See the light my friends

[bowelscab]

Capitalism


Capitalism generally started as an economic system in the United Kingdom at the time of the Industrial Revolution. The basic explanation of Capitalism would be to say that
'the economy is left to its own devices with no Government intervention'.


A Capitalist economy is a market economy where all economic decision making is decentralised, and the Government will only supply national defence, administer justice and provide certain public works.


The goods that are provided in a Capitalist economy are decided by individuals who choose how to use their labour and spend their income. All resources are privately owned and will only be used for obtaining the highest profit.


Advantages of Capitalism


There are many advantages to a Capitalist economic system which could make it very appealing to society.


The system allows the powers of market forces to operate which in turn gives the consumer a wider range of goods and services. Also because producers are always seeking the highest profit they must try to please the consumer and win their custom. This leads to innovation and greater quality and variety.


The firms which produce the correct goods and services will win custom and make profit, those which don't will go out of business and therefore release their resources to the successful firms. This will lead to the expansion of the economy and greater prosperity.


Disadvantages of Socialism


Socialism is a very idealistic theory and, as proved in many examples, such as the Soviet Union, doesn't always follow all the rules of pure Socialism and therefore creates many disadvantages.


For a start wealth isn't always distributed equally, the rulers of the state will live in luxury while others will not. The economy will also suffer from excessive amounts of bureaucracy and will be slow and cumbersome. Also there will be a lack of innovation, and goods will be of a poor standard because effort will not be rewarded. A doctor could earn the same as a street cleaner, this wouldn't make seven years at medical school a very appealing option.


Socialism oppresses many aspects of human nature which, however good or bad, make us the individuals that we are, these aspects could include; ambition, greed and generosity.



Paul Kielty

[PunkRawker677]

<<Socialism oppresses many aspects of human nature which, however good or bad, make us the individuals that we are, these aspects could include; ambition, greed and generosity. >>

Ahh.. human nature... if greed is human nature than so is murder and rape etc...

so, we should all go out and kill our neighbors and rape our friend.. its our human right!! (please...)

[Solzhenitsyn]

Ahh.. human nature... if greed is human nature than so is murder and rape etc...

Your attempt to refute his argument by the inertia of your own stupidity has failed. Greed is an emotion. Rape and murder are violent criminal acts. When's the last time you felt 'rape' or 'murder'? I suppose you mean anger and lust always lead to criminal acts. Wrong. We've all felt a lot of anger and a lot of lust. But none of us (at least to my knowledge) has raped or murdered any body.

so, we should all go out and kill our neighbors and rape our friend.. its our human right!! (please...)


What capitalist thinks that rape and murder are inalienable rights? None.

[vox]

"Socialism oppresses many aspects of human nature which, however good or bad, make us the individuals that we are, these aspects could include; ambition, greed and generosity."

That's quite a claim. I can see why you left it unsubstantiated.

Still, there are a couple of problems with it, the first being it's self-contradictory. See, you say that human nature, which would be something that, by virtue of its very definition, all humans have in common, is what makes us "individuals." Clearly this is a flawed statement.

Dealing specifically with the "human nature" argument, I have to wonder what human nature actually is. If capitalist social relations are part of human nature, then how could feudalism, with its very different social relations, have existed? Certainly no one is going to confuse capitalism and feudalism. Indeed, human behavior, cross-culturally and historically, is so incredibly varied that I suggest it is impossible to define any absolute, unchanging "human nature."

vox

[Fires of History]

LOL, simple minds...

Rape and murder are the result of emotions, and are at there base rooted in emotional trouble.

Just as capitali$m is the result of the emotion of greed. But both are crimes. Human emotion, simply brought to excess and justified. Does the murderer think he's doing something wrong? Does the rapist? Does the capitali$t? No. But that's doesn't justify it.

And I think exploitation of resources, oppressive conglomerates, callous leadership, dehumanizing working standards, alienating labor, and enslaving the masses in entirely more an issue than any common crime.

PunkRawker was definitely on to something...

[Guest]

i'm still not convinced socialism really works...

[reagan lives]

"Dealing specifically with the 'human nature' argument, I have to wonder what human nature actually is."
We have tread this ground before, vox, and if memory serves it ended as most of our little dances do...with you withdrawing into the Commie Club or wherever to lick your wounds for a couple of weeks. "Human nature" in this context is a misnomer. You know this. I know you know this, because I taught you this. So stop trying to trip people up on semantic issues.

"See, you say that human nature, which would be something that, by virtue of its very definition, all humans have in common, is what makes us 'individuals.' Clearly this is a flawed statement."
I know you're a first-rate sophist, vox, but some kinds of stupidity just can't be faked. Is it "flawed" to say that "my hair makes me an individual?" Clearly, many people express their individuality through their hairstyle. Yet we all have hair. The presence of hair, just like the presence of "aspects of human nature," does not define us as individuals. It is how we wear our hair, just like how we control, express, or deny those "aspects" that make us individuals. Again, I think you know this already, and are simply substituting semantics for actual substantive argument.

