[ohio]

lexx and mack, please stop muddying the waters by pointing to the US as an example. We're discussing the benefits of capitalism to a developing nation (yes mack, those developing nations are capitalist too. capitalist does not necessarily mean wealthy).

Ugh, now to address Alexis's distorted version of reality.

Here poor means living on 1 buck a day, or dying of a cold.

And under communism, there is no chance of that changing. Under capitalism, it can. Capitalism provides it's government with far more resources and ability to address these issues. Communism guarantees that crippling shortages will prevent people from obtaining medical treatment among other basic needs. Like I said, you're not going to see wage adjustment and devlopment overnight. Is this your problem? Is the fact that developing nations need time to develop (suprise! )causing you to throw the entire system out the window? Well boohoo. Get over it. No one said you get instant gratification.

In the meantime, capitalism is raising the standard of living for every nation it touches EXCEPT the 1st world. You're bitching about the US erecting trade barriers... explain to me how that keeps the peruvian welder down. It doesn't. He is no worse off than if the US didn't exist. If the US erects a complete barrier, the US is still doing NOTHING to him. Any amount of trade the US allows will benefit that welder. Now if the US does allow complete free trade, he will benefit more... but you're advocating throwing away your sandwich because you can't have steak.

It blows my mind that you're bitching about this... capitalism is a benefit to pretty much every nation on the planet right now, LEASTof which the US, Europe, and Australia, as their middle classes get exported to newly developed nations that have finally had the opportunity to raise their standard of living and educate their populations thanks to free or near-free trade. Seriously. You're on crack.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

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

the capitalism i argue for in the first page of this thread. not the west-like capitalism of protectionism. but there is a trick in there.

its growth has a lot to do with central planning and communism (actually central planning more in both communism and fascist). china is experiencing a growth like that because, since tian min, they are in a very similar situation as Chile with pinochet.
to enfore the kinda of meassures china and chile had, you HAVE to have a tight grip on population, mobs control and the like.
the growth of china and chile , while awesome, is not painless for the own chinese or chilean. a lot of freedom has to be given up.

that has a LOT to do with central planning, maybe not in markets, but yes in population-response control.

 

[ohio]

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

jesus ****. have you ever been to China? Read a good book about it? Seen pictures? China was painfully under-developed and falling apart at the seams. The only thing that has dragged it out of the third world is the welcoming of capitalist dollars that are finally providing the money needed to build a high-tech infrastructure and support the universities. Everything that is currently improving about China, from their economy to their human rights record, is thanks to capitalism... eventually it will give the rest of the world the leverage to address issues like their environmental standards, etc.

As has been pointed out, China has less poverty than the rest of the world, because the Chinese government is LYING. Duh.

 

[Silver]

that has a LOT to do with central planning, maybe not in markets, but yes in population-response control.

Ah, but that isn't the argument. I agree with you that China isn't democratic, but that wasn't your original assertion.

We were talking economic, not social.

 

[ohio]

that has a LOT to do with central planning,.

By central planning do you mean allowing foreign investment? You mean like, say, planning CAPITALISM?

You need to come up with some specifics. I get the distinct impression that you're making every word of this up.

Are you high right now, by any chance?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

lexx and mack, please stop muddying the waters by pointing to the US as an example. We're discussing the benefits of capitalism to a developing nation (yes mack, those developing nations are capitalist too. capitalist does not necessarily mean wealthy).

Ugh, now to address Alexis's distorted version of reality.

And under communism, there is no chance of that changing. Under capitalism, it can. Capitalism provides it's government with far more resources and ability to address these issues. Communism guarantees that crippling shortages will prevent people from obtaining medical treatment among other basic needs. Like I said, you're not going to see wage adjustment and devlopment overnight. Is this your problem? Is the fact that developing nations need time to develop (suprise! )causing you to throw the entire system out the window? Well boohoo. Get over it. No one said you get instant gratification.

In the meantime, capitalism is raising the standard of living for every nation it touches EXCEPT the 1st world. You're bitching about the US erecting trade barriers... explain to me how that keeps the peruvian welder down. It doesn't. He is no worse off than if the US didn't exist. If the US erects a complete barrier, the US is still doing NOTHING to him. Any amount of trade the US allows will benefit that welder. Now if the US does allow complete free trade, he will benefit more... but you're advocating throwing away your sandwich because you can't have steak.

