Capitalisim vs. Socialisim

[Sibirsky]

The media? Consumer watchdog groups?

And in a world where corporations are completely unregulated, you assume that they won't be able to influence these things?

You assume governments don't influence these things?

Corporations and unions use government to increase their power. To the point that it is no longer to the benefit of consumers and employees.

[Keronians]

I assume you mean trade unions, and if so, then how is being allowed to be in a trade union guaranteed?

I mean labor unions. As long as they are voluntary, I have no issues with them. There is nothing anti-free market in labor unions, other than the fact that they tend to level wages.

*goes to Wikipedia*

*grumbles about Americans using different words and different spellings making life harder*

I know you don't have a problem with it. I'm saying that the employer might.

EDIT: Basically, I didn't understand what a labour union was. It's apparently American English for trade union.

[Sibirsky]

The media? Consumer watchdog groups?

Consumer watchdog groups? What in the hell is that?

Linky

A group that seeks to protect consumers from corporate abuse.

Anyway, action from pressure groups is not guaranteed to work. It's common knowledge that firms like Nike, Adidas, etc. make use of child labour. The consumer here still doesn't give a rat's ass about it.

Sure it is. Almost every piece of legislation came about as pressure from some advocacy group.

Or do you actually think politicians come up with that themselves? Look. they are the scum of the earth. They don't give a shit about consumers.

Child labor in the third world, is a necessary step to their development, and is much, much better than the alternative. I shudder to think what would happen, if consumer pressure got Nike et al to stop using it.

[GeneralHaNor]

Child labor in the third world, is a necessary step to their development, and is much, much better than the alternative. I shudder to think what would happen, if consumer pressure got Nike et al to stop using it.

Stop, I usually support you, but there is no excuse for that
Nike deserves to burn to the ground for their crimes, and the solution to unemployment is for the workers to storm the factory, kill the managers, and run the equipment themselves.

There is no excuse for Child Slavery.

[Red Indus]

Though I may live in the United States I have always spelled labour with a U, because I know better.

[Sibirsky]

Socialist. Resources should be shared by all in the state, there's no reason why some should be able to live like kings while others have to worry if they can feed themselves.

Baseless fear mongering. Everyone in market economies is fed much better than those in socialist economies. Or did you forget lines for milk and bread in the USSR?

[Keronians]

Consumer watchdog groups? What in the hell is that?

Linky

A group that seeks to protect consumers from corporate abuse.

Anyway, action from pressure groups is not guaranteed to work. It's common knowledge that firms like Nike, Adidas, etc. make use of child labour. The consumer here still doesn't give a rat's ass about it.

Sure it is. Almost every piece of legislation came about as pressure from some advocacy group.

Or do you actually think politicians come up with that themselves? Look. they are the scum of the earth. They don't give a shit about consumers.

Child labor in the third world, is a necessary step to their development, and is much, much better than the alternative. I shudder to think what would happen, if consumer pressure got Nike et al to stop using it.

So they're more or less the same as pressure groups, then.

Pressure groups do not have the power to make binding legislations. The worst they can do is give bad publicity. Which, admittedly, is very bad.

What do you think the alternative is?

Because I refuse to accept that child labour is necessary.

[Sibirsky]

Child labor in the third world, is a necessary step to their development, and is much, much better than the alternative. I shudder to think what would happen, if consumer pressure got Nike et al to stop using it.

Stop, I usually support you, but there is no excuse for that
Nike deserves to burn to the ground for their crimes, and the solution to unemployment is for the workers to storm the factory, kill the managers, and run the equipment themselves.

There is no excuse for Child Slavery.

It is not child slavery, and the alternative is much, much worse.

If the third world enacted first world labor laws, the children's parents would magically have enough money to send them to school, and provide for themselves? No. The alternative is poverty, prostitution, organ selling, dumpster diving,....

Left, right, centrist, Keynesian, Austrian, Chicagoan, and whatever the fuck else economists agree, "sweatshops" are necessary, and implementing any western style laws would be devastating. Even Krugman says this.



http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/22/weeki ... shops.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/14/opini ... crats.html
http://reason.com/archives/2003/12/01/poor-mans-hero
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjsshqyAFh8
http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=articles&articleid=53
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0802/p09s02-coop.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119125,00.html
http://www.hoover.org/news/daily-report/24617

Now some of the nation's leading economists, with solid liberal and academic credentials, are offering a much broader, more principled rationale. Economists like Jeffrey D. Sachs of Harvard and Paul Krugman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology say that low-wage plants making clothing and shoes for foreign markets are an essential first step toward modern prosperity in developing countries.

Mr. Gephardt calls for an international minimum wage, Mr. Dean was quoted in USA Today in October as saying, ''I believe that trade also requires human rights and labor standards and environmental standards that are concurrent around the world.''

