Ireland needs socialism, says President McAleese

whynotwhycanti

Someone mentioned India earlier.

According to the World Bank, 42% of India lives under the poverty line. That has decreased from 60% in 1980. Obviously capitalism has decreased poverty somewhat, but anything was going to be better than the previous colonial rule that they had endured for so long. What is more interesting is that while poverty has decreased, the wealth in the upper classes has increased at a far more disporportionate rate. I am not saying socialism or communism could have solved this or that capitalism has failed as such, but after thirty years i would have hoped to see better achievements, from any form of policy.

Laminations

Valmont wrote: »

There is a very large difference between expecting some stranger to work and support themselves and a man drowning in front of me.
Contrary to your "let's help everyone" attitude to morality, a libertarian exemplifies the possession of an unwavering moral compass; he demands no help, no dole payments, and asks only that he is entitled to that which he has produced or earned himself. It is merely a moral and logical consistency to expect the same from other people. The compass is there and it works because it is simple.

It is too simple, it assumes everyone starts off equal. The son of a banker in D4 is equal to the son of a brickie from the mun. Just because you ask for no help (which I doubt can be true) doesn't mean others dont need it. Just as there is a difference between a drowning man and a stranger who cant support themselves, there is also a difference between a stranger who cant and a stranger who wont support themselves. Tabula Rasa idea of everyone having the same opportunity and shaping oneself to the point where you are 'entitled' to what you have while others are 'entitled' to their misery is bogus. Frankly, its a selfish philosophy that belongs in the dark ages

Laminations

Valmont wrote: »

Please explain clearly how this implies he would let someone drown? Expecting some random scrounger to work and support himself is a completely different situation to witnessing someone drowning. Your penchant for emotive drivel is becoming tiresome.

this is the true colour of a libertarian, they see people in need of help as scroungers. Because someone requires the dole, doesn't make them a scrounger. If DF is willing to inconvenience himself in the support of another (recognising that the right to life is more important than the right to him being dry and comfortable) then he has a mechanism where he can weigh up rights. Is someones right to earn and live on 250grand greater than the right of someone to get by?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

The amount of ridiculous straw man arguments in the last couple of pages... :rolleyes:

"capitalism only functions when there are winners and losers"

"[capitalism] is likely to widen the rich-poor divide and create great inequality"

Capitalism has had so much mud flung at it that many are unaware of what it actually means and entails. It has gotten to a point where it seems to encompass almost everything that's wrong in the world. Poor people? Blame capitalism! American foreign policy? Blame capitalism! Bank bailouts? Blame capitalism! Toast falling buttered side down? Blame capitalism!

imme

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Meitheal is not social collective, why do you insist it is?
Did the 'power of the free market' not get us to where we are

whynotwhycanti

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't know about that, i'd imagine it would be the exact same situation as now; a dozen punters debating the advantages and disadvantages of different government and economic policies on boards.ie.

Soldie

imme wrote: »

Did the 'power of the free market' not get us to where we are

No. The government inflated a massive property bubble and then vastly increased expenditure by using the tax revenues from said bubble. Next question?

whynotwhycanti

Soldie wrote: »

The amount of ridiculous straw man arguments in the last couple of pages... :rolleyes:

"capitalism only functions when there are winners and losers"

"[capitalism] is likely to widen the rich-poor divide and create great inequality"

Capitalism has had so much mud flung at it that many are unaware of what it actually means and entails. It has gotten to a point where it seems to encompass almost everything that's wrong in the world. Poor people? Blame capitalism! American foreign policy? Blame capitalism! Bank bailouts? Blame capitalism! Toast falling buttered side down? Blame capitalism!

Its only capitalism if it creates wealth, if there's poverty then something else has caused it? I always thought that wealth and poverty were interlinked.

imme

Soldie wrote: »

No. The government inflated a massive property bubble and then vastly increased expenditure by using the tax revenues from said bubble. Next question?

So the free market in the property sector doesn't have anything to do with our current position. Oh the banking sector was also operating in a free market environment, maybe that likewise has nothing to do our current position.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

imme wrote: »

So the free market in the property sector doesn't have anything to do with our current position. Oh the banking sector was also operating in a free market environment, maybe that likewise has nothing to do our current position.

