S
starshiptrooper
Guest
I propose that Zoltan is awesome. Keep up the good work sir, the free market needs your spirited defense!
Is it ludicrous to think that the world will remain Capitalistic?
- Status
M
minkymurph
Guest
The employer is to blame in the sense their superior bargaining power enables them to exploit people if they choose because they can dictate the terms.
I doubt if people are forced to work in Wal-Mart, but as I do not know what choice and alternatives they may I cannot comment any further. One thing I will say is if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.
.
And is no one in Wal-Mart doing what you are doing?
It is true when you are an adult nobody owes you anything, but that cuts both ways. Bad employers (and I donāt know if Wal-Mart is or isnāt) cultivate little loyalty and have difficulty getting a good days work from their employees. It is well established a happy employee is a productive employee and good employers who offer decent pay and conditions and value their staff in the first instance generate loyalty and industriousness.
I know a lot of people may disagree but for the last 10 years Japan, taking everything into consideration, has come out on top as the best country in the world to live in. That does not mean it is perfect and has no problems of course.
I would say respect and industriousness are key factors in their maintaining their position. I mean you have to hand it to them. Their island shifted something like three feet to the left in an earthquake and I think they had everything up and running again in three days.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
LOL, I like thatā¦
In reality, if the job can be done by monkeys and they are happy with peanutsā¦all is well.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Touche.
Your right though. Not everyone has the same capabilities and some are happy being monkeys who get peanuts and have no aspirations. What I object to is such people being undervalued and some kind of lesser being as a consequence. These people are valuable. Ann Whitcombe (Tory MP) said the person she was the most grateful to in her political career was her cleaner. My husband once said the managing director of his firm was off for three months and no one noticed. The guy who oiled the machines took three days off and the factory almost ground to a halt.
We canāt all be brain surgeons but we should all be treated with the same respect and dignity.
I am working on all the evidence but it is turning into an essay and I am currently writing a ārealā essay. Interestingly it is on distribution of goods.
I havenāt forgotten and I intend to bombard you with evidence by the weekend.
N
nmgauss
Guest
Our Wal-Mart has lots of floor space and merchandise displays to handle. It has customer service people, stock room workers, shelf stockers who come in at night, automotive sales people, janitors, assistants who handle changing rooms, greeters at the front door, shopping cart retrievers, cashiers, etc.
I canāt believe that they are all paid minimum wage. Our store once had a disabled man who greeted customers as they came in the door and assisted them with carts. Perhaps he was a minimum wage person.
I canāt believe that they are all paid minimum wage. Our store once had a disabled man who greeted customers as they came in the door and assisted them with carts. Perhaps he was a minimum wage person.
N
nmgauss
Guest
When I was in graduate school, I often worked at my desk at night. I had a key to the building and often greeted the elderly janitor as he mopped the floors. He became my friend.
Then as a professor, I did the same thing, and became friendly with another janitor, whose name was Isaiah. I was assigned a new office which had no modular bookshelves. I let the janitor know, and he used his pass key to swipe empty bookshelves for me from nearby offices. He felt proud and I acknowledged his kindness.
Then as a professor, I did the same thing, and became friendly with another janitor, whose name was Isaiah. I was assigned a new office which had no modular bookshelves. I let the janitor know, and he used his pass key to swipe empty bookshelves for me from nearby offices. He felt proud and I acknowledged his kindness.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
People are never really āundervaluedā. It is the ājobā that is valued at what it is worth.Touche.
Your right though. Not everyone has the same capabilities and some are happy being monkeys who get peanuts and have no aspirations. What I object to is such people being undervalued and some kind of lesser being as a consequence. These people are valuable. Ann Whitcombe (Tory MP) said the person she was the most grateful to in her political career was her cleaner. My husband once said the managing director of his firm was off for three months and no one noticed. The guy who oiled the machines took three days off and the factory almost ground to a halt.
We canāt all be brain surgeons but we should all be treated with the same respect and dignity.
I am working on all the evidence but it is turning into an essay and I am currently writing a ārealā essay. Interestingly it is on distribution of goods.
The text books say every position has its own inherent worth and value based on its importance to the company. There is truth in that but it is not reality. In the business world the job is worth what somebody will take for it.
Letās say that Cobalt International Inc. needs a really good production engineer. My human resources people tell me that the position is worth $125,000 per year. I give the OK and the search begins for the best person we can get for $125K. Now suppose someone with the right qualifications comes along and saysā¦I want that job so badly, Iāll take $90,000. Guess whatā¦the job is REALLY worth $90K.
That holds true for hourly wages and even Ann Whitcombeās cleaner. The job is really worth what someone out there will do it for.
