Fantasea

[quote = anomaly]
In the US, it all starts with those famous words, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. I believe that it is this sentiment, more than any other which has, over a span of more than two hundred years, enticed emigrants to leave their native lands and come to the land where the streets were reputed to be ‘paved with gold’.

Of course, the gold in the streets was a figure of speech that represented the opportunities for industrious individuals that simply did not exist in other parts of the world. The list of successful immigrants would fill a volume. Suffice it to say that these persons, together with native borns, with true entrepreneurial spirit organized businesses of all kinds. Many failed, many prospered. However, in the main, growth ensued which required more people to do more work. Filling jobs became the was the means by which countless individuals were lifted from the drudgery of manual agriculture and the grinding poverty in the ghettos of the burgeoning cities.

A steady paycheck was the beginning of prosperity. As businesses expanded, the number of supervisory, managerial, and executive positions grew, setting in motion further opportunities for greater prosperity. The development of some businesses led to the creation of new businesses. For example, the excess products in one part of the country led to the formation of road, rail, water, and air transportation systems that spread from regional to national to international to world wide.

The sum total of all of this, as commerce continued to churn, is the formation of more and more jobs that pay better and better wages for those individuals who acquire the skills and observe a work ethic that qualifies them to sit at this ‘table of plenty’ and partake of all of its benefits. Of course, since ‘liberty’ includes the right to ‘opt out’, there are those persons whose free choices lead them in other directions.

The road to today has not been entirely smooth; rocks and potholes along the way have slowed progress. However, in the main, workers in the US have been able to parlay their efforts into security, material wealth, and a standard of living that still attracts immigrants from all over the world.

Anyone with a dream and the willingness to pursue that dream can become a capitalist. If one considers but a single segment of industry, the one which makes it possible for me to communicate with you in this manner, one can produce a long list of entrepreneurs who started out in a basement or garage and a few years later were providing handsome paychecks to thousands of willing workers.

Countless individuals on all rungs of the economic ladder who invested in corporate America have seen their wealth increase.

The role of government is crucial to the success of capitalism. To the extent that government places or eases restrictions on corporations, they will contract or expand. Experience has shown us that various administrations have done better or worse in this respect.

The key element of capitalism is opportunity at every level. The carrot dangles. The individual is free to pursue it, or not.

anomaly

What your argument mentions in the form of emotional appeal, it lacks in cold, hard facts. You seem to believe that capitalism is limited to the USA, and yes, if we leave the scope to only include the USA, Canada, and Europe, capitalism appears very appealing (although, thanks to unregulated capitalism, inequality rises in some of the richer countries as I'll touch on later).

Let us now look at one of the most recent developments of capitalism-globalisation. Capitalism is a system which has a unique flaw. Unlike Feudalism, capitalism consistently overproduces goods. It has, indeed, tremendous productive power, too much. This constant surplus demands a bigger and bigger market. In the latter half of the 20th century, we began to see that capitalism could not be sustained in a single nation, it had to be expanded. Now, that market includes all the world. We see Coke machines in Africa and Latin America, Nike and Gap factories in China, and many American car companies manufacturing their cars in Mexico (this is to show that globalisation creates not only a larger market, but a larger workforce, and more production options. It icludes not only consumers, but producers). Globalisation need not include production in these poorer countries, yet it does. Why is this? Why are American factories, which like most, consistently create surpluses of goods, shipped overseas? We here must realize the harsh fact that capitalism is driven by greed, the goal of capitalism is to gain money, and when one gains money, someone else must lose money. The loser, in recent years, has been the American worker. Foreign workers, desperate for work and food, as their old farmland has, in many places, been replaced by factories, will work extremely cheaply. They work for less than 50 cents an hour, in many places, for 14 hours a day. Child labor is seen in many foreign factories. It takes a family of 4 to bring in enough money to live on. This child labor means children have not the time for education, creating a whole new generation of poor workers, dependent upon a company. Considered by most throughout the world as slave labor, as many undoubtedly work not for personal gain or pleasure, as many Americans do, but rather to survive, right-wing Americans continue to support the companies rather than the workers. If, Fant, you still believe that workers have been 'saved' by capitalism, that they could not survive without it, you need only to read the Communist Manifesto by Marx. In it, he tells a brief history of pre-capitalist society, showing that most people actually lived better before capitalism. We can plainly see , partly through facts, partly through the fact that most cheap laborers throughout the world consistently are Marxist, that foreign workers suffer under capitalism. But what about the rich ones?

