Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A Reply to Free-Marketeers

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 4:08:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
mongeese wrote:
charleslb, you complain constantly that we lack a concrete example of ideal capitalism put into practice. However, we also lack a concrete example of ideal communism/socialism/whatever it is that you advocate. So, I propose that we do one of two things:

1. We compare real-world attempts at "capitalism" (such as the United States and most of the West) with real-world attempts at "socialism" (such as the Soviet Union).

2. We compare ideal free-market capitalism with ideal socialism.

Any other comparison would be slanted, and therefore rather ridiculous. Comparing ideals to reality will always favor the ideals, making a discussion pointless.

It's your call, charles.

Okay then mongeese, and any other libertarian Republicans or free-marketeers who might be interested, here's my reply to these proposals.

Firstly, I note that apparently you do not have an example of what hardcore free-marketeers such as yourself would consider an authentically and blissfully capitalist society. You casually gloss over coming up short in this regard, and proceed to challenge me to defend real-world socialism against the charge that it's been more of a force for evil than real-world capitalism. I'll get to that challenge momentarily, but can I take it that you admit that you and your fellow capitalist anarchists (or whatever you prefer to call yourselves) lack a tangible example of the kind of society you advocate, i.e. that you accept membership in the club of romantic idealists and utopians?

Now then, as for the question of which ism, real-world capitalism or "communism" has demonstrated more of a capacity to deal out death and do evil, apparently you just assume that if we play the numbers game and add the thirty million that Mao killed to the twenty million that Stalin killed the resulting figure will be greater than the number of lives abbreviated by capitalism. However, as you might expect, I beg to differ. For you see, the greed and poverty generated by capitalism has in point of fact caused an enormous loss of life.

The ruthlessly self-serving manner in which the capitalist elite of the rich nations behaves in Third World countries, for example, creates incalculable suffering and nightmarishly ups the mortality rate. Then there's all that the capitalist corporatocarcy does right here in the First World to raise the misery index, and to shorten the time on earth of millions of human beings. You know, by perpetuating conditions of poverty that kill in various ways. Yes, the poverty endemic in our capitalist system is a mass killer. Shall I enumerate some of the ways?

For starters, when poor people aren't able to afford and obtain adequate health care, and this leads to their premature death from treatable medical conditions, such unfortunate people are genuine casualties of our capitalist system in which health care is a for-profit industry rather than a recognized human right.

When the poverty-caused sociological conditions rampant in the economically blighted inner cities spawn lethal gang violence and crime, the resulting victims are also victims of capitalism – in the bigger socioeconomic picture that conservatives refuse to acknowledge, preferring to moralistically blame individuals and chant the mantra of "personal responsibility", the way this lets capitalism off the hook is very convenient.

When those massively rich and clout-wielding capitalist entities, the tobacco companies, use their money-power to keep cigarettes legal, when they lucratively market death all over the globe, the millions who die each year can be added to the death tab of capitalist greed.

When the capitalist plutocracy instigates wars to the end of practicing the shock doctrine, i.e. profiteering and raping a beaten enemy's economy, the people murdered to satisfy the money-lust of the billionaires boys club likewise should be added to capitalism's ever growing death tab.

Oh yea, I didn't even mention all the lives destroyed by unhealthy and unsafe working conditions since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Sweatshops ruin lives and kill too.

And what about the killer pollution and unwholesome environmental effects caused by piggish capitalist profit-mongering? Yeah, all capitalism does is enhance people's material quality of life, yeah right. NOT! Capitalism is often literally toxic, and this is no hyperbole.

I could go on, but you get the idea (unless one chooses to be stubbornly dense in his/her denial). Now then, if we add up all of this annual death, and multiply it by the number of years it's been going on, we would get a figure that far exceeds that of the murder victims of "communism". And I won't even go off on a digression about the possibility that industrial capitalism, by causing global warming, may very well wipe out billions of lives in the not too distant future, and even place humankind on the endangered species list. Yes, unloosed capitalist greed is every bit as dangerous to our well-being as the will-to-power of wicked characters like Stalin and Mao Tse-tung. The underlying atavistic mentality of capitalist, that the strong capitalist should survive and flourish, and the weak wage slave & pauper should occasionally be allowed to perish, makes a capitalist society a very "rugged" and precarious place to live indeed.

