Win a copy of Machine Learning for Business: Using Amazon SageMaker and JupyterE this week in the Jython/Python forum
or Object Design Style Guide in the Object-Oriented programming forum!
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Paul Clapham
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Knute Snortum
Sheriffs:
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Tim Cooke
  • Junilu Lacar
Saloon Keepers:
  • Ron McLeod
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Moores
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
Bartenders:
  • Joe Ess
  • salvin francis
  • fred rosenberger

Who wants Globalisation??

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Oh sorry, who wants Globalisation ??
Pro-capatilist do not want it.
Anti-capatilist do not want it.
Pro-communist do not want it.
Anti-communist do not want it.
Socialism, the evil of all ism, exist everywhere and finds excuse for anything, irony is that it also does not want Globalisation.
Corporates ??? But they do have to belong to some country ? And corporates do not run country.
Then who wants Globalisation ??
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1340
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Originally posted by R K Singh:
Then who wants Globalisation ??
Stick me down for some
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1907
1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Globalization with protection to masses is the need.Socialists cum capitalists have been telling this for years that pure globalization won't work in long run without neglecting majority.
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Capablanca Kepler:
Globalization with protection to masses is the need.Socialists cum capitalists have been telling this for years that pure globalization won't work in long run without neglecting majority.


Will you please elaborate this ??
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by R K Singh:

Socialism, the evil of all ism, exist everywhere and finds excuse for anything,


Its sad that a lot of people dont seem to understand the difference between communism and socialism. A lot of bad things were done in communisms name(, just as bad things were done in capitalisms name), but it is very different from socialism.
Read this socialist principles and tell be exactly which bits are evil. Socialism is most definatly not evil. Neither is capitalism(, or even communism for that matter). Its the currupt people in charge who do evil things in the name of an economic theory who are evil. Its seems like following the cold war when people were used to words like 'communism' and 'socialism' being associated with the enemy, they are blinded to the fact that they are mere social and economic theories. I admit that communism goes a bit far, and a major problem with it is the idea that it should be spread with revolution, but dont tar socialism with the same brush. If you read the principles I linked to above, you'll see that they are mainly very good ideas that most people, who would other wise declare a hatred of socialism, would agree with.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Ravish,Don't make conclusion on basis of watching current breed like Laloo,VP Singh,ChandraShekhar etc.Remember my agitation acroos the country in 70s?Full revolution without taking law in hand.
See more about me
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:
Socialism is most definatly not evil. Neither is capitalism(, or even communism for that matter). Its the currupt people in charge who do evil things in the name of an economic theory who are evil.


Sorry Joe, I could not read the link because of lack of time, but I would sure do it soon.
Now when I said, socialism is evil, its because communism is extreme of socialism and capatilism dose nat have place for it.
BUT capatilism cant live without socialism and communism cant live without capatilism.
And here evil wakes up. Socialism can be seen as a mid way of both other isms but most of the time one of the ism has more affect on it.
Its evil because no other ism can live without it and no body(people) wants pure socialism.
Yes, problem lies with people only who cant implement any of the ism in the purest form.
And so socialism is evil. It does not allow any other ism to exist in purest form.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:


Read this socialist principles and tell be exactly which bits are evil. Socialism is most definatly not evil.


