list your criticisms of a free market

[wtfm8lol]

that is largely based on donations for public goods and personal responsibility to keep corporations in check

[KC]

Morals never come before money.

[wtfm8lol]

how do you explain people in developed countries voting to have high taxes to support social programs?

[RNK]

Well that basically sums it all up in one very short, yet perfectly accurate sentence. There's not much else to say. Corporations will always, always, always, put profit above morality. But here's one, I guess.

Workers are unavoidably connected to, and subjected to, the promiscuity of a market on the other side of the world, whose existence, however unstable, determines their livelihood.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:20 pm
how do you explain people in developed countries voting to have high taxes to support social programs?
Because most of those people don't make the lion's share of the profit. However, if you look at how capitalism develops and plays out, these social programs will become neglected in favor of profit (US is an extraordinary example of this, and Western Europe is following suit).

The bourgeoisie make the vast majority of the profit, and so their interest is in the exploitation of all others.

[wtfm8lol]

Because most of those people don't make the lion's share of the profit.

exactly, so having half of their incomes taken away hurts them even more, and yet they still vote to allow it


However, if you look at how capitalism develops and plays out, these social programs will become neglected in favor of profit (US is an extraordinary example of this, and Western Europe is following suit).

the social system in the US is an example of the government sucking at helping the disadvantaged, and charity on the whole is on the rise in the US so i'm not sure what youre referring to..


The bourgeoisie make the vast majority of the profit, and so their interest is in the exploitation of all others.

their interest is in making profit. if exploiting others does that, then that's what they'll do. but when the people dont trust the government to save them from this, they learn about this cool thing called a boycott, which gives them control over corporations and makes it profitable to treat workers better, pollute less, etc

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:32 pm

Because most of those people don't make the lion's share of the profit.

exactly, so having half of their incomes taken away hurts them even more, and yet they still vote to allow it


However, if you look at how capitalism develops and plays out, these social programs will become neglected in favor of profit (US is an extraordinary example of this, and Western Europe is following suit).

the social system in the US is an example of the government sucking at helping the disadvantaged, and charity on the whole is on the rise in the US so i'm not sure what youre referring to..


The bourgeoisie make the vast majority of the profit, and so their interest is in the exploitation of all others.

their interest is in making profit. if exploiting others does that, then that's what they'll do. but when the people dont trust the government to save them from this, they learn about this cool thing called a boycott, which gives them control over corporations and makes it profitable to treat workers better, pollute less, etc
They don't have half their income taken away, that much is obvious to anyone who cares to look at reality. What actually happens is that corporations get less profits, and while the workers are affected, it isn't truly significant. However, the bourgeoisie inevitably knocks down social programs (and regulations) for its own benefit, and the workers are VERY hurt by this process that is inherent in capitalism.

The social system in the US is an example of capitalism at work. Social programs are scrapped in favor of profit, that is the way it works. This is not "irresponsibility", it is the bourgeoisie pursuing their interests, and it is a natural part of capitalism.

Ask yourself why charity is on the rise (do I have to draw you a picture?)

Yes, and they DO exploit people as much as possible, because they only care about profit. Oh, right, what a brilliant idea, boycott businesses which exploit workers. :lol: I'm not sure if no one told you, but competition drives almost all businesses to exploit as much as possible. The conditions surrounding the lives of consumers is such that they largely HAVE to buy as cheap as possible, which means buying from entities such as Wal-Mart. Expecting working people (or unemployed people) to just buy from Whole Foods is wholly myopic and in defiance of the situation that people (you know, in the REAL WORLD) actually face.

[KC]

how do you explain people in developed countries voting to have high taxes to support social programs?

These are necessary in order to keep the system stable and keep profit coming in.

[wtfm8lol]

alright, well i'm not going to answer that because i'm not looking for a debate. i just need some criticisms, and you did that, so thanks dude


These are necessary in order to keep the system stable and keep profit coming in.

yes, the people know that so there is no reason to believe those social programs would disappear if government stopped requiring it

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:20 pm
how do you explain people in developed countries voting to have high taxes to support social programs?
Because theyare sensible enough to know that a completely "free" market will hurt them greatly.

[wtfm8lol]

Because theyare sensible enough to know that a completely "free" market will hurt them greatly.

a decent portion of that goes to people who it wouldn't hurt them (them being the ones who pay) to not give money to.

[RGacky3]

A big part of the free Market is the Labor Market, which is pretty much a Slave Trade.

[gilhyle]

MY main criticism of the free market is that it is old, senile, has become decrepid and wasteful of human economic and cultural resources on a grand scale.

[wtfm8lol]

A big part of the free Market is the Labor Market, which is pretty much a Slave Trade.

a slave trade in which the slaves agree to their terms of work, sell their labor (or labor power, depending on the line of work) and not themselves, and are free to stop selling their labor at any point?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I think he's making the 'Wage Slave' argument, i.e. Sell labour or starve.

But it's hyperbole, more than anything. Certainly we wouldn't just let people sit on their arse all day in socialism, so we'd be guilty of a similar crime.

Although one could argue then with LTV, and say that the proletarian works much harder than he is paid for, and they are blindly complicit, because it's the same for everyone in a capitalist society.

Not looking for debate here especially, I'm out of my depth in proper discussions of economics, I must admit.

-Alex

[Publius]

that is largely based on donations for public goods and personal responsibility to keep corporations in check

My main problem is that market forces don't simply work on a lot of things. Health insurance, for example.

[Tungsten]

There's not much else to say. Corporations will always, always, always, put profit above morality. But here's one, I guess.On several occasions, I've seen this board used as a graffitti wall for the homicidal fanatasies of communists of various stripes, so whose morality are we talking about here?
BurnTheOliveTree

I think he's making the 'Wage Slave' argument, i.e. Sell labour or starve.

But it's hyperbole, more than anything. Certainly we wouldn't just let people sit on their arse all day in socialism, so we'd be guilty of a similar crime.
Damn right it's hyperbole. Not working shouldn't be a crime, though. It's obviously self-destructive, so there isn't any need for legal punishment.
Publius
And the things it doesn't work for, you don't float on the market. Some sort of free healthcare (private, but government funded) could be arranged at minimal cost for the benefit of those who can't afford the more expensive stuff.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Tungsten - What's would you say to a potential worker who chooses not to work because he believes his labour benefits his company or corporation vastly more than it does him? Basically he doesn't want to be exploited.

