Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story....

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by Rocky437

If Capitalism is so bad, then move to Cuba. Lets see which system you prefer.

Also, a lot of those working in sweatshops are not complaining. They are happy they have A job and are actually making money. Its some of the people here in North America that @!%*@ about it.

Essential1, I take it that you most likely support Gross National Happiness? Bhutan's system? Which does not use GDP/money to measure growth, happiness, and development. Would you want to live in a system like that?

Another thought: Professional Sports is actually the best example of Capitalism. Capitalism is basically survival of the fittest. That's essentially what it is. In MLB, NBA, NHL, NFL, PGA etc.. the best players stay in the league, and the better you are, the more money you make. If they suck, they get put in a lower league, or in some cases, i.e: Adam Morrison, couldnt make it in the pros, and nobody knows what that guy is doing now.
Click to expand...

And do you think unregulated capitalism does not lead to sweat shop conditions??

The History of the Industrial Revolution needs to talk with you...


Also really those working in sweat shops don't complain? I hope you were highly sarcastic


And with sports and Capitalism... I'd like you to take a look at the financing of the Florida Marlins new stadium
Click to expand...

.... I know unregulated capitalism leads to sweatshop conditions. What is your point though? I'm telling you that sweatshops help lift people out of poverty. For example:

“I’d love to get a job in a factory,
 
Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by Rocky437

If Capitalism is so bad, then move to Cuba. Lets see which system you prefer.

Also, a lot of those working in sweatshops are not complaining. They are happy they have A job and are actually making money. Its some of the people here in North America that @!%*@ about it.

Essential1, I take it that you most likely support Gross National Happiness? Bhutan's system? Which does not use GDP/money to measure growth, happiness, and development. Would you want to live in a system like that?

Another thought: Professional Sports is actually the best example of Capitalism. Capitalism is basically survival of the fittest. That's essentially what it is. In MLB, NBA, NHL, NFL, PGA etc.. the best players stay in the league, and the better you are, the more money you make. If they suck, they get put in a lower league, or in some cases, i.e: Adam Morrison, couldnt make it in the pros, and nobody knows what that guy is doing now.
Click to expand...

And do you think unregulated capitalism does not lead to sweat shop conditions??

The History of the Industrial Revolution needs to talk with you...


Also really those working in sweat shops don't complain? I hope you were highly sarcastic


And with sports and Capitalism... I'd like you to take a look at the financing of the Florida Marlins new stadium
Click to expand...

.... I know unregulated capitalism leads to sweatshop conditions. What is your point though? I'm telling you that sweatshops help lift people out of poverty. For example:

“I’d love to get a job in a factory,
 
Originally Posted by Rocky437

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by Rocky437

If Capitalism is so bad, then move to Cuba. Lets see which system you prefer.

Also, a lot of those working in sweatshops are not complaining. They are happy they have A job and are actually making money. Its some of the people here in North America that @!%*@ about it.

Essential1, I take it that you most likely support Gross National Happiness? Bhutan's system? Which does not use GDP/money to measure growth, happiness, and development. Would you want to live in a system like that?

Another thought: Professional Sports is actually the best example of Capitalism. Capitalism is basically survival of the fittest. That's essentially what it is. In MLB, NBA, NHL, NFL, PGA etc.. the best players stay in the league, and the better you are, the more money you make. If they suck, they get put in a lower league, or in some cases, i.e: Adam Morrison, couldnt make it in the pros, and nobody knows what that guy is doing now.
Click to expand...

And do you think unregulated capitalism does not lead to sweat shop conditions??

The History of the Industrial Revolution needs to talk with you...


Also really those working in sweat shops don't complain? I hope you were highly sarcastic


And with sports and Capitalism... I'd like you to take a look at the financing of the Florida Marlins new stadium
Click to expand...

.... I know unregulated capitalism leads to sweatshop conditions. What is your point though? I'm telling you that sweatshops help lift people out of poverty. For example:

“I’d love to get a job in a factory,
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by Rocky437

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by Rocky437

If Capitalism is so bad, then move to Cuba. Lets see which system you prefer.

Also, a lot of those working in sweatshops are not complaining. They are happy they have A job and are actually making money. Its some of the people here in North America that @!%*@ about it.

Essential1, I take it that you most likely support Gross National Happiness? Bhutan's system? Which does not use GDP/money to measure growth, happiness, and development. Would you want to live in a system like that?

