Capitalism dosn't work!!!

[Dynatos]

This is a list of all capitalist nation with a population of 30million+. as you can see 23 out of 35 (66%) of them are considerd poor. Only 9 out of 35 (25%) of them are considerd wealthy nations. If capitalism workes then how can this happen?

Algeria-poor
Population below poverty line: 23%
Inflation rate:2%
Unemployment rate: 30%

Argentina-poor
Population below poverty line: 37%
Inflation rate: -0.9%
Unemployment rate: 15%

Bangladesh-poor
Population below poverty line: 35.6%
Inflation rate: 5.8%
Unemployment rate: 35.2%

Brazil
Population below poverty line: 17.4%
Inflation rate: 6%
Unemployment rate: 7.1%

Burma-poor
Population below poverty line: 23%
Inflation rate: 18%
Unemployment rate: 7.1%

Canada-rich
Population below poverty line: 1.2%
Inflation rate: 2.6%
Unemployment rate: 6.8%

Colombia-poor
Population below poverty line: 55%
Inflation rate: 9%
Unemployment rate: 20%

Congo Democratic Republic-poor
Population below poverty line: NA%
Inflation rate: 540%
Unemployment rate: NA%

Egypt-poor
Population below poverty line: 22.9%
Inflation rate: 3%
Unemployment rate: 11.5%

Ethiopia-poor
Population below poverty line: 74.7%
Inflation rate: 5%
Unemployment rate: NA%

France-rich
Population below poverty line: NA%
Inflation rate: 1.7%
Unemployment rate: 9.7%

Germany-rich
Population below poverty line: NA%
Inflation rate: 2%
Unemployment rate: 9.9%

India-poor
Population below poverty line: 35%
Inflation rate: 5.4%
Unemployment rate: NA%

Indonesia-poor
Population below poverty line: 20.3%
Inflation rate: 9%
Unemployment rate: 15%-20%

Iran-poor
Population below poverty line: 53%
Inflation rate: 16%
Unemployment rate: 14%

Italy-rich
Population below poverty line: NA%
Inflation rate: 2.5%
Unemployment rate: 10.4%

Japan-rich
Population below poverty line: NA%
Inflation rate: -0.7%
Unemployment rate: 4.7%

Kenya-poor
Population below poverty line: 42%
Inflation rate: 7%
Unemployment rate: 50%

Korea, South-rich
Population below poverty line: NA%
Inflation rate: 2.3%
Unemployment rate: 4.1%

Mexico-poor
Population below poverty line: 27%
Inflation rate: 9%
Unemployment rate:2.2%

Morocco-poor
Population below poverty line:20.1%
Inflation rate: 2%
Unemployment rate: 23%

Nigeria-poor
Population below poverty line: 45%
Inflation rate: 6.5%
Unemployment rate: 28%

Pakistan-poor
Population below poverty line: 40%
Inflation rate: 5.2%
Unemployment rate: 6%

Philippines-poor
Population below poverty line: 41%
Inflation rate: 5%
Unemployment rate: 10%

Poland
Population below poverty line:18.4%
Inflation rate: 10.2%
Unemployment rate: 12%

Russia-poor
Population below poverty line:40%
Inflation rate: 20.6%
Unemployment rate: 10.5%

South Africa-poor
Population below poverty line: 50%
Inflation rate: 5.3%
Unemployment rate: 30%

Spain-rich
Population below poverty line: NA%
Inflation rate: 3.4%
Unemployment rate: 14%

Sudan-poor
Population below poverty line:34.8%
Inflation rate: 10%
Unemployment rate: 4%

Tanzania-poor
Population below poverty line: 51.1%
Inflation rate: 6%
Unemployment rate: NA%

Thailand-rich
Population below poverty line: 12.5%
Inflation rate: 2.1%
Unemployment rate: 3.7%

Turkey-poor
Population below poverty line: 43.8%
Inflation rate: 39%
Unemployment rate: 5.6%

Ukraine-poor
Population below poverty line: 50%
Inflation rate: 25.8%
Unemployment rate: 4.3%

United Kingdom
Population below poverty line: 17%
Inflation rate: 2.4%
Unemployment rate: 5.5%

United States- rich
Population below poverty line: 12.7%
Inflation rate: 3.4%
Unemployment rate: 4%








(Edited by Dynatos at 4:34 am on Aug. 7, 2002)

[PunkRawker677]

its Rich not Ritch (i'm not ragging on your english)

I'm assuming English isn't your first language, so im just trying to help =)!!

And this is a great post. Where did you get this information from?

[Dynatos]

thanks. I got most of the info from the CIA http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

[Nateddi]

Ukraine is terrible. I watched it fall into poverty as i grew up.

[Americana]

WAIT> capitalism isnt the reason most of these countries are poor. dictators, war, famine, all these can also make or break a country regardless of idiology.

[Nateddi]

Dictators of "capitalist" nations are supported (http://www.che-lives.com/home/movie.htm) by the governments of capitalist "democracies" (http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm). By supported I mean supplied with money or worse..

