work ethic.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Publius
[Problem: nothing can be measured with this "theory".
...]
It can be, and is, difficult, be it can be done.Look, the only feasible way to do this would be to set up a matrix of feasible solutions then use the eigenvalues to figure out the "quantum state of utility"...and even then, it fails miserably to describe a subjective quantity.

Largely because the Neoclassicals are attempting to use an objective measure of a subjective quantity!

There is no "standardized utility" that exists uniformly for all observers. What a shock!

This leaves the problem that the "diminishing marginal utility curves" cannot be accurate at all...which in turn causes a serious problem for the demand curve.



I was in the library today, and because I'm such an assidious debater, read the relvent parts from Samuelson's Economics.

Like so much of economics, it can modelled on curves.

Now if you want to make the point that a subjective value can never really be 'known' to anyone but the person making the value, then you have a point.

But I think it's a minor one, as it can be approximated.
Unfortunately, if you read Samuelson's Economics...the undergraduate textbook...you won't be exposed to the problems of supply and demand.

That's graduate level "work".

The reason why economics is modeled on curves is because, as von Neumann points out in his "Technical Preface" to The theory of the behavior of Games, economics has based itself on physics (viz. mechanics).

Classical mechanics is entirely curves-based! Hence the abuse of calculus, the math of tangents of curves.

The problem is that the method physics uses is different than the method that economics should use. As Aristotle pointed out, "A system is more than the sum of its parts"; sadly, Neoclassical economics is simply ignorant of this.

Now that I have pointed this out, and since I'm a serious physicist, I just thumb reckoned that it may be important to view the abuse of Lagrangian (classical) mechanics. This I shall explain later (with the "Euelr-Lagrange equation", etc.).

But everything in physics has objective units...utility doesn't have any. This means that it is impossible to create a "diminishing marginal utility" curve when there is no units for utility.

I repeat myself: there is no measurably objective unit of utility. This means that it is impossible to graph out a "diminishing marginal utility" curve.

In the textbook Intermediate Micro-Economics, by Alan Griffiths and Stuart Wall, it is pointed out that one can change the units of utility on the "diminishing marginal utility" curve to units of money and you get the demand curve of the given commodity.

But wait, since there exists no appropriate units for utility, it is impossible to find the demand curve...and any approximation would have to be a plane.



Dialectics does not accurately predict behavior.

Subjective value, and also marginal utility, does.

Are you honestly denying that economic value is subjective? If so, then tell me something's objective value. It is demonstratable mathematically that neither subjective value nor dialectics can accurately predict anything (largely because of the internal inconsistancies of both).

For example, the track record of Neoclassical models is comical. For example, in 1952 two economists measured for empirical support that the "Marginal cost = marginal revenue" rule is correct, here's their results:

18 firms supports the rule

316 firms contradict the rule

5.4% of the firms supported the rule.



Now, being as mathematically inclined as I am, I am going to do a statistical proportional Z-Test at the 99.9th Percent confidence level.

The null hypothesis is that the true mean of firms should be .001% (or .00001) of the firms obey the MC=MR rule.

The alternative hypothesis is that fewer do.

The statistical population mean is 0.053892215568862275449101796407186 firms follow the rule.

Now, the Z-score is 0.053882215568862275449101796407186/(.00017303126988865751581593128863278) or 311.40160737151443200271382562578.

One problem I should note is that the margin of error for this is so large because so few firms actually obey the rule that we can end it right here (the margin of error, by the by, at the 99.9% confidence level is 19019.683564234943293410611863415). This means "We are 99% confident that the true mean of firms that obey the rule lies somewhere between about -19019 to +19019.7 firms".

We cannot actually carryout the test because it violates one of the "rules of thumb" (actually, both) for inference on proportions.

There is so little evidence to support the conjecture of MC=MR which means that little evidence is actually strong and significant evidence that it is unsupported by empiricism. We are "only" 99.9% confident that this holds!

And yet the implications for this for the rest of Neoclassical theory leaves little hope for any theory of value to salvage this wreck.

Now this is only the implications of the subjective theory of value is wrong; but as Stephen Hawking points out A good theory should explain a large body of phenomena and make definite predictions...in this respect, the "subjective theory of value" is a good theory because it does make definite predictions; it's just a wrong theory because it makes wrong, definite predictions!