The American unemployment rate is low, incredibly low. Many like to credit this to the great power and success of capitalism. Unfortuntely, this compliment isn't entirely warranted. In the USA, we have the one of the hgihest prison populations of any industrialised country, even proportionally it is extremely large. This of course will bring down the unemployment rate. But, unlike the unemployment rate, the poverty rate is relatively large-12%. This cannot be totally attributed to the jobless-5% of working Americans or higher work in poverty. But how can this be? We are the richest country in the world, yet we can't keep our workers out of poverty? Perhaps some numbers will clear this up. You mentioned government regulations, and you assume they are bad for America. In the '20s and again in the late '90s to now we have seen laissez-faire policies implemented. During these times, we have also seen inequality greatly increased. In 1990, the worker to CEO salary ratio was 1:85. By '99, it was 1:475. This is compared to Japan, where the ratio is 1:11, and even to the UK, where the ratio is 1:24, extremely high. But it's ok right? It's ok, because the poor have welfare to live on, and many workers get stock options. Well, welfare doesn't work as an excuse for the right wing, since they want to destroy it. It must be those wondrous stock options that have helped workers! In the 90's, however, 86% of the stock market's advances went to the richest 10% of the US population. The bull-market we see only contributes to inequality. Not to mention that, during the 90s, worker salaries barely kept pace with inflation. In fact, the stock market often rallied during the 90s on news that wages were lagging! In the game of capitalism, lower wages for workers means more money for CEOs, and thus more 'success' for capitalism.

Painfully, we see that capitalism helps the minority of Earth's population, yet we consistently produce enough goods to benefit everyone. We have enough food to feed the world a few times over, yet many starve. We have the power to establish a minimum wage worldwide, yet we do not. These things do not help those for whom capitalism is intended-the rich. They only help to make people globally more equal. And if cheap labor disappears, or if people do not need to work so cheaply anymore, gets who 'suffers' because of it? The rich. Oh, we mustn't let that happen. The rich may slip from a bllionaire to a millionaire, they may slip from 46 billion (Gates) to 30 billion. Oh, how they would suffer! The right wing wishes us to remain subjects in the royal court of the market, dependent upon it for our welfare. Should the people themselves ever democratically run an economy? No, never. Capitalist theory, whether you faihtful pro-marketers like it or not, is designed on the premise that some will suffer, inequality, poverty, is neccesary, in order to give money to those who deserve it. And that, that is what capitalism is really about-giving money to those who, in some people's eyes, deserve it. Democracy therefore becomes an enemy to the holy market, and thus will not be tolerated.

Fantasea

[Quote = anamoly]
Well, it is a pleasant surprise to know that capitalism is not all bad.When I condense all of is, it comes out this way. The spillover of capitalism to the poorer countries of the world has produced jobs that never before existed for people who had lived in abject poverty and raised them to the level of consumer of goods that, heretofore, they could only dream about, if indeed, they were aware of its existence. This bodes well for all concerned. Goods are produced. Jobs are created. Markets are developed. Living standards are raised. Investors are compensated. Growth proliferates.

