There's a difference between getting paid just enough to provide for your basic needs, and getting paid enough to afford that new Honda and big-screen TV you always wanted. These people need to work somewhere or they'll starve. If they refuse to work to drive up wages, there's always poor people somewhere else who are starving who will do the work instead.

right but if those poor people have jobs, and they work 15 hours a day they cannot exactly hold two jobs.

if we create more sweatshops, more jobs are created.

if we get enough jobs so that everyone is working, placement goes down.

if replacement goes down, incentives go up.

So your plan is to have the 1.1 billion people worldwide who are living in "extreme poverty" as defined by the world bank (<1$ a day) all work in sweatshops? I doubt that the demand to build that many sweatshops is even there. Plus, you have to remember that even if conditions do improve for these people, they will always be paid less than workers in first world countries, and will never receive the opportunities we do.

Oh, so you're saying the U.S.A. (because I assume you're talking mainly the U.S.A.) could double as a global policeman and banker?
That argument was a perfect example of an anti-Socialist millionaire.
Even if one were to go along with your sick, demented plan to create thousands of sweatshops in third world countries to allow them to barely survive (not to mention this would also make the U.S.A. a global employer of impoverished peoples, like a card player holding the whole deck of cards and saying, "I'm winning, you're fucked") how long would this process take?
As America consistently increased supply for goods with additional sweatshops, the majority of these goods would be imported into America, and American residents would eventually lessen their demand.
This, of course, would hinder funds on more sweatshops, because the sweatshops producing goods would already be too much for the budget of these patronizing American saints.
The overall effect would be protest of increased outsourcing (because you would eventually delve into more skilled craft, not just work for impoverished residents of other nations) and America would be seen as a trickster that put a dollar bill on the hot pavement, only to pull it back from a recipient (for 15 hours a day, mind you).
Horrible plan; if you had taken the time to read some other statements by All_Nite_Dinah you might have possibly understood a little more.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe, from that, and other posts you've made in the past, that you are one of the "in the box" individuals who was spoon fed on Capitalist theory and can't efficiently think any differently.

You've blown your cover. Do you really think I'm a socialist millionaire? Do you think anyone does? Actually I'm probably worse of financially than you are. I go to school full time, work full time, and give my parents money so they can live. I don't think I've got it bad comparatively, but I'm certainly no millionaire. What is your economic condition? I paid for school and this computer with school loans. I attend a university that was created to serve the impoverished inner city so that they could work to support their children or parents and still get a better education.

What is it that you do that makes you so aware? Read one-sided ideology on economics in a cursory fashion?

Cursory indeed. Am I not wrong is recalling the Marx said that Communism cannot be installed with some sort of Lenninist Vanguard party but rather must come naturally from capitalisms down fall as it tries to handle its every expanding rings of capitalism? Jesus, I hope that isn't correct or ironically enough I'm the one supporting communism and you're supporting Lenninism.

Who is patronizing again? Any by the way, what country are you from?

God forbid I don't read that closed-minded hogwash from All Night Dinah but apparently you couldn't be bothered to read anything I wrote. Not only did I use facts, facts that backed up my statements and countered yours, but these people want the 15 hour a day jobs. Believe it or not, Not everyone believes that the hug-circles and maypole dances of your unhygienic dystopia are the "stuff of dreams."

If you had read anything I wrote, or more importantly anything I've read you might be slightly more capable to argue.

Well lets see. You apparently see no problems with this system thats set to save us all, and hasn't in the past. The system in place that affords you the ability to protest has absolutely no redeeming qualities. And I'm the one in the box?

You offer no solutions, just condemnation of systems in place. The grass is always greener I suppose. But thus the issue. As Micheal Freeden accuratly put it:

"Marx's quasi-messianic conviction that a socialist, undistorted society would prevail meant that present defects were worth deploring, not exploring. It is as if a student of political institutions decided that it was a waste of time to study the House of Commons because its debates exhibit inferior political practice; they display loutish behaviour, competitive antagonism, gross inefficiencies and ridiculous seating arrangements. Instead, declares the scholar, let's devote our intellectual efforts to predicting the development of a best-practice legislature, which can be defended and endorsed permanently"

And so it goes. Your idiot system works because no one is proving that it will fail. Not any more.

You see to be gunning for me in every thread Trauma. Be careful you don't run out of ammunition sir, lest you be seen as a fool. Given what you say, I clearly already am, and have nothing to lose.

