Evil Capitalism [Archive] - Ridemonkey.com

ALEXIS_DH

11-27-2004, 12:58 PM

Our version of capitolism sucks because we are not a free market society, and our leaders are more than willing to subsidize corporations.

WORD!. capitalism as a concept is the best among the available IMO. its not perfect, but its better or more realistic than others at least.

i got a problem with the free markets ad free trade.
am all for them. but... if you allow free capital flows... shouldnt you also allow free labor flow????

because otherwise, isnt allowing free capital flows, but constraining certain people to certain geographic locations the same as constraining some people to ALWAYS be part of the cheap labor.

not allowing this people to freely move their labor to wherever they want (by impossing tight inmigration laws in highly paid labor places) is against free trade AND is a way to keep them in the lower class forever????

ummbikes

11-27-2004, 02:38 PM

WORD!. capitalism as a concept is the best among the available IMO. its not perfect, but its better or more realistic than others at least.

i got a problem with the free markets ad free trade.
am all for them. but... if you allow free capital flows... shouldnt you also allow free labor flow????

because otherwise, isnt allowing free capital flows, but constraining certain people to certain geographic locations the same as constraining some people to ALWAYS be part of the cheap labor.

not allowing this people to freely move their labor to wherever they want (by impossing tight inmigration laws in highly paid labor places) is against free trade AND is a way to keep them in the lower class forever????

I think I see what your are saying. The problem the established system has with free flow of labor is that it allows the labor force to have too much control over potential profits, by allowing the workers to simply move to better paying employer across national boundries.

This is a major probelm for the neo-con/fascist model, because they are counting on having very tight control of labor, and the might of armies to enforce market controls.

So it really all boils down to the social -vs- capitol model fight of the last 100 years... :think:

TheMontashu

11-28-2004, 03:06 AM

Let The Comunist Revolution Begin!!!!!!!

ummbikes

11-28-2004, 09:09 PM

Let The Comunist Revolution Begin!!!!!!!

Nah, lets not.

Let's try letting corporations floating their own boats instead of subsidizing them and call it good.

TheMontashu

11-28-2004, 09:35 PM

deal.

ALEXIS_DH

11-28-2004, 10:44 PM

I think I see what your are saying. The problem the established system has with free flow of labor is that it allows the labor force to have too much control over potential profits, by allowing the workers to simply move to better paying employer across national boundries.

This is a major probelm for the neo-con/fascist model, because they are counting on having very tight control of labor, and the might of armies to enforce market controls.

So it really all boils down to the social -vs- capitol model fight of the last 100 years... :think:

yup, for me the perfect system would be that. a system of free capital flows AND free labor flows, in which neither of them has a total grip, but a constant struggle.
much more realistic than a utopic socialism, but the only problem is convincing the ones now with the grip to loosen a little bit so the free-labor-flows can move wherever.

i think globalization is a first step towards that. eventually people will realize that free inmigrations are needed and are fair once you open borders for capitals...

BurlyShirley

11-28-2004, 11:18 PM

ALEXIS_DH

11-28-2004, 11:24 PM

Even after all the bitching about capitalism in its current state, you cannot convince me that a man with any amount of work ethic and no serious substance abuse issues will go hungry in this country. The vast majority are able to live at a much more comfortable level than have the poor at any other time in history. People just want to work less for more in this world regardless of whether they're CEOs or Janitors.

dude, people will always want to work less for more money. its not having a bad work ethic, is a basic market rule.

the same thing as wanting the most for your money. you want the most money out of your labor. no bad ethics in there. bad ethics is what the guy with a whip making you work wants you to think so you dont slack off, so he gets the most for his money, not you the most for your labor...

BurlyShirley

11-28-2004, 11:29 PM

dude, people will always want to work less for more money. its not having a bad work ethic, is a basic market rule.

the same thing as wanting the most for your money. you want the most money out of your labor. no bad ethics in there. bad ethics is what the guy with a whip making you work wants you to think so you dont slack off, so he gets the most for his money, not you the most for your labor...