And Murph, PLEASE donāt go to a lot of time and trouble with an essay for my sake. You canāt win. I am surprised that you have not caught on. My laissez faire Capitalism has never existed. We have come closeā¦but never the true, pure kind. It is like Never-Never Land. You have to fly to the āsecond star to the right and straight on till morningā to get there. Will it work? Absolutely! Itās perfect.
M
minkymurph
Guest
OK, but I donāt understand why you say I canāt win and surprised you think I have not caught on. I have said all along your laissez faire Capitalism has never existed and never will. You are now saying it. In which case, it makes little odds whether it will work or not. I asked you for an example and you couldnāt give me one. I knew you would not be able to. My intention was to demonstrate the failures of capitalism and how inhuman it is using the models you suggested.
What is it you think I want to win? I did say I wanted to win the argument and I would have no difficulty presenting evidence as to how callous and inhuman capitalism can be as there is any amount of it out there, but I also know none of it would convince you because you donāt want to be convinced. In fact, I am certain you know how inhuman capitalism can be which may be why you are dissuading me from presenting the evidence. Do you care if it is inhuman? Only you know. You and I are strangers who just so happened onto the same thread on an internet forum.
It is true capitalism protects the individual rights of the wealthy, but not the poor. Capitalist sentiments in relation to the poor have been well demonstrated by some of the remarks made on this thread. So you cannot argue it is humanitarian. It is not. It is not designed to be. Capitalism will always destroy itself because it will always become corrupt. It survives because we keep reviving it. Why? We know why. Itās not for humanitarian reasons.
A lawyer does not seek to persuade their opposite number. They seek to persuade judges, juryās and impartial observers which in this case the judgeās, juryās and impartial observers are those who read the thread. They will decide which one of us has put up the more persuasive argument in their minds.
I think this answers the OPās question.
youtube.com/watch?v=LIh5dUOz824
An example of those capitalism insignificant because they only commodities, a means to an end.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
I stated my definition of pure Capitalism at the very beginning. And it could very well work.
I cannot give you an example of a failure of Capitalism because it is perfect. Your attempts at demonstrating āfailures of Capitalismā can all be attributed to government intervention in private business.
Ahhhh, Murph, what makes me think you want to winā¦? Perhaps its the little āsmiliesā you use
I could be wrong, but that seems a little aggressive to me. Indicative of a āwin-at-any-costā attitude. Nothing wrong with thatā¦specially for a lawyer.
It is trueā¦ you will not convince me that Capitalism is not the perfect social and economic system that it is. You can find ALL the examples that ALL the detractors of Capitalism have written about and I can counter them all.
Now seeā¦I find a statement like that to be very annoying.
I have pointed out several times that the foundation of Capitalism is respect for individual rights. Capitalism makes no distinction between wealthy and poor when it comes to individual rights. You have never challenged that non have you provided any evidence to the contrary.
But you boldly state it.
This is what I would expect from the āgreat socialist leadersāāāIf you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.ā
Is that what you are trying to do here Murph?
What about my rebuttals to those āsentimentsāā¦are they chopped liver?
Capitalism is by far the MOST humanitarian of all economic systems. Full employment, healthy, happy, peopleā¦what could be more humanitarian than that?
Those who are loudest in proclaiming their desire to eliminate poverty are loudest in denouncing Capitalism. Manās well-being is not their goal.
You mention āpersuadeā judges, juryās and impartial observers. Would not the simple telling of the truth be sufficient. The term āpersuadeā conjurers up a picture of a used car salesman rather than a dignified lawyer in a black robe and powdered wig.
Maybe it would answer a question or twoā¦but all I get is this message:
The uploader has not made this video available in your country.
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
How does an employer have superior bargaining power?
My sister worked at Wal-Mart and she had no complaints about the way she was treated or her compensation.
If Japan is the best country in the world to live in, why are the Japanese committing suicide at a ridiculously high rate?
M
minkymurph
Guest
You did give me an example, but there is no evidence it could work because it is imaginary. We have only your word for it would work.
I have not demonstrated the weaknesses of capitalism. I said I would not do so.
One of the reasons is because I donāt believe you donāt know what they are, and the reason I donāt believe you is, in the first instance I find it hard to believe anyone could genuinely be so naive and in the second, because you have stated it is perfect. Nothing is perfect and I donāt believe anyone thinks anything is perfect. You seem like a nice guy but I think you have really airy fairy notions. I hate to have to be the one to break it to you Zoltan but Disneyland is not a real place and Disney characters are cartoons. In the real world bad things do happen to good people.