I see some of the same points and principles at the cited URL as were on the National Socialist Party of Germany in the 1930s (also more popularly known by its German psuedo acronymn, Nazi). Morever, the Nazis actually successfully implemented some of them. Communism, Nazism, and socialism are all collectivist ideaologies. The concept of the collective, whether referred to as "the people", "the masses", "the state", etc, always takes precendence over the individual in such ideaologies.
Any crime, any atrocity, against the individual, or minority, is allowed, permitted, and in fact, encouraged, if it benefits the collective. All the talk about about "democratization" at the cited URL basically means the abolishment of any individual rights and property rights since those rights will be nullable at any time by action of the state or people under the guise of "democracy".
From a conceptual standpoint, why should rights be subject to democratic nullification? If I am walking down the street and 2 thieves demand my money, must I give it to them because they outnumber me and can outvote me at their impromptu meeting? What gives me the right to my property; is it simply a legislative conveinance that allows me to keep my property and not a more fundamental moral right?
Does not the same concept apply when it is done in a more sophisticated way when when masses of people decide they will confiscate the work and earnings of others through the electoral process (democracy in action) ?
Taking the collectivist ideology of socialism to its ugly and logical conclusion, we would forcibly remove the organs of healthy people to benefit
more numerous sick people. New lungs for the cigarrete addict, a new liver for the alcoholic, new kidneys for 2 diabetics who neglected their insulin levels, and new corneas for those with Down's syndrome who accidently stared into the sun too long. Utopia at last, by taking from the right owners, all their legitimate economic, property, and personal rights....
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1408
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
In the old days, organized religion controlled public prayer, charity (alms and medical care for the poor), education of the young, and the promulgation of moral/ethical standards. And the government controlled religion.
Despite the intended separation of church and state or freedom of religion, socialism has restored all these institutions to the state. The one aspect of religion that remains in private hands is public prayer. If one doesn't believe in the efficacy of prayer, then for all _practical_ purposes socialism restores state religion.
The only thing that distinguishes governmental organizations from private organizations is that governmental organizations have their policies enforced ultimately by the threat of legal, organized violence.
(Gang warfare would be an example of illegal organized violence; murder would be an example of illegal individual violence, and self-defense would be an example of legal individual violence.)
Legal organized violence has its place, of course, such as for defending a country from invasion or its citizens from pirates, or to claim a monopoly on the administration of vengeance via the criminal justice system (to discourage individual illegal violence from degenerating into gang or interfamily warfare).
But it seems to me that a civilized people will try to minimize the number of social institutions that require the threat of organized violence to function. Socialism, in contrast, seeks to increase them.
 
frank davis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:

...
The only thing that distinguishes governmental organizations from private organizations is that governmental organizations have their policies enforced ultimately by the threat of legal, organized violence.
...
But it seems to me that a civilized people will try to minimize the number of social institutions that require the threat of organized violence to function. Socialism, in contrast, seeks to increase them.


This has got to be the shortest, yet most insightful, argument against socialism I have ever seen.
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Every government operates the same way... by threatening to kill you if you "get out of line". Different governments define "get out of line" differently, of course.
 
frank davis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Every government operates the same way... by threatening to kill you if you "get out of line". Different governments define "get out of line" differently, of course.


Socialism means more "lines", both literally and metaphorically. Even more insideous is the fact that the "lines" can be redrawn and shifted with remarkable rapidity with little restraint to serve various power groups for political gain but ostensibly to serve "the people".
 
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1340
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I believe socialist principles can be applied at the same time as emphasising the rights of an individual to go about their daily business with as little interference from the state as possible. I don't see how promoting state support for the less privaleged in society has to necessarily result into some Orwellian/Nazi/Stalinist hell hole.
Nazis had another agenda remember, that of "disinfecting" and homogenising the race. Hitler also created a regime where it slowly became impossible to resist him through democratic means. That certainly isn't in socialist ideology. If a means to legitimatelly challenge the government exists (like in the west) why does socialism have to be evil?
At the very least socialist ideals and those that champion them remind us that there are still many inequalities in the world that could be addressed (I say 'could' because some say they shouldn't be addressed), and keeps them in the public eye. At the same time right-wing libertarians remind us of the dangers of too much state power, like dangers to liberty and economic creativeness etc. Without the "other side" some things might be lost and forgotten about until its too late.
[ November 25, 2003: Message edited by: Richard Hawkes ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I'm all for globalisation if it brings a world of free trade and democracy where the most value is created through innovation and application of knowledge.
It would be bad news all round if a few super powers translate it's military strategies to world economic strategies: bullying, threatening and using uni-lateral action. The boards are all inter-connected. A move on one board affects another.
As Alan Beattie explains in the Financial Times -
"A permanent global commitment to aggressive US intervention against any perceived threat to it's security...converting the rhetoric of Washington's neo-conservatives into reality could be move back to an economy on a cold war footing.'
regards
[ November 25, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]
 
Joe King
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

BUT capatilism cant live without socialism and communism cant live without capatilism.
And here evil wakes up. Socialism can be seen as a mid way of both other isms but most of the time one of the ism has more affect on it.