Now, as I have only "hinted" at before, the subjective theory of value is intrinsically absurd because of the use of some objective measure of subjective utility -- a proposition which contradicts the very notion of utility being subjective.



But I can change prices very easily.

It happens all the time.

Prices change all the time. Ah, but the absurd use of time allows for instantaneous economical "Action at a distance" (that's what you get for modelling it after Newtonian mechanics, punks!). Price should change "instaneously" by your very whims, there is no feedback time.

This is also visible by the contradictory results of the Euler-Lagrange equation.



If value really is objective, you should be able to find and absolutely prove its objective value.

Can you do that?

Because an unknown objective value is no better than a subjective value. Ah, but the value is objective for a single individual commodity, rather than a class of commodities.

Not every bag of chips will sell for the same price; but this given bag of chips has a certain value which is invariant to changes in time or will.

The changes in price is as much caused by the relative changes in value of other commodities inasmuchas it is by the change in the output per units input.

As Sraffa points out, it is feasible to measure the value in terms of a "Standard commodity", but it gets really curious if you mash it together with chaos theory (stuff I'm still wrestling with!).

You can prove the objective value via the dated inputs of the commodity in question as weighted variables due to the date it was put into it (if we use discrete time, or some affine parameter, we can use a summation of the rate of profit at the time multiplied by the quantity used and the value per quantity).

The problem is that for lazy people like economists to do this is, well, "hard".


How is something subjective measured objectively?

Obvious contradiction. Yes! Subjective value is based on a contradiction! That's my entire point!

The fact that there exists at least one price somewhere exists as a counter-example to the subjective theory of value! Remember: it takes only a single counter-example to disprove an example!



I don't think proponents of subjective value claim that they can always know the subjective value of any object, becuase, quite obviously, that's a contradiction.

Subjective values change and as such, measurements will change, will be innaccurate. Leaving time aside, if we look at a "snapshot" of the economy, we can never know the price of a commodity. However, there exists a price for every commodity (by definition!).

How is that determined?

Supply and demand? There are all ready so many comically elementary flaws in its math!

The neoclassical "work ethic" to "tirelessly examine every phenomanon in the economy" is "admirable" though tragicomical...like Don Quixote.

Now if we were to take into account the time it takes for feedback, we'd need to know the different rates of feedback and response. This is a Sisyphian task, not to mention a Quixotically absurd one at best.


Morality is subjective, but I hardly think we should dispense of it. It can't be objectively measured, but a world with a 'morality' is certainly 'better' (Subjectivity is so murky; subjective), than a world without one, isn't it?

I mean, I prefer life to death, order to chaos, morals to nihilism, etc.

These aren't inherently better -- you can't quantify them -- but I see no point in dispensing of morality just because it's subjective. I disagree, we can weight these things.

Life=1, death=0; therefore life>death. Likewise for order/chaos, etc.

But these things are rather irrelevant. Regardless of what you want to think, nothing will change. If you are of a certain set of morals doesn't mean that you are correct.

However, unlike morality, price is measurable. That's where money comes in, remember?

Morality, like utility, is immeasurable and thus useless to measure with continuous math (discrete math wouldn't help any for economists though, least not how they'd prefer it to be used).

Thus we can't measure anything in regards to utility because there exists no standard for it!

What is the increment of the utility axis then?



How could there be multiple intersections?

What would they represent? The "great economist" Gorman once put it this way:

Community indifference and utility possibility loci are among the most useful conceptions of welfare economics. The great disadvantage is that they may intersect...Thus the analysis...frequently becomes inconclusive. (from the article "Community Preference Fields")

It's because of the social differences in the individual preference, so we have to take everyone into account. Although you may not buy a lot of Pringles if they are in high quantity supplied, I will.

Thus I will cause the slope of the demand curve (for myself it'd be a positive slope) to either not be so drastically negative or (if there are enough of others like me) to actually have the slope be positive.

And thus there may be numerous loci where the two curves overlap.

Which is the best for the market to equilibriate at?



Then why ask me to answer them?

Publish your findings, don't argue with a teenager. You've got a field to revolutionize! There have been better people who have tried; Neoclassical economics has "resisted" over a century of far superior criticisms than I have.