It blows my mind that you're bitching about this... capitalism is a benefit to pretty much every nation on the planet right now, LEASTof which the US, Europe, and Australia, as their middle classes get exported to newly developed nations that have finally had the opportunity to raise their standard of living and educate their populations thanks to free or near-free trade. Seriously. You're on crack.

lol. see, there is 1 capitalism in concept (which you seem to be referring to, which is good, and not that far from the current model), and 2 capitalism in reality (the corrupted one with no free trades, and protectionistic crap and the necesity of a lower class) the same there is 3 communism in concept (the perfect one, but very unlikely, too much IFs), and 4 communism in reality (with its innefficiencies, but its OK dealing with the lower classes).

from all this 4 forms of gvmt. from the utopic ones 3 is out of question since it requires too many IFs. #1 is OK, because is not too far from the road, and seems to be the one you are talking about and the one you think is the current model of the world, which IT ISNT. just like fluff said, the current capitalistic model requires an underclass to exist. conceptual capitalism like you say (the magical rod that improevs life quality of every place it touches) doesnt. important difference there.

now, in the grounds of reality (the present). there are 2 and 4. 2 works wonders for the higher classes like the 1st world, but it SUCKS ASS for the REQUIRED 3rd world AKA. 4 on the other hand doesnt suck that much ass for this poor side of the world. proof of that is that most people in poor places prefer commies in power than democracies or free-traders.

on an absolute perfect world (unrealistic utopia), communism beats.
on a almost perfect (but realistic) world, non-corrupted free capitalism beats 2nd.
on a realistic world, communism beats 3rd.
on a realistic world, corrupted capitalism as of now, is the last.

IMO, since the 1st condition is impossible, capitalism is the best system for the world IF we adjust a few things, like absolute free trade (which the US is the 1st country proposing for, but its among the most protectionistic as well, hello agriculture?).

but at current conditions, in the opinion OF THOSE WHO ARE THE BIGGEST PART OF THE WORLD, the 3rd world. commies beat.

am not on crack, but saying that the US, europe and australia (THE capitalist nations) are not getting the sweeter end of the deal, by saying they benefit the least from capitalism is insane.

 

[mack]

yeah, i mean communism has had such an effective history. I advise u guys to stop taling about this, because we can all read history books and the corruption of communism.

 

[ohio]

You keep repeating the same bullsh!t as if somehow that will make it true.

2 capitalism in reality (the corrupted one with no free trades, and protectionistic crap and the necesity of a lower class)

Bull****. There absolutely is free trade. There are a few barriers. There always will be. For the overwhelming majority of goods/services/money free trade exists, and where it doesn't, stemmed but not eliminated trade exists.

just like fluff said, the current capitalistic model requires an underclass to exist. conceptual capitalism like you say (the magical rod that improevs life quality of every place it touches) doesnt. important difference there.

Bull****. I don't know what conceptual capitalism you're talking about. I called YOU out for believing in utopia. I'm under no illusions. Capitalism DOES improve conditions everywhere it touches (assuming enforcement of child labor laws). It just doesn't happen overnight, the way you seem to expect it to.

Classes will always exist in any economic model. The key is allowing for class mobility, and an ever-increasing standard of living for those at thew bottom. Communism does not allow for the latter and rarely allows for the former.

2 works wonders for the higher classes like the 1st world, but it SUCKS ASS for the REQUIRED 3rd world

Bullsh!t. Explain how it sucks ass. Try to use math, logic and/or real examples.

proof of that is that most people in poor places prefer commies in power than democracies or free-traders.

Bull****. You keep saying this as if its true. You repeating it doesn't count as proof in my book.

on an absolute perfect world (unrealistic utopia), communism beats.
on a almost perfect (but realistic) world, non-corrupted free capitalism beats 2nd.
on a realistic world, communism beats 3rd.
on a realistic world, corrupted capitalism as of now, is the last.

Are you under the impression that if you list your fantasies in rank order, that it somehow makes them true? I'm still waiting on logic here.

Also, get over utopia. I explained it doesn't exist 3 pages ago. You bring it up one more time and I'm recommending medical help.

IMO, since the 1st condition is impossible, capitalism is the best system for the world IF we adjust a few things, like absolute free trade (which the US is the 1st country proposing for, but its among the most protectionistic as well, hello agriculture?).