War (in cases of underdeveloped nations) is caused by popular opposition to a government (not territorial imperialism or other 'developed' world wars)

Famine is caused by an economic system or government

(Edited by Nateddi at 4:56 am on Aug. 7, 2002)

[Americana]

famine can be caused by warlords.
mohammed farrah aideed.

[Nateddi]

>>famine can be caused by warlords
there are certain economic and social conditions which allow the rise of warlords. are you saying famine has nothign to do with economics.

>>mohammed farrah aideed.
I do not see Somalia on that list as a capitalist nation.

[Tkinter1]

Ok. And whats your answer to the problem? break down there already weak and poor governments, and replace it with an even weaker poorer government? I really hope it doesn't have to come down to me listing failed or failing commy/soci countries....

Stop looking for perfection when you can't even find it in yourself.

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 5:47 am on Aug. 7, 2002)

[Nateddi]

>>Ok. And whats your answer to the problem?
I would take away US influence from the decisions. I would encourage the nations for greater nationalization of resources, and for the US a further position away from their political circumstances.

>>break down there already weak and poor governments, and replace it with an even weaker poorer government?
I am not certain what you are getting at. I do not support coups on populist movement and government overthrows, the US does.

>>I really hope it doesn't have to come down to me listing failed or failing commy/soci countries....
Go ahead. Enlighten me when a socialist economic system was not self sufficient to the point that it had to starve other nations for their good. You can if you wish link me to some statistics which can state that Cuba was better before the revolution, or that Russia is better under capitalism, or that Ho Chi Minh ruined Vietnam by kicking out the nice Frenchies, or any of that.

Socialist economics have improved every single country they have been applyed to. Capitalist economics naturally turn nations into empires and parasites.

>>Stop looking for perfection
And what is this supposed to mean? You would have a point if the number wasn't 66%, but perhaps 5% or 10 or maybe 20. I am not looking for perfection (0%), I am looking for a better way to lower the 66%.

>>when you can't even find it in yourself.
Getting personal I see? I find quite a lot of good in myself in different ways, not perfection. Is this another theory on "why they turn left" or something?

(Edited by Nateddi at 6:12 am on Aug. 7, 2002)

[Tkinter1]

"Socialist economics have improved every single country they have been applyed to."

Yea improved them to a higher low.

"I would take away US influence from the decisions."

How do you do that?

"You can if you wish link me to some statistics which can state that Cuba was better before the revolution, or that Russia is better under capitalism, or that Ho Chi Minh ruined Vietnam by kicking out the nice Frenchies, or any of that."

Obviously i dont have to. You already know them.

"Capitalist economics naturally turn nations into empires and parasites."

And communist and socialist economics turn nations into blissful wonderlands where everything is equal, and we all live happliy in mediocracy.

[concerned]

Quote: from Dynatos on 3:33 am on Aug. 7, 2002
This is a list of all capitalist nation with a population of 30million+. as you can see 23 out of 35 (66%) of them are considerd poor. Only 9 out of 35 (25%) of them are considerd wealthy nations. If capitalism workes then how can this happen?
(Edited by Dynatos at 4:34 am on Aug. 7, 2002)


Among this "capitalist" nations you are including a lot of them were until receantly communist. An economy takes much more than 10 years to build. Also you are failing to consider other aspects such as corruption and war. Most of Latin America and Africa's problems have been due to corruption and war, not capitalism.

The people in power have not been very ethical, and when you don't have an ethical government there is no system on earth that would work. As a matter of fact, when there are high levels of corruption capitalism is preferred than say socialism, because at least the government is somewhat smaller and there is less money to steal.


(Edited by concerned at 7:24 am on Aug. 7, 2002)

[Nateddi]

>>Yea improved them to a higher low.
Wonderful, you are providing a great contributions to this discussion with poignant comments and rational thought. :sad:


>>How do you do that?
I assumed your question was hypothetical, that is how I treated it as. We both agree that its not going to be easy to drop great influence voluntarily.


>>Obviously i dont have to. You already know them.
Great way of avoiding to confront an point on which you are wrong. You have textbook ignorance. I understand it is a fairly often used term by the left against anyone on the right. This comment was however true ignorance, and you know that.

Seriously, if you must believe so, why not give me some statistics. You are avoiding every claim in which you know that you are wrong. How sad.


>>And communist and socialist economics turn nations into blissful wonderlands where everything is equal, and we all live happliy in mediocracy.
more ignorance. more avoiding my points.

when did I make such a point? name one communist nation which set up puppet governments to provide the main country with resources while starving the natives of the puppet government. i never called them wonderlands, i simply said they are not empires as the US is.

http://potyondi.netfirms.com/mikereidowns.jpg

[Nateddi]

>>Among this "capitalist" nations you are including a lot of them were until receantly communist. An economy takes much more than 10 years to build. Also you are failing to consider other aspects such as corruption and war. Most of Latin America and Africa's problems have been due to corruption and war, not capitalism.

The people in power have not been very ethical, and when you don't have an ethical government there is no system on earth that would work. As a matter of fact, when there are high levels of corruption capitalism is preferred than say socialism, because at least the government is somewhat smaller and there is less money to steal.