-Alex

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 07:11 pm

Because theyare sensible enough to know that a completely "free" market will hurt them greatly.

a decent portion of that goes to people who it wouldn't hurt them (them being the ones who pay) to not give money to.
True, people will support a welfare state, who are not benefitted by such at that very moment. But who is to say that they may not require it in the future? Further they may recognise that such economies tend to perform better (a la Scandinavia) and consequently wish to reap the benefits of overall economic benefit.

[Tungsten]

I'd say: Take it if there's nowhere else or leave it and find somewhere else. Survival comes first, ***** about conditions later. So long as more than one employer exists, it's highly unlikely anyone will end up in such a situation.

That's a novel form of consciencious objection, but I don't buy it. It's not like the consientious objectors who dodged the draft- working to keep yourself alive and being forced to march to your death are two different things, I'm sure you'll agree.

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:20 pm
how do you explain people in developed countries voting to have high taxes to support social programs?
As Zampano said, its necessary to prevent a lot of outright social revolt that would damage the ability of capitalist production to continue. Most of the major "waves" of implementation of social programs in the West occurred after periods of social and economic unrest. The "New Deal" after the Great Depression and LBJ's reforms in the 60s being two particular examples. It seems somewhat apparent that while capitalism engenders extreme inequality, periods of particular completely free markets fail to even provide the necessities required to continue to live for a significant % of people thus resulting in massive social unrest. In modern times most people dont vote for high taxes and social programs. But they continue to be enacted by the bourgeoisie no matter what (Bush maintaining a large government budget despite the protests of his voting base is one example) because they recognize that its necessary to maximize business profit and production.


a slave trade in which the slaves agree to their terms of work, sell their labor (or labor power, depending on the line of work) and not themselves, and are free to stop selling their labor at any point?

People aren't free to stop selling their labor. Not unless you want yourself and your family to starve to death or live in the streets. Thats sort of like saying "you're free to stop breathing" - yes, if you want to die. People choose to continue living and making a living is necessary to do that.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I'd say: Take it if there's nowhere else or leave it and find somewhere else. Survival comes first, ***** about conditions later. So long as more than one employer exists, it's highly unlikely anyone will end up in such a situation.

That's a novel form of consciencious objection, but I don't buy it. It's not like the consientious objectors who dodged the draft- working to keep yourself alive and being forced to march to your death are two different things, I'm sure you'll agree.

Well yes, I agree that being forced into a death march is an entirely different issue.

I also agree that survival is more paramount than '*****ing about conditions'.

So I suppose the question now is, do you agree that conditions need to change, a lot, for our man to work with dignity and some degree of fairness?

-Alex

[Vendetta]

It's only free for the rich.

[RNK]

So long as more than one employer exists, it's highly unlikely anyone will end up in such a situation.

Can you think of a single company that gives it's workers an equal share of the profits of the work they do?

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:55 pm
that is largely based on donations for public goods and personal responsibility to keep corporations in check
I use the reasoning of mutualists and the likes of Franz Oppenheimer and Albert.J. Nock and believe corporations and large wealth disparity wouldn't exist in any kind of real free market.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 07:36 pm
a slave trade in which the slaves agree to their terms of work, sell their labor (or labor power, depending on the line of work) and not themselves, and are free to stop selling their labor at any point?
seeing as for most people Labor is the only way to get the necessities of a decent life, and that for most people the Employer makes all the terms, and seeing as those who sell thier labor if they stopped selling it would having nothing to sell because of the concentration of Capital for the few, its pretty much the same as Slavery. Let me ask you if there was no such thing as Private Property, would people sell their labor? Meaning allow themselves to be used to produce for someone else without seeing any of the fruits of their work, but rather just get a slim wage to get by? Especially if what they are producing is making someone else very well off? I don't think so.

I don't think its a hyperbole at all.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:32 pm

The bourgeoisie make the vast majority of the profit, and so their interest is in the exploitation of all others.

their interest is in making profit. if exploiting others does that, then that's what they'll do.
And that is the problem with the "free" market.

but when the people dont trust the government to save them from this,
...which they shouldn't, because every day the government allows exploitation to continue...

they learn about this cool thing called a boycott, which gives them control over corporations and makes it profitable to treat workers better, pollute less, etc
This is fantasy. I can't boycott every corporation that exploits workers, because all corporations exploit workers. And even if I wanted to boycott those corporations which exploit workers worse than other corporations, I'm going to have a hell of a time doing that.

Right now, my apartment has practically no food in it, and I only have a couple dollars. There's only one store within walking distance where I can buy something to make for dinner. Let's say I wanted to boycott those corporations which treated their workers most unfairly. I would have to go there (regardless of how that store treats its workers; right now my conditions are such that it is my only option), then write down the names of the corporations that manufactured the food, find out the names of the corporations that manufactured and transported the ingredients in the food, find out the names of the corporations that produced the equipment used in the factories, find out the names of the corporations that transport and repair the equipment used in the factories, find out the names of the corporations that provide electricity and telephone service to the factories, etc. etc. etc. Then, after I had this long list of corporations, I would have to do extensive research into the ways workers are treated by these various corporations (where the hell am I going to find a reliable source for all that information?). After I did that, I would have to average up all the unfair ways that workers were treated by the various corporations that correspond to each product, and figure out which of the products I can afford involved the least amount of worker exploitation, and buy it, whether or not it's tasty or nutritious. It becomes even more of a conundrum if I take your suggestion of considering which corporations pollute the least.

Yeah right. Boycotts are not an effective means of ensuring that corporations enact good working conditions and good environmental policies, for the simple reason that nobody can be arsed to research every single corporation that they end up supporting with their money every time they make a purchase.

[redcannon]

My problem with the free market:

Over 1 billion people on the planet live on less than 1 dollar a day
because they are exploited by a significantly smaller group of people who make more money then they could ever hope to spend in several lifetimes.

[A SCANNER DARKLY]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 04:23 am
My problem with the free market:

Over 1 billion people on the planet live on less than 1 dollar a day
because they are exploited by a significantly smaller group of people who make more money then they could ever hope to spend in several lifetimes.
And we solve this problem how?