If there is a downside in your analysis, I have not detected it.This is the fallacy of the argument presented by socialists. Wealth is not finite; it is limitless.
Adam Smith was the first to realize that the ‘Wealth of a Nation’ was not in the accumulation of commodities nor in the resource reserves that a nation may happen to possess. But rather wealth exists in the productive knowledge of its people. The ability to efficiently transform resources into desired goods and services represents the true source of a nation's wealth.
Physical and human capital represents the true embodiment of wealth.The only American workers who ever lose are those who eschew education and are forced to accept menial jobs which enables them to go through life complaining about the unfairness of it all.That sounds like conditions in the US during the early days of industrialization. However, Living standards vary, country to country, as does the cost of living. Irrespective of how dark you paint the picture, The bright spot is that just as the US passed through it, so will any other country where government impediments are not severe.The alternative would be far worse, would it not?[quote If, Fant, you still believe that workers have been 'saved' by capitalism, that they could not survive without it, you need only to read the Communist Manifesto by Marx. In it, he tells a brief history of pre-capitalist society, showing that most people actually lived better before capitalism. We can plainly see , partly through facts, partly through the fact that most cheap laborers throughout the world consistently are Marxist, that foreign workers suffer under capitalism.[/quote]Whether that was true when he wrote it midway through the nineteenth century, it is certainly not true in the twenty-first.Most ‘rich ones’ used to be the poor ones. This is the beauty of the capitalist system. Those on the bottom have the opportunity to move up the ladder, even all the way to the top. Those opportunities do not exist under socialism where the goal is not equality of opportunity but equality of outcome. Everyone is limited to the same rung on the ladder. A low rung. Everyone, that is, except those at the top who pull the strings.Damn, I thought we had finally done something right.Instead of permitting the inmates to languish in laziness, I think we should put the time to good use where they would earn an education, learn a work ethic, produce value, and return to society with a cash stake that would help them to comfortably assimilate.Poverty is a fuzzy concept. A few years ago, a visiting dignitary from an African nation was taken on a tour of several US ghetto neighborhoods in order that he may see how bad conditions were. Upon his departure for his homeland, he was asked to comment on what he had seen. His remark was along the lines of, “I’ve been to many places around the world. However, it is only in the US that I’ve ever seen poor people who are fat.”
Nevertheless, the poverty thresholds shown below shouldn’t be difficult to overcome if more than one family member does nothing more than flip hamburgers at the local fast food emporium. Imagine what can be accomplished with a ‘real’ job.

There's a problem with the formatting of the chart, but I'm sure you can figure it out.
U.S. Census Bureau
Poverty Thresholds 2004
.......................................Annual..... ........ Weekly........... Hourly
Three persons.......................... 14,776 284 7
Four persons........................... 19,484 375 9
Five persons........................... 23,497 452 11
Six persons............................ 27,025 520 13
Seven persons.......................... 31,096 598 15
Eight persons.......................... 34,778 669 17
Nine persons or more................... 41,836 805 20

Continued on next post.

Fantasea

Continued

[Quote = anomoly]
You continue to sing this socialist song of misery and woe. I believe that a person is worth whatever a person is worth. Those who fill menial jobs will be compensated accordingly. If they are not satisfied, they should make the effort to advance. Those whose contributions are greater deserve greater compensation. Those at the top, who make it all possible for those below, deserve the greatest compensation. Why should anyone belimited?
Please comment on the incomes of sports figures, rock stars, and Hollywood entertainers.Except for the aged and infirm, why should there be a need for welfare beyond a short period to tide one over a rough spot? Isn’t it far better to get these folks into the labor force where they can join in?Did you know that the Clinton Administration is the father of the modern ‘stock option’ scheme that you bemoan?Evidently, this is no secret among the millions of workers who have IRAs, 401Ks, and many other investment programs that invest in equities.The US shares its bounty with impoverished nations worldwide. The problem is the greed and thievery that is rampant with governments in many of these impoverished nations. I’m sure you can name a few.Minimum wage is a good way to keep people in poverty. As an example, in the US, whenever it is raised, that percentage of workers are laid off. This tells me that the workers were not really needed in the first place.Nice speech. Again I think I can hear, in the background, the men’s chorus singing “The Internationale”.

anomaly

It never ceases to amaze me how you think that capitalism has improved the lives of the majority of foreign workers. Remember, capitalism cause inequality. The USA is very rich, and as we continue to get richer, the poor countries will continue to get poorer. Your reasoning is hilarious, though, throughout your response. You say that 'well, atleast they have a job and are making money; atleast they aren't dead'! Unbelievable. Do you know anything of the plight of the foreign worker (asking again)? It seems you do not, so I'd appreciate it if you do not publically present your ignorance of the topic. Must I once again stress it?-workers in foreign countries lived quite well before capitalism, now they are slave laborers, working for a system many of them do not support. And yet you support exploiting workers.

