Originally posted by AThousandYoungAnd how often is this happening in today's economy?
Wage slavery takes place when demand for jobs is much higher than supply - in a recession or depression. People are desperate to get work and will do anything. They get locked into contracts by which they unwittingly (due to difficult language used in the contract) sell themselves into near slavery and from which they end up losing money in the proc ...[text shortened]... that problem myself, but at least I recognize it and could probably overcome it if I need to.
I agree, there were excesses in former times. But nowadays, labor can move much more freely, trained workers are not easy to replace, and capitalists have learned a lesson about how crippling strikes can be. Strikes are a legitimate form of bargaining.
Capitalism is about people cooperating to achieve mutual benefit. Forgetting that -- as when management mistreats workers, or when workers force insupportable demands on a company -- leads to less benefit for all.
The role of the government in all this is that of a referee in a football match -- supporting neither side, but making sure no one breaks The Rules. And, by way of that, making sure that The Rules are fair.
Both Laws and contracts are rules -- but Laws have been through a rigorous debate and testing process and a lot of people have studied the possible implications. Contracts have not. Therefore when it comes to enforcement, the government should enforce laws, and enforce contracts when they are fair and equitable.
So for example, I am not a big fan of anti-competition clauses in contracts because competition makes for healthy markets. As for the "slave" contracts you have described, I would expect the government to find that those, too, should not be enforced.
Once a capitalist sees that a blatantly unfair contract will not be enforced, they stop wasting their time writing them.
Originally posted by spruce112358Then your understanding of pure capitalism and mine are different. I don't think the US is pure capitalist which is why we don't have some of these problems.
And how often is this happening in today's economy?
I agree, there were excesses in former times. But nowadays, labor can move much more freely, trained workers are not easy to replace, and capitalists have learned a lesson about how crippling strikes can be. Strikes are a legitimate form of bargaining.
Capitalism is about people cooperating to ac ...[text shortened]... a blatantly unfair contract will not be enforced, they stop wasting their time writing them.
2 edits
Originally posted by MacSwainThat is certainly a nice description of it, but capitalism is also about
Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion. Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom.
squeezing out every possible dollar in every deal. By it's very definition,
that is what it's all about. Secure your future by accumulating as much
property/material as possible, and always try to give less for more. To do
that you have companies moving their production and support to
countries where labour costs are low (and Spruce, western companies
do sometimes, if not most of the time, indirectly utilise child labour). This
is the dark side to capitalism that you cannot escape, MacSwain. Just
think about it. If everyone had an equal chance to make that extra buck,
it wouldn't work. The idea is simple. For capitalism to work, there has to
be suckers, somewhere, getting screwed and it's usually the ones who
can't sit on a deal until the price is right; those without the capital.
The western world is enjoying a mixed economy, at the time. Parts state
owned businesses, parts privately owned. But with the trends lately,
it moves more and more toward the private sectors. But is that good for
people in general? The workers? The small-business owners? No, for the
very reason stated in the last paragraph, where they who have the capital
can control things simply by waiting for the right price and thereby limit
the costs, while selling with increased profit because not everyone has the
means to wait it out. That means you have the rich who gets by easily as
long as they don't take any unnecessary risks, and then the rest who
ends up breaking their backs for the rich. Unions have little
influence when production is moved out of their reach. This is exactly the
kind of thing socialism sets out to prevent.
I'd like to see a little more state in control of things, and working
for the people, not against.
Here's a well written article on capitalism. I think it's fair enough about
the good intention and the practical outcome of pure capitalism:
http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/54909.html
Originally posted by spruce112358It probably does not happen that much if you are a US born citizen, but think about everything China makes that you can buy for a pittance from K or Walmart and not that its your fault or that you could actually really do anything about it, but the scale of competition in developing economies like China and India put a pressure on workers to perform and do more for less. While they have not yet got a handle on your skill, you may say well so what who cares?
And how often is this happening in today's economy?
But as is happening with a greater pace and frequency, the internet and the interoperability between computer systems and platforms, and the increasing ability to be able to digitize almost any analytical problem which can then be outsourced to the lowest bidder, means that the west will increasingly become service economies where the greatest growth sectors will be industries like tourism.
Fighting for sweatshop workers rights might seems illogical or redundant, but in the long run it will actually have the unintended consequence of protecting western jobs in small to medium scale manufacturing and production.
1 edit
Originally posted by stockenAlas, we are condemned to disagree.
That is certainly a nice description of it, but capitalism is also about
squeezing out every possible dollar in every deal. By it's very definition,
that is what it's all about. Secure your future by accumulating as much
property/material as possible, and always try to give less for more. To do
that you have companies moving their production and supp practical outcome of pure capitalism:
http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/54909.html
It seems possible you are a follower of Sir Thomas Moore while I am a devotee of the Objectivism of Rand. I will be unable to sway your viewpoint as, I can assure you, you will be unable to sway mine. Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic. Accordingly we all make use, more or less, of both as we attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend our own and to attack others. So be it.
