Where do you sit on the Political Compass? (2 Viewers)

[SylviaB]

The poor in Australia and USA live in better conditions than citizens of Soviet Russia.

It was in the late 60's I believe that the Soviet Union government showed the public a documentary on the plight of African Americans as part of propaganda claiming that the capitalist Americans have poor standards of living.
The plan backfired, however, when the public viewing the film noticed that these African Americans, as poor as they were, had a standard of living higher than theirs.

 

[Elliot220]

The profit motive has resulted in a higher standard of living for some, and poverty and death for others.

As compared to Socialist/Communist systems which have resulted in poverty and death for most.

 

[Ziva]

What the fuck. At what expense? Profit maximisation is the only goal for not-for-profit companies and the horrible state of the planet and humanity reflects this. If for profit business should exist, which I believe shouldn't, its goal should be working towards a brighter future for the world's citizens, however, this cannot happen.



I disagree. The main reason they are in poverty is foreign states imposing their will upon them. Granted though, economic mismanagement and corruption are huge factors.



That's a terrible, terrible thing to say. So you're arguing that sweatshops are overall beneficial because they provide the poor with an awful, exploitative job and disproportionately provide profit to their masters?



I agree with the first part 'Profit maximisation has only made the world what it is today' but I strongly disagree with this: ' making the lives of a higher majority of the world's population live a better live.' Extreme poverty and globalisation/capitalism go hand in hand. The profit motive is responsible for almost all of the world's problems, directly or indirectly. Higher standards of living come from industrialisation and mass production, not solely through capitalism. While it is certainly true that capitalism has made a few people filthy rich, and increased living standards for millions, it is also the prime reason that billions are in poverty and that the world is a shithole.



Flat out bullshit. Everybody is born different but equal and by virtue of their humanity everybody deserves equally good healthcare. Being able to manipulate money should not entitle you to put your life ahead of others. You have made the fundamental mistake of comparing personal wealth with societal/human value. There are people on below average wage that are beneficial to society, and there are people with far higher incomes than others who are actually detrimental to the earth itself.



Poor people are poor because of a lack of opportunity or a lack of ability to appease the invisible hand of the market. Poor people smoke and drink because their lives are shit, and it helps them cope. The rich pay fuck all tax, thanks to various loopholes and their connections with the state.

Somehow, you're under the idea that the rich actually produce things that are beneficial. They don't. People who work, volunteer[i/] and give to charity are the benefactors of society, people that actually contribute instead of dumping oil into an ocean or extorting a developing country out of its natural resources. You sir, make me sick.

im on holiday and cbf responding but

basically you are wrong

I wrote this earlier in the year for a tute presentation I had to do in development economics


There is a strong false accusation that traditional capitalism fails to help the poor. It is certaintly true that firms have much more incentive to meet the needs of the rich people with money than to meet the needs of the poor without money. However, as firms expand their production to meet more of the rich people’s needs, they hire more unskilled labour to do so – driving up the incomes of poor people. As firms invest in machines to increase production for the rich market, they drive up the productive powers of workers, further increasing the wages of the poor. And as firms have an incentive to continually search for new technologies that make both machines and workers more productive, you guessed it, drives up the wages of the poor. These forces largely explain why the global poverty rate (measured at a fixed poverty line in real terms) has fallen by half over the last 3 decades.


Unfortunately, my experience so far with corporate social responsibility (CSR) is that they are too often filled with wooly-headed people hired specifically for CSR – and not anyone with entrepreneurial experience from the corporation itself. CSR departments are essentially PR departments.


If the goal is to eradicate poverty, you must raise wages, you must make workers more productive. Of course, productive workers need good health and good education. They may or may not be possible outside the usual market mechanisms. These are empirical question. But the bottom line regarding poverty eradication is this: Capitalism is indispensable; health and education measures are a potential help.


Corporate managers have a fiduciary duty to maximise profits. This duty does not exclude the possibility philanthropy. Corporations have long made charitable donations, quite properly from a profit-maximising standpoint, in order to curry favour with politicians and interest groups, advertise the corporations to potential consumers, create diffuse goodwill, disguise greed, and ward off criticisms. I call this public relations charity.


