You are the ass. You say 3 billion people starving is not unfair? :bugeye:wesmorris said:
Does capitalism work?
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
How, again, is 3 billion people starving the result of capitalism?
Did you know virtually all poor countries today were just as poor 130 years ago, regardless of their political and economic structures?
If I were to say endogenous growth models now examine spill-over from firm's uncaptured technologies and development of social infrastructure, would you have any idea what I'm talking about?
Let me give you a little example:
Maoist China underwent a revolution in the late 70's when Mao died and the government changed hands. Communal farmers were starving under the burdens of Communism, output was very low. People had as much reason to work in the field as sit under a tree all day. "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."
So some villagers got together and said we've had enough of this bullshit, and they privatized the land. Secretly, of course.
Production skyrocketed. Other farms took notice, word got out, and soon farming communities across China began to privatize. Local authorities cracked down, but the central government recognized how beneficial privatization was to the economy and to China. So they let it happen.
And it spread to other sectors of the economy. That's why China is one of the fastes growing nations in the world. Capitalism.
Capitalism working for the largest communist/socialist country in the world sure seems to say a lot about capitalism, doesn't it?
Did you know virtually all poor countries today were just as poor 130 years ago, regardless of their political and economic structures?
If I were to say endogenous growth models now examine spill-over from firm's uncaptured technologies and development of social infrastructure, would you have any idea what I'm talking about?
Let me give you a little example:
Maoist China underwent a revolution in the late 70's when Mao died and the government changed hands. Communal farmers were starving under the burdens of Communism, output was very low. People had as much reason to work in the field as sit under a tree all day. "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."
So some villagers got together and said we've had enough of this bullshit, and they privatized the land. Secretly, of course.
Production skyrocketed. Other farms took notice, word got out, and soon farming communities across China began to privatize. Local authorities cracked down, but the central government recognized how beneficial privatization was to the economy and to China. So they let it happen.
And it spread to other sectors of the economy. That's why China is one of the fastes growing nations in the world. Capitalism.
Capitalism working for the largest communist/socialist country in the world sure seems to say a lot about capitalism, doesn't it?
There are tons of forms of motivation. Incentive and compensation are important when it comes to motivation. Deprivation and poverty is never ever a productive or intellectual "motivation".Jeff 152 said:
It is what ignorant people use to control and destroy others.
Either way. I would recommend that you at least try to come up with an intelligent answer.
Instead of wallowing in a pit of lunacy claming poverty is necessary. Depsertation is the only for of motivation, blah lbah blah. Nothing of any substance.
There once was a time when the planet felt this way about physical slavery. The exact same paradigm most untillectuals have about poverty today is the exact same paradigm the untillectuals of the past had about slavery. News flash. Forced physical labor/ownership of humans(slavery) (what was thought to be an extremely necessary and important driving force of the economy) has been just about abolished everywhere.
There are many places on earth that practice forced labor/human ownership, but the vast majority of world looks down upon slavery. The world paradigm is a 180 degree difference. From ineitable and necessary to evil and unthinkable.
If untillects of today had this same paradigm about poverty, the results for the entire planet could no doubt be highly effective and highly progressive. The highly effective mind = high progress. The ineffective mind of limitation = destruction. I would highly recommend you rid yourself of egoism and the insinuation that all others abide by this same paradigm. It is not human nature like many untillects tand to believe, but nothing more than their own misfed distorted view about themselves, others, and reality.
I am stating now as I have stated before, the only thing stopping mankind from anything is mankind. There is no force greater than an untillectual paradigm. Namely the paradigms that poverty and whatever so form of conflict you would like to mention are not only inevitable, but necessary. This is very incorrect. It is not a realistic, but a cynical paradigm. It is nothing more than a paradigm.
The untillectual paradigm is the opposite of the intellectual paradigm.
The initellectual paradigm is the paradigm that any problem can be solved. Ethical means result in ethical ends
This results in more freedom, and a better capacity of individuals to not only take care of themselves, not only take care of others, not only take care of their environment, but achieve unparalleled augmentation of mind and physical health.