To capitalists, capitalism is capitalism only if it is perfect "first world" capitalism.

Concerned, just an off topic question,
do you believe that it is possible for us to live in a world with every nation being relatively a developed, capitalist first world nation such as nations of north america and western europe. That somehow these econonomies will develop into glorious capitalist paradises, and for the first time a country will be a good capitalist nation that is not in North America or Western Europe. That we shall be able to go to developed african nations on vacation and not see starving indigenous people. It seems impossible any time soon, how about will it be possible by 2150? If we don't come to world war to destroy all civilisation that is.

[concerned]

Quote: from Nateddi on 7:39 am on Aug. 7, 2002
>>Among this "capitalist" nations you are including a lot of them were until receantly communist. An economy takes much more than 10 years to build. Also you are failing to consider other aspects such as corruption and war. Most of Latin America and Africa's problems have been due to corruption and war, not capitalism.

The people in power have not been very ethical, and when you don't have an ethical government there is no system on earth that would work. As a matter of fact, when there are high levels of corruption capitalism is preferred than say socialism, because at least the government is somewhat smaller and there is less money to steal.

To capitalists, capitalism is capitalism only if it is perfect "first world" capitalism.

Concerned, just an off topic question,
do you believe that it is possible for us to live in a world with every nation being relatively a developed, capitalist first world nation such as nations of north america and western europe. That somehow these econonomies will develop into glorious capitalist paradises, and for the first time a country will be a good capitalist nation that is not in North America or Western Europe. That we shall be able to go to developed african nations on vacation and not see starving indigenous people. It seems impossible any time soon, how about will it be possible by 2150? If we don't come to world war to destroy all civilisation that is.

Unfortunately I will have to answer your question with a no. I don't believe that even by 2150 that would be possible. But what I want to say is that I don't believe capitalism is to blame, there are other factors to consider as I metioned before. If there is a relatively peaceful environment, low levels of corruption and high working morale attitude among the population then I believe any country can become successful independent of the political system (except for communism, because it completelly kills competition and the freedom of people to free enterprise and do what they are best at).

Socialism may have slowed down Sweden's development, and is in great part responsible for the current economical crisis, but still Sweden has a pretty decent standard of living. And that is because levels of corruption in Sweden are so incredibly low and people are very hard working and honest. The swedes that came to America a century ago and live in Minnesotta are all quite rich (and when they arrived there they were awfully poor and starving), and that is because they are all very hardworking people. They would have succeeded in any country that gave them a little bit of opportunity.

Unfortunately this is not the case in Africa or LatinAmerica. Levels of corruption are unbereable and there is the total opposite of a high working morale. If there was any kind of unemployment insurance in Colombia, I can assure you nobody would go to work. Everybody would be trying to take advantage of welfare.

Did you know that Tanzania is probably one of the countries in the World who has received more money in aid both from Europe and the U.S.? They have poured billions into the country over many decades for all types of social and development programs. However today, Tanzania remains one of the poorest countries on earth. Why? Corruption is rampant. Most of the money have ended up in the polititians pockets.

Corruption is a terrible thing. It is terrible on companies but it is even more terrible and devastating in governments.

Do you believe that if you implant socialism in Africa and Latin America they would suddenly be on the path to riches? Not likely. More power to the government would result in more corruption and more manipulation of the media.

[Nateddi]

>>Unfortunately I will have to answer your question with a no. I don't believe that even by 2150 that would be possible. But what I want to say is that I don't believe capitalism is to blame, there are other factors to consider as I metioned before. If there is a relatively peaceful environment, low levels of corruption and high working morale attitude among the population then I believe any country can become successful independent of the political system (except for communism, because it completelly kills competition and the freedom of people to free enterprise and do what they are best at).
Do you believe that economics are not a cause (direct or indirect)of such "corruption"? I don't see why corruption happens in the first place, are the people savages which lack great organizational skills? Competition will only increase the corruption already present. Warlords will simply start war with each other trying to win over a population. Isn't that whats happening in these "developing" nations? If nations wish to decrease corruption they must take control of their own resources and collectively bring their country out of their crises. Their governments must have greater control to stamp out corruption and work in the favor of the people. These governments cannot be intimidated by the United States' desire for resources such as oil and must therefore own the resource fields and sell from the government, redistributing profit into public works and social programs. Opposite of selling cheap land to private foreign companies to get cheap resources and build factories for cheap labor. You can call such leaders corrupt and I will agree, nonetheless this is still corruption of capitalist imperialism. Government programs such as these are what saved capitalism in the United States. A laissez-faire market economy realistically can never bring a country out of its problems.


>>Socialism may have slowed down Sweden's development, and is in great part responsible for the current economical crisis but still Sweden has a pretty decent standard of living.
So who again benefits from this "high standard of living"? And how did it get acheived? Ill be damned, Sweden ranks higher than the US on the UN Human Development report, I wonder why.


