Western Capitalism
Rapier7
Join Date: 2004-02-05 Member: 26108Members
Join Date: 2004-02-05 Member: 26108Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Why I rock and you don't.</div> Industrialization requires a large, cheap labor pool to get things going. This in turn drives down wages of said labor pool, but there is a flip side: it makes goods cheaper.
There have been many works and people that denounce capitalism and expose its horrors. Now, Europe is currently in a socialist system, and the US is capitalist with socialist tendencies (true capitalism would have no government, after all). And I have all these people moaning about "unequal distribution of wealth" or "exploited masses" and all that jazz. And I'm sick of it.
Let's get one thing straight:
In a fixed free market (the world is a fixed market), there will be haves and have nots. That's the way it'll always be. If you make a system where mediocrity is rewarded and forgiven, productivity goes down, and while practically everybody will be able to live semi-decently (at the very least be food secure), you drive down the total wealth/goods being made because there isn't incentive to work.
Now there are people (taken from Grendel's "You're going to hell" thread) who complain about the US exploiting native peoples in underdeveloped countries. Well guess what? We aren't FORCING them to comply with our cheap wages and brutal hours. They willingly take it because we're still PAYING them. That's the whole thing to capitalism, carrot-stick economics. Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Admittedly, some scratch a lot more, and some don't scratch as much, but that's to be expected.
Now, to borrow some stuff from Utilitarianism, a society's main purpose is to create the maximum amount of happiness for the maximum amount of people. That's sort of what capitalism does. We make as much money as we can, but to do that, there has to be a base of consumers to be able to buy and consume goods. That's the whole point of economics. Now, as the people of the society grow in prosperity as a whole, they expect better wages, more commodities, and more leisure. This is where immigrants and outsourcing comes in. Corporations strive to make the profit margin as large as possible. This in turn drives down prices (in a competitive market) and opens up larger markets (cheaper prices and cheap manufacturing capability means more goods produced and more people able to buy said goods). But people complain about the transition period, where we have a bunch of haves and even larger amount of have nots.
Frankly, the only thing that you can argue about Western Capitalism that's actually DETRIMENTAL to third world countries is that mostly in the 19th century, European nations divided underdeveloped regions into spheres of influence and made half the population into slaves (lets keep in mind that slaves are basically the anticapitalism, seeing as nobody will work for nothing willingly). Today, that slavery is actually reduced to shoe companies paying foreigners about thirty cents an hour. Surprisingly, it's definitely a bit more of a subsistence wage in certain countries. Everbydoy wins, nobody loses.
In any case, you can still argue that we're much better off and they aren't. But who cares? What would happen if we never went to those countries and they were still stuck into their slightly above subsistence farming centric societies? Exchange a few rulers a thousand miles away for a few rulers about two miles away?
Ultimately (like, when the entire universe is populated and industrialized), capitalism can't be a permanent system, because it relies on expansion. But there is still plenty of room for expansion today, and yet we have a bunch of sentimentalists who don't really do anything, but at least make countries such as those in western Europe stagnant, since socialism cannot handle economic/demographic expansion as well as capitalism can.
In the end, capitalism is not about the haves and have nots, but rather the have a lot and the have some, with each previous generation entrenching themselves firmly in economic wealth while the newest generation bites the bullet for a while.
There have been many works and people that denounce capitalism and expose its horrors. Now, Europe is currently in a socialist system, and the US is capitalist with socialist tendencies (true capitalism would have no government, after all). And I have all these people moaning about "unequal distribution of wealth" or "exploited masses" and all that jazz. And I'm sick of it.
Let's get one thing straight:
In a fixed free market (the world is a fixed market), there will be haves and have nots. That's the way it'll always be. If you make a system where mediocrity is rewarded and forgiven, productivity goes down, and while practically everybody will be able to live semi-decently (at the very least be food secure), you drive down the total wealth/goods being made because there isn't incentive to work.
Now there are people (taken from Grendel's "You're going to hell" thread) who complain about the US exploiting native peoples in underdeveloped countries. Well guess what? We aren't FORCING them to comply with our cheap wages and brutal hours. They willingly take it because we're still PAYING them. That's the whole thing to capitalism, carrot-stick economics. Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Admittedly, some scratch a lot more, and some don't scratch as much, but that's to be expected.
Now, to borrow some stuff from Utilitarianism, a society's main purpose is to create the maximum amount of happiness for the maximum amount of people. That's sort of what capitalism does. We make as much money as we can, but to do that, there has to be a base of consumers to be able to buy and consume goods. That's the whole point of economics. Now, as the people of the society grow in prosperity as a whole, they expect better wages, more commodities, and more leisure. This is where immigrants and outsourcing comes in. Corporations strive to make the profit margin as large as possible. This in turn drives down prices (in a competitive market) and opens up larger markets (cheaper prices and cheap manufacturing capability means more goods produced and more people able to buy said goods). But people complain about the transition period, where we have a bunch of haves and even larger amount of have nots.
Frankly, the only thing that you can argue about Western Capitalism that's actually DETRIMENTAL to third world countries is that mostly in the 19th century, European nations divided underdeveloped regions into spheres of influence and made half the population into slaves (lets keep in mind that slaves are basically the anticapitalism, seeing as nobody will work for nothing willingly). Today, that slavery is actually reduced to shoe companies paying foreigners about thirty cents an hour. Surprisingly, it's definitely a bit more of a subsistence wage in certain countries. Everbydoy wins, nobody loses.
In any case, you can still argue that we're much better off and they aren't. But who cares? What would happen if we never went to those countries and they were still stuck into their slightly above subsistence farming centric societies? Exchange a few rulers a thousand miles away for a few rulers about two miles away?