Right. Im just saying that's why people bitch about capitalisim, even though "people" as a whole never had it so good.

ummbikes

11-28-2004, 11:34 PM

ALEXIS_DH

11-28-2004, 11:35 PM

Right. Im just saying that's why people bitch about capitalisim, even though "people" as a whole never had it so good.

the concept is the best available. yet in its application everyone can bitch a lot about it.. because its still faaaaaaaaaaaar from the true free-market free-trade.. what we have now its not capitalism... is the same ol´ oligarchy masqueraded under a new freedom and human rights costume.

ALEXIS_DH

11-28-2004, 11:36 PM

Toshi

11-28-2004, 11:44 PM

BurlyShirley

11-28-2004, 11:47 PM

Burly, the question is this, is the damn CEO really worth 9 million more a year than the dude who makes the airplane? Espescially when the CEO gets beaux-coup tax breaks and fat government checks too?

Hell I'm all for making money, and I have no problem making my employer money, I just would generally like more for what I do and some medical insurance would be nice too.

The CEO is worth more for the same reason that the doctor is worth more than the construction worker, even though the construction worker will physically work harder over a lifetime. It's about responsibility and the comptency that is required. Not that its always necessarily delivered, though.
You'd like medical insurance, and people in Burundi would like some food and a break from the biting flies. Pick your poison. For all the "bad" that corporations do, companies like Wal Mart and Bass Pro shops make "the finer things in life" more accessible to the rednecks.
Not saying the system is perfect, but it works.

ALEXIS_DH

11-28-2004, 11:47 PM

corporate boardrooms across america are stocked with the same cast of characters, who go on to appoint each other to cozy board positions at other companies. this incestuous cycle represents cronyism of the worst kind, and is nothing like pure capitalism as envisioned by, say, ayn rand.

thats in capitalism without competition.
when corporation dont compete, but join to stiff the people. its the very delicate difference between the utopic competition-capitalism, in which the gvmt is the policeman to prevent this and the ol´ oligarchy-corruption-capitalism we have had in SA forever....

ALEXIS_DH

11-28-2004, 11:50 PM

The CEO is worth more for the same reason that the doctor is worth more than the construction worker, even though the construction worker will physically work harder over a lifetime. It's about responsibility and the comptency that is required. Not that its always necessarily delivered, though.
You'd like medical insurance, and people in Burundi would like some food and a break from the biting flies. Pick your poison. For all the "bad" that corporations do, companies like Wal Mart and Bass Pro shops make "the finer things in life" more accessible to the rednecks.
Not saying the system is perfect, but it works.

there is a limit for that Burly. in an open market, the doctor worth will be dependant upon the number of people capable. the problem with CEOS is that at that level corporations run pretty much like closed mafias... not much competition, why??, because keeping the same CEOS always guarantees certain power to certain shareholders, rather than benefits for ALL sharedholders. the same as in the world, but at a small corporate level.

Toshi

11-28-2004, 11:57 PM

The CEO is worth more for the same reason that the doctor is worth more than the construction worker, even though the construction worker will physically work harder over a lifetime. It's about responsibility and the comptency that is required. Not that its always necessarily delivered, though.
two reasons why this is wrong:

1) the process of becoming a physician is egalitarian (to sometimes disgusting lengths), and somewhat of a meritocracy as well
2) 4 yrs of med school + ~4 years of residency at essentially minimum wage (figure $40k/yr at 80-88+ hours/week during residency) is a lot more effort than a posh mba program, that you could go through at night if you wanted, yet physicians are paid on the much less than ceos of "major corporations", whatever that definition is. $9.2 million dollars. (http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/paywatch/)

the path to money is in business, not medicine. like i wrote, boardrooms are populated through cronyism. that's not capitalism.

BurlyShirley

11-29-2004, 12:03 AM

two reasons why this is wrong:

1) the process of becoming a physician is egalitarian (to sometimes disgusting lengths), and somewhat of a meritocracy as well
2) 4 yrs of med school + ~4 years of residency at essentially minimum wage (figure $40k/yr at 80-88+ hours/week during residency) is a lot more effort than a posh mba program, that you could go through at night if you wanted, yet physicians are paid on the much less than ceos of "major corporations", whatever that definition is. $9.2 million dollars. (http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/paywatch/)

the path to money is in business, not medicine. like i wrote, boardrooms are populated through cronyism. that's not capitalism.

well, I didnt mean for you to take that example so literally, but figure that responsibility for money = salary level, with some regularity. You know that. And you know thats why CEOs make so much.

