Top problems affecting the world.

[Az]

Maybe you are too close to the issue to understand.
Do you think that these people can see suffering of there people and not identify? Of course, they will take a stand. You erase the issues/problems then the symptoms go away. It's that simple.

Like the singaporeans' symptoms? poor souls, living in a one of the handful of first world asian countries is surely a mess.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
duh

The poor are doing all the work though, without them he is nothing.

Clearly, it's not Bush's fault we went into Iraq, it's the soldiers' faults. After all, without them he is nothing.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Terrorism isn't even on the top 10 list. How many died by terrorism, globally, in the last 10 years? 10 000? Compare that with war, genocide, AIDS, malaria, earthquakes, starvation and whatever. Hey, even car accidents dwarfs terrorism.

Still it gets so much attention. Why, really?

Terrorism has social implications out of proportion to the number of deaths it causes.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Drogue
I thought Marx advocated equality? How than can your income be determined by the value of what you do. A free market does value it as such, as you are free to take your labour elsewhere. How does Marxism handle it?

Income is determined by how much capital you own in a capitalist system. It's determined by who you are, not what you do.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Drogue

Yes. I favour equality over inequality, but I think it comes at too high a price. Every system I've seen that would increase equality would do so at the expense of overall growth. Thus a system that would make rich people have less wealth would not increase the wealth of poor people by as much as the rich people lost. You're sacrificing some growth overall for a higher growth among poor people. I accept that this can be worth it, but I'd concentrate far more on relieving poverty than I would making sure everyone had the same. They're similar, but not the same problem.

The kind of economic growth that you are anticipating can't happen in the world. It happens to developing nations, but then continues to slow as those nations develope.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Income is determined by how much capital you own in a capitalist system. It's determined by who you are, not what you do.

No, in a capitalist system income is determined by the resources you own, which is any capital you own plus your labour. Labour is intellectual capital. Income from labour is larger for almost everyone than income from capital. The worth of any asset, be it capital or labour, in a capitalist market is decided by the present value of all future earnings. Thus if you do a job better than someone else, using the same capital, your labour is worth more than theirs.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Agathon
I mean, even Kidicious is a better capitalist than you.

What the hell did I do to deserve that?!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Drogue
Thus if you do a job better than someone else, using the same capital, your labour is worth more than theirs.

Ah, that's the key isn't it. You have to own the capital to earn as much as others who do.

[Az]

Clearly, it's not Bush's fault we went into Iraq, it's the soldiers' faults. After all, without them he is nothing.

Without them, he's nothing, but they're not the one who made the decision.

bad comparison.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Ah, that's the key isn't it. You have to own the capital to earn as much as others who do.

No you don't, you have to be employed to use it. Most people are not self employed, and most people use tools their employer provides to do there job.

There's a thing in economics called economic rent. The idea being that any economic profit made is attributable to something that company has that is better than it's competitors. That factor then gets the rent earned from that. So if it has an employee that is particularly good, that employee will be paid more to compensate for him being that good, else other companies will offer him more. If the company instead owns a particularly good piece of equipment for the employee to use, then the company gets the rent, due to the equipment, not the employee, being the factor the rent is due to.

Wages are paid, in a totally competative, free market, on the basis of ability at that job (or at least, perceived ability at that job), which has nothing to do with whether or not you can afford equipment, because your employer provides that. I wouldn't expect to be employed as a computer programmer, say, and be asked to bring my own computer. One would be provided, so it doesn't matter whether or not I can afford one to get that job.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel

Clearly, it's not Bush's fault we went into Iraq, it's the soldiers' faults. After all, without them he is nothing.

Without them, he's nothing, but they're not the one who made the decision.

bad comparison.

bin Laden (and his planners) made the decision to go ahead with the attack on the WTC. The point is that bin Laden isn't somehow not responsible.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Terrorism has social implications out of proportion to the number of deaths it causes.

"Social implications" is a vague term, tells me nothing. Still, war and genocide are much worse of the man-made disasters.

[Arrian]

I assume the obligatory "George W. Bush" response has already been made?

-Arrian

[FrostyBoy]

War and genocide are not man-made?

[Az]

Not yet, IIRC.


WTG Arrian.