I have never said no one should own anything, everything should be nationalized and I have said capitalism is inefficient. You donāt seem to be able to distinguish between different political theories. You seem to everything in black and white.
I have said it cannot be argued capitalism is humanitarian. You gave the example of the industrial revolution in the UK. That time period well demonstrates the inhuman treatment of the poor. I could present evidence for that but as you have said, you would reject it, so it would be a waste of time and effort. Anyone who is familiar with that period of history knows how the poor were treated. Anyone who is concerned will find out. Others will not care.
M
minkymurph
Guest
I did say I had no qualms about being ruthless if I needed to be. Did you expect a kid gloves debate?
In your own mind yes. Whether the impartial audience will be convinced is another matter. But if they are not rich perhaps they donāt matter. Have you ever heard a poor person argue laissez-faire? The only arguments I have ever read for laissez-faire, and I have read many, are made by the wealthy - Friedman, Hayek, Nozick. Donāt think any of them are in minimum wage jobs and supplemented by food vouchers.
As it is for you as stated above. I gave you a pile of evidence on slavery. I asked you to provide evidence capitalism protects the interests of the poor. That should be easy for you but you wonāt do it. You just repeat it protects individual rights but you wonāt tell me, on application, how. Mos of the arguments I have read for laissez-faire amount to tantrums about taxes. How do low taxes help those who donāt earn enough to pay tax? Do you think the homeless, waitresses, cleaners are devastated the wealthy have to pay taxes?
M
minkymurph
Guest
Is this the - I canāt refute the argument so I am going to attack the credibility of the person proposing the argument approach?
You think I am lying when I say capitalism does not protect the rights of the poor? In law the one making the allegation bears the burden of proof. It is not up to me to prove my innocence. It is up to you to prove my guild and merely telling me capitalism protects the right of the poor is not enough. Now you can say I made an allegation, but I did assert you were lying. Saying someone is lying puts a different dimension on it.
No. I know you did not express those sentiments. The point I was making is they were expressed. As such, it has been demonstrated the view at least some capitalists have of the poor and those in low paid jobs cannot be described as humanitarian.
But you have said this society does not exist and never has, so we cannot know.
I was under the impression full employment was a socialist ideal.
They are loudest in denouncing capitalism because it often follows the richer the country the more poverty you will have. Unless of course everyone is poor but such a country cannot be called a liberal, capitalist, western democracy. The worst poverty I ever saw was in Monaco and the worst poverty I ever experienced first hand was under Thatcher and now.
Absolutely not my friend. Again, that is a very naive perception.
When I started studying law two things were said to me. The first one was to be a good lawyer you need to be a good liar. The second one was courts have nothing to do with truth, its about winning arguments. Do you think a defense lawyer who suspects or even knows his client is guilty will stand up and say that? Do you think the Prosecution will plead for mercy in the case of a client he suspects may be innocent? Do you think people readily confess? Of course not! The defense and the prosecution are partial. They have a job to do and that job does not involve telling the truth. As a lawyer your job is to persuade the court to find in favor of your client - not tell the truth. Witnesses are supposed to tell the truth but they very often donāt and lie in the witness stand under oath. As a lawyer your job is to either attempt to expose that lie or persuade it is true.The impartial person is the judge and hopefully the jury who try to arrive at a just conclusion, but they may never know the truth.
Itās a song. Itās called āOrdinary Manā and it is performed by Christy Moore. You should be able to get it on Youtube.
M
minkymurph
Guest
On the free market -
You say the rights of all individuals are protected. A democracy, in order to be a democracy, must have a series of checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. In addition to rights there must also be accountability.
Where are the checks and balances to prevent abuse of power in your laissez-faire model? Without government regulation of capitalism, who are those who control the free market, that is those with the most wealth, ownership and consequently the most power, accountable to? How are they held to account?
You say the rights of all individuals are protected. A democracy, in order to be a democracy, must have a series of checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. In addition to rights there must also be accountability.
Where are the checks and balances to prevent abuse of power in your laissez-faire model? Without government regulation of capitalism, who are those who control the free market, that is those with the most wealth, ownership and consequently the most power, accountable to? How are they held to account?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Without endorsing anybodyās ālaissez-faire modelā, it occurs to me that, as a lawyer you likely know the answer to your own question. Actual laws, with an informed judiciary enforcing them. I donāt know what you have in Ireland, but in the U.S. one can contrast, say, the Uniform Commercial Code and Obamacare. The first governs very complex transactions in a logical fashion, and in a way judges can pretty well determine. The second is a mystery to almost everybody but the executive, and even then one doubts the executive knows from day to day what ruling to issue next.