Ultimately (like, when the entire universe is populated and industrialized), capitalism can't be a permanent system, because it relies on expansion. But there is still plenty of room for expansion today, and yet we have a bunch of sentimentalists who don't really do anything, but at least make countries such as those in western Europe stagnant, since socialism cannot handle economic/demographic expansion as well as capitalism can.
In the end, capitalism is not about the haves and have nots, but rather the have a lot and the have some, with each previous generation entrenching themselves firmly in economic wealth while the newest generation bites the bullet for a while.
Comments
All the countries in the world that have higher living standards also have lower <a href='http://aol.countrywatch.com/includes/grank/globrank.asp?TBLS=PPP+Method+Tables&vCOUNTRY=165&TYPE=GRANK' target='_blank'>PPP</a> (PPP is the method of adjusting GDP based upon costs of living; look at the right hand column, the higher a country is ranked, the more stuff they can buy, regardless of the difference in prices between countries), except for Luxembourg and I'm pretty sure that they're all more socialist than America is.
<a href='http://www.economist.com/theworldin/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3372495&d=2005' target='_blank'>http://www.economist.com/theworldin/intern...=3372495&d=2005</a>
By other measures, like poverty, socialist countries are doing much better than America is.
<a href='http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=PRB&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=5591' target='_blank'>http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=PR...&ContentID=5591</a>
In addition, the gap between the rich and poor is increasing, and social mobility (how easy it is to move upwards economically over generations) is decreasing.
<a href='http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560' target='_blank'>http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayS...tory_id=3518560</a>
Here's a story about inequality over the globe. It doesn't come to a solid conclusion, but it indicates to me that inequality isn't increasing, absolute income levels are increasing, and the percentage of people below the poverty line is decreasing. This is mostly because India and China are doing so well, and with their huge populations, they are pulling the numbers upwards. Sub-Saharan Africa, the worst region in the world, economically, is doing bad because it is isolated (they aren't getting the benefits of globalisation like Asia is). India and China are getting the benefits of globalisation, but it remains to be seen that capitalism is the result of that, seeing as how both of those countries don't have especially free economies.
<a href='http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2498851' target='_blank'>http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.c...tory_ID=2498851</a>
EDIT: I should add that when I'm referring to socialism here, I'm not referring to pure socialism (the same holds for capitalism, when I say capitalism or pure capitalism, I'm mostly referring to America's system which is less socialist and more capitalist than its peers), but to a socialist/capitalist hybrid found in Europe.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We aren't FORCING them to comply with our cheap wages and brutal hours. They willingly take it because we're still PAYING them. That's the whole thing to capitalism, carrot-stick economics. Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Admittedly, some scratch a lot more, and some don't scratch as much, but that's to be expected. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually we have in the past, and not way back when the Europeans were mucking around. Creating the Panama canal for example Roosevelt was more than willing to use force to take the land needed for the canal from the Columbian government :
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"I was prepared to . . . at once occupy the Isthmus anyhow, and proceed to dig the canal. But I deemed it likely that there would be a revolution in Panama soon."-teddy Roosevelt<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps thats a little to esoteric for you, considering ti was a while back, and we didn't actually end up using our troops. Heres a few highlights from the last century where we forced Latin America to our economic controls:
1909:America replaces the leader of Nicaragua who tries to take control of the mining and banana plantations back with Diaz, an ex-treasurer of one of the American mining corporations, a year later we send in marines to occupy the country to quell a popular rebellion against the leader we installed. Two years after that we have to go in again. This time we decide to hold an election to try and legitimize Diaz's rule. Only 4,000 people are allowed to vote, and Diaz is the only candidate. We maintain troops there for the next 15 years or so.
1954: Guzman is elected leader of Guatemala. He seizes some Untied Fruit land, and offers to pay them the value according to the tax documents they filed that year. The CIA organizes a small insurgency of malcontents, and by supplying planes,weapons, and propaganda of a massive rebel army, they help this small unit to seize control of the government. We then install Carlos Armas as leader. During his 30 year rule he reduces voting rights, makes going on strike a capital offense, outlaws political parties, and undo land reforms, restoring all of the untied Fruit's prime banana lands to them. 100,000 people are killed by the government during his 30 year rule, while the US looks the other way.
1981: Remember the Iran-Contra scandal? Well, the contras were a organized by the CIA to help support our objectives in Nicaragua, and Honduras. Nicaragua is also slapped with economic embargoes until the cave in to our pressure, and we try to convince the IMF and World Bank to halt loans coming into eh country. Basically this would require Nicaragua to either have a ruined economy or one that is based in US companies. A few years later we actually mine several of their harbors. the World Court fines us several billion dollars, which we refuse to pay.