Another thought: Professional Sports is actually the best example of Capitalism. Capitalism is basically survival of the fittest. That's essentially what it is. In MLB, NBA, NHL, NFL, PGA etc.. the best players stay in the league, and the better you are, the more money you make. If they suck, they get put in a lower league, or in some cases, i.e: Adam Morrison, couldnt make it in the pros, and nobody knows what that guy is doing now.
Click to expand...

And do you think unregulated capitalism does not lead to sweat shop conditions??

The History of the Industrial Revolution needs to talk with you...


Also really those working in sweat shops don't complain? I hope you were highly sarcastic


And with sports and Capitalism... I'd like you to take a look at the financing of the Florida Marlins new stadium
Click to expand...

.... I know unregulated capitalism leads to sweatshop conditions. What is your point though? I'm telling you that sweatshops help lift people out of poverty. For example:

“I’d love to get a job in a factory,
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by Essential1

Well if regulation means it is not Capitalism anymore..

Then Capitalism is just as bad as Communism..

Neither are bad in theory, but both are DISASTERS.
Click to expand...

Capitalism doesn't need to be regulated, it regulates itself. If people are buying faulty goods or being told lies or losing money, why would you continue to do business. Business wouldn't last by screwing people. All regulations do is protect bad business.

Communism doesn't sound remotely good in theory no matter how you twist it. Everyone is the same, everything is stagnant. I can come over to your house and use your things, ect. No private property by any means. How can you spin that to sound good even in theory?
Click to expand...
Your first statement is %%%**+$%..

1. Forcing companies to not use lead based paint  was bad for ALL OF US.. God damn government....

2. Forcing companies to not make little kids climb into "stuck" machinery... God damn government....

3. I wonder what we call the health insurance industry.. THEY DON'T SCREW PEOPLE AT ALL..

4. Or the Financial Industry.. They don't screw people at all...

5. Capitalism has no morals.. Because bottom-line the only thing important to capitalism is money.. Money has NO MORAL COMPASS..

Unchecked capitalism ALWAYS leads to what capitalism hates most lack of competition, and lack of choice..



It's the exact opposite of communism, and has a similar fate... Leads to exactly what the economic theory hates the most.
Click to expand...

1. Actually no, it wasn't the government that warned people about lead based paint. Using lead based pain was expensive, new technology developed better quality paint.


2. This is not true, either. Since women didn't work, the men and children worked. Thanks to the Industrial Revolution, the standards of living were growing higher, thus children didn't need to work anymore. Besides, why should anyone deny someone from working? This isn't a 3rd world country, kids have parents. I'm sure parents can decide and make a judgment call whether to let their kids work or not.

3. The health care industry was working fine until the government co-oped the entire industry. Why don't you look at the health care rates in correlation to Medicare in 1965 to HMO's in 1973and further regulations till now.


4. The financial industry...They were bailed out weren't they? They knew they were going to be bailed out, that's the whole purpose of the Federal Reserve. They can screw people all they want, because their buddies inside government had their backs.


Capitalism is the only moral method of production. It allows people to keep their property and allows them to voluntarily associate with others. Is there a money motive? Of course there is, otherwise what's the point of being innovative? What's the incentive to produce?

Capitalism hates competition? Do you even know what Capitalism is? Capitalism is the only method of production that allows competition. You think companies like GM who get propped up by government increases competition? Competition forced them to go out of business.
 
Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by Essential1

Well if regulation means it is not Capitalism anymore..

Then Capitalism is just as bad as Communism..

Neither are bad in theory, but both are DISASTERS.
Click to expand...

Capitalism doesn't need to be regulated, it regulates itself. If people are buying faulty goods or being told lies or losing money, why would you continue to do business. Business wouldn't last by screwing people. All regulations do is protect bad business.

Communism doesn't sound remotely good in theory no matter how you twist it. Everyone is the same, everything is stagnant. I can come over to your house and use your things, ect. No private property by any means. How can you spin that to sound good even in theory?
Click to expand...
Your first statement is %%%**+$%..

1. Forcing companies to not use lead based paint  was bad for ALL OF US.. God damn government....

2. Forcing companies to not make little kids climb into "stuck" machinery... God damn government....

3. I wonder what we call the health insurance industry.. THEY DON'T SCREW PEOPLE AT ALL..

4. Or the Financial Industry.. They don't screw people at all...

5. Capitalism has no morals.. Because bottom-line the only thing important to capitalism is money.. Money has NO MORAL COMPASS..