If there are aliens out there, it is totally possible that they have worse society than we do. And it is totally possible they have a much better society than we do.
Last edited:
A NOTE ON MELIORISM
I never actually knew or studied about it before. A few years back, I sitting at a McDonald's simply writing down RG lyrics on paper. (REAL GANGSTA).
Then something popped into my mind, and I started writing not lyrics, but what everything was about.
Then this formula just popped out. It was like an amazing scientific breakthrough at the time.
I still use this formula today.
Part of the formula is a theory that humanity is telescopicly moving in a positive progressive direction away from the primitive and towards the opposite of the primitve which I tend to refer to as the progressive.
There is much much more to this, but I found out last year that there is a name for this, and it is meliorism.
Meliroism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meliorism
Objectivism (The belief that reality exist independently of human perception.)
http://www.ismbook.com/objectivism.html
Realism (Synonymous with a combination of idealism and objectivism.)
http://www.ismbook.com/realism.html
Idealism
Physical reality is not actual reality, but temporality. It is always changing. Reality exist in an unchanging ideal which is the nature of everything in temporality. It is not a universe that is physical or parallel such as science fiction. Ideal reality is simply an unchanging set of universal forms. Everything in physical temporality are particulars of these forms.
(This also includes a sort of meliorist belief that reality is moving through time towards the ideal. Sort of chasing perfection which idealist are often incorrectly accused of.)
http://www.ismbook.com/idealism.html
Populusm (A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism
I never actually knew or studied about it before. A few years back, I sitting at a McDonald's simply writing down RG lyrics on paper. (REAL GANGSTA).
Then something popped into my mind, and I started writing not lyrics, but what everything was about.
Then this formula just popped out. It was like an amazing scientific breakthrough at the time.
I still use this formula today.
Part of the formula is a theory that humanity is telescopicly moving in a positive progressive direction away from the primitive and towards the opposite of the primitve which I tend to refer to as the progressive.
There is much much more to this, but I found out last year that there is a name for this, and it is meliorism.
Meliroism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meliorism
Objectivism (The belief that reality exist independently of human perception.)
http://www.ismbook.com/objectivism.html
Realism (Synonymous with a combination of idealism and objectivism.)
http://www.ismbook.com/realism.html
Idealism
Physical reality is not actual reality, but temporality. It is always changing. Reality exist in an unchanging ideal which is the nature of everything in temporality. It is not a universe that is physical or parallel such as science fiction. Ideal reality is simply an unchanging set of universal forms. Everything in physical temporality are particulars of these forms.
(This also includes a sort of meliorist belief that reality is moving through time towards the ideal. Sort of chasing perfection which idealist are often incorrectly accused of.)
http://www.ismbook.com/idealism.html
Populusm (A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism
Last edited:
INDIVIDUALISM OR NOT?
I tend to call it individualism, but according to the dictionary, individualism is something completely different.
The belief that the institution (the structural system of society) has the pure responsibility to focus on the best interest of the individual. There is no such thing as the best interest of society independent of the best interest of the individual. The best interest of the individual is the best interest of society which is solely dependent on and measured by the best interest of the individual.
THE CIRCLE OF LIFE FORMULA
(This is another forumla I have had for awhile.)
The higher the access of the individual (freedom/choice/first world environment), the higher developed the individual. The higher developed the individual, the more productive the individual. The more productive the individual, the more productive and progressive the society. The more productive and progressive the society, the higher access of the individual.
Nobody is saying everybody is happy and perfect all the time. The point is maxmimizing human rights and standards for the betterment of all.
Deprivation, poverty, and other such paradigms are a serious threat to the circle of life formula.
I tend to call it individualism, but according to the dictionary, individualism is something completely different.