Those are just three examples from the last 100 years of the US using military force to achieve economic goals. There are many others, and through this time we've helped train one dictator's armies after another, and places like the School of Americas, who's graduates have included some the worst torturers since Nazi Germany. These forces are used to repress people who want change in their countries want more control over their economies.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Now, to borrow some stuff from Utilitarianism, a society's main purpose is to create the maximum amount of happiness for the maximum amount of people.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By this logic, for the greatest good can excuse any transgression upon the labor force. For example, this would easily the use of Jews as slave laborers in concentration camps during WW2. They were the cheapest available labor source(costing next to nothing since they were barely even fed), and could therefor produce the cheapest goods, and therefor the most wealth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Frankly, the only thing that you can argue about Western Capitalism that's actually DETRIMENTAL to third world countries is that mostly in the 19th century, European nations divided underdeveloped regions into spheres of influence and made half the population into slaves (lets keep in mind that slaves are basically the anti capitalism, seeing as nobody will work for nothing willingly). Today, that slavery is actually reduced to shoe companies paying foreigners about thirty cents an hour. Surprisingly, it's definitely a bit more of a subsistence wage in certain countries. Everbody wins, nobody loses.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, its very well documented that "free" (as opposed to fair) trade agreements bascialy achieve the same thing as 19th century colonialism did, minus the slaves. Countries that have signed Nafta have not had any economic growth attributable to it, and many are actually becoming more impoverished. How can this happen if we are paying them 30 cents an hour? The thing is that they are being paid 30 cents an hour to produce a good that will be sold for far more than that (obviously) probably in another country, and all the profit from these sales goes to US companies. While on an individual level, this may not matter so much, in the broader scheme this leads to all sorts of problems. As there ends up being very little free cash floating around, as the profits of the countries labors are going elsewhere, there is almost no capital to create new business, create an economic system where the money stays in the country. So these countries have to take out huge loans from the IMF, the World Bank, and other such sources. They usually can't pay back these loans, as when they start trying to form company, they will usually have to compeat with a massive corporation from the States, which they can't. The result? Inflation, massive inflation. So, in the end, that 30 cents, is worth less than it was before. This clearly is both forcing somebody to contribute to our economic model(by not allowing them to form their own as an alternative), and not getting more wealth out the people.
A side effect of this is something called mono-culture. Basically this is when a countries agriculture is tied up in producing one major cash crop. This happens all over the Third world, for things like coffee and fruits. Coffee is a big one. Large corporations, like Starbucks, will go down to a country that would be good to grow coffee in. They offer really good prices, initially, for the coffee. A farmer sees that his neighbor can buy a new car based off this years coffee harvest. Like a good capitalist, he also wants that wealth. So he plants some coffee next year, and makes some money The next he plants his entire land with coffee, and makes some more money., maybe he can buy that car in a few more years. So far so good. However, a few years down the line, he doesn't have any seeds for food crops left, he doesn't need them. Except now, hes not making that much money anymore, a ton of farmers have followed in his footsteps and now the market is flooded. When coffee production hit its peak a few years back, people couldn't sell their coffee for the what it cost to grow it, and went bankrupt. They couldn't feed their families, couldn't even afford to buy the seeds for food crops the next year. To top it off coffee is a land intensive crop, after growing it for a while, little else can successfully be grown on it. These people were starving, penniless, forced to sell their land to eat. And the wealth that America got out of this? The Grande-triple-mocha-expresso-latte-thingy-ma-bober with skim milk......all the real profits from this went to the upper executives in the corporations.
Which really makes one wonder if they really wouldn't be better of as "slightly above subsistence farming centric societies"?At least then they could still eat.
Ultimately I could go on for much longer, talking abut unsafe conditions in these third world country factories, the lose of jobs in the US, and the subsequent recessions that we have been experiencing(we have more government jobs than manufacturing jobs....and they try to tell us we have a strong economy....based on what? the labors of foreign workers, with the wealth getting passed on, not to us, but to the corporate execs...much of which is then loopholed through our tax code, and our government doesn't even get its cut) and many many many other issues. It probably wouldn't convince you. To me other people's lives aren't worth my coffee, or any of the other minor benifits I might be getting from neo-imperialism
EDIT: this was <i>supposed</i> to be the first reply...well was when i started it an hour ago anyways....DAMN YOU CLAM!!!! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Though it does look like where I ranted, you actualy found support....kudos...and I definatly agree with your opening paragraph as well...well put.....
I'm pretty sure that this is the origin of the quote Kissinger reportedly gave, "we can't allow the Chileans to elect a Socialist President." It's kind of OT, but it's interesting how we allowed democracy, only when the elected leadership of a country supported us. Cold War <i>realpolitik</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By this logic, for the greatest good can excuse any transgression upon the labor force. For example, this would easily the use of Jews as slave laborers in concentration camps during WW2. They were the cheapest available labor source(costing next to nothing since they were barely even fed), and could therefor produce the cheapest goods, and therefor the most wealth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would think that Utilitarianism would reject concentration camps because the great amount of pain caused doesn't outweigh the amount of pleasure gained. I'm not much of a Utilitarian, however.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First, its very well documented that "free" (as opposed to fair) trade agreements bascialy achieve the same thing as 19th century colonialism did, minus the slaves. Countries that have signed Nafta have not had any economic growth attributable to it, and many are actually becoming more impoverished. How can this happen if we are paying them 30 cents an hour? The thing is that they are being paid 30 cents an hour to produce a good that will be sold for far more than that (obviously) probably in another country, and all the profit from these sales goes to US companies. While on an individual level, this may not matter so much, in the broader scheme this leads to all sorts of problems. As there ends up being very little free cash floating around, as the profits of the countries labors are going elsewhere, there is almost no capital to create new business, create an economic system where the money stays in the country. So these countries have to take out huge loans from the IMF, the World Bank, and other such sources. They usually can't pay back these loans, as when they start trying to form company, they will usually have to compeat with a massive corporation from the States, which they can't. The result? Inflation, massive inflation. So, in the end, that 30 cents, is worth less than it was before. This clearly is both forcing somebody to contribute to our economic model(by not allowing them to form their own as an alternative), and not getting more wealth out the people. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The thing about free trade, is that without free trade, rich countries are free to protect the jobs of their citizens, by imposing tariffs on goods not created in their country. Then, the poor countries aren't even getting 30 cents, but goods from rich countries cost even more, making citizens of rich countries pay more and making it more expensive for poor countries to import goods from rich countries.
If you require companies to pay their workers more, then they'll just move out of a third world country, into a richer country, because the labor costs are the same, except the richer country has better infrastructure. Fair trade is a good idea, but you have to have companies do it voluntarily, rather than force them to do it.
There's not an easy solution to help impoverished countries.