Perhaps the candidates are simply pandering to unions, or bashing President Bush. But my guess is that they sincerely believe that such trade policies would help poor people abroad -- and that's why they should all traipse through a Cambodian garbage dump to see how economically naïve these schemes would be.
Nhep Chanda is a 17-year-old girl who is one of hundreds of Cambodians who toil all day, every day, picking through the dump for plastic bags, metal cans and bits of food. The stench clogs the nostrils, and parts of the dump are burning, producing acrid smoke that blinds the eyes.

The scavengers are chased by swarms of flies and biting insects, their hands are caked with filth, and those who are barefoot cut their feet on glass. Some are small children.

Nhep Chanda averages 75 cents a day for her efforts. For her, the idea of being exploited in a garment factory -- working only six days a week, inside instead of in the broiling sun, for up to $2 a day -- is a dream.

This is why Johan Norberg, a 30-year-old Swede with roots in the anarchist left, is so important. He is the author of In Defense of Global Capitalism, which makes a powerful moral and economic case for globalization. Norberg throws rhetorical Molotov cocktails both at left-wing critics who would condemn developing countries to poverty by insisting on First World workplace and environmental standards as a prerequisite for trade and at Western governments whose free market rhetoric is shamefully undercut by draconian tariffs on textiles and agriculture, the two areas in which the developing world can actually compete.

With that kind of broad support, anyone arguing against sweatshops, or for an international minimum wage, is simply misinformed.

[Soviet Russia Republic]

Socialist. Resources should be shared by all in the state, there's no reason why some should be able to live like kings while others have to worry if they can feed themselves.

Baseless fear mongering. Everyone in market economies is fed much better than those in socialist economies. Or did you forget lines for milk and bread in the USSR?

Because market economies never had lines for food in their past during troubled times.

Market economies doesn't allow the government to try and do everything it can for the people, proving basic needs for the people, food, water, a place to stay, and a job.

[Hippostania]

Socialist. Resources should be shared by all in the state, there's no reason why some should be able to live like kings while others have to worry if they can feed themselves.

Yes there is. Others who work hard to become rich and succesful have done a lot of work to deserve that. On the other hand, lazy weedsmokers don't deserve shit. They haven't worked hard, they haven't studied, it's their own fault.
It's not the goverment duty to be someone's babysitter, everyone must take care of their own lives, no one else should do it for them.

[Soviet Russia Republic]

Socialist. Resources should be shared by all in the state, there's no reason why some should be able to live like kings while others have to worry if they can feed themselves.

Yes there is. Others who work hard to become rich and succesful have done a lot of work to deserve that. On the other hand, lazy weedsmokers don't deserve shit. They haven't worked hard, they haven't studied, it's their own fault.
It's not the goverment duty to be someone's babysitter, everyone must take care of their own lives, no one else should do it for them.

So you think everyone that is poor is lazy?

It is the government duty to give people basic needs to survive.

[Sibirsky]

Baseless fear mongering. Everyone in market economies is fed much better than those in socialist economies. Or did you forget lines for milk and bread in the USSR?

Because market economies never had lines for food in their past during troubled times.

Market economies doesn't allow the government to try and do everything it can for the people, proving basic needs for the people, food, water, a place to stay, and a job.

Troubled times? In socialist economies the troubled times are always there, That is the norm. In market economies, troubled times only come from legislation, like price controls or rationing. Otherwise prices adjust to get resources to where they are needed. That is entirely the point.

There is nothing in market economies to prevent government providing some basic goods and services. The entire first world does this.

[Keronians]

Yes there is. Others who work hard to become rich and succesful have done a lot of work to deserve that. On the other hand, lazy weedsmokers don't deserve shit. They haven't worked hard, they haven't studied, it's their own fault.
It's not the goverment duty to be someone's babysitter, everyone must take care of their own lives, no one else should do it for them.

So you think everyone that is poor is lazy?

It is the government duty to give people basic needs to survive.

The market does that.

And the government also does it. Is healthcare not universal everywhere in the first world, with the exception of the US? If your income is under a certain amount, are you not given money so that you may feed yourself?

There is an ample safety net in modern societies.

[Hippostania]

Yes there is. Others who work hard to become rich and succesful have done a lot of work to deserve that. On the other hand, lazy weedsmokers don't deserve shit. They haven't worked hard, they haven't studied, it's their own fault.
It's not the goverment duty to be someone's babysitter, everyone must take care of their own lives, no one else should do it for them.

So you think everyone that is poor is lazy?

It is the government duty to give people basic needs to survive.

They're lazy or they have made wrong choices and now they're paying for their mistakes.
It's not the goverment's duty to help them. The goverment's duty is to make sure that they don't commit crimes and if they do, jail them. That's the only responsibility that the goverment has.

[Red Indus]

Yes there is. Others who work hard to become rich and succesful have done a lot of work to deserve that. On the other hand, lazy weedsmokers don't deserve shit. They haven't worked hard, they haven't studied, it's their own fault.
It's not the goverment duty to be someone's babysitter, everyone must take care of their own lives, no one else should do it for them.

My semi-beauracratic state has no welfare, that makes it all-good, right?

[Keronians]

So you think everyone that is poor is lazy?

It is the government duty to give people basic needs to survive.