Unchecked capitalism ALWAYS leads to what capitalism hates most lack of competition, and lack of choice..



It's the exact opposite of communism, and has a similar fate... Leads to exactly what the economic theory hates the most.
Click to expand...

1. Actually no, it wasn't the government that warned people about lead based paint. Using lead based pain was expensive, new technology developed better quality paint.


2. This is not true, either. Since women didn't work, the men and children worked. Thanks to the Industrial Revolution, the standards of living were growing higher, thus children didn't need to work anymore. Besides, why should anyone deny someone from working? This isn't a 3rd world country, kids have parents. I'm sure parents can decide and make a judgment call whether to let their kids work or not.

3. The health care industry was working fine until the government co-oped the entire industry. Why don't you look at the health care rates in correlation to Medicare in 1965 to HMO's in 1973and further regulations till now.


4. The financial industry...They were bailed out weren't they? They knew they were going to be bailed out, that's the whole purpose of the Federal Reserve. They can screw people all they want, because their buddies inside government had their backs.


Capitalism is the only moral method of production. It allows people to keep their property and allows them to voluntarily associate with others. Is there a money motive? Of course there is, otherwise what's the point of being innovative? What's the incentive to produce?

Capitalism hates competition? Do you even know what Capitalism is? Capitalism is the only method of production that allows competition. You think companies like GM who get propped up by government increases competition? Competition forced them to go out of business.
 
nerd.gif
, yup typical NT liberals in here with their flawless... errrrr... flawed arguments.  I shall see my way out.  ... ...  
 
nerd.gif
, yup typical NT liberals in here with their flawless... errrrr... flawed arguments.  I shall see my way out.  ... ...  
 
Originally Posted by rashi

1. Actually no, it wasn't the government that warned people about lead based paint. Using lead based pain was expensive, new technology developed better quality paint.


2. This is not true, either. Since women didn't work, the men and children worked. Thanks to the Industrial Revolution, the standards of living were growing higher, thus children didn't need to work anymore. Besides, why should anyone deny someone from working? This isn't a 3rd world country, kids have parents. I'm sure parents can decide and make a judgment call whether to let their kids work or not.

3. The health care industry was working fine until the government co-oped the entire industry. Why don't you look at the health care rates in correlation to Medicare in 1965 to HMO's in 1973and further regulations till now.


4. The financial industry...They were bailed out weren't they? They knew they were going to be bailed out, that's the whole purpose of the Federal Reserve. They can screw people all they want, because their buddies inside government had their backs.


Capitalism is the only moral method of production. It allows people to keep their property and allows them to voluntarily associate with others. Is there a money motive? Of course there is, otherwise what's the point of being innovative? What's the incentive to produce?

Capitalism hates competition? Do you even know what Capitalism is? Capitalism is the only method of production that allows competition. You think companies like GM who get propped up by government increases competition? Competition forced them to go out of business.
Click to expand...
1. Regulation still prevents.. Considering it is SOOOOOOOOOO expensive I wonder why we worry about other countries using it still? It was still in widespread use when  it was banned.. Although since we're talking capitalism it is all the people's fault for not knowing everything about lead paint, and it's problems
eyes.gif


2. You are a fool.... Child labor expanded immensely during the industrial revolution..  Why should we deny people from working?  For christ sake some of these kids were 4.. And plenty of people felt their was no choice because they needed the extra money...Standard of living increased but for the most part wealth was controlled by the richest <10%...  But because they were working they were treated as sub human.. And an unregulated capitalism allowed that..

3. Companies buying off politicians to reduce "Regulations" so they can be "Free''.. The mantra of capitalism.. 1994 we did nothing in terms of regulation.. From 99-09  Insurance went up 119%.... While Insurance Company Profits Skyrocket.. And our health care is NO BETTER.

4. Companies buying off politicians to reduce "Regulations" so they can be "Free''... The mantra of capitalism... We deregulated and these #!%@%!+% did whatever they wanted.