Well when it says the greatest amount of pleasure (or, the negative version, least amount of pain) for the greatest number of people it doesn't classify what it means by people. If you happened not to count certain groups as 'not people' or even just 'less important people' then it makes sense to exploit them.
I'm glad you two have posted that because I desperately wanted to disagree with him but I've not taken part in an economics debate for so long and I really can't afford to write an hour long post again <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I've studied French, Spanish, Latin, Greek (Clasical) and Russian in addition to the regular gamut of studies as well as doing A Level Chemistry and Biology. I have fairly decent IT skills, excellent hardware skills (somewhat rusty now) and I also made a really good cocktail bartender.
Despite that fairly outstanding skillset, the best job I've had in the last 8 years is PA to the Chairman of <a href='http://www.europeanevents.co.uk/' target='_blank'>European Events</a>. That paid £7.50 an hour for an incredibly demanding and crappy job. That was a temp job. I was offered a permanent position, but the requisite introductory fee that my agency charged prevented them from being willing to employ me full time. I've now got a work history that means I'm having difficulty getting a permanet job in anything but absolute scut work. My age (29, creak) counts against me. My chances of getting in the gaming industry are next to nothing.
The most profitable jobs I've done have been dealing and fencing. Were it not for the fact that I don't like the people who you have to deal with in those lines of work, I'd be tempted to be doing it now.
Capitalism is a crappy system. Unfortunately, a system arises from its education and we are educated to act in a manner that conditions us towards selfishness and mistrust. That's the primary reason why other ideologies have trouble taking root, not their inherent flaws. But don't just take it from me, do some research. And by research, I mean read books on all perspectives, not just ones that are going to appeal to your tastes.
I've not always been a pauper. I grew up in a school with the sons of people like<ul><li>The Head of NATO's rapid reaction force (this was after he was in command of the forces in Northern Ireland for three years)</li><li>The Owner of Air India - (Or Majority shareholder, I could never remember)</li><li><a href='http://www.bulmer.com/' target='_blank'>The Owner of Bulmer's Cider</a> - Their real money came from doing the distribution for the Coca Cola co. in the UK & Australasia</li><li>A Nuclear Missile submarine captain (Not really relevant but it links nicely with the next one) - He came and gave a talk once. It was seriously cool stuff. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--></li><li><a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/chile/story/0,13755,1391642,00.html' target='_blank'>This guy got to be head of MI6</a>. This doesn't exactly bolster my faith in our current system. His son was a good friend and a nice guy.</li><li><b>J</b>oseph <b>C</b>hristopher <b>B</b>amford. Guess which company he inherits?</li><li>About 5% of the House of Lords and House of Commons</li><li>Blah, blah etc.</li></ul>They came to school by helicopter. They played in tanks at weekends. They owned Surrey. I got to enjoy that lifestyle for a while and from those lofty heights, it all seems to make sense, if you ignore the fact that the rich usually treat people as objects at best or scum more frequently.
Reality is somewhat different. The system grinds people down.
But that's just mine and the Department of Social Services and the Department of Health and the Department of Educations's opinion. And a few others. Ask Nemesis Zero about it. He's a level headed chap. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'll post something more solid and less personal tomorrow. Just had a smoke, what can I say? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And if you seriously think that it's created POVERTY, then you're an idiot. Canada is our largest trading partner, free trade benefits them massively since they are so reliant on our economy, same goes for Mexico. Mexico's trade TRIPLED when NAFTA was signed. Free trade benefits the greater good of the people, as does capitalism. Sure, some people get the shaft, but the overall result is lower prices and cheaper goods available for practically anybody.
Plus, the "happiness" factor in that article you quoted is very dubious, and isn't exactly accepted amongst most people. Even if it was accepted to be factual (which I find completely absurd, measuring the general populace's happiness in a numerical index), you'll see that the US falls within a fraction of a point, close to the heavily socialist country Norway.
In regards to social mobility stagnation, I agree that it IS declining. Real increase in wages have only gone to the richest 20% for the past two decades. That, however, is not due to capitalism, but simply an incompetence of many state governments (the state, not the Federal, government controls education). A possible solution to the problem would be to revise the curriculum and impose a Federal standard on core classes.
In Europe, I can pull an indefinite number of articles quoting its aging populace, its staggering unemployment (Germany, Spain, and in many parts of Southern Italy), and the future complications of their socialist programs. If you thought social security was going to be a problem in the US, it's nothing compared to what's going to happen to Europe unless they raise taxes even more, which further encourages economic stagnation.
Oh, and as for your coffee scenario (which, granted, actually did happen), that's called overspeculation and overexpansion. This wasn't an isolated incident in an underdeveloped country. In fact, it happened to the US numerous times. During the Gilded Age, during the 1920s most particularly.
But still, you can quote the US' imperialist past all you like. These were done mainly for political reasons, not economic. In fact, I can give you another example. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge killed 2 million of its own people in Cambodia after we helped install him as dictator. These are not economic reasons as to why we did it; they are used for our own political gain and to elevate our standing and influence in international politics.
As for your examples citing China and India, India's markets are definitely democratic and capitalist in past years. Government control of India's economy is decreasing with each fiscal quarter. As for China, please note that its autonomous economic zones (capitalist Hong Kong, for example?) has the largest rates of growth. Plus China's own overall economic growth is due to its massive labor force, a key component of capitalism. And China is definitely loosening control of the economy, though not that much.
Lastly, you have to realize that the G7 (well, technically it's G8, though Russia can't afford to loan just yet) nations give generous (low interest or interest-free) loans to developing countries. Brazil was helped tremendously by them. Sometimes countries shouldn't make loans or give them out when they can't afford to. It should also be noted that these countries aren't exactly unable to compete and develop, their inherent political instability contribute to this problem more than our capitalist-imperialism.