"If capitalist social relations are part of human nature"
Nobody said they were.

Fires of History:
"Just as capitalism is the result of the emotion of greed."
I disagree.

[Moskitto]

What capitalist thinks that rape and murder are inalienable rights? None.

What socialist here has denied the Cambodian Genocide? You make claims so we make claims, If you don't like it, don't make claims.

[vox]

"We have tread this ground before, vox, and if memory serves it ended as most of our little dances do...with you withdrawing into the Commie Club or wherever to lick your wounds for a couple of weeks. "Human nature" in this context is a misnomer. You know this. I know you know this, because I taught you this. So stop trying to trip people up on semantic issues."

Another one of Reagan's fabulous non-answers. He even goes so far to say that what the poster said isn't what was meant. Somehow, I'm still wrong, of course.

"I know you're a first-rate sophist, vox, but some kinds of stupidity just can't be faked. Is it "flawed" to say that "my hair makes me an individual?" Clearly, many people express their individuality through their hairstyle. Yet we all have hair. The presence of hair, just like the presence of "aspects of human nature," does not define us as individuals. It is how we wear our hair, just like how we control, express, or deny those "aspects" that make us individuals. Again, I think you know this already, and are simply substituting semantics for actual substantive argument."

It's not semantics at all, of course. It's not my fault that words have meaning, something a lot of people in this place wish to ignore.

Fact is, your example fails, for hair is, of course, nothing like "human nature," one being a material fact and the other being a philosophical abstraction. Beyond that, you suggest that "human nature" is as malleable as a hairdo, which, in the context of the original post, refutes the argument.

Let's summarize:

Reagan says that human nature is a "misnomer" in this case, which would make the original post wrong. I say that the post is wrong, Reagan says I'm wrong.

Reagan uses a very bad metaphor to say that, even though the first post was wrong, the first post is right, in that it's "'aspects' (of human nature) that make us individuals." So, once again, we're left with a supposed universal absolute being responsible for what is individual and subjective.

You do take after your namesake, Reagan. Now, you can try to make an argument or, as usual, simply make accusations and call me a sophist some more. Either way, it should be funny.

vox


(Edited by vox at 11:22 pm on April 16, 2002)

[Solzhenitsyn]

LOL, simple minds...

Only yours, Fires of Hell.

Rape and murder are the result of emotions, and are at there base rooted in emotional trouble.

Just as capitali$m is the result of the emotion of greed. But both are crimes. Human emotion, simply brought to excess and justified. Does the murderer think he's doing something wrong? Does the rapist? Does the capitali$t? No. But that's doesn't justify it.

All human actions are a result of emotion(s). Name one that is not.

Just as Marxism is a result of self-hate and envy, so to murder is the result of anger. Both are crimes against humanity. Does the Marxist think he is doing wrong? Does the murderer? The murderer doesn't even consider the morality of his act until the deed is done. On the other hand, Marxists constantly rationalize their crimes before, during and after their perpetration.

And I think exploitation of resources, oppressive conglomerates, callous leadership, dehumanizing working standards, alienating labor, and enslaving the masses in entirely more an issue than any common crime.

Slavery? Where are the chains, walls, fences, barbed wire, and guard towers?
Oh yeah, here they are: http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk1...sjk/kolyma.html (http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/sjk/kolyma.html)

Speaking of common crimes, go inform yourself on the quite common crimes of Marxism:
http://ok.w3.lt/cgi-bin/2000.pl?crimes.htm

Then test your newly found knowledge here:
http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi/museum1.cgi

PunkRawker was definitely on to something...

No. not really.


(Edited by Solzhenitsyn at 7:35 pm on April 16, 2002)

[reagan lives]

"Another one of Reagan's fabulous non-answers. He even goes so far to say that what the poster said isn't what was meant. Somehow, I'm still wrong, of course."
If you remember our last engagement on this topic, which I'm sure you do, I don't agree with the "human nature" argument any more than you do. I wasn't claiming anything about the veracity of the original post, I was just pointing out (again) what an intellectual charlatan you are (as if anyone here needs to be reminded of that).

"Fact is, your example fails, for hair is, of course, nothing like 'human nature,' one being a material fact and the other being a philosophical abstraction. Beyond that, you suggest that "human nature" is as malleable as a hairdo, which, in the context of the original post, refutes the argument."
The original argument (which I know you usually like to ignore) was about the expression of emotions. You're (absurd) point was that, since the labelling of said emotions as "aspects of human nature," implied universal sharing of said emotions, they could not be said to "define us as individuals." I, eloquently, pointed out that the sharing of ambiguous and diverse traits like emotions and hair, while being indeed the things that define us as a species, can also function as the things that define us as individuals. Here, I would usually say that "I think you understand this," but, again, some kinds of stupidity just can't be faked.

"Reagan says that human nature is a "misnomer" in this case, which would make the original post wrong. I say that the post is wrong, Reagan says I'm wrong."