Unchecked capitalism. Leads to control of government by the Koch Brothers, and the like... They buy our politicians for their extra $1billion in earnings.. AND WE ALL SUFFER...  They eliminate the barrier between investment and commercial banking and we lose billions in pensions.. They create CDS, buy mortgages unseen.. Were not even forced by anyone, but the ability to take advantage of a new idea.. Sell mortgages at an inflated price... That buyer then sells it for an even more inflated price.. They bundle some nice stuff in also to get buyers, and the people holding the hot potato at the end fold.. And take people who were not even aware they were pawns with them... The derivatives market was worth $600 trillion dollars.. There isn't even $600 trillion dollars in the world... They were motivated by the profit margain to eliminate regulation. And they took full advantage.. Welcome to 21st century capitalism.. The same as the old steel, and locomotive monopolies of the past..

There was a reason we needed to outlaw monopolies... Because the NUMBER 2 GOAL of every business after money in a capitalist economy is get rid of all competition.. The market (as a tangible thing) may want competition..  But the chief controllers of the market (THE CORPORATIONS, this is especially when the consumer has no rights/protections) is to restrict all competition..

Unregulated markets may work in some industries.. But on the whole for the essentials, creates strong monopolies, and gives leverage to the sellers.. Giving us buyers effectively 0 control..
 
Originally Posted by rashi

1. Actually no, it wasn't the government that warned people about lead based paint. Using lead based pain was expensive, new technology developed better quality paint.


2. This is not true, either. Since women didn't work, the men and children worked. Thanks to the Industrial Revolution, the standards of living were growing higher, thus children didn't need to work anymore. Besides, why should anyone deny someone from working? This isn't a 3rd world country, kids have parents. I'm sure parents can decide and make a judgment call whether to let their kids work or not.

3. The health care industry was working fine until the government co-oped the entire industry. Why don't you look at the health care rates in correlation to Medicare in 1965 to HMO's in 1973and further regulations till now.


4. The financial industry...They were bailed out weren't they? They knew they were going to be bailed out, that's the whole purpose of the Federal Reserve. They can screw people all they want, because their buddies inside government had their backs.


Capitalism is the only moral method of production. It allows people to keep their property and allows them to voluntarily associate with others. Is there a money motive? Of course there is, otherwise what's the point of being innovative? What's the incentive to produce?

Capitalism hates competition? Do you even know what Capitalism is? Capitalism is the only method of production that allows competition. You think companies like GM who get propped up by government increases competition? Competition forced them to go out of business.
Click to expand...
1. Regulation still prevents.. Considering it is SOOOOOOOOOO expensive I wonder why we worry about other countries using it still? It was still in widespread use when  it was banned.. Although since we're talking capitalism it is all the people's fault for not knowing everything about lead paint, and it's problems
eyes.gif


2. You are a fool.... Child labor expanded immensely during the industrial revolution..  Why should we deny people from working?  For christ sake some of these kids were 4.. And plenty of people felt their was no choice because they needed the extra money...Standard of living increased but for the most part wealth was controlled by the richest <10%...  But because they were working they were treated as sub human.. And an unregulated capitalism allowed that..

3. Companies buying off politicians to reduce "Regulations" so they can be "Free''.. The mantra of capitalism.. 1994 we did nothing in terms of regulation.. From 99-09  Insurance went up 119%.... While Insurance Company Profits Skyrocket.. And our health care is NO BETTER.

4. Companies buying off politicians to reduce "Regulations" so they can be "Free''... The mantra of capitalism... We deregulated and these #!%@%!+% did whatever they wanted.


Unchecked capitalism. Leads to control of government by the Koch Brothers, and the like... They buy our politicians for their extra $1billion in earnings.. AND WE ALL SUFFER...  They eliminate the barrier between investment and commercial banking and we lose billions in pensions.. They create CDS, buy mortgages unseen.. Were not even forced by anyone, but the ability to take advantage of a new idea.. Sell mortgages at an inflated price... That buyer then sells it for an even more inflated price.. They bundle some nice stuff in also to get buyers, and the people holding the hot potato at the end fold.. And take people who were not even aware they were pawns with them... The derivatives market was worth $600 trillion dollars.. There isn't even $600 trillion dollars in the world... They were motivated by the profit margain to eliminate regulation. And they took full advantage.. Welcome to 21st century capitalism.. The same as the old steel, and locomotive monopolies of the past..

There was a reason we needed to outlaw monopolies... Because the NUMBER 2 GOAL of every business after money in a capitalist economy is get rid of all competition.. The market (as a tangible thing) may want competition..  But the chief controllers of the market (THE CORPORATIONS, this is especially when the consumer has no rights/protections) is to restrict all competition..