Toshi

11-29-2004, 12:10 AM

well, I didnt mean for you to take that example so literally, but figure that responsibility for money = salary level, with some regularity. You know that. And you know thats why CEOs make so much.
and my point is that CEO compensation is way out of line with reality, based on the above criteria. even when they screw up, they get nice severance packages. furthermore, their performance isn't judged by their responsibility, but rather on how much they can slash and burn in order to increase short term gain for the shareholders.

BurlyShirley

11-29-2004, 12:11 AM

there is a limit for that Burly. in an open market, the doctor worth will be dependant upon the number of people capable. the problem with CEOS is that at that level corporations run pretty much like closed mafias... not much competition, why??, because keeping the same CEOS always guarantees certain power to certain shareholders, rather than benefits for ALL sharedholders. the same as in the world, but at a small corporate level.

If I were going out of town, Id pick someone I could trust to watch my dog, not a homeless bum off the street who might eat it.

ALEXIS_DH

11-29-2004, 12:14 AM

If I were going out of town, Id pick someone I could trust to watch my dog, not a homeless bum off the street who might eat it.

but what about if you own 1/3 of the dog, and a friend of yours owns the other 1/3, and a nother guy out of town owns the other 1/3... would you get the guy you trust?
or the guy that will give make your teacup toy poodle give birth twins in 2 weeks... but can eventually kill the dog... of course after you and your buiddy got one of the puppies, and sold your 1/3 of the post-partum poodile to some poor soul????

BurlyShirley

11-29-2004, 12:14 AM

their performance isn't judged by their responsibility, but rather on how much they can slash and burn in order to increase short term gain for the shareholders.
You're only looking at the negative of this, as positives can also create gains for shareholders. Growing businesses, healthy ones, are great for shareholders. Its not all slashing 10,000 jobs the day before Christmas.

BurlyShirley

11-29-2004, 12:20 AM

but what about if you own 1/3 of the dog, and a friend of yours owns the other 1/3, and a nother guy out of town owns the other 1/3... would you get the guy you trust?
or the guy that will give make your teacup toy poodle give birth twins in 2 weeks... but can eventually kill the dog... of course after you and your buiddy got one of the puppies, and sold your 1/3 of the post-partum poodile to some poor soul????

Again, dont take the examples so literally, or we'll end up bickering about dog breeding in a minute, but, if my dog were a business, of course, Id go with the guy most likely to better my business in whatever ways possible. It'd sure be a plus if I knew him well and wasnt just some resume who might be a serial dog assraper.

Silver

11-29-2004, 12:27 AM

BurlyShirley

11-29-2004, 12:29 AM

BS, a little homework.

Compare CEO compensation (maybe compared to the lowest paid employee in the firm, or whatever fits your fancy) in the the US and Japan.

Anything interesting come up there? Anything at all?

So are we just going to turn this into a debate about CEO compensation, cause we had one of those already.

Silver

11-29-2004, 01:21 AM

No, I'm asking you to do a little research and challenge your preconceived notions that CEO compensation in the US is economically justified by comparing and contrasting to other first world economies. You can throw most of the EU in there too, since you're being dense again.

fluff

11-29-2004, 04:25 AM

Right. Im just saying that's why people bitch about capitalisim, even though "people" as a whole never had it so good.

"People" as a whole meaning the US, or the entire world? Given that the US has become the ruling class and outsourced its proletariat to the third world people may not have never had it so good.

ohio

11-29-2004, 01:05 PM

You're only looking at the negative of this, as positives can also create gains for shareholders. Growing businesses, healthy ones, are great for shareholders. Its not all slashing 10,000 jobs the day before Christmas.

Capitalism is the best available system and works like a charm. The problem (which is currently being addressed, and is agreed upon across political parties, not including the presidency) is that true capitalism requires that you are both rewarded for your successes and punished for your failures.