My point about you is captured perfectly in this statement. My position was that, while the semantics that you prey upon were indeed wrong, the ideas behind them were not without truth. You, typically, sidestepped those ideas by attacking the semantics. In the words of the Dude, "You're not wrong, Walter, you're just an asshole."

"Reagan uses a very bad metaphor to say that, even though the first post was wrong, the first post is right,"
I'm reminded of Agusto's argument that you're entire problem is that you see the entire world in dichotomies. Either the whole post is right, or the whole post is wrong. What are you, 12 years old?

Look, the entire reason why I wrote the last post was to expose how silly, irrelevant, and fallacious your arguments are. And I think you've pretty much proved my point here.

[Anonymous]

Disadvatages of Capitalism:

Income Distribution
Without intervention by governments, the distribution of income in a market economy can create significant inequities. If households' incomes are based solely on the ability to supply economic resources, then some individuals in the economy might no earn enough even to provide for their basic needs.

Market Problems
Other dficiencies of market economies arise when private markets do not always operate in a way that benefits society as a whole. Negative external effects of economic activity - for example, pollution - may require intervention by governments to prevent harm to the society. Negative internal effects may also cause governments to step in; for example, when one or a few companies control a certain product market, thus depriving consumers of the advantages of competition.

Instability
Finally, expierience has shown that market economies can display considerable instability in the total output produced from year to year. Such fluctuations can harm the economy's participants through substantial variations in prices or employment levels. The recession of 1990-91 for example, caused tremendous dislocation, with great human cost.

[Anonymous]

Advantages of Communsim

Income Distribution
A country that adopts a command system can choose to distribute income among its citiziens based on considerations other than purely economic ones. in these economies, an attempt is usually made to distribute income more equally than would be the case with market economies.

Economic Growth
Central planners can focus on promoting the rate of economic growth by devoting more resources to capital goods than would be the case in a market economy. This strategy can be particularly effective when an economy is first building a manufacturing sector. During this stage of developement, economic growth is closely tied to the quantity of capital goods, such as machines and factories, that an economy possesses.

[Anonymous]

But on the other hand:

Capitalsim has benefits in

Consumer Sovereignty
Prices
Competition
Innovation

and

Communism has disadvantages in

Planning Difficulties
Inefficiencies
Lack of Freedom


The best solution is and will always be a MIXED ECONOMY.

By combining the two systems, a productiv and fair society can establish. eg: Sweden, France etc.

[Angie]

bowelscab. Bowel scab. What a curiously appropriate nickname for a Cappie. :)

[Vladimir]

His name is Paul, typical dope......mu ha h ahope ure readin paul.
I know the guy, not bad of a guy, tryin to close Sellafield at the mo by selling things in school.......Though he is evil and pure evil, has a compound with armed guards and 30 dogs............ Guards wear see through face guards and has made all of his vents and air ducts smaller to stop heros gettin in.................pure evil!!!

[Vladimir]

What about sweatshops, exploitation of children, the poverty line, US policys, a select few getting all the profits.........Capitalism is definatly not perfect.

[vox]

First Reagan writes, "If you remember our last engagement on this topic, which I'm sure you do, I don't agree with the "human nature" argument any more than you do."

Okay, so far so good. But then he writes, "My position was that, while the semantics that you prey upon were indeed wrong, the ideas behind them were not without truth."

Hmmm.

At this point, I'm wondering if Reagan understands the meaning of the word "semantics." It doesn't appear likely.

Regardless, the only meat in his post comes when he writes, "I'm reminded of Agusto's argument that you're entire problem is that you see the entire world in dichotomies. Either the whole post is right, or the whole post is wrong."

This is an odd thing to say, for I didn't talk about the whole post, but only one aspect of it. Too, in my response to him, I talked about the contradictory nature of his post. Now I'm wondering if Reagan know what dichotomy means, for every contradiction isn't necesarrily a dichotomy.

"The original argument (which I know you usually like to ignore) was about the expression of emotions."

Well, no, it wasn't. Expression never entered into the picture at all. Rather, we were given a short list of possibilities, which could include pretty much anything, but, I suggest, were specifically chosen to imply, in the context of the post, the idea that capitalism fits in neatly with some undefined "human nature." Reagan chooses to ignore what was written. I do not.

Indeed, if we get into the expression of such things, then we have to talk about the social constructed avenues of acceptable expression and the material conditions of access to these avenues.

So, Reagan can say that he wasn't writing about the "veracity of the original post" but then write that his position is that "the ideas (in the original post) were not without truth." Just another typical contradiction from Reagan, that no one, of course, is supposed to notice. He seems to want it both ways, but fails terribly at establishing either.

vox

[bowelscab]

See, you say that human nature, which would be something that, by virtue of its very definition, all humans have in common, is what makes us "individuals." Clearly this is a flawed statement.

Indeed, human behavior, cross-culturally and historically, is so incredibly varied that I suggest it is impossible to define any absolute, unchanging "human nature."



With regard to these statements vox, firstly you argue that "human nature" cannot justify individualism, in the sense that 'everyone has it, so how can we be individual?'