In the U.S., many believe the legislatures have abdicated much of their responsible to all-powerful executive branches. Obamacare repeats āThe Secretary shallā¦ā or āAs the Secretary shall determineā¦ā over and over and over again.
Perhaps a nation of well-thought laws and a determination to enforce them is the proper regulator of oneās laissez-faire formulation.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
M
minkymurph
Guest
I wouldnāt profess to know the answers. I would also say the answer changes according to circumstances.
On actual laws, yes, the judiciary enforces the law, but they donāt make law. In the UK that is Parliaments role because Parliament is sovereign and there is a principle one Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament. Many argue this is a good thing because it allows Parliament to be flexible and they are not bound by a Constitution. The Republic of Ireland has a written Constitution. American also has a written Constitution which to me is a check on power.
If individuals rely on the courts alone for justice there is a problem. If a bad law is passed courts must still uphold it because they have no power to do otherwise. Not that this is a bad thing because judicial activism is problematic as judges are not elected. But, you have highlighted a problem and I appreciate you highlighting it. āThe Secretary shall, the Secretary shall determineā does sound somewhat dictatorial. If it is a mystery that is not good. Justice should be transparent and what concerns lawyers above all is legal certainty.
The problem for the poor is they should not have to rely solely on the courts for justice because of the limitations of the courts in delivering justice. In addition, I have often said justice is only available to those who can afford it. It is true lawyers take pro-bono work and in the UK some qualify for legal aid, but it is also the case some cannot avail of justice because they cannot afford it and there is only so far lawyers can go in using the public purse.
My position is this - regulated capitalism. Regulating the markets cannot be left solely to the courts but I appreciate there is a problem with government as they are more interested in what is popular and what will ensure they stay in power than the soundness of law. The reason I say regulated capitalism is we know from history many a capitalist is unscrupulous. Many a capitalist will exploit resources for their own profit to the detriment of others and future generations. (destruction of the rain forest, fishing) In the UK the government had to step in in the case of industrial injuries and mesothelioma caused by asbestos. Also consider tragedies like the Bhopol disaster, the Esso oil spillage, Shell and destruction of marine life, the Ashbourne case in the UK (see Office of Fair Trading site Ashbourne case) to mention but a few.
Another problem of unregulated capitalism is parasitic capitalism, āget rich quickā schemes as was the case in the Wall St Crash, dumping toxic waste and the sale of goods and services not of merchantable quality which has the knock on effect of inefficiency and accumulation of waste.
M
minkymurph
Guest
I would disagree. The lot of the working class was improved not by capitalism but government legislation and the Trade Unions played a significant role in bringing about changes in legislation.
There are arguments the reason a person was unable to make a living in agriculture was a consequence of private ownership. Reason being there reached a point when there were too many owners. The tragedy of the commons was avoided for many years in the UK as a consequence of collectivism. I canāt copy and paste the link for some reason but you can look up the tragedy of the commons on youtube.
**The āsweatshops and child laborā of the Industrial Revolution were better than the alternatives of malnutrition, starvation, prostitution, begging, and stealing. **
It was the increased productivity per adult worker brought about by Capitalism that eliminated the need for child labor.
I will look up your link, but I will ask you to consider no regulation on the number of hours one could work, no restriction on age - child labor, industrial accidents and no duty of care until Parliament stepped in, and the fact the factory owner owned the houses workers lived in and did not pay them. They were given food stamps they had to spend in a shop of the factory owners choice.
I am not saying capitalism is altogether evil, but it has a dark side. That dark side is regulated by government.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Impartial Audienceā¦
My PMās about our little never ending discussion are running about 90% pro Zoltan. How are yours doing?
ā¦and the only writers who are critical of Capitalism are Marxists.
ā¦and a definition that was so general it included anyone who was not on welfare.
Your own legal professors stated that the term āSlaveryā is so overused today that it has become meaningless.
Capitalists do not employ slavesā¦they give people jobs.
M
minkymurph
Guest
And of course the people that are sending you private messages are not wealthy and impartial. From what I remember many things Jesus said didnāt go down well with his audience. Does that mean he was wrong?Impartial Audienceā¦
My PMās about our little never ending discussion are running about 90% pro Zoltan. How are yours doing?
Not so. One of Thatchers cabinet ministers, a British Tory MP was highly critical of her treatment of the poor and left her cabinet as a consequence. Many capitalist economists were critical of her management of the economy and in the end her own cabinet ousted her because of her handling of the economy. Capitalist economists warned a serious recession would occur 8 years ago because of recklessness. They were laughed at. No one is laughing now.
Then explain to me why unemployment in the UK was at an all time high under Thatcher and the UK has yet to fully recover.
- Status