Originally posted by inimalist
do I, of courseI wouldn't say "Catholicism" is the cause of it though
basically just echoing Bardock's point. I think you get what I am saying, as you pointed to specific practices, as opposed to the concept in itself, that cause the behaviour.
Much like capitalism, because the economic elite and political elite blur (especially given how much it costs to run for office) certain policies are developed that are not capitalistic (like how shuffling priests around is not a catholic dogma, I assume).
This almost seems like a XYZ style infinite regression, what stops your line of logic from saying: Money creates capitalism creates corporations creates corruption creates exploitation, thus money should be eliminated?
(not to answer questions not asked of me, but...)
no, it is not. Some companies, potentially, but in the modern economy, the economy and government are so interconnected through donations and lobbying that it really isn't appropriate to call them "capitalist". The 700b bailout is a perfect example of this, but it goes back decades.
I personally believe that the number of super conglomerated mega corporations would be less and local, potentially even chain, buisnusses would be far more prominent. Economic and market poliy of the American government is to protect its mega-corporations from financial problems and the natural capitalistic consequences of bad business practices.
I understand your point, however while Catholicism might not deserve all the blame for the priest scandal it does have to be held accountable for SOME of the blame.
In the same vein, Capitalism must accept that its methods lead to the greed, corruption and so on you describe- Capitalism has flaws, one of those flaws is the accommodation of corporate greed which leads to corporate abuse of others...if governments are involved or not is irrelevant.
I was thinking of the Nestle selling baby milk powder- which nearly every health agency in the world has said they must stop doing. However, they don't because of the profit.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No. Where do we have capitalism? Name one place.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I understand your point, however while Catholicism might not deserve all the blame for the priest scandal it does have to be held accountable for SOME of the blame.In the same vein, Capitalism must accept that its methods lead to the greed, corruption and so on you describe- Capitalism has flaws, one of those flaws is the accommodation of corporate greed which leads to corporate abuse of others...if governments are involved or not is irrelevant.
ok, absolutely. Don't take me for a capitalist apologist (though, I guess I am one, eh?), as I am more than willing to admit the problems with capitalism. The accumulation of power by the wealthy and their ability to manipulate the political system are things made possible in certain ways by capitalism.
I think it depends on where we want to place "fault" here. Be it a personal bias or not, I feel the blame should go on the direct actor, so the corporation doing the exploitation or the priest committing the abuse, though you are totally correct, in both cases an ideology has set up a context for that behaviour to flourish.
We could cut straws about government policy, like passing laws making shareholder profit the #1 goal of corporations, and their effect on corporations and greed, but I do see where you come from, and in any realistic sense, I know myself for sure but I also think Bardock, "capitalists" should be willing to accept some restrictions on trade until it is assured that it can be free.
To offer some pessimism to that last point, even under NAFTA, the Canadian and American governments are not able to practice free trade. If Canada and America can't do it, America and Tanzania are unlikely to.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I was thinking of the Nestle selling baby milk powder- which nearly every health agency in the world has said they must stop doing. However, they don't because of the profit.
agreed, now that you mention it I remember that case.
They still ship it all over the developing world don't they?
Tainted Chinese products also offer a good example of free trade ideology having more influence on policy than trade reality.
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, absolutely. Don't take me for a capitalist apologist (though, I guess I am one, eh?), as I am more than willing to admit the problems with capitalism. The accumulation of power by the wealthy and their ability to manipulate the political system are things made possible in certain ways by capitalism.I think it depends on where we want to place "fault" here. Be it a personal bias or not, I feel the blame should go on the direct actor, so the corporation doing the exploitation or the priest committing the abuse, though you are totally correct, in both cases an ideology has set up a context for that behaviour to flourish.
We could cut straws about government policy, like passing laws making shareholder profit the #1 goal of corporations, and their effect on corporations and greed, but I do see where you come from, and in any realistic sense, I know myself for sure but I also think Bardock, "capitalists" should be willing to accept some restrictions on trade until it is assured that it can be free.
To offer some pessimism to that last point, even under NAFTA, the Canadian and American governments are not able to practice free trade. If Canada and America can't do it, America and Tanzania are unlikely to.
Originally posted by inimalist
agreed, now that you mention it I remember that case.They still ship it all over the developing world don't they?
Tainted Chinese products also offer a good example of free trade ideology having more influence on policy than trade reality.
