|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 01 2014 03:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening. other data suggests that at least partially due to the constant strife for economic progress, there's hardly gonna be a Bangladesh 110 years from now. (and at least personally I don't think you can view capitalism (or any other economic system) separately from well, everything else.) but even disregarding that (and it was slightly tongue in cheek in the first place  ), it's my impression that the capitalism of today is very different from the capitalism from 110 years ago. I'm no scholar here and I don't have data supporting the trends I claim to observe, and as such I'd be very happy if someone proves me wrong, but anyway.. it seems to me that this notion that someone in bangladesh can simply start their own clothes-manufacturing store, work hard and eventually expand their store and turn their company into a big one just isn't true anymore, because multinational companies that operate at such a grand scale that it's impossible for a new smaller company to compete on the same level as them. It's kind of the walmart-curse, buying in extreme bulk and having smartly organized logistical operations makes it impossible for smaller companies to compete in price - likewise it's impossible for a smaller clothes-manufacturer to compete with nike or whatever because the infrastructure which makes nike able to produce reasonably high quality products for a very small price simply is not available to them.. 110 years ago in usa, it's a different scenario, many industries are under or undeveloped. seems to me like the only way for a small breakout-company to become big nowadays is by providing a smart technologically innovative service (like facebook or whatever other app-examples one can come up with), but the old industries have all been overtaken by companies that are so big and have such well developed infrastructure that a new operation cannot possibly compete.
Manufacturers in Bangladesh don't compete with multinationals - they sell to them as contract manufacturers. Small manufacturers is exactly how the industry got started there, with help from some Korean companies iirc.
|
On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening.
Because the data is actually pretty clear that once countries enter middle income levels they become trapped as international capital moves to some the next slave country. The US industrial worker of last century was protected by a huge trade wall and happened to live a country with vast natural resources. The only people who have managed to industrialize themselves in the last 50 years have been either small city states who act as money laundering centers for larger economic entities around them (Singapore, Hong Kong) or pursued a policy of mercantalistic industrailization permitted by global capitalist powers because of strategic reasons (Taiwan, South Korea, and China in its role as America's Cold War ally against the Soviets). Attempts to modernize using advice of American/Western economists living in fantasy land where free trade and capital movement somehow naturally leads to an industrial society breaking down have all ended in tears, especially in Latin America.
|
Norway28675 Posts
On April 01 2014 03:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 03:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening. other data suggests that at least partially due to the constant strife for economic progress, there's hardly gonna be a Bangladesh 110 years from now. (and at least personally I don't think you can view capitalism (or any other economic system) separately from well, everything else.) but even disregarding that (and it was slightly tongue in cheek in the first place ), it's my impression that the capitalism of today is very different from the capitalism from 110 years ago. I'm no scholar here and I don't have data supporting the trends I claim to observe, and as such I'd be very happy if someone proves me wrong, but anyway.. it seems to me that this notion that someone in bangladesh can simply start their own clothes-manufacturing store, work hard and eventually expand their store and turn their company into a big one just isn't true anymore, because multinational companies that operate at such a grand scale that it's impossible for a new smaller company to compete on the same level as them. It's kind of the walmart-curse, buying in extreme bulk and having smartly organized logistical operations makes it impossible for smaller companies to compete in price - likewise it's impossible for a smaller clothes-manufacturer to compete with nike or whatever because the infrastructure which makes nike able to produce reasonably high quality products for a very small price simply is not available to them.. 110 years ago in usa, it's a different scenario, many industries are under or undeveloped. seems to me like the only way for a small breakout-company to become big nowadays is by providing a smart technologically innovative service (like facebook or whatever other app-examples one can come up with), but the old industries have all been overtaken by companies that are so big and have such well developed infrastructure that a new operation cannot possibly compete. Manufacturers in Bangladesh don't compete with multinationals - they sell to them as contract manufacturers. Small manufacturers is exactly how the industry got started there, with help from some Korean companies iirc.