Right now, executive level managers are entirely insulated from any punishment for failure. In fact, many have been consistently REWARDED for failures. The key is striking a balance between allowing execs to take the risks that drive innovation and growth, while still holding them accountable for selfish decisions that hurt the company as a whole. Finding that balance is not easy, but right now there's a clear imbalance towards protection. A good start would be for corporations themselves to take some responsibility for the mess and base bonuses on something like NPV or cash flow, rather than quarterly or total shareholder return. C-level needs more incentive towards acting in the best interest of the company, not just themselves and their 3 wealthiest friends.

And Burly, I value your positions on morality (seriously), foreign policy, and social issues... but on this one, you just don't know what you're talking about.

BurlyShirley

11-29-2004, 02:35 PM

Ohio, Silver....whoa, that kind of sounds like Hiho Silver, huh?

Anyway, Im not defending CEOs here. Im not saying that what is going on is right in every way. I didnt make that statement and Im not trying to defend it. So to say "you dont know what you're talking about" isnt entirely accurate, because that's not even what Im talking about.
All Im getting at is that the system aint all bad and Evil as people try to make it out to be. The leadership in some aspects may be "corrupt" in our minds, but the overall effects of this quasi-capitalism we have, have been pretty good as compared to the alternative.

ohio

11-29-2004, 03:55 PM

All Im getting at is that the system aint all bad and Evil as people try to make it out to be.

No the system isn't, but the people are. Most people (not just CEOs) given access to millions of dollars at the expense of others (including shareholders and taxpayers), will take it unless there is some incentive (besides morals) to not do so.

We agree that it's a great system with a few flaws. Where we disagree is that you seem to be perfectly willing to accept the flaws. You should try to do something about them so that we achieve a better system.

BurlyShirley

11-29-2004, 04:02 PM

DRB

11-29-2004, 04:35 PM

No the system isn't, but the people are. Most people (not just CEOs) given access to millions of dollars at the expense of others (including shareholders and taxpayers), will take it unless there is some incentive (besides morals) to not do so.

We agree that it's a great system with a few flaws. Where we disagree is that you seem to be perfectly willing to accept the flaws. You should try to do something about them so that we achieve a better system.

The real failure, at least in terms of the recent accounting fiascos, was the audits. The auditors quit doing their jobs. That was always one of the "incentives " to not manipulate the system, you'd get caught. However, either thru ommission, incompetence or (insert the word for being in on it) that fell thru.

As for picking the right measure for bonus basis.... companies are only going to drive the indicators and measures that shareholders and analysts hold important. Where it be NPV, CFROI, shareholder value, profit, sales.... they are all open to manipulation which again points to the necessity of having independent and through financial audits.

As for CEO compenstation, what's too high? Do you say 10% of the lowest paid employee as Ben and Jerry's TRIED to do or some other number? What is the standard to set? As with most things in the capitalist system it gets driven by the market. That market will correct typically if it gets too out of whack. Which in essence is what is happening now. I would not expect to ever see it fall substanially but it certainly won't be the Eisner / Ovitz kinda money.

Toshi

11-29-2004, 05:37 PM

As for CEO compenstation, what's too high? Do you say 10% of the lowest paid employee as Ben and Jerry's TRIED to do or some other number? What is the standard to set? As with most things in the capitalist system it gets driven by the market. That market will correct typically if it gets too out of whack. Which in essence is what is happening now. I would not expect to ever see it fall substanially but it certainly won't be the Eisner / Ovitz kinda money.
the market has no direct control over CEO salaries. this is the problem.

ohio

11-29-2004, 05:40 PM

As for CEO compenstation, what's too high? Do you say 10% of the lowest paid employee as Ben and Jerry's TRIED to do or some other number?