Totally disagreee with this - pure communism and capitalism disagree with an other alternative, yet do not accept that you need a mixture. Socialism, on the other hand, although underlining the need to public services to be in the public sector, also realises that in some areas the private sector is best. Socialism is the more flexable of the three theories.

It does not allow any other ism to exist in purest form


Would you want any of the others in the purest form? Pure communism could not be acheived - the people trying to do so failed. Pure capitalism would be a nightmare. For a TOTAL capitalist economy everything would be in the private sector, including police, hospitals, the army etc. I cant beleive anybody would think that coporations going hell for leather for profits would be responsible providers of these vital public services.
Communism is flawed because it is based on everyone being equal. It didnt work because some people, to quote Orwell, "where more equal than others" - corruption (and serious defeciancies in information gathering and planning) meant that it failed. The thing is is that capitalism has a similar flaw. Capitalism assumes that people are rewarded in relation to how much effort they put in. This is flawed because it only works in a "perfect market", which doesnt exist anywhere. A company director, can do 2 hours work, contributing nothing to society and get payed a lot more than a teacher, working 10 hours in a vital job. I'm not saying that communism is better then capitalism (as a socialist, I regect communism as badly flawed), but I'm saying that we have to look at capitalism with an open, honest and unsentimental viewpoint and accept that it has flaws. I think socialism has a slight advantage in that it accepts that people, and economic theories, have flaws and tries to take them into account.

Any crime, any atrocity, against the individual, or minority, is allowed, permitted, and in fact, encouraged, if it benefits the collective.


I couldnt disagree more. Socialists (at least the non-nutty ones) believe in upholding the law. Society is made up of individuals, and crimes against individuals damage society. The main lesson that we learnt from Stalin's appalling rule is that these so called "crimes for the greater good" are not good in the long run. Dont for a minute think that these crimes are restricted to socialist governments - I dont doubt for a minute that countries like the US, UK etc have done some pretty nasty things.

From a conceptual standpoint, why should rights be subject to democratic nullification? If I am walking down the street and 2 thieves demand my money, must I give it to them because they outnumber me and can outvote me at their impromptu meeting? What gives me the right to my property; is it simply a legislative conveinance that allows me to keep my property and not a more fundamental moral right?


I cant believe that you think this is what socialism is about! What you have described is an anarchist system (if thats not a oxymoron).

Does not the same concept apply when it is done in a more sophisticated way when when masses of people decide they will confiscate the work and earnings of others through the electoral process (democracy in action) ?


Having your rights "subject to democratic nullification" is something that happens in capitalist societies as well - the US democratically elected government recently removed many rights with the patriot act. Besides, a portion of your work and earnings must go towards certain things like health care and security. If you are not paying it to the government, you'd have to pay it to a company. Dont for a minute think that by having private companies running services means that you pay less. Less taxes, yes, but the money will still have to go from you towards the service.

Taking the collectivist ideology of socialism to its ugly and logical conclusion, we would forcibly remove the organs of healthy people to benefit
more numerous sick people. New lungs for the cigarrete addict, a new liver for the alcoholic, new kidneys for 2 diabetics who neglected their insulin levels, and new corneas for those with Down's syndrome who accidently stared into the sun too long. Utopia at last, by taking from the right owners, all their legitimate economic, property, and personal rights....


There is no economic or social theory I know of that agrees to this. Why do you think that socialism does? The link I gave is for the 2nd International. Its not a organisation of 30 odd wierdos in "red europe". Parties from all over Europe are part of it, including the British Labour party, and they're hardly raving left-wingers are they?

In the old days, organized religion controlled public prayer, charity (alms and medical care for the poor), education of the young, and the promulgation of moral/ethical standards. And the government controlled religion.
Despite the intended separation of church and state or freedom of religion, socialism has restored all these institutions to the state.