While I will readily admit that I don't know much about this industry, this does not sound like the mutually beneficial agreement which allows for great growth and competition that you make it sound like. (although to be fair, that might just me me making it sound like that's what you're saying rather than that being what you are saying.)
rather, it sounds like the bangladeshi manufacturers cannot compete with the multinational companies and thus they do the next best thing - sell to them at low low prices, done out of necessity because there's no room for holding out and trying to negotiate a better price - seeing as the third world is full of people who are staying barely afloat who cannot simply choose not to work for a couple weeks, the multinational companies can simply choose to purchase their products from someone else should the current banghadeshi supplier demand a 10% raise..
I mean, I'm not adhering to this, multinational companies are evil/greedy narrative here.. Rather, western consumerism and constant demand for lower prices among the western consumer who already has more than enough, mean that the lower chains of the supply chain hardly experience economic growth. Multinational companies compete with eachother to constantly keep prices low to keep the western consumer happy, and third world manufacturers compete with eachother to maintain contracts meaning that they basically take whatever they can get. The problem is essentially that we, the western consumer, keep seeing decreased prices - a pair of pants costs less in Norway now than it did 15 years ago, despite wages being 191% of what they were back then.
|
WASHINGTON — President Obama's healthcare law, despite a rocky rollout and determined opposition from critics, already has spurred the largest expansion in health coverage in America in half a century, national surveys and enrollment data show.
As the law's initial enrollment period closes, at least 9.5 million previously uninsured people have gained coverage. Some have done so through marketplaces created by the law, some through other private insurance and others through Medicaid, which has expanded under the law in about half the states.
The tally draws from a review of state and federal enrollment reports, surveys and interviews with insurance executives and government officials nationwide.
Source
|
I wonder if the Republicans will stick to their 'let's get rid of Obamacare' agenda when the next elections come up. Seems pretty impossible with nearly 10 million uninsured people now having insurance.
|
On April 01 2014 03:21 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening. Because the data is actually pretty clear that once countries enter middle income levels they become trapped as international capital moves to some the next slave country. The US industrial worker of last century was protected by a huge trade wall and happened to live a country with vast natural resources. The only people who have managed to industrialize themselves in the last 50 years have been either small city states who act as money laundering centers for larger economic entities around them (Singapore, Hong Kong) or pursued a policy of mercantalistic industrailization permitted by global capitalist powers because of strategic reasons (Taiwan, South Korea, and China in its role as America's Cold War ally against the Soviets). Attempts to modernize using advice of American/Western economists living in fantasy land where free trade and capital movement somehow naturally leads to an industrial society breaking down have all ended in tears, especially in Latin America.
The middle income trap is a relative thing - you're still industrializing, just not catching up to rich world countries. That's not a terrible thing. It can also mean continued catching up on non-economic indicators like child mortality and literacy, which is obviously great, and should help with the next phase of economic catch up. Hans Rosling has some pretty convincing data-driven videos on the continued catch-up. I'd recommend checking it out.
|
On April 01 2014 04:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 03:21 Sub40APM wrote:On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening. Because the data is actually pretty clear that once countries enter middle income levels they become trapped as international capital moves to some the next slave country. The US industrial worker of last century was protected by a huge trade wall and happened to live a country with vast natural resources. The only people who have managed to industrialize themselves in the last 50 years have been either small city states who act as money laundering centers for larger economic entities around them (Singapore, Hong Kong) or pursued a policy of mercantalistic industrailization permitted by global capitalist powers because of strategic reasons (Taiwan, South Korea, and China in its role as America's Cold War ally against the Soviets). Attempts to modernize using advice of American/Western economists living in fantasy land where free trade and capital movement somehow naturally leads to an industrial society breaking down have all ended in tears, especially in Latin America. The middle income trap is a relative thing - you're still industrializing, just not catching up to rich world countries. That's not a terrible thing. It can also mean continued catching up on non-economic indicators like child mortality and literacy, which is obviously great, and should help with the next phase of economic catch up. Hans Rosling has some pretty convincing data-driven videos on the continued catch-up. I'd recommend checking it out.