[Eleutherios]

Wealth redistribution. That's what socialism is all about.

[Idola Mentis]

Bit woozy now. Not slept right. If I get my polarities wrong, or the logic bites its own balls, I'll blame that. Everyone else can point and laugh if they like.

People need stuff to live. They get this stuff by cooperating with other people. This is biology. If we decide not to cooperate in some way, we decide to die.

The "some way" bit is not biology, though. We can choose how to do this thing. You suggest a form of cooperation in which the stuff we need to live is provided by donations, checked by "personal responsibility". The latter seems to translate to me as "at X's whim". Combined with the former, it seems to indicate that someone other than me has his finger on the button which turns on and off my life.

I don't like how one single byte of this picture's looking. How about you?

Now, how did we get ourselves into such a nasty situation in the first place? Oh, yes. The "Free" market. The arrangement which allows people to accumulate capital. Translate "capital" as money, resources, whatever. What it really means is "force". The ability to grant and deny life, to pinch or open the tubes which keeps the sims in our little imaginary arrangement alive. (Thank our various gods it's imaginary, eh?) So, they could, theoretically say "be useful in accumulating more power for us, and you get to suck on the teat of life. If not, we don't care. Go play on the highway or something."

Of course, personal responsibility would stop anyone from using their accumulated power in such a horribly unethical manner. Except - enough money can make quite a lot of responsibility suddenly go away. And the people with the most money isn't the people who waste them on unprofitable endeavours.

[wtfm8lol]

Right now, my apartment has practically no food in it, and I only have a couple dollars. There's only one store within walking distance where I can buy something to make for dinner. Let's say I wanted to boycott those corporations which treated their workers most unfairly. I would have to go there (regardless of how that store treats its workers; right now my conditions are such that it is my only option), then write down the names of the corporations that manufactured the food, find out the names of the corporations that manufactured and transported the ingredients in the food, find out the names of the corporations that produced the equipment used in the factories, find out the names of the corporations that transport and repair the equipment used in the factories, find out the names of the corporations that provide electricity and telephone service to the factories, etc. etc. etc. Then, after I had this long list of corporations, I would have to do extensive research into the ways workers are treated by these various corporations (where the hell am I going to find a reliable source for all that information?). After I did that, I would have to average up all the unfair ways that workers were treated by the various corporations that correspond to each product, and figure out which of the products I can afford involved the least amount of worker exploitation, and buy it, whether or not it's tasty or nutritious. It becomes even more of a conundrum if I take your suggestion of considering which corporations pollute the least.

and yet you're sitting here on the internet debating vague futuristic economic systems..why don't you get a job? and if you have one, why don't you go back to school so you can get a better one?


for the simple reason that nobody can be arsed to research every single corporation that they end up supporting with their money every time they make a purchase.

Of course they can't, since they have absolutely no reason to. they trust the government to, even though it doesnt. it can't be hard to imagine that if people gave up on trusting the government to do it, organizations would do the research for the general public and let them know what corporations were doing what.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 06:17 am

Right now, my apartment has practically no food in it, and I only have a couple dollars. There's only one store within walking distance where I can buy something to make for dinner. Let's say I wanted to boycott those corporations which treated their workers most unfairly. I would have to go there (regardless of how that store treats its workers; right now my conditions are such that it is my only option), then write down the names of the corporations that manufactured the food, find out the names of the corporations that manufactured and transported the ingredients in the food, find out the names of the corporations that produced the equipment used in the factories, find out the names of the corporations that transport and repair the equipment used in the factories, find out the names of the corporations that provide electricity and telephone service to the factories, etc. etc. etc. Then, after I had this long list of corporations, I would have to do extensive research into the ways workers are treated by these various corporations (where the hell am I going to find a reliable source for all that information?). After I did that, I would have to average up all the unfair ways that workers were treated by the various corporations that correspond to each product, and figure out which of the products I can afford involved the least amount of worker exploitation, and buy it, whether or not it's tasty or nutritious. It becomes even more of a conundrum if I take your suggestion of considering which corporations pollute the least.

and yet you're sitting here on the internet debating vague futuristic economic systems..why don't you get a job? and if you have one, why don't you go back to school so you can get a better one?


for the simple reason that nobody can be arsed to research every single corporation that they end up supporting with their money every time they make a purchase.

Of course they can't, since they have absolutely no reason to. they trust the government to, even though it doesnt. it can't be hard to imagine that if people gave up on trusting the government to do it, organizations would do the research for the general public and let them know what corporations were doing what.
I like how you told me that you're not looking for an argument...and then spin around and try to argue with other posts. If you're not interested in arguments (which is what you previously claimed), shut your mouth and don't argue with the opinions you asked for in the first place.

Oh, and it IS possible to post on the internet while being broke. Furthermore, the fact is that going to school is costly, not just in money but in time as well. If you're in school it's far harder to make ends meet, and that's not a position you want to be in (especially if you're trying to boycott most available stores, if one follows your insipid advice).

We're talking about working people in the REAL WORLD with REAL NEEDS, not people who can run off to school whenever they feel like it.

[RebelDog]

The free market is not a suitable system for meeting even the basic needs of billions of people on this planet, food, water, shelter, basic drugs etc. It all depends on what you think this planet and its resources should be used for. Should this planet's resources be used to give a minority of masters a life of luxury and comfort, or should they be used for the benefit and prosperity of all? The free-market is the system for ensuring the former is true, the latter will come when the free-market is but a past human epoch.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 06:17 am
and yet you're sitting here on the internet debating vague futuristic economic systems..why don't you get a job? and if you have one, why don't you go back to school so you can get a better one?
Uhh, I do have a job. And I am going to school. I'm not a mooch or a lazy bum, if that's what you're implying.

But that's completely irrelevant anyhow. And yes, I am debating vague futuristic economic systems — what's the problem with that? I don't think the current economic system is operating as well as an economic system could, I would like to see it replaced, and if we are going to do that we have to have some idea of what our options are as far as future economic systems go. If our thoughts right now are vague, it is because we cannot foresee the future and we cannot make decisions for our descendants, and also because no economic system works according to an absolute unchanging framework — every economic system varies from community to community, and from society to society, and from year to year, in how it works. You can paint a broad brush as to what feudalism looks like, what capitalism looks like, what communism looks like, but the finer details of any economic system will vary across space and time.