Would you rather have "education of the young, and the promulgation of moral/ethical standards" in the hands of an elected government or private companies?

But it seems to me that a civilized people will try to minimize the number of social institutions that require the threat of organized violence to function.


By that theory you'd have to do away with the entire government. Is that what you'd like?

Socialism means more "lines", both literally and metaphorically. Even more insideous is the fact that the "lines" can be redrawn and shifted with remarkable rapidity with little restraint to serve various power groups for political gain but ostensibly to serve "the people".


The alternative is private companies fullfilling the roles that a government would have. The private companies would have to be controlled and regulated by law, the same as a government. In both cases it is possible to "re-draw the lines" - some socialist governments have been corrupt and changed the rules to suit themselves, but then so have governments in capitalist societies. Corruption is not restricted to certain political/economic theories. Dont tell me that organisations that contribue $millions to election campaigns in the US dont have any influence over the policies of the person they contributed to.
I dont mean to rant and rave at everyone, its just that, to me, a lot of people seem to have a very strange view of socialism. It seems that, particularly in the US, it is thought (and taught?) of as being evil. I dont think it is anywhere near as radical as many people think. If you look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrat, it says that a lot of mainstream political parties in Europe are social democrats. Maybe the cold war made people think of there being two camps - capitalism and communism. Anything that went away from your camp was bad. People also seem to associate the "undemocraticness" of communism with socialism. The kind of socialism I believe in, is every bit as democratic as capitalist countries (and maybe a bit more for not having such strong influences from cororations).
I dont know, but it seems like a lot of people hear "socialism" and think "communism".
[ November 26, 2003: Message edited by: Joe King ]
 
frank davis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:

For a TOTAL capitalist economy everything would be in the private sector, including police, hospitals, the army etc.
[ November 26, 2003: Message edited by: Joe King ]


Incorrect, in fact quite the opposite. Capitalism recognizes the need for a legitimate, neutral, and principled protector and enforcer of individual rights. Police, a court system, a legislative system, and an army, are indispensible for not only for protecting individual rights, but commercial and other contractual rights as well.
By the way, many hospitals are in the private sector here in the US. They are regulated, and so far they have not been so horrific that people have felt compelled to burn them to the ground.
 
frank davis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:

...
Capitalism assumes that people are rewarded in relation to how much effort they put in.
...
[ November 26, 2003: Message edited by: Joe King ]


Again, another fundamental misconception regarding capitalism. Capitalism only requires that people freely exchange their goods, services, and monies without coercion or fraud. Capitalism does not proscribe any relative amounts of reward to efffort ratios.
Should a stupid and inefficient programmer who works 2 years to create a buggy application be paid more than a more talented and gifted programmer who creates a better product in 2 months. You can come up with an infinite number of similar scenarios in other industries. Compensation or Rewards based on effort is stupid. How would we measure it, by calories expended???
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
A company director, can do 2 hours work, contributing nothing to society and get payed a lot more than a teacher, working 10 hours in a vital job.
You mean contributing nothing to society other than jobs and products/services and greasing the wheels of the economy. The market has dictated that his job demands more compensation than the teacher's.
Socialists (at least the non-nutty ones) believe in upholding the law.
You are correct. Actually Socialists believe in lots of laws and regulating everything. Socialist governments intrude much more into a person's life than in a capitalist society.
the US democratically elected government recently removed many rights with the patriot act.
Which many rights have been recently removed?
If you are not paying it to the government, you'd have to pay it to a company. Dont for a minute think that by having private companies running services means that you pay less. Less taxes, yes, but the money will still have to go from you towards the service.
With a higher standard of service offered by the private companies, of which there is a choice between many. You get what you pay for.
Parties from all over Europe are part of it, including the British Labour party, and they're hardly raving left-wingers are they?
From a US perspective, yes, in general they are. The British Labour party is far to the left of even the US Democratic party.
Would you rather have "education of the young, and the promulgation of moral/ethical standards" in the hands of an elected government or private companies?
Education is our one fairly socialist artifact. It is also, coincidentally, fraught with problems. Many parents prefer the education offered by private schools, run by religious groups or private companies. As for moral and ethical standards, that's the parent's job for the most part.
By that theory you'd have to do away with the entire government. Is that what you'd like?
We are talking about minimum government, not no government. There is a vast difference.
The alternative is private companies fullfilling the roles that a government would have.
Or the government fulfilling roles that private entities should?
It seems that, particularly in the US, it is thought (and taught?) of as being evil.
While evil might be too strong a word, calling it a "bad idea" wouldn't be too far off the mark. Socialism breeds and encourages mediocrity. It stifles productivity. It absolves people of individual responsibility and encourages people to rely on the state instead of their own drive, hard work, and initiative. It encourages "free riders". It minimizes the incentive to succeed. It promotes classism and stifles mobility between the classes. Of course, if none of the above seems all that wrong to someone, then I guess socialism might not seem like such a bad thing to them.
 