I've seen it, the point is that your original claim was "100 years ago they were like the US" implying that in another 100 years they will catch up, even to America of 2014, which I said seems to be clearly not happening.
|
Norway28675 Posts
I can definitely echo the gapminder recommendation. 
|
On April 01 2014 03:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 03:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 01 2014 03:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening. other data suggests that at least partially due to the constant strife for economic progress, there's hardly gonna be a Bangladesh 110 years from now. (and at least personally I don't think you can view capitalism (or any other economic system) separately from well, everything else.) but even disregarding that (and it was slightly tongue in cheek in the first place ), it's my impression that the capitalism of today is very different from the capitalism from 110 years ago. I'm no scholar here and I don't have data supporting the trends I claim to observe, and as such I'd be very happy if someone proves me wrong, but anyway.. it seems to me that this notion that someone in bangladesh can simply start their own clothes-manufacturing store, work hard and eventually expand their store and turn their company into a big one just isn't true anymore, because multinational companies that operate at such a grand scale that it's impossible for a new smaller company to compete on the same level as them. It's kind of the walmart-curse, buying in extreme bulk and having smartly organized logistical operations makes it impossible for smaller companies to compete in price - likewise it's impossible for a smaller clothes-manufacturer to compete with nike or whatever because the infrastructure which makes nike able to produce reasonably high quality products for a very small price simply is not available to them.. 110 years ago in usa, it's a different scenario, many industries are under or undeveloped. seems to me like the only way for a small breakout-company to become big nowadays is by providing a smart technologically innovative service (like facebook or whatever other app-examples one can come up with), but the old industries have all been overtaken by companies that are so big and have such well developed infrastructure that a new operation cannot possibly compete. Manufacturers in Bangladesh don't compete with multinationals - they sell to them as contract manufacturers. Small manufacturers is exactly how the industry got started there, with help from some Korean companies iirc. While I will readily admit that I don't know much about this industry, this does not sound like the mutually beneficial agreement which allows for great growth and competition that you make it sound like. (although to be fair, that might just me me making it sound like that's what you're saying rather than that being what you are saying.) rather, it sounds like the bangladeshi manufacturers cannot compete with the multinational companies and thus they do the next best thing - sell to them at low low prices, done out of necessity because there's no room for holding out and trying to negotiate a better price - seeing as the third world is full of people who are staying barely afloat who cannot simply choose not to work for a couple weeks, the multinational companies can simply choose to purchase their products from someone else should the current banghadeshi supplier demand a 10% raise.. I mean, I'm not adhering to this, multinational companies are evil/greedy narrative here.. Rather, western consumerism and constant demand for lower prices among the western consumer who already has more than enough, mean that the lower chains of the supply chain hardly experience economic growth. Multinational companies compete with eachother to constantly keep prices low to keep the western consumer happy, and third world manufacturers compete with eachother to maintain contracts meaning that they basically take whatever they can get. The problem is essentially that we, the western consumer, keep seeing decreased prices - a pair of pants costs less in Norway now than it did 15 years ago, despite wages being 191% of what they were back then.
Just to clarify - Bangladeshi manufacturers do different things than western multinationals. Nike doesn't make shoes. A Bangladeshi CM doesn't compete with Nike any more than a farm competes with a supermarket.