Unregulated markets may work in some industries.. But on the whole for the essentials, creates strong monopolies, and gives leverage to the sellers.. Giving us buyers effectively 0 control..
 
Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by Rocky437

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by Rocky437

If Capitalism is so bad, then move to Cuba. Lets see which system you prefer.

Also, a lot of those working in sweatshops are not complaining. They are happy they have A job and are actually making money. Its some of the people here in North America that @!%*@ about it.

Essential1, I take it that you most likely support Gross National Happiness? Bhutan's system? Which does not use GDP/money to measure growth, happiness, and development. Would you want to live in a system like that?

Another thought: Professional Sports is actually the best example of Capitalism. Capitalism is basically survival of the fittest. That's essentially what it is. In MLB, NBA, NHL, NFL, PGA etc.. the best players stay in the league, and the better you are, the more money you make. If they suck, they get put in a lower league, or in some cases, i.e: Adam Morrison, couldnt make it in the pros, and nobody knows what that guy is doing now.
Click to expand...

And do you think unregulated capitalism does not lead to sweat shop conditions??

The History of the Industrial Revolution needs to talk with you...


Also really those working in sweat shops don't complain? I hope you were highly sarcastic


And with sports and Capitalism... I'd like you to take a look at the financing of the Florida Marlins new stadium
Click to expand...

.... I know unregulated capitalism leads to sweatshop conditions. What is your point though? I'm telling you that sweatshops help lift people out of poverty. For example:

“I’d love to get a job in a factory,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by Rocky437

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by Rocky437

If Capitalism is so bad, then move to Cuba. Lets see which system you prefer.

Also, a lot of those working in sweatshops are not complaining. They are happy they have A job and are actually making money. Its some of the people here in North America that @!%*@ about it.

Essential1, I take it that you most likely support Gross National Happiness? Bhutan's system? Which does not use GDP/money to measure growth, happiness, and development. Would you want to live in a system like that?

Another thought: Professional Sports is actually the best example of Capitalism. Capitalism is basically survival of the fittest. That's essentially what it is. In MLB, NBA, NHL, NFL, PGA etc.. the best players stay in the league, and the better you are, the more money you make. If they suck, they get put in a lower league, or in some cases, i.e: Adam Morrison, couldnt make it in the pros, and nobody knows what that guy is doing now.
Click to expand...

And do you think unregulated capitalism does not lead to sweat shop conditions??

The History of the Industrial Revolution needs to talk with you...


Also really those working in sweat shops don't complain? I hope you were highly sarcastic


And with sports and Capitalism... I'd like you to take a look at the financing of the Florida Marlins new stadium
Click to expand...

.... I know unregulated capitalism leads to sweatshop conditions. What is your point though? I'm telling you that sweatshops help lift people out of poverty. For example:

“I’d love to get a job in a factory,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
When comparing capitalist and socialist, people often times look at countries and look at how capitalist or socialist they are and use that for analysis. That is often times problematic because thing scan vary a great deal sector by sector, in a given country.

For instance, post WWII Britain became a country where most sectors of the economy were state owned and state run and it also set out to provide state provided, single payer service like pensions, health care and other services. Meanwhile, postwar Germany had similar government supported pensions and health care and unemployment insurance so a quick glance would show us a socialist country but it was successful because its private economy made up most of its GDP and it was the most price driven in Europe and its economy recovered faster than anyone else in Europe and it had low unemployment, low inflation (its central bank was very conservative and feared inflation due to relatively recent memories of Weimer style inflation in the 1920's). Therefore It is usually better to look at individual sectors of an economy, both public and private, when analyzing the empirical results of various economic sets of rules.

Also, as an aside, those who want well funded and extensive social services for poor and working class people should generally support low taxes, secure property rights, free trade, floating prices (prices send valuable signals to both those who supply and demand products) and should avoid their desire to micromanage firms with heavy handed regulation. When you economy is allowed to consistently grow, tax revenues, even at low rates, will grow, the increase in wealth means a larger tax base and those high levels of tax revenue can a variety of domestic agendae to be achieved. 


As far as Moore' most recent film is concerned, he was simply wring to call his movie a critique of capitalism. A banking system where your success is based on how well connected to are a nation's finance minister and president determine how you are treated during insolvency cannot really be described as capitalist, corporatist would be the best description (it is not socialist, if it were, we would get to share in the gains and not just the losses of the financial sector. So I appreciate Moore's dislike of what happened in 2008 in particular and how the banking sector is structured in general, but to call corporatist failure a failure of capitalism shows either a dislike for accuracy or dislike for capitalism and that he intentionally linked free market capitalism with such a spectacular failure of corporatism.




