Results 1 to 20 of 36
This question is mainly for the cappies' but I suppose anyone can contribute.
Is Free Trade really free or only for those who make money and how exactly does it benefit everyone as some people like to claim?
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.05
And unnatural, irrational, sinful, wicked, unjust, devilish and tyrannical it is, for any man whatsoever - spiritual or temporal, clergyman or layman - to appropriate and assume unto himself a power, authority and jurisdiction to rule, govern, or reign over any sort of men in the world without their free consent...
John Lilburne, 1647
I'm not anti-intellectual, I'm just not an intellectual.
Capitalism will eat itself.
From what I can understand, it simply allows big corporations to walk into another country and set up shop. Thus bypassing any regualtions that the country in question had in place. All it really is, is just unchecked capitalism. All it can do is make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
The freedom of all is essential to my freedom.
Mikhail Bakunin (1814 - 1876)
Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience and rebellion that progress has been made.
- Oscar Wilde
Capitalism has been the only thing that's made anyone at least moderately wealthy.
Look at America in the early 20th century.
How did we from a nation of peasant farmers to a nation of suburbanite middle classers?
Unfettered capitalism.
Unfettered capitalism has NEVER done what you've described.
Human life is not commodity, figures, statistics or make believe.
Let me simplify this a little bit: If I have something you want, and you have something I want, shouldn't we be allowed to trade it?
Shouldn't we be free to trade it?
If so, voila, free trade.
Human life is not commodity, figures, statistics or make believe.
"Free Trade" in this context is somewhat akin to a game of poker: Whilst the player with the biggest stack is the most likely to "win", the underdog, with only enough left to call, still has the chance of stealing that pile. Anyone can play, but the demand is that you can at least match the stake. For most, this is not possible - to do is in itself is gambling, as the money would be borrowed from another.
It's merely the idea of "dog eat dog" allowed to run rife - it is in many ways very succesful, in that it generates a substantial amount of technological growth (dependant on many other factors, of course) and material wealth, some of which does begin to filter down to those who actual generate this wealth, rather than those who coordinate. There is much scope in such a system, but I believe it to be vitally flawed: There will always be (and it is accepted to be the case) those that cannot drag themselves out of the mire; that cannot get the necessary credit to act upon their "dreams" in this way (for in our materialistic society, so many "dream" of such capital prowess); that cannot remove the burdens that prevent them from realising a comfortable life under a capital system... for a free market system would provide this possibility for many.
So, free trade is free trade - it does just what it says on the tin. However, like poker the game is only played by those of a reckless demeanour. It does not provide for the populous as a whole in any way, save the technological progress that is made and it's eventual reduction in cost that leaves it available to all but the worst off parts of such a society.
It's a good idea, and fucking awful at the same time.
Adiel: How can you defend a country where 5 percent of the people control 95 percent of the wealth?
Lisa: I'm defending a country where people can think and act and worship any way they want!
Adiel: Cannot!
Lisa: Can to!
Adiel: Cannot!
Lisa: Can to!
Homer: Please, please, kids; stop fighting. Maybe Lisa is right about America being the land of opportunity, maybe Adiel has a point about the machinery of capitalism being oiled with the blood of the workers.
Please don't use America as an example of free trade, we both know that as accurate as saying that the Soviet Union was a communst paradise.
Free trade does mean what it says, but in order for this to occur there needs to be no government, or otherwise, intervention. For the CAP alone you could not say free trade is practiced within Europe. Because of the state of oligarchy abtained my many U.S. based corps. you could not accurately apply the term there. In fact some of the only places to have anything near free trade are specifically designed "free trade zones." These are set up in several underveloped areas, the Phillipines for example. In these areas almost anything goes, workers come, work in poor conditions for long hours and leave with poor pay. I realise that this would not likely be the result of free trade on a larger scale, but it is bad in itself.
If free trade was practiced exactly there would probably be a redressing of some of the inequality in the world, but only if we started from square one. It might help make things better at its finest, but it won't help make things good. Capitalism as an ideology is flawed and is in my oppinion a step in the wrong direction.
America had rather free trade during this period.