frank davis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:

Socialists (at least the non-nutty ones) believe in upholding the law. Society is made up of individuals, and crimes against individuals damage society.
[ November 26, 2003: Message edited by: Joe King ]



Socialists are the first to lead the charge in criminal activities such as assaults on property rights. Philosophically and historically, they have nationalized entire industries and deprived owners of their properties and monies, they have prevented parents from passing on their property to their children, and they have raised the general level of taxation on nearly everyone (required since nationalized industries are less efficient).
 
frank davis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:

It seems that, particularly in the US, it is thought (and taught?) of as being evil. I dont think it is anywhere near as radical as many people think[ November 26, 2003: Message edited by: Joe King ]


No, socialism is generally not taught as being evil, it actually gets more respect than capitalism in most of academia. Admittedly, in practice its usually not much different than a milder version of what the US Democratic party would like to promote.
 
Joe King
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
[QB It promotes classism and stifles mobility between the classes.[/QB]




Are you having a laugh? The whole point of socialism is to stop classism not create it!
 
frank davis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:



Are you having a laugh? The whole point of socialism is to stop classism not create it!


Human beings have different degrees of talent, ambition, and ability. Naturally, this leads to economic results whereby some groups of people will accumulate more wealth than others. To destroy classes of people you must destroy their fundamental property rights and you must violate their liberty. Socialism is the enemy of those who value liberty. For those who do not value liberty, but enviously covet the wealth of others, socialism gives them a false justification to steal via confiscatory taxation.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:
The whole point of socialism is to stop classism not create it!


A goal of socialism is to effectively redistribute wealth. In other words, take things away from those who "have" and give to those who "have not as much". This institutional villification of the upper class promotes classism (like racism, but amongst classes, not races). Classism is not as much of an issue when there is mobility between the classes. For example, the middle class does not harbor ill will towards the upper class when the mechanisms are in place for social mobility. Remove the mechanisms for social mobility and you promote envy and classism.
The Democrats in this country are very good at class-based politics.
[ November 26, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Joe King
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Marx said a lot of crazy things, but one thing stood out:

From each according to his ability to each according to his needs


For me this means that we should be happy to work in order to help other people. If we have the ability to acrue a lot of capital, what possible justification do we have for not helping people not as well off as us. The extremely rich people, who could quite happily live on 2% of what they earn, should be happy to have the opportunity to help others. Many don't. I guess that at the end of the day, people are selfish and always will be. Surely the opportunity to help others is every bit as good a reward as having that second boat, or a new car?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 435
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
A company director, can do 2 hours work, contributing nothing to society and get payed a lot more than a teacher, working 10 hours in a vital job.
You mean contributing nothing to society other than jobs and products/services and greasing the wheels of the economy. The market has dictated that his job demands more compensation than the teacher's.


I can't believe this comment, teachers are developing our future wealth. Without them we have no skilled workers. Teachers are paid poorly because of a massive weakness of capitalism, short-term-ism.
Tony
[ November 27, 2003: Message edited by: Tony Collins ]
 
Tony Collins
Ranch Hand
Posts: 435
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
And whilst the boards and money holders demand that YOU( the average worker ) is an individual and capitalist they operate in perfect socialist structures. Destroy one company and the old boy network will fit you on another board.
Tony
 
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Tony Collins:

I can't believe this comment, teachers are developing our future wealth. Without them we have no skilled workers. Teachers are paid poorly because of a massive weakness of capitalism, short-term-ism.


