[HippieKai]

And today is the first day of the Capitalist Shopping Orgy month.

water just about came out of my nose.

 

[ohio]

the market has no direct control over CEO salaries. this is the problem.

I disagree that it's a problem. See my previous post. The salary is governed by free market principles. As long as the board is motivated by company performance and not padding the pockets of good friends this works well. Most shareholders are after performance, and if those high CEO salaries don't lead to profitability, the shareholders won't let them (CEOs or board members) keep their jobs for long

 

[Silver]

Auditing is a different story. The auditing firms all turned into large mega-firms that also had consulting and law divisions.

So you had the companies telling the auditors that if they'd let a little slide, there would be a large consulting contract heading their way. If the auditing firm didn't play ball, the company goes and finds another firm. It's pretty sad when I was in business school (~7 years ago) that the professors were telling us to read the notes to the annual report more closely than the balance sheet to see how the numbers were getting massaged...

 

[DRB]

I disagree that it's a problem. See my previous post. The salary is governed by free market principles. As long as the board is motivated by company performance and not padding the pockets of good friends this works well. Most shareholders are after performance, and if those high CEO salaries don't lead to profitability, the shareholders won't let them (CEOs or board members) keep their jobs for long

See Disney and the backlash against Eisner.

 

[mack]

The rich get rich, while the poor get poorer......

what would you suggest? its worked better than other "worker" governments has it not?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

what would you suggest? its worked better than other "worker" governments has it not?

wait, am all for capitalism.. but you gotta draw your reference frame. for whom?? for the US and the 1st world elite?? capitalism works wonders... on the other hand, for the rest of the universe, an economic system like the chinese or the old russian kinda worked better.. though it failed because the west pushed for its failure...

 

[DRB]

on the other hand, for the rest of the universe, an economic system like the chinese or the old russian kinda worked better..

How do you support that statement?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

How do you support that statement?

poorness levels. the less poor, the better. dont have numbers at hand, but the number of china´s poor is much lower or even 15 years ago, than pre-ww2 levels, and its been doing much better than the worlds average in poor reduction. even though its a feared "communism"

and we are talking about a policy that affects 1 billion people.... hardly you´find a bigger universe in which to test my idea.

and the fact that the aproval ratings for leftist-commie kinda dictators in this side of the world are much much much much much higher than that of "democracy and free trade" kinda presidents. in spite the first ones usually commited attrocities against mankind. still people say and like them more than the democratic capitalist presidents.

as bad as it sounds and hurts, MOST people had had it a little bit better with other systems in the past. the only difference is that now few lucky ones have it much better than most... but those few are the ones that pretty much decide everything also, so the overall perseption is that "everyone" is much better off, like when BS says "people" and he means "middle class and higher US-ers)

of course capitalism could be much better for anyone else, but that would mean new compromises between labor and capital, like free labor trade, but that ain never gonna happen, because if it was so... where people like you you or me, or the ones selling us the stuff, are gonna get 100 bucks a month employees to do our chores? like housekeeping, tailoring shirts or making sneakers?

 

[fluff]

Further to Alexis' post as an example: In the 80's and early 90's in Soviet Russia there were no homeless. Now there are many homeless.

 

[DRB]

poorness levels. the less poor, the better. dont have numbers at hand, but the number of china´s poor is much lower or even 15 years ago, than pre-ww2 levels, and its been doing much better than the worlds average in poor reduction. even though its a feared "communism"

and we are talking about a policy that affects 1 billion people.... hardly you´find a bigger universe in which to test my idea.

What started happening in China 20 years ago that might have percipitated this change in "poorness" levels? Could it be that the Chinese government saw that the communist model of economics was doomed to failure and that only with a long term and systematic conversion to a free market economy that allowed Western investment would keep them from total diaster. More industry was created because of this influx of Western capital, folks started moving from rural areas into the cities to fulfil the labor needs of these new industries.

Has it come to a completely free economy? No. Will it? I suspect it eventually will.

The VAST majority of Chinese are still poor and work their asses off for practically nothing.

They planned ahead, whereas the Soviets, got the whole thing sprung on them which lead to the diaster that is their economy right now.

and the fact that the aproval ratings for leftist-commie kinda dictators in this side of the world are much much much much much higher than that of "democracy and free trade" kinda presidents. in spite the first ones usually commited attrocities against mankind. still people say and like them more than the democratic capitalist presidents.

I'm sure those approval ratings are totally and completely accurate with no manipulation. They like them because they are not allowed to do otherwise especially out loud. Remember Tiananmen Square. The average Chinese person does and is very aware that they don't live in a free country where public criticism of the government is okay.

of course capitalism could be much better for anyone else, but that would mean new compromises between labor and capital, like free labor trade, but that ain never gonna happen, because if it was so... where people like you you or me, or the ones selling us the stuff, are gonna get 100 bucks a month employees to do our chores? like housekeeping, tailoring shirts or making sneakers?

