Outsourcing Helps the Poor (1 Viewer)

[SFLRN]

Firstly, that's not true. I used to shop at Wal-Mart. The prices for clothing aren't THAT much better. Maybe 5-10 dollars cheaper than in other places but the quality was ****. My clothes would rip and stain easily and I ended up throwing outmost of my Wal-Mart clothes in a couple of months. Also a kid who wears wal-mart cheap brands willbe laughed at in school because of how materialist-consumerist kids become at a young age here.

Secondly, I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over again and you ignore and ignore me again. I provided you with a source which proves that Wal-Mart costs more to taxpayers in subsidies than it saves people money. Also that Wal-Mart decreases annual income in it's area of operation by about 5% per person. Yet you continue to claim I use "emotional appeals" and don't have any "facts". Here are your facts

Third, it is prescisly because I care for the workers why I hate companies like Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart brutally exploits their workers in gulag conditions for slave wages. Until they improve there conditions and pay there workers a living wage I will be Anti-Wal-Mart. It is preposterous for you to claim that Wal-Mart is good for the poor when it is Wal-mart that contributes to putting them there with their always low wages policy.

Lastly, how would you know an ounce about me? You don't so don't make silly assumptions like "You have never opened ad economics book". I have and I have also take courses on economics. I came to the the political affiliation that I am after I considered whether or not the economics would work, and I'm convinced they can. Specialization is definately efficient. No one questions that. However the real question is at what cost? Inhumane wages and conditions? A displaced American working class? What's the solution to that? increase wages and make conditions nicer? We can't do that because then we'll have to raise prices a penny per dollar. Tell the American working class to get an education? You're forgeting that little thing called 'money'.



Source



First, I am not wrong. Second, Russia is capitalist now. Third it did becoem a superpower through military might however one cannot ignore how Russia went from a peasant nation to an industrialized nation which brought things that the peasants had never heard of before like free education, healthcare, and retirement.

lol The great thing is about this capitalist system. Someone such as yourself is given complete freedom to disagree with the basis of our government and success and still have such freedom. In communist countries there are no such freedoms.

Russia is a very limited form of capitalism. More and more they are slipping back into their old state-controlled model. Their economy is not very economically free by any measure. It ranks about 122nd overall. Now freer economics does not guarantee better economic performance if you do not have the prequisites for economic growth, infrastructure, and good geographic location. Russia is not so lucky geographically although it does have good oil reserves. As I stated earlier. The problem is the state is coming back in and threatens to dampen long-term growth.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2006/JasayRussia.html
But to statistically validate my claims. Lets use some examples. Hong Kong, has infrastructure and it has the highest overall economic freedom rating. And it also happens to have a 31,200 per capita income. China, a comparable country. Has about a 6.800 per capita income. Their economic freedom rating is 111th. Signapore has the 2nd highest economic freedom rating. And their per capita is 28,100. Nearby India's rating is around 121st, their corresponding per capita is 122. The information from that is collected from the cia world factbook and the economic freedom index. Markets can succeed and have growth without economic freedom, for a time. The markets of india and china have loosened up a bit and now they are growing rapidily. But the correlation between economic freedom and economic strength is high. Heres another bit of proof of the relationship. http://www.hku.hk/hkcer/freedom.htm#2004

Some might have said the American work class could not have possibly moved from the farms to the factory and that the new economy would split people as such. But Americans were able to make the change and will be able to see the investment in education and as basic economic theory suggests. As a market grows in size, aka more people wanting education, more providers will come to meet this rising demand as happens time and time again. Thus there will be more and coincidentally cheaper education. And sure government intervention could be useful in certain instances in bringing up the american workforce.

Now come on. You cannot use facts against wal-mart gathered from an anti-wal mart site. Then you must let me use statistics from a libertarian site. You need objective sources and you do not have them.

New England Consulting Firm- Wal-Mart saves nearly 1,300 dollars per family.
Global Insight- Wal-Mart saves 2,000 dollars per family.
Global Insight- Wal-Mart and the competition of big box retailers saves Americans nearly 300 billion dollars yearly.
Lets take your 2.5 billion and subtract it from the nearly 300 billion dollars saved. 300-2.5= 297.5. So once again it seems wal-mart has a positive net value overall.
Furthermore, your whoe anti-capitalist argument is based on the example of one company. Even with some of their worker violations the majority of companies are small businesses (less than 500 people) nearly 99 percent of all businesses and they rarely have such kinds of violations.

So what is communism has failed? If it has failed why try it again. It has worked in Hong Kong, it has a per capita of 31.000 dollars. Signapore has a 28,000 per capita. It is thus not true that it does not work elsewhere and as I have mentioned earlier capitalism is creating a 9 percent growth in China. Capitalism has succeeded overall and there is statistics to back it up. Give me statistics explaining that China had more economic growth during its communist times, which had less productivity, than its time moving into capitalism?

lol The majority of economists agree that it was World War II and the full employment that took place that helped spur the economy into rapid production.
"The onset of war in Europe and Asia put a dramatic end to a decade-long economic depression. The American economy recovered rapidly during late 1940 and 1941 from the high unemployment of the 1930s"
http://www.ohiohistory.org/etcetera/exhibits/kilroy/eveofwar/depression.html
I'll agree that government intervention can sometimes account for market failure. But in most cases such intervention is unsustainable. Such programs are now running into problems with funding. See Social Security.

Ohh yes every society would trade with each other. And there would be no classes, because its parecon. Just because. No elaboration? Well if societies trade then would not the ones that have the products that people want more (say they live in a better geographical location) be able to get better things from other people. I mean if I live in a big oil region and community D lives in Africa and alls they have is barley and everyone wants oil is it not safe to say that my community will be richer than society D because my product is in higher demand and thus my society would form a higher class?

If peopel know how to run their own economy in parecon. How is it that there are a few who cannot manage their own finances in modern day? Surely you would agree there are just some people who simply do not manage their money well?

Okay if the community decides the needs of what is built. Then how is that not already covered under capitalism. People decide what the community needs by buying certain products. Communities say hey we need food, by buying food and thus farms are built so the farmers can make profit from the people who want food. This mechanism of consumer needs are already accomodated under capitalism and as I stated earlier capitalism has proof of actually working.

Capitalism is not taking place in africa because they do not have the basics to have a true market economy. They need health , educational and other basic infrastructure before the free markets can take over as Jeffery Sachs, who has spent 20 years in developmental economics would tell you. The End of Poverty

 

[MarineCorpsCandidate]

if people are to govern themselves and themselves only. Then they must regulate the economy themselves no?