Then you ignorantly contradict yourself by stating that "human nature" cannot be defined as it is so varied. Make your mind up, either it is a definate article, i.e. one thing that we all posess, or it's a multitude of feelings, thoughts, morals, etc.

Obviously it is the latter of these.


"'Socialism oppresses many aspects of human nature which, however good or bad, make us the individuals that we are, these aspects could include; ambition, greed and generosity.'

That's quite a claim. I can see why you left it unsubstantiated"


Do I really need to substantiate the fact that ambition, greed and generosity are individual characteristics? If you mean with regards to socialism:

Ambition - This is covered by the Doctor/Road Sweeper point

Greed - Definately a human characteristic, which needs to be satisfied. We cannot be greedy in a socialist state as, quite obviously, everyone has an equal share. I didn't think Lamens terms were necessary.

Generosity - In a capitalist state (and realists argue in all examples of Communist states), there will be rich and there will be poor, therefore it is the rich who will hold most of the power. It is then an option to give a little to the poor who don't necessarily deserve it, whether financially or otherwise. This is a moral venture and the money is given as a gift, not taken away by a socialist state and re-distributed.

I don't think I need embarass you any more, everyone else seems to be doing the job just fine.


(Edited by bowelscab at 4:52 pm on April 17, 2002)

[Guest]

notice how angie doesn't contribute to the debate with facts or evidence. She merely appears for an odd witicism( if you can call it that) and then fades away. His name has got nothing to do with your ignorance. If you wanna particpate in the conversation, then do so maturely. Oh look at you you have a weird name. Gee that was really amusing when someone was 5 years old!

[bowelscab]

ahh Ray I'm not claiming Capitalism is perfect, no political theory is I'm afraid. If it was, we wouldn't be here debating.

Sweat shops, multinationals exploiting workers, poverty line, etc. No Capitalist would be happy in seeing humans being used. The arguement has to be put forward that although their working hours/wages are poor in relation to our economy, they are (generally) fair when in context. By this I mean in relation to wages earned by fellow third world inhabitants. Also, if there were no factories, a great deal of these workers would have no jobs at all and would probably end up starving to death. Although, personally, I do think they should be paid a fair wage.

Socialism is probably the more moral and religious of political viewpoints, i.e. "love thy neighbour", by sharing we do this. But, going back to "human nature" (yes, again!), at the dawn of time, it was every man for himself, in war, it's the same (disregarding rank, etc. every man is fighting to stay alive), and in day to day life, it is the same. Therefore I argue that socialism conflicts with human nature, thus will never succeed.

Ray, watch out or I'll send the guards round, they have AK47's u kno!

(Edited by bowelscab at 4:50 pm on April 17, 2002)

[Hayduke]

try to keep down some emotions of people is better then promote them isnt it. Like the pure weapon trade inside America.
Allow kids to walk with guns........ gives some trouble but he...it
brings $ in the pocket.

welcome to the wonderfull world of capitalism

[Guest]

Robin hood = Socialist propaganda....

Discuss.

[reagan lives]

vox is a glutton for punishment.

"At this point, I'm wondering if Reagan understands the meaning of the word 'semantics.' It doesn't appear likely."
What a nice unsubstantiated statement.

"This is an odd thing to say, for I didn't talk about the whole post, but only one aspect of it. Too, in my response to him, I talked about the contradictory nature of his post. Now I'm wondering if Reagan know what dichotomy means, for every contradiction isn't necesarrily a dichotomy."
Ahem. My point (which I did not feel the need to break down completely, but I forgot who I was dealing with) was that, for you, things are either "right" or "wrong." Your claim that you were just talking about "one aspect" of the post is transparent in the extreme in light of these statements:
"Reagan says that human nature is a 'misnomer' in this case, which would make the original post wrong. I say that the post is wrong, Reagan says I'm wrong."
"Reagan uses a very bad metaphor to say that, even though the first post was wrong, the first post is right,""

Do you want to rethink your bullshit excuse?

"Expression never entered into the picture at all...Reagan chooses to ignore what was written. I do not."
I give you way too much credit, vox. Sometimes you really make me wonder how much of this in an act, a ploy to trip up your opponents on semantics, and how much of it is genuine incompetence. Anyone who could read critically could see that the original poster was referring to different expressions of commonly held traits defining us as individuals. You chose to prey on SEMANTICS ("the language used [as in advertising or political propoganda] to achieve a desired effect on an audience") rather than upon the MEANING (which everyone else seemed to be able to grasp).

"So, Reagan can say that he wasn't writing about the 'veracity of the original post' but then write that his position is that 'the ideas (in the original post) were not without truth.'"
More hacking. As anyone who read my last post can see, I was actually conceding to you that I was on the side of the original poster, even though MY FIRST POST had nothing to do with his post being "right" or "wrong." You try to create "contradictions" where there are none. Everyone here can see through your ridiculous sideshow act, vox, except perhaps yourself. I thought that after your comrades finally realized what you were doing a few weeks ago, you'd cut this shit out. Apparently not.