You don't seem to understand the basic economics and impacts of tariffs. I explained why this is an idiotic statement in my last post. Reread that until you understand.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

You keep repeating the same bullsh!t as if somehow that will make it true.


Bull****. There absolutely is free trade. There are a few barriers. There always will be. For the overwhelming majority of goods/services/money free trade exists, and where it doesn't, stemmed but not eliminated trade exists.


Bull****. I don't know what conceptual capitalism you're talking about. I called YOU out for believing in utopia. I'm under no illusions. Capitalism DOES improve conditions everywhere it touches (assuming enforcement of child labor laws). It just doesn't happen overnight, the way you seem to expect it to.

Classes will always exist in any economic model. The key is allowing for class mobility, and an ever-increasing standard of living for those at thew bottom. Communism does not allow for the latter and rarely allows for the former.


Bullsh!t. Explain how it sucks ass. Try to use math, logic and/or real examples.



Bull****. You keep saying this as if its true. You repeating it doesn't count as proof in my book.


Are you under the impression that if you list your fantasies in rank order, that it somehow makes them true? I'm still waiting on logic here.

Also, get over utopia. I explained it doesn't exist 3 pages ago. You bring it up one more time and I'm recommending medical help.



You don't seem to understand the basic economics and impacts of tariffs. I explained why this is an idiotic statement in my last post. Reread that until you understand.

huh?, are we feeling fuzzy today. just for your record. you say there is FREE TRADE. BS!.

the north american free trade treaty is hundreds (600 i think) of pages long. you dont need hundred of pages to write down "free trade". hundreds pages aint no little "tariffs".
ever heard of the protectionism of agriculture?? of the inmigration laws? wouldnt free migration equal to upward mobility???

upward mobility, exactly my point. capitalism as NOW doesnt allow the same upward mobility outside a few places. maybe in generations??? most of the time not. upward mobility outside the 1st world is the exception to the rule.

classes aint my problem, but lower class stagnation IS. the current model is a model of lower CLASS stagnation for those outside the club. or not???

you keep talking about capitalism, but what we got now is not really a TRUE capitalism. is a neo-con capitalism. its no magical rod. it doesnt work wonders everywhere. it requires an stangnant underclass to work.

surprisingly most people in the 3rd world DONT WANT IT as openheimer deducted. what else you want? people maybe stupid, but they dont think is the best for them. who better than people themselves to say "this system is better than this for us"???

so, rounding up. capitalism AS OF NOW according to you is a sytem of a magical rod.
according to me is not, but can be improved to be the best.

most poor people like commies better. most people in the world is poor. ergo, most people IN THE WORLD like commies better. logic 101.

why the hell you keep saying the opposite, or knowing more than the people abuot their own situation? if the majority of SA, and according to openheimer, posibly the 3rd world, says (in spite their own awful past experience with commies, commie guerrillas, and dictators as in SA), they still prefer 70% to 30% commies over capitalists....

 

[ohio]

why the hell you keep saying the opposite, or knowing more than the people abuot their own situation? if the majority of SA, and according to openheimer, posibly the 3rd world, says (in spite their own awful past experience with commies, commie guerrillas, and dictators as in SA), they still prefer 70% to 30% commies over capitalists....

post a link to the "openheimer" work. I've got 10 US dollars that says it doesn't poll people who lived under a communist economic system. I've got another 10 dollars that says it asks stupid questions like "would you prefer a guaranteed job and wage?" and "would you like your government to provide you with housing?"

 

[ohio]

huh?, are we feeling fuzzy today. just for your record. you say there is FREE TRADE. BS!.

the north american free trade treaty is hundreds (600 i think) of pages long. you dont need hundred of pages to write down "free trade". hundreds pages aint no little "tariffs".
ever heard of the protectionism of agriculture?? of the inmigration laws? wouldnt free migration equal to upward mobility??

Two questions:
1. How would this improve under communism?
2. Do you still not understand that any trade allowed favors the third world, and they can only benefit from trade with the US, even if it's minimal?

 

[mack]

dude, no one is going to waste their time trying to convince you and your petrified opinions.

again, just read a history book, looks like Ohio might try to waste his work time and argue with you, but i have home work to do.

 

[Changleen]

2. Do you still not understand that any trade allowed favors the third world, and they can only benefit from trade with the US, even if it's minimal?