You asked a question and I answered it. I also have a question: why are you so desperate to pin the current crisis on free-market capitalism in spite of the avalanche of evidence which suggests that this mess was the government's doing?

imme

Soldie wrote: »

You asked a question and I answered it. I also have a question: why are you so desperate to pin the current crisis on free-market capitalism in spite of the avalanche of evidence which suggests that this mess was the government's doing?

In your post 209, you did indeed reply to my question, but you also asked if there were any more questions, it was like you were giving a lecture or teaching a class or something. :rolleyes:

I believe both the government and the financial sector are responsible for where we are today.
The government was negligent and incompetent.

Risk Analysis in the banking sector failed spectacularly. The bank directors failed in their duty. The bank management also failed.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Firstly i'm not statist or anti capitalist. I blame the government, banks and regulator for this ness not the free market. What i am arguing against is this live and let live, die and let die attitude in liberalism. You yourself said you dont think homeless should get state support. You think you should be left with what you earn because you earned it but fail to acknowledge iniquity that may result in some people succeeding and some failing. Why did you save the girl? You didnt know her, nor did you know she'd pay you back in any way. Your moral compass recognised her life was worth something. That same moral compass should recognise that those who have should help those who have not. It is possible for a brickies son to do better than a bankers son, but not probable. I'm for capitalism above socialism but i think capitalism needs a degree of social responsibility, in my view the bankers would not be in place, but the banks may have to be saved because your libertarian idea of banks failing would ruin us all.

Laminations

PS i dont assume the state should mandate income equality. It should mandate opportunity equality with the recognition that we are not all equal

peasant

Soldie wrote: »

Capitalism has had so much mud flung at it that many are unaware of what it actually means and entails. It has gotten to a point where it seems to encompass almost everything that's wrong in the world.

Capitalism thrives on and depends on profit. It searches for profit maximisation wherever it can.
As a system it is prone to exploit weaknesses (be that of indivuduals, groups, regions, countries or whole continents or as recently witnessed: weaknesses in regulation). For some to profit, many have to lose out.

Also, capitalism is very much focussed on the short term profit. Long term strategic thinking rarely enters the process, especially not if it yields no immediate profit. One example ..the dependency of most of the western world on the highly profitable car to the detriment of the environement, social cohesion, proper public transport and sustainable development.

Last but not least, it grossly undervalues the non-profitable sides of human development. Artistic expression, philosophical thought, natural science ..they only thrive when there is the promise (or hope) of monetary gain at the end.

peasant

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As long as capitalism is the dominant -ism, socialism can only be introduced by force.
On an individual level the temptation of individual (quick) profit is too big to willingly share it and on a global level socialist countries haven't a hope in hell in competing in a market in which they don't want to participate in the first place but have to in order to survive.

Capitalism would have to die a natural death (unlikely) in order for socialism to be able to thrive without force.

Forced socialism isn't socialism though and not worth having.

Eliot Rosewater

peasant wrote: »

it grossly undervalues the non-profitable sides of human development.

Capitalism places a value on everything through the price system. If people aren't willing to pay for "artistic endeavors" it just shows that the product of the those endeavors isn't valued enough by society to justify the work put into them. And by the way, who is to judge what is a positive "human development"?

This is one of the reasons Marxism is so in-vogue amongst the modern 21st century poets in my opinion. They are creating what is effectively gibberish but its not making them any money. Instead of admitting that their "art" isn't wanted by society they instead blame it on the capitalist system that "exploits them".

peasant wrote: »

socialist countries haven't a hope in hell in competing in a market in which they don't want to participate in the first place but have to in order to survive.

Socialism needs capitalism to survive. You gotta love it.

peasant

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Socialism needs capitalism to survive. You gotta love it.

Nope, it doesn't need capitalism...but not every socialist country can produce all it needs, therefore it needs to trade. If there aren't other socialist countries to trade with, well they have to deal with the "enemy".

whynotwhycanti

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Socialism needs capitalism to survive. You gotta love it.

Or maybe capitalism needs socialism to survive. Social democracy is not socialism and capitalism mixed together like an omlette, or socialism needing capitalism as you say. Its an interesting policy, i suggest you look it up, you might like it.

Soldie

peasant wrote: »

Capitalism thrives on and depends on profit. It searches for profit maximisation wherever it can.
As a system it is prone to exploit weaknesses (be that of indivuduals, groups, regions, countries or whole continents or as recently witnessed: weaknesses in regulation). For some to profit, many have to lose out.