This is gibberish and makes no sense.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

What started happening in China 20 years ago that might have percipitated this change in "poorness" levels? Could it be that the Chinese government saw that the communist model of economics was doomed to failure and that only with a long term and systematic conversion to a free market economy that allowed Western investment would keep them from total diaster. More industry was created because of this influx of Western capital, folks started moving from rural areas into the cities to fulfil the labor needs of these new industries.

Has it come to a completely free economy? No. Will it? I suspect it eventually will.

The VAST majority of Chinese are still poor and work their asses off for practically nothing.

They planned ahead, whereas the Soviets, got the whole thing sprung on them which lead to the diaster that is their economy right now.



I'm sure those approval ratings are totally and completely accurate with no manipulation. They like them because they are not allowed to do otherwise especially out loud. Remember Tiananmen Square. The average Chinese person does and is very aware that they don't live in a free country where public criticism of the government is okay.



This is gibberish and makes no sense.

i know you would pull that one out. they selected te best from the competition part of the capitalist model into their communism.

and i´ll tell you that people actually prefer having a livable standard instead of having total freedom. thats what i píck up from the people in SA. of course is against what the US thinks, but its true. Andres Openheimer (US pulitzer) talked about that 2 or 3 weeks ago. according to polls, poor people prefers being better off than having more freedom, which ultimately is rethorical.

they are still a communism.
thats all it matters, they economical model might have addopted the best from the capitalism, which is competition and productivity, but those are not exclusive from capitalism either....

 

[DRB]

Further to Alexis' post as an example: In the 80's and early 90's in Soviet Russia there were no homeless. Now there are many homeless.

Of course the Soviets didn't have any homeless. Communist leaders prided themselves on their country's guarantee of employment and housing for all. So instead homeless people who threatened that image were considered criminals.

Article 209 of the Soviet criminal code defined vagrancy as a crime punishable by at least one year in prison. So they never reported them as homeless but as criminals.

 

[DRB]

i know you would pull that one out. they selected te best from the competition part of the capitalist model into their communism.

and i´ll tell you that people actually prefer having a livable standard instead of having total freedom. thats what i píck up from the people in SA. of course is against what the US thinks, but its true. Andres Openheimer (US pulitzer) talked about that 2 or 3 weeks ago. according to polls, poor people prefers being better off than having more freedom, which ultimately is rethorical.

they are still a communism.
thats all it matters, they economical model might have addopted the best from the capitalism, which is competition and productivity, but those are not exclusive from capitalism either....

Do you think that the Chinese are done with their reforms? Where do you think that they are ultimately headed. Again they saw the writing on the walls and still do and are moving towards a free market economy in an organized systematic way to avoid the diaster that has befallen those economies that up and had to change overnight.

I would love to see where Andres Oppenheimer was saying this.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Do you think that the Chinese are done with their reforms? Where do you think that they are ultimately headed. Again they saw the writing on the walls and still do and are moving towards a free market economy in an organized systematic way to avoid the diaster that has befallen those economies that up and had to change overnight.

I would love to see where Andres Oppenheimer was saying this.

the chinese IMO, are moving towards a neo-capitalism. not the west like capitalism, which neocons call capitalism, but is truly opression of the 3rd world by establishing artificial barriers to keep the wages high in the 1st world by subsidizing them with 3rd world slave labor like chinese.

the chinese are well aware of this, and realize their only hope is to keep being slave labor til by sheer size they can become a new pole. not a choice, but pretty much driven to that by external agents.

their system works much better than anyone else at this moment. sustained 8-10% economic growth in a country that big is simply amazing. yet they are still a communism, of course with new capitalistic ideas (which are not exclusive of capitalism neither), and the cost of that is personal freedom.

personal freedom AND overall people wellfare are usually in poor and un-educated countries (and not so like the election of GWB validates) mutually exclusive.
given that dichotomy, most people usually goes for the overall people welfare first, not freedom, because total freedom as such is quite rethoric...

food, housing, education on the other hand are much more important commodities for the poor and uneducated.. just ask why chavez or pinochet are so popular, when in fact both of them were or are among the biggest threats to freedom...

 

[fluff]

Of course the Soviets didn't have any homeless. Communist leaders prided themselves on their country's guarantee of employment and housing for all. So instead homeless people who threatened that image were considered criminals.

Article 209 of the Soviet criminal code defined vagrancy as a crime punishable by at least one year in prison. So they never reported them as homeless but as criminals.

You used to at least give the appearance of comprehending the posts, what's happened? Homelessness is up in the former USSR for reasons other than your facile response. If you don't believe me do some research, debating with you is becoming pointless.

Note I am not saying that Soviet Russia was better than the west, just pointing out that not everyone prospers under the western dominated 'capitalist' paradigm.

 

[DRB]

You used to at least give the appearance of comprehending the posts, what's happened? Homelessness is up in the former USSR for reasons other than your facile response. If you don't believe me do some research, debating with you is becoming pointless.

Note I am not saying that Soviet Russia was better than the west, just pointing out that not everyone prospers under the western dominated 'capitalist' paradigm.

Let's see you said

In the 80's and early 90's in Soviet Russia there were no homeless.