What you have to learn, vox, is that things like posts sometimes are neither "right" nor "wrong." In your universe, you can pick up a semantic issue in a post and use it to call the entire post "wrong." Once again, it's time for you to develop the critical skills of a high schooler.

(Edited by reagan lives at 5:23 pm on April 17, 2002)

[Fires of History]

Quote: from Solzhenitsyn on 2:01 am on April 17, 2002
[i]
All human actions are a result of emotion(s).


Solzhenitsyn,

Quick clarification before I go on, do you believe that greed is a justifiable and/or acceptable emotion? Even when acted out?

[Solzhenitsyn]

Solzhenitsyn,

Quick clarification before I go on, do you believe that greed is a justifiable and/or acceptable emotion? Even when acted out?

No, the pursuit of money as an end unto itself should be frowned upon in my estimation and it is in more traditional societies. Greed is a vice which capitalism punishes.

Let me explain. The whole point of capitalism is not the pursuit of money for money's sake, but to provide a system where people are free to seek their own ends and relationships without resorting to their own or the state's ability to coerce people to act favorably toward them. Capitalists use money to deal with other people, to meet needs, and to foster relationships. If measured by that standard, the greedy are a failure in capitalism.

Ever been around a greedy person? Not very pleasant, is it? In effect, the greedy isolate themselves from the rest of society by their valuing money above human relationships. If the greedy won't use their money to foster meaningful exchanges and relationships with other people, their money becomes useless. They become the crazy ol' cat lady down the road; instead of collecting cats, they collect money. The greedy themselves cut their own ties to the larger community. Attempts to purchase meaningful relationships always fail, because money is how the relationship is defined there is no deeper mutual understanding is such an arrangement. That's not to say you can't use money to foster relationships with other people. You can buy a man a beer at the bar, loan money to friend in need, contribute to charity etc. Things of this nature only help to estiablish and promote a deeper shared understanding with others.

To my mind the greedy can keep their money. I don't care. Capitalism can always generate more. When they come around complaining about how nobody wants to have anything to do with them, I'll just shrug and leave them to wallow in the prison they've created for themselves.

[Moskitto]

How do you propose making new things when there are a finite number of resources and depreciation means that second hand goods loose value?

Don't say replicators because there's no point in buying something if you can make it yourself for free.

[Solzhenitsyn]

How do you propose making new things when there are a finite number of resources and depreciation means that second hand goods loose value?

Ag Econ was my minor (agronomy was my major) so I can be of some benefit to explain these things to you.

Your grasp of one of the fundemental theories of economics is all wrong. Resources are scarce. That means at any one point in time there is a finite amount of goods, ideas, services, and labor that can be brought to market. Some material resources like gold and oil will prove to be finite in the long run*. Others, like agricultural commodities, for all practical purposes are limitless in the long run due to the cyclic nature of some systems. We can plant, harvest and sell rye year after year until the end of the earth. But at any given point in time there is only a limited amount of rye that can be brought to market. The same with ideas and services. What this theory does not mean is that humans have a finite amount of all resources, which after their consumption, civilization will cease to exist.

Another theory is the amount of goods available to be brought to market is unknowable. That is to say that our ability to bring goods to market are limited only by our efficiency in exploiting resources and production of goods. Let's take rye again. If the rye available on the market was insufficient to meet demand we could stop planting wheat and start planting rye. The same holds true with cars: If the amount of cars available on the market was insufficient to meet demand then we could build more car manufacturing plants or increase the capability of plants already in existence. So what is the limit to the amount of cars and rye produceable in America at any one time? It's just not knowable. This is what makes centralized economic planning (and thus socialism) impossible and one reason why capitalism is so efficient in generating wealth in the first place. In capitalism, there is economic incentive to meet demand, so if the price of one good is too high, then capitalists will shift their productivity into making that good to maximize profit. Eventually when enough capitalists start producing the good, its price drops until people who were unwilling or unable to buy the product at the previous price start buying the product. I don't have time for a more complete explanation (i.e. price setting, demand curves, microeconomic processes, product differentation theory, added value, etc).

These are the reasons why capitalists always say that the economy is practically infinite. The pie analogy is true only if you look at one point in time because at any one point in time there are a limited quantity of slices. But if we stick to that analogy, in the long run the capitalist economy is a pie bakery that bakes more and more slices.

* Only finished and semi-finished goods loose value when sold post-consumer because part of their added value is consumed. All other resources (excepting consumable commodities) loose no value when sold post-consumer. The steel in a used car will still be worth the same amount on the market (as long as the market is the same) as when it was first produced, minus the cost of extraction. The sources of some consumable commodities will eventually dry up of course (like oil). In that case, replacement resources will fill the place of the expended commodity. Remember that matter can be neither created nor destroyed. As long as humans exist there will be resources to distribute in the market.

(Edited by Solzhenitsyn at 8:33 pm on April 17, 2002)

[PaulDavidHewson]

well said again.