Free markets, limited government, equal civil rights.
Let me put it this way-
Billy Bob Gates has what... about 25% of the monitary wealth of the USA? and at least 15% of the rest of it (stocks, bonds, ect)
So why should ONE man control almost 40% of the nations money?
Spread the wealth ****!
Japan > all, as it is the only country I know of where verbal harassment is considered a crime punishable by a smack on the head (brain duster)
Yes.. their rate of crime is THAT low...
Here's the summary of their methodology.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We use life-satisfaction surveys (assembling the average scores for 74 countries) as a starting point for weighting the various factors that determine quality of life. A regression analysis suggests that as many as nine indicators have a significant influence, and can be turned into an equation explaining more than 80% of the variation in countries’ life-satisfaction scores. The main factor is income, but other things are also important: health, freedom, unemployment, family life, climate, political stability and security, gender equality, and family and community life. We feed the factors into the equation, measuring them using forecasts for 2005 where possible (in four cases) and latest data for slower-changing indicators, such as family life and political freedom. The resulting score, on a scale of one to ten, gives the quality-of-life index.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It sounds like a pretty good way to quantify the standard of living. It's opinion, obviously, but it's based upon fact. Plus, I trust the Economist, more than any other news source that I've ever read/listened to.
Here's what you said:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, to borrow some stuff from Utilitarianism, a society's main purpose is to create the maximum amount of happiness for the maximum amount of people. That's sort of what capitalism does<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, my response was that socialist/capitalist hybrids with an emphasis on socialism, can do better than ones with an emphasis on capitalism in terms of happiness. What's amazing is that America has a 35% higher GDP and a 37% higher PPP-adjusted GDP than Sweden, but Sweden is still ranked higher in terms of quality of life. That suggests to me that socialism is more efficient in converting capital into happiness than capitalism. One study is not authoritative, but I've seen several studies, which all have Scandinavia in the top ten, almost always putting Scandinavia higher than the US. I'm sure you can find some of those studies if you search for them. In fact, if you find a study contrary to the Economist's, then you should post it here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In regards to social mobility stagnation, I agree that it IS declining. Real increase in wages have only gone to the richest 20% for the past two decades. That, however, is not due to capitalism, but simply an incompetence of many state governments (the state, not the Federal, government controls education). A possible solution to the problem would be to revise the curriculum and impose a Federal standard on core classes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that education is one of the factors reducing social mobility (more funds, more accountability, school vouchers, and drastic reform are good ways to fix this in my opinion). There are other factors, however. The removal of the inheritance tax is one of those factors (and the reduction of taxes is associated with a move towards capitalism and away from socialism; the move away from progessive taxes, like the inheritance tax, is also associated the same way). Tax cuts that help the rich are also a problem. Also, we could make our military is failing as a device to encourage social mobility, when it should be helping (see: GI Bill).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In Europe, I can pull an indefinite number of articles quoting its aging populace, its staggering unemployment (Germany, Spain, and in many parts of Southern Italy), and the future complications of their socialist programs. If you thought social security was going to be a problem in the US, it's nothing compared to what's going to happen to Europe unless they raise taxes even more, which further encourages economic stagnation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Several European countries have weak economies. Scandinavia, for the most part, doesn't have those problems. Demographic changes are a huge problem facing socialist countries and it may require cuts in taxes and socialist benefits.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for your examples citing China and India, India's markets are definitely democratic and capitalist in past years. Government control of India's economy is decreasing with each fiscal quarter. As for China, please note that its autonomous economic zones (capitalist Hong Kong, for example?) has the largest rates of growth. Plus China's own overall economic growth is due to its massive labor force, a key component of capitalism. And China is definitely loosening control of the economy, though not that much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is true, but China has been growing for a while and their economy isn't yet free enough to be called capitalist. Also, a massive labor force is a key component of communism, or any other economic system. Capitalism isn't unique in that respect.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Free markets, limited government, equal civil rights.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with you here, although I'd like to add "high universal standard of living" as well.
<!--QuoteBegin-BulletHead+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BulletHead)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Billy Bob Gates has what... about 25% of the monitary wealth of the USA? and at least 15% of the rest of it (stocks, bonds, ect)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, Bill Gates' $30 billion is a quarter of the monetary wealth of the US. If you do the numbers, then the $90 billion spread out among our 300 million people means that the monetary wealth of the average American is $300.
Please realize that our economy is 11 trillion strong. Divide that amongst 285 million, and you've got 38,000 USD per person.
Oh, and just google "European population implosion" and you'll find hundreds, if not thousands of articles from sources everywhere (from the major networks, to educational facilities such as Harvard).
In regards to the "happiness" index, you have to think of a few things. First of all, Americans have the most freedoms of probably any Western nation (we can own guns in abundance, unlike some countries, for instance) and our education system is to the point where most people fail to realize just how free they are, instead of just sucking in all the rehetoric without understanding why that rhetoric is there in the first place.
Besides, if you ask an American if they want to move to another country, odds are the vast majority will say no.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Americans are free enough not to care about our freedoms (which is one of the reasons why the PATRIOT Act is not a big deal among the majority of voters).
Americans have the freedom to own guns. In the Netherlands, homosexuals can marry and you can buy marijuana. Many countries have freedoms that the US doesn't. The US has freedoms that many other countries don't.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Besides, if you ask an American if they want to move to another country, odds are the vast majority will say no.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you ask a Norwegian if they want to move to another country, odds are the vast majority will say no.
If you ask a Canadian if they want to move to another country, odds are the vast majority will say no.
If you ask a Spaniard if they want to move to another country, odds are the vast majority will say no.
