|
Macro Economy - Socialism or Capitalism (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| drewfactor |
| quote: | | that doesnt make any logical sense.... what if the all the developed countries were'nt as developed and thus could not afford to buy products from the developing world. then who would the developing world sell their products, themselves? and how does a foriegn invester cause a country to become less rich when it provides new jobs that otherwise would not have been around? you cant look at the wages they offer compared to the foreiners country but rather how it is relative to the country it is being invested in. |
Izzy:
That is not what I was saying at all. I agree that if a rich country invests in a poorer country, the standard of living will go up, they will gain industrialization, and other benefits of foreign investment. I am not saying that this will make the other country "poorer." But, take the situation of Nike in Viet Nam for example...people were working in horrendous conditions, long hours exposed to dangerous chemicals, child labour, etc...all for measly wages. Now, I agree with Renegade because they probably did get a higher standard of living and working for Nike was probably better than working in rice fields in the baking sun wading in leach infested sewer water all day just to have your rice paddy dessimated by a storm or something...BUT..As forein investors, was it morally right for Nike to not consider proper working conditions? Restrictions on child labour? etc..?
Now..I think the situation is sorted out in Viet Nam...they had some run in with safety inspectors. Also, Nike was concerned about public opionion so they got the factory conditions and wages improved.
Here's my point that I was making from the beginning: Even though capitalism has worked the best so far, produces higher standard of living for all etc...What it ultimately creates is DRASTIC disparities in wealth. Now, as a capitalist, I can accept radical income disparity because I believe in how capitalism produces a higher standard of living for everyone. BUT Socialists see a problem with radical income disparity. Is it fair that GM pays it's workers here in Ontario $25 an hour and pays the same worker in Mexico probably less than half that? Do you not agree that there should be some measures to create a more equal distribution of wealth?
I'm sick of arguing this side of the debate....Are there no true socialists out there willing to take over!? :tongue3 |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by drewfactor
Izzy:
That is not what I was saying at all. I agree that if a rich country invests in a poorer country, the standard of living will go up, they will gain industrialization, and other benefits of foreign investment. I am not saying that this will make the other country "poorer." But, take the situation of Nike in Viet Nam for example...people were working in horrendous conditions, long hours exposed to dangerous chemicals, child labour, etc...all for measly wages. Now, I agree with Renegade because they probably did get a higher standard of living and working for Nike was probably better than working in rice fields in the baking sun wading in leach infested sewer water all day just to have your rice paddy dessimated by a storm or something...BUT..As forein investors, was it morally right for Nike to not consider proper working conditions? Restrictions on child labour? etc..?
|
see then thats a different case, a moral one rather then an economic one... morality and capitalism sometimes go agianst each other...
| quote: |
Here's my point that I was making from the beginning: Even though capitalism has worked the best so far, produces higher standard of living for all etc...What it ultimately creates is DRASTIC disparities in wealth. Now, as a capitalist, I can accept radical income disparity because I believe in how capitalism produces a higher standard of living for everyone. BUT Socialists see a problem with radical income disparity.
|
i agree with you there
| quote: |
Is it fair that GM pays it's workers here in Ontario $25 an hour and pays the same worker in Mexico probably less than half that? Do you not agree that there should be some measures to create a more equal distribution of wealth?
|
see now you're starting to slip agian, you're getting into the realm of globalism, the economy in mexico is not at the same level as the economy in canada and so judging someones salary is all relitive. it would be foolish to have equal distribution of wealth internationally, otherwise i would move to mexico where i get the same wage as i would here but yet be able to afford so much more becuase everything is cheaper |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
see then thats a different case, a moral one rather then an economic one... morality and capitalism sometimes go agianst each other...
|
to the point you made here drewfactor, and Izzy.
I believe it is not the responsibility of corporations to judge and decide this morality, although they may do so I don't care (hey it's their bottomline). I believe it is the responsibility of the government of the people, to make sure it's people are not being exploited. And personally if the people's own government doesn't give a damn about it's own people, to put it bluntly I don't see why we should give a damn about their people either.
The problem with a lot of these genuine moral issues is they are being hi-jacked by protectionist/isolationist/hippies into realms they are not directly effected. Although I agree more can be done, realisitcally I only see the government of the people as the only ones with authorithy and responsibility to protect their people. After all, that's what governments are for... in theory anway. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Awesome posts guys. :)
I'm a pro-capitalist myself. Why?
It's fair that's why.