[Anarcho]

Just wanted to jump on that gun statement... the companys that make and sell firearms do not sell to children.

And it is illegal to carry a firearm around with you, unless you have the proper permits.

Children you carry around guns usually have them illegally (I know I did when I was younger), and would be punished by the state for doing so.

Gun companies know that their product appeals to younger males, but also know that direct advertising to them is a bad idea. So they shoot (hehehe) for the target that has the money for the product.

[Hayduke]

Ins ome states of america it is legal for kids to carry guns.
Talk bout promoting

[Hayduke]

Quote: from Guest on 9:59 pm on April 17, 2002
Robin hood = Socialist propaganda....

Discuss.


We are not some machines that go discussing something when orderd by guest. And not in the middle of a facing subject.
Take the facking 30 seconds to sign up and go talk bout your Robin Hood whenever you like...........

12 yeard old watching disney videos and acces to internet isnt a good combination

[vox]

Reagan,

After sifting through your post, the bulk of which is invective, I find that you've said nothing that I haven't already wealt with. Don't blame me because you contradict yourself.

vox

[Angie]

Guest 210.49.178.17

Well isn't that just ironic - I don't see you contributing to this thread apart from your slash at me, do you? Can you say, "Practise what you preach", darling?

While I'm on the topic of slashing, give me one good reason why I should listen to someone who hasn't even the gall to actually register upon the forums, who is one of the infamous cappie "Guests" who have become so hated within our community?

All you've done is prove that you're just a "stalker"-like character by nature, that once you've got your mind set on someone you dislike, you're just going to keep bugging them, and bugging them, until you get yourself tossed out. So please continue, love - you'll be gone soon enough.


Oh look at you you have a weird name. Gee that was really amusing when someone was 5 years old!If bowelscab were to be insulted by having such a reference brought to their attention, then they shouldn't have chosen the name. If they're actually a nice person who accepts that people will pick up on the obvious and comment when they feel like it, then they've nothing to worry about, do they? They can merely shrug it off.

Curiously, you apparently either aren't aware of the "Rommel" threads, or merely choose not to remember them, nein? Pity. You would have had a whole forum of people in which to scorn and shower with your silly whinging, seeing as his nickname's "association" with the Rommel of WW2 was quite a talking point for a while.

Nevermind - you can continue to be my ***** for a while, it's highly entertaining.

Let it be said, silly Child, that I have a very thick skin. Bowl me your best, and I'll hit it for a six each and every time, with pure, unadulterated pleasure.

[bowelscab]

course I'm a nice person! lol

How about discussing the matter at hand as opposed to my nickname which took all of 3 seconds for my powerful ;) mind to conjour up.

Not that is makes any difference to me personally, I am not insulted or anything. Far from it, I chose the name n'est pas?

Right, contraversial statement to attempt to revive this topic:

'Socialism is a denial of the human right to freedom.'

Ohh, nasty (but true). By this I mean we are unable to have a "successful" life in the materialistic sense. Socialism takes away the right of a hard working individual to succeed over the lazy slob, who reaps benefits and refuses to get off the sofa for his/her dinner. Therefore Socialism oppresses the successful personality from reaching their full socio-economic potential. In the capitalistic world that we live in, you are what you own, i.e. land, capital, etc. therefore you must put in the effort in order to take out the reward. An example is a bank, if you don't put in the money in the first place, you cannot then go and take it out.

In the words of George Bernard Shaw, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, become teachers." Seriously though, there are many 'leeches' in society who's sole purpose is to sponge off the community, doing as little work as possible along the way. Socialism only encourages this ignorant behaviour to flourish.

Surely we all have the right to freedom. When given freedom, in any society, there are always people who will use it to their advantage, and those who will not, i.e. those who succeed and those who fail. I, personally, think this is fair. I am not talking about 3rd world countries here, as anyone would agree, they have not had a fair stab at life. But the majority of people in developed countries have a right to freedom and a chance to succeed (i.e. education, etc.) - what they do with this is up to them!

[Nateddi]

Quote: from bowelscab on 3:06 pm on April 24, 2002

'Socialism is a denial of the human right to freedom.'

Ohh, nasty (but true). By this I mean we are unable to have a "successful" life in the materialistic sense. Socialism takes away the right of a hard working individual to succeed over the lazy slob, who reaps benefits and refuses to get off the sofa for his/her dinner. Therefore Socialism oppresses the successful personality from reaching their full socio-economic potential.

What even makes you think so? Do you consider people who toil at near minimum wage for the sake of profit of the corporation as "lazy scum"? You are saying that a system which will give a good day's pay for a hard day's work as something which gives lazy people the right to be lazy? The real lazy people will actually have to do something and not be lazy if they wish to get money.

Right now, Bowelscab, people invest in exploitative companies, and go after careers they personally dont desire just because they pay more. People gamble, people commit crimes (shoplifiting, fraud, etc), corporations commit crimes (reporting more profit than they actually made for the sake of rising thier stock, they move factories to the third world so they can make even greater profits, etc). In today's society people do anything to get around working, and we cannot really blame them, because it seems that capitalism is the lazy system. Why? Because if you actually work hard, you wont get shit.