Others argue that a redistribution of income through different indexed marginal tax rates can grant governments sufficient funds to serve the poor. I disagree. In the 80s, Ragan lowered marginal tax rates which in turn provided a boost in economically growth which therefore indirectly increased government revenue as output increased at a multiplied rate. Even if the wealth are to be taxed more; is there really a pareto optimal way to serve the poor? Giving extra capital to the poor is a short term ill thought out waste of money. It does not the solution, in fact, it exacerbates the problem. Money is rarely spent on prosperous things; such as education or health cover, and more likely to be spent on cheap consumable goods – namely alcohol and drugs. Others say food vouchers may help serve the poor. But then you go against individual liberty and freedom, you do not give the individual the choice on how they wish to be served. You also aren’t solving the problem of why they are poor. To rid poverty you need a nation wide real (above inflation) increase in wages. To increase wages nation wide, you need prolonged economic growth and efficiency. Something governments in nature stand in the way of.

 

[Ziva]

Seriously mate, whoppdey fucking do, there was a global slowdown. Yep, Russia made the right move after the great depression in 1930 by moving to a centrally planned economy!!! Let's hope that governments don't over-react (because the economic cycle is prone to booms and busts) and start regulating everything.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

If the goal is to eradicate poverty, you must raise wages, you must make workers more productive. Of course, productive workers need good health and good education. They may or may not be possible outside the usual market mechanisms. These are empirical question. But the bottom line regarding poverty eradication is this: Capitalism is indispensable; health and education measures are a potential help.

If the goal is to eradicate poverty, we need to first eradicate capitalism. The rich profit from the poverty of others. The problem isn't that workers aren't productive - workers produced everything we have, while those that employed them produce nothing. The factor that is largely ignored in capitalist economics is ethical practice. There is no interest in helping the poor who have been trodden over by the system forced upon them, and thus they remain destitute. Anti-capitalists generally aren't trying to argue about the intricacies of the economic system, they're pissed off because of the blatant inequalities inherent in said system, and the system's failure and unwillingness to promote goals other than maximisation of profit for the few.

Corporate managers have a fiduciary duty to maximise profits. This duty does not exclude the possibility philanthropy. Corporations have long made charitable donations, quite properly from a profit-maximising standpoint, in order to curry favour with politicians and interest groups, advertise the corporations to potential consumers, create diffuse goodwill, disguise greed, and ward off criticisms. I call this public relations charity.

These are horrible things. 'Charitable donations' to a political party in order to protect the interests of the donor are hardly charitable, and they do more harm than good. It is in this way that the rich have maintained power for so long, through the state. Additionally, many regard advertising to be visual pollution, and I would agree. Those acts of 'charity' you have outlined are not charitable acts at all, but rather attempts to increase profit and promote lies at the expense of others.

Others argue that a redistribution of income through different indexed marginal tax rates can grant governments sufficient funds to serve the poor. I disagree. In the 80s, Ragan [sic] lowered marginal tax rates which in turn provided a boost in economically growth which therefore indirectly increased government revenue as output increased at a multiplied rate. Even if the wealth are to be taxed more; is there really a pareto optimal way to serve the poor? Giving extra capital to the poor is a short term ill thought out waste of money. It does not the solution, in fact, it exacerbates the problem. Money is rarely spent on prosperous things; such as education or health cover, and more likely to be spent on cheap consumable goods – namely alcohol and drugs. Others say food vouchers may help serve the poor. But then you go against individual liberty and freedom, you do not give the individual the choice on how they wish to be served. You also aren’t solving the problem of why they are poor. To rid poverty you need a nation wide real (above inflation) increase in wages. To increase wages nation wide, you need prolonged economic growth and efficiency. Something governments in nature stand in the way of.

Capitalist government serves two main functions: one, to physically protect the wealthy elite from vindication using political propaganda and police forces. Two, to provide a welfare state so that the lower class and underclass are not driven to crime. Yes, obviously a global increase in real wages will dampen the effects of poverty. However, poverty in a capitalist system, regardless of the State's existence, has always existed and will always exist, simply because the rich have no interest in improving their living conditions. They need cheap workers, it maximises profit. Under capitalism, concern for humanity and the environment is non existent. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of corporations illegally damaging the environment, and dozens of those where the company has used its connections with the State to avoid legal action.

 

[SylviaB]

Taco you're an economic illiterate.

Stop posting.

"capitalist government" is a contradiction in terms. Pro-capitalists are arguing against the state.

Socialism & syndicatism are non-emergent. They require the state for their imposition, so it makes no sense for you to be arguing against the state.