Or did someone hack your account and type that for you?

Nonetheless it is simply an incorrect statement. Of course there were homeless in the Soviet Union. Lots of them. In the countryside and cities that the outside never saw. They didn't call'em homeless, they called them criminals. It was codifed that way.

Did I say that there wasn't homelessness in current Russia or that is was better than it used to be? I'm looking and I'm definately not seeing where I said that. In fact I made no mention of homelessness in present day Russia. I was doing nothing more than refuting an incorrect statement that you made.

As for homelessness in current day Russia, yes it is up above the levels it was in the USSR. And that is because of the institution of capitalism and a change in government. But those changes virtually happened overnight with no planning or gradual change over from one to the other. So it has been a complete disaster. Does that make it a western style capitalist economy? Sure I guess you could say that.

 

[DRB]

the chinese IMO, are moving towards a neo-capitalism. not the west like capitalism, which neocons call capitalism, but is truly opression of the 3rd world by establishing artificial barriers to keep the wages high in the 1st world by subsidizing them with 3rd world slave labor like chinese.

the chinese are well aware of this, and realize their only hope is to keep being slave labor til by sheer size they can become a new pole. not a choice, but pretty much driven to that by external agents.

their system works much better than anyone else at this moment. sustained 8-10% economic growth in a country that big is simply amazing. yet they are still a communism, of course with new capitalistic ideas (which are not exclusive of capitalism neither), and the cost of that is personal freedom.

Thanks for making my point for me. Their old system was not responsible for their current economic success. It was only when they started to move away from the central planning component so prevelant in Communist governments that their economic growth started to occur.

As for their economic growth. There are two factors (among thousands others) that are key. First the economy for a billion people was insanely small. Proportionally it wasn't even close. So high growth numbers are understandable and not surprising but actually should be expect.

The second is that if labor prices were higher their economy wouldn't be growing at anywhere near that rate. Wage pressure is going to cause trouble for China in the future. There was an interesting article I read a few weeks ago http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_43/b3905075.htm

Its not an immediate problem but one that will develop over time. But they do have time to deal with it.

 

[ncrider]

Damn I'm coming into this one way late. I've been trying to ween myself off my RM addiction, but I can't do it.

Wow where do I start. Well for starters anybody that tries to argue that Communist Russia was a nice place to live in the 80s and 90s should be revocked of political forum previliges. Hyperinflation, controlled markets, and zero incentive to produce anything competitvly, all add up to a bad place to live.
Here's an example, I just woke up and want a cup of coffe. I could go to the corner coffe shop with a buck and get a cup. Afterwards I'm happy and so is the owner of the coffe shop. Capitalism is good people. In communist Russia, unless cenral control said make coffe there would be no coffe. Gains are lost from both the consumer and producer. If there was coffe you would need a wheel barrow full of money to buy it. Not good.
Well let me get my coffe now.

 

[ohio]

Sorry Fluff and Alexis, DRB is owning both of you in this argument. Ask the folks in former Eastern Bloc nations which system they prefer, and shy of the ultra-privileged commie elite you will find no one that wishes to be back under the old system of shortages and oppression.

China's growth and recent success, as DRB pointed out, is driven entirely by Capitalism. It simply would not occur if there weren't such a large capitalist economy supporting. Also, as DRB pointed out, that same capitalism will eventually raise Chinese wages to a point that will stem the growth. Alexis, your argument that capitalism is protectionist of high-wages is opposite the truth. Look at what has occured in former low-wage nations like Taiwan, S. Korea, and India. While India still has a huge wealth gap, all of them have been able to raise wages and average standard of living, and compete effectively in the world market thanks to capitalism.

The fact is, a planned economy cannot account for the complexities of real life beyond a population of maybe 100 people (who freely choose it and place a value on the well-being of their peers as highly as their own). Perhaps technology and modern economic modeling is increasing that number, but it will never work for a billion people. One can then link those small (<100) communist communities with a system of capitalism, but you'll have a hard time proving to me that the result can be called "communism." In fact what you'll have, when you realize that a family unit is a small communist unit, is modern capitalism.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Sorry Fluff and Alexis, DRB is owning both of you in this argument. Ask the folks in former Eastern Bloc nations which system they prefer, and shy of the ultra-privileged commie elite you will find no one that wishes to be back under the old system of shortages and oppression.

China's growth and recent success, as DRB pointed out, is driven entirely by Capitalism. It simply would not occur if there weren't such a large capitalist economy supporting. Also, as DRB pointed out, that same capitalism will eventually raise Chinese wages to a point that will stem the growth. Alexis, your argument that capitalism is protectionist of high-wages is opposite the truth. Look at what has occured in former low-wage nations like Taiwan, S. Korea, and India. While India still has a huge wealth gap, all of them have been able to raise wages and average standard of living, and compete effectively in the world market thanks to capitalism.