>>And that is because levels of corruption in Sweden are so incredibly low and people are very hard working and honest.
Corruption is low in a socialist country? Did you not just say "except for communism, because it completelly kills competition and the freedom of people to free enterprise and do what they are best at". I see you are contradicting yourself.


>>The swedes that came to America a century ago and live in Minnesotta are all quite rich (and when they arrived there they were awfully poor and starving), and that is because they are all very hardworking people. They would have succeeded in any country that gave them a little bit of opportunity.
I smell a nazi. So I guess its hard work that is the key to succeeding in capitalism. Those damn Africans must be lazy to not work hard and have all the corruption, while the brilliant Aryan Swedes are able to make it.

Are you for equal opportunity? Those Swedes had to work hard to make it up the economic ladder to be where they are today, meanwhile, all American presidents have been born with silver spoons in their mouths and lived in the very top of society, in our "democracy". The fact that a few Swedes have heart-touching rags to riches stories means absolutley nothing. Statistics are not representative of such stories.


>>Unfortunately this is not the case in Africa or LatinAmerica. Levels of corruption are unbereable and there is the total opposite of a high working morale.
I guess those muds and negroes must be lazy savages. More of this mysterious "corruption" with no apparent causes.


>>If there was any kind of unemployment insurance in Colombia, I can assure you nobody would go to work. Everybody would be trying to take advantage of welfare.
Interesting opinion, get rid of welfare and all the nation's poor will magically disappear. It's obvious that a laissez faire capitalist society won't degenerate into a social darwinistic cesspool of vicious opprtunists rife with corruption and theft. Oh wait, you say they do not have welfare programs now, lets see how they are doing at the moment:

Colombia-poor
Population below poverty line: 55%
Inflation rate: 9%
Unemployment rate: 20%

Perhaps if you decrease the number of people living below the poverty line by creating real jobs that pay real wages, such could only be provided by the state in third world nations; than the profits would go to the nation to subsidize services, than real progress could be made! You are advocating capitalism as a means of reviving such a country. Capitalism is economic anarchy. It leads to the creation of warlords and mafias. Right wingers blame the Russian mob as a scapegoat for their current economic problems; I wonder how the mob got to the kind of power it has now.


>>Did you know that Tanzania is probably one of the countries in the World who has received more money in aid both from Europe and the U.S.? They have poured billions into the country over many decades for all types of social and development programs. However today, Tanzania remains one of the poorest countries on earth. Why? Corruption is rampant. Most of the money have ended up in the polititians pockets.
Corruption can only be combatted through national unity and commitment by a third world nation. Throwing money does not help. If you are still not fully independent, if there are still foreign influences outweighing development you will get nowhere. I support foreign development programs in giving money to a generally assembled government committed to building the nation. The free market assistance will end up with those who are powerful, the greedy warlords, with the money and no real progrss will ever be made.


>>Corruption is a terrible thing. It is terrible on companies but it is even more terrible and devastating in governments.
Companies are authoritarian institutions with goals of outcompeting others to stay in business. This is precisely why exploitation is rational and is done by people who are not naturally evil. Governments are institutions which do not compete in profits against other governments, institutions which are representative of the people. Castro's socialist reforms have transformed Cuba into one of the best, if not the best, nations in living standard in Latin America, meanwhile being embargoed upon by a neighbouring superpower. The right-wing Batista seems more of the corrupt politician.


>>Do you believe that if you implant socialism in Africa and Latin America they would suddenly be on the path to riches? Not likely. More power to the government would result in more corruption and more manipulation of the media.
What media? These countries could only dream of a media. One socialist government in Latin America has survived without being overthrown by the US, Cuba, they have made truly immense progress. Dozens were true populist movements overthrown by the United States in CIA organized or backed coups. These coups I assume were in the best interest of their people to keep away from corruption. "Free market" has done them a great deal of good.

[Giant Sucking Sound]

Thailand-rich
Population below poverty line: 12.5%
Inflation rate: 2.1%
Unemployment rate: 3.7%

United Kingdom
Population below poverty line: 17%
Inflation rate: 2.4%
Unemployment rate: 5.5%

***

I'm too lazy to go link hunting, but does anyone of whatever political persuasion here seriously believe that the % below the poverty line in Thailand is 5% less than in the U.K.? For one thing, isn't the average lifespan in the U.K. considerably higher than that of Thailand? (I have no idea, I'm just guessing.)

I gotta think all they're doing is taking what each country decides is "poverty level" and not trying to normalize the figures somehow.

I mean, seriously if this is true, maybe the U.K. should start shipping nannies over there again or something.

[vox]

Nateddi,

Damn. Well done.

There's something I'd like to add about Russia, however. The push for a neoliberal capitalist order in Russia came from the West, largely from the US. "Monthly Review" has a great piece about this which explains why the "gangster capitalism" we saw in Russia took place: The Necessity of Gangster Capitalism: Primitive Accumulation in Russia and China (http://www.monthlyreview.org/200holm.htm).