I am a supporter of outsourcing. I am also a supporter of some government intervention in the economy depending on the circumstances. Capitalism ends up destroying itself without some government intervention in the economy.

 

[Synch]

I'm afraid google video and youtube don't work on my computer. The sound goes faster than the video for some reason. Do you have a text? However from what I heard in the beginning he said that it was because of too much government regulation. He must be joking. The 1920's was one of the ost capitalistic times in our history. What does this guy propose? A pre-teddy roosevelt era capitalism where Corporations would work together to keep prices high? And there were no worker's rights? Does he propose that those unskilled workers who worked for minimum wage fend for themselves with the next to nothing money they have? I always hate people who believe in pure capitalism or anarcho-capitalism. They seem to have no idea of how people live in our own country with welfare and social programs and labor laws. Take that away and it would be a catastrophe.

Before the great depression gov't intervention began with the currency system. He didn't blame worker's rights at all or Teddy Roosevelt, but rather the IRS and the currency system. It had to do with not enough money flowing into the markets, etc. The gov't slowly allowed the amount of currency to decrease, along with some tariffs, and it was all set for a crash.


It was also the belief that only gold and silver were worth value, the bullion baloney, that led the depression to spread. The Treaty of Versailles didn't help either.

So what if it failed! Every system fails! I've said this before because it's the truth! Capitalism has failed almost everywhere except for North America and europe and continues to do so. Democracy failed in Rome and Ancient Greece! Does that mean we should scrath democracy? No it doesn't and the same applies to communism. The reason for failure of communism in Russia and it's sateillites is that the revolution was hurried. It was a minority revolution and many were against marxism. If Lenin had waited longer the party would have grown because of food shortages and the realization of how terrible life was under the Czar, but instead he saw his chance in WWI and jumped on it without full support. A people's revolution should be supported by the majority of the people.

Marxism has never succeeded. Stop using Democracy as a strawman, oh, and we're not a true Democracy, but a Democratic Republic.

Capitalism has succeede in Europe, Asia, North America, and the Middle East. Look at the UAE.


Socialism/communism has never succeeded or brought living standards close to what capitalism did.

That's bullshit propaganda. First, living standards did improve. Peasants suddenlly had tractors. Villages suddenly had stores where you buy things like clothes instead of having to make them yourself. Everyone had shelter. Everyone had much more food than before. Everyone had free and quality healthcare, and in general things that Russians had never even dreamed of now exsisted and were easily accessable. The idea that you weren't aloud to speak is bullshit propaganda. People would argue and talk about the issues surrounding them everyday amongst each other. worker's councils elected representitives who would make desicions for he community and nation as a whole. Under Stalin however, things did tighten and worker councils power was consolidated, but I'm sure if you asked anyone who lived in the USSR during the Czars and during the SU they would take the SU anyday because of how it turned a backwards impovrished nation into world super power whose people now had access to plenty.

Under the Bolsheviks live was miserable and worse than it was under the Czars. You can tell that easily because industrial production in 1921/2 was only an 8th of what it was in 1914. Lenin had to turn to capitalism with the NEP.

I never said the Czar was perfect, remote from it they were cruel dictators who were corrupted to the teeth, but we're making a capitalism vs communism debate here...

Where are your sources for this improved lifestyle?

Time and time again capitalist regimes have attempted what you advocate and time and time again they fail and don't bring anything but poverty to countries all over the middle east, Africa, Latin America, and Asia. I would like to see a source which proves that Russia's out put was 13%. And not from some neo-con website. Living standards in both Russia and China increased drastically thanks to socialism. In China for example during the period of Mao, life expectancy nearly doubled from 35 years to 65 due to widespread and quality healthcare. In fact it is only because China was socialist that maybe 100 million people didn't die. The terrible famine and droughts which were common in China would've been far more devasting if food and water and other things weren't rationed. Let's face it, although there has never been communism, those countries who strive towards it always end up increasing living standards an astonishing amount.

What the hell? 100 million? Where are your sources for that? Mao screwed China up big time and was responsible for the greatest genocide in human history. He didn't improve living standards at all. It was all Deng's credit for opening up the markets..


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

The Russian Civil War and wartime communism had a devastating effect on the country's economy. Industrial output in 1922 was 13% of that in 1914. A recovery followed under the New Economic Policy, which allowed a degree of market flexibility within the context of socialism.

What the hell are you talking about? Life under Stalin was horrific, forced labor, no freedom whatsoever, basically statism. The Bolsheviks had to turn to capitalism because everyone was starving. So did the Chinese. Ever heard of "Socialism with Chinese characteristics?" After turning to capitalism did they have some success.

Asia.

Taiwan, success. South Korea, success. Japan, major success.Hong Kong, success. Singapore, success.

Where are the capitalistic countries in Africa?

South America has one..
Chile is very recent, give it time.

No it isn't. Look at Venezula for example.

It's very dependent on its oil and through that oil dependent on countries with capitalism to trade various good for oil. It's probably the most successful socialist regime in history... There are always anomalies..

What are you alking about? Zimbabwe isn't communist. They are a free market oreintated economy. They are an example of failed capitalism.

:lol::lol::lol: What planet are you living on?

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm

It's fourth to last buddy..

Zimbabwe has suffered economic collapse and political repression under President Robert Mugabe. In the March 2005 election, Mugabe and his Zimbabwe African National Union–Patriotic Front (ZANU–PF) used intimidation and violence to win a two-thirds majority in parliament, giving ZANU–PF the votes it needs to change the constitution. Corruption is endemic. Many people have fled, and many who remain are engaged in subsistence agriculture. Zimbabwe, once the breadbasket of Africa, cannot feed its own population and requires food assistance. Heavy regulation, price controls, expropriation of land and businesses, government spending equal to a quarter of GDP, inflationary monetary policy, and government-sanctioned violence have discouraged foreign investment and hindered economic production. Unemployment is estimated to be 80 percent, and most economic activity has been forced into the informal sector. Following the 2005 parliamentary elections, Mugabe sanctioned a crackdown on supporters of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change through arrests in urban areas, closure of informal markets, seizure of goods market stalls, and evictions that have left at least 300,000 people homeless. The campaign is especially pernicious given that disastrous economic policies have forced most of the population to rely on the informal sector for food and livelihood.

So what? There's a video of Rumseld shaking hands with and hugging Saddam Huissein. What's the point of that picture?

That was in what? 1980? Before he committed genocide on his own people. Also Rumsfield not the elected president of a country. I'm not fond of him anways, he should be fired.

Mugabe and Chavez were together in 2005...