Sorry, that is NOT true at all. In many cases trade with the West has permanently damaged and disadvantaged 3rd world countries and people - hence the emergence of 'Fair Trade' organisations and movements.

 

[ohio]

Sorry, that is NOT true at all. In many cases trade with the West has permanently damaged and disadvantaged 3rd world countries and people - hence the emergence of 'Fair Trade' organisations and movements.

Many cases? Permanent damage? Name them. And it must be the the result of the trade itself, not corrupt government.

 

[Changleen]

Many cases? Permanent damage? Name them. And it must be the the result of the trade itself, not corrupt government.

Take a look at the Oxfam website, or Christian Aid or Globalpolicy.org. Come on, this is not exactly news. This ****'s been going on for years. This is a bit like being suprised by a famine in Ethiopia. My wife worked for a charity who spent a good portion of their time trying to educate people about this issue and trying to get the UK government at leat to try and regulate some of the more utterly cynical practices.

Esentially the story goes:

1) Western company moves into a underdeveloped situation
2) Sets up a 'deal' to buy product x from locals (coffee, sugar, tin etc.) often in return for limited infrastructure investment
3) Establishes unique rights to product x from said region
4) Destroys (admittedly limited) traditional family and social set-up that there is, often resulting in high incidence of social issues such as increased alcoholism, domestic violence, increased suicide etc
5) Pays considerably below market rates for given product
6) Essentially traps community/region into relationship with western corporation
7) Community / region becomes skilled (if at all) in one thing - even worse than pre-contact sceanrio.
8) Prospects for upward mobility are destroyed

These people often become defacto slaves. They loose their own culture, don't gain any benefits of western culture, loose any prospects for growth beyond life working for the corp. and often work ludicrous hours in poor conditions with minimal or zero support for frankly scandalous wages. It's essentially remote slavery without the social stigma in the corporations home country. I generally support capitalism as a system, but this is one of it's dirty little secrets.

 

[DRB]

As has been pointed out, China has less poverty than the rest of the world, because the Chinese government is LYING. Duh.

Remember the Soviets didn't have homeless folks either.

 

[fluff]

Remember the Soviets didn't have homeless folks either.

Is it that anyone who does not conform to your world view is lying? Do you perhaps work for the IMF or the World Bank?

 

[ohio]

Esentially the story goes:

1) Western company moves into a underdeveloped situation
2) Sets up a 'deal' to buy product x from locals (coffee, sugar, tin etc.) often in return for limited infrastructure investment
3) Establishes unique rights to product x from said region
4) Destroys (admittedly limited) traditional family and social set-up that there is, often resulting in high incidence of social issues such as increased alcoholism, domestic violence, increased suicide etc
5) Pays considerably below market rates for given product
6) Essentially traps community/region into relationship with western corporation
7) Community / region becomes skilled (if at all) in one thing - even worse than pre-contact sceanrio.
8) Prospects for upward mobility are destroyed

Oh, please. You can't seriously blame that on capitalism. You don't think communist nations have done exactly the same thing, exploitative imperialism? In terms of what's unique to capitalism in these situations of exploitation:
1. Both offer locals low wages relative to the developed world, but with capitalism it will be higher than what currently exists in the localities. People wouldn't take the jobs if they didn't pay better than what else was available. The downside is that the influx of westerners often raises cost of living disproportionately to the increase in wage. Lack of local government can encourage corruption... but that is a governmental issue, not an economic one.
2. For every oil company horror story, there's another story of the successes of development and rise of the underclass, especially in the field of micro-finance. Money is the single most powerful tool we have to affect behavior and to create opportunity.

 

[fluff]

Ohio, how do the power issues in California fit with your rose-tinted view of Capitalism?

And by the way, thanks for not bothering to read my posts correctly, I specifically made the poin that I was not saying Soviet Russia was better than the west but why let that get in the way of slagging me off, eh?

 

[DRB]

Is it that anyone who does not conform to your world view is lying? Do you perhaps work for the IMF or the World Bank?

No, someone is lying when they are lying. If you can tell me honestly that you believe the statement you made or the one that you credit to the Soviets then I guess I missed the day you became a frother.

No I actually work for the evilest of all empires.