No, it wasn't textbook perfect by any means, but what is?
[quote]Free trade does mean what it says, but in order for this to occur there needs to be no government, or otherwise, intervention. For the CAP alone you could not say free trade is practiced within Europe. Because of the state of oligarchy abtained my many U.S. based corps. you could not accurately apply the term there. In fact some of the only places to have anything near free trade are specifically designed "free trade zones." These are set up in several underveloped areas, the Phillipines for example. In these areas almost anything goes, workers come, work in poor conditions for long hours and leave with poor pay. I realise that this would not likely be the result of free trade on a larger scale, but it is bad in itself. [/qutoe]
When I say I support Free Trade, I mean just that.
CAFTA is a step in the right direction, but I would like no (Zero) restrictions on trade.
Globalization can do (And has done) nothing but make us richer and better off.
Human life is not commodity, figures, statistics or make believe.
Falacy.
Trade is not 'zero sum'.
There is not a set amount of chips.
It's more akin to a game of poker where everyone gets more chips until they all have enough to be content and cash them out.
Well if you say it, it must be so!
Capitalism is quite adept at helping out the poor.
This is just incorrect.
Globalization has made the poor of the world demonstrably richer.
It cut the amount of the world's extreme poor in half in just 15 years.
Free trade is just that, free trade.
Freedom is good, so is trade.
Human life is not commodity, figures, statistics or make believe.
Increasing free trade will create slightly more initially as the horrendous ammounts wasted by beaurocracy, and government mismanagement will be reduced. However the percentages of this extra reaching those that created it will be smaller. Yes people would be better off, some much better off, some just a little.
The problem is that the corporations that exist today were not borne out of free trade, they are a product of the favouritism and protectionism that aided their success, then and now.
There may be bits of legislation every now and then freeing trade, but there are also some strong fiscal policies being proccessed, and if it is real free trade you are looking for you would need a capitalist revolution.
Free trade is the suck.
After the trade ask the 200,000 people you used as tools what they think of your free trade system.
"whatever they might make would never be the same as that world of dark streets and bright dreams"
http://youtu.be/g-PwIDYbDqI
Slave labour.
The freedom of all is essential to my freedom.
Mikhail Bakunin (1814 - 1876)
Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience and rebellion that progress has been made.
- Oscar Wilde
False. People have been poor and wealthy throughout history in a multitude of economic systems.
Not to mention that it's very easy to get wealthy when you steal an entire continent from another people. Man, those native americans sure benefitted.
Government policy. Efforts were directed by the government towards specific ends, one of them being the urbanization of key trading areas and another being expansion into the "empty territory" to the west. Both of these led to further government involvement into creating a road infrastructure capable of traversing the large expanses in between urban areas on the continent, creating more avenues for growth.
Except it wasn't unfettered capitalism, now was it?
The Roman Republic. That was unfettered capitalism. Which led to the roman revolution and then to imperial rome. Ever wonder why the Cato institute is name the Cato Institute?
<span style=\'color:red\'>The man who has got everything he wants is all in favor of peace and order.</span> - Jawaharlal Nehru
<span style=\'color:red\'>The distinguishing sign of slavery is to have a price, and to be bought for it.</span> - John Ruskin
-----------------------------------------------------
Red Apollo -- Anti-establishment, anti-authoritarian arts and projects <span style=\'color:red\'>New and improved! :P</span>
The Red Wiki
Mutiny At Sector Five -- revolutionary politics and adventure game
Make your own Commie Comic!
Hahahahahah
Might want to pick that history book up again, son.
If it was 'slave labor' that made us rich, wouldn't the south be the richest part of the nation?
Isn't it the poorest?
Human life is not commodity, figures, statistics or make believe.
Re-read my statement.
People have been poor through the entire span of human history until capitalism.
A king 200 years ago is a peasant compared to the average person in the capitalist west.
Capitalism is the only system that has been able to make people rich.
Compare the advance of wealth from 10,000 years ago to 200, and then from 200 years ago to today.
Fair enough.
But I would consider that a governmental failure.
So if government can just pass a writ, they can create wealth?