Moving on, as for the tyranny and cruelty of so-called "communist" societies, I unequivocally acknowledge the partial responsibility of the socialist ideologies of these societies, let me get that straight and out of the way up front so that no one needs to go off on a tangent calling me on the carpet for being in leftist denial. That being said, I ask the same intellectual honesty from anti-communists.

That is, can you-all admit that there was conceivably more to the evil of "communist" societies than just their communist philosophy? What kind of societies, pray tell, became totalitarian "dictatorships of the proletariat"? The answer, countries like czarist Russia and China. You know, countries that had a long history of authoritarian government, that had no tradition whatsoever of democracy, and precious little tradition of respect for human rights. Naturally, when they went "communist" they did so not in a humane and progressive way, but in a harsh manner preordained by their harsh history. They merely repackaged their cruel history in a new ideology, and ratcheted up their authoritarianism one notch to totalitarianism.

No, it's not really very intellectually honest or fair at all to lay all the sins against humanity of Soviet-style socialism at the philosophical doorstep of "communism". If inclined, one can do so, but not with integrity and justice. However, it is honest and fair to point out the cruelty and death caused under capitalism is due to capitalist greed, because it is. Taking this into consideration, "communism" starts to look somewhat better in comparison to capitalism, a good deal better.

Finally, which philosophy has the greater potential for good? Well, socialism is a pro-social philosophy with pro-social values such as unselfishness, sharing, social compassion, and unity. Such pro-social values are empirically known to be good for society and for people's social well-being. Capitalism, on the other hand, is (forgive me) an anti-social philosophy, with anti-social values such as economic individualism, selfishness, cutthroat competition, and materialism. Such asocial, amoral, and downright anti-social values are empirically known to be decidedly bad for society and people's social happiness.

The conclusion is located directly below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 4:09:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conclusion

Well, what really does capitalism have to put up against the pro-social values of socialism, the theory that the invisible hand of unfettered self-interest and the "free market" is going to remedy all economic and social ills and give us a middle-class paradise on earth? Funny then how no society has found the wisdom to create a true "free market" that would prove the theory correct, could it be that we're being forced back to the realization that a true "free market" is more unrealistic than the pro-social values of socialism? Again, the pro-social values of socialism are a known quantity, we conclusively know that they make for socially stable and flourishing communities. On the other hand, Gordon Gecko's encapsulation of the philosophy of capitalism, that "Greed is good", is not only counterintuitive it's thoroughly refuted by the empirical data of history and sciences such as sociology.

So, at the end of the day's critical comparison, which ism really looks better and more appealing? My vote, and the vote of many who aren't ideologically and irrationally invested in dogmatically defending the "free market", is for "socialism". Whose position is really more whacky?!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 4:11:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 4:08:16 PM, charleslb wrote:

Finally, which philosophy has the greater potential for good? Well, socialism is a pro-social philosophy with pro-social values such as unselfishness, sharing, social compassion, and unity. Such pro-social values are empirically known to be good for society and for people's social well-being. Capitalism, on the other hand, is (forgive me) an anti-social philosophy, with anti-social values such as economic individualism, selfishness, cutthroat competition, and materialism. Such asocial, amoral, and downright anti-social values are empirically known to be decidedly bad for society and people's social happiness.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Capitalism and socialism are PLANS. They do not advocate particular VALUES. They do not even lend themselves to particular sets of values once you realize that you don't get to control the state just because you're a statist.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 4:17:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A typo correction. The following sentence contains a typo: "The underlying atavistic mentality of capitalist, that the strong capitalist should survive and flourish, and the weak wage slave & pauper should occasionally be allowed to perish, makes a capitalist society a very "rugged" and precarious place to live indeed."