The fact is, a planned economy cannot account for the complexities of real life beyond a population of maybe 100 people (who freely choose it and place a value on the well-being of their peers as highly as their own). Perhaps technology and modern economic modeling is increasing that number, but it will never work for a billion people. One can then link those small (<100) communist communities with a system of capitalism, but you'll have a hard time proving to me that the result can be called "communism." In fact what you'll have, when you realize that a family unit is a small communist unit, is modern capitalism.

my point is overall, in the entire picture. IMO there is capitalism as in concept, and capitalism as in reality.

in concept capitalism is the best theorethical and practical system for western like cultures.

on reality, capitalism is a tool used by the 1st to outsource its lower class (the labor that has to work the capital, so there a profit to be made by capitalists) so they stay wealthy.

on the other hand communist gvmts in the 3rd world is usually liked by the people in those places (most of the people in the world). and the problem lies in that without this lower working class. capitalism as such, and good for the 1st world, and 3rd elites cannot longer exist.

IMO, utopic capistalism should be that of free everything, free trade, free capital flows and free labor inmigration. capitalism is incomplete is you dont comply with all those 3 rules, otherwise you are erecting artificial walls to CAPITAL and LABOR free trade, against the entire core of the free capitalism idea. and this is far from reality.

my point about the soviets and chinese, and the 3rd world (the biggest % of population of the world), are a better universe in which to meassure what system works best, its not fair to use the US and wealthy 3rd world elites to decide which, because they will always like the corrupted version of the utopic capitalism we live under now.

its no mistake, the 3rd world prefers leftist gvmts over right gvmt. its because comunism is better for them overall as a block, than to always be the world´s proletariat, controlled by artificial tight inmigration policies that keep them from moving out to other places where they could sell their labor for more.


people in the 3rd world (who account for the MOST people in the world), as openheimer presented, would rather loose some freedom in exchange of meeting basic need like food and housing, than to have all the freedom that capitalism offers them, when in fact all this "freedom" makes them, is free to continue being the proletariat of the world.

you see my point now? anybody like ummbikes who can put it in better-shorter english for easier understanding?

 

[ohio]

its no mistake, the 3rd world prefers leftist gvmts over right gvmt. its because comunism is better for them overall as a block

Are you just making this **** up? You have never spent any time in the former USSR have you? Swing by Poland or Hungary sometime, and ask them which system they prefer.

You will need to show some credible data to back up your opinions about what the way the rest of the world feels. Unfortunately, you will not find it.
I don't know, maybe I'm crazy, but I don't see how your position as an overprivileged capitalist in a developing democratic country gives you any special insight into the feelings of the rest of the world's population.

 

[ohio]

on the other hand communist gvmts in the 3rd world is usually liked by the people in those places (most of the people in the world). and the problem lies in that without this lower working class. capitalism as such, and good for the 1st world, and 3rd elites cannot longer exist.

Every time I read this statement it sounds dumber and dumber. Please tell me you giggled to yourself as you typed this out from your spacious and beautiful high-rise apartment supplied to you by the capitalist elite.

 

[ohio]

IMO, utopic capistalism should be that of free everything, free trade, free capital flows and free labor inmigration.

And utopian communism should be one in which the leadership values of the well-being of the population above their own, and has super-computers that can predict the future to adequately plan production and fair distribution. Unfortunately neither of these utopias can exist. So get over it, and deal with reality.

The reality is that communism cannot adequately supply it's population with goods, and places so much power into the government that it encourages corruption and oppression, and creates an even more powerful elite than capitalism.

The reality of trade barriers in a capitalist system is that they have a relatively minor effect on the system as a whole. See the current growth in China. Our barriers don't seem to have stemmed that too much have they? In almost all measures, the system is self-regulating. Barriers that are too high hurt those that erect them. Adjustments are not instantaneous when you are dealing with language barriers, large distances, investment-intensive infrastructure buildup, etc. but it is still by far the most responsive system to need, inequality, and opportunity.

 

[DRB]

God I can barely understand any of this. Its making my head hurt.

But I'm going to try and wade thru it.

on reality, capitalism is a tool used by the 1st to outsource its lower class (the labor that has to work the capital, so there a profit to be made by capitalists) so they stay wealthy. on the other hand communist gvmts in the 3rd world is usually liked by the people in those places (most of the people in the world). and the problem lies in that without this lower working class. capitalism as such, and good for the 1st world, and 3rd elites cannot longer exist.

Wow did you just get this out of some old Soviet propaganda?

my point about the soviets and chinese, and the 3rd world (the biggest % of population of the world), are a better universe in which to meassure what system works best, its not fair to use the US and wealthy 3rd world elites to decide which, because they will always like the corrupted version of the utopic capitalism we live under now.

You keep bringing up the Soviets and Chinese. In essence the old communist model that you keep tossing out there are the prototypical 3rd world elites buried up to their neck in corruption. Their industries were inefficient because they lacked any real competition. The work force suffered low morale because they didn't have any real hope. If these systems were so great then why have they either collapsed or changed?

its no mistake, the 3rd world prefers leftist gvmts over right gvmt. its because comunism is better for them overall as a block, than to always be the world´s proletariat, controlled by artificial tight inmigration policies that keep them from moving out to other places where they could sell their labor for more.