 

[SFLRN]

Lefty Henry
If no one volunteered then they'd pick people to take shifts and work one month a year or whatever on the farm for the community. [/QUOTE]

SFLRN
So say the community votes that they want more prostitutes. Should we just force people to take up shifts as prostitutes because the community voted for it? Say you and a bunch of other people, but all people spread out in different communities, want a nice sports car. The people in your community want a nice truck. Now in capitalism there could be a business that would sell that sports car across communities. But what if the community votes to build the trucks instead of cars? It seems you have no choice but to agree with them. Your needs are not getting met and they're still using your work to build their big trucks.

Lefty Henry
Africa is impoversished because Capitalism IS taking place in Africa.



:roll: "how is that the US poor are so much better off then that boulder in over there's GDP?"

I mean C'mon. We've been over this thousands of times. The US is the wealthiest country in thSe world. It has accomplished that by exploited the poor in resource-rich places like Africa.[/QUOTE]

SFLRN
lol Because the U.S. had how many African Countries? How did the U.S. exploit africa? What Factories are in Africa? None. There is no exploitation there is starvation. Sierre Lione is an example of exploitation and in this case we do need John Locke's inalienable rights. But in the majority of Africa there are no fundamentals needed for a capitalist economy.


Lefty Henry
I've lived briefly in Mexico and Costa Rica and from what I've seen, heard, and read while I was there and while I wasn't, Latin America is one of the most impoverished regions of the world and it is almost completely capitalist aside from the wealthiest country in the region which is socialist. Capitalism has sotomized the people there. People live in shacks and eat bugs and the government has never and will never help, however in Cuba the government provides housing, healthcare, food, and jobs for it's people to survive and actually gives a damn what happens to it's people. That's why Cuban standards of living are better than in other Latin American countries despite the embargo. [/QUOTE]

SFLRN
I've already pointed out that nearby Jamacia has a higher per capita than Cuba despite the great government of Cuba.


Lefty Henry
Bolivia now has a pro-Chavez government and now is one of the largest natural gas producers in Latin America thanks to a Chavez funded project. The project will bring money to Bolivia and it's impoverished people like never before.[/QUOTE]


SFLRN
Yes, and they will of course use capitalist trading mechanisms to sell such oil correct?



Lefty Henry
9% growth rate simply means that there are more people who are now wealthier. Big whoop. What I'm saying is that the standards of living for the average Chinese person haven't changed since Mao's great leap forward.
Read this article

Great Leap Forward Article[/QUOTE]

SFLRN
The link may need to be reposted I could not get it to work
\Yes it (The wealth) has not completely spread and there will need to be more infrastructure to bring the growth to west china. But coastal regions have seen growth for everyone, not just a select few. And if more people are wealthier, does that not mean there were at least a few who were poorer before under communism

 

[128shot]

I am a supporter of outsourcing. I am also a supporter of some government intervention in the economy depending on the circumstances. Capitalism ends up destroying itself without some government intervention in the economy.

Such as? If government is to exist at all, should it only exist to re-inforce laws to support capitalism? Such as private property laws and laws regarding equality to all living beings? These are all essential to capitalism.

 

[MarineCorpsCandidate]

Such as? If government is to exist at all, should it only exist to re-inforce laws to support capitalism? Such as private property laws and laws regarding equality to all living beings? These are all essential to capitalism.

Capitalism is competition. Capitalism is new innovative ideas. When you have a company that becomes so powerful that it destroys competition and the introduction of new innovative ideas into the economy, then it is justified for government intervention against such company. This has happenned justifiably (government intervention against certain companies practicing a monopoly and keeping new ideas out of the economy) on several occasions in our nation's history.

 

[128shot]

Capitalism is competition. Capitalism is new innovative ideas. When you have a company that becomes so powerful that it destroys competition and the introduction of new innovative ideas into the economy, then it is justified for government intervention against such company. This has happenned justifiably (government intervention against certain companies practicing a monopoly and keeping new ideas out of the economy) on several occasions in our nation's history.

I have never found one instance where the monopoly, so called, was not support by the government, local state or federal.

 

[LeftyHenry]

@Synch and SRLFN

I don't have time tonight to respond to your posts and I'm not sure about tommorow but I'll try to respond ASAP.

 

[SFLRN]

Just for clarification. I mentioned an economist who came from a poor home setting. In fact he was beaten as a child and at age 12 had to basically fend for himself. He was also a full fledged gangster by his teens Ronald J. Fryer. Despite all this, he did not become a big time communist. In fact he became a Harvard economist at age 25.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Marxism has never succeeded. Stop using Democracy as a strawman, oh, and we're not a true Democracy, but a Democratic Republic.

A strawman? Please you're pathetic. I have no idea why I'm wasting my time replying to stupid generic arguements. I'll say it again. Democracy failed at first but changes were made and it became the best political system to date. The same is true with communism. It has failed but big deal. We now have made changes and have learned from the mistakes of the past.

Capitalism has succeede in Europe, Asia, North America, and the Middle East. Look at the UAE.

Look at Iran, Lebanon, and other capitalist dictatorships. Look at all the turmoil capitalism has brought to the middle east in recent years. It is mostly capitalist and is not a success because when people think about they think "jeez... that place is crazy".

Socialism/communism has never succeeded or brought living standards close to what capitalism did.

Yes it has considering the places it's appeared. In third world communist countries like the USSR, living standards are much better than in third world capitalist countries all over Africa and Latin America.

Under the Bolsheviks live was miserable and worse than it was under the Czars. You can tell that easily because industrial production in 1921/2 was only an 8th of what it was in 1914. Lenin had to turn to capitalism with the NEP.

The NEP was partially capitalist. It was castro capitalism. And you just proved your ignorance. Russia was a wartorn country what do you expect? If you look at 1928 it was back to it's original output and was getting better.

Where are your sources for this improved lifestyle?

Here's a source on improved living standards in Cuba as I don't have a Russian one on hand and I'm short on time but it's the same thing pretty much.

Link

Here's another in case you're picky.

Link

Look on the side bar at the Stats&comparisons section.

What the hell? 100 million? Where are your sources for that? Mao screwed China up big time and was responsible for the greatest genocide in human history. He didn't improve living standards at all. It was all Deng's credit for opening up the markets..


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

What the hell are you talking about? Life under Stalin was horrific, forced labor, no freedom whatsoever, basically statism. The Bolsheviks had to turn to capitalism because everyone was starving. So did the Chinese. Ever heard of "Socialism with Chinese characteristics?" After turning to capitalism did they have some success.