BTW, the industrial revolution did not cause poverty (except for a small number of artisans whose skills were totally or almost totally replaced by machinery, the weavers, led my Ned Ludd, are famous for destroying weaving machines that supplanted their skills. By and large though, many of the old trade guilds and artisans incorporated industrial machinery, new technologies and mass production to increase their productivity and in the process improved their lives with higher incomes and improved the lives of consumers because they spent less of their income on a wide variety of items that could be produced using much less human effort than was the case in past centuries. What people derisively call supply side economics was the industrial revolution (and the commercial revolution that proceeded it, where specialization and exchange in Early Modern Western Europe was expanding at rate not even since during the peaks of the Roman empire. The commercial revolution was proceeded by the late medieval agricultural revolution where people were able to specialize and exchange and later on incorporate new world crops and technology to banish the spectre of famine that had always plagued the people of all virtually all pre A.D. 1600 societies). Productivity means greater wealth and better lives, for the average person.

The Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial revolutions, led Britain and other parts of the Western world to levels of prosperity that had been hitherto unknown in any part of the world. Luckily, that growth continued and by historical standards, the average person, is so affluent that the notion of children working is appalling but children did tough, dirty and dangerous jobs well before the industrial revolution, aside from the children of a very small royal, aristocratic, mercantile or ecclesiastic elite, the standard experience of childhood was labor, only the child of the wealthy did other things like train for warfare or become literate.  It was the wealth creation of the industrial revolution that allowed the middle classes of Britain and the United states to expand through to the point that a majority of parent did not need their children's labor and the term child labor, as an aberration from the norm, was coined during that period. As soon as parents get a measure of prosperity, they want to get their kids out of the farms, mines and factories and into school and by the very early 20th century, most people had at least hat minimum level affluence, at least in Britain and the US and that is what ended the mellenia old practice, that we now call "child labor." Also, the Industrial revolution did not start child labor, it helped to end it. The growth that resulted from centuries of increasing specialization and exchange.

People in China in 2011, flee the countryside because as unappealing and as menial and as dangerous factory work is, the pay is much better and in many respects, the work is less arduous and unpleasant, real, actual work as rural laborer can be hellish. People in China ae doing what people in southern Brazil did in 1911, which is what people in the New England did in 1811, which is what people in Britain did in 1711, they voted with their feet, in favor of what we would call sweatshops because they were tired of the farm, where even more gallons of sweat are spilled,in exchange for much lower compensation.


  
 
When comparing capitalist and socialist, people often times look at countries and look at how capitalist or socialist they are and use that for analysis. That is often times problematic because thing scan vary a great deal sector by sector, in a given country.

For instance, post WWII Britain became a country where most sectors of the economy were state owned and state run and it also set out to provide state provided, single payer service like pensions, health care and other services. Meanwhile, postwar Germany had similar government supported pensions and health care and unemployment insurance so a quick glance would show us a socialist country but it was successful because its private economy made up most of its GDP and it was the most price driven in Europe and its economy recovered faster than anyone else in Europe and it had low unemployment, low inflation (its central bank was very conservative and feared inflation due to relatively recent memories of Weimer style inflation in the 1920's). Therefore It is usually better to look at individual sectors of an economy, both public and private, when analyzing the empirical results of various economic sets of rules.

Also, as an aside, those who want well funded and extensive social services for poor and working class people should generally support low taxes, secure property rights, free trade, floating prices (prices send valuable signals to both those who supply and demand products) and should avoid their desire to micromanage firms with heavy handed regulation. When you economy is allowed to consistently grow, tax revenues, even at low rates, will grow, the increase in wealth means a larger tax base and those high levels of tax revenue can a variety of domestic agendae to be achieved. 


As far as Moore' most recent film is concerned, he was simply wring to call his movie a critique of capitalism. A banking system where your success is based on how well connected to are a nation's finance minister and president determine how you are treated during insolvency cannot really be described as capitalist, corporatist would be the best description (it is not socialist, if it were, we would get to share in the gains and not just the losses of the financial sector. So I appreciate Moore's dislike of what happened in 2008 in particular and how the banking sector is structured in general, but to call corporatist failure a failure of capitalism shows either a dislike for accuracy or dislike for capitalism and that he intentionally linked free market capitalism with such a spectacular failure of corporatism.