Of course they can't, since they have absolutely no reason to. they trust the government to, even though it doesnt. it can't be hard to imagine that if people gave up on trusting the government to do it, organizations would do the research for the general public and let them know what corporations were doing what.
Well, why don't you start one of these organizations and see if you can't convince enough people to boycott the right products so we can fix the environmental problems and poor working conditions that have plagued capitalism from the beginning? It's not going to work. Nobody's going to pick up your newsletter and choose their brand of peanut butter based on what you say about which peanut butter company pollutes the most. They're going to look at the shelf and pick the peanut butter that costs less or tastes better than the other peanut butters, and go on with their day.

People buy way too much shit from way too many corporations to be bothered to learn how much harm is being caused by every corporation they buy stuff from, and the vast majority of people simply don't care about that stuff as much as they care about the relative qualities and prices of the available products. And of course, the corporations that produce the best quality stuff for the cheapest price are those corporations that don't spend a lot of money on good working conditions and good environmental policies. It's better, from a profit-making standpoint, to eliminate as many of these uncritical costs as possible and to try to spend most of your expenses improving the actual finished product. So ultimately it's in almost every corporation's best interests to ignore the minuscule percentage of well-informed customers who prioritize good working conditions and good environmental policy over quality and price. A corporation just has to make sure it doesn't cause so much more harm than the other corporations that it ends up attracting media attention. It's not that people are putting too much trust in the government to stop it, it's that they accept it as an everyday part of capitalism and on the whole they don't care which corporations are doing it worse than others when they're thinking about which products and services they want to purchase.

[wtfm8lol]

I like how you told me that you're not looking for an argument...and then spin around and try to argue with other posts. If you're not interested in arguments (which is what you previously claimed), shut your mouth and don't argue with the opinions you asked for in the first place.

ya, sorry about that. i was just looking for your criticisms for an economics essay so i wasnt looking for an argument then, but by the time this guy posted, i was finished with the essay so i was at that point looking for an argument.



Oh, and it IS possible to post on the internet while being broke. Furthermore, the fact is that going to school is costly, not just in money but in time as well. If you're in school it's far harder to make ends meet, and that's not a position you want to be in (especially if you're trying to boycott most available stores, if one follows your insipid advice).

I'll agree with you that my idea wouldnt work right now because people don't give a shit. they have the mentality that the government will take care of the societal problems corporations cause and so they have absolutely no reason to care. in addition a single person isnt going to make the slightest difference, but if the entire consumer base had the mentality that it was their responsibility to keep corporations in check, (i think) things would be far different.


Uhh, I do have a job. And I am going to school. I'm not a mooch or a lazy bum, if that's what you're implying.

But that's completely irrelevant anyhow. And yes, I am debating vague futuristic economic systems — what's the problem with that? I don't think the current economic system is operating as well as an economic system could, I would like to see it replaced, and if we are going to do that we have to have some idea of what our options are as far as future economic systems go. If our thoughts right now are vague, it is because we cannot foresee the future and we cannot make decisions for our descendants, and also because no economic system works according to an absolute unchanging framework — every economic system varies from community to community, and from society to society, and from year to year, in how it works. You can paint a broad brush as to what feudalism looks like, what capitalism looks like, what communism looks like, but the finer details of any economic system will vary across space and time.

Well it just seems to me that if you only have a few dollars, you could find a more productive way to spend your time than debating on the internet.


Well, why don't you start one of these organizations and see if you can't convince enough people to boycott the right products so we can fix the environmental problems and poor working conditions that have plagued capitalism from the beginning? It's not going to work. Nobody's going to pick up your newsletter and choose their brand of peanut butter based on what you say about which peanut butter company pollutes the most. They're going to look at the shelf and pick the peanut butter that costs less or tastes better than the other peanut butters, and go on with their day.

I won't because no one gives a shit. remember, we're not talking about how things are now. this topic is about a theoretical system where the people do give a shit about all of the results of their transactions.


It's not that people are putting too much trust in the government to stop it, it's that they accept it as an everyday part of capitalism and on the whole they don't care which corporations are doing it worse than others when they're thinking about which products and services they want to purchase.

and this is where i'd disagree with you. i think that the people don't care about what the corporations do because they don't have to care. as long as most people have been alive, the government has been the one to try to keep corporations in check, so the people have never had any reason to care, even though the government does a reasonably shitty job at it.

oh and manic, i'm not really sorry. i was just using that as an expression, really. take the stick out of your ass.

[R_P_A_S]

i personally hate it when im in Meixico and theres a shopping mall with Wal Mart, KFC, GNC, and Home Depot...

[Tungsten]

Should this planet's resources be used to give a minority of masters a life of luxury and comfort, or should they be used for the benefit and prosperity of all?False dichotomy.


The "some way" bit is not biology, though. We can choose how to do this thing. You suggest a form of cooperation in which the stuff we need to live is provided by donations, checked by "personal responsibility". The latter seems to translate to me as "at X's whim". Combined with the former, it seems to indicate that someone other than me has his finger on the button which turns on and off my life.

I don't like how one single byte of this picture's looking. How about you?
And so you believe that your way to aleviate this problem is through "socialism", which you believe will leave you independent and in complete control of your life.
I'll leave it to someone else to put you out of your misery. It isn't going to happen.

Now, how did we get ourselves into such a nasty situation in the first place? Oh, yes. The "Free" market. The arrangement which allows people to accumulate capital. Translate "capital" as money, resources, whatever. What it really means is "force".
No one can force you to do anything with money. They can only bribe.

The ability to grant and deny life,
That's it's biggest advantage. People, including you, can do what they like without being tied to (read: enslaved by) everyone else. That's independence.

So, they could, theoretically say "be useful in accumulating more power for us, and you get to suck on the teat of life. If not, we don't care. Go play on the highway or something."
And you're free to do the same to them by striking. Aint life a *****.


Then, after I had this long list of corporations, I would have to do extensive research into the ways workers are treated by these various corporations (where the hell am I going to find a reliable source for all that information?).
Then how do you know they're being exploited? Some of them are, but what's the bet you accepted this as fact without bothering to question it?

