Thread: The miniature earth

The is some fascinating stuff.

Originally Posted by Noogah

If the
If you keep your food in a refrigerator
And your clothes in a closet
If you have a roof over your head
And have a bed to sleep in
You are richer than 75% of the entire world population.

If you are an American with all of that and a cell phone, X Box, stereo, bag of McDonalds food, and car, you are not really poor. Capitalism works.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If you are an American with all of that and a cell phone, X Box, stereo, bag of McDonalds food, and car, you are not really poor. Capitalism works, at the expense of everyone that does not have these things.

lololololol

Ha ha, but obviously the least wealthy benefit from capitalism. That was my point. Wealth stimulates the world economy.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If you are an American with all of that and a cell phone, X Box, stereo, bag of McDonalds food, and car, you are not really poor. Capitalism works.

Ha ha, but obviously the least wealthy benefit from capitalism. That was my point. Wealth stimulates the world economy.

?????

You don't seem to be talking about the least wealthy here.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The is some fascinating stuff.



If you are an American with all of that and a cell phone, X Box, stereo, bag of McDonalds food, and car, you are not really poor. Capitalism works.

It's funny how you often point this out. I will agree with you that a lot of America's so called poor, are not really experiencing absolute poverty, although there still is homeless crackheads with real problems. But the thing is, the West has developed at such a rate at the expense of the rest of the world. the actions of the US around the globe have been instrumental in restricing the economic and miloitary power of developing nations. Support for tyrants and right wing paramilitarys in Lain and South Amrica are prime examples of the US providing support for those willing to curb the American line regarding economics; historically, espeically in and around the Cold War era those leaders trying to nationalize their natural resources and lift their countries out of poverty were removed by CIA intervention and replaced by tyrants supported by the US. The situation is such that the old model of a bourgeoise and a proletariat are changing, the Wetern World is now the bourgeoise and we are faced with an ever growing global proletariat living in the very worst of conditions.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Ha ha, but obviously the least wealthy benefit from capitalism. That was my point. Wealth stimulates the world economy.

It does here, certainly, and I found a lot of humour in the way you expressed
that. Werry clever, UM, werry clever indeed.

I do however believe that the world's least wealthy actually suffer from
the way we do things. This may not be the place to discuss it, but our
incredible rate of consumption of material resources suggests (most
obviously) that someone is doing the hard labour at the lowest amount of
pay that our capitalist overlords can manage to find. I think of the indiginous
peoples of South America that get relocated so that we can have access to
local lumber or mineral deposits, as an example.

My gripe with capitalism should not be misunderstood. Capitalism in and of
itself appears to be working flawlessly, and I agree that it is the way to go.
It is unfortunate though that we do not have the regulations in place to
protect those that are being abused as a result of our "must have more,
always more" mentality. Capitalism needs a responsible hand, so to speak, so
that it may benefit everyone at the same time. Other than that, I think we're
just dandy.

The concept of capitalism never intended to make everybody richter. By
'everybody' only the people of the first world were meant - the majority
always was exploited. Capitalism is just a ressource-oriented imperialism.
Even Joseph Stiglitz admits that there was never any intention to help
everybody, moreso that the "poorer countries" were never part of any
business regulations and they were not to be considered in economical
choices. There have been and still are plenty of countries that are exploited
by big corporations to the worst extend. Child Labour, War funding (both
sides), absolutely insane working conditions - no regard for human life
whatsoever.

Also by a lack of seeing a limitation in ressources and factors like ecology
that have been ignored, capitalism, or our system, how it operates today,
will have a bad outcome for everybody involved - at least in the longrun.
(Not only the natural ressources, destruction of oceans and forests, but also
the flawed monetary/financial system will lead to this, in my opinion).

This approach has, like so many others before, failed due to greed and thirst
for power. The longer we lie to ourselves and pretend everything is well, the
worse it will come down on us in the end.

Originally Posted by Invader

lololololol

Haha, when I read that quote I thought what the hell has gotten into him. But unfortunately it was not true

If you are an American with all of that and a cell phone, X Box, stereo, bag of McDonalds food, and car, you are not really poor. Capitalism works.

Sure, if we focus on the richest capitalist economy in the world and ignore its huge debts and also ignore all the poor capitalist countries too.

If I see the words "America" and "free market" together in the same sentence in this thread, I might have to do an internet face-smack. Please do not let that happen.

America had its rough start with capitalism, but I think today we've achieved a fairly efficient balance of property rights and social welfare, both of which are essential to a healthy and productive society. Some work is needed here and there, though.

Imagine the conversations between the three people with internet access. Lololol.

I'm also going to go ahead and assume they're all male for tradition's sake.

A lot of you think that people can only reach economic success at the expense of others. That is not true. As illustrated by American success and the level of properity our "poor" have and the fatness of even our homeless people, more money for some becomes more money for the system itself. That benefits the general population, majorly. I know business execs are pigs, but those pigs make the system happen, and we all benefit from it. How many of those backward ass countries represented by the 100 people are capitalistic? Exactly. The United States and Japan (etc.) don't have those problems.

If pig execs set up shop in a third world country and pay pathetic wages, it is because the third world country is so backward ass that the pig execs can get away with it. That does not mean it is forced labor. It is a slightly better alternative, and that is why it attracts workers. It therefore does not add to the problem. It just does not take away from the problem like it could if the execs were not pigs.