I don't see a need to cap CEO compensation, nor do I have a problem with it being 100x of the lowest employee's wages. If the board is properly incentivized or held accountable, then there's probably a good reason that CEO is being paid that much. It's supply and demand at the exec level too, and companies pay what is necessary to attract top talent

My problem is bonuses being awarded despite underperformance or sometimes even fraud. Right now, most public companies are addressing this by restructuring their charters so they don't screw themselves. As for legislation that will help, as you said, much of the work needs to be with accounting practices. That is in process. I'm no lawyer, but here's my take on what else needs to happen.
1. Non exec employee pensions should be the primary creditor in the case of liquidation/bankruptcy
2. Executive salary and bonus obligations should be treated as accounts payable. I'm not sure what teir of creditor that should be at, but below non-exec employee pensions.
3. Stiffer penalities for white-collar crime. These crimes are not always clear cut, but someone that rips their company off for $1 million, should get an equal penalty to someone that steals (non-violently) $1 million worth of cars.

HippieKai

11-29-2004, 05:42 PM

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

water just about came out of my nose.

ohio

11-29-2004, 05:43 PM

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

11-29-2004, 06:20 PM

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

11-29-2004, 09:05 PM

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

11-29-2004, 10:07 PM

The rich get rich, while the poor get poorer......
what would you suggest? its worked better than other "worker" governments has it not?

:nopity:

ALEXIS_DH

11-29-2004, 11:10 PM

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

:nopity:

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

11-30-2004, 07:36 AM

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

11-30-2004, 07:50 AM

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

11-30-2004, 08:03 AM

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

11-30-2004, 08:34 AM

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

11-30-2004, 08:43 AM

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

11-30-2004, 08:43 AM

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

11-30-2004, 09:00 AM

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

11-30-2004, 09:11 AM

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

11-30-2004, 09:14 AM

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

11-30-2004, 09:26 AM

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

11-30-2004, 09:47 AM

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

11-30-2004, 11:50 AM

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

11-30-2004, 12:30 PM

ALEXIS_DH

11-30-2004, 02:23 PM

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

11-30-2004, 02:37 PM

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

11-30-2004, 02:41 PM

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

11-30-2004, 02:51 PM

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

11-30-2004, 03:18 PM

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

11-30-2004, 03:47 PM

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

11-30-2004, 03:59 PM

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

11-30-2004, 04:07 PM

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

11-30-2004, 04:12 PM

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

11-30-2004, 04:14 PM

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

11-30-2004, 04:48 PM

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

11-30-2004, 05:03 PM

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

11-30-2004, 05:12 PM

yeah and peru sucked in the olympics too.

Silver

11-30-2004, 05:20 PM

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

11-30-2004, 05:34 PM

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

11-30-2004, 05:44 PM

ALEXIS_DH

11-30-2004, 06:04 PM

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. :think:

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

11-30-2004, 06:08 PM

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

11-30-2004, 06:15 PM

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

11-30-2004, 06:19 PM

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

11-30-2004, 06:20 PM

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

ohio

11-30-2004, 06:22 PM

ALEXIS_DH

11-30-2004, 06:27 PM

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

11-30-2004, 06:30 PM

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

11-30-2004, 06:31 PM

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

11-30-2004, 06:32 PM

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

11-30-2004, 06:44 PM

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! :rolleyes: )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

11-30-2004, 06:44 PM

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. :rolleyes:

ohio

11-30-2004, 07:34 PM

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

11-30-2004, 07:53 PM

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

11-30-2004, 08:06 PM

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

11-30-2004, 08:09 PM

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

11-30-2004, 08:14 PM

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. :blah:

Changleen

11-30-2004, 08:23 PM

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

11-30-2004, 09:14 PM

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

12-01-2004, 04:41 AM

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

12-01-2004, 08:07 AM

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

12-01-2004, 09:34 AM

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

12-01-2004, 10:45 AM

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

12-01-2004, 10:50 AM

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

12-01-2004, 11:41 AM

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

12-01-2004, 11:55 AM

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

12-01-2004, 12:07 PM

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 (http://www.marxmail.org/archives/december98/russia.htm)

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

ohio

12-01-2004, 01:38 PM

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

12-01-2004, 02:50 PM

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 (http://www.marxmail.org/archives/december98/russia.htm)

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

12-01-2004, 03:13 PM

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

12-24-2004, 09:22 PM

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.