Surely we all have the right to freedom. When given freedom, in any society, there are always people who will use it to their advantage, and those who will not, i.e. those who succeed and those who fail. I, personally, think this is fair. I am not talking about 3rd world countries here, as anyone would agree, they have not had a fair stab at life. But the majority of people in developed countries have a right to freedom and a chance to succeed (i.e. education, etc.) - what they do with this is up to them!

In the US (where I live), people have very little chance to succeed. Getting a white collar job, you need to grow up around computers and a rich family. Inner city people are brought up so they do labor, because it is very difficult to get up into the rich white culture, theyre education is utter shit as well. The only way someone who was raised in a low income family can make it up, is for them to do extraordinary efforts which a very vast majority cannot do. Even white collars who make decent wages working for big companies only make as much as they do because the companies sell their products to other rich corporations, while the benefit from their product can never help all of society, only those which can afford it (other rich companies).

[pastradamus]

In the words of George Bernard Shaw, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, become teachers." Seriously though, there are many 'leeches' in society who's sole purpose is to sponge off the community, doing as little work as possible along the way. Socialism only encourages this ignorant behaviour to flourish.

Surely we all have the right to freedom. When given freedom, in any society, there are always people who will use it to their advantage, and those who will not, i.e. those who succeed and those who fail. I, personally, think this is fair. I am not talking about 3rd world countries here, as anyone would agree, they have not had a fair stab at life. But the majority of people in developed countries have a right to freedom and a chance to succeed (i.e. education, etc.) - what they do with this is up to them!


Hey your that paul kielty guy from my history class on mondays,well listen up punk I run the show round ere (back off malte!) so im ordering u to stand down!

How can u post that George bernard shaw post when he was kind of a democratic socialist.

"since the royals are too uninvolved in current affairs,perhaps its up to the genious to take the law into his own hands" -shaw on jack the ripper-

haha put that into ur pipe & smoke it!

[bowelscab]

Nateddi so much for the land of oppertunity. I can't and won't account for America's political flaws - Capitalism works elsewhere so it must be the American system failing.

Pastradamus the ironic thing is, Shaw was Irish! lol.

[sabre]

thats bullshit, because it isnt. every day more and more people are driven into poverty and destitution because of capitalism

Half the world -- nearly three billion people -- live on less than two dollars a day. (source: The politics of hunger, Le Monde, November 1998 )

"The combined wealth of the world's 200 richest people hit $1 trillion in 1999; the combined incomes of the 582 million people living in the 43 least developed countries is $146 billion." (source: globalissues.org)

in a world like that, the curtrent system at hand DOES NOT work, which is in this case capitalism

[Ernest Everhard]

Do you're starting from the assumption that they were not poor before, "every day more andmore people are driven into poverty". Actually every day more and more people are lifted out of poverty because of capitalism
I will not deny that in some respects inequality has increased. But while Income inequality between the top 10 percent and the bottom 10% wasl much higher on Jan. 1, 2000 than it was on Jan. 1, 1900, by every measure the bottom 10% is much better off today than 100 years ago. Apparently the fact that people have better lives today is not as important as achieving more equal income distribution. Furthermore a claim that is often made is that inequality has increased disporportionately between rich and poor countries, but this data is inherently misleading. Inequality of nations has increased, but such inequality stats gives a nation like bolivia with 8 million people the same statistical weight as china with its 1.2 billion people. The truth is that after the first stages of liberalization in the economies of China's and India more people have been lifted out of poverty, in twenty years, than in the preeceding millenia.

So to end this, Yay capitalism, if you really want to help the poor, then rather than protesting globalization, you'd be helping it expand.

[vox]

While it's popular for some to say that, even though economic inequality has grown, the poorest are still doing better. However, the Congressional Budget Office found that isn't quite true:

"A new pathbreaking Congressional Budget Office study, which includes the best data that any agency or institution has compiled on income and tax trends in recent decades, shows that the average after-tax income of the richest one percent of Americans grew by $414,000 between 1979 and 1997, after adjusting for inflation, while average after-tax income fell $100 for the poorest 20 percent of Americans and grew a modest $3,400 for those exactly in the middle of the income spectrum."

Full Story (http://www.inequality.org/conbudstudyfr.html)

Though the tax burden has decreased across the board, the poor actually lost after-tax income from 1979 to 1997. Somehow, though, after adjusting for inflation, we're expected to believe that less money somehow equals a higher standard of living. It doesn't quite wash.

vox

[Ernest Everhard]

the problem is , and its a well known one, that the congressional budget office and the Office of management and budget usually come to different conclusions off of the same data, for political reasons. I took my figures from the book :

Economia Liberal: Para no economistas y no liberales
by xavier sala-i-martin
its also available in english

[vox]

The only figures I found in your post don't appear to be specific but general and compare a ten year period to a one hundred year period. I'll stick with the CBO.