They're lazy or they have made wrong choices and now they're paying for their mistakes.
It's not the goverment's duty to help them. The goverment's duty is to make sure that they don't commit crimes and if they do, jail them. That's the only responsibility that the goverment has.

Or have been born into poverty, and deprived their entire lives?

[Hippostania]

They're lazy or they have made wrong choices and now they're paying for their mistakes.
It's not the goverment's duty to help them. The goverment's duty is to make sure that they don't commit crimes and if they do, jail them. That's the only responsibility that the goverment has.

Or have been born into poverty, and deprived their entire lives?

Afaik, all goverments of the Western world offer free education to everyone, everyone have an equal chance to succeed. If you're too lazy to study, you can only blame yourself.

[Keronians]

Or have been born into poverty, and deprived their entire lives?

Afaik, all goverments of the Western world offer free education to everyone, everyone have an equal chance to succeed. If you're too lazy to study, you can only blame yourself.

Yeah, they do.

Not all schools are good, and not all teachers are good.

[Soviet Russia Republic]

Because market economies never had lines for food in their past during troubled times.

Market economies doesn't allow the government to try and do everything it can for the people, proving basic needs for the people, food, water, a place to stay, and a job.

Troubled times? In socialist economies the troubled times are always there, That is the norm. In market economies, troubled times only come from legislation, like price controls or rationing. Otherwise prices adjust to get resources to where they are needed. That is entirely the point.

There is nothing in market economies to prevent government providing some basic goods and services. The entire first world does this.

Sorry but first line is simply not true, there isn't always trouble times. All CIS countries were better off in Soviet times speaking economically than present day.

Define first world? Like USA and UK? There's homeless people in both those countries.

[Hippostania]

Child labor in the third world, is a necessary step to their development, and is much, much better than the alternative. I shudder to think what would happen, if consumer pressure got Nike et al to stop using it.

Stop, I usually support you, but there is no excuse for that
Nike deserves to burn to the ground for their crimes, and the solution to unemployment is for the workers to storm the factory, kill the managers, and run the equipment themselves.

There is no excuse for Child Slavery.

No offence, but Sibirsky is right. If they wouldn't be working, they'd be starving in the streets. Nike is offering these children job and money, which they would be unable to get otherwise.
You, on the other hand are a terrible person; you support murdering innocent managers and stealing other people's property. That is unacceptable! D:<

[Soviet Russia Republic]

So you think everyone that is poor is lazy?

It is the government duty to give people basic needs to survive.

They're lazy or they have made wrong choices and now they're paying for their mistakes.
It's not the goverment's duty to help them. The goverment's duty is to make sure that they don't commit crimes and if they do, jail them. That's the only responsibility that the goverment has.

That to the millions who want to work but the market economy doesn't hire them. In a socialist country everyone can have the right to work for a living.

It is the government's duty to help its people live, that's what its created for.

[Hippostania]

Afaik, all goverments of the Western world offer free education to everyone, everyone have an equal chance to succeed. If you're too lazy to study, you can only blame yourself.

Yeah, they do.

Not all schools are good, and not all teachers are good.

Then they should study harder during their free time. They have the material to do it, ''bad schools'' or ''bad teachers'' are not a good reason to justify person's failures.

[-St George]

Socialist. Resources should be shared by all in the state, there's no reason why some should be able to live like kings while others have to worry if they can feed themselves.

Yes there is. Others who work hard to become rich and succesful have done a lot of work to deserve that. On the other hand, lazy weedsmokers don't deserve shit. They haven't worked hard, they haven't studied, it's their own fault.
It's not the goverment duty to be someone's babysitter, everyone must take care of their own lives, no one else should do it for them.

Because, of course, everyone who's rich got there just by themselves, with nothing more than elbow grease, and everyone in poverty didn't study at school and totally deserves it amirite?

[Hippostania]

They're lazy or they have made wrong choices and now they're paying for their mistakes.
It's not the goverment's duty to help them. The goverment's duty is to make sure that they don't commit crimes and if they do, jail them. That's the only responsibility that the goverment has.

That to the millions who want to work but the market economy doesn't hire them. In a socialist country everyone can have the right to work for a living.

It is the government's duty to help its people live, that's what its created for.

They could start a business, it's not as hard as it sounds.
In a socialist society, even the laziest persons get a job, which is not right. If you deliberately ruin your life with your laziness, you should suffer for it.
Goverment's duty is to maintain security, and offer people education. And that's it. It ends there.

[Frenequesta]

Or have been born into poverty, and deprived their entire lives?

Afaik, all goverments of the Western world offer free education to everyone, everyone have an equal chance to succeed. If you're too lazy to study, you can only blame yourself.

And some people aren't all that smart, and not all education is created equal, and not everyone can be a entrepreneur or astrophysicist. Besides, poverty itself, with is vicissitudes, can be quite a distraction from study.

Oh, and you just contradicted yourself. Your assertion is dependent on free education for all, which is not "making sure they don't commit crimes", because plenty of youth still commit crimes even in school.