What you call slavery is their best option and you are slandering exactly those people that provide it.
Good job defaming the only ones that actually help those people.
…lol @ orion. Since when is capitalist enterprise out to help people? You really are a Victorian douche, are you? And i mean that in a nice way, lol…
I did not say that they were out to help those people, I said that they DO help those people.
Big difference.
There “greed” has lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of the most extreme poverty whereas your wishing them the best has not created as much as one stinking job in China.
Not even a low paid, dangerous and dirty one.
So tell me, who has done more for them?
[/quote]
…no, you’re right: paying your workers next to nothing for working 16 hours a day, 6 days a week without any added benefits is “helping them” and not slavery in disguise, how silly of me. Ofcourse i don’t doubt that the economic boom in China brought many wealth and happiness, but as always a price must be payed. We are simply debating how high the price is…
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
There is no comparison between a minimal income worker in the USA and one in China…
And yet everyone tries to compare them.
Soon enough poor people in the US will know what it is like to be poor in China and soon poor people in China will be driving SUVs and watching big screen TVs like the poor do here in the US.
And the really sad thing is people in the US will blame capitalism its failures and in China they will praise communism for its successes – and they will both be wrong.[/quote]
What you call slavery is their best option and you are slandering exactly those people that provide it.
Good job defaming the only ones that actually help those people.
…lol @ orion. Since when is capitalist enterprise out to help people? You really are a Victorian douche, are you? And i mean that in a nice way, lol…
I did not say that they were out to help those people, I said that they DO help those people.
Big difference.
There “greed” has lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of the most extreme poverty whereas your wishing them the best has not created as much as one stinking job in China.
Not even a low paid, dangerous and dirty one.
So tell me, who has done more for them?
…no, you’re right: paying your workers next to nothing for working 16 hours a day, 6 days a week without any added benefits is “helping them” and not slavery in disguise, how silly of me. Ofcourse i don’t doubt that the economic boom in China brought many wealth and happiness, but as always a price must be payed. We are simply debating how high the price is…[/quote]
No, we are debating whether we call a system where an employer gives someone just one more option instead of taking all other options put one away slavery.
Words have meaning and you are anally raping the meaning of “slavery”.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
There is no comparison between a minimal income worker in the USA and one in China…
And yet everyone tries to compare them.
Soon enough poor people in the US will know what it is like to be poor in China and soon poor people in China will be driving SUVs and watching big screen TVs like the poor do here in the US.
And the really sad thing is people in the US will blame capitalism its failures and in China they will praise communism for its successes – and they will both be wrong.
…i’m not following; you veered offtopic somehow…
[/quote]
Not really, he is quite on the topic of how the masses are brainwashed by the manipulation of language.
Like slavery that is called freedom, or in your case calling freedom and relative prosperity slavery.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:The accumulation of capital makes labor more expensive – even slaves. You cannot make a slave work more efficiently and that is what the accumulation of capital must lead to.
It does no such thing. The cost of labor is its maintenance (by which, in the interest of brevity, I comprehend more than simply subsistence [and in this more basic sense, it is obvious that even slaves have a cost]). For a single position, in a single industry, accumulation of capital enables more goods to be produced by an equal quantity of labor, making the worker’s maintenance a smaller portion of the goods he produces. On the scale of the whole economy, the increased division of labor which accompanies this accumulation causes skilled positions to be broken into unskilled positions which, by rendering a greater number of people capable of performing the work, increases the competition amongst workers and lowers their wages.
Oh, simpleton. You’re hopeless.
If you don’t understand I cannot help you.[/quote]
[quote]orion wrote:
Not really, he is quite on the topic of how the masses are brainwashed by the manipulation of language.
Like slavery that is called freedom, or in your case calling freedom and relative prosperity slavery.[/quote]
As I have mentioned before and of course has been pointed out long ago, Newspeak is necessary to spread certain kinds of “thinking” and it most certainly is used for that purpose.
But – though you are yourself an exception – it seems the majority of people cannot get this, and pretty much respond with a disinterested “Huh what?” any time that this is pointed out, and within probably 30 seconds completely forget the entire matter.
I see, so this hinges on how we define “economic liberty.” I advocate economic liberty. You use the term to describe a right to the produce of another’s labor, which is conferred through ownership of certain assets.