I think you might be very interested in this. None of this would have surprised Marx, of course. Here's a short quote from the MR piece: "Mainstream economists of Marx's day relied upon a 'Just So' story of how the diligent, intelligent, and frugal people accumulated wealth, while the other, lazy rascals, lost theirs. Dismissing this myth as 'insipid childishness' in defense of (stolen) property, Marx argued that primitive accumulation is nothing but the 'historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production.' In early Europe, the producers had to be freed from feudal bonds, but they also had to be 'freed' from possession of any means of subsistence—access to land and any feudal guarantees of survival."

vox

[Dynatos]

Quote: from Giant Sucking Sound on 3:32 pm on Aug. 7, 2002
Thailand-rich
Population below poverty line: 12.5%
Inflation rate: 2.1%
Unemployment rate: 3.7%

United Kingdom
Population below poverty line: 17%
Inflation rate: 2.4%
Unemployment rate: 5.5%

***

I'm too lazy to go link hunting, but does anyone of whatever political persuasion here seriously believe that the % below the poverty line in Thailand is 5% less than in the U.K.? For one thing, isn't the average lifespan in the U.K. considerably higher than that of Thailand? (I have no idea, I'm just guessing.)

I gotta think all they're doing is taking what each country decides is "poverty level" and not trying to normalize the figures somehow.

I mean, seriously if this is true, maybe the U.K. should start shipping nannies over there again or something.


Go see for yourself
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

[Giant Sucking Sound]

Go see for yourself
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/


http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factb...cs/notes.html#P (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/notes.html#P)

National estimates of the percentage of the population lying below the poverty line are based on surveys of sub-groups, with the results weighted by the number of people in each group. Definitions of poverty vary considerably among nations. For example, rich nations generally employ more generous standards of poverty than poor nations.

I did. Thanks for the link. Apples and oranges, just as I thought. Probably no more than 1% or 2% of the population would be below the "poverty" line in the U.K. if you used Thai standards.

Of course, we'll never know. Looks like they pulled the same crap with the "unemployment rate."

Unemployment rate - This entry contains the percent of the labor force that is without jobs. Substantial underemployment might be noted.

[Capitalist Imperial]

as opposed to communist laos:

Capital: Vientiane
Government type: Communist state
Currency: kip
Population: 5,635,967 (July 2001)
Population below poverty line: 46.1% (1993 est.)

Source: CIA: The World Factbook 2001

or hong kong (30%) China (10%) (per cia factbook):
asia.news.yahoo.com/020625/reuters/asia

North Korea, in its isolationism, will not reveal its figure, but we all know that famine is running rampant there


of course, cuba:

As a result of remittances and other economic changes, 15 to 20 percent of the Cuban population live in a privileged situation, she said. In 1996 the percentage of those living in the city who fell below the poverty line reached 14.7 percent, its highest point since the 1959 revolution, she said.

Although Espina is clearly a supporter of Cuba's socialist model, she acknowledged its inability -- even without the introduction of dollars -- to completely end inequities.

st-socrates.berkeley.edu:7001/Events/ spring2001/01-29-espina/

[concerned]

>>Do you believe that economics are not a cause (direct or indirect)of such "corruption"? I don't see why corruption happens in the first place, are the people savages which lack great organizational skills? Competition will only increase the corruption already present. Warlords will simply start war with each other trying to win over a population. Isn't that whats happening in these "developing" nations? If nations wish to decrease corruption they must take control of their own resources and collectively bring their country out of their crises. Their governments must have greater control to stamp out corruption and work in the favor of the people. These governments cannot be intimidated by the United States' desire for resources such as oil and must therefore own the resource fields and sell from the government, redistributing profit into public works and social programs. Opposite of selling cheap land to private foreign companies to get cheap resources and build factories for cheap labor. You can call such leaders corrupt and I will agree, nonetheless this is still corruption of capitalist imperialism. Government programs such as these are what saved capitalism in the United States. A laissez-faire market economy realistically can never bring a country out of its problems.

Corruption mainly happens because of lack of good education and specially family values. Most of the problems with low-income families in Colombia are not really monetary. Most of the problems are their lack of personal responsibility.

Most of the time low income families do not worry at all about the number of kids they are going to have. The tradition is that they have as many kids as they possibly can, and they really don't care if they can afford it or not. They never stop to think about the consequences.

So you see typical families of 10+ kids. The father is usually drunk, and prefers to spend most of the money he makes in alcohol rather than feed his children. The mother, which is usually a bit more responsible, is then forced to work as well, having to leave the kids all day alone. She has to hide the money she makes from her husband or he will use it to buy more alcohol.

I know that is a steriotype, but in Colombia it happens all too often. This is the story of many many families in Colombia.

There ones that manage to live a responsible life, and have a reasonable number of kids, usually don't do all that bad.

You speak about the government having even more power than it has now to root out corruption, but you fail to see that in places like Colombia most of the corruption IS from the goevernment. There is not nearly as much corruption in private firms as there is in the ones owned or controlled by the government.

So your plan is to increase the size of a corrupt government in an attempt to control the industry which is not corrupt?

>>Socialism may have slowed down Sweden's development, and is in great part responsible for the current economical crisis but still Sweden has a pretty decent standard of living.
---
So who again benefits from this "high standard of living"? And how did it get acheived? Ill be damned, Sweden ranks higher than the US on the UN Human Development report, I wonder why.