This couldn't be more wrong (so I might misunderstand what you are trying to say). The old Soviet model had policies so tight that movement from city to city was strictly controlled. They were allowed to only work in the places that the state told them to and for whatever the state deemed was the correct wage. Same with the Chinese. Remember they put a big wall around East Germany and Berlin to keep them in NOT out.

people in the 3rd world (who account for the MOST people in the world), as openheimer presented, would rather loose some freedom in exchange of meeting basic need like food and housing, than to have all the freedom that capitalism offers them, when in fact all this "freedom" makes them, is free to continue being the proletariat of the world.

To a certain extent I will agree with you. But once folks have secured these basic needs they start looking for more especially when they become more aware of what the possibilites are. Again look at the Chinese. They institued market reform in the early 80's. Those reforms started to improve the lot of a percentage of the population. Especially those that moved to the city. It was less than 10 years later, the Chinese were faced with a ground swell of "revolutionaries" and they squashed them in Tiananmen Square.

What a communist style government offers them is the assurance that all they ever will be is the proletariat because there is nothing more nor will their ever be anything more. Capitalism offers them the chance to be more than that.

Again I would love to know the context of Oppenheimer presentation.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Every time I read this statement it sounds dumber and dumber. Please tell me you giggled to yourself as you typed this out from your spacious and beautiful high-rise apartment supplied to you by the capitalist elite.

well, am a lucky 3rd world-er, my high-rise isnt as insulated from poverty and the misery i see everyday in the streets of the 3rd world (in a world where 1/2 the world lives on 3 bucks a day), as your appartment in the US with the border police and everything making you think capitalism is the best since fire. cuz it isnt.

IMO, in capitalism is easier to get closer to the concept than into communism... thus a better system in reality. but it is still far from being perfect.

just ask yourself this... 1/2 the world lives on less than 3 bucks a day. is the system working?? what happened with the other systems???
well, the poverty level would be much lower... of course the elites like you or I who own a computer wont have fancy bikes or drive fancy cars... but hey! we are a minority in this world, remember that...

the problem and success is not how many nouveau riches a system makes, but how many lives it can take out of poverty and misery.

ad a utopican way, communism is better than capitalism. in a realistic level IMO i prefer capitalism, because its only lacking the free inmigration and free labor trade IMO to be as close to perfection. comunism on the other hand, needs many "IFs" going the right way

the context of openheimer show, which was a 1hour show dedicated exclusively to analyze the answers in a poll in the entire South America. it was taken to 20 000 people from every walk of life from every country, about its persepeption of the US, and what kinda of changes they´d like to see.
70% of the people favored commies ideas, and leftist presidents. openheimer, being quite right-ish by SA standards, was as astonished as I´m by the results. but hey!, if that is what people say about themselves, and what they think is the best for them... well, you´ll hardly find any better person to describe it. i dont have the data at hand, cuz i dont remeber who was the polling group. but that data is there. an openheimer actually went deeper into this, and was part of a 30min debate between he, NAFTA ex-negotiators, and EX-ambassador, on whether this results could be extrapolated into the 3rd world overall. and IMO, and theirs as well, it would not be surprising.

why?? well, think the big picture, not the US alone.... if we define "best" as the best for the most... and capitalism as we have it now, what about that 1/2 the world in true poverty, not trailer trash poverty. what about them?? would not they be better off with another system? as they are in china or russia? of course at the cost of freedom and less luxuries for the elites.

 

[Lex]

well, am a lucky 3rd world-er, my high-rise isnt as insulated from poverty and the misery i see everyday in the streets of the 3rd world (in a world where 1/2 the world lives on 3 bucks a day), as your appartment in the US with the border police and everything making you think capitalism is the best since fire. cuz it isnt.

IMO, in capitalism is easier to get closer to the concept than into communism... thus a better system in reality. but it is still far from being perfect.

just ask yourself this... 1/2 the world lives on less than 3 bucks a day. is the system working?? what happened with the other systems???
well, the poverty level would be much lower... of course the elites like you or I who own a computer wont have fancy bikes or drive fancy cars... but hey! we are a minority in this world, remember that...

the problem and success is not how many nouveau riches a system makes, but how many lives it can take out of poverty and misery.

ad a utopican way, communism is better than capitalism. in a realistic level IMO i prefer capitalism, because

the context of openheimer show, which was a 1hour show dedicated exclusively to analyze the answers in a poll in the entire South America. it was taken to 20 000 people from every walk of life from every country, about its persepeption of the US, and what kinda of changes they´d like to see.
70% of the people favored commies ideas, and leftist presidents. openheimer, being quite right-ish by SA standards, was as astonished as I´m by the results. but hey!, if that is what people say about themselves, and what they think is the best for them... well, you´ll hardly find any better person to describe it. i dont have the data at hand, cuz i dont remeber who was the polling group. but that data is there. an openheimer actually went deeper into this, and was part of a 30min debate between he, NAFTA ex-negotiators, and EX-ambassador, on whether this results could be extrapolated into the 3rd world overall. and IMO, and theirs as well, it would not be surprising.

why?? well, think the big picture, not the US alone.... if we define "best" as the best for the most... and capitalism as we have it now, what about that 1/2 the world in true poverty, not trailer trash poverty. what about them?? would not they be better off with another system? as they are in china or russia? of course at the cost of freedom and less luxuries for the elites.