It should read: The underlying atavistic mentality of capitalism, that the strong capitalist should survive and flourish, and the weak wage slave & pauper should occasionally be allowed to perish, makes a capitalist society a very "rugged" and precarious place to live indeed.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 4:29:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 4:08:16 PM, charleslb wrote:
[I]t is honest and fair to point out the cruelty and death caused under capitalism is due to capitalist greed

Agreed.

Taking this into consideration, "communism" starts to look somewhat better in comparison to capitalism, a good deal better.

I'd rather be the average person living in America during the Cold War than the average person in the USSR. Though you could argue that Russia started less developed than the United States and they had taken the brunt of the casualties during WWII.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 4:34:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 4:08:16 PM, charleslb wrote:
Finally, which philosophy has the greater potential for good? Well, socialism is a pro-social philosophy with pro-social values such as unselfishness, sharing, social compassion, and unity. Such pro-social values are empirically known to be good for society and for people's social well-being. Capitalism, on the other hand, is (forgive me) an anti-social philosophy, with anti-social values such as economic individualism, selfishness, cutthroat competition, and materialism. Such asocial, amoral, and downright anti-social values are empirically known to be decidedly bad for society and people's social happiness.

At 5/16/2011 4:11:00 PM, Sieben replied:
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Capitalism and socialism are PLANS. They do not advocate particular VALUES. They do not even lend themselves to particular sets of values once you realize that you don't get to control the state just because you're a statist.

A plan for how we might organize society can't involve or rest upon values? Hmm, then would you say that the values of democracy are figments, that the vaunted values of liberty and whatnot that American society is supposedly and sanctimoniously based on are all a lot of rubbish? They are, largely, but shouldn't this be a problem for patriotic conservatives? And although the values that America duplicitously prides itself on are somewhat of a pack of lies, this doesn't mean that people of goodwill can't establish a society predicated upon the values they profess.

At any rate, dismissing part of my argument on the grounds that the plans we make for society can't have any truck with values is facile and fallacious. You're welcome to take another shot and see if you can do any better.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 5:10:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 4:29:47 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 5/16/2011 4:08:16 PM, charleslb wrote:
[I]t is honest and fair to point out the cruelty and death caused under capitalism is due to capitalist greed

Agreed.

Taking this into consideration, "communism" starts to look somewhat better in comparison to capitalism, a good deal better.

I'd rather be the average person living in America during the Cold War than the average person in the USSR. Though you could argue that Russia started less developed than the United States and they had taken the brunt of the casualties during WWII.

Good point, though not quite a touché, as I'm not comparing the intensity of evil and misery of the Soviet Union under Stalin's reign of terror with life in Andy and Opie's Mayberry, I'm talking about the actuality that the overall death toll of capitalism ranks with and certainly exceeds that of Soviet-style "communism". And the actuality that in many countries in the Western capitalist bloc poverty and the brutal security forces that maintain the capitalist status quo brutalize and kill human beings in a rather morally horrendous fashion. And yes, it's certainly arguable that being tortured, raped, and murdered by Argentine or Guatemalan police defending the Western, free-enterprise way of life was every bit as unpleasant as being murdered by Stalin's NKVD.

Just as it's arguable that the unpleasantness of being one of the 45,000 children who live and work like slaves in garbage dumps in Brazil might compare to the unpleasantness of living in a Soviet labor camp!!! Remember that the evils of capitalism in the Third World are often more glaring and heinous than at home, and often do perhaps compare to the cruelty of life under the old Soviet system.

Thank you, however, for a thoughtful reply.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 5:16:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 4:34:11 PM, charleslb wrote:

A plan for how we might organize society can't involve or rest upon values?

No. A plan CAN rest on values, but socialism and capitalism do not. Capitalism's plan is free association and property rights. Socialism's plan is central control of resources.

This does not tell you whether people are kind to kittens and birds.

Hmm, then would you say that the values of democracy are figments,

democracy has no values

that the vaunted values of liberty and whatnot that American society is supposedly and sanctimoniously based on are all a lot of rubbish? They are, largely, but shouldn't this be a problem for patriotic conservatives? And although the values that America duplicitously prides itself on are somewhat of a pack of lies, this doesn't mean that people of goodwill can't establish a society predicated upon the values they profess.