Incidentally, your statement is entirely ahistorical. In the most “individualistic” (another dishonest distinction made by capitalists) societies, the welfare of the majority is inversely proportional to the degree of private ownership. Does “robber barons” ring a bell?
Again, you are technically right that they were not slaves in a literal sense, but this really has nothing to do with the situation. The rapid rise in productivity due to rapid accumulation of capital was indeed made possible by forcibly holding down the consumption of the vast majority of the population. What Stalin did by decree in Soviet Russia, capitalism did here in America through the profit motive.
Yet another excellent example of how you can lie with the facts. The rise in average income is linked to capitalism (or rather, capital accumulation, not necessarily capitalISM), but it is not BECAUSE of capitalism, as history clearly shows. Wages tend toward subsistence in the absence of worker organization. Capitalism confers no benefits on society at large until society takes them. For some reason, the “virtue of selfishness” crowd assumes this selfishness and its uglier consequences away at this point.
Your entire ideology is based on the right to the labor of others for certain individuals. That’s the profit motive: if you do well, you get the labor of others.
You’ve got to work somehow. If the choice is between no work and work at $0.40 a week, you take the latter. That doesn’t it’s not awful.
[quote]Capitalists provided work for women, children and freed or fled slaves because contrary to what most people believe capitalist do not care about race, age or gender but about profit.
Nobody had to force them to do anything when it simply was good business.[/quote]
Haha, the capitalists appropriate everything, leaving no alternative for anyone seeking a job, and you say “Hey, they didn’t force them!” What classic Libertarian logic.
[quote]orion wrote:And yet their wages are higher than ever before.
So somehow your theory must be wrong.[/quote]
You ignore the effect of the international division of labor, where in some countries, conditions are quite squalid still. Spend a few minutes actually thinking about things, instead of simply turning a blind eye to everything that doesn’t support your fantasies.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
There is no comparison between a minimal income worker in the USA and one in China…
And yet everyone tries to compare them.
Soon enough poor people in the US will know what it is like to be poor in China and soon poor people in China will be driving SUVs and watching big screen TVs like the poor do here in the US.
And the really sad thing is people in the US will blame capitalism its failures and in China they will praise communism for its successes – and they will both be wrong.[/quote]
Seeing as how the Chinese Communist party is doing a better job running their capitalist economy than the US or any European country, you might not want to get too smug.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:And yet their wages are higher than ever before.
So somehow your theory must be wrong.
You ignore the effect of the international division of labor, where in some countries, conditions are quite squalid still. Spend a few minutes actually thinking about things, instead of simply turning a blind eye to everything that doesn’t support your fantasies.
[/quote]
Well yes, those conditions are quite appalling.
They are just better than before, due to capitalism.
Which is really all you can ask for when it comes to an economic system.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:My view is that the welfare of the majority is greatest where economic liberty is the highest.
I see, so this hinges on how we define “economic liberty.” I advocate economic liberty. You use the term to describe a right to the produce of another’s labor, which is conferred through ownership of certain assets.
Incidentally, your statement is entirely ahistorical. In the most “individualistic” (another dishonest distinction made by capitalists) societies, the welfare of the majority is inversely proportional to the degree of private ownership. Does “robber barons” ring a bell?
[/quote]
Yes, it actually does. That were those nice gentleman that raised productivity enormously, created hundreds of thousands of jobs, slashed prices by 80- 90% and were slandered so successfully that nobody seems to care for the facts anymore.
And the heritage foundation has studies that clearly show that in those countries with the least government intervention per capita income is highest.
Forcibly holding down consumption?
You are aware that 200 years ago people had one pair of shoes and that was it?
Capitalism per almost per definition is mass production and requires a mass market. If you look at the discussions of the 18th and 19th century they were in awe that the prices of so many goods had become inelastic, i.e. they had become so dirt cheap that price fluctuations did no longer matter, even for the average worker.
Capitalism does not forcibly keep production down it goes out of its way to make people consume.
Which is incidentally the new battle cry of liberalism:
Bad, bad capitalism makes people over consume and materialistic and destroys mother earth.
That is the polar opposite of keeping consumption artificially down.
Well it is capitalism because it is not only about capital accumulation but WHAT capital, WHERE exactly, producing WHAT exactly.