[Eleutherios]

Well it just seems to me that if you only have a few dollars, you could find a more productive way to spend your time than debating on the internet.
I work for minimum wage and I only get so many hours per week because I spend a lot of time at class and doing schoolwork at home. Plus, lately I've been helping out my friend a lot with her financial problems because she's had her hours cut at work, one of her roommates moved out suddenly so she has a lot of bills she can't afford to pay on her own, and her mother is in the hospital being treated for cancer. You see, I'm not a capitalist, so I'm not going to just horde up as much money as I possibly can. If I can help someone out who I care about, and that means I have to tighten my belt in the meantime, I will. I'm perfectly happy eating macaroni and cheese for a while if it means one of my best friends won't have to live on the streets.

And why are you suggesting that I shouldn't be debating on the Internet just because I don't have a lot of money? I don't get that. Why do you want to see the opinions of the poor excluded from Internet debate? Just because I'm not out selling my labor for money or working on classwork right now, I shouldn't be allowed to spend some of my free time debating economics on the Internet?

You seem to be implying, again, that I'm some sort of lazy bum who just doesn't want to do anything productive. I realize there is this stereotype among capitalists who don't actually know any socialists in real life that they are lazy and opposed to productivity, because it helps you rationalize your inane beliefs about what motivates us. Please stop, because it simply isn't true. I work my ass off every day, and I am proud to be a productive member of society. What more do you want me to do?

I won't because no one gives a shit. remember, we're not talking about how things are now. this topic is about a theoretical system where the people do give a shit about all of the results of their transactions.
Well, what's your plan for arriving at this theoretical system? What are you doing to change everybody's mind so they care more about corporate ethics than about price and quality?

and this is where i'd disagree with you. i think that the people don't care about what the corporations do because they don't have to care. as long as most people have been alive, the government has been the one to try to keep corporations in check, so the people have never had any reason to care, even though the government does a reasonably shitty job at it.
So you're blaming it all on the government making people indifferent? If this is the case, then we should expect to see, historically, a large emphasis on boycotts and corporate ethics in the public sphere in societies where there was minimal government interference in the market. What's the evidence for that? Did it really work miracles to keep corporations in check?

And do we see significantly more indifference in countries where the government does more to keep corporations in check? It seems, on the contrary, that the social democratic type governments that do more to keep corporations in check are supported by populaces that are more strongly opposed to and aware of the unethical practices of capitalist corporations.

[wtfm8lol]

Well, what's your plan for arriving at this theoretical system? What are you doing to change everybody's mind so they care more about corporate ethics than about price and quality?

i dont have one and i dont intend to come up with one.


So you're blaming it all on the government making people indifferent? If this is the case, then we should expect to see, historically, a large emphasis on boycotts and corporate ethics in the public sphere in societies where there was minimal government interference in the market. What's the evidence for that? Did it really work miracles to keep corporations in check?

when in the history of capitalism has there ever been a small amount of government involvement in the economy? and don't tell me the late 1800's and early 1900's because the government was very in favor of business over workers and didn't do its job of keeping the peace.


And do we see significantly more indifference in countries where the government does more to keep corporations in check? It seems, on the contrary, that the social democratic type governments that do more to keep corporations in check are supported by populaces that are more strongly opposed to and aware of the unethical practices of capitalist corporations.

i'd need some evidence of this.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 04:38 am
Wealth redistribution. That's what socialism is all about.
No it is not, it is about ending the coercive redistribution that takes part in capitalism, where the state intervenes on the side of the ruling classes(as it is made up of some of them.) to take from the producers and give to the idle.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 09:03 pm
You see, I'm not a capitalist, so I'm not going to just horde up as much money as I possibly can. If I can help someone out who I care about, and that means I have to tighten my belt in the meantime, I will. I'm perfectly happy eating macaroni and cheese for a while if it means one of my best friends won't have to live on the streets.


Um, plenty of capitalists do this too.

Being a capitalist does not mean you are cutthroat and unwilling to give to charity. I know you clowns all believe it does, but it doesn't.

Do you accept that?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+March 23, 2007 02:03 am--> (t_wolves_fan @ March 23, 2007 02:03 am)
[email protected] 22, 2007 09:03 pm
You see, I'm not a capitalist, so I'm not going to just horde up as much money as I possibly can. If I can help someone out who I care about, and that means I have to tighten my belt in the meantime, I will. I'm perfectly happy eating macaroni and cheese for a while if it means one of my best friends won't have to live on the streets.


Um, plenty of capitalists do this too.

Being a capitalist does not mean you are cutthroat and unwilling to give to charity. I know you clowns all believe it does, but it doesn't.

Do you accept that? [/b]
Yes, some capitalists give crumbs to the poor.

However, the logical conclusion of capitalism is that competition rewards the cutthroats. One must only survey the landscape of business today to see that.

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by manic expression+March 22, 2007 09:15 pm--> (manic expression @ March 22, 2007 09:15 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:03 am

[email protected] 22, 2007 09:03 pm
You see, I'm not a capitalist, so I'm not going to just horde up as much money as I possibly can. If I can help someone out who I care about, and that means I have to tighten my belt in the meantime, I will. I'm perfectly happy eating macaroni and cheese for a while if it means one of my best friends won't have to live on the streets.


Um, plenty of capitalists do this too.

Being a capitalist does not mean you are cutthroat and unwilling to give to charity. I know you clowns all believe it does, but it doesn't.

Do you accept that?
Yes, some capitalists give crumbs to the poor.

However, the logical conclusion of capitalism is that competition rewards the cutthroats. One must only survey the landscape of business today to see that. [/b]
whereas other capitalists give a quarter trillion to the poor annually (http://www.aafrc.org/press_releases/trustreleases/0606_PR.pdf) and more every year even after adjusting for inflation

[RGacky3]

Thats true, and some dictators are very nice to their people.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:40 pm

Well, what's your plan for arriving at this theoretical system? What are you doing to change everybody's mind so they care more about corporate ethics than about price and quality?

i dont have one and i dont intend to come up with one.
So then admit that your theory is a completely useless one. If you're not willing to do anything to support your economic theory and are not willing to offer any suggestions as to how it could possibly be implemented, then what good does it do to have the theory in the first place? Ideals that are discussed but never acted upon amount to nothing but sound waves. You might as well be a non-practicing feudalist.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:34 am

whereas other capitalists give a quarter trillion to the poor annually (http://www.aafrc.org/press_releases/trustreleases/0606_PR.pdf) and more every year even after adjusting for inflation
Umm this thread is about free markets and capitalists particularly those so rich as you mention have nothing to do with free markets. Their wealth like all that of capitalists comes from their greatest friend; The State!