If you ask a Japanese if they want to move to another country, odds are the vast majority will say no.
in order for that statement to be true, you have to place a high importance certain freedoms and a low importance on others, and you'd have to be pretty arbitrary about it.
Please realize that our economy is 11 trillion strong. Divide that amongst 285 million, and you've got 38,000 USD per person.
Oh, and just google "European population implosion" and you'll find hundreds, if not thousands of articles from sources everywhere (from the major networks, to educational facilities such as Harvard).
In regards to the "happiness" index, you have to think of a few things. First of all, Americans have the most freedoms of probably any Western nation (we can own guns in abundance, unlike some countries, for instance) and our education system is to the point where most people fail to realize just how free they are, instead of just sucking in all the rehetoric without understanding why that rhetoric is there in the first place.
Besides, if you ask an American if they want to move to another country, odds are the vast majority will say no. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thuoght gates had like... 5x that ammount 0o' *pokes his teachers at school* LIARS!!!!!
Either way... Gates owns most of America and lots of the world...
How?
Simple... Windows... it's either use Windows or Linux... they are the only two real big competitors...
Either way... Gates owns most of America and lots of the world...
How?
Simple... Windows... it's either use Windows or Linux... they are the only two real big competitors... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um... yeah, you know, besides Solaris, QNX, HP-UX, AIX, VMS (surprisingly still around), MacOS X (new comer to the server market), ect. The list goes on. Hell, even for workstations several of those apply.
So though we may feel unhappier than our wealth dictates, in reality we're unhappy because we just see what we don't have, rather than what we do. That's hardly capitalism's fault; it's a psychological problem to perpetually feel unhappy because you don't have all the best stuff in the neighborhood.
The very last freedom I want is to be able to buy as many weapons as I want. I want to be so free that I don't need weapons. Oh and currently you are looking to lose more freedoms than gain them with bush's current theocracy.
On education, I can't think of anywhere but America where kids are told that evolution theory is wrong and science is held in lower regard than faith.
Every government needs to strike a balance between a free market and a controlled state economy, in a purely controlled economy people will lose motivation to work. In a completely free market people are no longer guarenteed the basic things they need to survive.
Finally when you say europe has an 'aging population' surely that is just a symptom of good healthcare and a healthy lifestyle?
Oh, and I don't give a **** if you studied psychology at the best damn school in the world. Unless you plan on being a psychologist, that's pretty useless, is it not? I don't care if you're an accomplished horserider. I don't care if you were a QA lead. What is that anyways? Wait. QA lead. For Natural Selection? Do you think I give a flying **** about that? Natural Selection isn't even a blip on the radar if you look at the entire gaming industry, which most of the marke share is found in the consoles. If you're a computer gamer, you're in the minority. If you're a computer gamer in the mod. scene (I refuse to call it a business), you're a minority within a minority.
Put short, you learned skills that are next to worthless when it comes to making money. Oh wait, you do have some IT skills and computer hardware, that might count for something, but more and more of those IT jobs are being outsourced to various other nations and people who are willing to work more for less than you are willing to.
In capitalism, it's about providing a useful, high-demand service at a reasonable price, and apparently you fell through the cracks. Tough luck. You've still got a semi-socialist government to fall back and leech on unless you feel like working for a pittance in some random convenience store or find an economic opportunity that's literally right in your face if you'd just take the time to look. Take a look at your nation's official website, they are a veritable mine of information, just like firstgov.gov is great for Americans, even though I know practically nobody else who goes to that website.
I'm sorry, apparently you learned skills that weren't in high demand. Maybe you should try and get a new education (Britain subsidizes a large portion, if not all, of your tuition for education) in a trade or industry that's more profitable than whatever the hell you're doing now. Or move to the States, if you think you've got the skills, the work ethic, and the smarts, you'll make it. There is no question about that.
My parents are ten time more industrious than I will ever hope to be in my lifetime, yet I'm sure I can still at least pull their level of success off because I'm fluent in English, have a forceful, influential personality, and enough intelligence to know what to do and when. It's all about assessing your position and finding ways (and if you have internet access and a computer, then you have a limitless supply of information) to better that position. That's the type of philosophy I live under.
Fortunately for me, there aren't enough people who do the same thing. Guess what? Most people in America are content at where they are. Sure, you have the odd white, female mother of one, two, or even three working two jobs to stay food secure and off the streets, but that was a direct consequence of her choices.
Capitalism is the natural selection of humans. If you can't cut it, you fall through and are doomed to mediocrity and a low-wage job asking if your customers would like some fries with that burger. Sure, you might not be able to squeak through, and it probably might not even be your fault. But here's the thing: you're privileged enough to have a computer and internet access, so I really can't stomach any of your stupid excuses, or blaming the capitalist system, because you're supposed to succeed, and from what you say, you haven't.
I've experienced what it is to be poor (On my birthdays from 4-7, all I got were books to read, which in hindsight, helped me learn English faster), and due to the hard work of somebody else, I'm poised to get a good, moderately or high paying job. If I fail, I have nobody to blame but myself. And that's what I love about the system. You fall on your own faults, and you succeed astronomically on your own strengths. To live comfortably? You can just be born in a rich family, but to succeed, that takes your own skills.
Do you think people should be arranged in society, in tiers, according to how economically productive they are? Do you think worth is determined based on how much you can benefit capitalist society? Have you ever heard of the phrase "down on your luck"? Does Grendel not have a promising career because he doesn't deserve one? Or does he not have a promising career because he hasn't been lucky enough to find a good job?
**** you Rapier. Don't be an ****.
You apparently got your political ideas from the view that if your parents could hack it, then everyone else should be able to, and if they can't, then they're pathetic.