Without the state, there would be capitalism. With the state, we can have socialism, which has caused the absolute destruction of aggregate living standards wherever it has been introduced, or bastardised capitalism, which is wht we have today. The problems caused by "capitalism" are nearly ALL the result of state intervention is some way or other.

 

[Ziva]

If the goal is to eradicate poverty, we need to first eradicate capitalism. The rich profit from the poverty of others. The problem isn't that workers aren't productive - workers produced everything we have, while those that employed them produce nothing. The factor that is largely ignored in capitalist economics is ethical practice. There is no interest in helping the poor who have been trodden over by the system forced upon them, and thus they remain destitute. Anti-capitalists generally aren't trying to argue about the intricacies of the economic system, they're pissed off because of the blatant inequalities inherent in said system, and the system's failure and unwillingness to promote goals other than maximisation of profit for the few.



These are horrible things. 'Charitable donations' to a political party in order to protect the interests of the donor are hardly charitable, and they do more harm than good. It is in this way that the rich have maintained power for so long, through the state. Additionally, many regard advertising to be visual pollution, and I would agree. Those acts of 'charity' you have outlined are not charitable acts at all, but rather attempts to increase profit and promote lies at the expense of others.



Capitalist government serves two main functions: one, to physically protect the wealthy elite from vindication using political propaganda and police forces. Two, to provide a welfare state so that the lower class and underclass are not driven to crime. Yes, obviously a global increase in real wages will dampen the effects of poverty. However, poverty in a capitalist system, regardless of the State's existence, has always existed and will always exist, simply because the rich have no interest in improving their living conditions. They need cheap workers, it maximises profit. Under capitalism, concern for humanity and the environment is non existent. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of corporations illegally damaging the environment, and dozens of those where the company has used its connections with the State to avoid legal action.

I'm quite sure that you are either trolling or mentally deficient. It is not even debatable that capitalism is the best economic system for solving poverty. Sure there is still a significant amount of poor, and the rate falling slowly, and for that I am empathetic. If there were a better system, I would be in favour of it.

 

[absorber]

Relative poverty =/= poverty. Do you see people dying as you walk the streets of Australian cities? The poor in Australia and USA live in better conditions than citizens of Soviet Russia.

Relative poverty isn't a good thing though, is it?

 

[absorber]

im on holiday and cbf responding but

basically you are wrong

I wrote this earlier in the year for a tute presentation I had to do in development economics


There is a strong false accusation that traditional capitalism fails to help the poor. It is certaintly true that firms have much more incentive to meet the needs of the rich people with money than to meet the needs of the poor without money. However, as firms expand their production to meet more of the rich people’s needs, they hire more unskilled labour to do so – driving up the incomes of poor people. As firms invest in machines to increase production for the rich market, they drive up the productive powers of workers, further increasing the wages of the poor. And as firms have an incentive to continually search for new technologies that make both machines and workers more productive, you guessed it, drives up the wages of the poor. These forces largely explain why the global poverty rate (measured at a fixed poverty line in real terms) has fallen by half over the last 3 decades.


Unfortunately, my experience so far with corporate social responsibility (CSR) is that they are too often filled with wooly-headed people hired specifically for CSR – and not anyone with entrepreneurial experience from the corporation itself. CSR departments are essentially PR departments.


If the goal is to eradicate poverty, you must raise wages, you must make workers more productive. Of course, productive workers need good health and good education. They may or may not be possible outside the usual market mechanisms. These are empirical question. But the bottom line regarding poverty eradication is this: Capitalism is indispensable; health and education measures are a potential help.


Corporate managers have a fiduciary duty to maximise profits. This duty does not exclude the possibility philanthropy. Corporations have long made charitable donations, quite properly from a profit-maximising standpoint, in order to curry favour with politicians and interest groups, advertise the corporations to potential consumers, create diffuse goodwill, disguise greed, and ward off criticisms. I call this public relations charity.


Others argue that a redistribution of income through different indexed marginal tax rates can grant governments sufficient funds to serve the poor. I disagree. In the 80s, Ragan lowered marginal tax rates which in turn provided a boost in economically growth which therefore indirectly increased government revenue as output increased at a multiplied rate. Even if the wealth are to be taxed more; is there really a pareto optimal way to serve the poor? Giving extra capital to the poor is a short term ill thought out waste of money. It does not the solution, in fact, it exacerbates the problem. Money is rarely spent on prosperous things; such as education or health cover, and more likely to be spent on cheap consumable goods – namely alcohol and drugs. Others say food vouchers may help serve the poor. But then you go against individual liberty and freedom, you do not give the individual the choice on how they wish to be served. You also aren’t solving the problem of why they are poor. To rid poverty you need a nation wide real (above inflation) increase in wages. To increase wages nation wide, you need prolonged economic growth and efficiency. Something governments in nature stand in the way of.