Fant, first off, none of this is supported by fact! You can talk big, but you certainly lie bigger. My uncle had his job outsourced, my other uncle did too. You know, in the 70's, it wasn't all that common for workers to go to college, they didn't need it, yet you punish them for it. Call it what you will, you have, for some reason, contempt for the American worker.
Nevertheless, the poverty thresholds shown below shouldn’t be difficult to overcome if more than one family member does nothing more than flip hamburgers at the local fast food emporium. Imagine what can be accomplished with a ‘real’ job. And you seem to misunderstand how global capitalism works. At the present course (conditions in China only get worse, conditions in Latin America haven't changed for some time) nothing will ever change. Under capitalism, we neccesarily see inequality, vast inequality. You seem to refuse to accept this most basic fact. The majority never wins under capitalism, that is either it's vice or its virtue, but stop lying to people Fant! Stop with this cartoonish 'everybody wins' capitalism. It's not reality, it's only in your mind. And you are completely wrong in saying that capitalism gives us 'equal opportunity'. Tell that to the Brazilian peasant, or the son of a factory worker, or a child laborer. Equal opportunity may be the greatest myth of capitalism. And you again show hat you know nothing of socialism, as you assume that socialism takes away opportunity. Socialism is regulated, state run, capitalism. The same opportunity exists, just things are more equal. What you seem to think is that, when the richest people in America only make 15 billion a year, that no one will be motivated to create, and use their skills to succeed. Is money the only thing driving man today?

anomaly

You wish to give workers not even enough to live on! It has been shown that sometimes in the USA 5.50 an hour is not enough to live on. Regardless of how low the cost of living is in foreign countries, one needs certainly to make more than 50 cents an hour. And yet you still support the massive exploitation of foreign workers. And I do not want to strip the rich of the earnings, I want to narrow the gap between rich and poor. Why do you on the right want this gap widened? It's unbelievable how you want to strip the poor worker of even more money! Minimum wage does not cause unemployment, not if the gov't oversees business, and directs the business to pay workers a bit more. And here's how welfare is needed. All too often today, we see single women with three kids, working a minimum wage job. You wish to send her to the streets! That is what will happen if we eliminate welfare. Contrary to popular belief, 95% of people on welfare don't want to be on welfare. But I believe, at this time, I mus ask you a serious question: why do you so oppose any further equality in society? Equality obviously does not lead to ruin, as British and Japanese workers are far more equal to management then are US workers. Why do you so oppose giving all foreign workers the right to live, as you spit on the idea of minimum wage, which means many workers will not make enough to live on. And you respond with 'it's better than the alternative'. Yes, it's better than death, but this does not warrant slave labor. Now, some more questions. First, have you ever read any Marx? Second, have you ever read any Ayn Rand? These two very opposed authors will present you with socialism and capitalism, allowing you to make an informed choice. To close, I really must confess that I don't know how to react when one claims to support slave labor, oppose minimum wage, oppose labor unions, oppose government regulation, and then says that it's all in the interest of the people of earth. We must realize (I cannot stress this enough) that capitalism is no magic system, nor is socialism. Capitalism will always hurt the majority while serving the minority, while socialism will always help the majority. It's your choice.

Fantasea

[quote=anomaly][quote=Fantasea]
I support improving the lot of impoverished persons in other countries. Education would, of course be the best way. However, since supporting one's self and family is the immediate consideration, jobs that provide the wherewithall to do that is the first step in a long match to the kind of prosperity available to those in the US. It's a generational thing. As educational opportunities increase for the young, they will be able to improve things for themselves and the rest of the country, too. That is, of course unless they decide to make their way to the US.You told me about your uncles once before. All persons in their situation may either wallow in self-pity or learn to do something for which an employer is willing to pay them. What's wrong with signing on at the local community college and spending nights or weekends learning something useful that they presently do not know? I respect every worker. I just don't understand the mentality of those who refuse to do anything to help themselves when the going gets rough.
Irrespective of the lip service intended to assuage the concern of the world's welfare agencies, governments of the countries you mention are not the least bit interested in seeing the lot of their peasantry improve. That is not a fault of capitalism. It is the plan of repressive governments.Socialism in the workplace is the equivalent of the dumbing down of schoolwork. Neither rises even to the level of mediocrity.