I didn't said high standard of living, I said decent standard of living. The standard of living is much higher in the US than it is in Sweden. Salaries in Sweden are not all that great, and all the welfare benefits have been going down in the past years. Sweden was one of Europe's strongest economies before it started actually implementing and expanding all the welfare and socialist things.

>>And that is because levels of corruption in Sweden are so incredibly low and people are very hard working and honest.
---
Corruption is low in a socialist country? Did you not just say "except for communism, because it completelly kills competition and the freedom of people to free enterprise and do what they are best at". I see you are contradicting yourself.

Why am I contradicting myself?? On one point I am talking about communism and on the other one about socialism. In socialism there is a relatively freedom of enterprise. They didn't kill or try to implement central planning on companies. They weren't foolish enough to kill the goose that layed the golden eggs, they may have squeezed it, slapped it, humped on it, but they didn't kill it. People were allowed to start their own companies, and there is competition, even if later they decided to confiscate most of their earnings to support all the welfare.

>>The swedes that came to America a century ago and live in Minnesotta are all quite rich (and when they arrived there they were awfully poor and starving), and that is because they are all very hardworking people. They would have succeeded in any country that gave them a little bit of opportunity.
---
I smell a nazi. So I guess its hard work that is the key to succeeding in capitalism. Those damn Africans must be lazy to not work hard and have all the corruption, while the brilliant Aryan Swedes are able to make it.

Are you for equal opportunity? Those Swedes had to work hard to make it up the economic ladder to be where they are today, meanwhile, all American presidents have been born with silver spoons in their mouths and lived in the very top of society, in our "democracy". The fact that a few Swedes have heart-touching rags to riches stories means absolutley nothing. Statistics are not representative of such stories.

No I am not a nazi, I apologize if you feel I came accross that way with my point. But yes, hard work are the keys to succeeding in capitalism. It is actually a combinations of factors. Not only hard work is needed, other conditions must also be met such as a peaceful environment in which to conduct business.

A lot of people have to work hard to climb the economic ladder. You needs lots of hard work and ingenuity. There are tons of examples of people who started from zero and worked their way up, while others just stay at home blaming everybody else for their failure.

And if I work my ass off, to create a company, to create wealth and to climb up the ladder, I wouldn't want my sons to start up from zero again. Wouldn't make any sense. I am working hard not only for me but also for my family. What is so wrong with that? Yes there are some people that are born with a silver spoon, but their fathers, or grandfathers, or someone worked hard for them to have that. Wealth was at some time created and they shall do with it whatever they want, if they wish to give it to their children let it be so.

>>Did you know that Tanzania is probably one of the countries in the World who has received more money in aid both from Europe and the U.S.? They have poured billions into the country over many decades for all types of social and development programs. However today, Tanzania remains one of the poorest countries on earth. Why? Corruption is rampant. Most of the money have ended up in the polititians pockets.
---
Corruption can only be combatted through national unity and commitment by a third world nation. Throwing money does not help. If you are still not fully independent, if there are still foreign influences outweighing development you will get nowhere. I support foreign development programs in giving money to a generally assembled government committed to building the nation. The free market assistance will end up with those who are powerful, the greedy warlords, with the money and no real progrss will ever be made.


I agree. But the problem is most of this nations unfortunately don't have a governement 'committed to building the nation'. And nobody can do anything about it. And if the US tried to change the government you people in the left would be the first to cry out.


>>Corruption is a terrible thing. It is terrible on companies but it is even more terrible and devastating in governments.
----
Companies are authoritarian institutions with goals of outcompeting others to stay in business. This is precisely why exploitation is rational and is done by people who are not naturally evil. Governments are institutions which do not compete in profits against other governments, institutions which are representative of the people. Castro's socialist reforms have transformed Cuba into one of the best, if not the best, nations in living standard in Latin America, meanwhile being embargoed upon by a neighbouring superpower. The right-wing Batista seems more of the corrupt politician.

Most companies are good. They provide needed goods and services to the people and provide employment. Competition is what improves the quality of the goods and services and makes companies care much more about their clients. Without competition you only have mediocre monopolies.

You seem to have such an evil look at companies, and yet you naively believe that a big government would be much better and ethical. The fact that governements are not in competition, doesn't really mean they are out of corruption and will seek to do the best for the people.


>>Do you believe that if you implant socialism in Africa and Latin America they would suddenly be on the path to riches? Not likely. More power to the government would result in more corruption and more manipulation of the media.
---
What media? These countries could only dream of a media. One socialist government in Latin America has survived without being overthrown by the US, Cuba, they have made truly immense progress. Dozens were true populist movements overthrown by the United States in CIA organized or backed coups. These coups I assume were in the best interest of their people to keep away from corruption. "Free market" has done them a great deal of good.


Yes, it has done them real good. Chile is a heck of a lot better than Cuba, and it is soon to be considered a developed country. Thanks to a needed strong regime of law an order by Pinochet.

