Jump to content

What Kind of society would you like to live in?


Peron
 Share

Recommended Posts

well, why yes i do have evidence.
That's called changing the goalposts. You claimed people were dying of starvation *by the hundreds if not thousand* *daily* *in the US*. Those are *world* hunger statistics.

 

Then it seems you, the Old Testament, and I all agree. Neat?
Scary. I rarely agree with the OT. You, I tend to side with a lot, though. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have some questions for those who like our current semi-capitalist system; how is militarism accounted for? When one nation invades another in order to control their resources to keep the cost lower, is that a good capitalistic venture? If I hire somebody at a minimal (but legal) wage because there are no well paying jobs available to them, is that good capitalism since I don't care whether it is enough to support that individual and their family even at a subsistence level? When collusion does occur, isn't that just good capitalism, since I am only attempting to "maximize profits"?

 

Those are just a couple of questions I can think of right at the moment and should be enough to discuss, for now, but I am sure to come up with more later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but what does that have to do with poverty? If the poor people consumed resources like us they wouldn't be poor but the planet would be more screwed than it is now.

 

Are you saying we are stealing resources from the poor? So long as we generate our own resources rather than stealing them, it seems fair. Perhaps we do not generate all our resources and outbid them for some of the resources? Even so, the problem would not be consumption, rather consuming more resources than we produce and importing resources from other rich countries.

 

No, we are not stealing the resources, everyone worked for these resources.

 

The world currently produces enough food for everyone, but the developing nations cannot access this food do to lack of payment. The American government actually pays farmers to destroy food to control the prices.

 

Investigations show that the world will not last us forever, we need sustainability. But to have sustainability we must eradicate poverty. To do this we have to increase the level of consumption in developing nations and decrease it here. This will be impossible to do with a deregulated free-market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's called changing the goalposts. You claimed people were dying of starvation *by the hundreds if not thousand* *daily* *in the US*. Those are *world* hunger statistics.

 

i would think not, because i did not say that these people died in the US. i was talking about the contribution that american capitalism has on starvation both directly, here in the US, and indirectly, those affected by capitalist society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have some questions for those who like our current semi-capitalist system; how is militarism accounted for? When one nation invades another in order to control their resources to keep the cost lower, is that a good capitalistic venture?

 

No; they did not agree to such a "trade", so it breaks the rules of capitalism. It is stealing, even if it is legal on the international level.

 

If I hire somebody at a minimal (but legal) wage because there are no well paying jobs available to them, is that good capitalism since I don't care whether it is enough to support that individual and their family even at a subsistence level?

 

It is good capitalism but a bad economy (and also bad morals). But, we do have a minimum wage.

 

When collusion does occur, isn't that just good capitalism, since I am only attempting to "maximize profits"?

 

No. Collusion is forcing a less favorable trade on another party then they would otherwise have. It is not quite stealing, but is cheating, and we have rules against many forms of collusion so it is illegal as well. It also is bad for the economy because it decreases the incentive of the others to participate in such trades.

 

 

---

 

I too agree that people deserve a minimum standard of living seeing as we can afford to do so. Just not an equal share to hard working people because then they (neither of them) would have an incentive to do their share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The richest Americans' share of national income has hit a postwar record, surpassing the highs reached in the 1990s bull market, and underlining the divergence of economic fortunes blamed for fueling anxiety among American workers.

 

The wealthiest 1% of Americans earned 21.2% of all income in 2005, according to new data from the Internal Revenue Service. That is up sharply from 19% in 2004, and surpasses the previous high of 20.8% set in 2000, at the peak of the previous bull market in stocks.

 

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB119215822413557069.html

 

 

We have had economic growth for nearly fifty years, during that time the gap between the rich and the poor has widen considerably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then I think you need to support the assertion that all those starvation deaths are the result of American capitalism.