If you're interested, you can download the report, in PDF format, here (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=2838&type=1).

vox

[Guest1]

Cappies need to go get high and just mellow out, maybe then they'll see that exploiting your fellow human beings and enslaving them is horrid. Go take a few tokes, man.

[Ernest Everhard]

its funny, cause again, you people(or just che y marijuan) assume so much, from the limited contact on a bboard. furthermore vox, i think we were here before, and just as you now quote a partisan organization the CBO, and don't deny that they're partisan, anyone who has one neuron connection knows this, I will refer to another equally partisan organization that comes to a different conclusion from the same data, the heritage foundation,

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

I think I brought this up a long time ago, so I won't recount what it said, I'll simply post the link to refresh your memory if you need it. The point I'm trying to make is that data is misenterpreted by people on both sides of this debate. But the objective truth is easy to see, do you honestly believe things have gotten worse? Do you honestly think that we've devolved from some prior eden of equally shared prosperity? I don't, and I won't deny that the rich get richer faster then the poor do, all I'm saying is that compared to previous stages in history the lot of the poor, the world over, has improved.


(Edited by Ernest Everhard at 6:48 am on April 25, 2002)

[vox]

I don't think I'm assuming anything here. I read your post, is all.

It's a bit disingenuous, of course, to compare the CBO to the Heritage Foundation. Perhaps you don't know much about the CBO. This should help you (http://www.cbo.gov/about.shtml).

More troubling is your suggestion that no data is reliable at all, in which case anyone is free to make any claim and supporting evidence be damned. Sadly, that's been your pattern. When inconvenient facts get in the way, just say that the facts are wrong, giving you the same credibility that Rush Limbaugh has when it comes to global warming.

That's okay, though. The facts remain for the clear-headed and the curious.

vox

[Ernest Everhard]

the comment about assumptions was directed to che y marijuana.

As for the CBO, is the economic mouthpiece for whatever party is in power.

As for the OMB, this is what they have to say:

The poverty rate dropped from 11.8 percent in 1999 to 11.3 percent in 2000--the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and not statistically different from the record low of 11.1 percent set in 1973. In 2000, 31.1 million people were poor, down from 32.3 million in 1999. This was the fourth consecutive year the poverty rate has fallen. Blacks (22.1 percent) and female-householder families (24.7 percent) had their lowest measured poverty rates in 2000. People 65 years old and over, Hispanics, White non-Hispanics, Asians and Pacific Islanders, married-couple families, and people living in the South had poverty rates that were not statistically different from their measured lows.

According to them things have gotten better.

I'm not saying all data is unreliable, hardly, all I'm saying is that the source must always be considered. Just as when you fellas complain about the biased "corporate run media." As a matter of fact I'd like to see where I said all data is unreliable, if anything my criticism was directed against interpretation of data, which is always going to have subjective if not ideological taints. I don't think thats undeniable...

[vox]

You and I may agree on a few things. It is important to know the source, but it's also important to know what is being measured and how.

For example, in the CBO report, inflation-adjusted after-tax income is the subject. In your report, the subject is families below the poverty rate.

This raises another question: how is the poverty rate determined?

To determine the poverty rate, before-tax income is used, not after-tax income. Too, the rate itself is determined by assuming that a third of a family's income is spent on food, and poverty is then defined as being three times that amount (adjusted for inflation).

However, this method, based on research from the Fifties, fails to take into account the dramatic rise in property costs, currently the single biggest onus on a poor family. Whereas food prices have been quite stable, rent has outpaced inflation, as has the cost of pharmaceuticals. Also, the changed nature of public transportation and job distribution (from central locations to "industrial parks" in the suburbs) makes personal transportation more of a necessity now. None of this is looked at in the official poverty rate.

Indeed, a case can be made that a poverty rate based on consumption is not accurate in the first place. Jack McNeil of the U.S. Census Bureau has figured the poverty rate using relative income data, defining those earning less than half the median income as being in poverty. In 1992, the official poverty rate was 14.8%. Using relative income data, it was 22.7%, significantly higher.

So you're correct when you say that the source must always be considered, but we can't lose sight of what is being measured and how it's being measured.

As for your objection, the implication in your post, repeated in your most recent, is that all data is going to have subjective taints, therefore it can't be trusted. As I've said, however, by knowing what is being measured and how, one can overcome this issue.

vox

[Ernest Everhard]

Quote: from vox on 5:20 pm on April 25, 2002
To determine the poverty rate, before-tax income is used, not after-tax income. Too, the rate itself is determined by assuming that a third of a family's income is spent on food, and poverty is then defined as being three times that amount (adjusted for inflation).



so this data fails to take into account the effect of post tax redistribution of wealth...

[vox]

It would appear so, but it's not really relevant to the topic at hand, unless you're backing the argument that the official poverty rate is a rather inadequate index due to its methodology. It's hard to tell from one line. If that's what you're saying, then we agree.

My only point was that one needs to examine what's being measured and how. My example and your example looked at two different things.

vox