Yes. People of goodwill can establish a society predicated on their own values. This is a red herring.

At any rate, dismissing part of my argument on the grounds that the plans we make for society can't have any truck with values is facile and fallacious. You're welcome to take another shot and see if you can do any better.

No no. You think socialism means "happy fun good universal healthcare" and you think capitalism means "icky yucky stupid every man for himself". You are wrong on both counts because you're retarded.

R
E
T
A
R
D
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 5:20:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
charles, it is true that crony capitalism has its faults. However, I do believe that the misappleid communism was even worse. As the saying goes, "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us." Far less gets done in Communist countries than capitalist ones. At least we do work and get paid. And you criticize the Industrial Revolution, yet Stalin's Five Year Plans were far worse. As we can't really count the "deaths by capitalism," perhaps the best solution is to look at average life expectancy.

United States: http://krusekronicle.typepad.com...
Soviet Russia: http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Over the course of the cold war, the US life expectancy rose almost ten years. The Russian life expectancy rose about three and a half years.

You also criticize sweatshops, yet they actually benefit third-word countries much more than their centralized governments do. Sweatshops provide steady jobs with wages that are two to three times higher than local wages. Children who are hired in sweatshops do much better off than children who are forced into other jobs, ranging from farmwork to prostitution.
http://blog.riseofreason.com...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 6:11:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 5:20:48 PM, mongeese wrote:
You also criticize sweatshops, yet they actually benefit third-word countries much more than their centralized governments do. Sweatshops provide steady jobs with wages that are two to three times higher than local wages. Children who are hired in sweatshops do much better off than children who are forced into other jobs, ranging from farmwork to prostitution.
http://blog.riseofreason.com...

And why are people in LDCs (less developed countries) reduced to earning money in sweatshops, why are LDCs less developed? Could it be the immoral way the profiteering corporate-banking elite of the powerful North predatorily and plunderingly relates to the powerless South? To answer my own question, the poor countries of the so-called Third World are and remain poor because they've been made and kept that way by the policies imposed upon them by the corporatocracy's tools, the IMF and World Bank et al, ostensively in the name of the "free market" – but in reality the purpose of these policies is to undermine economic development in LDCs and keep them doing business with the First World's business-banking complex in a way that's profitable to the latter at the expense of the former, at the expense of the millions of victims kept in abject poverty and dependent upon the stingy benevolence of sweatshop owners.

In other words, the rich First World creates the truly horrendous socioeconomic conditions in the LDCs that force people and children into virtual slavery in sweatshops, and then the apologists of the First World and of free-market capitalism boast "Look at what lovely philanthropists we are, throwing the peons of Latin America and Southeast Asia crumbs in the form of sweatshop jobs to subsist on."

Come on, do you honestly think that sweatshop labor in the Third World redeems capitalism an iota?! It's quite the opposite, sweatshops are glaring signs of globalized capitalism's deadly sins. Let's lose the conservative ideology and get real here!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 6:34:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You attribute the lack of development in Third World countries to capitalism, but I think that you are mistaken. Third World countries just didn't develop with the First World countries. The civil wars and famine that frequently occur in Third World countries don't help, either. Much of the foreign aid sent to such countries is absorbed by the centralized governments to maintain their regime.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 6:34:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
And why are people in LDCs (less developed countries) reduced to earning money in sweatshops, why are LDCs less developed?:

So in other words they're forced at gunpoint to work in conditions that Americans 60 years ago might have considered luxurious? The alternative is to work in even worse conditions. Jesus Christ, Charles, it's called survival. I don't know where you get this idea that we don't have to fight for survival just like every other organism on the planet, but we do.

the poor countries of the so-called Third World are and remain poor because they've been made and kept that way by the policies imposed upon them by the corporatocracy's tools, the IMF and World Bank et al, ostensively in the name of the "free market":

What a ridiculous assertion. So all poor countries are poor because corporations make it that way? Ridiculous! Countries are poor for numerous reasons, but to name the most obvious reasons (in no particular order).

