Hitler and Bush...

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kidicious
If they didn't have to work there then why do they? When you go to McDonalds do you ask for the toilet brush so that you can clean the toilet because you just want to.

My response to that was probably somewhat facetious, but I think that in the few situations where crappy work is the only work, this is due to imperialism and disrespect for human rights, not capitalism. Most of these MNC-run economies are the result of the systematic and purposeful destruction of native economies, not inevitable results of a capitalist society.

[cinch]

Cyclo:

Would you like to define "cheap" for me?

In this instance, I was using 'cheap' to mean 'the lowest possible cost'. It is 'cheaper' to pay an illiterate Cambodian villager to put a shoe together than it is to pay some guy from Des Moines minimum wage.

I think that capitalism does not depend on workers being paid below some arbitrary pay standard. I'm not a libertarian and I don't think that we should have completely unrestricted capitalism. Human rights exploitation is deplorable, but there are plenty of capitalist businesses that do not use such practices.

Yes, that's true. But the question was: "Does capitalism cause poverty", and it does. Even if some people have good intentions, there are many people and corporations who place currency above human life. They seek profit. Profit is the soul of capitalism. Hence, capitalism breeds poverty.

Sh*t, if the communists get to say that 20th century communism wasn't "true communism," surely I can say that present day imperialism isn't "true capitalism."

You have a point there. I, too, am an advocate of a regulated free market... maybe, just maybe, with indicative planning (maybe... I don't pretend to have all the answers) . I think the soul of capitalism should revert back to entrepreneurship, and not corporate globalism (and its extreme profits), as is the current situation. When Wal-Marts drive out local businesses, we have to stop applauding and start getting PO'd.

Then the workers don't have to work there, dammit. I sure wouldn't if they greased the wheels with my blood.

Assuming they have a choice (i.e. not just slaves), what would you rather have them do? They have to at least try to go to the factory and make that few cents... it's better than nothing. Maybe they'll be able to save at least one of their family members. Labourers in 3rd world countries have very few choices, obviously, for the most part: dead end traditional work (agriculture, perhaps), factories (or somehting similar), or crime. Many choose factories or sweatshops. I can't fault them.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
My response to that was probably somewhat facetious, but I think that in the few situations where crappy work is the only work, this is due to imperialism and disrespect for human rights, not capitalism.

You're a reasonable person. I hear that other comment here so much, but you're the first person who has said it that retracted it.

The reason capitalism creates poverty is because of profit. Profit must always increase or capitalism fails. Presure to keep profits increasing creates presure to keep wages down. Imperialism and abuse are just natural parts of capitalism.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by monkspider
Can't say I have, do you recemmend him?

Well, I don't personally agree with his perspective, but he proposes some very interesting ideas and points about human culture and "why things are the way they are." He just sounds like he might be right up your alley. If you're interested, it shouldn't be too hard to pick up a copy of "Ishmael" at your local library or bookstore.

[monkspider]

Cool, sounds intriguing, I will give him a read sometime. Thanks Cyc.

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by cinch

I think the soul of capitalism should revert back to entrepreneurship, and not corporate globalism (and its extreme profits), as is the current situation. When Wal-Marts drive out local businesses, we have to stop applauding and start getting PO'd.

Interresting thought... I have been thinking about the same,
which brings us back to ideologies...

Closest call: Liberalism.
Historically, this 'entrepreneurship' was described by Adam Smith, a pragmatic and an anti-monopolist. He wrote that it was in the interest of the market to function with many smaller entrepreneurs, or providers, and fair undisturbed conditions between them so the competion went smoothly and the demands were met. A selfgoing machinery in other words.

Monopolism later destroyed Adam Smiths visions. Fine theories, but as many other ideologies they worked out wrong... Thus, regulations were needed to support the market. Many countries did that, and prospered. (eg. democracies in Europe and to some degree America) And that's where politics come into play now...

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The reason capitalism creates poverty is because of profit. Profit must always increase or capitalism fails.

Intriguing. Why must profit increase?

[ThePlagueRat]

Because if you do not manage to increase profits and invest more, the competitors will surely take your share and increase theirs, and your profits will ultimately decrease as a result. This applies to a free competition market, and not neccesarily to a competition protected (regulated) market.


I can't post more here today, but I hope you have learned something about capitalism too, cyclo.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Intriguing. Why must profit increase?

Profit is the driving force. Profit is what makes capitalism dynamic. It determines how the resources will be distributed. Profits have to increase for economic growth, and growth is needed to maintain the current and future labor force and capital.

[ThePlagueRat]

Yeah, I just explained that, but relate it to Social-Liberal politics and you will have a safety network which would ensure human rights and welfare. Thus, more efficient workers. Holidays, fun, and pub-nights.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Because if you do not manage to increase profits and invest more, the competitors will surely take your share and increase theirs, and your profits will ultimately decrease as a result. This applies to a free competition market, and not neccesarily to a competition protected (regulated) market.

That's understandable enough, but I don't advocate a free competition market.

I can't post more here today, but I hope you have learned something about capitalism too, cyclo.

I've been sliding between this and writing a term paper, so I haven't been around as much as I'd like, but I have indeed learned something. Thanks.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Yeah, I just explained that, but relate it to Social-Liberal politics and you will have a safety network which would ensure human rights and welfare. Thus, more efficient workers. Holidays, fun, and pub-nights.

We're posting the same thing at the same time.

[ThePlagueRat]

Yeah, I guess we thought the same?!

I do advocate Liberal and Social policies/reforms combined with a liberal market. Everybody will get more rights and a good welfare state can prosper. Especially for Russia this is important now. And then we can all have more fun, and better health!

[Cyclotron]

That's pretty much my aim, too, a capitalist society with social reforms to promote our duties to others, prevent monopolization, encourage competition, etcetera.

Why all the arguing, anyway?

[Kidlicious]

A welfare state is expensive and doesn't always eliminate poverty though. Usually because the govt screws it up. The problem is that it tends to pay people for not working. Don't get me wrong though, I'm for welfare.