Of course those who are the "have-nots" will say they favor a communist society. The ideals of equality for all are very attractive to those who have nothing in the first place. When actually put into practice all of these governments have failed in some way or other because the moment people have something they immediately want more and that basic human trait of greed trumps any system where equality is attempted.

The former Soviet Union was a farce the moment a government official got a better food ration than the common worker, or sent their son or daughter to a university abroad while the common worker's son or daughter toiled in their assigned task. There has never been and will never be true equality and I would prefer a system where you have the ability to make your own decision about what your fate will be.

 

[ohio]

just ask yourself this... 1/2 the world lives on less than 3 bucks a day. is the system working?? what happened with the other systems???

And free trade is raising that wage every day. No amount of protectionist policies can prevent it. Are you under the impression that communism would increase these wages?

it was taken to 20 000 people from every walk of life from every country, about its persepeption of the US, and what kinda of changes they´d like to see.
70% of the people favored commies ideas, and leftist presidents.

Ands how many of thse people actually lived under communism? Of course they favored leftist policies. If you ask struggling people if they'd like a guaranteed job and wage from what they see as an exhorbitantly wealthy nation, what do you expect them to say? Ask the same question from those who have lived under communism and understand the mutually guaranteed shortages and oppression.

And yes, I am in a position of great privilege. Unlike you, however, I have spent some time in former communist states. I have also spent plenty of time in other third world nations, and I can promise you that a developing capitalist state has people FAR better off than starving and oppressed communist one.

would not they be better off with another system? as they are in china or russia?

No.

 

[Silver]

The former Soviet Union was a farce the moment a government official got a better food ration than the common worker, or sent their son or daughter to a university abroad while the common worker's son or daughter toiled in their assigned task. There has never been and will never be true equality and I would prefer a system where you have the ability to make your own decision about what your fate will be.

Don't kid yourself that it's perfect here either though, because that's the same mistake in a different direction.

Did our President go to Vietnam? Is his niece in the can on drug charges? How did a drunk Ted Kennedy manage to get away with murder? (or manslaughter, if you're going to give him the benefit of the doubt.) And how did Neil Bush get away with fleecing the taxpayers in the Savings and Loan scandal?

Is Ken Lay in prison? How did Marc Rich get pardoned?

Your ability to choose your fate is more limited than you think.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Of course those who are the "have-nots" will say they favor a communist society. The ideals of equality for all are very attractive to those who have nothing in the first place. When actually put into practice all of these governments have failed in some way or other because the moment people have something they immediately want more and that basic human trait of greed trumps any system where equality is attempted.

The former Soviet Union was a farce the moment a government official got a better food ration than the common worker, or sent their son or daughter to a university abroad while the common worker's son or daughter toiled in their assigned task. There has never been and will never be true equality and I would prefer a system where you have the ability to make your own decision about what your fate will be.

exactly this is the point where i wanted this argument to come.
the have-nots in the US are very different from those in the 3rd world. in the US if you are a have-not is because you are stupid. in the 3rd world, you can work 80 hours per week and still be a have-not.
why???

i´ll develop my idea on this, and why this is AGAINST the conceptual capistalism, as is as corrupt as the corruption in commie nations.

firstable. labor is a form of capital IMO

2ndable. labor is cheap in the 3rd world, and expensive in the 1st world.. why?? because there are artificial barriers to keep this establishment as such.
the hard inmigration policies in the 1st world keep this like this.

my deduction. compare this to finantial capitals. somebody said protectionism is bad because it feeds un-efficient industries. well protectionism of labor is the same.

there is no difference in product quality whether you hire a qualified european soldier for 30bucks an hour, or if you hire a qualified peruvian welder for 1 buck an hour. imposing artificial barriers to keep this establishment, and to prevent a MARKET DECISION on prices and stuff is AGAINST capitalism and free trade. and this inmigration policies are EXACTLY DOING THAT.

this is why, the present capitalist model is extremely corrupt IMO, because it exagerates the need for a proletariat, making it a geographical location called 3rd world, and imposing barriers around it, so its labor prices never go up, unless exception circumstances, and taking a lot of freedom out of them, by taking out their upward mobility in wages.

that is my main problem with capitalism as of today. i also agree is the best system available. but its current enforcement with this guettification of the world is corrupt as hell and given the current establishment, i would not agree that capitalism is the best for the most.

 

[Lex]

Don't kid yourself that it's perfect here either though, because that's the same mistake in a different direction.

Did our President go to Vietnam? Is his niece in the can on drug charges? How did a drunk Ted Kennedy manage to get away with murder? (or manslaughter, if you're going to give him the benefit of the doubt.) And how did Neil Bush get away with fleecing the taxpayers in the Savings and Loan scandal?