I'm not denying that government providing an infrastructure aided the growth, but a governmental infrastructure without the capitalist system of production is just that.
Roads do no good when they have no merchants traversing them.
And the government took all the money it used to pay for those ammenities FROM the people.
And where did those people get the wealth? Capitalism.
Government is a parsite, stealing from capitalism.
If you let me steal millions of dollars to employ thousands of men, I could build a fucking road.
For the most part.
And it was 'unfettered capitalism' that lead the growth.
The parts of capitalism that were fettered were significantly worse in performance.
Only through the gains of capitalism are the wastes of government acceptable.
From 'Cato's Letters' ( http://www.constitution.org/cl/cato_000.htm ), not from the Emporor Cato. Yes, the letters derived their name from the Emperor, but it's these letters the Institute is named after.
And how was the Roman Republic capitalistic? It was mercantalistic if anything, and predicated on slave labor, a completely un-capitalist force.
Human life is not commodity, figures, statistics or make believe.
Technology, and social "progress" are as responsible for this as anything. If you want to say that technology has only been created out of a business interest then that is something else. Not everything can be attributed to capitalism and could be envisaged in other systems, although useless inventions such as anti-ageing creams and crazy frogs woud most likely never have existed.
Well last time I knew, people are still poor under capitalism. Actually, UN reports provide evidence that the gap between rich and poor is widening among the hollowing of the middle class. Moreover, if it wasn't for state intervention of the economic structure, the most damaging consequences would result. The minimum wage for example.
<span style=\'color:black\'>Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor - with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil...to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real. - General MacArthur
Point me to a place where men openly slaughter one another and I will show you a government behind all the carnage. - Anselme Bellegarrigue</span>
<u>political compass</u>
Economic Left/Right -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -9.49
My Blog
Engels was all for free trade and gave at least two good lectures on it. He felt it helped break down nationalistic ties and united the workers better, he also felt that the more countries devestated by Industrialized labour practices would make a revolution more enevitable.
http://www.marx.org/archive/marx/works/sub...trade/index.htm
I don't know that I agree, current free trade agreements deal almost exclusively with foriegn investment, so that any corperation anywhere can own the means of production even in different countries. Which only benefits the wealthy, who already control the means of production in there own country and can easily buy up the right to profit from treatied countries. Furthermore the fact that no Intl. Trade agreement has ever included even the premise that, they would endeavour to raise the labour standards to that of the highest participating nation, which forces down wages and labour standards everywhere. Just as Smith described competition for work would do.
It's paperwork imperialism allowing a few wealthy americans to own the recources, the means of extraction and production and collect all the profit, in New York, Washington, or L.A. Just like they've done with their armies, to countries all over the world, for the last 200 years.
Besides the US doesn't obey their side of NAFTA, Canada has had 26 consistent victories over tariffs, and subsidies at the WTO, so why should we participate. The country can't keep it's word ontreaties whether NAFTA, or the Geneva convention, on prisoners rights.
"One who is commited to the poor must run the same fate as the poor and in El Salvador we know what the fate of the poor signifies; To dissapear, to be tortured, to be captive-and to be found Dead." Father Oscar Romero Socialist Martyr
One of them Blog thingies: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/blogs/cormacobear
Basically.
The systems presented reguarless if they're political or economic are sound. Just as communism, anarchism etc..
It's the hijacking and misuse of them that becomes a problem.
"whatever they might make would never be the same as that world of dark streets and bright dreams"
http://youtu.be/g-PwIDYbDqI
Publius, you should pick up a history book. Start reading about american history begining in the 1900's, focus on the northeast and down through Kentucky. In the 1920's there was this thing that was commonly refered to as the black migration. It happened to coincide with the big industrial boom. This was also really the begining of urbanization. There were many blacks competing with irish immigrants for insutrial work positions, as they were looking to escape southern "jim crow" styled oppression. Ultimately, the thing that took the US from the argiculturally profitable slave nation to another kind of wealth was the industrial boom. During the industrial boom there was plenty of GROSS labor exploitation. Poor working conditions, saftey precautions not taken in the interest of profitablity, children working for virtually nothing, no overtime pay, or benefits. Additionally, standard wages were dictated by the industrial bourgeois, and so if the worker didn't like the job he had, he could quit. But if if he did quit, the job down the street would pay the exact same, almost nothing. But he was unwise to leave his job, as the que of unemployed was rather high, and would be glad to take his job. This country became rich from our industrial revolution, and that wealth was not shared fairly at all. The fact that the earned wages got the worker barely enough to share housing with 5 other families, in crowded unsanitized situations, and enough food to not starve makes this really no different than slavery. If you disagree with that, then you are in the minority, as most history professors that I know would agree with this view.