The extra use of resources proves the economic stimulation principle of capitalism. I don't think poverty is a better alternative just because it involves the use of fewer resources. World poverty is a real problem, and it is worth using up resources while searching for new ones to create prosperity for nations.

The United States leads the world in the giving of foreign aid. We could not do that if we were not capitalistic. It is our capitalism that gives us to help the poor nations. Did you know that we donate more than half of the world hunger relief food. Think about that. How many countries are in the world? We are just one of them. More than half of the hunger relief food! We are not creators of poverty. We are the best thing that ever happened to the fight against poverty. Japan is in second place in foreign aid giving. That is because we rewrote their constitution in 1947 and made them like we are. I wish the third world countries would adopt our system and help themselves all the way out of severe poverty. We also stimulate world business more than any other nation.

Originally Posted by Xei

all the poor capitalist countries too.

Such as?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

If I see the words "America" and "free market" together in the same sentence in this thread, I might have to do an internet face-smack. Please do not let that happen.

Oh my, look at what we have here.



Thanks for your defense of free enterprise after six posts dogged it, Mr. Free Market = God. Nice work.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Oh my, look at what we have here.



Thanks for your defense of free enterprise after six posts dogged it, Mr. Free Market = God. Nice work.

The words "free market" didn't show up. They only said capitalism. And if they're applying capitalism to America, they're speaking of "state capitalism".

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The words "free market" didn't show up. They only said capitalism. And if they're applying capitalism to America, they're speaking of "state capitalism".

Yeah, I mean, what does capitalism have to do with free markets?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yeah, I mean, what does capitalism have to do with free markets?

Everything, unless you live in a state-capitalist society.

state capitalism
an economic system in which private capitalism is modified by a varying degree of government ownership and control

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Everything, unless you live in a state-capitalist society.

It's still capitalism, but I agree it should be less state oriented. A lot less.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It's still capitalism, but I agree it should be less state oriented. A lot less.

I never said it wasn't, but I'm glad we've come to an understanding.

Anyway, maybe we can both internet-smack people who say America is free-market. Teamwork!

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Anyway, maybe we can both internet-smack people who say America is free-market. Teamwork!

I guess it's all relative. We have a relatively free market, which is why we are relatively wealthy. At the same time, it is painful to think about how much better off we could be while the Obammunists push us in the very wrong direction.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I guess it's all relative. We have a relatively free market, which is why we are relatively wealthy. At the same time, it is painful to think about how much better off we could be while the Obammunists push us in the very wrong direction.

Indeed, it is relative. For example, some would say that a country with 99% government control of the economy, and 1% free is a "relatively free market", while others would say a 50/50 split is "relatively free". Then you get to the totally crazy, insane people like me that think anything more than 0.0000...% government control of the economy is not a free market at all.

This is a bit off-topic, but you have to remember a lot of wealth comes from government-promoted patents and other forms of intellectual property rights. Sometimes it works out great in the end, like in the case of Bill Gates, but the means were anti-free market. I'm not going to argue this further, it's just something to think about.

Such as?

Uh well there's quite a few. Zimbabwe?

Originally Posted by Xei

Uh well there's quite a few. Zimbabwe?

State-capitalist. Even worse than that, possibly.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Indeed, it is relative. For example, some would say that a country with 99% government control of the economy, and 1% free is a "relatively free market", while others would say a 50/50 split is "relatively free". Then you get to the totally crazy, insane people like me that think anything more than 0.0000...% government control of the economy is not a free market at all.

This is a bit off-topic, but you have to remember a lot of wealth comes from government-promoted patents and other forms of intellectual property rights. Sometimes it works out great in the end, like in the case of Bill Gates, but the means were anti-free market. I'm not going to argue this further, it's just something to think about.

But an absolutely free market cannot perpetuate itself, and certainly does not promote prosperity. If monopolies don't emerge and establish de facto feudalism, then the whole economy/society splinters into civil war. Only government "of the people, by the people and for the people" allows a market economy to foster innovation without burning up under its own energy. Government exists mainly to throttle individual and factional ambitions so that we have the stability to pursue collective interests, which should be the basis of foreign policy as well as domestic. If your leadership is intent only on being the strongest faction rather than collaborating with everyone who is willing toward shared, human goals, then they're doing it wrong.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

But an absolutely free market cannot perpetuate itself, and certainly does not promote prosperity. If monopolies don't emerge and establish de facto feudalism, then the whole economy/society splinters into civil war.

Where you got that idea, I don't know. Monopolies are what cause a lack of prosperity in the first place. Monopolies created by (or helped along-by) the government. Monopolies would not exist in a free market. I don't even know what you're talking about when it comes to the "civil war" part.

Only government "of the people, by the people and for the people" allows a market economy to foster innovation without burning up under its own energy. Government exists mainly to throttle individual and factional ambitions so that we have the stability to pursue collective interests, which should be the basis of foreign policy as well as domestic.

Government stifle innovation with intellectual property laws and regulations, and keep failing businesses afloat with bailouts, which use up resources that could be given to people or businesses who know how to use then efficiently.

If your leadership is intent only on being the strongest faction rather than collaborating with everyone who is willing toward shared, human goals, then they're doing it wrong.

Um...What? Is that not what the government is? Focused on being the "strongest faction"? I am utterly confused as to what you're getting at.