Is Ken Lay in prison? How did Marc Rich get pardoned?

Your ability to choose your fate is more limited than you think.

You're absolutely right and I agree completely, but I'm not talking about rich and influential people. I'm talking about the average middle class person. Are things completely equal even on that level? Not quite but most middle class people enjoy the same opportunities and it's just a matter of reach out and taking advantage of them.

Obviously the poor of this country are a different story. I used to think that no one in this country could complain about their situation since we "all" have the opportunity to pull ourselves up by the boot straps. Then I lived in New Orleans. Our system is far from perfect, but it's not that bad. My wife is Canadian and I feel the same way about the Canadian system, but for different reasons.

 

[Lex]

exactly this is the point where i wanted this argument to come.
the have-nots in the US are very different from those in the 3rd world. in the US if you are a have-not is because you are stupid. in the 3rd world, you can work 80 hours per week and still be a have-not.
why???

i´ll develop my idea on this, and why this is AGAINST the conceptual capistalism, as is as corrupt as the corruption in commie nations.

firstable. labor is a form of capital IMO

2ndable. labor is cheap in the 3rd world, and expensive in the 1st world.. why?? because there are artificial barriers to keep this establishment as such.
the hard inmigration policies in the 1st world keep this like this.

my deduction. compare this to finantial capitals. somebody said protectionism is bad because it feeds un-efficient industries. well protectionism of labor is the same.

there is no difference in product quality whether you hire a qualified european soldier for 30bucks an hour, or if you hire a qualified peruvian welder for 1 buck an hour. imposing artificial barriers to keep this establishment, and to prevent a MARKET DECISION on prices and stuff is AGAINST capitalism and free trade. and this inmigration policies are EXACTLY DOING THAT.

this is why, the present capitalist model is extremely corrupt IMO, because it exagerates the need for a proletariat, making it a geographical location called 3rd world, and imposing barriers around it, so its labor prices never go up, unless exception circumstances, and taking a lot of freedom out of them, by taking out their upward mobility in wages.

that is my main problem with capitalism as of today. i also agree is the best system available. but its current enforcement with this guettification of the world is corrupt as hell and given the current establishment, i would not agree that capitalism is the best for the most.

You're completely loosing me with these arguments about labor. Are you suggesting that countries like the US and Canada open themselves up to more migrant workers? Why would they want to do that? With things like manufacturing, it's easier to send the work to them rather than allow them to come to the work. If you allow the worker to come here you take on responsibilities like healthcare, housing, food, etc., and that puts an additional burden on the existing system that is supposed to serve the citizens of these countries. Also, it would put a burden on the workers themselves because they have to use their higher wages to pay higher living costs in a foreign country. Their wages would never be able to keep up with the cost of living. Then let's say they tried fighting for even higher wages. At that point what would their value be anymore? Why not just employ an American or a Canadian to do the job?

No offense intended but There are so many facets to problems like this that I think you're oversimplifing by spouting these utopian ideals that have no application in real life.

 

[BurlyShirley]

yeah and peru sucked in the olympics too.

 

[Silver]

I think Alexis's point is that if you allow free flow of capital (hmm...labor costs are high, better move to China where I can have the people work 12 hours a day without the safety equipment or overtime they need here) not allowing the free flow of labor shifts the playing field rather dramatically in favor of the capital.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

You're completely loosing me with these arguments about labor. Are you suggesting that countries like the US and Canada open themselves up to more migrant workers? Why would they want to do that? .

the same reason why the 3rd world has to open its borders to foreign capitals. capitals come here to make more capital for themselves, the fair thing would be, let the labor go up there to make more capital for themselves.

of course it would put a huge strain on the society of the 1st world... but wait... isnt globalization putting also a huge strain on the societies of the 3rd world???

my simplification about inmigration is because i think its the best one step way towards a better egalitarian capitalism. the other would be to take ddown the artificial barriers and standarize laws around the world. but IMO is easier and fairer to open borders for inmigrants.

whenever y´all guys talk about the "middle class" and the "people" and stuff, thing outside the bun. you or I we are in the top 10% of wealth in this world probably. we are truly a minority and we shall not make generalization on the world, based on the little around us. which economically is quite homogenous in the 1st world i gotta say.

thus i say given current conditions, communism could do better to deal with all that half the world under the TRUE poverty line.
ohio agreed on most people of the world is in a hard situation. he also agreed that people on hard situations tend to like left-ist policies better. ERGO, MOST OF THE WORLD (the poor) WOULD TEND TO LIKE LEFTIST GVMT (as poors tend to like).
i dont see the catch and how you dont accept that.

nobody better than people themselves to decide what they like better, no matter what we priviliged minorities argue from a computer at 3pm when in other places of the world, or actually outside my own windows, there is people working to take 2 bucks home tonight to eat, and will keep working 10 hours for that.

ohio made an interesting point about if i thought communism would drive wages up. that is non-sense.
the entire concept of "high wages" REQUIRES somebody making a "LOWER WAGE" so you comparatively make more, thus to exist, thus afford more stuff made with cheaper than yours labor. numericaly HIGH wages are worth crap, if everybody makes the same. HIGH WAGES only work when there is sombody making a LOWER WAGE to whom you can trade your labor (capital) for.

capitalism excels at that. communism doesnt.
communism or utopic capitailsm in a way is egalitarian, people make either the same, or more fair, according to their productivity without artificial barriers inflating the labor of a few and stiffing others...