I'm not anti-captitalism per se, even though my people have been damned to near extinction because of it. I am however very opposed to free trade. Which does nothing but enable corrupt soul sucking corporate demons of every kind to do whatever the hell they want.

This is your most blatantly ignorant comment of the week. Congratulations.

Perhaps you don't get it. I've written pages and pages about the validity of this opinion. I've researched twice as much as I've written.

Ignorant is something you and your uneducated ilk throw around as if you've gained some form of monopoly on the word. Or rather if those of us using facts have gained a sort of monopsony. The fact remains that I said why it was not only logical but beneficial.

You still seem to think that you're going to go in to Thailand with your Blue Helmet on and demanding that the rice farmer gets $15 an hour to make irregular sweaters for Old Navy. Pull your head out of your ass you uneducated little boy and go visit the real world. Go back to telling me The Beatles are some sort of infallible group of demigod's where you can at least fake knowing what you're talking about when you secretly just pull out the same boring tid bits Rolling Stone has been cramming down the American esophagus for the past 40 ****ing years.

I enjoy your rants. I know you're just stressin' tho. Relax. Lets make sweet love by the fireplace.

Also. Even though what you said about sweatshops is correct. It makes jobs only for people in other countries. And call me a selfish jackass but thats not our responsibility, we need to look after our own. And downsizing and offshoring claims more jobs than illegal immigration ever will.

Besides, taking all the cons of sweatshops like horrid working conditions and low wages into consideration. Simply being employed dosen't seem to be that much of a pro.

Case in point, your Honor.

Well we're making a case for capitalism. I'm not saying that this is what we should do, im saying this is how to fix the issue of third world poverty. All nations fight a bloody battle through industrialization. The idea that you can go from agricultural society to post-industrial without the in between is the garbage rhetoric of the uneducated. Not only does it assume that a nation has the resources, but has been hiding them.

If they made American wages, companies would just employ workers here. The third world would still die of malaria, there'd just be no way to give them help without aid dropping medical aid. Thats no solution...teach a man to fish and he eats for a day...

I don't think I understand what you're getting at in the last statement though. Are you saying the working conditions make having the job too sucky to be redeemable?

Big3, do you share my opinion that the problem regarding sweatshops isn't the pay, it's just the conditions? People generally wouldn't go and work in sweatshops if there were more financially viable alternatives available. They work there because however bad the pay may be in our terms, it's ok pay for where they are, or at least better than the alternatives.

If people are working in bad conditions for low pay, the bigger problem is that they are working in bad conditions. Companies can defend low pay because it fits into their financial planning - lower pay can lead to more profit and this would hopefully lead to a more stable company which is able to offer more jobs which are more secure (I don't know much about economics so if anybody sees a flaw please mention it). Companies can't really defend not giving decent working conditions to their employees though, or at least improving the conditions as much as would be possible without incurring any major costs.

I think your idea of more sweatshops being opened to increase demand for labour could work, but only if the sweatshops are geographically situated such that workers would be able to choose between different sweatshops. In 3rd world countries it takes so long to travel between villages and different parts of each city that unless the sweatshops were almost side by side, or people were to relocate just to try out different sweatshops, then the competition for employees wouldn't work that well.

Or did you mean that more sweatshops offers the more ethical distributors an opportunity to choose one which gives better working conditions to its staff? The purely capitalist would still go for the one offering the best value item, which chances are would be the one paying the least to its workers.

Pretty much. Seriously, it's not really helping anyone over there, while people here who need jobs aren't getting them because all the corporate think tanks know that they can get someone in Bangladash who will do the same job for less than half the wages an American get.

Don't lie to yourself. Companies don't relocate to other countries because they want to help them, they just want to save money.

I meant you sound like one, not you are; do you think I have any clue your economic condition whatsoever?
No, in fact I try to explore every facet of thought in matters concerning the majority, this allows one to be biased.
Still, you're one to talk, quote Friedman one more time.
I haven't read much of his works, but I know he publicized capitalism like there was no tomorrow.
Also, I'm pretty sure he didn't write any books on communist economic theory, just exploit its flaws because of the way it was put to bad usage by Stalin.
For the last point, you're accusing me of being cursory??
What citations must you find by next semester for the counterpoint against Marx to be rationalized, college boy?
No, this is not ironic.
You obviously are not supporting communism, especially according to Marx.
If you were, you would be waiting for the demise of capitalism and not self-righteously preaching a free market economy.
Also, in no argument did I say the October Revolution was just or support any overthrow of the capitalism the United States has accepted since its conception.
Supporting the demise of capitalism would not only be illegal, but I would be sent to Cuba, according to the Patriot Act.

http://www.kdsmithinsurance.com/404/...usinessman.jpg
Canada.