The reason it survives is because money talks, and this kills what little science exists in economics.



When did I claim it [the demand curve] was modeled on utility? Oh you didn't. The Neoclassical economists, on the other hand, have.



Sorry, but math doesn't lie: subjective value theory is pretty damn wrong! A very simple proof of this is the inability to cope with the Euler-Lagrange equation for profit maximization.

I'm unfamiliar. I'm sorry, but I've exhausted myself from writing the above; here's a technical paper (http://www.debunking-economics.com/Papers/Micro/keenstandish_physica.pdf) on the concept and if you'd like I could elaborate more later.

[KC]

but how can this be a problem of capitalsim?

Big business needs to shrink wages, lengthen the working day, and increase productivity in order to maintain profit margins. In order to do this they outsource their work to underdeveloped countries where they are able to achieve these goals.


how come this doesn't happen in Western Countries?

Mexico.


or in other highly developed capitalist countries like Japan , South Korea etc. etc...

Because of the way these countries developed.


listen it's a problem of the governments, of the corrupt officials, the government doesn't do anything to battle this...


Yes, but these issues are all caused by capitalism. When big business outsources their work to exploited countries, it is in the best interests of these companies to have a government on their side (i.e. against the workers) in order to maintain the length of the working day, the absence of minimum wages, etc... These businesses are willing to pay a lot to keep it this way.


than what is the point of all this?

To do what you enjoy.


it's not fair at all

If you're doing a job that you like, and he's doing one he likes, then what's the problem?


this is why capitalism is not going to work

I'm glad you're starting to see it our way!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:


i dont care if people like their jobs, understand it!!

Understand that you don't care if people like their jobs? But that's the answer to your question. That's the point of this. If you didn't care about the answer then why ask the question in the first place?


you obviously don't understand the way society works unfortunately

Actually it is you that fails to understand how society works. I seem to remember numerous cappies disagreeing with you on many things.


so i think it's really pointless of me trying to make you understand the reprecussions that would occur if people lived like this...

What would those be?

[theraven]

Well, what is laziness? Why are people lazy? Because they have a job they don't like. Who wants to work a shitty job they don't like for 8 hours a day 5 days a week for their whole life? That's where laziness comes from.

no, laziness comes from poor mroals and from bad priroities


Why won't people be lazy in a communist society?

they will be, probably worse then now.


Because they will be able to choose whatever job they want.

which they already can. and do.


They could even have multiple jobs if they wanted to.

which they already do.


The workday would be shortened down to 4 hours a day (of course, if people wanted to work longer they obviously could). So people will be doing a job that they love, because they can do whatever they want, and they will only be doing it for 4 hours a day.

hahahahah how do you manage this?


The workplace will also drastically change according to how the workers want it to be. No more dealing with that shitty printer (PC Load Letter?!) or the shitty cafeteria food. No more dirty bathrooms.

why should they care? their only there for 4 hours a day!


So, in a society like this, who would want to be lazy?

well i suppose if you're already at that levle of laziness..its kinda hard to get worse


What would happen to lazy people, if there were any? In human society there are two types of law that govern: legal law and social law - what's legally right and wrong, and what's socially right and wrong. Going 5 over on the freeway is illegal, but everyone does it. It's socially acceptable. A communist society will be governed by social law. What do you think will happen to lazy people? They'll be ostracized. They will be shunned by the community, and the community might even refuse to give that lazy person the fruits of their labour because of their laziness.

which we already do


So, in a society where you can have a job that you love, working in the best conditions, 4 hours a day and with social pressure making it wrong to be lazy, and rewarding those that aren't by accepting them into society, who would want to be lazy?

not everyohne can love thier job, work at it for only 1/6th of a day and have an ideal wokring enviroment.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Big business needs to shrink wages, lengthen the working day, and increase productivity in order to maintain profit margins. In order to do this they outsource their work to underdeveloped countries where they are able to achieve these goals.