 

[mack]

actually for a new country a extreme right wing government is the best option (or maybe a left wing government, they end up the same thing kinda) because they make allot of money off the bat, or rather they have allot of controll.

But long term Capitalism is the best. It does a Curve, where the country is doing Ok, then goes into a slum, then shoots back up. I forget the name of it. So in the end its the best option.

Alexis, how can you think that people in poor countrys are better off than in a capatilist system. Do you take into account how high the POVERTY STANDARDS in the USA are? It says lots of people are poor, but their not, says lots of people are starving. but that classification of starving is missing 3 meals a week, or somthing crazy like that? Do you understand the opportunities that this country offers? If so i dont understand how you can argue anything for Communism or Dictatorship.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

actually for a new country a extreme right wing government is the best option (or maybe a left wing government, they end up the same thing kinda) because they make allot of money off the bat, or rather they have allot of controll.

But long term Capitalism is the best. It does a Curve, where the country is doing Ok, then goes into a slum, then shoots back up. I forget the name of it. So in the end its the best option.

Alexis, how can you think that people in poor countrys are better off than in a capatilist system. Do you take into account how high the POVERTY STANDARDS in the USA are? It says lots of people are poor, but their not, says lots of people are starving. but that classification of starving is missing 3 meals a week, or somthing crazy like that? Do you understand the opportunities that this country offers? If so i dont understand how you can argue anything for Communism or Dictatorship.

hahaha, are you talking about the "poor" in the US. being extreme poor there is being middle class in most of the world.

i dont argue for communism in the sake of the US (with its 5% of the world popultation). its too little of a universe to declare it a universal truth.

i argue for it, for the WORLD OVERALL, its 6 billion people. that is what defines the best system. what is best for the most of humans. of couse i wont argue for communism if i didnt have ethics and believed that only my own welfare is important at the expense of others lives. but i dont.

in your position, or mine, unethically would be to argue for the system that gives us what we have in exchange of having an army or slave-paid tailors, maids, cooks and workforce in the 3rd world. its extremely unfair. real world communism is unfair, but corrupted capitalism is way more unfair for the 6 billion people WORLD, not some 100 million middle class US-ers.

i lived in the states, i went to college there, i lived in NYC, then in Alabama. i know US-poor, and that aint Peru-poor. US-poor is like not having cable. Here poor means living on 1 buck a day, or dying of a cold. and it that kinda of differences that a corrupt capitalism does.

 

[Silver]

See, but that doesn't address ohio's very asute point. Philosophical underpinnings of the systems aside, communism simply can't address the needs of a large population effectively.

 

[Lex]

the same reason why the 3rd world has to open its borders to foreign capitals. capitals come here to make more capital for themselves, the fair thing would be, let the labor go up there to make more capital for themselves.

of course it would put a huge strain on the society of the 1st world... but wait... isnt globalization putting also a huge strain on the societies of the 3rd world???

I agree that your idea of allowing the labor force to migrate would be "fair" but did you even read what I wrote about migrants trying to live in countries like the US? Here, I'll quote myself:

"With things like manufacturing, it's easier to send the work to them rather than allow them to come to the work. If you allow the worker to come here you take on responsibilities like healthcare, housing, food, etc., and that puts an additional burden on the existing system that is supposed to serve the citizens of these countries. Also, it would put a burden on the workers themselves because they have to use their higher wages to pay higher living costs in a foreign country. Their wages would never be able to keep up with the cost of living. Then let's say they tried fighting for even higher wages. At that point what would their value be anymore? Why not just employ an American or a Canadian to do the job?"

I really don't think that allowing workers to go abroad to sell their labor would change anything. The employers would simply find a new labor force in another area and we would end up with a whole new class of migrant workers living in poverty because the value of their labor dropped through the floor. Also, imagine that this did work to some extent, you would have a mass exodus to first world nations and the capital you keep referring to would no longer be directed to the third world nations. It would stay at home and the third world would become even poorer.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

See, but that doesn't address ohio's very asute point. Philosophical underpinnings of the systems aside, communism simply can't address the needs of a large population effectively.

but the biggest nation of the world is doing better in terms of economic growth than the capitalistic 1st world.... interesting isnt it?? they are closer to communism than to capitalism IMO...

does capitalism works wonder when applied to large populations??? 1/2 the world under poverty?? do you think communism would do worse than that?? 2/3? 3/4??

doesnt chinas 1.3 bill has porcentually less poverty than the rest of the capitalist world, and its declining faster too?????

 

[Silver]

China's growth has zero to do with central planning and communism. Capitalism is driving that machine, my friend.