1. Lack of either agricultural know-how or infertile soil.
2. Poor education.
3. Little to no natural resources (too much import to export ratio)
4. Rampant inflation of their monetary system.
5. Ignorant of economics.

And probably the biggest reason is foreign economic dependence, which you would likely cite as being the "moral thing to do."

I'll just use Tanzania as a prime example. Since the 1970's, Tanzania has received more foreign aid than any other nation on earth, yet it is still the 3rd poorest nation according to the Human Development Index. And why is that? Because they've fostered a co-dependence on outside help.

"By providing a seemingly endless credit line to governments regardless of their policies, foreign aid effectively discourages governments from learning from and correcting their mistakes. Giving some Third World governments perpetual assistance is about as humanitarian as giving an alcoholic the key to a brewery. Good intentions are no excuse for helping to underwrite an individual's--or a country's-- self-destruction." -- James Bovard

Come on, do you honestly think that sweatshop labor in the Third World redeems capitalism an iota?! It's quite the opposite, sweatshops are glaring signs of globalized capitalism's deadly sins. Let's lose the conservative ideology and get real here!:

Give me a f*cking break! Those jobs that YOU refer to as "sweatshops" provide a better salary than that sh*tty nation could ever produce. And it's already been pointed out that, yes, predatory capitalism is a serious drawback. But leave it to the free market system to correct that. No one wants to be nickle and dimed, so no one is going to want the services of a terrible company.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 6:37:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 5:20:48 PM, mongeese wrote:
charles, it is true that crony capitalism has its faults. However, I do believe that the misappleid communism was even worse. As the saying goes, "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us." Far less gets done in Communist countries than capitalist ones. At least we do work and get paid. And you criticize the Industrial Revolution, yet Stalin's Five Year Plans were far worse. As we can't really count the "deaths by capitalism," perhaps the best solution is to look at average life expectancy.

United States: http://krusekronicle.typepad.com...
Soviet Russia: http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Over the course of the cold war, the US life expectancy rose almost ten years. The Russian life expectancy rose about three and a half years.

You also criticize sweatshops, yet they actually benefit third-word countries much more than their centralized governments do. Sweatshops provide steady jobs with wages that are two to three times higher than local wages. Children who are hired in sweatshops do much better off than children who are forced into other jobs, ranging from farmwork to prostitution.
http://blog.riseofreason.com...

Sweatshops are the reason 3rd world nations remain undeveloped, we must removed developed nation presence from 3rd world nations in order for their economies to improve.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 6:46:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 6:34:42 PM, mongeese wrote:
You attribute the lack of development in Third World countries to capitalism, but I think that you are mistaken. Third World countries just didn't develop with the First World countries. The civil wars and famine that frequently occur in Third World countries don't help, either. Much of the foreign aid sent to such countries is absorbed by the centralized governments to maintain their regime.

These issues that occur are a direct result of oppression by businesses of developed nations paying off the underdeveloped nations government, this in turn leads to governments looking away at civil rights violations caused by these industries which leads to civil unrest, they capitalize on these undeveloped nations resources and send them off to developed countries. As wealthy companies they can buy out all of the resources and do not allow native business to grow. We must remove developed nation influence from developing nations in order for them to become developed.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 6:53:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 6:37:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Sweatshops are the reason 3rd world nations remain undeveloped, we must removed developed nation presence from 3rd world nations in order for their economies to improve.

Tell that to all the kids who work in sweatshops, and now have to survive through thievery, farmwork, and prostitution instead.
http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 7:01:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 6:53:24 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/16/2011 6:37:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Sweatshops are the reason 3rd world nations remain undeveloped, we must removed developed nation presence from 3rd world nations in order for their economies to improve.

Tell that to all the kids who work in sweatshops, and now have to survive through thievery, farmwork, and prostitution instead.
http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com...

It would be better for them to be working in the same kind of shops, but that are owned by natives. So not only are the low end wages helping the poor, but the upper management profits are helping the rich of that country (more capital staying in the nation to grow it faster).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 7:05:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 7:01:30 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/16/2011 6:53:24 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/16/2011 6:37:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Sweatshops are the reason 3rd world nations remain undeveloped, we must removed developed nation presence from 3rd world nations in order for their economies to improve.