In socialism/communism, why should I have to shell out my blood, sweat and tears to someone who has decided to do nothing with their life?
In capitalism, an individual is free to pursue their own business(es), create jobs, support people through the creation of those jobs, provide a need/service, bring up the standard of living, and support other causes (arts, talents, charities, etc.).
Sure there's disparity in a capitalist society, just as their are disparities between individual morals/ethics/beliefs. We're not the same.
It's freedom of choice.
We all have a choice to succeed because we live in a land that been safe-housed by the veterans that have fallen before us, who believed that a free enterprise society is worth preserving.
It's just sad to see that people think that because of the wealth that surrounds them that they are entitled to it by doing absolutely nothing. (ie. Welfare cases)
There's a book I've been meaning to read called, "The Compassionate Capitalist".
It has some amazing insight on the world of free enterprise and capitalism.
:toocool: |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
| I am in awe of your ability to rate the insights of a book you haven't read yet. |
|
|
| rupert |
Not that I can add much but capitalism and socialism in their purest forms are both the enemy of democracy.
Since socialism is discredited nowadays I will only deal with Capitalism.
To say that capitalism is fair and equitable is categorically not true. In fact capitalism is not about fairness, it is about promoting inequality.
I would even go so far as to say that it is a Zero-Sum game. I can provide a detailed explanation of why I think this if neccessary.
Unrestrained Capitalism(american style) is fundamentally destructive, to say that Capitalism is the only form of political/economic system that will work is a lie. The free market Economic rationalists like to preach the mantra of the market but they dont really practice it. The biggest welfare recipients in the world are multinational corporations who get massive taxpayer subsidies for otherwise inefficient products.
To work markets need effective regulation and the rule of law. There is no such thing as a free and fair market without regulation. Trade liberalisation is all about removing the regulations which are what make western market economies work. This is ultimately self destructive.
Unrestrained capitalism leads to
War
Poverty
Political instability
Ecological degradation
The current globalisation agenda is doomed to fail because there is no real regulation on a global scale as the United States will never cede sovereignty to a foreign body.
Without Justice and compassion for the poor there will never be peace and security for the rich. |
|
|
| Trance Plant |
Capitalism on this side of the fence.
| quote: | | I believe in an ideal world, the best system of economics would be capitlisim. Just think about it for a little, this would mean that people are responsible and capable for their actions and decissions. |
The idea being that the reward is directly proportional to the amount of work needed to get it. Makes sense.
Or take it a step further by thinking of ideas in a natural selection world. The best ideas make it, whereas the bad ones don't.
IMO capitalism rewards the best ideas.
| quote: | | To say that capitalism is fair and equitable is categorically not true. In fact capitalism is not about fairness, it is about promoting inequality. |
Fair and equitable in the sense that everyone has an opportunity for success. Whether individuals do take the opportunity or not is another matter entirely. Those that don't would be deemed unequal as a result. I would bring your statement to another level by saying that: Unfortunately a side effect of capitalism is inequalities. I don't know that it breeds it as much as it's an unfortunate by-product.
TP |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
The problem is that sometimes capitalism doesn't reward best ideas. Sometimes a weaker company has a better idea than a stronger one, and stronger one destroyes it.
Another problem is that in capitalism not everyone is born equal. Rich people have more resources to give to their children than the poor ones, and that makes people not start on equal bases. |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
| good points tito. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
The problem is that sometimes capitalism doesn't reward best ideas. Sometimes a weaker company has a better idea than a stronger one, and stronger one destroyes it.
Another problem is that in capitalism not everyone is born equal. Rich people have more resources to give to their children than the poor ones, and that makes people not start on equal bases. |
Your wrong, these problems are not capitalisim - they are shared by every other alternative view of economics. Saying these are capitalist problems when in reality such problems exist in alternative forms of economy would therefore be false. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| I agree they exist in other forms of economy. But in socialism, they are happening on a smaller scale. Because of higher welfare, which make people start more equally, and because huge companies are more constrained by the government. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
I agree they exist in other forms of economy. But in socialism, they are happening on a smaller scale. Because of higher welfare, which make people start more equally, and because huge companies are more constrained by the government. |
yes but this is only true against your second point. And further I don't think it is less people, communinism or socialism usually just slims the par between wealth of classes.
I don't think communinism equalizes OPPROTUNITY however, you are born to a general, you'll be well off. You are born to a politician, you have a future. So it might not be the wealthy in communisim, but the powerful. Honestly I prefer the wealthy in power over the powerful. |
|
|
|
|