The belief that the institution (the structural system of society) has the pure responsibility to focus on the best interest of the individual. There is no such thing as the best interest of society independent of the best interest of the individual. The best interest of the individual is the best interest of society which is solely dependent on and measured by the best interest of the individual.
THE CIRCLE OF LIFE FORMULA
(This is another forumla I have had for awhile.)
The higher the access of the individual (freedom/choice/first world environment), the higher developed the individual. The higher developed the individual, the more productive the individual. The more productive the individual, the more productive and progressive the society. The more productive and progressive the society, the higher access of the individual.
Nobody is saying everybody is happy and perfect all the time. The point is maxmimizing human rights and standards for the betterment of all.
Deprivation, poverty, and other such paradigms are a serious threat to the circle of life formula.
Last edited:
Some images of populism.
http://history.missouristate.edu/wrmiller/Populism/2scartoon/scartoon14.htm
http://history.missouristate.edu/wrmiller/Populism/2scartoon/scartoon14.htm
So how do first world nations wake up to go to work averyday and shoot out GDP's? Anyway Having read this thread It seems to me that the only way a country is going to become rich is by out-and-out invasion of other countries, all the rich countres and empires of the world did it at one time. That is why you have Jihad and terrorists today; some people are fed up of waiting in line. The world bank, Bretton woods, and IMF, are all Headed by rich countires, which also includes the U.N security council(not coincidentaly after the damage of world war 2). The advantage of this is that it gives G7 countries an edge over economic matters. The only way to survive is to be unique, implement your own programmes, and cut off foreign influence. South East Asia, East Europe,South America and Africa, should develop their own World bank, their own exchange rates, and their own economic policies. There should have their own group of developing countries called G9 for example. I did not make this up, economic experts are advocating this, including the likes of George Soros. Sometimes its better to play the game as the opponent plays it, rather than opting for any other strategy. With all this in place I bet you the world will change quickly, poverty and oppression will arrest, and peace will prevail. Just imagine when you go to a member state like Nigeria and the exchange rate according to Nigeria is 20$ to I naira, they have automaticaly stopped outside influence and opression and making the optimal use of their natural resources, which is oil in this case. Developing countries have to stop talking and wake up, form a cooperative alliance and reform foreign economic policies; it is the alternative to an all out invasion. It is the ONLY hope.
Most people in China barely earn enough to survive. And how many people liek that? Around 1 billion. And a lot of them, if not most, are being exploited by american corporations. That is called outsourcing. So when you go to a store and you buy something, chances are it was manufactured in China. And the corporations have paied peanuts to those chinese workers, which is why you can enjoy low prices in Wal-Mart.Roman said:
Pardon me! 3 billion people are on verge of starvation! How coul I make such mistake!?Absane said:
This is a result of evil rich people possibly in power struggles all over the world.TruthSeeker said:Pardon me! 3 billion people are on verge of starvation! How coul I make such mistake!?
All of the poverty in the world is a result of rich people putting limitations on the poor. You would think that billions of starving people would grab some land, and start growing food. Think again. The rich and ruthless own the land, and will kill anybody that gets in their way.
Now you might be wondering perhaps somebody should stop them. They are breaking laws. Unfortunately, many laws cannot touch the rich. And many of the drug cartels world wide are in heavy dealings with the rich. Many of them are the rich.
I might say ok, I am filthy rich. I am have just as much money and power as these villains, I am going to help these poor people. This is easier said than done. The rich will go through any means necessary to keep their control. They are completely out of hand, and using everything and everyone they can to build their personal empires of material wealth.
There are rich philanthropists that pay a great deal of sums to provide for the poor. In the end, the rich take it right back away with big guns. The rich still have their iron fists holding evil control over the lands. Though I may be filthy rich, any action against them could well cause my death. They could set me up as a suicide, or set me up to go to jail or set me up for all kinds of things. Even if somebody that was filthy rich, and ready to do whatever it took, and wanted to, the enemy is large, the enemy is nigh, and the enemy is fierce. The enemy is the rich. They usge big guns. They use lies. The take whatever they want, and anybody in their way will face doom.