What the hell are YOU talking about? You obviously have never studied Russia or China. If you had you would know a bit about things. Russia under lenin was torn by WWI, the revolution, a civil war and class war. A already extremely backwards country, all that war was devastating. However by 1928 output was back to normal and kept rising. Life under Stalin was limited but it was a long shot better than under a czar. Stalin paved the roads, brought electricity to the cities and countrysides, jump started all industries and simply took a country that was living in 1800 and brought it to the 1930's. The cost was terrible, but without it Russia would have fallen to th Nazis in a second and WWII would have been very, very different. Marxists often debate what things would've been like if Trotsky had been eleced by the worker's councils rather than Stalin. I think that the USSR would have been alot more free and democratic, but who knows if it would be able to withstand what the future would throw at it.

China is a whole different scenario which I may discuss later when I have more time.

Taiwan, success. South Korea, success. Japan, major success.Hong Kong, success. Singapore, success.

India, gulag. Pakistan, Gulag. Taiwan, gulag. Indonesia, gulag. etc...

Where are the capitalistic countries in Africa?

:shock: Umm Pretty much every country is capitalist or mixed economy.

South America has one..
Chile is very recent, give it time.

umm... what about Pinochet? He was a good example of a free market purist like yourself and he ran Chile from 1972 till the early 90's so capitalism in Chile is not new to capitalism and in fact knows it's harsh reality to the people very well. BTW, The guy who preceded Pinochet, was a marxist and was democratically elected.

It's very dependent on its oil and through that oil dependent on countries with capitalism to trade various good for oil. It's probably the most successful socialist regime in history... There are always anomalies..

Firstly it's not a regime. Chavez was democratically elected by the people unlike our own president. Second, trade isn't capitalist. Trade is necessary in every system.

:lol::lol::lol: What planet are you living on?

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm

It's fourth to last buddy..

A country whose economy is controlled by the state doesn't make it communist. In communism the fields are owned by the peasants and farmers and the factories are owned by the workers. No where has Mubabae or whatever even claimed to be a communist. wiki it. It's a Market Orientated economy. It's basically a mixed economy but a far, far cry from communism or anything resemballing it. Even if it was compare it to other capitalist countries in Africa like the say DR of Congo, Ethiopia, and Kenya and you'll see the same type of ****. Poverty, poverty, and starvation.

[/QUOTE]
That was in what? 1980? Before he committed genocide on his own people. Also Rumsfield not the elected president of a country. I'm not fond of him anways, he should be fired.

Mugabe and Chavez were together in 2005...[/QUOTE]

Wow who gives a damn! He was just talking to that guy Mugabe at some random summit. That is perhaps the shittiest arguement ever! If it even is a arguement. Besides, Saddam was a dictator who imprisoned his people and tortured them for disagreeing with him during that time period. It's a ****ing random photo with no purpose.

 

[SFLRN]

A strawman? Please you're pathetic. I have no idea why I'm wasting my time replying to stupid generic arguements. I'll say it again. Democracy failed at first but changes were made and it became the best political system to date. The same is true with communism. It has failed but big deal. We now have made changes and have learned from the mistakes of the past.

Yeah we learned that capitalism beats it in nearly every statistical measure possible. Why fix capitalism if it isn't broke? It simply needs good regulation from time to time. It takes a few essentials for growth but why not promote that instead of an untested thing such as Parecon. Yet again. What if there is a significant majority who want something in a society but the majority votes that they cannot have such goods. In capitalism it would be that both of the needs could be met by different businesses. In parecon it would make the minority submitted to the consumer wants of the majority. Also how would countries engage in trade without capitalist means wherein one specializes in one thing over another. And if one country only has barley and the other has gold in parecon it seems quite obvious the gold one would become richer. So it does not accomodate for such class struggle.

Look at Iran, Lebanon, and other capitalist dictatorships. Look at all the turmoil capitalism has brought to the middle east in recent years. It is mostly capitalist and is not a success because when people think about they think "jeez... that place is crazy".

Yeah those examples are pretty poor. 73rd Economic freedom for lebanon and 156th for Iran. They are not that capitalist in the ideals of basic economic freedom. They are brutal but they do not guarantee basic rights which is key to capitalism in that you need property protection. The reason for the problems in the Middle East are many. A great deal of the facist terrorist reaction is the spread of globalization. But such that they only see the bad part of this western society and not some of the better. Womens rights threatens old regimes in those countries and the west spreads that and they try to prevent this and turn it into a religious issue when their motives are largely political. The area is messed up due to ethnic strife and
a changing society. If there were a system where in majority chooses what you are able to buy and produce how would the ethnic minorities in the area react? Would that not create more strife rather than in capitalism where the individual decides?

Yes it has considering the places it's appeared. In third world communist countries like the USSR, living standards are much better than in third world capitalist countries all over Africa and Latin America.

lol come on now. Those examples do not work because one they have been out of the industrial revolution whereas russia was able to participate in it much earlier so of course they're doing worse. Furthermore Africa has an extremely hot climate and general geography gives them less natural resources to start a basic commodity based economy unlike russia which can attribute much of its growth to its huge amounts of natural gas and petroleum.

The NEP was partially capitalist. It was castro capitalism. And you just proved your ignorance. Russia was a wartorn country what do you expect? If you look at 1928 it was back to it's original output and was getting better.

Here's a source on improved living standards in Cuba as I don't have a Russian one on hand and I'm short on time but it's the same thing pretty much.

Link

Here's another in case you're picky.

Link

Look on the side bar at the Stats&comparisons section.

You can't use sources that are so blatanly biased. Provide credible sources.

What the hell? 100 million? Where are your sources for that? Mao screwed China up big time and was responsible for the greatest genocide in human history. He didn't improve living standards at all. It was all Deng's credit for opening up the markets..


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




What the hell are YOU talking about? You obviously have never studied Russia or China. If you had you would know a bit about things. Russia under lenin was torn by WWI, the revolution, a civil war and class war. A already extremely backwards country, all that war was devastating. However by 1928 output was back to normal and kept rising. Life under Stalin was limited but it was a long shot better than under a czar. Stalin paved the roads, brought electricity to the cities and countrysides, jump started all industries and simply took a country that was living in 1800 and brought it to the 1930's. The cost was terrible, but without it Russia would have fallen to th Nazis in a second and WWII would have been very, very different. Marxists often debate what things would've been like if Trotsky had been eleced by the worker's councils rather than Stalin. I think that the USSR would have been alot more free and democratic, but who knows if it would be able to withstand what the future would throw at it.