Yes indeed, they still sell it and no one seems to be willing to apply the appropriate pressure to stop them...free trade might sounds like the most desirable option- but I think some sort of social conscience must go along with it, even if it must be forced. (i.e. min wage, job protection etc)
Originally posted by inimalistAye, the venus project and zeitgeist movement however, argue that the reason this happens is because the incentive is profit, and people are willing to do anything to have more profit.
the state bought the land from the natives and the state violated those contractsAll of which was done with heavy involvement of the American government, local governments, and international governmental institutions.
Trade with Africa, Latin America and South East Asia has never been free, in the sense that it has never been capitalistic (ie, free of the state)
The solution would be to eliminate the need for profits.
Also, the governments are owned by the corporations. It's not freedom from the state, it's freedom from corporations, as they are the emperors of the world. However, capitalism encourages corporatism. So it doesn't work.
Originally posted by inimalistCorporations don't creat exploitation.
This almost seems like a XYZ style infinite regression, what stops your line of logic from saying: Money creates capitalism creates corporations creates corruption creates exploitation, thus money should be eliminated?
Simple equation:
(You're being simple, so I thought, why not?)
Power corrupts, Money = Power. Therefore, Money corrupts.
Lol, now it's time for Bardock to say I'm an idiot.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Lets operate within the sphere of the economic system which is known by the world as Capitalist- even if it is not pure capitalist. (which is no doubt your ultimate get out clause, however as I recall you once didn't accept that my saying the USA wasn't a democracy thus couldn't be used to critique democracy was invalid as it was the public perception of democracy, thus the same must apply here I think. 😉)
Oh okay, no problem then. Yes, the system that makes Africa be exploited which you choose to call capitalism has this fault.
Can we also add that Capitalism as it is actually defined, and as we talked about it before on the other hand doesn't?
And my argument was that the US is a democracy because the definition applies, not because the public perceives it as one.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh okay, no problem then. Yes, the system that makes Africa be exploited which you choose to call capitalism has this fault.Can we also add that Capitalism as it is actually defined, and as we talked about it before on the other hand doesn't?
And my argument was that the US is a democracy because the definition applies, not because the public perceives it as one.
We can do all those things...but just for you. 😉
Originally posted by lord xyz
Aye, the venus project and zeitgeist movement however, argue that the reason this happens is because the incentive is profit, and people are willing to do anything to have more profit.
interesting
Capitalism also assumes people will work for profit...
my point was that, in terms of government control of the market in question, Native land issues are not a consequence of Capitalism.
Sure, you can say greed
Originally posted by lord xyz
The solution would be to eliminate the need for profits.
fiscal profits, not profit in general
There will still be haves and have nots in a system without money
Originally posted by lord xyz
Also, the governments are owned by the corporations.
Thats a rather limited way of putting it, but ok
Originally posted by lord xyz
It's not freedom from the state, it's freedom from corporations, as they are the emperors of the world.
lol, no. The definition of capitalism, going all the way back to Smith, is the non-involvement of government in the marketplace.
a potential criticism of this is that, 200+ years ago, Adam Smith could not foresee global corporations (which are propped up by legislation he would disagree with). However, by definition, capitalism talks about the separation of economy and state.
Originally posted by lord xyz
However, capitalism encourages corporatism.
I take it you are referring to corporate domination of the political process, and not the actual doctrine of corporatism?
Originally posted by lord xyz
So it doesn't work.
it doesn't work at what?
Originally posted by lord xyz
Corporations don't creat exploitation.
that seems odd, and the opposite of what you are arguing, can you clarify for me a bit?
Originally posted by lord xyz
Simple equation:(You're being simple, so I thought, why not?)
Power corrupts, Money = Power. Therefore, Money corrupts.
that sort of misses my point, but ok...
money=power=corruption should also mean that no money=no power=no corruption
I don't know about you, but poor people have lied to me before. Also, plenty of poor people have had a major affect on the world, and thus were powerful.
Originally posted by inimalistGreed, the venus project argues comes from money, not human nature.
interestingCapitalism also assumes people will work for profit...
my point was that, in terms of government control of the market in question, Native land issues are not a consequence of Capitalism.
Sure, you can say greed
Since you mentioned work, I find it worrying how people justify people being forced to do shitty jobs in order to get some money for basic survival instead of simply giving it to them, since there is so much abundance of it.
Originally posted by inimalistMy bad.
fiscal profits, not profit in generalThere will still be haves and have nots in a system without money
Originally posted by inimalistWhat do you mean, limited?
Thats a rather limited way of putting it, but ok
Originally posted by inimalistI'm sorry, I thought you were talking about eliminating the problems with the shit in Africa by having capitalism without government, and then I said, the corporations are the real problem.
lol, no. The definition of capitalism, going all the way back to Smith, is the non-involvement of government in the marketplace.a potential criticism of this is that, 200+ years ago, Adam Smith could not foresee global corporations (which are propped up by legislation he would disagree with). However, by definition, capitalism talks about the separation of economy and state.
