Winston Smith
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 915
- Reaction score
- 204
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
No, it's essentially slave labor. That's about as far from capitalism as you can get.
It sure is capitalism. It does not matter where the multinational corperations make their money.
If you don't like being poor, get an education and get out of your condition by working hard.
Capitalism does not force people into poverty. It does not cause poverty. The absence of an economic system results in practically all people being in poverty. The various economic systems raise people out of poverty. So the question is how many people are in poverty and how can you minimize it?
Feudalism left most people in poverty and only nobles and merchants rose out of poverty.
Mercantilism did better.
Communism and socialism tries to spread wealth to all members of society, by dictating equality of outcome, and since there was little growth and innovation, practically all people are in poverty.
Capitalism raises all people. Our people in poverty have TVs, cars, food, apartments. They do this on minimum wage. Our poor are orders of magnitude richer than the poor in third world countries. The fact that there is a growing gap between rich and poor, means that the rich grow more than the poor, but the poor still grow. As noted above, systems which try for equality of outcome are detrimental to society as a whole. If you don't like being poor, get an education and get out of your condition by working hard.
No, it's essentially slave labor. That's about as far from capitalism as you can get.
The problem with this idea is that the market will always price some jobs cheaply, thereby forcing someone to be poor (even if we all had MIT quality educations and were highly motivated, someone has to take out the trash). While your statement works fairly well when talking to individuals, it does not work when you look at the system as a whole.
Which is why you need governemnt to temper capitalism.
But sanitation workers are paid rather well to take out the trash, aren't they?
The problem with this idea is that the market will always price some jobs cheaply, thereby forcing someone to be poor (even if we all had MIT quality educations and were highly motivated, someone has to take out the trash). While your statement works fairly well when talking to individuals, it does not work when you look at the system as a whole.
lol.. so your corperations arn't profiting from paid "slave" labor in third world countries? The absence of democracy does not matter to capitalism. Capitalism and democracy arn't the same thing.
Nor are capitalism and profiteering the same thing, as I mentioned. Yes, our corporations are essentially profiting from slave labor. That doesn't make slavery a form of capitalism.
Nor are capitalism and profiteering the same thing, as I mentioned. Yes, our corporations are essentially profiting from slave labor. That doesn't make slavery a form of capitalism.
I was thinking more about the office cleaning staff.
I disagree with the sentiment that it forces one to be poor. But there will clearly be some who are poor, looking at the system as a whole. It does not eliminate the poor. It does change the definition of what poor is. As I said, most poor have tvs, computers, cars, apartments, educational opportunities.
I would disagree with the bolded part. It doesn't necessarily mean that. In a capitalist society everyone's wealth will tend to grow, but in the messed up version we have now it's no guarantee.reefedjib said:The fact that there is a growing gap between rich and poor, means that the rich grow more than the poor, but the poor still grow.
The way I see it, you contradicted your own statement there with the acknowledgement that the system will end up making a certain percentage of the population poor.
You are kidding right? You don't see that the real wages earned by our poor has grown over the past 200 years? I wish I had the data to demonstrate it. Ok, I found a graph. The bottom 20th percentile has doubled it's income over the past 60 years.
No, my point is that the system is not making them poor.
We will have to agree to disagree.
Really? Holy ****. Please explain how Capitalism causes poverty.
I don't like that graph as it does not scale in a way that I think is honest.
I already did.
I didn't see it. Care to summarize?
No they are not but it's pretty close to slave labour.. slaves don't make money at all. Certainly the profit motive.. buy low sell high is associated with capitalism. I mean what company does not have a profit motive? Supply and demand is directly motivated by the profit motive in capitalism. The companies in China are also capitalist.
It just doesn't support your opinion, is why you don't like it, mega. Notice it is in 2007 $ so it is in real dollars and adjusted for inflation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?