Like government corruption with all the economic decisions being placed in one location? Politicians assigning business leaders generally does not work. It did not work in russia. And I must ask. Were the 8 million people who were murdered by Stalin better off on this plan? I agree the state should give infrastructure. But it seems here we have a state too powerful

China is a whole different scenario which I may discuss later when I have more time.

A scenario that has had bigger gains in living standards than any communist country.

India, gulag. Pakistan, Gulag. Taiwan, gulag. Indonesia, gulag. etc...




:shock: Umm Pretty much every country is capitalist or mixed economy.



umm... what about Pinochet? He was a good example of a free market purist like yourself and he ran Chile from 1972 till the early 90's so capitalism in Chile is not new to capitalism and in fact knows it's harsh reality to the people very well. BTW, The guy who preceded Pinochet, was a marxist and was democratically elected.

He was a free market totalitarian. He is different than the libertarian which argue for free markets and free people. He disregarded natural rights and yes is an example of bad dictatorship. Capitalism did not cause him to be a murderer

Firstly it's not a regime. Chavez was democratically elected by the people unlike our own president. Second, trade isn't capitalist. Trade is necessary in every system.

lol . Our president was democratically elected. Not so much in his first go around. Trade is necessary in every system. And capitalist makes it free for the people to decide unlike other systems. Thus more free.

A country whose economy is controlled by the state doesn't make it communist. In communism the fields are owned by the peasants and farmers and the factories are owned by the workers. No where has Mubabae or whatever even claimed to be a communist. wiki it. It's a Market Orientated economy. It's basically a mixed economy but a far, far cry from communism or anything resemballing it. Even if it was compare it to other capitalist countries in Africa like the say DR of Congo, Ethiopia, and Kenya and you'll see the same type of ****. Poverty, poverty, and starvation.

Okay lefty. I've already told you average income has increased by 4 in africa. Its like 32 in the rich countries with the spread of capitalism. They do not have the basic infrastructure and they have geographic handicaps of course they will not do as well as the temperate U.S. Whos says we do not give them the tools to participate in a market economy so they can help themselves?

That was in what? 1980? Before he committed genocide on his own people. Also Rumsfield not the elected president of a country. I'm not fond of him anways, he should be fired.

Mugabe and Chavez were together in 2005...[/QUOTE]

Wow who gives a damn! He was just talking to that guy Mugabe at some random summit. That is perhaps the shittiest arguement ever! If it even is a arguement. Besides, Saddam was a dictator who imprisoned his people and tortured them for disagreeing with him during that time period. It's a ****ing random photo with no purpose.[/QUOTE]

 

[LeftyHenry]

Okay this is gonna be really quick and I'm really tired so I'll skip some stuff.

Yeah we learned that capitalism beats it in nearly every statistical measure possible. Why fix capitalism if it isn't broke?

It is. Just not in your comfy suburban home. Out in the gulags and ghettos of America it is. And your wrong. We can at least say that communism brings massive social justice in the sense that healthcare, education, shelter, and other necessities are available to all.

Yeah those examples are pretty poor. 73rd Economic freedom for lebanon and 156th for Iran. They are not that capitalist in the ideals of basic economic freedom. They are brutal but they do not guarantee basic rights which is key to capitalism in that you need property protection. The reason for the problems in the Middle East are many. A great deal of the facist terrorist reaction is the spread of globalization. But such that they only see the bad part of this western society and not some of the better. Womens rights threatens old regimes in those countries and the west spreads that and they try to prevent this and turn it into a religious issue when their motives are largely political. The area is messed up due to ethnic strife and
a changing society. If there were a system where in majority chooses what you are able to buy and produce how would the ethnic minorities in the area react? Would that not create more strife rather than in capitalism where the individual decides?

I'll agree they're peverted capitalism and fascism but they still count as there is really no other way to explain there economy. Fascism is not an economical ideology and mixed economies count as capitalism otherwise we wouldn't be world reknowned as capitalist.

You can't use sources that are so blatanly biased. Provide credible sources.

Synch used The American Heritage site so I can use what ever I want. It doesn't change the facts. Most of the stuff can be traced.

Like government corruption with all the economic decisions being placed in one location? Politicians assigning business leaders generally does not work.

Politicians did not assign business leaders. At least they didn't under Lenin. Bolshevik-Leninist Russia is the only time when the USSR was really socialist. Stalin hijacked the USSR like Pinochet did Chile.

It did not work in russia. And I must ask. Were the 8 million people who were murdered by Stalin better off on this plan? I agree the state should give infrastructure. But it seems here we have a state too powerful

We did. I'm not a Stalinist and I don't agree with anything Stalin did mainly because of the consequences. That said, I do think there are some good things Stalin did for Russia. The main one was building a infastructure that took other nations 100 years in 10. Of course the bad out wayed the good. I think history would be so different if Trotsky had been elected to power instead of Stalin, or if Stalin never exsisted. The USSR would be democratic, but it might be under control of Nazis to this day.

A scenario that has had bigger gains in living standards than any communist country.

That is true. Mao did increase living standards a staggering amount for the time he was in power. Once again, communism country is a oxymoron.

He was a free market totalitarian. He is different than the libertarian which argue for free markets and free people. He disregarded natural rights and yes is an example of bad dictatorship. Capitalism did not cause him to be a murderer

A good pal Mr. Pinochet was of the US of A. He was a true free market purist. Pinochet capitalism was the capitalism Synch seems to look for when he says Zimbabwe is not capitalist. It is capitalist. Look at wikipedia.

lol . Our president was democratically elected. Not so much in his first go around. Trade is necessary in every system. And capitalist makes it free for the people to decide unlike other systems. Thus more free.

Freer to trade, in what way?

Okay lefty. I've already told you average income has increased by 4 in africa. Its like 32 in the rich countries with the spread of capitalism. They do not have the basic infrastructure and they have geographic handicaps of course they will not do as well as the temperate U.S. Whos says we do not give them the tools to participate in a market economy so they can help themselves?

Are you kidding? Africa is one of the most resource rich places in the world! Diamonds, gold, silver a bit of oil I think. It has the capacity to feed it's people. Unfortunately capitalism has made it a free-for-all where human rights are blatantly disregarded. At least when some of these countries had more socialized systems things were rationed among everyone so that everyone got some and half the population wouldn't starve when there was enough food to go around.

 

[SFLRN]

Okay this is gonna be really quick and I'm really tired so I'll skip some stuff.



It is. Just not in your comfy suburban home. Out in the gulags and ghettos of America it is. And your wrong. We can at least say that communism brings massive social justice in the sense that healthcare, education, shelter, and other necessities are available to all.