Reminds me of this comment :
It's the little farmers who are feeding the world's poor not the World Bank or IMF. Democracy and market economies are the foundation of equitable and self organising societies.Democracy and capitalism do not go hand in hand. Globalisation is a very personal issue.
regards
[ November 27, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]
 
frank davis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:

For me this means that we should be happy to work in order to help other people. If we have the ability to acrue a lot of capital, what possible justification do we have for not helping people not as well off as us.


Here is the arrogance of the religion of socialism : It proclaims to others how they should live their lives and what should make them happy. Then, it uses the guns of government to enforce its views on everyone and takes property from its rightful owners. Capitalism, on the other hand, leaves people free to donate whatever they want to whatever charity or individuals they find most desevering. Liberty vs Theft is the choice between capitalism vs socialism.

I believe your presumptions are turned backwards; its not that the relatively better off have to find any "justification" at all to keep their money from less wealthy strangers; the question is what gives the less wealthy any right to take the wealth of others ? Are you saying that by simply being born without money gives someone a right to someone else's wages for the rest of their life? Isn't a definition of slavery that one person is being forced to labor for another?
At this point you'll probably claim that you don't mean working people should subsidize poor people (or do you?), but then why are their tax rates increased?
 
frank davis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Tony Collins:

I can't believe this comment, teachers are developing our future wealth. Without them we have no skilled workers. Teachers are paid poorly because of a massive weakness of capitalism, short-term-ism.
Tony
[ November 27, 2003: Message edited by: Tony Collins ]


If the voters of any district decide that teachers need a raise and make this an important issue, then the teachers will get a raise. Teacher's salaries in public schools are not determined by capitalism, they are determined by government. Put the blame,if any, were it rests.
 
frank davis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by HS Thomas:

Reminds me of this comment :
It's the little farmers who are feeding the world's poor not the World Bank or IMF. Democracy and market economies are the foundation of equitable and self organising societies.Democracy and capitalism do not go hand in hand. Globalisation is a very personal issue.
regards
[ November 27, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]


Its the little farmers that relatively speaking, are so incredibly inefficient and less productive that their very existence is practically blightful. Not only are they themselves and their farming supplies a terrible misallocation of resources, but anyone who is forced to rely upon them (for example by non-global closed markets) is getting gouged and being made poorer by paying more money for food. Open the markets to global trade so consumers have a choice on who will feed them. Freedom and free markets are two aspects of the same ideal.
 
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

Its the little farmers that relatively speaking, are so incredibly inefficient and less productive that their very existence is practically blightful. Not only are they themselves and their farming supplies a terrible misallocation of resources, but anyone who is forced to rely upon them (for example by non-global closed markets) is getting gouged and being made poorer by paying more money for food. Open the markets to global trade so consumers have a choice on who will feed them. Freedom and free markets are two aspects of the same ideal.


I was thinking of the example of India, a basket-case 4-5 decades ago. The Indians went it practically alone and grew enough to feed themselves first then exported food to places like Africa possibly Russia. A recent United Nations study confirmed that the world has enough food. The problem is one of distribution.
India had a system of local production for local consumption first. Their government was effective enough to ensure this happened. Western governments practised this early on, but there are now enough people round the globe eating the wrong kind of food who are landless, cashless, homeless and unable to feed themselves.
Biotech plants, whose seeds are sterile, will force farmers to buy seed every year. With inclement weather, dry conditions and other factors that farmers have to contend with , does anyone honestly think that local farmers can survive. They will have to depend on multi-national agrbusiness giants possibly take out mortgages on their land or ive up their land.
Globalisation will have to be looked at from both angles.
regards
[ November 27, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Liberty vs Theft is the choice between capitalism vs socialism.