Originally posted by inimalistCapitalism has winners and losers. The winners become corporations.
I take it you are referring to corporate domination of the political process, and not the actual doctrine of corporatism?
Originally posted by inimalistAgain, I thought you were saying the problem with capitalism is government (corporations), and since capitalism encourages corpratism, it doesn't work.
it doesn't work at what?
Originally posted by inimalistThe exploitation would be there if it was a corporation or not.
that seems odd, and the opposite of what you are arguing, can you clarify for me a bit?
Originally posted by inimalistI'm not saying there would be no power if money was gone. There would still be strength, speed and knowledge being power, but the fact is, money is a corrupt system. It uses hyperthetical values to get people to do what you want, because we've been told we need these supposed valued items to survive.
that sort of misses my point, but ok...money=power=corruption should also mean that no money=no power=no corruption
I don't know about you, but poor people have lied to me before. Also, plenty of poor people have had a major affect on the world, and thus were powerful.
Healthcare in the US is a system where if you can't pay your bill, or come up with a good enough case for the insurance companies to pay, you die.
How do you guys feel about introducing Capitalism to 3rd world nations?
Transfering from one system to other is not as easy as it may seem. Case in point Russia or Central America. Nations that have evolve with Capitalism have the experience of how the system will react. I don't think new nations should be "BAM" get hit with the Capitalist system. But rather introduce part per part.
However, there have been countries that been with Capitalism for awhile longer and have trouble getting in all gears....such as Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina.
Capitalism is like riding a bull the size of a mountain and thinking you're going to dominated by the end of the day....not gonna really happen...learn and then practice.
I think it would need to be rapidly introduced as in there no better way to learn than being plunged into the deep end. Having said that those places you mention have obvious regime problems. As for providing a example of its success you only have to look at the asian economic power house known as china which at one point was pretty much communist and is still ruled by a socialist party to this day. They took to capitalism rather well dont ya think?
I think a true capitalism, is not a problem in any country. What Gav might mean is that it can possibly be abused (and thereby not becoming capitalism) by people in power, as happens in Latin America and Africa (and also in the US). Though I don't think capitalism is to blame for it. Fair, free trade between all human beings is a very, very good idea, for any country.
The Capitalist system is very massive and it does require proper education on how to work it. Sure, the people in the nations I mention earlier CAN comprehend and learn the system. But it is a schooling process that must first be establish. Corruption and greed from leaders are the results of lack of educating the people on how to use their money (i.e. the private property)
There is a market for 3rd world countries...they're willing to be consumers but before in endulging in such pleasures they must first be guide on the system.
As a matter of fact...every generation (including nations which are well acquainted with the system) must be educated on how to spend their money.
I'm making Marx proud. 😊
(the man talk more about Capitalism than Communism) hehehe...
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think a true capitalism, is not a problem in any country. What Gav might mean is that it can possibly be abused (and thereby not becoming capitalism) by people in power, as happens in Latin America and Africa (and also in the US). Though I don't think capitalism is to blame for it. Fair, free trade between all human beings is a very, very good idea, for any country.
The problem is that it will, without question, be abused, namely because fair trade doesn't give you the best profits.
Originally posted by JayJohn85
Whats the difference between socialism and communism? I mean if there is one then my point is void but I am just gonna say it anyway: Communism doesnt work because human beings need incentives to work otherwise why bother working harder then the other guy? If your on about better rights and such for workers as in thats what you mean by socialism then basically tbh someone out there has to bridge the two ideas with a compromise that incorporates aspect of capitalism and socialism to realise, And make whatever socialist ideals a socialist has work.
seeing as noone answered then i guess i will
the difference between socialism and communism is that in communism, everyone deemed to be within a certain level of skill or education earn the exact same money...everything is state owned and the state pay wages based on where your skills and education fit in with societies needs...hence there would still be incentive to better yourself because you would still get more for doing so
socialism allows for private companies...all it does differently from capitalism is that it levvies higher taxes on individuals and companies making more money and distributes in to the poor via higher benefits of higher wages
Originally posted by Bardock42Rumor also has had it that Africa's problem is not just in it's market, but also in its outrageously high taxes on its market. The source of the need for taxes is uncertain...whether it be an attempt to pay off national debt or support greedy leaders or what...but my main point is that capitalism and socialism often walk hand-in-hand in an economy; blaming either one is a sticky task.
Oh okay, no problem then. Yes, the system that makes Africa be exploited which you choose to call capitalism has this fault.