Also, capitalism is very much focussed on the short term profit. Long term strategic thinking rarely enters the process, especially not if it yields no immediate profit. One example ..the dependency of most of the western world on the highly profitable car to the detriment of the environement, social cohesion, proper public transport and sustainable development.

Last but not least, it grossly undervalues the non-profitable sides of human development. Artistic expression, philosophical thought, natural science ..they only thrive when there is the promise (or hope) of monetary gain at the end.

Thank you for proving me right. All of the above is based on your apparently wishy-washy interpretation of what capitalism is.

A couple of things:

- How can capitalism "undervalue the non-profitable side of human development"? The concept of value is subjective, and comes from the individual. When this straw man argument is put forth, I can't help but think of the so-called robber barons in 19th century America, many of whom donated vast sums of money to charity.

- Can you explain the phenomenon whereby capitalism -- as a system whereby, allegedly, "many have to lose out" -- increases the overall wealth of everybody? Marx described the working class as those who are earning only a subsistence wage, whereas today's working class can afford houses, cars, holidays, and so on.

- Cars? Profitable? Perhaps you missed the auto-industry bailouts in the US. The US government is propping up a non-productive industry, and further incentivising car-driving by ensuring petrol is dirt-cheap by means of oil subsidies. These subsidies are in place because of union lobbyists, who understand that the removal of the subsidies will result in a decrease in the demand for cars, which would undoubtedly affect the jobs that they're paid to protect. What part of this is free-market capitalism?

If the whole world was populated by the ideal socialist being and organised into ideal socialist countries, it would work.

If only to highlight the fact that you casually throw around terms like capitalism and socialism without understanding what they encompass, I'll point out that the above quote shows that you've clearly never heard of the economic calculation problem.

ei.sdraob

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

Its only capitalism if it creates wealth, if there's poverty then something else has caused it? I always thought that wealth and poverty were interlinked.

you spoke of India

both Ireland and India got our true independence around the same time in late 40s

ever wonder why we got so far ahead per capita since?

peasant

Soldie wrote: »

- Can you explain the phenomenon whereby capitalism -- as a system whereby, allegedly, "many have to lose out" -- increases the overall wealth of everybody? Marx described the working class as those who are earning only a subsistence wage, whereas today's working class can afford houses, cars, holidays, and so on.

A bit short sighted, no?
The exploitation of the working classes has simply shifted country or continent ..plus it's coming full circle. The working class who recently had holidays is on the breadline these days because their jobs have moved to more profitable locations.

Soldie

peasant wrote: »

A bit short sighted, no?
The exploitation of the working classes has simply shifted country or continent ..plus it's coming full circle. The working class who recently had holidays is on the breadline these days because their jobs have moved to more profitable locations.

In Ireland's case, their jobs have moved to other locations because of the ineptitude of our government. Fianna Fáil have been happy to sit back and do nothing to tackle the high cost of doing business here, as they watch company after company pull out and conduct their operations in a more business-friendly location. The idea that capitalism needs a vast pool of subsistence-wage workers is a fallacy. It is those countries that have embraced capitalism and free trade that have radically improved the wellbeing of their citizens the most, as this presentation neatly shows.

ei.sdraob

peasant wrote: »

A bit short sighted, no?
The exploitation of the working classes has simply shifted country or continent ..plus it's coming full circle. The working class who recently had holidays is on the breadline these days because their jobs have moved to more profitable locations.

those locations have partly became more popular thanks to bearded unionists who think they are Lenin or Marx

quite ironic no

peasant

ei.sdraob wrote: »

those locations have partly became more popular thanks to bearded unionists who think they are Lenin or Marx

quite ironic no

I was actually thinking of the largely non-unionised US of A when composing that sentence ...they also have the slightly more impressive breadlines and substistence poverty there.

ei.sdraob

peasant wrote: »

I was actually thinking of the largely non-unionised US of A when composing that sentence ...they also have the slightly more impressive breadlines and substistence poverty there.

yes because it was the non unionzed US car manufacturers who went bankrupt

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Objecting to specific policies is fine, i have issues with the one you mentioned too. Its a different position entirely to believe that all help for the vulnerable should be voluntary or charity. The state should have a social responsibility and should mandate that for its citizens. Otherwise you are left with a lot of hurt from bystander effects and the individualistic self interest that drives capitalism

ei.sdraob

Laminations wrote: »