If there is one country where there is absolutely no freedom for the media, that is Cuba. Don't fool yourself, life in Cuba is harsh. Cubans aren't precisely wealthy or have a comfortable life. Tourists in Cuba have tons of more privileges that cubans in their own country ever have.



(Edited by concerned at 11:20 pm on Aug. 7, 2002)

[concerned]

Good point, CI.

[Capitalist Imperial]

your post was excellent, too

(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 12:46 am on Aug. 8, 2002)

[marxistdisciple]

So capitalism saves nations who are starving by how? Giving 'corrupt' governments money? How's that work?

What can they make money out of when their citizans are starving to death?

Money is useless when you don't have decent resources to export, or to eat. what they need is education and some kind of socialist care program. Money will not help uneducated starving people now, will it?

[Dynatos]

Corruption in the Government and private firms are motivated by one thing: Greed. Greed is all so caused by capitalism and i think Conserned proved that when He/she (im not sure) said:
''yes, hard work are the keys to succeeding in capitalism. It is actually a combinations of factors. Not only hard work is needed, other conditions must also be met such as a peaceful environment in which to conduct business. A lot of people have to work hard to climb the economic ladder. You needs lots of hard work and ingenuity. There are tons of examples of people who started from zero and worked their way up, while others just stay at home blaming everybody else for their failure.''
I think that you will agree that in order to ''climb the economic ladder'' you also need to push others off. ie; competition. To constently compete with others you also need to be selfish, greedy, and stop at nothing to put your leading competiter out of buisness. therefor the only people that get to the top of the ladder are greedy and selfish, thus insuring the corruption of every top buisnessman and government official. Believe me, in a capitalist world buisnessmen don't get to the top by sharing there clients with other buisnessmen. Even if a nice person gets to the top of the ladder they still have to compete and they can't compete by paying there workers thousands of dollars a week. they have to trie and find the cheepest workers (usualy the people working in sweet shops) to be able to lower the price of the product they are selling and compete with others.

[Americana]

>> "Greed is all so caused by capitalism"

What? And im sure Fidel Castro isnt greedy...
FUCK NO.. NOT FIDEL!?

>>>> "and i think Conserned proved that when He/she (im not sure) said:
''yes, hard work are the keys to succeeding in capitalism."

Dynatos...
Are you saying you dont want to work hard.. and that in communism you wont have to work hard for what you want?

[marxistdisciple]

He is saying that you have to reduce your morals to acts of greed and competition to get to the top of the ladder. You must be cutthroat and ruthless to win in the capitalist world. There is few few CEOs who are nice blokes who care a lot about other people, and as he correctly states, they must compete in order to stay at the top. Therefore, the most successful people are the most competitive. I don't know how many overly competitive people you know, but I tend to find that they are terribly arrogant and difficult to get on with. the problem is of course that business has a huge power of government, therefore their selfish greedy needs are substituted for actual policies to help people. In other words, unhealthy competition.

As for your usual righty stance of "you are too lazy to be successful" it's clearly bull. Some people (most people in fact) work hard their entire lives to get to where they want to go. some make it in their chosen profession. However, you don't see many top executives who got to their position purely by working hard. They had another aspect, which is supported in our capitalist countries - arrogance, ambition and ignorance. If you have all three of those and good business sense, you can't fail to succeed.

[Nateddi]

>>What? And im sure Fidel Castro isnt greedy...
FUCK NO.. NOT FIDEL!?

Castro has spent making speeches about how the combination of the wealth owned by the top officials in the government isn't anywhere near what the single man George W. enjoys. Castro does not live in a palace, he is not someone who lives like a typical rich c.e.o.

Americana, get your shit straight. I am tired of your right-wing rhetoric. Pick a side, i suggest learn both sides, and at time when you don't know something, cut the rightist rhetoric, it is very galling.

[Americana]

Nateddi..
i wasnt just refering to greed of money..
greed of power = dictatorship

[Americana]

Nvermind..
Nateddi you right... i kinda fucked myself over
ill quit my bullshit

[j]

This is what concerned said:

"Socialism may have slowed down Sweden's development, and is in great part responsible for the current economical crisis, but still Sweden has a pretty decent standard of living. And that is because levels of corruption in Sweden are so incredibly low and people are very hard working and honest. The swedes that came to America a century ago and live in Minnesotta are all quite rich (and when they arrived there they were awfully poor and starving), and that is because they are all very hardworking people. They would have succeeded in any country that gave them a little bit of opportunity.

Unfortunately this is not the case in Africa or LatinAmerica. Levels of corruption are unbereable and there is the total opposite of a high working morale. If there was any kind of unemployment insurance in Colombia, I can assure you nobody would go to work. Everybody would be trying to take advantage of welfare. "


Concerned-that is racist. You are making statements about whole groups of people. There are successful Colombians and poor swedes. Don't make this gross, stereotypical and racist remarks.

j

[Stormin Norman]

Dynatos,

Do you care to offer up any reasons why these statistic are true. Can you tell me the economics behind these failures? Can you tell me where the fundamental flaw in capitalism lies, or how communism presents a better way of allocating resources? Can you tell me anything other than, "capitalism doesn't work"? I think somebody making the claim has the burden of proof, and you have offered me nothing that provides evidence as to the failures of capitalism. Can you explain some of the differences between the rich and the poor countries on your list? Why the disparity?