anomaly

[quote=Fantasea][quote=anomaly]It seems this response by you is a tad less hostile, perhaps we're getting somewhere. As goes the treatment of foreign workers, you seem to want workers to patiently wait, and live a life of suffering. I don't know about you, but that does not sound too appealing. And you seem to realize this, so you suggest they move to the USA. Shouldn't a good quality of life be enjoyed everywhere? Capitalism, obviously, cannot allow this, we need cheap labor so that our prices in the USA do not rise too high. This is why, throughout modern capitalist history, many poor peoples throughout the world have turned to a system that treats workers better: socialism. We have seen this in Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Cuba and many others. Perhaps, though, you know what's best for them better than they do! US workers, you say, should constantly try to better themselves through more education, ensuring that they can move up the ladder. There is a reason that that is not possible: we have a highly competitive job market; it's hard to become wealthy when fresh out of college, let alone trying to do it when you're 30-40 years old, taking a job, and caring for children. I feel you vastly oversimplify the life of a working man. This brings us to the irony often cited by critics: workers, in capitalism, often work long hours each day so that they can do something (being lazy, resting, living comfortably) they could do if they worked less often. As I mentioned earlier, capitalism by nature produces huge surpluses, as workers are forced to work as long as he employer says so as to make money and live. This overproduction is, of course, for the benefit of the higher-up (socio-economically speaking), as they now have more goods to sell, more money to rake in, al be it that they often do have too much, but because of their success, this lost money is meaningless to the higher-up (management) person. But, you must see that workers all completely neccesary to ensure the survival of capitalism. And it seems to me that, rather than let this vital part be exploited, we should treat all workers fairly.
But, in response to your 'evil gov't' theory, why do these gov'ts continually oppress their peasantry, egging on rebellion? They do it for money, and trade, with the USA. If they let workers and peasants have their way, and give themselves more rights, ensuring that production costs would go up, the people will certainly have enough to live on, but will the former dictator or the businessmen continue to benefit from USA trade and become rich? No. They will most likely join those lowly peasants. You surely see that gov'ts do not suppress workers and peasants out of their own wishes, if they let people have their way, they will either see USA camo in the streets (like in Chile and Panama) or they will see their fortunes deplete. I do not blame the oppressive gov't, because when you look at the situation from their perspective, what choice do they have? It is always better for a poor, developing country to be allies with the most powerful empire in the world than to oppose it. One needs only to look at history to see this. As for your litle quote: "Socialism in the workplace is the equivalent of the dumbing down of schoolwork. Neither rises even to the level of mediocrity", I'd love an explanation of it before I, as I know I will, criticize it. To close, once again some questions for you. The first two are familiar: Have you read Rand? Have you read Marx (or Lenin or some other prominent anti-capitalist writer)? For the thrid, it's only for my interest. You constantly criticize workers for wanting, or receiving, too much money. So, what is your occupation and/or socio-economic status?

Fantasea

[quote=anomaly]
You conveniently omit the role of the consumer who through its buying habits determines the goods to be carried, the quality level of the goods, and the pricing thereof. Re-work the preceding paragraph to include the influence of the consumer and show us how it then reads.If some can do it, and they do; others, who are similarly motivated, can do it, too. On the other hand, those who are not sufficiently motivated can come up with 'valid' reasons why they just can't do what they know they should do and would really like to do. My understanding of the word 'can't' goes like this. In matters exceeding one's physical strength, the word can't can be properly applied. In most other instances, the correct expression is along the lines of, 'I could do it, however, for reasons of my own, I choose not to do it.'That's a choice, right?Any businessman who operated his business in the manner you describe would soon fail.I believe that employees bring all kinds of 'attitudes' to the job and the vast majority are treated fairly with respect to their performance.It is the exhileration of power that causes tyrants to treat other humans the way they do.It is simply using fewer words to describe a comparative situation.

Under socialism, the masses must be treated to equality; but on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. Everyone gets the same. They must never be permitted to upset the equlibrium by rising out of their proscribed place in the system.

"Dumbing down" the curriculum in school, a concept exposed, identified, and named by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan (D) NY, who observed that to the extent that public school students had difficulty meeting the minimum education requirements, the minimum education requirements were being elaxed so that they would more closely match the ability of students to meet them. A downward spiral of 'social promotions' from grade to grade commenced and continued until the crackdown by the current administration.

In either case, it is difficult to rise even to the level of mediocrity.