 

here is a list of some, not all countries that practice capitalism.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_some_examples_of_capitalist_countries

 

one of the countries listed India, can be cross referenced as being capitalist here;

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html

 

which corresponds to the percentile of starvation in those countries.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/where.htm

 

i am going to cite an example, currently im working on India. might take a while tho

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i am going to cite an example, currently im working on India. might take a while tho
Might take forever. I've worked with companies with component facilities in India and have made some good friends there. They will all tell you (the younger ones, at least) that their country is a lot more prosperous under a free market capitalist economy. Famine still exists, but the evidence that their new approach is reducing starvation deaths is abundant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No; they did not agree to such a "trade", so it breaks the rules of capitalism. It is stealing, even if it is legal on the international level.

 

 

 

It is good capitalism but a bad economy (and also bad morals). But, we do have a minimum wage.

 

 

 

No. Collusion is forcing a less favorable trade on another party then they would otherwise have. It is not quite stealing, but is cheating, and we have rules against many forms of collusion so it is illegal as well. It also is bad for the economy because it decreases the incentive of the others to participate in such trades.

 

 

---

 

I too agree that people deserve a minimum standard of living seeing as we can afford to do so. Just not an equal share to hard working people because then they (neither of them) would have an incentive to do their share.

 

I agree that there should be a minimum standard of living. What I disagree with is the notion of doing unfair trades is not good capitalism. In fact I would go so far as to say that many (if not in fact most) of the practices that make for a good (meaning successful) capitalist are contrary to the practices that make for a good society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB119215822413557069.html

 

 

We have had economic growth for nearly fifty years, during that time the gap between the rich and the poor has widen considerably.

 

Just to expand upon this,

 

Behind the increasing interconnectedness promised by globalization are global decisions, policies, and practices. These are typically influenced, driven, or formulated by the rich and powerful. These can be leaders of rich countries or other global actors such as multinational corporations, institutions, and influential people.

 

In the face of such enormous external influence, the governments of poor nations and their people are often powerless. As a result, in the global context, a few get wealthy while the majority struggle.

 

http://www.globalissues.org/issue/2/causes-of-poverty

 

ADM, Nestle & Cargill Sued for Sourcing Cocoa Beans for Chocolate from Slave Labor Plantations in Africa

 

http://www.organicconsumers.org/fair-trade/cocoa072005.cfm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would think not, because i did not say that these people died in the US. i was talking about the contribution that american capitalism has on starvation both directly, here in the US, and indirectly, those affected by capitalist society.

 

No zolar, this is what you said.

 

Lets just take a look at the current american capitalism. every day there are hundreds if not thousands of people dying and starving because they do not have the weath to go and buy what they need. however under the american capitalism you do have the safty nets of food stamps, goodwill stores, food distrobution, soup kitchens, but are they really enough. if they were then you wouldn't have the destitute dying.

 

 

You were clearly saying the people dying were in the USA, if you make a contention and cannot support it you should admit to it not try to squirm out of it. This is disingenuous and counterproductive to this or any discussion. If your contention cannot be supported by facts and figures maybe you should regroup and think of a new assertion to draw attention to your cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might take forever. I've worked with companies with component facilities in India and have made some good friends there. They will all tell you (the younger ones, at least) that their country is a lot more prosperous under a free market capitalist economy. Famine still exists, but the evidence that their new approach is reducing starvation deaths is abundant.

 

i think that the problem is that famine still exists, even if it is going decreasing. Even under capitalism you still are experiencing famine, yet if you were to have a communist or socialist society you would not have any because the food, and other resources would be evenly distributed.

 

the fact that there are multiple countries that are capitalist and there IS starvation is the key issue in saying that under a capitalist society someone has to loose.

if you were to be in a socialist society you would not have famine at any level.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

You were clearly saying the people dying were in the USA, if you make a contention and cannot support it you should admit to it not try to squirm out of it. This is disingenuous and counterproductive to this or any discussion. If your contention cannot be supported by facts and figures maybe you should regroup and think of a new assertion to draw attention to your cause.