Not long term. We have a fine education system in our nation, but it does need improvement. Health care does need reform but how can you correlate that to communism statistically. I must ask, how many people in American are starving? Yes there are instances when the gov can come in and help but furthermore, if it is so bad in these ghettoes of America compared to communist countries explain how the per capita of Russia, 11,000 would be about 8,000 dollars below the poverty line in America and yet that is there current average. They have a more controlled economy as you advocate and in no way does it show them to be better off. 1,700 per capita for North Korea compared to a 20,400 for South Korea. It does seem somewhat obvious that perhaps being better off economically would correlate to good economic policy. Especially when you're 10 times better than your neighbor's average.

I'll agree they're peverted capitalism and fascism but they still count as there is really no other way to explain there economy. Fascism is not an economical ideology and mixed economies count as capitalism otherwise we wouldn't be world reknowned as capitalist.

But they are not the shining example of capitalism as Signapore, Hong Kong, The United Kingdom, and The U.S. They have too much rights interference and state control of things that it causes such downturn.

Synch used The American Heritage site so I can use what ever I want. It doesn't change the facts. Most of the stuff can be traced.

American Heritage simply provided an economic freedom index. Not any claims on what we should do for the statistics. Fraiser Institute provide similar measures.

Politicians did not assign business leaders. At least they didn't under Lenin. Bolshevik-Leninist Russia is the only time when the USSR was really socialist. Stalin hijacked the USSR like Pinochet did Chile.

They're both bad but now Putin is putting people into business who see it as a duty to the fatherland and not a business thus leading to inefficiency. (econlib.org)

We did. I'm not a Stalinist and I don't agree with anything Stalin did mainly because of the consequences. That said, I do think there are some good things Stalin did for Russia. The main one was building a infastructure that took other nations 100 years in 10. Of course the bad out wayed the good. I think history would be so different if Trotsky had been elected to power instead of Stalin, or if Stalin never exsisted. The USSR would be democratic, but it might be under control of Nazis to this day.

Yes and I think that a capitalist mixed economy can also play the role of providing basic infrastructure as well. The other leaders were depots in Russia and that will stump capitalism if they have too much power, which the royal family did.

That is true. Mao did increase living standards a staggering amount for the time he was in power. Once again, communism country is a oxymoron.

A good pal Mr. Pinochet was of the US of A. He was a true free market purist. Pinochet capitalism was the capitalism Synch seems to look for when he says Zimbabwe is not capitalist. It is capitalist. Look at wikipedia.

hmm? It is and it isnt? Mr. Pinochet violated the rights of people's lives and thus broke John Locke's inalienable rights which libertarians support. He was a pure market person but not a pure freedom. He is one example of a bad leader, capitalism is better economically, it cannot always prevent bad leaders from entering office however.

Freer to trade, in what way?

In that people choose where they shop. Where they trade their labor inputs and where they take the outputs of such labor, income, to spend at stores. This is how people also vote on which goods are made by businesses. If businesses make something the people do not want produced they won't buy it and the business will then go after such products that the people do want to buy. Consumer sovereignty is the sum of it.

Are you kidding? Africa is one of the most resource rich places in the world! Diamonds, gold, silver a bit of oil I think. It has the capacity to feed it's people. Unfortunately capitalism has made it a free-for-all where human rights are blatantly disregarded. At least when some of these countries had more socialized systems things were rationed among everyone so that everyone got some and half the population wouldn't starve when there was enough food to go around.

It does not have the capacity to feed its people when it does not have basic running water and roads. It cannot provide for its people when it does not have basic infrastructure for disease control and education. These are all needed for them to participate in a market economy. (Jeffery Sachs). Africa does not have the resources to feed its people because they have so little access to farming technology and the situation is exasperated by droughts. They have diamonds in South Africa and silver, and other things spread out but even if they did have enough to sustain a commodity market under normal conditions. They do not have such conditions because they do not have the basic infrastructure.

 

[gynks2001]

I disagree. Outsourcing is a big mistake. continous outsourcing will raise America's unemployment rate. Outsourcing is also usually extremely inhumane. corporations outsource their jobs in order to cut costs by paying their workers next to nothing in horrible conditions. For example, coca-cola highered right-wing paramilitaries to scare workers from unionizing. Wal-Mart locks their workers in so that they can't leave and forces them to work overtime in indonesia. The conditions in factories in India and Taiwan and China that have been outsourced from America are shocking. People work like slaves in gulags there.

Minimum wage has to be increased whether we like it or not. With the rise in the cost of living and the rise in the price of oil, working class families are already strugling. I understand your view on the ripple effect but I'm pretty sure most companies would be able to absorb paying their workers more. For example, if Wal-mart raised their prices by a half penny per dollar, they could afford to pay each employee $1,800 dollars more.

wrong on almost every count. Outsourcing is an inevitable technique in a worldwide economy. As technology increases, times change, if the US didnt outsource, other countries would and as a result, the US would fall behind in the economy...
Ive read some of Tom Friedman's "The World Is Flat" and he talks about how India and other countries are quickly catching up to the US because of outsourcing... meaning that A) it helps the world economy. B) Companies that outsource employ more people at a cheaper price, making production faster and more efficient, which will eventually drive down the prices of the product and help the economy. And C) Outsourcing to other countries in a way is foriming an alliance between the two companies... basically, we employ their workers at what the companies think is a cheap price, but is usually more then the outsourced worker makes in the first place, and the country benefits because the increased wages means increased living, entertainment etc. demands by those workers. In order to fufill these demands, mall complexes and hotels need to be constructed and then employed....
Outsourcing helps both our economy and the world economy and is something to embrace rather then fear...
If Liberals are so worried about unemployment, then its better to seal off our Mexican border then to limit our economy.

 

[LeftyHenry]

wrong on almost every count.

an opinion

Outsourcing is an inevitable technique in a worldwide economy. As technology increases, times change, if the US didnt outsource, other countries would and as a result, the US would fall behind in the economy...

umm no? Outsourcing is merely a product of capitalism and globalization. While it looks nice for us because we can by cheap junk from wal-mart at low prices, it's a new form of slavery. Workers in these countries are often paid below the nation's minimum wage, threatened by gangs and employers, locked into their workplaces, work in dirty, disgusting, and cramped workplaces which completely disrespect any sort of labor laws.

Ive read some of Tom Friedman's "The World Is Flat" and he talks about how India and other countries are quickly catching up to the US because of outsourcing...

hmm well that makes no sense since people are no better in India than they were before outsourcing started. People are just as impoverished.

meaning that A) it helps the world economy.

You mean it helps the first world's economies.

B) Companies that outsource employ more people at a cheaper price, making production faster and more efficient.