[concerned]

Quote: from Nateddi on 3:55 pm on Aug. 9, 2002
>>What? And im sure Fidel Castro isnt greedy...
FUCK NO.. NOT FIDEL!?

Castro has spent making speeches about how the combination of the wealth owned by the top officials in the government isn't anywhere near what the single man George W. enjoys. Castro does not live in a palace, he is not someone who lives like a typical rich c.e.o.


I wouldn't be so sure about that. Anyway, if we take as true that the "combination of the wealth owned by the top officials in the government isn't anywhere near what the single man George W. enjoys", that still is not the point. The difference of the combination of wealth owned by Castro and the top officials of the Cuban government in respect to the "wealth"(if any) of the average Cuban is greater than that of the American governement and the average American.

Compared to the average Cuban, Castro and his governement are filthy rich.


(Edited by concerned at 8:16 pm on Aug. 11, 2002)

[concerned]

Quote: from j on 3:38 am on Aug. 11, 2002
This is what concerned said:

"Socialism may have slowed down Sweden's development, and is in great part responsible for the current economical crisis, but still Sweden has a pretty decent standard of living. And that is because levels of corruption in Sweden are so incredibly low and people are very hard working and honest. The swedes that came to America a century ago and live in Minnesotta are all quite rich (and when they arrived there they were awfully poor and starving), and that is because they are all very hardworking people. They would have succeeded in any country that gave them a little bit of opportunity.

Unfortunately this is not the case in Africa or LatinAmerica. Levels of corruption are unbereable and there is the total opposite of a high working morale. If there was any kind of unemployment insurance in Colombia, I can assure you nobody would go to work. Everybody would be trying to take advantage of welfare. "


Concerned-that is racist. You are making statements about whole groups of people. There are successful Colombians and poor swedes. Don't make this gross, stereotypical and racist remarks.

j


I've already addressed these points before. These are not racist remarks, they are the truth. Of course there are successful colombians and poor swedes (specially in Sweden). But statistically the swedes that have come to America, even though they came without a cent in their pockets have managed to be very successful. Unfortunately not so with the majority of colombians or people from latinamerica who have migrated to the USA, they usually stay with low level jobs.

This is a fact. It doesn't mean that swedes are superior to latinamericans or anything like that, that is not my point at all. It just means that the cultures are very different, in which one promotes the values of hard work and self achievement whereas the other focuses mainly on party, easy money and having a good time.

Of course, as with all generalizations there are exceptions. But there is still some truth behind them none the less.

(Edited by concerned at 8:28 pm on Aug. 11, 2002)

[Guest]

Oh come on though, compare those stats to commie states, - they're all shit holes.

[vox]

"Oh come on though, compare those stats to commie states, - they're all shit holes."

Does the failure of Authoritarian Collectivism have anything at all to do with the performance of capitalism or with the democratic socialism proposed by so many on this board?

Rather than discuss the failures of capitlalism, too many right-wingers simply want to discuss the Soviet Union or China. This is hardly an argument in support of capitalism, of course.

vox

[marxistdisciple]

Capitalism has killed millions of people all over the world. Principally it is based on making money above all else. How can that possibly be good? The idea is to make money, why should anyone have other motives in a system so blatently simple?

The idea of communism may be a lot more complex, but it really isn't that difficult to understand. Principally it is based upon the needs of the people.

Capitalism is just about economics, the needs of the people are never consisdered in purely mathmatical equations. The greatest people in history have always been socialists, certainly the most inteligent and understanding of human kind. The people that actually care about other people are socialists, hence the name. That's why right wingers are usually either a) selfish scumbags or B) completely socially inept and incapable of basic social cognitive functions.

That's why they call us socialists, because we are social...and we understand other people's pain, other people's feelings :) You won't here many social capitalist arguments, because most of their arguments are based on either economy (which would be of little consequence in a completely socialist world as long as people's needs were being met) or wild stabs at stalinism which was an insult to Marx's ideology.
As a capitalist you must either confess that you don't believe humans are capable of any further evolution, or that we should be selfish and individualistic above all else.

Of course, the more highly evolved minds on this buliton board have realised somewhere along the way that in order to have a happy and prosperous life, you don't necessarily have to crush anybody elses. We realise that exploitation is not necessary for happiness, in fact, we'd be altogether happy if it didn't exist at all. And we believe one day people will stop having delusions of grandeur, and believing they are somehow better than others. We are all human beings, albeit with differences, we mostly want and need the same things.
So why create unnatural divisions of class and hirearchy? It is to enforce the views of a few powerful men. In the end, a capitalist economy simply concentrates the power to the people that revel in it.

The world controllers are simply tainted by the power and privledge they possess, and lose any ability to remove conditions which may change that ballance.
In capitalism, the people at the top are the most greedy, and the most competitive, after all it's only natural that they should be under this system.