Is there anybody that can stop these villains? Superman? No. Superman is not real. Will somebody anybody step up to help all these people that are dying? Perhaps not. All we can do is all we can do. Advocate the truth, and suit up for action. Activism. Time, effort, sacrifice. Hoping that there may be a chance for change. A chance to help the hungry. To save them from the evil hands of the rich.
Last edited:
TruthSeeker said:Most people in China barely earn enough to survive. And how many people liek that? Around 1 billion. And a lot of them, if not most, are being exploited by american corporations. That is called outsourcing. So when you go to a store and you buy something, chances are it was manufactured in China. And the corporations have paied peanuts to those chinese workers, which is why you can enjoy low prices in Wal-Mart.
You still are missing the point.
These people are far better off under a pseudo-capitalist society than they were under communism. Far better off, and getting better every day.
A little more than 1/10 of China is starving, if you measure starvation by being under international poverty levels. That's 150 million people, not a billion.
From the CIA world factbook:
--https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html
A tenfold increase in GDP. Tenfold. That's an order of magnitude. Even if China's population was half of what it is now, that's a 5x larger GDP/capita. All thanks to capitalism.
As for Wal Mart and international corps., those are precisely the reason why China has experienced such growth. The Chinese are better off working for American companies than they are on state owned farms. Numbers don't lie.
The "peanuts" they're being paid has led to a five fold increase in their level of wealth. Five fold.
Capitalism has far more success stories than any other form of economic system. How many places has Communism worked? How many places has pseudo-Communism worked? Pseudo-capitalism works, as the principles behind it are quite powerful. Under Communism, I'd have to share all that I earned with breeder slobs like you, Truthseeker. That's not a very big incentive to work, is it?
Ha! You are so incredibly naive!!!!! :bugeye:
I've talked with chinese people. Over half of their population is on verge of starvation. No, they are not below the poverty line, but they are very dangerously close to it. They have no way to save, because all the money they get goes to their survival. They are stuck in a cycle of poverty.
So, while "only" 150 million are starving, over half of the population is very close to starvation. And you say that's good?
:bugeye:I've talked with chinese people. Over half of their population is on verge of starvation. No, they are not below the poverty line, but they are very dangerously close to it. They have no way to save, because all the money they get goes to their survival. They are stuck in a cycle of poverty.
So, while "only" 150 million are starving, over half of the population is very close to starvation. And you say that's good?
How is being distributed?
TruthSeeker said:
Oh, the irony.
As opposed to 30 years ago when their whole society was starving?
Yes. I'd say that's quite an improvement.
You ever talk to older generation Chinese, or read stuff they've written?
The current system isn't perfect, of course, but it is a hell of a lot better than what it is now. You ever talk to them about the differences between living in a state controlled, pseudo-capitalist market system, and living in more capitalist societies, like Canada or the USA?
And why do you think China, a communist country, is starving, and has been starving, for decades, while the capitalist west has been growing for the past 130 years? Because... they're not communist enough?
Then explain the 10-fold growth as soon as they took an eensy-weensy step in the direction of a free market. Please explain that.
Nor are they stuck in a cycle of poverty. They have a growth rate of 9.9%. That's fucking enormous. Enormous growth, growth that much of the population is seeing, as they move from being rural poor to urban middle-class.
For a comparison, growth in Canada and the US is around 3%.
TruthSeeker said:Pardon me! 3 billion people are on verge of starvation! How coul I make such mistake!?
Ok. Give me your references.
Do not spout out numbers and "facts" without doing us a favor and posting your "works cited" page.
If you just "happen" to know this fact, at least give me (or others) reason to believe you.
Chatha said:
It probably belongs in the politics forum, but Jihadists dont kill people for money or out of dissatisfaction for their economic position "in line" they have only one desire: to take as many Americans down in their death as possible so that thye willl have thier 70 virgins or whatver it is.
OMG! You are naive!!!Roman said: