Spew All About Politics Here

[Edric O]

Two can play at this game.

If capitalism isn't causing those problems, then tell me WHAT is causing them. And provide hard, solid, indisputable evidence.

[emprworm]

earthnuker, you do not need to prove that trees have leaves. You do need to show evidence that blames capitalism for 3rd world problems. Neither Levi's nor Nike are committing those offenses anymore. Looks like capitalism now has a clean bill of health!!

Plus, since there are literally tens of thousands of US companies, I would think you could find much more than 2 or 3.

Problem is, the companies you cited no longer do those things, so what CURRENT gripe do you have?

and, btw: where I live, we have entire forests without a single leaf anywhere. The trees are called evergreens. ;)

[Anathema]

I never claimed that capitalism was to blame for the condition in third world countries- but it does take advantage of it.

[emprworm]

I never claimed that capitalism was to blame for the condition in third world countries- but it does take advantage of it.

fair enough. i dispute this claim. you may be right, i don't know. i would like to see evidence. I know that some INDIVIDUAL companies try to take advantage of it, but when they are exposed, they lose MILLIONS and they quit immediately.

Do you know how much money Nike lost as a result of them being exposed? Their stock dropped like a rock. HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS

I'd say that capitalism does NOT support that.

[Edric O]

Do you know how much money Nike lost as a result of them being exposed? Their stock dropped like a rock.

Exactly. That's why the next time they'll be much more careful and make sure they are NOT discovered.

[Anathema]

I'd say that capitalism does NOT support that.

Support what? The child labour or the drop of stocks?

Emp, before you start saying again that capitalism does not support unethical abuse of labourers, please give us your defenition of capitalism- no frills, just a clean defenition.

[emprworm]

Exactly. That's why the next time they'll be much more careful and make sure they are NOT discovered.

since cruel people have always existed, will always exist, we must measure a society based upon its response to cruel actions. Since Nike loses hundreds of millions of dollars by the capitalist society, the capitalist society therefore did not endorse this kind of behavior. Huge penalties come as a result.

And not getting caught? impossible. Child labor is easily identified and exposed.

Emp, before you start saying again that capitalism does not support unethical abuse of labourers, please give us your defenition of capitalism- no frills, just a clean defenition.

your attempt to divert the subject into another semantical war will fail. You cite evidence based upon YOUR definition. Not mine. dont try this crap on me again. use your definition.

I now repeat my questions:

{begin the Edric/Earthnuker challenge}

Which third world countries are being injured by the US? Which US companies are doing it? What are they doing specifically? And why does the actions of those companies implicate anything other than those companies?

{end the Edric/Earthnuker challenge}

These questions will continually be repeated until one of you answers them.

Earthnuker attempted to answer part 2 of the 4 part question with a measly 2 companies. (i would expect a huge list) However neither of those companies are doing what they are accused of doing.

When I say 'creation scientists' i list 100 specific names. Why cant you do the same? Maybe because they DONT EXIST? hmmm?

[Anathema]

Dude, not everybody has time to be online 24/7 you know ::). I couldn't find any list of companies that use child labour- but those are a small set of large companies, not thousends of small companies.

The fact that Nike lost a lot of money wasn't because capitalism rejected it, but human morale. Capitalism is a system in wich you are completely on your own and in wich you shouldn't expect any help from anybody else.

An economic system is not moralistic. And what's more, companies like Nike are a product of capitalism.

[emprworm]

And what's more, companies like Nike are a product of capitalism

and a moral capitalistic society condemned it. And the guilty party was dearly punished and no longer commits the offense.

{begin the Edric/Earthnuker challenge}

Which third world countries are being injured by the US? Which US companies are doing it? What are they doing specifically? And why does the actions of those companies implicate anything other than those companies?

{end the Edric/Earthnuker challenge}

[Anathema]

I never spoke about the US in particular. Companies as Nike and Levis are international.

[emprworm]

well, ok then! I guess the US capitalist democracy isnt such an evil government after all.

[Anathema]

No, I meant that European companies that do the same thing are just as evil...I still stick to my opinion that third world citizens are abused by corporate bastards. Anyway, I won't have time to make another long post today.

[Edric O]

{begin Emprworm challenge}

If capitalism isn't causing those problems, then tell me WHAT is causing them. And provide hard, solid, indisputable evidence.

{end Emprworm challenge}

Why do you resist change, Emprworm? You only see things from your perspective. You don't really care about the 3rd world and about the horrible poverty that capitalism DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT. (see, now this is an indisputable statement. I am still very much aware that capitalism is the CAUSE of world poverty, but for the sake of the argument I'll just restrict myself to saying it does nothing to prevent it)

Capitalism will NOT last forever. Do you accept this historical inevitability?

[emprworm]

ahh, but the problem is that you seperated capitalism from morality.

I said : since cruel people have always existed, will always exist, we must measure a society based upon its response to cruel actions. Since Nike loses hundreds of millions of dollars by the capitalist society, the capitalist society therefore did not endorse this kind of behavior. Huge penalties come as a result.

to which you replied: An economic system is not moralistic. And what's more, companies like Nike are a product of capitalism.

If GOOD morality cannot be applied to capitalism then neither can bad morality. Therefore, you have no basis upon which to say 'capitalism is evil'.

In MY capitalist soceity those practices are vehemently condemned and companies are penalized massively. I'd say that makes my particular capitalist society not quite as evil as Edric proposes.

[emprworm]

Capitalism will NOT last forever. Do you accept this historical inevitability

no, I reject it because it has always existed in the past, it is integral to human nature, and i have no good reason to think the nature of humans will ever change.

until Christ returns, of course.

[emprworm]

[quote[ begin Emprworm challenge}

If capitalism isn't causing those problems, then tell me WHAT is causing them. And provide hard, solid, indisputable evidence.