 

no i was, again, stating the relationship between capitalism and starvation.

the term American capitalism would be a more defining element. its not talking about the US, its talking about the form of capitalism we, and other countries, practice. it is defined by how we use/modify our capital and economy with Laissez-faire at its base. as apposed to other forms of capitalism which are controlled by the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

and if you have such a problem with my references or my wording, cite evidence contradicting mine. therefore making me actually wrong.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
I agree that there should be a minimum standard of living. What I disagree with is the notion of doing unfair trades is not good capitalism. In fact I would go so far as to say that many (if not in fact most) of the practices that make for a good (meaning successful) capitalist are contrary to the practices that make for a good society.

 

actually i would have to agree with that. i think many people misinterpret capitalism and moral values when they talk about trade.

it is good capitalism to extort as much as you can form another. it is bad capitalism to trade equally. it is good morals to trade equal. and it is bad morals to extort.

 

in the purest sense capitalism is about you getting as much as you can without regard to anyone else.

morals just guide us in having safety nets in capitalism, and having fair trade.

 

__

actually rereading some excerpts from Karl Marx's book on socialism the widening gap between the (bourgeoisie) and the (proletariat) or our rich and poor, is a good indication that a lot of his writings were right. it seems to me that the rich try to appease the poor to avoid the next evolutionary step in society.

Edited by Zolar V
Consecutive posts merged.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think that the problem is that famine still exists, even if it is going decreasing.
I guess it can never decrease fast enough if even one person dies from insufficiencies in an abundant world.

 

Even under capitalism you still are experiencing famine, yet if you were to have a communist or socialist society you would not have any because the food, and other resources would be evenly distributed.
Famine is an extreme insufficiency of food and can be caused by many things. Communism and socialism aren't immune to drought and diseases. For this latest all-inclusive statement to hold true, you need to show why capitalism is not making food available to its members when there is abundance. And remember, a communist state is not going to include non-communist states in its food distribution, so don't set a double standard with regard to capitalism.

 

the fact that there are multiple countries that are capitalist and there IS starvation is the key issue in saying that under a capitalist society someone has to loose.

if you were to be in a socialist society you would not have famine at any level.

Remember please, there is a difference between starvation, famine and hunger. You were unable to show us any capitalist countries that have a significant level of starvation, much less claim it now as "fact". Please show me where any communist or socialist country has never experienced famine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it can never decrease fast enough if even one person dies from insufficiency in an abundant world.

i would have to agree, one death is too many.

 

Famine is an extreme insufficiency of food and can be caused by many things. Communism and socialism aren't immune to drought and diseases. For this latest all-inclusive statement to hold true, you need to show why capitalism is not making food available to its members when there is abundance. And remember, a communist state is not going to include non-communist states in its food distribution, so don't set a double standard with regard to capitalism.

 

Actually i was thinking that very question. "would a communist state provide its surplus to other countries?" i thought about this, and i would say yes. at least in my society it would. some of the fundamental principles of communism is based not on your country, religion, or race, but rather everyone is equal. so i would think this would be interpreted as such a state would give to anyone else.

 

Capitalism does have the food, yes. but the reason why it is not getting distributed is because the person needing it doesn't have the money to buy it. because it is capitalism you need money to trade for goods such as food. otherwise it wouldn't be capitalism.

 

 

Remember please, there is a difference between starvation, famine and hunger. You were unable to show us any capitalist countries that have a significant level of starvation, much less claim it now as "fact". Please show me where any communist or socialist country has never experienced famine.

i cant there never has been a true socialist or communist country. so there is no evidence showing that there would be no famine in such a country. however the socialist or communist ideals do clearly contend that there would be no famine in such a country because of how the food is distributed.