 

[DRB]

Take a look at the Oxfam website, or Christian Aid or Globalpolicy.org. Come on, this is not exactly news. This ****'s been going on for years. This is a bit like being suprised by a famine in Ethiopia. My wife worked for a charity who spent a good portion of their time trying to educate people about this issue and trying to get the UK government at leat to try and regulate some of the more utterly cynical practices.

Esentially the story goes:

1) Western company moves into a underdeveloped situation
2) Sets up a 'deal' to buy product x from locals (coffee, sugar, tin etc.) often in return for limited infrastructure investment
3) Establishes unique rights to product x from said region
4) Destroys (admittedly limited) traditional family and social set-up that there is, often resulting in high incidence of social issues such as increased alcoholism, domestic violence, increased suicide etc
5) Pays considerably below market rates for given product
6) Essentially traps community/region into relationship with western corporation
7) Community / region becomes skilled (if at all) in one thing - even worse than pre-contact sceanrio.
8) Prospects for upward mobility are destroyed

These people often become defacto slaves. They loose their own culture, don't gain any benefits of western culture, loose any prospects for growth beyond life working for the corp. and often work ludicrous hours in poor conditions with minimal or zero support for frankly scandalous wages. It's essentially remote slavery without the social stigma in the corporations home country. I generally support capitalism as a system, but this is one of it's dirty little secrets.

You make is sound as if this is the rule. That is always happens this way. Which is simply not true. Even on the globalpolicy.org site (I just spent the last hour and half reading thru many of the studies and articles) you quoted there are numerous examples of the exact opposite of what you are saying happening. Countries where new opportunities were opened, new labor opportunities, new freedoms etc so forth and so on.

One quote I found especially relevant especially whey discussing the Communist model of economics:

Poverty is not having a job, fearing for the future, living one day at a time. Poverty is powerlessness, and it is lack of representation and freedom. The primary goal of development should be to release people from the grip of poverty. But development is not solely about money or markets, or education and health - although all these are important. It is about people gaining access to resources and increasing their capacity to improve their lives and influence decisions that affect them.

Communism is never going to give someone these opportunities. At its very heart the ideals held sacred fly in direct conflict with these.

Look I never said that capitalism is some lilly white practice or ideal that causes no one to get hurt. It can be ugly and twisted as can most things. I understand very well the impact new captial development and investment can have on a country, negatively and positively.

 

[fluff]

No, someone is lying when they are lying. If you can tell me honestly that you believe the statement you made or the one that you credit to the Soviets then I guess I missed the day you became a frother.

No I actually work for the evilest of all empires.

There simply were fewer homeless people in Russia in the later years of the Soviet Union than there are now, it's a fact. There were many other things that have improved, I'm not saying it was utopia. That's the only statement I have made that we disputing as far as I'm aware.

And fwiw vagrancy is a criminal offence in the UK and maybe even in the US for all I know.

BTW - My ex-gf (of 4 years) was half Ukrainian, studied and lived in Moscow for several months, I have been to Russia twice and have been close friends with a few Ukrainians. I'm not just making **** up here.

Have a link

Ooh, ain't capitalism great, just look at the GDP, or the life expectancy...

 

[ohio]

Ohio, how do the power issues in California fit with your rose-tinted view of Capitalism?

Heh, you hit my sweet spot. In 2001, I was working in economic consulting for the power industry along with the fellas that literally wrote the book on energy market privatization. California was a failure because of over-regulation. They failed to fully commit to a free market trade of power, and it allowed loopholes/discounts for industrial users (because CA was afraid of scaring them out of state), which were then abused for personal gain.

If the system had been implemented properly those specific problems would have been avoided. Energy prices would have increased for large businesses, but that's only fair.

And by the way, thanks for not bothering to read my posts correctly, I specifically made the poin that I was not saying Soviet Russia was better than the west but why let that get in the way of slagging me off, eh?

I'm not sure specifically which of your points I skipped over. If you point them out, I'll try to address them.

 

[DRB]

There simply were fewer homeless people in Russia in the later years of the Soviet Union than there are now, it's a fact. There were many other things that have improved, I'm not saying it was utopia. That's the only statement I have made that we disputing as far as I'm aware.

And fwiw vagrancy is a criminal offence in the UK and maybe even in the US for all I know.

BTW - My ex-gf (of 4 years) was half Ukrainian, studied and lived in Moscow for several months, I have been to Russia twice and have been close friends with a few Ukrainians. I'm not just making **** up here.