I would like to leave you with this small observance of mine and then, of course, you may have the last word. Those who find merit in socialism for government, business, services, etc., in other words, bodies that hold some level of control over them, seem to practice laissez-faire capitalism in their personal, every-day and common place activities which they themselves control.
Rubbish, say you? Then let me present two examples of many I could proffer;
Have you ever been offered a rise in salary by your employer and replied, “no thank you sir” I am able to afford my flat, dine on a tasty mixed grill and afford a pint or two. Please give that increase to one of your employees who earns less than I?
Have you ever set forth to engage a painter to refresh your flats’ decor and employed the one who quoted the higher rate, not because he had better references but because he appeared more needful?
Originally posted by MacSwainBasic definitions:
[b]Alas, we are condemned to disagree.
It seems possible you are a follower of Sir Thomas Moore while I am a devotee of the Objectivism of Rand. I will be unable to sway your viewpoint as, I can assure you, you will be unable to sway mine. Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic. Accordingly we all make use, more or less, of both as we attempt to ...[text shortened]... oted the higher rate, not because he had better references but because he appeared more needful?[/b]
1. Capitalism - the capital in private ownership
2. Socialism - the capital in state ownership
Can we at least agree on that?
Originally posted by stockenI'm against child labor. But the only cases I have heard of recently were where communist (China) or socialist (India) countries were doing it. Just because a western company encouraged them didn't mean they had to do it. Where was the so-called concern for people?
That is certainly a nice description of it, but capitalism is also about
squeezing out every possible dollar in every deal. By it's very definition,
that is what it's all about. Secure your future by accumulating as much
property/material as possible, and always try to give less for more. To do
that you have companies moving their production and supp ...[text shortened]... practical outcome of pure capitalism:
http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/54909.html
The dark side of capitalism is creating two nations with a billion consumers each -- who will pretty soon want to buy whatever you have to sell. Maybe instead of worrying about your 8-5 job in a steel mill sweating like a pig, you should think about what you are going to sell them? Instead of asking the government to protect your job and buy your expensive steel that no one wants.
Governments are not known for their business acumen. Most government-run businesses end up running at a loss. A country studded with government-owned enterprise slowly grinds to a halt as the bureaucrats try to pass ever-more-urgent laws governing how money should move and how people should behave.
Seriously, they would have just as much success passing laws to govern the weather.
Socialism is about as much fun as football between two teams of referees.
Originally posted by kmax87The Chinese have gone from an unproductive nation to a productive one. The world is being flooded with goods. We can get anything we want for peanuts. Yes, we have to stop producing stuff of which there is already too much. That's a normal market force.
It probably does not happen that much if you are a US born citizen, but think about everything China makes that you can buy for a pittance from K or Walmart and not that its your fault or that you could actually really do anything about it, but the scale of competition in developing economies like China and India put a pressure on workers to perform and do mo ...[text shortened]... ed consequence of protecting western jobs in small to medium scale manufacturing and production.
But the interesting question is, what do the Chinese and Indians want to buy with all the cash they are now earning? Do you know? Don't you think you should find out?
Originally posted by MacSwainBeautiful.
Have you ever been offered a rise in salary by your employer and replied, “no thank you sir” I am able to afford my flat, dine on a tasty mixed grill and afford a pint or two. Please give that increase to one of your employees who earns less than I?
Have you ever set forth to engage a painter to refresh your flats’ decor and employed the one who quoted the higher rate, not because he had better references but because he appeared more needful?
Capitalism is normal and natural. Don't condemn in others what you do yourself.
Originally posted by spruce112358I couldn't agree more. And another principle I try to stick to (however with
Don't condemn in others what you do yourself.
less overall success) is never push your case to boredom. When you find
yourself repeating the same things over and over, shut up. Which is why
I'm going to leave this discussion as it is. 🙂
Originally posted by stockenTHAT MEANS I AM TEH WEINER
I couldn't agree more. And another principle I try to stick to (however with
less overall success) is never push your case to boredom. When you find
yourself repeating the same things over and over, shut up. Which is why
I'm going to leave this discussion as it is. 🙂
Originally posted by PinkFloydI absolutely LOVE the democratic implications!
Looking back, I would respectfully disagree with you. I think that Macswain is the winner.
1) Everyone who posted in a thread is a candidate.
2) Everyone gets a vote as to who the current Winner Of The Debate is -- a vote which can be changed as the debate goes on.
I think this would be an improvement over the recommendations, which are hard to do much with.