And yes, I do believe if you have a strong work ethic, intelligence, and a good education, you WILL succeed in the US (economically). It's extremely hard to argue that part. If you don't succeed, you lack one of those three traits, or you just don't care enough and like where you are now. And there really isn't such thing as luck, necessity drives everything forward:
Corporations seek to make the most money possible.
In order to do this, they will hire the most productive workers in their fields.
As that happens, incompetent people will be weeded out, and competent people will be rewarded.
Granted, it doesn't always work like that. There are plenty of times where outside forces (nepotism, mainly) will foist a person to a spot where he shouldn't be. But we've got enough of the self-made men for me not to worry about that. Look at Gates, he's the new-age Carnegie.
I like American society because it's all about worshipping the eagle, the rich guy, the celebrity, in short, the elites. Forming a cult of mediocrity creates stagnation and indifference towards the economy and your own possessions.
And, theclam, I am aware of the fact that in some cases, it is impossible to move up the socio-economic ladder (mother of three, no education, working 2 jobs, impossible to get a higher education), but many of those cases, that person made a bad decision in their life to get into that vicious cycle.
Oh, and finally, theclam, if you weren't aware, Grendel was *****ing about the capitalist (Britain is more capitalist than its other European counterparts, after all) system screwing him over. He says it only looks good from the upper tiers, while it doesn't at all for the lower.
He isn't a modern day Jurgis Rudkus, I feel no sympathy for his economic plight.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And yes, I do believe if you have a strong work ethic, intelligence, and a good education, you WILL succeed in the US (economically).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess it's too bad that half the population has below average intelligence and it is difficult to get a good education in the US, unless you're born rich. Your statement is more true in other countries, because you can get a good education for free.
Let's look at the Economist article again:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The past couple of decades have seen a huge increase in inequality in America. The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think-tank, argues that between 1979 and 2000 the real income of households in the lowest fifth (the bottom 20% of earners) grew by 6.4%, while that of households in the top fifth grew by 70%. The family income of the top 1% grew by 184%—and that of the top 0.1% or 0.01% grew even faster. Back in 1979 the average income of the top 1% was 133 times that of the bottom 20%; by 2000 the income of the top 1% had risen to 189 times that of the bottom fifth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The bottom fifth of Americans have gained 6.4% more real income over 20 years. The top fifth of Americans have gained 70% more real income over 20 years. The top 1% of Americans have gained 184% over 20 years. That's disparity. You say disparity is worth it. You say that people who make a lot of money deserve it.
I don't think Bill Gates has earned his money. He makes about $1.5 billion a year. The average nurse makes $45,500 a year. Now, does Bill gates do work that is worth 33,000 times the work of a nurse? Is Bill Gates worth 33,000 nurses? How about doctors. Doctors make a bit less than 5 times what a nurse does. Is a doctor's work worth almost 5 times as much as a nurses work? You can replace nurses with teachers, or plumbers, or any other lowly paid profession and you can replace businessmen and doctors with lawyers, engineers, or any other highly paid profession.
People are paid according to what the market sets wages at. People aren't paid what they deserve.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I like American society because it's all about worshipping the eagle, the rich guy, the celebrity, in short, the elites. Forming a cult of mediocrity creates stagnation and indifference towards the economy and your own possessions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't have to choose between worshipping the elite and having a strong economy, and forming a cult of mediocrity and having a weak economy. You can have a strong economy, allow people with ambition to succeed, and reduce disparity.
The Economist leans libertarian, just like you, but they still think that socialist countries have higher standards of living than America does.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And there really isn't such thing as luck, necessity drives everything forward:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No such thing as luck? What if you're from a poor family, but you have the intelligence and dedication to get into Harvard Medical School, only to find out that you have cancer? You can't afford health insurance and you can't afford treatment, so you'd be screwed in a capitalist system. In a socialist system, you'd get free treatment. You can replace cancer with a car accident, or any completely luck based event. What about people who graduate from a good college, with excellent qualifications, but can't find a job, because of an economic downturn? They'll have to work at a low paying job, barely able to make ends meet (and they certainly can't afford health insurance and they can't pay off their student loans). When the downturn ends, they'll be much older, but they won't have the qualifications of people who were able to find jobs during the downturn. I think Grendel is in an analogous situation. Luck is very important in capitalism, because when someone gets unlucky at the wrong time, they won't have a social support system to get themselves back on their feet.
Way to demonstrate your ignorance of the labour market. Virtually no degrees are vocational in this day and age, outside of the professions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Put short, you learned skills that are next to worthless when it comes to making money. Oh wait, you do have some IT skills and computer hardware, that might count for something, but more and more of those IT jobs are being outsourced to various other nations and people who are willing to work more for less than you are willing to.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A market force that I can't do anything about and which has considerably reduced the value of my training. It should also be pointed out that my IT hardware & software skills were significantly better than most people's when I got to practice them. Your remarks about outsourcing just highlight the difference between cost & value. I'm sure the millions of unemployed Indians will be inclined to agree with me when all their jobs go to Malasia or China in ten years time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In capitalism, it's about providing a useful, high-demand service at a reasonable price, and apparently you fell through the cracks. Tough luck.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This pretty much highlights the core of your viewpoint.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You've still got a semi-socialist government to fall back and leech on unless you feel like working for a pittance in some random convenience store or find an economic opportunity that's literally right in your face if you'd just take the time to look. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you think our government is socialist, that's only by comparison to the neo-nazis that make up the Senate. Secondly, I've never drawn a single benefit in my life. I've never qualified for one by being unemployed long enough. I have a work ethic. I've been working every holiday since I was 7 years old. Why would I spend 3 years working on a game for nothing otherwise?
I've spent 8 years doing menial work. I've worked on the shop floor of several retail outlets. It grinds you down. Here's some maths for you:
I work a 40 hour week, which usually equates to between £5-7.5 an hour.