yet, in those underdeveloped countries, the people welcome this as a matter of fact, it is proven. To us it might seem like really bad standards, but for these people it's the best thing they have ever seen in their lives..i have seen documentaries in China for example, where people LONG to work in a factory, they want to escape the backbraking work of the fields and come to big cities like Shanghai , Shezhen, Guangdong etc. to work on factories, where they work in air conditioning operating machines, and sure they earn 2 dollars a day, but heck they LOVE IT! 2 dollars in China is 16 yuan, and you can buy a water bottle for 1 yuan...i can tell this to you from experience because i have been to China...also i saw another documentary in the Discovery Times Channel, very interesting, called China Rises, it pretty much documents the gap between the rich and poor in China, the ones who have blossomed under the new system and the ones who have been "left behind"....on of the persons interviewed said, "yes , the gap is very big , but you have to understand that this is a country of 1 billion people, and at least now there are people of the middle class, there are rich people, before everybody was poor", which is true, under the communist China everybody was equally poor, now at least half of the population is middle class to rich..

and ironically another of the persons documented, was a woman with a child who was having a hard time, because she was one of the "left behind", and she said, "well back then i use to work in a factory (same thing as now wow), but since we never learned any skills now im not wanted in many jobs", and this is why many Chinese are jobless at this moment....



Mexico

dude, Mexico can be counted as the underdeveloped countries, you might as well have said Haiti, Cuba, Honduras and so on, what i meant by the west , was USA, Canada, and Europe...c'mon man stop trying to be a smart ass...



Because of the way these countries developed

thanks to capitalism ;) or are you meaning to tell me it was because of something else? :rolleyes:



Yes, but these issues are all caused by capitalism. When big business outsources their work to exploited countries, it is in the best interests of these companies to have a government on their side (i.e. against the workers) in order to maintain the length of the working day, the absence of minimum wages, etc... These businesses are willing to pay a lot to keep it this way.

true, im not denying this, and sure it is wrong, but it is a fact of life, if you were smart enough you would instead criticize the governments, if anything they are the ones highly inmoral, allowing their own people to be exploited for the profit of themselves, again this proves what i have always said about selfishness, and again it proves why the governments are corrupt. If it wasn't a corrupt government, maybe some changes could be made, but what will these changes be and what will they bring Lazar? please explain? how do you fix this? and don't tell me, "By stopping the companies etc.", because this is what these people are living off!!! and like i said before the fact that they welcome it...



To do what you enjoy

you totally disregarded what i said, WHAT!!! is the point of me going to school, working my ass off studying, getting my PHD, when some guy with a highschool diploma who works at burger king can have all the benefits i have, earns the same things i do...i mean, do you think this is fair? :blink: because if you do there is something horribly wrong with you..and don't say: "ohh but your going to like studying for that PHD and that guy is going to love flipping burgers" :rolleyes: listen, even if we both love what we do, i garantee you that when i see this im going to be pissed off because from flipping burgers to a court house or an office room there is a long way my friend...i mean this is just common sense...


If you're doing a job that you like, and he's doing one he likes, then what's the problem?

i just explained that above. :)



I'm glad you're starting to see it our way!!!

lol, actually even if i had meant it to say capitalism, no i wouldn't be seeing it your way because capitalism actually does work, it's working as we speak my friend :)


Understand that you don't care if people like their jobs? But that's the answer to your question. That's the point of this. If you didn't care about the answer then why ask the question in the first place?

what i meant was what i explained above, i don't care if you like flipping the burgers, im still going to be pissed that you with your lousy job gets all the benefits i get working as a lawyer or some other much better job...


Actually it is you that fails to understand how society works. I seem to remember numerous cappies disagreeing with you on many things.

so? what does that have to do with anything? i see in this board even more fierced battles between leftists than leftist and capitalists, does that mean now that your wrong too?? :rolleyes: and i would love to know what they disagreed with me on? because religion is not the same as economics...


What would those be?

an incredible disproportion of job fillings

[KC]

yet, in those underdeveloped countries, the people welcome this as a matter of fact, it is proven. To us it might seem like really bad standards, but for these people it's the best thing they have ever seen in their lives..i have seen documentaries in China for example, where people LONG to work in a factory, they want to escape the backbraking work of the fields and come to big cities like Shanghai , Shezhen, Guangdong etc. to work on factories, where they work in air conditioning operating machines, and sure they earn 2 dollars a day, but heck they LOVE IT! 2 dollars in China is 16 yuan, and you can buy a water bottle for 1 yuan...i can tell this to you from experience because i have been to China...also i saw another documentary in the Discovery Times Channel, very interesting, called China Rises, it pretty much documents the gap between the rich and poor in China, the ones who have blossomed under the new system and the ones who have been "left behind"....on of the persons interviewed said, "yes , the gap is very big , but you have to understand that this is a country of 1 billion people, and at least now there are people of the middle class, there are rich people, before everybody was poor", which is true, under the communist China everybody was equally poor, now at least half of the population is middle class to rich..