It's true that the garment industry follows cheap labor, but that's been true for well over a century, and played a similar role in the US's industrialization.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On April 01 2014 04:41 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 04:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 01 2014 03:21 Sub40APM wrote:On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening. Because the data is actually pretty clear that once countries enter middle income levels they become trapped as international capital moves to some the next slave country. The US industrial worker of last century was protected by a huge trade wall and happened to live a country with vast natural resources. The only people who have managed to industrialize themselves in the last 50 years have been either small city states who act as money laundering centers for larger economic entities around them (Singapore, Hong Kong) or pursued a policy of mercantalistic industrailization permitted by global capitalist powers because of strategic reasons (Taiwan, South Korea, and China in its role as America's Cold War ally against the Soviets). Attempts to modernize using advice of American/Western economists living in fantasy land where free trade and capital movement somehow naturally leads to an industrial society breaking down have all ended in tears, especially in Latin America. The middle income trap is a relative thing - you're still industrializing, just not catching up to rich world countries. That's not a terrible thing. It can also mean continued catching up on non-economic indicators like child mortality and literacy, which is obviously great, and should help with the next phase of economic catch up. Hans Rosling has some pretty convincing data-driven videos on the continued catch-up. I'd recommend checking it out. I've seen it, the point is that your original claim was "100 years ago they were like the US" implying that in another 100 years they will catch up, even to America of 2014, which I said seems to be clearly not happening.
They're developing often at a faster pace than the US did, so they'll go from US in 1905 to US in 2014 quicker than we did. I think they'll eventually catch up to us as well. I don't expect the catch up to be a straight line though. It's a hard target to hit since it's moving, but they're laying the groundwork so why not.
|
Norway28675 Posts
that's fair enough, I guess nike was actually a bad example for me to make my point. I worked under the assumption that they were a company with a history similar to that of adidas, wikipediaing this makes it clear to me that I was wrong.
the point I am trying to make though, is that no matter how hard and brilliantly someone from bangladesh works, it's impossible for them to start competing on the global market in any of the old industries. And this is different from USA in 1900, where it was indeed possible - even though I believe it was rarer than the american dream narrative claims - for rags-to-riches stories to unfold if people were sufficiently dedicated, brilliant and lucky. While I accept that relative gains are seen throughout most of the world (war-torn regions seem like the only real exception to this), there's still a big difference between bangladesh 2014 and usa 1900 in the sense that from an individual point of view, being born into bangladeshian poverty of today virtually ensures that you will also die poor, the relative gains aren't moving the population as a whole from poor to middle-class, they're moving them from poor to slightly less poor, and the individual hopelessness is still strong.
|
On March 31 2014 18:43 Introvert wrote:
There is something to be said for "exploitation" in the sense that I'm not someone advocating no laws at all, I just don't think people are to be seen as so hampered by their starting situation (as hampered as you portray them). And it's certainly exploitation when large corporations and interests lobby and pay off government officials into making the rules in their favor. But when you talk of "extracting" surplus value, that's where the disagreement occurs. Someone most likely gets the better end of the deal- but that doesn't mean the other person gets a bad deal, either. One may just come out better relative to the first. Nor is that perfect either, but I don't see any workable alternatives, especially ones that don't reduce the rights of the populace.
This is where, instead of continuing to objectively analyze the situation by removing your emotions from the analysis, you fall back into what feels right. But wait! you say. Employment contracts feel like they are fair because that's how almost everyone around does me it. That's what I've been taught is fair. They must be fair because they feel fair and the earth is still spinning and I can't imagine a world that does anything differently.
Look at this way though. Purely by virtue of birth and station in life, most people are completely excluded from participating in decisions that affect the conditions of their work, what is done with the profits earned from their labor, and whether they have a job at all. Purely by chance, the vast majority of people in the world have no other recourse but to be an employee, a person who must sell his labor at a discounted rate to an employer who controls anything and everything he wants about the job, including what to do with what the employee makes. And purely by chance, a tiny minority of people in this world are given the power to control the labor power of hundreds, thousands, millions, or even billions of people. This is intrinsic to the system, domination of man by man, systematic exclusion of people from choices that affect their survival and life's work.