Objecting to specific policies is fine, i have issues with the one you mentioned too. Its a different position entirely to believe that all help for the vulnerable should be voluntary or charity. The state should have a social responsibility and should mandate that for its citizens. Otherwise you are left with a lot of hurt from bystander effects and the individualistic self interest that drives capitalism

the state (well this one) has a social responsibility to families and children as embedded in the constitution

i have a very simple question for you

where are the family of the "strawwan" homeless mother you brought up earlier in thread?

in many western societies like Germany its more the responsibility of a family to look after its children than the state, only when the family unit falls apart should it be the responsibility of the state to help and then the degree of help should be minimal, having your mortgage payed via tax relief and/or dole is taking the piss, while giving food stamps are not

i dont have a problem with the concept of state, i have a problem with its current implementation where the state becomes more important and takes away rights and liberties from the person, there has to be a better balance than what we have now, where we endup in a situation where a person can have his/her arse wiped from cradle to grave by the state, thats "immoral" to use your own word

whynotwhycanti

ei.sdraob wrote: »

true independence around the same time in late 40s

ever wonder why we got so far ahead per capita since?

I thought our true independence wa a bit later. I honestly don't know why we have progressed further as i have not read up on the issue but i do think that it is probably impossible to compare the two situations directly, just because of the huge differences. India is an enormous country in comparison to Ireland with nearly a billion people living there.

If i were to stab a guess, i know that Irelands poor at the time were far better off than Indias poor. We entered the EU soon after which would have been an economic positive. The famine had reduced our population which would have meant there were less dependants. Again, i haven't read any books on the situation, i think it would probably be difficult to get a book comparing post colonial ireland and post colonial india.

ei.sdraob

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

I thought our true independence wa a bit later. I honestly don't know why we have progressed further as i have not read up on the issue but i do think that it is probably impossible to compare the two situations directly, just because of the huge differences. India is an enormous country in comparison to Ireland with nearly a billion people living there.

If i were to stab a guess, i know that Irelands poor at the time were far better off than Indias poor. We entered the EU soon after which would have been an economic positive. The famine had reduced our population which would have meant there were less dependants. Again, i haven't read any books on the situation, i think it would probably be difficult to get a book comparing post colonial ireland and post colonial india.

yep the EU is a capitalist construct, with free trade and movement and respect for private property

most of Europe after WW2 was completely in ruins,and yes people were starving after the war on the continent

not only did europe (500 odd million people) rebuild, we all also prospered, thanks to embracing capitalism, now compare western europe now to eastern block who ended up in a "socialist" experiment

as for Indian and Irish true independence dates see here and here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland_Act_1948
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Independence_Act_1947

whynotwhycanti

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yep the EU is a capitalist construct, with free trade and movement and respect for private property

most of Europe after WW2 was completely in ruins,and yes people were starving after the war on the continent

not only did europe (500 odd million people) rebuild, we all also prospered, thanks to embracing capitalism, now compare western europe now to eastern block who ended up in a "socialist" experiment

as for Indian and Irish true independence dates see here and here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland_Act_1948
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Independence_Act_1947

I thought we were comparing Ireland and India. Were India employing soviet-esque, eastern european policies?

The reason i say our true independence was becasue the english vice-roy to Ireland or some position like that, did not leave until the 1960's but yes, the independence act was prior to this and can be taken as the official date.

Again, i have said many a time capitalism has many positives, but also negatives. Just as human nature is decsribed as one of the reasons why capitalism is successful, human nature would also be why i worry that pure unadulterated capitalism could be dangerous, not for you or me, but for the most vulnerable in society.

ei.sdraob

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

I thought we were comparing Ireland and India. Were India employing soviet-esque, eastern european policies?

The reason i say our true independence was becasue the english vice-roy to Ireland or some position like that, did not leave until the 1960's but yes, the independence act was prior to this and can be taken as the official date.