They were apostles for a Eutopia which can never materialize because of the irrepressible desire of man to be free to choose his own destiny. I see no point in learning anymore about them than I already know.You have missed the boat completely. Since the very first post, my argument is that wherever opportunities exist, persons should take full advantage of them to improve their knowledge, skills, and overall work performance so that they can can be worth more and qualify for advancement.In an ideological discussion, the personal attributes of the participants serve only to detract and to distract attention from the arguments being advanced.

anomaly

[quote=Fantasea]Let's include the valued consumer, shall we? The consumer demands lower prices, competition often gives them to him. This in turn causes workers to have less money. Either you screw the worker, or you screw the consumer, and to screw the consumer would mean failure, but a CEO has complete control over a worker's life, in that, if a poor worker quits, he may starve, or not be able to feed or provide shelter for his family. Capitalism is by nature a consumer's society, the worker's (the majority, I don't know if I can get that through your head) suffer. If this is not the case, why do we see the majority of worker's (worldwide) at poverty? I think you need only to ask the poor Brazilian peasant why he has lost his land to see the other side of capitalism that we in the US often do not see. It is basic fact that capitalism causes inequality, that means the workers get poorer while the rich get richer. The virtue of capitalism is that, if we're lucky, we have the power to change our fortune. But here you must realize that that's not always the case, some can't change their fortune. Capitalism today survives only because of these cheap laborers. You need them, little do you realize. And again you paint this rosy picture of capitalism. Perhaps we can think of capitalism as a hydraulic system. Yes, it runs, but often breaks down, and some of the excess squirt out the sides, and it is very crude. That is how capitalism runs: crudely, with workers 'failing' as you would say all the time. You not only condone their failure, you celebrate it! You celebrate the misfortune of others, perhaps not realizing that if you were born in Brazil or China or Mexico you would not be able to sit their defending the system that hurts the majority of earth's population. Supporting capitalism is denying that the majority can benefit from an economic system.

Well, that's almost laughable. You don't realize what socialism is: it is the nationalisation of the economy, the control of the market. In democratic socialism, the people would control the market. That's it. Since worker's make up the majority of people, they would certainly benefit from this system. It is known that not only does state run economies work, with consistent economic growth, but that gov't regulation of the market leads to greater equality. Perhaps you're trying to debate communism, and debating that is altogether useless.

Well, a school can hardly be compared to anything democratic. So therefore we cannot compare public school to democratic socialism. Students at a school have no say in the principal, their teachers, or how long they attend. completely stupid. Things would not become totally equal under socialism, contrary to your belief. Things would be pushed more equal, so that perhaps the CEO would not make 425 times what his average worker makes. Are you opposed to the average machinist making something like a tenth of his CEO's salary? Are you fighting here for those CEOs you on the right love and admire? Luckily for you, the public in America is currently blinded by patriotism, but in Europe, the public is not. The people their are largely leftist, and many claim to be socialist. I'm sure, though, this is simply because they're 'snobby Europeans'. Are you trying to say with this little analogy that workers would not want to work because they were more equal to their bosses? That doesn't make much sense, nor does this particular argument.

Lenin was hardly a 'utopian' thinker. He wished to establish socialist states that were democratic in nature. Unfortunately, Stalin, after Lenin's death, quickly destroyed the possibility of this and made himself dictator. And Ayn Rand was a capitalist thinker! Do you know nothing of her? She is the prophet of modern capitalism! If you wish to seriously support capitalism, read Atlas Shrugged, and see what capitalism is all about. Even an author so laissez-faire as she admits, and embraces, capitalism's tendency to make people unequal. Stop pretending, Fant. Stop denying capitalism. It is there, it isn't pretty as you describe, it isn't a worker's haven, it is what it is: a system based on greed and profit, and driven by slave labor. I strongly suggest you atleast read Rand and Marx before so strongly supporting capitalism. It amazes me how some laissez-faire thinkers out there deny history, and claim that capitalism is beneficiary to the common man, and sometimes even describe capitalism as a system friedly to the worker! It is exactly the same as its predecessor, feudalism, except for this: In feudalism, there was no way to change your economic status. In capitalism, with hard work and some good luck, one can change their status. OTher than that, we see that they are largely the same. Both driven by slave labor, both system's purpose is