Then we have a story spun and peddled to us about how hard work and perseverance can lift anyone up from poverty to be his own man, to run his own business. He too can dominate other men, in fact, everyone can if they just worked hard enough. It's an aspiration that every decent person should aim for.
|
On April 01 2014 05:04 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 18:43 Introvert wrote:
There is something to be said for "exploitation" in the sense that I'm not someone advocating no laws at all, I just don't think people are to be seen as so hampered by their starting situation (as hampered as you portray them). And it's certainly exploitation when large corporations and interests lobby and pay off government officials into making the rules in their favor. But when you talk of "extracting" surplus value, that's where the disagreement occurs. Someone most likely gets the better end of the deal- but that doesn't mean the other person gets a bad deal, either. One may just come out better relative to the first. Nor is that perfect either, but I don't see any workable alternatives, especially ones that don't reduce the rights of the populace. This is where, instead of continuing to objectively analyze the situation by removing your emotions from the analysis, you fall back into what feels right. But wait! you say. Employment contracts feel like they are fair because that's how almost everyone around does me it. That's what I've been taught is fair. They must be fair because they feel fair and the earth is still spinning and I can't imagine a world that does anything differently. Look at this way though. Purely by virtue of birth and station in life, most people are completely excluded from participating in decisions that affect the conditions of their work, what is done with the profits earned from their labor, and whether they have a job at all. Purely by chance, the vast majority of people in the world have no other recourse but to be an employee, a person who must sell his labor at a discounted rate to an employer who controls anything and everything he wants about the job, including what to do with what the employee makes. And purely by chance, a tiny minority of people in this world are given the power to control the labor power of hundreds, thousands, millions, or even billions of people. This is intrinsic to the system, domination of man by man, systematic exclusion of people from choices that affect their survival and life's work. Then we have a story spun and peddled to us about how hard work and perseverance can lift anyone up from poverty to be his own man, to run his own business. He too can dominate other men, in fact, everyone can if they just worked hard enough. It's an aspiration that every decent person should aim for.
Your entire argument is based on what you feel- that what is going on is wrong. I've already agreed there are problems, but I don't see working for a wage as immoral.
I'm saying I have not seen an alternative (from your side of the spectrum) that I think "fixes" the problem (assuming it's really as big a problem as you suggest) without trampling all over people in a different manner. Everyone has to work in order to live- that was true before capitalism came along, and it will be true in the future. The difference is that now your chances of ending up better off are improved from almost any other time in civilized history, but you ignore that- because to you the chances are still small, on an absolute scale. And because you believe that for one to become rich another must become poor.
And your fix in untenable- as I have said before. There will be no utopia of united workers all getting the fairest possible deal (however that is determined), in my view human nature does not allow it.
But we are going in circles.
|
On April 01 2014 04:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 04:41 Sub40APM wrote:On April 01 2014 04:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 01 2014 03:21 Sub40APM wrote:On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening. Because the data is actually pretty clear that once countries enter middle income levels they become trapped as international capital moves to some the next slave country. The US industrial worker of last century was protected by a huge trade wall and happened to live a country with vast natural resources. The only people who have managed to industrialize themselves in the last 50 years have been either small city states who act as money laundering centers for larger economic entities around them (Singapore, Hong Kong) or pursued a policy of mercantalistic industrailization permitted by global capitalist powers because of strategic reasons (Taiwan, South Korea, and China in its role as America's Cold War ally against the Soviets). Attempts to modernize using advice of American/Western economists living in fantasy land where free trade and capital movement somehow naturally leads to an industrial society breaking down have all ended in tears, especially in Latin America. The middle income trap is a relative thing - you're still industrializing, just not catching up to rich world countries. That's not a terrible thing. It can also mean continued catching up on non-economic indicators like child mortality and literacy, which is obviously great, and should help with the next phase of economic catch up. Hans Rosling has some pretty convincing data-driven videos on the continued catch-up. I'd recommend checking it out. I've seen it, the point is that your original claim was "100 years ago they were like the US" implying that in another 100 years they will catch up, even to America of 2014, which I said seems to be clearly not happening. They're developing often at a faster pace than the US did, so they'll go from US in 1905 to US in 2014 quicker than we did. I think they'll eventually catch up to us as well. I don't expect the catch up to be a straight line though. It's a hard target to hit since it's moving, but they're laying the groundwork so why not.