and ironically another of the persons documented, was a woman with a child who was having a hard time, because she was one of the "left behind", and she said, "well back then i use to work in a factory (same thing as now wow), but since we never learned any skills now im not wanted in many jobs", and this is why many Chinese are jobless at this moment....

So because it is an improvement of life in that country, this means that we should welcome it and seek to maintain it? Yes, it might be an improvement, but the goal is to move society forwards. Business obviously doesn't want this to happen; after all, they are successfully maintaining their profit margins! Any development in the country from this point (i.e. the lowest level of industrialization) causes businesses to move elsewhere to seek the standards they once enjoyed.

We aren't worried about if it was better than what came before it or not. We are worried with the fact that these workers are being horribly exploited.


thanks to capitalism wink.gif or are you meaning to tell me it was because of something else?

Actually the history of development is different in every country. You can't say "since these countries developed this way that all countries will".


if you were smart enough you would instead criticize the governments

We do criticize the governments. And business. And capitalism. Government is a tool of business. You talk about them like they are opposed to one another, which is horribly flawed.


If it wasn't a corrupt government, maybe some changes could be made, but what will these changes be and what will they bring Lazar?

This question is irrelevant as the only way there would be a government that sides with the workers is if it is made of the workers.


im still going to be pissed that you with your lousy job gets all the benefits i get working as a lawyer or some other much better job...

Why? It's not like you worked hard to achieve those benefits. You could have picked a job with less education. You chose to have a job that requires that education. It was your choice.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

We aren't worried about if it was better than what came before it or not. We are worried with the fact that these workers are being horribly exploited.

and if it wasn't for these companies they wouldn't be exploited? :blink: working in the fields in the bare sun is not horribly exploitatious? your talking about countries that have been like this since their existance, and will probably continue, and since you love the watch of history to fortell the future, you can infer that a "revolution" is not going to happen.. im sure society will improve, but the people of the 3rd world, will unfortunately always be a step behind the rest..


Actually the history of development is different in every country. You can't say "since these countries developed this way that all countries will".

every succesful capitalist country has developed because of capitalist reforms, and this doesn't mean at all that all others will Lazar, not all countries have the resources and the governments to achieve the status of say South Korea...to achieve the status of South Korea, Japan, Singapore etc. believe it or not has to be an effort of the people, they have to have the entrepeneurship mentality, the will, the work ethics, skills etc. thats why China has changed so rapidly, Asian's have very good work ethics, probably the best in the world..in contrast, in Africa, people are still living in tribes, which tells you a lot, even if they implemented some utopian perfect economic system, these places will still be backwards...



We do criticize the governments. And business. And capitalism. Government is a tool of business. You talk about them like they are opposed to one another, which is horribly flawed.

they are linked, but they are not the same, or are you meaning to tell me that the government can't block off companies? tell that to North Korea...



This question is irrelevant as the only way there would be a government that sides with the workers is if it is made of the workers.

in other words you don't have a practical anwser, otherwise a practical solution, than stop wasting your time complaining about it.....its like saying diseases suck, yeah but you ain't accomplishing anything with complaining, how about some ideas to stop them or prevent them, and i mean practial (regarding communism=not practical)...


Why? It's not like you worked hard to achieve those benefits. You could have picked a job with less education.

what?? so is this the jibberish you spit out when you have nothing else to say? it's not like i worked hard to get my PHD?? WTF?? if you said that to a real person who has a real PHD they would probably brake your face...and yeah i could have picked a job with less education meaning, i could have just settled to work in Burger King :rolleyes:



You chose to have a job that requires that education. It was your choice.

so now it's about choice lol, it doesnt matter, even if my choice is to go to the moon, why would a guy who went to Antartica get more coverage than i do? understand? obviously not.....

talk sense to a fool and he will call you foolish :rolleyes:

im out, got some sleep to do, im going to the BIATCH tomorrow