 

but i posted before a few links on capitalistic countries and starvation. so i will post them again.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/where.htm

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_some_examples_of_capitalist_countries

here is a country that has starvation and is capitalist

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html

here is another country that is capitalist and has starvation

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually i was thinking that very question. "would a communist state provide its surplus [emphasis = Phi for All] to other countries?" i thought about this, and i would say yes. at least in my society it would. some of the fundamental principles of communism is based not on your country, religion, or race, but rather everyone is equal. so i would think this would be interpreted as such a state would give to anyone else.
"Provide its surplus" how? Would you *give* it to us, the way you did with your own population, or would you sell/trade it to us (gasp! capitalism!)? And either way, how are your people going to feel when we get your surplus and sell it to someone else for a profit?

 

Capitalism does have the food, yes. but the reason why it is not getting distributed is because the person needing it doesn't have the money to buy it. because it is capitalism you need money to trade for goods such as food. otherwise it wouldn't be capitalism.
So? As you yourself mentioned, we have social programs that keep our members who can't pay from starving. In the US, we have charitable capitalism. It makes us look good to help the needy, looking good is good for business, and free trade business works. This capitalism thing seems to take care of a number of problems that other economic models can't.

 

i cant there never has been a true socialist or communist country. so there is no evidence showing that there would be no famine in such a country. however the socialist or communist ideals do clearly contend that there would be no famine in such a country because of how the food is distributed.
So it's all conjecture. It *may* work, it *might* be better than capitalism, *there is a possibility* we'd be happier. That's what I wanted to hear, not these generalized statements phrased as fact that can easily be proven false.

 

but i posted before a few links on capitalistic countries and starvation. so i will post them again.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/where.htm

That link is for *hunger*, not starvation. There is a difference between undernourished and dying of malnutrition.

 

See above.

 

here is a country that has starvation and is capitalist

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html

Again, hunger != starvation.

 

here is another country that is capitalist and has starvation

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html

We talked about India before. They have only recently embraced a free market economy, and starvation deaths are improving. India is actually a good example of why capitalism helps distribute resources better than most other types of economy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't particularly like using China as a role model but pre-comunism there were a lot of deaths from starvation and malnutrition (possibly more than anywhere in the world at the time) during a fairly strong trade economy. What do you think today's death rate from those causes is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't particularly like using China as a role model but pre-comunism there were a lot of deaths from starvation and malnutrition (possibly more than anywhere in the world at the time) during a fairly strong trade economy.
Maybe having one fourth of the world's population with most of it in the peasant class had something to do with it.

 

What do you think today's death rate from those causes is?
That might be tough to find out, but China is not communist even though they claim to be. Their participation in capitalism is enormous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Provide its surplus" how? Would you *give* it to us, the way you did with your own population, or would you sell/trade it to us (gasp! capitalism!)? And either way, how are your people going to feel when we get your surplus and sell it to someone else for a profit?

actually when i said give. i meant GIVE. not trade.

i really dont see any reason why i would sell it.

So? As you yourself mentioned, we have social programs that keep our members who can't pay from starving. In the US, we have charitable capitalism. It makes us look good to help the needy, looking good is good for business, and free trade business works. This capitalism thing seems to take care of a number of problems that other economic models can't.

 

So it's all conjecture. It *may* work, it *might* be better than capitalism, *there is a possibility* we'd be happier. That's what I wanted to hear, not these generalized statements phrased as fact that can easily be proven false.

yes we do, but we still have starvation in capitalism even with such programs.

i do believe that i did say it would be better than capitalism IF the human element was eliminated. IE greed.

That link is for *hunger*, not starvation. There is a difference between undernourished and dying of malnutrition.

 

See above.

 

Again, hunger != starvation.

 

 

without hunger you would not have starvation.

it is in these countries that have hunger and malnutrition that the deaths from starvation occur. so saying hunger /= starvation is somewhat wrong in the sence that hunger leads to starvation and without hunger you do not have starvation

http://www.worldometers.info/

"### - "People who died of hunger today""

 

We talked about India before. They have only recently embraced a free market economy, and starvation deaths are improving. India is actually a good example of why capitalism helps distribute resources better than most other types of economy.

your not taking into concideration the possibility of a working communist or socialist society. so your statement is inacurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually when i said give. i meant GIVE. not trade.

i really dont see any reason why i would sell it.