No they will not. They will hit a peak and be stuck there.
|
On April 01 2014 05:04 IgnE wrote:
Purely by chance, the vast majority of people in the world have no other recourse but to be an employee, a person who must sell his labor at a discounted rate to an employer who controls anything and everything he wants about the job, including what to do with what the employee makes. And purely by chance, a tiny minority of people in this world are given the power to control the labor power of hundreds, thousands, millions, or even billions of people.
I completely agree with you, but when it comes to translating that problem into political change there's a problem: People just don't give a shit. The vast majority off people are workhorses, but they seem to be content with that.They don't want to earn a part of their company, as long as they get a decent paycheck. If they were not okay with it they could overthrow the system, they're the majority of people after all. The irony within the 'Marxian' argumentation that you're giving is that it's an opinion hold by an intellectual minority of people who in most cases, are doing way better than the people they're arguing for.
|
My argument isn't based on feelings. It's a description of reality with assumptions built in about morality. Like domination of others impinges liberty and is therefore immoral. That's fine if you want to say you disagree with the precept that man should be free but don't turn around like a child and say "i know you are but what am i." It's not very becoming.
We haven't gone in circles we have arrived at an important juncture. You think man is a base, vile creature who should be held in wage chains by other base vile creatures who happen to have the capital in society.
|
Norway28675 Posts
it's not that another has to become poor for one to become rich, it's that for one rich to become mega-rich, another 10000 must stay poor
that number is actually not a hyperbole even though it sounds like it, seeing the earlier cited 67 wealthiest individuals owning as much as the poorest 3.5 billion people I could add three zeroes and it'd still apply.
but anyway, there's obviously no easy fix solution. People from both sides of the political spectrum agree that wealth inequality is a problem, to what degree it is a problem differs sure, but virtually everyone agrees that less global wealth inequality would be ideal. Thus, if there was a way to simply fix it, it would be done.
But that doesn't mean there's no way to alleviate the problem.. And this is where political disagreement shows, and more than anything it shows in preferred taxation rates, as this is the main tool for wealth redistribution (but then, the development of the past 50 years has been that the wealthier you are, the smaller percentage of your income and wealth do you pay in taxes, whereas the poor/middle class have seen no such development.) This is what provokes many of us "liberals/leftists"; I accept some wealth inequality as an inevitability, but I don't understand why we cannot at least try to make it a bit smaller. Why do we make a huge deal out of people making more than $200000 per year having to pay and extra 2% in taxes? Seriously, why is this a big deal? I understand perfectly that some more radical ideas - that I personally could find myself supporting (although seeing as how they are completely impossible to implement I haven't actually studied how viable it could be) - like 95% taxation of all income above $3 million or whatever arbitrary number you wanna suggest, are opposed, but I just don't understand why people are vehemently opposed to an increase from 27% to 29% for the same group of people.
It's like, small stuff like that, small stuff that could move us small steps towards a slightly less unequal world, where public education could receive somewhat better funding resulting in greater equality of opportunity, has to be opposed on the grounds of how this is representative of big government inevitably leading to the tyrannical oppression of man..
|
On April 01 2014 05:30 IgnE wrote:
My argument isn't based on feelings. It's a description of reality with assumptions built in about morality. Like domination of others impinges liberty and is therefore immoral. That's fine if you want to say you disagree with the precept that man should be free but don't turn around like a child and say "i know you are but what am i." It's not very becoming.
We haven't gone in circles we have arrived at an important juncture. You think man is a base, vile creature who should be held in wage chains by other base vile creatures who happen to have the capital in society.
No. I agree that "domination of others impinges liberty and is therefore immoral." I'm the one arguing for less rule by governments and people, but you consider those with capital as the worse villains. However, I think what we have is better than what you want- because what you want would in fact result in the "impinging of liberty" worse than the current system.