How is this a good thing??? By pretty much treating people like slaves, we can buy toothpaste at wal-mart for 10 cents less???

If Liberals are so worried about unemployment, then its better to seal off our Mexican border then to limit our economy.

Mexicans pose no threat to the US or it's economy. They usually do only day laborer work and maid/housekeeper work which is stuff that no one else really wants. Illegal immigration is a non-issue. It's hot button issue used to distract us from the mess in Iraq, the high oil prices, and etc... which makes the Republicans look tough and patriotic.

 

[gynks2001]

Workers in these countries are often paid below the nation's minimum wage, threatened by gangs and employers, locked into their workplaces, work in dirty, disgusting, and cramped workplaces which completely disrespect any sort of labor laws.

WRONG WRONG WRONG... please show me one reliable source... i can so you multiple sources of my information....
Outsourcing has increased living conditions and wages in almost every country...

hmm well that makes no sense since people are no better in India than they were before outsourcing started. People are just as impoverished.

:roll: Not true at all...
Likewise, outsourcing can present advantages to non-Western states. "'Developing' countries, such as China or India, benefit from the patronage of companies that outsource to them - in terms of increased wages, job prestige, education and quality of life."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsourcing#Benefits_of_outsourcing

You mean it helps the first world's economies.

yes...as well as the "developing" ones.

How is this a good thing??? By pretty much treating people like slaves, we can buy toothpaste at wal-mart for 10 cents less???

its a good thing because it helps the US economies...
Yes, I agree Nike etc. have a bad reputation for taking advantage of outsourced workers... BUT, conditions have increased in both China and India, the two biggest places for outsourcing.

Mexicans pose no threat to the US or it's economy. They usually do only day laborer work and maid/housekeeper work which is stuff that no one else really wants. Illegal immigration is a non-issue. It's hot button issue used to distract us from the mess in Iraq, the high oil prices, and etc... which makes the Republicans look tough and patriotic.

Mexicans pose more of a threat to the US economy then outsourcing does...

 

[SFLRN]

an opinion



Mexicans pose no threat to the US or it's economy. They usually do only day laborer work and maid/housekeeper work which is stuff that no one else really wants. Illegal immigration is a non-issue. It's hot button issue used to distract us from the mess in Iraq, the high oil prices, and etc... which makes the Republicans look tough and patriotic.

Come on now, how is it that Americans do not want the job gaps the immigrants fill but that we should suddenly stop outsourcing because it might displace american workers as you claimed earlier? Both of these displace workers in the short term. In the long term businesses are more efficient, they are more profitable and they are able to essentially expand giving people more jobs in the long term. When we restrict outsourcing it will restrict growth the same way restricing immigration does. If no one wants the low skill work that is filled by low skill immigrants who says anyone in the U.S. economy doesnt want those jobs but suddenly wants the jobs in a Nike Factory? The per capitas of these countries have skyrocketed. Sure, rights violations need to be addressed. But the overwhelming majority choose factory work because it may be just as back breaking as the farm work, but it pays better. People would not choose to work in a factory if it was worse.

 

[LeftyHenry]

WRONG WRONG WRONG... please show me one reliable source... i can so you multiple sources of my information....
Outsourcing has increased living conditions and wages in almost every country...

Isn't it fairly obvious? You even claim in your post that Nike exploits its workers. Outsourcing has exploited workers and set up a US dependence on pseudo-slavery.

Link Here
Link Here
Link Here

I could go on...

:roll: Not true at all...
Likewise, outsourcing can present advantages to non-Western states. "'Developing' countries, such as China or India, benefit from the patronage of companies that outsource to them - in terms of increased wages, job prestige, education and quality of life."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsourcing#Benefits_of_outsourcing

Yeah and then scroll down a bit and you'll see all consequences of outsourcing.

yes...as well as the "developing" ones.

That is an illusion. Perhaps it does generate new wealth for the elite few, however for the vast majority, things are just as bad if not worse.

For example, Mao Ze Dong has the legacy of misplanning the Chinese economy and having terrible weather which resulted in distaster, however Maoist China did bring many benifits healthcare wise and education wise and shelter wise and many other things to workers who before had not even dreamed of. That is why in China many still look favorably upon Mao.

Once Deng took power and launched a campaign to open up the markets and eventually restore capitalism, Worker's rights decreased as their healthcare and other social services were stripped from them. In capitalist China now, workers are far worse off than they were under Mao.

its a good thing because it helps the US economies...
Yes, I agree Nike etc. have a bad reputation for taking advantage of outsourced workers... BUT, conditions have increased in both China and India, the two biggest places for outsourcing.

No they haven't. How could they? We depend on the oppression/low wages of Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, and Taiwanese Sweatshop workers for cheap goods. We are dependent on neo-slavery.

Mexicans pose more of a threat to the US economy then outsourcing does...

You can say that, but it's just nationalistic masturbation. Mexican immigrants pose the same threat as other immigrants. Even less. They tend to take jobs that really are not going to be taken by anyone else.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Come on now, how is it that Americans do not want the job gaps the immigrants fill but that we should suddenly stop outsourcing because it might displace american workers as you claimed earlier?

It's not necessarilly just about displacing American workers. It's more about the fact that I'm an abolitionist :doh

businesses are more efficient, they are more profitable and they are able to essentially expand giving people more jobs.....

...That pay low wages in poor conditions....

When we restrict outsourcing it will restrict growth the same way restricing immigration does. If no one wants the low skill work that is filled by low skill immigrants who says anyone in the U.S. economy doesnt want those jobs but suddenly wants the jobs in a Nike Factory?

illegal immigration doesn't displace workers because the employer will first employ someone who speaks english or whatever rather than someone who doesn't. There is a working class people in the US who want those jobs but Mexicans usually are not hired by large companies like that.

The per capitas of these countries have skyrocketed. Sure, rights violations need to be addressed.

ya the per capita of the new elite class of factory managers, and executives, but for the working class things are horrid. The rights violations cannot be addressed as they are a byproduct of capitalism and the idea of maximizing profit. The only possible solution is higher prices. Until that, we will continue to be dependent on this neo-slavery and most likely, this issue will continue to be ignored.

But the overwhelming majority choose factory work because it may be just as back breaking as the farm work, but it pays better. People would not choose to work in a factory if it was worse.

They have no choice. Not everyone can farm or owns a piece of land. Those who work in the sweatshops are often urbanites.

 

[taxedout]

We can at least say that communism brings massive social justice in the sense that healthcare, education, shelter, and other necessities are available to all.