SWEET!

 

I guess I forgot that your people had completely eliminated greed and won't mind the pure profits we'll make from selling your free surplus.

 

yes we do, but we still have starvation in capitalism even with such programs.

i do believe that i did say it would be better than capitalism IF the human element was eliminated. IE greed.

I hope you don't eliminate ambition, innovation, motivation and creativity in the process. Greed can produce some great results, and actually spur people past complacent acceptance of the status quo.

 

 

without hunger you would not have starvation.

it is in these countries that have hunger and malnutrition that the deaths from starvation occur. so saying hunger /= starvation is somewhat wrong in the sence that hunger leads to starvation and without hunger you do not have starvation

http://www.worldometers.info/

"### - "People who died of hunger today""

My point is that, when questioned about your statement that thousands of people die each day in capitalist countries, you brought up links for hunger, which may proceed starvation but does not equal starvation. And even your last link shows me that around 20,000 worldwide will die from hunger today. While I deplore that it happens, what you call it is important, and your link is wrong, no one dies from just hunger. These poor people died from severe malnutrition and starvation, and while these are extreme cases of hunger, they can't be lumped together with your other statistics for hunger. That would be like saying all poor people go bankrupt. It's just not true.

 

your not taking into concideration the possibility of a working communist or socialist society. so your statement is inacurate.
True communism IS possible, and I do take it into consideration. It's just not very probable, and you have to overcome much of the human nature that has gotten us this far. Again, I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, just some of the things you were claiming about capitalism and communism were wrong. That's the problem with catchy little sound bytes like, "Capitalism kills". The shorter they are, the more they tend to generalize.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My kind of society would be where no one tries to force their opinions on everyone else. And where there was no set definition of right and wrong.

 

Btw, in life, something always 'dies' so another may 'live'.

 

So a wolf should not kill a moose and eat its share with the pack, or should it just take a leg or two and let the moose go?

 

The first is capitalism. The weaker let the stronger continue. But the other is socialism. Both 'live' but now the pack is hungery and the moose can't move any more. And eventually, the pack will die of starvation and the moose will bleed out.

 

In capitalism, most do profit. And those who don't. At least they can have hopes and dreams of a better future.

 

In socialism, yes no one's exactly 'dead'. But no everyone suffers and there is no hope for a better future. You can't gain anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe having one fourth of the world's population with most of it in the peasant class had something to do with it.

 

That might be tough to find out, but China is not communist even though they claim to be. Their participation in capitalism is enormous.

 

True, but the problem of widespread hunger was supposedly solved before the U.S. and China became involved as trading partners and before there were substantial "market reforms".


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
In socialism, yes no one's exactly 'dead'. But no everyone suffers and there is no hope for a better future. You can't gain anything.

 

Is that why there is so much widespread suffering in the most socialist (i.e. Netherlands, Sweden et. al.) countries on earth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but the problem of widespread hunger was supposedly solved before the U.S. and China became involved as trading partners and before there were substantial "market reforms".
Wasn't part of the solution mandatory population control, which included forced abortion of unplanned pregnancies and a tax of 50% of family income or loss of employment for having more than one child?

 

 

Is that why there is so much widespread suffering in the most socialist (i.e. Netherlands, Sweden et. al.) countries on earth?
Those poor people. Breaks the heart.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and if you have such a problem with my references or my wording, cite evidence contradicting mine. therefore making me actually wrong.

 

Zolar you are the one who made the claim, not me, you need to defend it. So far all you have done is try to wiggle out of it when asked to substantiate your claim. You clearly made the claim that thousands of people were dieing of hunger in the USA, now you need to back this up or withdraw it. If you withdraw it all your other claims come into disrepute. You started with with fear mongering, typical of people who have an ax to grind but little or no evidence to back up their claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.