We have gone in circles because it always comes back to the fact that for all your talk of "liberty" and "freedom" you would squash the freedoms you don't like in favor of others. Man must NOT be free to pursue wealth, he must NOT desire too much, he must NOT attempt to get the best deal he can- only a "fair" one. He must NOT think differently than you, because then he is a monster, and he MUST submit whatever he does to the always benevolent eyes of the enforcer.
You think all these things lead to "slavery" even though so much of what we have today is the direct result of those pursuits, and millions are better off for it, and perhaps even more could be better off.
I know the common retort- "you support the freedom to enslave people!" No. I'm of the opinion that some will have it better than others- for some to reach similar heights, the amount of work required will be disproportionate- but this will always true, and any attempt to equalize this will ultimately fail. So try to fix the problem using common human behavior, instead of trying to rewire or strong arm people.
But I guess we just disagree.
|
On April 01 2014 04:55 Liquid`Drone wrote:
that's fair enough, I guess nike was actually a bad example for me to make my point. I worked under the assumption that they were a company with a history similar to that of adidas, wikipediaing this makes it clear to me that I was wrong.
the point I am trying to make though, is that no matter how hard and brilliantly someone from bangladesh works, it's impossible for them to start competing on the global market in any of the old industries. And this is different from USA in 1900, where it was indeed possible - even though I believe it was rarer than the american dream narrative claims - for rags-to-riches stories to unfold if people were sufficiently dedicated, brilliant and lucky. While I accept that relative gains are seen throughout most of the world (war-torn regions seem like the only real exception to this), there's still a big difference between bangladesh 2014 and usa 1900 in the sense that from an individual point of view, being born into bangladeshian poverty of today virtually ensures that you will also die poor, the relative gains aren't moving the population as a whole from poor to middle-class, they're moving them from poor to slightly less poor, and the individual hopelessness is still strong.
idk, they seem to be developing a lot like how US developed to me. Going off of gapminder, dgp per capita is about where it was in the US back in 1800, so it's going to take some time for them to grow a middle class. There are differences, sure, but there better be now that it's 2014
|
On April 01 2014 05:04 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 18:43 Introvert wrote:
There is something to be said for "exploitation" in the sense that I'm not someone advocating no laws at all, I just don't think people are to be seen as so hampered by their starting situation (as hampered as you portray them). And it's certainly exploitation when large corporations and interests lobby and pay off government officials into making the rules in their favor. But when you talk of "extracting" surplus value, that's where the disagreement occurs. Someone most likely gets the better end of the deal- but that doesn't mean the other person gets a bad deal, either. One may just come out better relative to the first. Nor is that perfect either, but I don't see any workable alternatives, especially ones that don't reduce the rights of the populace. This is where, instead of continuing to objectively analyze the situation by removing your emotions from the analysis, you fall back into what feels right. But wait! you say. Employment contracts feel like they are fair because that's how almost everyone around does me it. That's what I've been taught is fair. They must be fair because they feel fair and the earth is still spinning and I can't imagine a world that does anything differently. Look at this way though. Purely by virtue of birth and station in life, most people are completely excluded from participating in decisions that affect the conditions of their work, what is done with the profits earned from their labor, and whether they have a job at all. Purely by chance, the vast majority of people in the world have no other recourse but to be an employee, a person who must sell his labor at a discounted rate to an employer who controls anything and everything he wants about the job, including what to do with what the employee makes. And purely by chance, a tiny minority of people in this world are given the power to control the labor power of hundreds, thousands, millions, or even billions of people. This is intrinsic to the system, domination of man by man, systematic exclusion of people from choices that affect their survival and life's work. Then we have a story spun and peddled to us about how hard work and perseverance can lift anyone up from poverty to be his own man, to run his own business. He too can dominate other men, in fact, everyone can if they just worked hard enough. It's an aspiration that every decent person should aim for.
Most people earn more selling their labor than if they employed themselves. I find it awkward to call that a 'discount'...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://apps.npr.org/tshirt/img/tshirt_diptychs_01-left-600.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://apps.npr.org/tshirt/img/tshirt_diptychs_01-right-600.jpg)