Reaganite? Sigh. You sound like an idealistic textbook.

Most people would enjoy food vouchers; I find most people like eating, and don't feel their liberties infringed on by eating. If those people were to get jobs, by the way, why wouldn't they spend their earnings on the cheap consumerables you say they would spend on if they were given government assistance?

Your solution would work in the long term, perhaps. But in the short and medium term the consequences would be fucking horrible.

 

[17028354]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Taco you're an economic illiterate.

Stop posting.

"capitalist government" is a contradiction in terms. Pro-capitalists are arguing against the state.

Socialism & syndicatism are non-emergent. They require the state for their imposition, so it makes no sense for you to be arguing against the state.

Without the state, there would be capitalism. With the state, we can have socialism, which has caused the absolute destruction of aggregate living standards wherever it has been introduced, or bastardised capitalism, which is wht we have today. The problems caused by "capitalism" are nearly ALL the result of state intervention is some way or other.

I'm an economic illiterate because I don't consider capitalism in any form to be an ethical system, and that you don't consider Marx/Engels works as economic literature. Right...

See the Spanish Civil War, and the FNT/CNT activities in Barcelona to discredit the remainder of what you stated.

I'm quite sure that you are either trolling or mentally deficient. It is not even debatable that capitalism is the best economic system for solving poverty. Sure there is still a significant amount of poor, and the rate falling slowly, and for that I am empathetic. If there were a better system, I would be in favour of it.

It is certainly debatable that capitalism is the best economic system for solving poverty. Industrialism=/= capitalism. Furthermore, it as not as if various economic systems have been tried out and decided upon by the populace of any given society. Capitalism is a system that enables the exploitation of the many by the few, and is not in the best interests of the worker. You say that 'there is still a significant amount of poor' as if to imply that capitalism is actively working to make the world a better place - a complete farce put forward by apologists for economic exploitation.

If you have the time, I recommend you read this: C.10 Is "free market" capitalism the best way to reduce poverty? | Anarchist Writers

 

[SylviaB]

I'm an economic illiterate because I don't consider capitalism in any form to be an ethical system,

No, because you don't understand economics, full stop.

and ethics is a load of shit

and that you don't consider Marx/Engels works as economic literature. Right...

Marx is demonstrably WRONG about economics

See the Spanish Civil War, and the FNT/CNT activities in Barcelona to discredit the remainder of what you stated.

??

How about you actually refute my points, particularly the one regarding emergentism.

Capitalism is a system that enables the exploitation of the many by the few, and is not in the best interests of the worker. You say that 'there is still a significant amount of poor' as if to imply that capitalism is actively working to make the world a better place - a complete farce put forward by apologists for economic exploitation.

UM, no. Most of Africa and south america are extremely statist (see: zimbabwe et al) and this ruins those countries' economies, which lead to less jobs, and so they are forced to take whatever they can get from western capitalists.
were there a free market, there would be far more jobs and they could afford to be choosy and accept/deny jobs bases on how good their pay and conditions are.
This is exactly what is happening in China at the moment. While certianly not a free market, they have greated liberalised their economy in the past few decades and so the number of jobs have enabled them to have some real control over their employment and seek higher paying jobs, resulting in an increase in real median income and standard of living.

If you have the time, I recommend you read this: C.10 Is "free market" capitalism the best way to reduce poverty? | Anarchist Writers

That article says that free market capitalism solves poverty!

They don't want that though, they want fucking "equality"!

They would rather everyone be poorer if it means there are no "classes"

I want everyone to be RICHER, and the fact that those who most successfully perform economic calculation, take on huge financial risks, best understand the structure of production and most efficiently and productively organise and use various resources get richer than other people, then GOOD, because that's what drives innovation and growth. People being rewarded for taking risks.

 

[SylviaB]

Your solution would work in the long term, perhaps. But in the short and medium term the consequences would be fucking horrible.

lol an arts student

telling an economics honours student why he is wrong about economics


lol

 

[TacoTerrorist]

No, because you don't understand economics, full stop.

and ethics is a load of shit

Lol.