{end Emprworm challenge}

Edric, you are a slick politcian. No, seriously, you should run for office. You dodge questions and respond to questions with more questions. You accuse and then when the accused asks for justification, you demand that the ACCUSED start providing justification.

LOL man. What a slick tactic. Honestly, I like it. I know a lot of lawyers that would welcome you with open arms.

[Anathema]

Capitalism may not be evil, but the consequenses it causes may be immoral or even evil. Though I agree capitalism itself is not evil.

I'm about to go off line, so I have no time to read your entire post about your society. But does it also outlaw import of products that were produced by unethical means?

[Edric O]

Ha ha ha!! So you join the list of people who thought they lived in a perfect society, only to be proven wrong when their "perfect society" was crushed and humiliated centuries later.

no, I reject it because it has always existed in the past, it is integral to human nature

Two words: PROVE IT

[Dante]

>:( >:( >:(

WHAT MUST I DO TO STOP THIS BITCHING? DISCUSSIONS ARE FINE, MAYBE EVEN ARGUMENTS, CHALLENGES AND INSULTS? NO!

This is just like the old "Go Bush" topic, a fight more or less between Edric O and Emprworm. Someone (Nema I think) locked that topic. Think about this, it was locked. LOCKED. FOR A VERY GOOD REASON. Someone lock this one as well please, it isn't nineteen pages long yet I bet it will be.

[Anathema]

No, that's not true. Emprworm locked it himself. This is just a heated discussion.

[nemafakei]

"I'd say that capitalism does NOT support that."

It may not have supported it, but there were not conditions that stopped it first.

Onto my main point...

"Everyone can come out ahead, and no one loses"

Ok... lets go through this again. {Bangs emprworm's head on the table}

Remember that money is just bits of paper:

Money is an expression of buying power - of the worlds resources. As the value of all money is relative, units of currency represent percentages of the world's resources. Therefore, if one individual (Let's call him Bill Gates, for continuity) had as much money as everyone else had put together, he would basically be able to buy about half of the world's food, oil, or whatever is on sale. But if this money were to disappear from existence, then the value of everyone else's money in terms of goods would pretty much double.

Therefore...

If everyone happened to make a certain, equal profit, then they would have twice as many dollars, pounds, euros, whatever... but this would not mean there is twice as much resources* in the world - there is the same. Hence every pound would be worth less.

Therefore...

All money you gain devalues the money of others. Hence, you should only be paid for your productivity - and profit is not productivity; it is accumulation of wealth with intent to concentrate it (resulting in the indirect loss of others).

(*I think I've found the only neuter plural noun in english, if that means anything to you (ok, I'm sad) - note how verbs can be used with 'resources')

{Bandages up emprworm's head}

[emprworm]

archaeological records show that, from the earliest days, people have been producers and traders. The New York Times' science section on July 9 ran a story on new archaeological discoveries of trade among the ancient civilizations of the Old World. By the time of Christ, China, India, Arabia, Africa and Europe were tied into a vast trading network at sea. It cannot be emphasized enough that private property is essential to advanced trade. The ancient Greeks, who once ruled trade in the Mediterranean Sea, strongly believed in private property. So did the ethics and religions of China, India, Rome and other communities of the past.

[Edric O]

First of all, Emprworm, PLEASE READ NEMA'S ARGUMENT FOR ONCE!! He is right. The value of money is completely relative. Money in itself has no value, and the more money you have, the less value other people's money has.

Second, trade and private property are common traits of all economical systems since the dawn of civilization. You're not saying the only system that ever existed is capitalism, are you? By your definition, Feudalism equals Capitalism... ::)

The ancient Greeks, who once ruled trade in the Mediterranean Sea, strongly believed in private property. So did the ethics and religions of China, India, Rome and other communities of the past.

I see that you conveniently leave out Christianity, your own religion. Could that be because your views do not agree with Jesus's?

As the great Trotski once said:

"Go where you belong, into the dustbin of history!"

That is my message to capitalism. I will not rest until I see it defeated, at least in one country.

[emprworm]

"I'd say that capitalism does NOT support that."

It may not have supported it, but there were not conditions that stopped it first.

The conditions that should have stopped it would and should lie in the destination country that allowed it. Once the companie's host country realized that the immoral and corrupt government of the destination country allowed such a thing to take place on their soil, punishment was swift and fierce. As it should be.

now on to other things:

your logic breaks down Nema. You are saying that money represents buying power. which is true.

----------------------

Bill Gates = 5 units

5 people each have 1 unit.

Loaf of Bread cost 1 unit

Bill Gates money vanishes.

Now loaf of bread cost .50 units

------------------------

Ok, fine. I go with this.

But then you conclude:

Therefore...

All money you gain devalues the money of others. Hence, you should only be paid for your productivity - and profit is not productivity; it is accumulation of wealth with intent to concentrate it (resulting in the indirect loss of others).

???? How do you conclude this?

----------------------

Bill Gates = 5 units

John has 1 unit

Fred has 2 units

Harry has 2 units

Loaf of Bread cost 1 unit

Harry buys a loaf of bread from John. now harry has 1 unit and the seller John has 2 units.

But loaf of bread still costs 1 unit.

You conclude that the loaf of bread now costs 2 units? What the? How?

{Bangs emprworm's head on the table}

Ouch!!

[emprworm]

see that you conveniently leave out Christianity, your own religion. Could that be because your views do not agree with Jesus's?

not good, Edric. Do not invoke the Name of Jesus to defend a political system. Not good. I left out Christianity for no reason at all, I hadn't noticed. But fine, include that too. People throughout history have sought free trade- buying and selling at their leisure from whomever they please. This is an integral component of capitalism.