Tell that to all the kids who work in sweatshops, and now have to survive through thievery, farmwork, and prostitution instead.
http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com...

It would be better for them to be working in the same kind of shops, but that are owned by natives. So not only are the low end wages helping the poor, but the upper management profits are helping the rich of that country (more capital staying in the nation to grow it faster).

...except they don't own them. There isn't a better solution.

It isn't a question of why the poor countries are poor. This is natural. The question is why rich countries are rich. The answer is capitalism.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 7:07:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 7:01:30 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/16/2011 6:53:24 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/16/2011 6:37:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Sweatshops are the reason 3rd world nations remain undeveloped, we must removed developed nation presence from 3rd world nations in order for their economies to improve.

Tell that to all the kids who work in sweatshops, and now have to survive through thievery, farmwork, and prostitution instead.
http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com...

It would be better for them to be working in the same kind of shops, but that are owned by natives. So not only are the low end wages helping the poor, but the upper management profits are helping the rich of that country (more capital staying in the nation to grow it faster).

They can't own the stores because they don't have the capital to start them. That's why they're poor in the first place.

If workers started taking over sweatshops, sweatshop investment would stop and then they'd be up sh!t creek forever.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 7:10:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 7:05:08 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 5/16/2011 7:01:30 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/16/2011 6:53:24 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/16/2011 6:37:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Sweatshops are the reason 3rd world nations remain undeveloped, we must removed developed nation presence from 3rd world nations in order for their economies to improve.

Tell that to all the kids who work in sweatshops, and now have to survive through thievery, farmwork, and prostitution instead.
http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com...

It would be better for them to be working in the same kind of shops, but that are owned by natives. So not only are the low end wages helping the poor, but the upper management profits are helping the rich of that country (more capital staying in the nation to grow it faster).

...except they don't own them. There isn't a better solution.

It isn't a question of why the poor countries are poor. This is natural. The question is why rich countries are rich. The answer is capitalism.

poor countries are poor because it is natural, but rich countries are rich because of capitalism. That sounds a bit like special pleading to me.

But there is a better solution, those nations start printing off currency, taking out debt (just like we are doing) and imposing tarriffs. That will push the current companies away (and thus lower the value of the equipment, and buildings there), the state, can either provide loans to their people (or do it themselves) to pick up where the foriegn companies left at (they use the tarriffs to lower the cost, so they get more bang for their buck). Then, they remove the tarriffs, and continue exactly as before (with the same workers, same policies, same products, same customers).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 7:14:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 6:53:24 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/16/2011 6:37:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Sweatshops are the reason 3rd world nations remain undeveloped, we must removed developed nation presence from 3rd world nations in order for their economies to improve.

Tell that to all the kids who work in sweatshops, and now have to survive through thievery, farmwork, and prostitution instead.
http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com...

Lets see, sweatshops remove all industrial competition and any possibility of local business developing by paying off government, the harsh conditions caused by corporate monopolies which remove any and all local ownership of resources which further amplifies the issue. Yes I do understand that many are Dependant on these sweatshops but they will be much better served by local industry than by global corporate conglomerates who could care less about the issues of these people.

This articles briefly go over the issue that native industry must be promoted:
http://www.ted.com...
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 7:15:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 7:10:49 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/16/2011 7:05:08 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 5/16/2011 7:01:30 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/16/2011 6:53:24 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/16/2011 6:37:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Sweatshops are the reason 3rd world nations remain undeveloped, we must removed developed nation presence from 3rd world nations in order for their economies to improve.

Tell that to all the kids who work in sweatshops, and now have to survive through thievery, farmwork, and prostitution instead.
http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com...

It would be better for them to be working in the same kind of shops, but that are owned by natives. So not only are the low end wages helping the poor, but the upper management profits are helping the rich of that country (more capital staying in the nation to grow it faster).

...except they don't own them. There isn't a better solution.