Marx is demonstrably WRONG about economics

Then demonstrate it.

??

How about you actually refute my points, particularly the one regarding emergentism.

Alright. Syndicalism does not require a state for its imposition, as proven by the FNT/CNT in the Spanish civil war. It was in fact the goal of numerous Anarchist collectives, and was implemented and ran by the community, as opposed to a state.

Without the state, there would be capitalism. With the state, we can have socialism, which has caused the absolute destruction of aggregate living standards wherever it has been introduced, or bastardised capitalism, which is wht we have today. The problems caused by "capitalism" are nearly ALL the result of state intervention is some way or other.

Do you want to maybe substantiate these claims? Give examples perhaps? Why would free market, stateless capitalism be less destructive than state capitalism?

UM, no. Most of Africa and south america are extremely statist (see: zimbabwe et al) and this ruins those countries' economies, which lead to less jobs, and so they are forced to take whatever they can get from western capitalists.
were there a free market, there would be far more jobs and they could afford to be choosy and accept/deny jobs bases on how good their pay and conditions are.
This is exactly what is happening in China at the moment. While certianly not a free market, they have greated liberalised their economy in the past few decades and so the number of jobs have enabled them to have some real control over their employment and seek higher paying jobs, resulting in an increase in real median income and standard of living.

Economic growth is not the only factor in a stable, quality society. Free market capitalism, while it does lead to economic growth, is not an ethical (yes, I know you think ethics are bullshit), fair, or arguably stable society. It is the ultimate application of outdated social darwinism. As I have stated before, an individual's ability to pander to the intricacies of a specific economic system does not reflect their worth to society.

That article says that free market capitalism solves poverty!

They don't want that though, they want fucking "equality"!

They would rather everyone be poorer if it means there are no "classes"

I want everyone to be RICHER, and the fact that those who most successfully perform economic calculation, take on huge financial risks, best understand the structure of production and most efficiently and productively organise and use various resources get richer than other people, then GOOD, because that's what drives innovation and growth. People being rewarded for taking risks.

'So does "risk" explain or justify non-labour income? No, anarchists argue. This is for five reasons. Firstly, the returns on property income are utterly independent on the amount of risk involved. Secondly, all human acts involve risk of some kind and so why should property owners gain exclusively from it? Thirdly, risk as such it not rewarded, only successful risks are and what constitutes success is dependent on production, i.e. exploiting labour. Fourthly, most "risk" related non-labour income today plays no part in aiding production and, indeed, is simply not that risky due to state intervention. Fifthly, risk in this context is not independent of owning capital and, consequently, the arguments against "waiting" and innovation apply equally to this rationale. In other words, "risk" is simply yet another excuse to reward the rich for being wealthy'. - C.2 Why is capitalism exploitative? | Anarchist Writers

 

[cosmo kramer]

UM, no. Most of Africa and south america are extremely statist (see: zimbabwe et al) and this ruins those countries' economies,

nah africa is poor because its filled with africans

 

[_Duck_]

Relative poverty isn't a good thing though, is it?

Yes, but i would prefer relative poverty to poverty. As different to Taco who wishes the poor to live in absolute poverty (i.e. can't afford shelter, water, food, clothing) as long as the rich are also reasonably poor.

Taco, i challenge you to answer this question. Imagine two people: one studied hard all through school and then university, foregoing short term enjoyment (parties, alcohol, drugs, etc.) for long term enjoyment (i.e. he studied to have a better future for himself) and then worked unpaid overtime to get a raise. The second person dropped out of school in year 10 because he couldn't be stuffed doing the work, perhaps tried an apprenticeship but refused to do the work and/or work under someone, and today lines up at centrelink once a month. Our current society robs the former of his hard earned money and hands it to the latter. Do you believe that is fair?

 

[absorber]

lol an arts student

telling an economics honours student why he is wrong about economics


lol

economists who have had training very often get it completely wrong. Just look at what US academics said before the GFC started over there in 07-08

 

[cosmo kramer]

why not just point out his dumb appeal to his own authority

 

[Lentern]

lol an arts student

telling an economics honours student why he is wrong about economics


lol

Yeah statements like that are really going to encourage a civil and reasonable dialogue.

 

[cosmo kramer]

stop being racist towards noongah lentern