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:03 am
Um, plenty of capitalists do this too.

Being a capitalist does not mean you are cutthroat and unwilling to give to charity. I know you clowns all believe it does, but it doesn't.

Do you accept that?
Sure, there are charitable capitalists. But charity doesn't pay. Being charitable means giving up a competitive edge, or subverting charity to create a greater edge than those resources could have been if applied elsewhere. In the system of social darwinism capitalists have set up, the charitable are weeded out over time, while the ruthless are rewarded with ever-increasing power.

If you wanted a capitalist system which satisfied need with charity, you would have to make charity profitable. How would you do that?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 04:38 am
Wealth redistribution. That's what socialism is all about.
Wealth redistribution is all that they can come up with, but no ways on how to actually create wealth.

And I'm surprised nobody here has brought up unions and the benefits that they reap for workers.

The problem with unionization of course is that it has priced it's workers out of jobs, or if they are on the government dole, has created problems in state, county and city deficits.

With home ownership at it's highest and with our 'poverty level' in the US making poverty look like the good life compared to third world countries, what indeed can the government do besides hinder it? The government intervention so far in history has only caused problems that the government then can only fix. Yet it makes them worse.

Quality of life today is far better than the 70's. The average home has how many tv's? Cars? Kids? IPods? Dvd players? Swimming pools? College educations? Cable tv?

It was a nice power to the people try, but alas it doesn't add up.

[Idola Mentis]

The average home? I'm sure they've got more. Though I'd like to see your source on that.

I'd recommend you go back to that source. Check how that wealth is distributed, and how the distribution has developed. Maybe even how much of it is, in fact, debt, and what that entails.

If I starve, and my neighbour grows fat on borrowed money, everything's fine. On average. For today.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by wtfm8lol+March 23, 2007 02:34 am--> (wtfm8lol @ March 23, 2007 02:34 am)
Originally posted by manic [email protected] 22, 2007 09:15 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:03 am

[email protected] 22, 2007 09:03 pm
You see, I'm not a capitalist, so I'm not going to just horde up as much money as I possibly can. If I can help someone out who I care about, and that means I have to tighten my belt in the meantime, I will. I'm perfectly happy eating macaroni and cheese for a while if it means one of my best friends won't have to live on the streets.


Um, plenty of capitalists do this too.

Being a capitalist does not mean you are cutthroat and unwilling to give to charity. I know you clowns all believe it does, but it doesn't.

Do you accept that?
Yes, some capitalists give crumbs to the poor.

However, the logical conclusion of capitalism is that competition rewards the cutthroats. One must only survey the landscape of business today to see that.
whereas other capitalists give a quarter trillion to the poor annually (http://www.aafrc.org/press_releases/trustreleases/0606_PR.pdf) and more every year even after adjusting for inflation [/b]
Drops in a bucket, at the most. You cannot seriously tell us that such charity is even close to helping solve the problem. Furthermore, the fact is that capitalism CREATED that very poverty in the first place and adds to it daily. The ignorant mewlings of capitalists, which display not a shred of understanding for the conditions of people throughout the world, is incredibly striking.

[wtfm8lol]

So then admit that your theory is a completely useless one. If you're not willing to do anything to support your economic theory and are not willing to offer any suggestions as to how it could possibly be implemented, then what good does it do to have the theory in the first place? Ideals that are discussed but never acted upon amount to nothing but sound waves. You might as well be a non-practicing feudalist.

i was using you guys to help me write an essay. i didnt have to discuss implementation in the essay so i saw no point in arguing over implementation.

[wtfm8lol]

Drops in a bucket, at the most. You cannot seriously tell us that such charity is even close to helping solve the problem. Furthermore, the fact is that capitalism CREATED that very poverty in the first place and adds to it daily. The ignorant mewlings of capitalists, which display not a shred of understanding for the conditions of people throughout the world, is incredibly striking.

when you consider that its a full 2% of the entire US GDP i'd say its not exactly a drop in a bucket. also if you consider that the average US citizen has 30% of their income taken and can still find the kindness to spare that much money i'd say its pretty significant. and of course that alone isnt enough to solve the problem but it shows that even though people support capitalism they still want to help their neighbors.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:24 pm

Drops in a bucket, at the most. You cannot seriously tell us that such charity is even close to helping solve the problem. Furthermore, the fact is that capitalism CREATED that very poverty in the first place and adds to it daily. The ignorant mewlings of capitalists, which display not a shred of understanding for the conditions of people throughout the world, is incredibly striking.

when you consider that its a full 2% of the entire US GDP i'd say its not exactly a drop in a bucket. also if you consider that the average US citizen has 30% of their income taken and can still find the kindness to spare that much money i'd say its pretty significant. and of course that alone isnt enough to solve the problem but it shows that even though people support capitalism they still want to help their neighbors.
But it really is, because the world is still stricken with gross poverty and inequity. When this charity starts to fix the disgusting amounts of poverty in every country, come and talk to me, but until then, you don't have a valid point.

Furthermore, you completely lost sight of the fact that capitalism is what created that poverty in the first place. The exploitation of the workers is one thing, but the unending amounts of inequity is another, and BOTH are evidence of the putrid nature of capitalism.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 23, 2007 02:15 am

Um, plenty of capitalists do this too.

Being a capitalist does not mean you are cutthroat and unwilling to give to charity. I know you clowns all believe it does, but it doesn't.

Do you accept that?
Yes, some capitalists give crumbs to the poor.

However, the logical conclusion of capitalism is that competition rewards the cutthroats. One must only survey the landscape of business today to see that. [/quote]
Right, the billions upon billions in charity Americans give to victims of tsunamis or hurricanes, which pale in comparison to donations by governments worldwide, amount to mere "crumbs".

The "logical conclusion" usually means slippery slope logical fallacy. Taking your system to its logical conclusion generally results in slavery.

On what you do you base your assumption that you know a lot about capitalism?