BTW, the industrial revolution did not cause poverty (except for a small number of artisans whose skills were totally or almost totally replaced by machinery, the weavers, led my Ned Ludd, are famous for destroying weaving machines that supplanted their skills. By and large though, many of the old trade guilds and artisans incorporated industrial machinery, new technologies and mass production to increase their productivity and in the process improved their lives with higher incomes and improved the lives of consumers because they spent less of their income on a wide variety of items that could be produced using much less human effort than was the case in past centuries. What people derisively call supply side economics was the industrial revolution (and the commercial revolution that proceeded it, where specialization and exchange in Early Modern Western Europe was expanding at rate not even since during the peaks of the Roman empire. The commercial revolution was proceeded by the late medieval agricultural revolution where people were able to specialize and exchange and later on incorporate new world crops and technology to banish the spectre of famine that had always plagued the people of all virtually all pre A.D. 1600 societies). Productivity means greater wealth and better lives, for the average person.

The Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial revolutions, led Britain and other parts of the Western world to levels of prosperity that had been hitherto unknown in any part of the world. Luckily, that growth continued and by historical standards, the average person, is so affluent that the notion of children working is appalling but children did tough, dirty and dangerous jobs well before the industrial revolution, aside from the children of a very small royal, aristocratic, mercantile or ecclesiastic elite, the standard experience of childhood was labor, only the child of the wealthy did other things like train for warfare or become literate.  It was the wealth creation of the industrial revolution that allowed the middle classes of Britain and the United states to expand through to the point that a majority of parent did not need their children's labor and the term child labor, as an aberration from the norm, was coined during that period. As soon as parents get a measure of prosperity, they want to get their kids out of the farms, mines and factories and into school and by the very early 20th century, most people had at least hat minimum level affluence, at least in Britain and the US and that is what ended the mellenia old practice, that we now call "child labor." Also, the Industrial revolution did not start child labor, it helped to end it. The growth that resulted from centuries of increasing specialization and exchange.

People in China in 2011, flee the countryside because as unappealing and as menial and as dangerous factory work is, the pay is much better and in many respects, the work is less arduous and unpleasant, real, actual work as rural laborer can be hellish. People in China ae doing what people in southern Brazil did in 1911, which is what people in the New England did in 1811, which is what people in Britain did in 1711, they voted with their feet, in favor of what we would call sweatshops because they were tired of the farm, where even more gallons of sweat are spilled,in exchange for much lower compensation.


  
 
Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by Essential1

Well if regulation means it is not Capitalism anymore..

Then Capitalism is just as bad as Communism..

Neither are bad in theory, but both are DISASTERS.
Click to expand...

Capitalism doesn't need to be regulated, it regulates itself. If people are buying faulty goods or being told lies or losing money, why would you continue to do business. Business wouldn't last by screwing people. All regulations do is protect bad business.

Communism doesn't sound remotely good in theory no matter how you twist it. Everyone is the same, everything is stagnant. I can come over to your house and use your things, ect. No private property by any means. How can you spin that to sound good even in theory?
Click to expand...

untrue. the lowest price always wins. example: walmart

they treat people like *!!%, and are basically a monopoly chain store....

corporations will not regulate theirselves if it impacts their bottom line...

at the end of the day its about how to make another buck....if they could, they would buy and import asian children slaves....they can't....because there are laws and regulations in place....

this isnt the 1800s nor the 1940s, morality has been replaced with the dollar, especially when it comes to these ceo and higher ups who are completely out of touch with reality...

we have teachers and pilots on foodstamps while these dudes are literally worth state budgets.....it makes absolutely no sense.

i have no issue with the government running certain arenas of our country.....health...education...defense/law...infrastructure...

these should never be run FOR PROFIT, because these are programs designed for the better good of our country....for the welfare of americans....not to make a buck...not to make it the "most efficient system as it relates to the spending and making of dollars"...none of that...

if you sick, noone should profit off your sickness

if youre ignorant and need education, noone should make a profit off of your education

if you've had a crime committed against you, noone should profit off of the justice

if your streets are falling apart, your tax money that will be used to fix it shouldnt be making someone's pocket fat to fix it...

these are things that shouldnt be run for-profit...these are things that shouldnt have a bottom line anywhere in their success or failure....in fact, we should be breaking even or even spending money on these things....

if my labor is going to be taxed....the very action of working, a percentage of my labor is directly for the country....

id much rather see my labor go towards strengthening our healthcare, defense/justice, education or infrastructure rather than bail outs, politican's pockets, war abroad, getting rid of internet nuetrality, seeking out MARIJUANA POSSESSION, incarcerating people in general population which turns them even worse, etc.

something needs to change...

whatever kinda name you wanna call whatever it is we need, call it that...i care not...

but we need some sort of change.