At the end of the 1920's came the depression, which lasted for 10 years, and wound up becoming an international affair. But you'll notice that FDR's "new deal" was really the U.S. government's first big, direct investment in cultural development. It became necessary for the US government to become the protective sheild from the exploitative industry owners. In the 1930's we saw the emergence of thigs like child labor laws, minimum wages, and maximum work loads all FOR A REASON, THE WORKERS WERE BEING EXPLOITED. Your vision of unfettered capitalism doesn't exist in this country because it was ripping this country appart. If you think that someone needs to read the history books again, maybe you are that someone. I recommend Howard Zinn's "A people's history", read the play "Joe Turner come and gone" by August wilson, and study FDR's "new deal" here http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/new_deal.htm if you'd like. This page has a nice summerization, but is not exhaustive.
The fact is plain, after any REAL study of america in the 20th century, that wealth in this country originally came from slavery, but switched to industrial labor exploitation. The only difference in payment to the workers in the two were that free workers weren't owned or beaten. Other than that, in both cases, the workers were not given anything more than what was needed to survive. The reason that the south is poor today is because it lost it's industry. Despite the invention of the cotton gin, foreign shores offered cheaper textiles, and so bourgeois textile manufacturers either accpeted this, and move to other countries, or went out of buisness trying to compete with the cheaper off shore providers. (Those suckers thought that the US textile retailers would keep buying from them for keeping jobs in america; suckers)
Wealth in the south has dried up, and it is now poor. A lot of this has to do with the fact that it never really recovered from the depression, especially with slaery outlawed, and a crackdown on jim crow laws. The Northeast is prosperous for a very similar labor exloitation.
Finally I also recommend that you view Charlie Chaplin's " Modern Times", I think it also works towards this point, and it was somewhat contemporary to these issues, as it was made in 1936.
And amassing wealth is good for mental health? You are making this statement based on the idea of money equalling happiness, which is insane. Have you done any social studies on things like suicide rates in the last 200 years? If we are wealthier now, then why aren't people jumping for joy?? Maybe because 1 - capital gain doesn not equal happiness, and 2 - because that capital is really poorly shared
Our gov'ts failure or theirs? Of course you know that the native americans didn't have a centralized governmental body? None the less, it doesn't at all vendicate you point of capitalism being what made america rich. Capitalism has existed here for a long time, but I would think that the natural resources in this, the most fertile land in the world, are what gave us the ability to have our slave labour and big industrial boom.
NO. If you recall from US history, we have spent a good deal of time spending beyond our means. Again, FDR went on spending like crazy to pull this country out of it's depression. The government wasn't funding those projects from the surplus wealth of capitalism, it was running up debt. (Kinda like the current administration)
That unfettered capitalism prior to 1933 created some of the worst living conditions in human history. But if you insist on calling it progress, that is your choice.
The definition of slave labor becomes sort of blurred in execution vs. concept in a state of imperialism. Just because the US buisness owners don't own their work force, they know that thework force has nowhere else to go (especially when whatever prexisting industry is smashed out). Again, in slavery you are owned, but given food and lodging. In imperial "unfettered capitalism" you are very likely to be given just barely enough to attain food, and if you are really lucky housing with 5 or 6 other families (kinda like on the plantations, eh). A the end of the day the plantation or buisness owner pockets the capital profit, and gives either buys the necessarys the essentials to keep them alive, or pays the the tantamount equilovent. So, really only the terminology is different, but the deeds are the same.