He backed up everything he said in a logical fashion.
You cannot speak for them, you don't know; I don't know.
I'm not advocating full-fledged anarchy but I'm certainly not promoting the funding of sweatshops.
If anything, I think your idea would be more applicable to cheaper facilities with lower wages and the same number of hours- not sweatshops.
The only thing sweatshops do is sell out corporate vendors to other nations because they're trying to maximize their revenue.
Of course it makes sense that people would choose to work a 15 hour shift and make $10 instead of $2 for the same number of hours, but it's not like these patrons couldn't pay them more; clearly economic exploitation based on living condition.
Also, I like how you said I read one-sided idealogy when your bias for capitalism flares out with the statement "unhygienic dystopia".


I'm sorry, I forgot that what you wrote is just a watered down version of every thing you've read.
Honestly, I regret not reading any books by run-of-the-mill "well to do" conservative capitalists.


Never did I say capitalism was completely evil.
"unhygienic dystopia", hypocrite.
Yes, you are the one in the box.

Until the U.S.A. was conceived, capitalism was not the shimmering obelisk you see it as now.
Many countries that endorsed capitalism in the past got screwed because most of them didn't have sufficient resources to maintain a near 1:1 import/export ratio.
Bad employment of capitalism insured high tariffs for citizens wishing to export goods and higher tariffs for the government wishing to import necessary goods; ultimately raising taxes and putting individuals into poverty.
The U.S.A. took a long time to become extremely good at its living.
If you had typed this 400 years ago, the same could have been said to you.
"Idiot system", hahaha.

I just thought you had girl troubles, I'm not gunning for you!
Just because we have different opinions in no way makes you a fool; I respect what you think but disagree with your opinion, that's all.
I do not disrespect you as an individual.
Most people can barely formulate a coherent sentence, let alone follow any sort of theory and understand it, all the while backing it up in a debate; you happened to do all those things just now.
Besides, I know you're one smart motherfucker, so shut your trap.

well i really think punk would be better off as not being know to so many people, because then if everyone knew about it, there would be millions of new ****ty bands trying to imitate punks, but thats just the way i look at it

??? ummm...ok. Wrong thread, but you have left me wondering what kind of bands you're into.

wow this thread has got people talking. ok so here is my point of view.

like many of you said before every government system is flawed. that is because they are all creations of man (like religion) and thus are going to continued to be flawed. they will however get better and better, but never perfect. my biggest problem with capitalism is they way you get raised. people stop being taught what is WRONG or RIGHT but what is LOGICAL and what ISNT. like regardless of what i feel like im being called to do in life i ignore it to an extent because i feel it is LOGICAL to get a engineering degree. people dont think its LOGICAL to take care of their parents so they put them into god awful retirement homes all lonely and whatnot. beyond that, it has definitely been quite successful. the reason so many punk bands are anti capitalist is because they usually feel cheated by the system (were poor growing up) and want to 'rebel' against it by writing catchy songs their friends might like. then one day someone says 'these guys actually arnt that bad and could sell some records' and 90% of them hop on the $$$-train and say goodbye to ACTUALLY being anti-capitalist...otherwise their albums would be free.

just my 2 pence

If you think about it DIY is about the purest form of capitalism there is. It just doesn't involve screwing eveyone else over in order to make as much of a profit as possible, which is a philosophy that has come to be associated with capitalism.

Being anti-capitalist does not mean you think everything should be free, though. In communism, for example, everything isn't free. You still have to contribute to the nation state in order to receive goods from the government.

Because Capitalism does not work, and is oppressive; it is wage slavery, and is not good to workers.

I am a socialist, and an anarchist.

Fascism is the purest form of capitalism; multi-national corporations profitted from the nazis. Bexar used Joseph Mengele to research their medicine.

U.S. economy is getting worse.

America has ties to third world fascism. Mubarak was U.S. backed before he was overthrown by his people, and the U.S. saying we support you is a lie, and very hypocritical.