  
 
Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by Essential1

Well if regulation means it is not Capitalism anymore..

Then Capitalism is just as bad as Communism..

Neither are bad in theory, but both are DISASTERS.
Click to expand...

Capitalism doesn't need to be regulated, it regulates itself. If people are buying faulty goods or being told lies or losing money, why would you continue to do business. Business wouldn't last by screwing people. All regulations do is protect bad business.

Communism doesn't sound remotely good in theory no matter how you twist it. Everyone is the same, everything is stagnant. I can come over to your house and use your things, ect. No private property by any means. How can you spin that to sound good even in theory?
Click to expand...

untrue. the lowest price always wins. example: walmart

they treat people like *!!%, and are basically a monopoly chain store....

corporations will not regulate theirselves if it impacts their bottom line...

at the end of the day its about how to make another buck....if they could, they would buy and import asian children slaves....they can't....because there are laws and regulations in place....

this isnt the 1800s nor the 1940s, morality has been replaced with the dollar, especially when it comes to these ceo and higher ups who are completely out of touch with reality...

we have teachers and pilots on foodstamps while these dudes are literally worth state budgets.....it makes absolutely no sense.

i have no issue with the government running certain arenas of our country.....health...education...defense/law...infrastructure...

these should never be run FOR PROFIT, because these are programs designed for the better good of our country....for the welfare of americans....not to make a buck...not to make it the "most efficient system as it relates to the spending and making of dollars"...none of that...

if you sick, noone should profit off your sickness

if youre ignorant and need education, noone should make a profit off of your education

if you've had a crime committed against you, noone should profit off of the justice

if your streets are falling apart, your tax money that will be used to fix it shouldnt be making someone's pocket fat to fix it...

these are things that shouldnt be run for-profit...these are things that shouldnt have a bottom line anywhere in their success or failure....in fact, we should be breaking even or even spending money on these things....

if my labor is going to be taxed....the very action of working, a percentage of my labor is directly for the country....

id much rather see my labor go towards strengthening our healthcare, defense/justice, education or infrastructure rather than bail outs, politican's pockets, war abroad, getting rid of internet nuetrality, seeking out MARIJUANA POSSESSION, incarcerating people in general population which turns them even worse, etc.

something needs to change...

whatever kinda name you wanna call whatever it is we need, call it that...i care not...

but we need some sort of change.




  
 
One has to look at the demographics of a country when analyzing the economic system that fuels said country. Child labor may have declined with the rise of industrialization in the 20th century, but ones economic status is predetermined by a lot of different social factors. With that being said there is no doubt the United States of America has been a completely independent experience for black people, and it is arguably communism IMO. We don't have communes, we have projects and ghettos, projects which were pitched to the people as 'welfare' and 'improvement' by FDR. I look at the land displacement as virtual confiscation of our rights, and the prevention of our race to acquire real property.
 
One has to look at the demographics of a country when analyzing the economic system that fuels said country. Child labor may have declined with the rise of industrialization in the 20th century, but ones economic status is predetermined by a lot of different social factors. With that being said there is no doubt the United States of America has been a completely independent experience for black people, and it is arguably communism IMO. We don't have communes, we have projects and ghettos, projects which were pitched to the people as 'welfare' and 'improvement' by FDR. I look at the land displacement as virtual confiscation of our rights, and the prevention of our race to acquire real property.
 
Originally Posted by Rocky437

 
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

.... I know unregulated capitalism leads to sweatshop conditions. What is your point though? I'm telling you that sweatshops help lift people out of poverty. For example:

“I’d love to get a job in a factory,
 
Originally Posted by Rocky437

 
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

.... I know unregulated capitalism leads to sweatshop conditions. What is your point though? I'm telling you that sweatshops help lift people out of poverty. For example:

“I’d love to get a job in a factory,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom