1 edit
Originally posted by FMFSo when all the developing countries have become developed countries, and there is no one left to work for infrahuman wages, how much will sports shoes cost in the USA?
Do you seriously think it is in the nature of capitalism to "allow" all countries to become developed countries in the same sense as the reasonably prosperous people in developed countries would define "developed countries"?
Originally posted by spruce112358
Yes.
Right now, not everyone in the USA can afford top brands - that's with people in far off sweatshops - one of the engine rooms of U.S. "capitalist" prosperity - getting only $100 or so a month, you know? The violence of poverty and what not.
When the sweat shops are no more, and the wages of shoe stichers go up from $1,200 p.a. to, let's say $20,000 p.a. - i.e. "capitalist prosperity" as roughly defined by what is going on in "the prosperous countries" you talked of, where "capitalism" is about self-direction and freedom of choice, and wearing the sports shoes of their choice - how will Americans pay for their sports shoes? Aren't they going to be approximately 20 times more expensive than they are now?
Tell me please, specifically, in what way is your promise of "capitalist prosperity for all in 200 years or so" NOT a pyramid scheme. Use the sports shoes as the illustration.
1 edit
Originally posted by eljefejesusWell stated?
well stated!
How does this kind of sentimentality --- there is something about the USA. I can't really explain what it is, except that there is a notion that you don't have to do or think what you are told -- because a lot of what you are told is, frankly, crap. A notion that good things happen when everybody has as much freedom as they can handle, and more --- does THIS pass for reasonable argument according to your mind map?
How were his anecdote and dreamy musings, in any way, an answer to my concrete question?
Well stated?? 🙄
Originally posted by eljefejesusIt's not a metaphor.
You may get away with quoting my post here, it is quite instructive as to why the insertion of Wall Street does not keep any of the metaphor sensible. How does this credit downturn that affects all open world economies make Wall Street a suitable substitute in this metaphor? Perhaps you can explain it a bit? Thanks.
Originally posted by spruce112358For FMF, much of what you left out is what makes a well-stated argument for capitalism and a smooth undercutting of socialism.
I remember after my first long trip overseas, after living in huts on rice with hot sauce for 8 months, I came back to the USA. I had lost 20 lbs or so.
I ordered a sandwich and a drink -- it looked like a whole turkey, sliced up and placed between two giant loaves with a bucket of lemonade beside it. And later the lady asked me if I wanted more to d ...[text shortened]... -eyed optimists who had the gall to decide to put theory into practice.
Imagine that.
Originally posted by eljefejesusIt is nothing of the sort. I asked a concrete question. He evaded it with some sort of sentimental personal anecdote and a weird eulogy for his home country.
For FMF, much of what you left out is what makes a well-stated argument for capitalism and a smooth undercutting of socialism.
It was not an answer to my question.
It was not a well-stated "argument".
Or maybe it in in your political universe? 🙂
Originally posted by FMFPolitical universe? Why always trying to create a weak attack where there is no basis for one?
It is nothing of the sort. I asked a concrete question. He evaded it with some sort of sentimental personal anecdote and a weird eulogy for his home country.
It was not an answer to my question.
It was not a well-stated "argument".
Or maybe it in in your political universe? 🙂
Regardless of what direct answer you were looking for (can you restate your question, I didn't see one in your post...), the fact is that the point that he made was meaningful and had layers of interested observations and analysis, and which I found to be well stated.
Clearly personal anecdotes don't always get the same response from different readers.
Originally posted by FMFThere go the unprovoked attacks again. As I'm sure you realize, in the prior post it seems your question was really just an attack, by asking why a poster only tells half the story (which assumes bad faith rather than assuming good faith). I rarely see any side of an argument or debate help the other side's case in every single post.
You can't see the direct question?
What a joker.
And a lazy one at that.
Whatever.
Notice I'm not attacking you, just debating here.
Originally posted by LundosRelative to most of the world? I would say approximately 200 years.
Let me ask you this then: How long have the US persued a capitalistic political policy (internal and foreign)?
And by capitalistic I refer to your 'definition' with freedom of choices and free markets.
EDIT: This is for elje and spruce.
Originally posted by eljefejesusA post with no substance. More evidence that you are a mere joker.
There go the unprovoked attacks again. As I'm sure you realize, in the prior post it seems your question was really just an attack, by asking why a poster only tells half the story (which assumes bad faith rather than assuming good faith). I rarely see any side of an argument or debate help the other side's case in every single post.
Notice I'm not attacking you, just debating here.