Have a link

Ooh, ain't capitalism great, just look at the GDP, or the life expectancy...

I said numerous times that the implementation of capitalism into Russia was done practically overnight which coming from a tightly controlled state run economy is not ideal actually its the recipe for what they got.

The only arguement I had with your statement was that you said

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

I called BS. If you are backing up to say there are more now then there were then. Then I certainly have less arguement with that.

However much like the GDP and life expectancy figures, it is exceptional hard to figure out accurate data from that provided by the State. And the fact that there was little or no independent study from within the sources of data are relatively limited.

 

[fluff]

The only argument I had with your statement was that you said

"No homeless"

I called BS. If you are backing up to say there are more now then there were then. Then I certainly have less arguement with that.

Fair enough, I worded it badly.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Alright. finally I found something on the internet for ohio to back up my statement on SA disliking democracies, and preferring personal welfare over personal freedom.
an idea which you thought ridiculous, but quite real in the 3rd world, which makes up the majority of the world. this is the word of 3rd world people themselves and their opinion on political systems.
not of 1st worlders, or 3rd world elites.

in brasil, democracy is liked by only 35% of the population for example.

http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/es/actualidades/americas/act031104_latinobarometro.html

its in spanish, it also talks about the same poll i was talking about. 17 south american countries, over 18 thousand people polled.

latinobarometro is the polling company. ill find out more on that, preferably on english later.

www.latinobarometro.com they have a pdf with the data in english as well. with the questionarie and stuff.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

http://www.latinobarometro.org/Upload/Informe LB 2004 Final.pdf

here is the actual report of the poll in spanish. i cannot find a translation in english.
but i´ll translate the index so yall have an idea on what is it about.

1. Democracy and Authoritarism
2. Satisfaction with Democracy
3. President Aproval
4. Attitudes toward politics
5. Trust
6. Economics
7. Social Policies
8. Attitude towards women
9. Conclusions
10. Tecnica Data

democracy is still a most liked system by a fair margin, but capitalism vs socialism-morphic system is quite towards the pinko side.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

I get a page not found error...

 

[binary visions]

I get a page not found error...

That's because there are spaces in the webaddress and Ridemonkey doesn't recognize it.

Try this:

click!

 

[gschuette]

So Capitalism is evil?

As opposed to what Socialism? Socialism is such a great idea, let's reward laziness and condemn hard work. What a great idea! Oh and communism, let's kill our economy and ingenuity by giving no one an incentive to do anything. Yeah!

So what if lazy people fall behind in Capitalism. If you are not willing to work why should you be paid well and recieve benefits? You shouldn't you lazy ass. Now if you work hard and try to succeed I see no problem with getting a pay raise.

This thread has shhown me that many people here are probably pretty lazy at work. Considering you have a high post counta and always post from 9 to 5 I would say my analysis is pretty close to accurate.

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

So what if lazy people fall behind in Capitalism. If you are not willing to work why should you be paid well and recieve benefits? You shouldn't you lazy ass.

Yo, dumbass - capitalism is NOT a meritocracy. This argument is so full of sh1t I can shoot it down in one word ... inheritance. Worked hard for it did ya?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

So Capitalism is evil?

As opposed to what Socialism? Socialism is such a great idea, let's reward laziness and condemn hard work. What a great idea! Oh and communism, let's kill our economy and ingenuity by giving no one an incentive to do anything. Yeah!

So what if lazy people fall behind in Capitalism. If you are not willing to work why should you be paid well and recieve benefits? You shouldn't you lazy ass. Now if you work hard and try to succeed I see no problem with getting a pay raise.

This thread has shhown me that many people here are probably pretty lazy at work. Considering you have a high post counta and always post from 9 to 5 I would say my analysis is pretty close to accurate.

lol. i´ll throw a few things for you on how great capitalism is.
firstable i post 9-5 US time, because i work in a casino at nights.

thanks to the current "capitalism" i can hire a maid for 100 bucks a month, and make her work 12 hours a day if so i wish. and many do. "free market" (i mean artificial labor barriers), dictates lower wages and higher returns for capital investment here. take that for meritocracy and inheritance.

and, isnt good and life about the best for the most, and to live for happiness, rather than accumulate wealth??? which system is worse? yours

that "punishes" hard work?, or the current one that punishes inhabitants of the world ghettos walled by artificial barriers for the sake of a few shareholders??? in which case you are losing the most?

the whole idea of capitalism being about hard work and getting a fair revenue for it is full of BS.