[A SCANNER DARKLY]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:31 am
Right, the billions upon billions in charity Americans give to victims of tsunamis or hurricanes, which pale in comparison to donations by governments worldwide, amount to mere "crumbs".
These leftists love to paint us as money grubbing bastards. Truth is, like you pointed out, Americans love helping each other and giving money to charity.

In June 2006 billionaire Warren Buffett gave $31 billion dollars (the largest donation in U.S history) to charity. Half retarded leftists will say this won't mean anything but try telling that to the families whose houses are being bought with this money, or some of the low income students who's tuiton is being financed with this money.

It's quite obvious Americans are some of the most generous people in the world. Generosity from capitalists! :o But how could that be? :rolleyes:

[Brekisonphilous]

My biggest criticism of a free market is, you have to have money to take part in it. As a result, you are forced to produce in order to yield any benefit. How inefficient!
In free market economics, a governing body does not interfere with business as usual. everything is left up to business, essentially consolidating the power that was once in the centralized hands of the government into the hands of business owners. This eliminates safety nets for the poor and the disabled, it would increase the gap between the rich and the poor. You would either have money or you would not.
But I could also see it somehow being easier on the poor, as they would not be burdened with taxes.

Yet that is no excuse to promote a system that relies on the exploitation of workers. Sure, it is there choice to work or not but at the same time, they are forced to. There is no escaping the free market if you resent it, but there is plenty of room to work within it.
If you don't like how the capitalists run their businesses, start your own business or operation as you see fit and just. You could create a highly unionized and democratic work place providing that is able to compete with other businesses and stay afloat.
By doing this, you also increase the likelihood of workers being more fond of the democracy they are given in a place of work such as the one you have created, where wages are equal and the policies fair and subject to change if necessary. This could increase the acceptance of socialism and either lead to a revolution or a society in which the free market and socialism exist side by side, so long as the freedom of one does not conflict with the freedom of another.
Bad working conditions and extreme exploitation would not last in a free market economy. they would not have the support of the workers to compete and these operations would not last in a free market economy without government subsidies.

Of course, some may see the free market as interfering with the freedom of another simply by existing because it relies on the labor of others to produce a product that can be bought and sold. Though the workers are not forced to work for anyone, they are free to come and go as they please and work where ever they find is best suited for their tastes. But ultimately, they are stuck with the reality of not being able to escape this paradigm if they want to survive in the modern world which reduces their freedom.

[RGacky3]

All this talk about Charity is pointless, the point is it should'nt be in the Capitalists hand to decide if he should give money to people or not.

like a Dictator, a dictator can be very nice to his people, or very mean, just because he's nice does'nt give him the right to be a dictator.

Even if all Capitalists were nice, they still exploit, and the system is still injust.

[Brekisonphilous]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 07:02 pm
All this talk about Charity is pointless, the point is it should'nt be in the Capitalists hand to decide if he should give money to people or not.

like a Dictator, a dictator can be very nice to his people, or very mean, just because he's nice does'nt give him the right to be a dictator.

Even if all Capitalists were nice, they still exploit, and the system is still injust.
Exactly. You can't trust the rich to just be heart bleeding generous to the working class, and poverty stricken people world wide. Capitalism promotes an economic system driven by self-interest. When the rich are rich, they want to stay rich because of this mindset and philosophy created by bourgeoisie economics. Sure there can be large sums of money donated, but if we expect these people to be generous and compassionate to the people most oppressed, why allow them to accumulate so much wealth in the first place?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:54 pm
My biggest criticism of a free market is, you have to have money to take part in it. As a result, you are forced to produce in order to yield any benefit. How inefficient!
In free market economics, a governing body does not interfere with business as usual. everything is left up to business, essentially consolidating the power that was once in the centralized hands of the government into the hands of business owners. This eliminates safety nets for the poor and the disabled, it would increase the gap between the rich and the poor. You would either have money or you would not.
But I could also see it somehow being easier on the poor, as they would not be burdened with taxes.

Yet that is no excuse to promote a system that relies on the exploitation of workers. Sure, it is there choice to work or not but at the same time, they are forced to. There is no escaping the free market if you resent it, but there is plenty of room to work within it.
If you don't like how the capitalists run their businesses, start your own business or operation as you see fit and just. You could create a highly unionized and democratic work place providing that is able to compete with other businesses and stay afloat.
By doing this, you also increase the likelihood of workers being more fond of the democracy they are given in a place of work such as the one you have created, where wages are equal and the policies fair and subject to change if necessary. This could increase the acceptance of socialism and either lead to a revolution or a society in which the free market and socialism exist side by side, so long as the freedom of one does not conflict with the freedom of another.
Bad working conditions and extreme exploitation would not last in a free market economy. they would not have the support of the workers to compete and these operations would not last in a free market economy without government subsidies.

Of course, some may see the free market as interfering with the freedom of another simply by existing because it relies on the labor of others to produce a product that can be bought and sold. Though the workers are not forced to work for anyone, they are free to come and go as they please and work where ever they find is best suited for their tastes. But ultimately, they are stuck with the reality of not being able to escape this paradigm if they want to survive in the modern world which reduces their freedom.
Your suggestions are nice- but you forget one thing:

What is the purpose of your company? is it to provide workers with decent jobs? Or is it to provide the community with a needed and wanted item?

[rouchambeau]

People are alienated from their labor.

[RNK]

What is the purpose of your company? is it to provide workers with decent jobs? Or is it to provide the community with a needed and wanted item?

Neither. That's the point.

"Get rich quick!", not "provide humanity with an essential commodity!"

[BurnTheOliveTree]

There is an excellent book, The Corporation, which concerns itself with the nature of corporations. It's a very thorough analysis, I couldn't really imagine a significant objection to it.

Basically, profit is the only end, everything else is means to that end. If they happen to help their communities or give workers decent jobs, fine, but the second that those outcomes are only possible by having lower profit than by not having them, bam. It's all forgotten. Even acts that are superficially selfless, like I dunno, sponsoring a kids football league, are cynical attempts to ingratiate itself with the public, thus encouraging their business, thus increasing profit.

-Alex

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:27 pm
There is an excellent book, The Corporation, which concerns itself with the nature of corporations. It's a very thorough analysis, I couldn't really imagine a significant objection to it.