It isn't a question of why the poor countries are poor. This is natural. The question is why rich countries are rich. The answer is capitalism.

poor countries are poor because it is natural, but rich countries are rich because of capitalism. That sounds a bit like special pleading to me.
It isn't unless you assume the poor countries have the same degree of capitalism.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 7:17:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 7:15:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/16/2011 7:10:49 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/16/2011 7:05:08 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 5/16/2011 7:01:30 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/16/2011 6:53:24 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/16/2011 6:37:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Sweatshops are the reason 3rd world nations remain undeveloped, we must removed developed nation presence from 3rd world nations in order for their economies to improve.

Tell that to all the kids who work in sweatshops, and now have to survive through thievery, farmwork, and prostitution instead.
http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com...

It would be better for them to be working in the same kind of shops, but that are owned by natives. So not only are the low end wages helping the poor, but the upper management profits are helping the rich of that country (more capital staying in the nation to grow it faster).

...except they don't own them. There isn't a better solution.

It isn't a question of why the poor countries are poor. This is natural. The question is why rich countries are rich. The answer is capitalism.

poor countries are poor because it is natural, but rich countries are rich because of capitalism. That sounds a bit like special pleading to me.
It isn't unless you assume the poor countries have the same degree of capitalism.

I'd say some of them have more. Seeing as how capitalist like to call the wealthy nations "socialist states."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 7:17:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 7:07:17 PM, Sieben wrote:

They can't own the stores because they don't have the capital to start them. That's why they're poor in the first place.

If workers started taking over sweatshops, sweatshop investment would stop and then they'd be up sh!t creek forever.

Dammit Sieben you beat me. I'll repeat that anyway:

There is no way they could get enough money to start up sweatshops, if they had that much money they wouldn't be poor. If they take the sweatshops over people will stop investing in them and then they'll really be boned.

Sweatshops do provide a net economic gain to impoverished countries. It's better than what their other options are, and it's better than what Americans had a few generations ago.

I think there is some need for a modern Guns, Germs, and Steel that explains the cause of this disparity. Imperialism certainly placed a big role (and true capitalists are profoundly anti-imperialist for those who don't understand that).
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 7:23:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 7:17:45 PM, Grape wrote:
At 5/16/2011 7:07:17 PM, Sieben wrote:

They can't own the stores because they don't have the capital to start them. That's why they're poor in the first place.

If workers started taking over sweatshops, sweatshop investment would stop and then they'd be up sh!t creek forever.

Dammit Sieben you beat me. I'll repeat that anyway:

There is no way they could get enough money to start up sweatshops, if they had that much money they wouldn't be poor. If they take the sweatshops over people will stop investing in them and then they'll really be boned.

Sweatshops do provide a net economic gain to impoverished countries. It's better than what their other options are, and it's better than what Americans had a few generations ago.

I think there is some need for a modern Guns, Germs, and Steel that explains the cause of this disparity. Imperialism certainly placed a big role (and true capitalists are profoundly anti-imperialist for those who don't understand that).

Let the natives take out loans and start business, how do you think companies get started?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 7:25:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 7:17:45 PM, Grape wrote:
At 5/16/2011 7:07:17 PM, Sieben wrote:

They can't own the stores because they don't have the capital to start them. That's why they're poor in the first place.

If workers started taking over sweatshops, sweatshop investment would stop and then they'd be up sh!t creek forever.

Dammit Sieben you beat me. I'll repeat that anyway:

There is no way they could get enough money to start up sweatshops, if they had that much money they wouldn't be poor. If they take the sweatshops over people will stop investing in them and then they'll really be boned.

Not really. The sweatshops make money, meaning they don't need invest to stay afloat. And if they took them over, so that the majority of the capital (which goes to owners and upper management) stayed in the nation, it would allow for more growth within the nation.

The only real argument would be that without our management abilities, they would fail. Not nessicarily the capital.


Sweatshops do provide a net economic gain to impoverished countries. It's better than what their other options are, and it's better than what Americans had a few generations ago.