 

[gschuette]

You didn't say what you do at the Casino but I would be willing to bet that you would bring home more to your family in the U.S. than you would in Canada or if you could go back in time in the U.S.S.R. That is probably because we are more of a capitalist nation than the others.

 

[fluff]

I once worked for a giant pharmaceutical company, shining lights of the capitalist world. They have the power to sell cheap drugs to the third world and save millions of lives. However, their profits would suffer. Guess what they do?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

You didn't say what you do at the Casino but I would be willing to bet that you would bring home more to your family in the U.S. than you would in Canada or if you could go back in time in the U.S.S.R. That is probably because we are more of a capitalist nation than the others.

wages have nothing to do with who is "more capitalistic". wages differences in the 1st world and 3rd have more to do with supply-demand rules, and an arbitraty control to keep the labor supply by 1st world low with tight inmigration rules, and to keep the supply high in the 3rd world by constraining people to those geographical locations.

FYI, if you are a 3rd worlder is harder, and you have to show more affluency to get a US visa just to visit mickey mouse in the US than what it would take you to buy a house. in contrast, if you are european, the doors are open... why do you think is that?

my family owns the casino, i´m an administrator. we are capitalists, and we do business in Peru because of the much larger profits (of course at the price of higher investment risk and paying lower wages), and the reduced need for capital to be capitalistic, than say to own a casino in vegas or some outrageously expensive place like that.

i think the 3rd world is more "capitalistic" than the 1st world. because capital is worth much here, thus, more "capitalistic".

 

[Changleen]

Happy Birthday Alexis!

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Happy Birthday Alexis!

thanks a bungh, the first happy bday i got today. not yet here in peru, but the 13 in your side of the world..

 

[ohio]

I once worked for a giant pharmaceutical company, shining lights of the capitalist world. They have the power to sell cheap drugs to the third world and save millions of lives. However, their profits would suffer. Guess what they do?

Are you trying to make the claim that under communism, those drugs would make it to the 3rd world?

What was your position at the pharm co?

 

[ohio]

FYI, if you are a 3rd worlder is harder, and you have to show more affluency to get a US visa just to visit mickey mouse in the US than what it would take you to buy a house. in contrast, if you are european, the doors are open... why do you think is that?

Because the 3rd worlder is far more likely to stay illegally. The goal isn't to keep the 3rd world down. It's to prevent an influx of so many undocumented people that it could collapse certain localities.

If you had the option of dictating the law, what would you do instead?

By the way, I couldn't access any of the translations of your study, and my Italian is not good enough that I can easily understand written Spanish... especially technical language.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Because the 3rd worlder is far more likely to stay illegally. The goal isn't to keep the 3rd world down. It's to prevent an influx of so many undocumented people that it could collapse certain localities..

exactly!. and by doing so, they are keeping the 3rd world down indirectly.
yesterday i was watching Andres Oppenheimer Presents and he talked about this. In El Salvador for example, 14% of its GDP is equal to the money salvatorians in the US send home. its the 2nd source of income of the country after textile exports. in Turkey, 15 billions bucks a year are sent from turkish inmigrant in germany to their families. mexico receives 40 billion a year from the US.
in the 3rd world inmigrants equal money coming from the 1st world. an inmigrant means a mom or dad in the US sending money for their kids and wife in the 3rd world. and this money in southamerica for example is roughly between 10% to 14% of the GDP in most nations this money goes to.
i dont deny inmigration can wreak havoc in the 1st world, but the same can be said about foreing investment and monopolies in the 3rd world.. dont you think?

If you had the option of dictating the law, what would you do instead?

By the way, I couldn't access any of the translations of your study, and my Italian is not good enough that I can easily understand written Spanish... especially technical language.

I would restrict inmigration less.
to make a fair deal. just like free capital flow models (which actually mean, free capital flow from the 1st world to the 3rd world were profits are bigger and riskier). i would treat workforce as a capital. it would raise greatly the lives of the 3rd world, of course at the cost of the lifestyle of the 1st world... but IMO its fair because currently the lifestyle in the 1st is afforded because of the extremely low wages paid in china or salvador, so you can have cheap stuff...