After tax, that leaves me with between £160 - £210.
So on a good month, that leaves me with £900.
My rent is £625.
Electricity, water, gas and internet, Phone £100 (usually more)
Council Tax £25
Transport £40 (I catch the bus)
Food £40 (The list of luxuries goes on! Value items. Bread, eggs, milk, cheese. Occasionally meat.)
I now share my house, so that leaves me around £300 a month. Bear in mind I haven't included dentistry, opticians, cigarettes, clothes or toiletries. That's because they are luxuries. I haven't bought a game, an item of clothing or a computer component for over 12 months. I'm meant to be getting married in a year, so currently the little money I have spare goes into the savings to pay for the wedding. If I was 20 years old, I'd still have the energy to go and be doing courses in the evening and using all my remaining cash to try and pay for them, hopefully eventually getting a useful qualification after a year or two. But I'm 29 years old now and I am usually tired after 8 hours of formatting text and preparing interactive narrative text for the blind.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sorry, apparently you learned skills that weren't in high demand. Maybe you should try and get a new education (Britain subsidizes a large portion, if not all, of your tuition for education) in a trade or industry that's more profitable than whatever the hell you're doing now. Or move to the States, if you think you've got the skills, the work ethic, and the smarts, you'll make it. There is no question about that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Naivety, thy name is Rapier7. First of all, I'm not eligible for subsidised education as my standard of education is vastly too high. Secondly, we lost free education at university almost a decade ago. Finally, have you the faintest concept of how hard it is to get American citizenship?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's all about assessing your position and finding ways (and if you have internet access and a computer, then you have a limitless supply of information) to better that position. That's the type of philosophy I live under. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't deny I could do more. However eventually life grinds you down and you lose hope. With luck, you'll never find that out and you can continue your cherished viewpoint.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fortunately for me, there aren't enough people who do the same thing. Guess what? Most people in America are content at where they are. Sure, you have the odd white, female mother of one, two, or even three working two jobs to stay food secure and off the streets, but that was a direct consequence of her choices. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To have choices, you must have both an awareness that they exist and a certain amount of self belief. If a system tells you that you are worthless enough times, you'll tend to believe it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Capitalism is the natural selection of humans. If you can't cut it, you fall through and are doomed to mediocrity and a low-wage job asking if your customers would like some fries with that burger.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The natural selection of what? The most exploitative people get to the top? Great system. That's sure to propel humanity to greatness. Oh, wait. No. Instead we have genocide, pharmaceutical profiteering, MTV, Enron and a planet that will almost definitely be uninhabitable for 2/3rds of the world by 2100.
I've had about 30 different managers in my life (I've temped for 2 or 3 years because it pays better than full-time skivvy work). In only 2 instances have they been competent. Google the "Peter Principle" if it's a concept you're not already familiar with. Or read about David Spedding's above.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sure, you might not be able to squeak through, and it probably might not even be your fault. But here's the thing: you're privileged enough to have a computer and internet access, so I really can't stomach any of your stupid excuses, or blaming the capitalist system, because you're supposed to succeed, and from what you say, you haven't.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One of my main contentions here is that your criteria for success is ethically repulsive. I'm not saying capitalism is wrong because I'm not a success. I'm saying capitalism is wrong because it's a highly arbitrary system. How much of our societies productive capacity has gone on covering Brittany Spears? Imagine if all the time spent on advertising, reporting, manufacturing and selling was spent on doing something productive. We'd have probably cured cancer <b>and</b> found a way to make Gretta Van Susteren's face move properly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've experienced what it is to be poor (On my birthdays from 4-7, all I got were books to read, which in hindsight, helped me learn English faster), and due to the hard work of somebody else, I'm poised to get a good, moderately or high paying job. If I fail, I have nobody to blame but myself. And that's what I love about the system. You fall on your own faults, and you succeed astronomically on your own strengths. To live comfortably? You can just be born in a rich family, but to succeed, that takes your own skills.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lack of toys are not what hurts the children of low income families. Ignore the fact <a href='http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/apr2000/welf-a28.shtml' target='_blank'>this link</a> is on the World Socialist Website. It's a popular case study in modern social science courses. Apparently Michael Moore also refences it in <i>Bowling for Columbine</i>. I can't stand the fat retard, so I've not seen it. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
My point is the skills it requires are useless and unproductive. To suceed you need to work the capitalist system. My brother retired at 29 from his fee (percentage derived) for conducting a £4.5 Bn telecommunications merger. He started up his own brokerage 2 years later.
I'm <b>significantly</b> smarter than him. I'm a very good salesman and I have a very good grasp of free market economics. It's not like I don't know how to do it, I just don't believe profiteering is a real job.
I'm far too personally involved in this discussion, so I'll finish by linking to a real essay on the implications of <a href='http://www.g-r-e-e-d.com/GREED.htm' target='_blank'>Smithian Economics</a> which doesn't sound like the rant of a total loony. Even if you discount my points out of hand, please read the essay. It's extremely thought provoking and very well written.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Clock attempts to accurately display Bill Gates's wealth, not the value of his current holdings of Microsoft stock. We take as a baseline of his wealth the shares of Microsoft that he held in 1995. This is an understatement because it doesn't include the multi-million dollar trust funds he received at birth from his grandparents, houses, stock, and other gifts from his wealthy parents, or investments he purchased with sales of Microsoft shares sold prior to 1995.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
/golfclap
I like this part especially <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thanks to their hard work, I live comfortably in the top ten per cent of the nation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Congratulations! Proof again that the economic style you rub all over your genitals in a pyroclasm of lust requires some form of slavery to someone. Granted its more ethical, because folks legally have to throw them a bone. But yeah, I applaud someones ability to buy and sell people every day.