One of us has wrong definition of socialism.
 
frank davis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by HS Thomas:

Globalisation will have to be looked at from both angles.
[ November 27, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]


Let consumers have the freedom to choose. If they want to pay more for food produced by the inefficient local farmer then that is their choice. If they want cheaper food produced more efficintly by larger corporations, give them that choice. Its their life, do not dictate to them how they should spend their money. Give them freedom, give them choice, that's what free markets and globalisation are all about.
 
Tony Collins
Ranch Hand
Posts: 435
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Herb, when the world is full of people like you I really dispear. Maybe you will loose you job some day, then maybe you will get ill. What will your hand gun do then. Personally I'd give you 5 minutes in my neigbourhood.
Tony
 
Tony Collins
Ranch Hand
Posts: 435
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Herb, I would like you to come to Toxteth Gun or no gun and spout your opinions. Please be my guest.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Tony Collins:
Teachers are paid poorly because of a massive weakness of capitalism, short-term-ism.


Right... Public school teaching positions are government jobs. Local governments set their pay scale. Your argument might hold water if public education was run by a private corporation, but that's not the case. As has been already stated, public education is probably the most socialistic of all US institutions. That's likely why we have problems there.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Tony Collins:
Personally I'd give you 5 minutes in my neigbourhood.


Originally posted by Tony Collins:
Herb, I would like you to come to Toxteth Gun or no gun and spout your opinions. Please be my guest.


What are ya gonna do? Tax him to death?
 
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

Let consumers have the freedom to choose.If they want to pay more for food produced by the inefficient local farmer then that is their choice.If they want cheaper food produced more efficintly by larger corporations,give them that choice.Its their life, do not dictate to them how they should spend their money. Give them freedom, give them choice,that's what free markets and globalisation are all about.


Salmon farming,introduced recently, has produced cheaper salmon I suppose.That is judging by the initial prices set by these salmon farms.
People used to eat salmon before it's farming was introduced,but as a luxury item with cod and sea fish being more staple food.Salmon was never sold at higher the price of the cheapest farm salmon.
Cod is really expensive now. No one is sure whether it's due to EEC regulations or overfishing.If it's the latter,cod farming may give a chance for cod_from_the_sea supplies to recover their bountifulness.Or it may be too late for Cod.
Either way.the fishing industry has taken a real whack. In the last 50 years globalisation did not look for a balance between the two options.It took about 10 years to develop the salmon farms and only now are they starting on cod farming (having got rid of the competition from sea cod). It seems to me that a new way of managing the environment, people and food distribution is required.
Herb, while en-route to Toxteth perhaps you could stop over in your yacht and speak to a delegation of fishermen and explain globalisation to them. You may have to fork out the �5,000,000 it took to secure Bush's passage.
Sea ports are really depressed places now, amock with drunken louts and pros. And nice new housing which not many local people can afford.The areas are attracting an affluent set with yachts.But they don't bring any character to the places while turning Britain's coastline into one huge marina.
If there was overfishing of cod it was due to criteria set by EEC regulations,IMHO.
Where was the freedom to choose here ? I am sure there are similar stories from the US.
Globalisation does not lift all boats, it only lifts yachts.
regards
[ November 27, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]
 
Tony Collins
Ranch Hand
Posts: 435
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Isn't it plain to see that education must be in the public sector as a child should not be held back by the lack of wealth of their parents.
Also if guns are great and everybody should have one, why are the crime rates so high in the states? You are vitual prisoners, house to car to work to car to house. Doesn't seem like freedom to me.
Tony
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Its their life, do not dictate to them how they should spend their money. Give them freedom, give them choice, that's what free markets and globalisation are all about.


Then there should be no subsidy also in free market and globalisation, right ??
Let prople pay what is the actual cost of product. Why to subsidies it ??
 
I think he's gonna try to grab my monkey. Do we have a monkey outfit for this tiny ad?
Sauce Labs - World's Largest Continuous Testing Cloud for Websites and Mobile Apps
https://coderanch.com/t/722574/Sauce-Labs-World-Largest-Continuous
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!