Basically, profit is the only end, everything else is means to that end. If they happen to help their communities or give workers decent jobs, fine, but the second that those outcomes are only possible by having lower profit than by not having them, bam. It's all forgotten. Even acts that are superficially selfless, like I dunno, sponsoring a kids football league, are cynical attempts to ingratiate itself with the public, thus encouraging their business, thus increasing profit.

-Alex
What is profit? Is it not simply the value of a finished good to be greater thn the sums of its parts?

Socialism must also produce for a profit as well.

[KC]

I don't understand why we're talking about charitable capitalists; that's a pretty irrelevant concept to Marxist theory and really doesn't prove it wrong at all.


What is profit? Is it not simply the value of a finished good to be greater thn the sums of its parts?

How is the value of a finished good raised above the total value of the parts used? Labor.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 25, 2007 10:45 pm
I don't understand why we're talking about charitable capitalists; that's a pretty irrelevant concept to Marxist theory and really doesn't prove it wrong at all.


What is profit? Is it not simply the value of a finished good to be greater thn the sums of its parts?

How is the value of a finished good raised above the total value of the parts used? Labor.
No. Because the item is needed and wanted by the community.

[KC]

No. Because the item is needed and wanted by the community.

I have no idea how this is relevant to my post in any way at all. Obviously if something has value it is useful. I don't think I ever denied that.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 26, 2007 07:57 am

No. Because the item is needed and wanted by the community.

I have no idea how this is relevant to my post in any way at all. Obviously if something has value it is useful. I don't think I ever denied that.
You stated it was labor which placed the value above of a finishwed product above its component part. That is not what determines. What determines it is that the product is valued by the community.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I attacked the very heart of leftism and nobody cares to respond?



Wealth redistribution is all that they can come up with, but no ways on how to actually create wealth.

And I'm surprised nobody here has brought up unions and the benefits that they reap for workers.

The problem with unionization of course is that it has priced it's workers out of jobs, or if they are on the government dole, has created problems in state, county and city deficits.

With home ownership at it's highest and with our 'poverty level' in the US making poverty look like the good life compared to third world countries, what indeed can the government do besides hinder it? The government intervention so far in history has only caused problems that the government then can only fix. Yet it makes them worse.

Quality of life today is far better than the 70's. The average home has how many tv's? Cars? Kids? IPods? Dvd players? Swimming pools? College educations? Cable tv?

It was a nice power to the people try, but alas it doesn't add up.

[wtfm8lol]

Basically, profit is the only end, everything else is means to that end. If they happen to help their communities or give workers decent jobs, fine, but the second that those outcomes are only possible by having lower profit than by not having them, bam. It's all forgotten. Even acts that are superficially selfless, like I dunno, sponsoring a kids football league, are cynical attempts to ingratiate itself with the public, thus encouraging their business, thus increasing profit.

you seem to be opposed to corporations giving back to their communities so that members of that community will support that corporation over a corporation that doesn't. essentially, both parties benefit. why do you object to this?

[KC]

You stated it was labor which placed the value above of a finishwed product above its component part. That is not what determines. What determines it is that the product is valued by the community.

If you want to split hairs then you are correct. However, I was making the assumption that the good already had a use value so that we could discuss the exchange value of the good, which is what I was talking about. So we're both right.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I object in principle more than in practice. We're digressing from leftism here, but hey ho.

Basically, it is in the corporation's nature to pursure profit regardless of anything. Obeying the law, for example, is only good because the company can't be illegal and keep on making profits. In theory. :)

Ethics are of no concern to them except in so far as they increase profit. This is just a dangerous situation. Walmart and General Motors can say, axe a few thousand jobs, comfortably.

As to the win-win situation, it is temporary and unfair at best. The corporation need only occasionally give a little to keep up it's PR, in return for the workers keeping the suits at the top in a ridiculous level of comfort, especially given the poverty in the world.

The best you can hope for in capitalism is Bill Gates style mass charity, from an individual.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Quality of life today is far better than the 70's. The average home has how many tv's? Cars? Kids? IPods? Dvd players? Swimming pools? College educations? Cable tv?


Globalisation. In the west we are richer, but let's take a look at the progress of lifestyle in say, Mozambique, or the economic growth of Zambia.

-Alex

[omegaflare]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:21 pm
Well that basically sums it all up in one very short, yet perfectly accurate sentence. There's not much else to say. Corporations will always, always, always, put profit above morality. But here's one, I guess.

Workers are unavoidably connected to, and subjected to, the promiscuity of a market on the other side of the world, whose existence, however unstable, determines their livelihood.
Allow me to play the Devil's advocate here.

While corporations will always place profit above morality, can we give a measure to morality?

Yes we can. We can take the amount of a certain product that is being bought the the consumer. If the consumer agrees with the corporation, then it is the consumer that is giving consent (tacit or participatory) to the actions of the corporation.

And even if we can regulate morality, then what's to stop the consumer (except in the case of a power-wielding monopoly with a demanded unique product) to "vote" with their money and buy from a more ethical company?

Is that not a type of corporate regulation?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Wealth redistribution is all that they can come up with, but no ways on how to actually create wealth.
The means of production will remain intact; they will simply change hands.


And I'm surprised nobody here has brought up unions and the benefits that they reap for workers.

The problem with unionization of course is that it has priced it's workers out of jobs, or if they are on the government dole, has created problems in state, county and city deficits.
Em, exactly? Not sure what your point is here. Capitalism is bad, mkay



With home ownership at it's highest and with our 'poverty level' in the US making poverty look like the good life compared to third world countries, what indeed can the government do besides hinder it? The government intervention so far in history has only caused problems that the government then can only fix. Yet it makes them worse.
I assume you're talking about capitalist society here, and that's the problem; you have one institution charged with the task of representing and protecting the people, and a separate institution (the bourgeois) whose job is to provide for society. The problem is in the heterogeneity of the social infrastructure under capitalism. The bourgeois screws over humanity, the government tries to intervene, fucks things up even worse (according to you). Our (the Socialists') proposed solution is to both institutions into one institution that is truly representative of the people.



Quality of life today is far better than the 70's. The average home has how many tv's? Cars? Kids? IPods? Dvd players? Swimming pools? College educations? Cable tv?
As BTOT said, it's because of globalization. The wealth gap between the first and third worlds is staggering, another sign of capitalism's failure to adequately provide for its subjects.