Again, i have said many a time capitalism has many positives, but also negatives. Just as human nature is decsribed as one of the reasons why capitalism is successful, human nature would also be why i worry that pure unadulterated capitalism could be dangerous, not for you or me, but for the most vulnerable in society.

what negatives does capitalism have?

and yes India while being a democracy has a powerful communist party, especially at local rural level

the reason i brought up India is simple, earlier in thread your blamed poverty which is a product of overpopulation on capitalism, thats just wrong ,

you also blamed colonisation but as i have shown here in Ireland we weren't much better of in that area, but we managed to still improve the lives of the people and create a modern economy

as has shown in China, capitalism is capable of bringing millions of people out of poverty


your blaming things like colonisation, poverty and overpopulation on capitalism, and think that somehow socialism will solve all these problems, it wont

whynotwhycanti

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what negatives does capitalism have?

and yes India while being a democracy has a powerful communist party, especially at local rural level

the reason i brought up India is simple, earlier in thread your blamed poverty which is a product of overpopulation on capitalism, thats just wrong

as has shown in China, capitalism is capable of bringing millions of people out of poverty

But poverty is still a huge issue in India, even though bombay has been changed to mumbaii and been sold as a great place for foreign investment. One area where India is not struglling though is in the upper classs which is one of my points on the negatives of capitalism. Poverty is still endemic and has not been solved. I already said it has improved somewhat under capitalism.

Listen if you think that capitalism is the be all and end all and has no negatives, well then i'm done here. There are plenty of accredited papers written by experienced scholars and economists alike that show the positives along with the negatives of capitalism. As has already been recommended to me, De Sotios book titled the failure of capitalism details missed opportunities in the capitalistic model.

The world, for the majority is living generally closely by the capitalistic model and if you think we are in a pefect world right now, well then i have to disagree.

whynotwhycanti

ei.sdraob wrote: »

think that somehow socialism will solve all these problems, it wont

Where have i said that. I am only a fan of the positives of socialism i.e. universal health care, access for all to education, high literacy rates, equal opportunity for all. I thnk it is a flawed model that when tried to be introduced has failed due to its many negatives

OhNoYouDidn't

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what negatives does capitalism have?

Will you get up the yard. :rolleyes:

60,000 people die of starvation and related disease every day.

ei.sdraob

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

But poverty is still a huge issue in India, even though bombay has been changed to mumbaii and been sold as a great place for foreign investment. One area where India is not struglling though is in the upper classs which is one of my points on the negatives of capitalism. Poverty is still endemic and has not been solved. I already said it has improved somewhat under capitalism.

Listen if you think that capitalism is the be all and end all and has no negatives, well then i'm done here. There are plenty of accredited papers written by experienced scholars and economists alike that show the positives along with the negatives of capitalism. As has already been recommended to me, De Sotios book titled the failure of capitalism details missed opportunities in the capitalistic model.

The world, for the majority is living generally closely by the capitalistic model and if you think we are in a pefect world right now, well then i have to disagree.

capitalism might not be perfect

but evidence exist for it being a much better option for bringing people out of poverty

when compared to the alternative of socialism/communism which has a tendency to end in blood and tears

ei.sdraob

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Will you get up the yard. :rolleyes:

60,000 people die of starvation and related disease every day.

reference? what hole did you pull that figure out of??

and how exactly is capitalism responsible for that?

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

Where have i said that. I am only a fan of the positives of socialism i.e. universal health care, access for all to education, high literacy rates, equal opportunity for all. I thnk it is a flawed model that when tried to be introduced has failed due to its many negatives

how would a country like lets say India afford universal healthcare when there are more basic needs like feeding population?

whynotwhycanti

ei.sdraob wrote: »

reference? what hole did you pull that figure out of??

and how exactly is capitalism responsible for that?




how would a country like lets say India afford universal healthcare when there are more basic needs like feeding population?

I referred to positives, i never said it could be implented now, and they are still starving at present. India was still trading after their independence, hell they export a huge amount of tea but even with that massive export, the rural poverty was atrocious. Its only recently with fair trade that they are finally getting paid a reasonable wage, the capitalistic model failed tea growers for years but empowered foreign companies exporting tea.

ei.sdraob

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

I referred to positives, i never said it could be implented now, and they are still starving at present. India was still trading after their independence, hell they export a huge amount of tea but even with that massive export, the rural poverty was atrocious. Its only recently with fair trade that they are finally getting paid a reasonable wage, the capitalistic model failed tea growers for years but empowered foreign companies exporting tea.