And you can live happily in your somewhat heated 2 bedroom government flat, enjoying a half rotten potato, and wiping your *** with the one roll of TP per family that you have waited in line for.

 

[gynks2001]

That is an illusion. Perhaps it does generate new wealth for the elite few, however for the vast majority, things are just as bad if not worse.

untrue...
"For much of the population, living standards have improved dramatically and the room for personal choice has expanded, yet political controls remain tight."
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html
and about india, have a look at this article...
http://globalization.about.com/gi/d.../www.ciol.com/content/news/2003/103120911.asp

Once Deng took power and launched a campaign to open up the markets and eventually restore capitalism, Worker's rights decreased as their healthcare and other social services were stripped from them. In capitalist China now, workers are far worse off than they were under Mao.

:lol: :lol: im sorry, cant help but laugh at this. Mao was infamous and unsuccesful in China for his unsuccesful campaign...The Great Leap Forward. Most historians actually consider it the "great leap BACKWARDS"

 

[Keynes]

The OP makes a strange claim,because according to the economic policy institute and several other sources taken mainly from the census bureau the wages of the poor has dropped slightly in the last 25 years.

 

[LeftyHenry]

untrue...
"For much of the population, living standards have improved dramatically and the room for personal choice has expanded, yet political controls remain tight."
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html
and about india, have a look at this article...
http://globalization.about.com/gi/d.../www.ciol.com/content/news/2003/103120911.asp

CIA.gov? :rofl LMFAO. mmkay what else are they supposed to say about chinese capitalism? That article is pretty much anti-communist propaganda. They completely ignore the massive improvements Mao made in worker's rights and the destruction of that in exchange for higher output by Deng.

The India article doesn't really say anything except for the fact that India now makes software.

:lol: :lol: im sorry, cant help but laugh at this. Mao was infamous and unsuccesful in China for his unsuccesful campaign...The Great Leap Forward. Most historians actually consider it the "great leap BACKWARDS"

umm actually most WESTERN historians consider it that, however that's because they base their facts mostly on cold war propaganda and Deng's Anti-Mao campaign. The GLF brought drastic forward changes for the average worker in terms of social services and living standards.

 

[LeftyHenry]

And you can live happily in your somewhat heated 2 bedroom government flat, enjoying a half rotten potato, and wiping your *** with the one roll of TP per family that you have waited in line for.

that's pretty ****ing sweet considering that if I lived in Russia or Cuba before the revolution I would slave 15 hours on my masters field and come home to a freezing cold shed-made-out-of-twigs and would eat whatever I could steal from the fields. Things like TP wouldn't exsist and clothes I wouldn't wait in line for. I'd sew them myself! Socialism in the first world would be very different than socialism in the third.

 

[gynks2001]

CIA.gov? :rofl LMFAO. mmkay what else are they supposed to say about chinese capitalism? That article is pretty much anti-communist propaganda. They completely ignore the massive improvements Mao made in worker's rights and the destruction of that in exchange for higher output by Deng.

Yes... CIA.gov... I'd say theyre a more reliable source then "wakeup walmart.com"
anyway... try this on....
http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/features/aoc/aoc.deng.html
"Deng recast China, and in many ways altered the world we live in. He did this through the simple expedient of giving the land Mao had originally confiscated from the landlord class back to the peasants. Through the contract responsibility system, farmers were free to grow any crops they wished, so long as they delivered a specified amount of staple crops to the central government. Soon money was beginning to course through the system. Two-story brick houses rose where thatched huts used to be. Some 200 million Chinese - more people than all of Indonesia - escaped destitution."

The India article doesn't really say anything except for the fact that India now makes software.

not quite all...
"Commenting about the protectionist approach by the US towards outsourcing, Blake, Jr. said, "Outsourcing offers India, job creation and investment, provides US firms with improved efficiency and profitability. This would seem to present a win-win situation."

umm actually most WESTERN historians consider it that, however that's because they base their facts mostly on cold war propaganda and Deng's Anti-Mao campaign. The GLF brought drastic forward changes for the average worker in terms of social services and living standards.

ready for the other side?...
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/great_leap_forward.htm
"The consequences of the Great Leap Forward

However, in 1959, things started to go wrong. Political decisions/beliefs took precedence over commonsense and communes faced the task of doing things which they were incapable of achieving. Party officials would order the impossible and commune leaders, who knew what their commune was capable of doing or not, could be charged with being a "bourgeois reactionary" if he complained. Such a charge would lead to prison.

Quickly produced farm machinery produced in factories fell to pieces when used. Many thousands of workers were injured after working long hours and falling asleep at their jobs. Steel produced by the backyard furnaces was frequently too weak to be of any use and could not be used in construction – it’s original purpose. Buildings constructed by this substandard steel did not last long.

Also the backyard production method had taken many workers away from their fields – so desperately needed food was not being harvested. Ironically, one of the key factors in food production in China was the weather and 1958 had particularly good weather for growing food. Party leaders claimed that the harvest for 1958 was a record 260 million tons – which was not true.

The excellent growing weather of 1958 was followed by a very poor growing year in 1959. Some parts of China were hit by floods. In other growing areas, drought was a major problem. The harvest for 1959 was 170 million tons of grain – well below what China needed at the most basic level. In parts of China, starvation occurred.

1960 had even worse weather than 1959. The harvest of 1960 was 144 million tons. 9 million people are thought to have starved to death in 1960 alone; many millions were left desperately ill as a result of a lack of food. The government had to introduce rationing. This put people on the most minimal of food and between 1959 and 1962, it is thought that 20 million people died of starvation or diseases related to starvation.

The backyard furnaces also used too much coal and China’s rail system, which depended on coal driven trains, suffered accordingly.

By 1959, it was obvious that the Great Leap Forward had been a failure and even Mao admitted this. He called on the Communist Party to take him to task over his failures but also asked his own party members to look at themselves and their performance.

"The chaos caused was on a grand scale, and I take responsibility. Comrades, you must all analyse your own responsibility. If you have to fart, fart. You will feel much better for it.'" - Mao
some more sites...
youll like this one...
http://www.marxists.de/china/harris/04-gtleap.htm
"Quality had suffered severely. In August 1959, it was officially admitted that the three million tons of iron output from “backyard furnaces” – a quarter of national production – was too poor in quality to be refined further. [42] The lack of investment in the small plants, of proper engineering design and skilled metallurgical workers could not be made up simply by cadre enthusiasm. The 1959 steel target was successively dropped from thirty to thirteen million tons. By the end of the year, the government was rationalizing all “backyard furnaces” – from 600,000 claimed at the height of the Great Leap Forward to 1,300 by April 1960."