Capitalism tends to allocate resources quitze efficiently, and that function is not all about capital accumulation.
Teh second point is pure Marxism and is directly contradicted by 200 years of economic theory. You assume that capitalist just arbitrarily fix wages, when in fact they need to compete for the best workers and wages always follow productivity.
Exactly because they are selfish they must pay competitive wages or otherwise their capital is not used productively and then you are not much of a capitalist.
That is obviously complete nonsense.
If you do well you get the labor of others if they choose to work for you and to sell you their products.
You have no right to make anyone work for you nor to their products.
A slaveholder does not ask nicely, nor does he pay you, he just takes what he wants.
Exactly like the redistribution crowd and completely unlike most corporations.
[quote]orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
There is no comparison between a minimal income worker in the USA and one in China…
And yet everyone tries to compare them.
Soon enough poor people in the US will know what it is like to be poor in China and soon poor people in China will be driving SUVs and watching big screen TVs like the poor do here in the US.
And the really sad thing is people in the US will blame capitalism its failures and in China they will praise communism for its successes – and they will both be wrong.
…i’m not following; you veered offtopic somehow…
Not really, he is quite on the topic of how the masses are brainwashed by the manipulation of language.
Like slavery that is called freedom, or in your case calling freedom and relative prosperity slavery.
[/quote]
…like you calling paying your workers the absolute minimum for ridiculous hours without a decent chance of your workers bettering themselves, helping them?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…like you calling paying your workers the absolute minimum for ridiculous hours without a decent chance of your workers bettering themselves, helping them?
[/quote]
You may not think so but they do. They don’t care what you think and you’re not in a position to make them better or else you would.
As far as I see it you’re part of the problem because all you do is talk about how evil these job creators are and do nothing to create better jobs for the people you call slaves.
I wonder what they would think of you calling them slaves. Your arrogance is far more destructive than their “greed”.
What you call slavery is their best option and you are slandering exactly those people that provide it.
Good job defaming the only ones that actually help those people.
…lol @ orion. Since when is capitalist enterprise out to help people? You really are a Victorian douche, are you? And i mean that in a nice way, lol…
I did not say that they were out to help those people, I said that they DO help those people.
Big difference.
There “greed” has lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of the most extreme poverty whereas your wishing them the best has not created as much as one stinking job in China.
Not even a low paid, dangerous and dirty one.
So tell me, who has done more for them?
…no, you’re right: paying your workers next to nothing for working 16 hours a day, 6 days a week without any added benefits is “helping them” and not slavery in disguise, how silly of me. Ofcourse i don’t doubt that the economic boom in China brought many wealth and happiness, but as always a price must be payed. We are simply debating how high the price is…[/quote]
You’re wrong. Orion is right. Look at it from the perspective of the Chinese worker. Why do they choose to wrok 16 hours a day 7 days a week? What is their alternative?
The world is harsh. That’s not capitalism’s fault.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
the idea that the end of slavery came about because of libertarianism is quite silly.
[/quote]
Libertarianism is just a word. Contained in it are ideas about liberty. In so far as people act in accordance with those ideas we do not care what it is called that ended slavery.
All over the world slavery was ended. Was it because of the ideal of liberty or because of the realization of certain economic realities? In he end who cares?! It ended and that is all that matters.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…like you calling paying your workers the absolute minimum for ridiculous hours without a decent chance of your workers bettering themselves, helping them?[/quote]
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…like you calling paying your workers the absolute minimum for ridiculous hours without a decent chance of your workers bettering themselves, helping them?
You may not think so but they do. They don’t care what you think and you’re not in a position to make them better or else you would.
As far as I see it you’re part of the problem because all you do is talk about how evil these job creators are and do nothing to create better jobs for the people you call slaves.
I wonder what they would think of you calling them slaves. Your arrogance is far more destructive than their “greed”.[/quote]
…i’d rather be seen as arrogant by you than be conscending about the workers’ misery…
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…like you calling paying your workers the absolute minimum for ridiculous hours without a decent chance of your workers bettering themselves, helping them?
…look, i’m not denying that if this is the only option you have to survive, you do what’s necessary to survive, but let’s not doll this up and make it something it isn’t; pretty…