"fair trade" is a subset of capitalism so is "globalisation"

if you lookup at the history of capitalism, theres: Mercantilism, Industrialism, Monopolism, Keynesianism and neoliberalism, Globalisation

it seems to me that you have a problem with Monopolism?

whynotwhycanti

ei.sdraob wrote: »

"fair trade" is a form of capitalism so is "globalisation"

I know that but the original model implemented for decades was atrocious and bordered on slaves labour

ei.sdraob

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

I know that but the original model implemented for decades was atrocious and bordered on slaves labour

and capitalism has moved on since

@OhNoYouDidn't (hes good at making throw away comments and not engaging in debate) blamed capitalism for starvation and disease earlier, i presume he refers to sub Saharan Africa

the problem for these people is not capitalism its lack of it, would these people be starving if they were allowed to export their products (lets say coffee) to markets such as EU, and earn a living?




most current implementations of socialism and communism are atrocious and do involve slave labour and repression


edit: maybe this thread should be moved into Political Theory forum?

OhNoYouDidn't

ei.sdraob wrote: »

@OhNoYouDidn't (hes good at making throw away comments and not engaging in debate) blamed capitalism for starvation and disease earlier, i presume he refers to sub Saharan Africa

the problem for these people is not capitalism its lack of it, would these people be starving if they were allowed to export their products (lets say coffee) to markets such as EU, and earn a living?

But the problem is that they pernacious brand of globalisation enforced on the developing world means that they are not able to trade fairly - we pay more and more for the end product and they get less and less for the raw resources. The IMF and WTO are not rolling the dice fairly and western corporations are running amock in the third world.

As for starvation in general, the simple fact that the so called supply and demand interface cannot feed our planet while we dump food into the see in Europe. Its a sad indictment of your wonderful model.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

most current implementations of socialism and communism are atrocious and do involve slave labour and repression

As opposed to sweat shops etc?

whynotwhycanti

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the problem for these people is not capitalism its lack of it, would these people be starving if they were allowed to export their products (lets say coffee) to markets such as EU, and earn a living?

And i believe capitalism can still move on further, just as you say it has moved on sice then. this is why i like social democracy, it uses capitalism, especially the positives, but doesn't believe it is this amazing policy that solves everything. Poverty and wealth are interlinked. And just as you have thousands dieing of starvation you also have the ever exploding upper classes who are getting richer and richer. In the US, executive salaries have increased by 300% in just over two decades. The same levels of progression cannot be said for the lower classes.

In sub-sahara Africa they can't produce enough for themselves but introduce capitalism and suddenly the have excess to export?

ei.sdraob

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But the problem is that they pernacious brand of globalisation enforced on the developing world means that they are not able to trade fairly - we pay more and more for the end product and they get less and less for the raw resources. The IMF and WTO are not rolling the dice fairly and western corporations are running amock in the third world.

your problem is with protectionism and not capitalism

remove the trade barriers and then these people be able to trade fairly and help themselves out of poverty, but remember removing trade barriers would mean going against alot of interest groups like farmers here who would scream murder, as they know they wont be able to compete

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

As for starvation in general, the simple fact that the so called supply and demand interface cannot feed our planet while we dump food into the see in Europe. Its a sad indictment of your wonderful model.

it aint the fault of capitalism once again but trade barriers

you keep blaming capitalism, but once you dig past your shallow rhetoric you see that its lack of trade thats killing people

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

As opposed to sweat shops etc?

as opposed to starvation and death?

would you rather be a born in China who have embraced capitalism where people actually have a chance to get out of poverty and work or be born across the border in North Korea?

OhNoYouDidn't

ei.sdraob wrote: »

your problem is with protectionism and not capitalism

remove the trade barriers and then these people be able to trade fairly and help themselves out of poverty, but remember removing trade barriers would mean going against alot of interest groups like farmers here who would scream murder, as they know they wont be able to compete




it aint the fault of capitalism once again but trade barriers

you keep blaming capitalism, but once you dig past your shallow rhetoric you see that its lack of trade thats killing people




as opposed to starvation and death?

would you rather be a born in China who have embraced capitalism where people actually have a chance to get out of poverty and work or be born across the border in North Korea?

So let me get this straight. You are claiming all the good things that capitalism benefits the world and holding them up but refusing to take any responsibility for the bad things it and its structures create.

Right ho.

whynotwhycanti

ei.sdraob wrote: »

it aint the fault of capitalism once again but trade barriers

Are they not linked together? I would go as far as to say trade barriers and the ridiculous tariffs placed on some of these countries are a big part of capitalism, particulary when accepting these emerging markets into the global market.