But they don't provide the maximum economic gain for those nations.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 7:26:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 6:34:42 PM, mongeese wrote:
You attribute the lack of development in Third World countries to capitalism, but I think that you are mistaken. Third World countries just didn't develop with the First World countries. The civil wars and famine that frequently occur in Third World countries don't help, either. Much of the foreign aid sent to such countries is absorbed by the centralized governments to maintain their regime.

In the era of colonialism the native economies of Third World countries were utterly destroyed and done away with by the imperialistic powers who ruled them. Then when these countries gained their independence the debt of their former colonial masters was transferred to them, thus many Third World countries began their lives as politically independent nations in debt from the get-go! Also, many newly independent countries had puppet governments that wracked up more debt. Third World countries have also been forced to borrow money and place themselves in debt by global economic conditions they had no control over, such as the "oil crisis" in the early 70s.

As for the civil wars of Third World countries, well, back in the days of the Cold War the good old USA often backed repressive regimes that brought on and waged these expensive civil wars. In other words, circumstances pretty much out of the hands of Third World peoples, i.e. Cold War geopolitics and American neocolonialism, inflicted war and its resulting debt on them.

You also mention the corrupt governments of Third World countries, need I point out that these governments in most cases are in bed with our corporateocracy? I know that many First World citizens would much prefer to look down on Third Worlders as incompetent mismanagers of their own resources and societies, a chauvinistic stereotype that borders on being racist, by the way (see my post on racism and terrorism in the Society section). However, blaming the victim isn't at all fair or an indication that one is very well-informed. When people take the time and trouble to educate themselves about the causes of the Third World's chronic poverty it becomes quite obvious that the lion's share of responsibility lies with the rich nations and their capitalist elite, i.e. the behavior of capitalists and the nature of capitalism per se are the real and red-handed culprit.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 7:43:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 7:25:36 PM, OreEle wrote:

Not really. The sweatshops make money,

Some sweatshops make money. Some sweatshops fail. You can't just look at the winners and pretend like their success can be copied an infinite number of times by anyone anywhere.

There's a reason not every poor person works in a sweatshop. There's a limit set by supply and demand on how many people can economically do the same task.

meaning they don't need invest to stay afloat.

But they need investment to get started. That capital is not available BEFORE the project gets started.

And if they took them over, so that the majority of the capital (which goes to owners and upper management) stayed in the nation, it would allow for more growth within the nation.

Except no new capital would flow into the country because capitalists would realize they'd just be robbed.

The only real argument would be that without our management abilities, they would fail. Not nessicarily the capital.

Management = human capital = capital

But they don't provide the maximum economic gain for those nations.

Your job is to benefit poor people, not benefit people within the borders of a nation. There's such a thing as trade. At the very least, poor people can benefit from trading with other poor people.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 7:48:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://www.ted.com...
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 8:00:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 7:14:50 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/16/2011 6:53:24 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/16/2011 6:37:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Sweatshops are the reason 3rd world nations remain undeveloped, we must removed developed nation presence from 3rd world nations in order for their economies to improve.

Tell that to all the kids who work in sweatshops, and now have to survive through thievery, farmwork, and prostitution instead.
http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com...

Lets see, sweatshops remove all industrial competition and any possibility of local business developing by paying off government

Actually, it looks like sweatshops beat their competition by paying significantly higher wages. This article even mentions a local shoe business that was impressed with the way Nike handled its factories: http://www.johannorberg.net...

the harsh conditions caused by corporate monopolies which remove any and all local ownership of resources which further amplifies the issue.

Harsh conditions? Sweatshops beat out local factories by a considerable margin.

Yes I do understand that many are Dependant on these sweatshops but they will be much better served by local industry than by global corporate conglomerates who could care less about the issues of these people.

The local industry doesn't seem to be doing a very good job. Nike demonstrated how things could be better.

This articles briefly go over the issue that native industry must be promoted:
http://www.ted.com...

Are you sure that's the right link? That's a video, not an article.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 8:01:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
charles, my response to you will be short, with perhaps a longer one in the near future, but you keep pointing to American actions during the Cold War. You forget that the Soviet government was doing the same thing to many third world countries. It wasn't a capitalist or socialist thing; it was a global power government thing.