NationStates Jolt Archive

At present, we have seen how capitalism, and liberal democracy, apper to be the political and economic systems under which nations function most prosperously. The end of the cold war, it has been argued, showed the world that communisim could not function in the fashion that was forced from above. Smaller scale projects that have ultimately failed (low level communes in parts of North central Europe during the 80's) also show us that it cannot even work on what some modern communists would call "pure" communism.

However, this defeat of communism, and the failure of many communistic projects, had lead many to believe (particaully in America) that contempary capitalism is the best thing ever, and that the system is brilliant. Particually with America being the richest single nation (although the GDP of the EU is higher) they believe shows that American capitialism is best. But they ignore the fact that capitalism has an inherrent dark side. In order to function properly, capitalism requires a rich and a poor group, and as we can see in America, the wider the rich poor gap the better. The poorer the poor are, the more resources the rich can have and use since the poor consume less (that is extremely simplified, but it is part of the basic premise of the advantages of a large rich poor divide). Unequal wealth distribution is a nesseacary function of capitalism, because if everyone was wealthy, there would be massive inflation and the system would collapse on itself.

Of course, an advocate of the capitalist system might argue, you can expect there to be a rich poor divide for a simple reason. A great many people will not work hard enough or be clever enough or strong enough (in one sense or another) to become rich. Of course there will not be people who become rich, for to become rich requires effort and skill to one extent or another. Not everyone will have the same quantities of those, thus you can expect to see a rich poor divide. And indeed the capitalist advocate is right. A rich poor divide does indeed make sense for this reason

But the problem with the rich poor divide at present in most western countries, is that the majority of it is not caused on the basis of a lack of work. There are far too many sociological factors that hold people in poverty. People who do have the effort and skill to get out, but due to certian factors cannot. This is not the fault of the capitalist system itself, but the society the system is apart of. For example, you have what is known as the poverty cycle. Where one person is born into the family where a factory worker or some other form of manual labourer is the primary breadwinner. Most such labourers do not see the value of many of the things that the modern education system seeks to teach into their children, so the child is conflicted. The parents also being unable to assist them in their homework or other accademic activities makes them feel that it is a waste of time and thus they lose some of the will to continue. This of course is just one example of a socioloigcal phonmena that holds people down

Thus the problem with the capitalist system at present is it believes itself to be completely meritocratic, when in practise it is not. The key then to reforming the system is to make the system more meritocratic. And the responability of this falls onto society in general but specifcly more than anyone, the government of countries, to provide a system where the capitalist system is more meritocratic and socioloigcal factors do not interfere too much. This is one of the reasons why the welfare stare is so important. Schemes such as retraining for people employed in unskilled labour who wish to better themselves, can only really be government funded as if they must be funded privately, those who need them most will be unlikely to be able to afford the fees.

Capitalism is not a bad system of itself. It just needs to work within a fairer society and be more meritocratic.

Where does China fit into your theory?

Decent arguements, but communism isn't meant to suceed. Socialism would have a much higher chance at working and working well, if people changed. The main reason I am replying here is because people who are born into low status families, such as factory workers, or miners etc. are not worse off. You mentioned the parents wouldn't be able to assist in their homework; kids who can't do their homework, aren't going to do well. There are always teachers available for this kind of thing. The one area I see that your logic with the poor/rich divide social factors applies, is when it comes time for college. I'd guess somewhere around 60-70% of people who attend college in the United States either have it paid all by, or in part by their parents. There are still flaws here, such as college loans, and simply working to pay it off. You're completely right about the issues of 'Democracy,' atleast in modern times. Government always has the chance of being corrupt, or having idiots in it- to screw things up. It's not the system, but people. That's why Socialism fails.

I don't find any major flaws in your logic. I would be interested to hear your views on how to change things for the better.

Where does China fit into your theory?
My answer would be that China's economy is basically a capitalist one now, while their political structure is autocratic. But because they continue to identify as communist, we see them that way.

There's also the problem with the conflation of economies and political systems that's so common not only on fora such as this one, but practically everywhere. For instance, in US politics, capitalism and democracy are often synonymous, when there's no reason they ought to be. It's possible to have a communistic economy while having a liberal democracy for the government--the two are not mutually exclusive--but you'd never know that from all the anti-communist rhetoric that comes out of even the most liberal Democrats.

My answer would be that China's economy is basically a capitalist one now, while their political structure is autocratic. But because they continue to identify as communist, we see them that way.


Yeah, I'd agree with that- insofar as the external dealings. Internally, what with farm collectivisation and such, i'd still have to say its more geared towards Communist structure, albeit clearly an autocratic head.

no idiology, form of government, economic theory or system of belief is 'the' solution. all of them put arbitrary assumptions ahead of the kind of world we all have to live in. and it is the latter, not the former that counts. and may very well do so even in subsiquent lives as it observably does in our present ones.

nature provides the means for our species existence and is thus vital to its continuing to do so. (nontangable forces and beings are good friends to have but are not observably, or at least i haven't observed them doing so, in the habbit of medling in the proccess)

beyond what nature provides, the priorities we acturaly live by statisticly combine to generate incentives which move high and low alike, thus movements and policies which in turn yeald the conditions we individualy experience.

idiologies, economic theories, even chauvanistic beliefs, have a tendency to obscure this reality and often contribute little if anything else directly to it.

it is the self contend self proclaimed disconnect of capitolism from nature which prompts me to refer to it as the circular illogic of little green pieces of paper. my intent in doing so is not to glorigy nor exonerate other idiologies and economic theories, most, and certainly those popularly familiar, or immagined to be familiar, shair exactly the same shortcomming.

egalitarian ethics do however, bear a closer resemblence to the suggestions of the revealers of organized belief then do incentives toward short sightedness inhierent in the prioritising of austentatious accumulation

speaking only for myself, i know i would rather live in a world of trees, trains, computers and little furry creatures with big sharp teeth then one of aggressiveness, austentation, chauvanistic monotheism, and the private passinger automobile

a world without locks, fences or building codes, where none of them are needed because no one wants to go arround beating each other over the head.

no one wanting to because everyone realizes that the more harm there is floating arround the greater the probability of each of us suffering as a resault and that of course the more harm anyone causes the more there is floating arround

government in such a world, other then to provide for useful and sustainable infrastructure and to keep people from starving, frezing, and to restrain those otherwise unable to restrain themselves, would be almost entirely out of sight and out of mind

nor would people be censored from realizing that honor is never served by vengence but rather prestege is earned by creating and generously shairing beauty.

after all creating and exploring ARE what really gratifies, everything that does, one or the other being an element of, and again after all, it is the kind of world we all have to live in that is what counts.

=^^=
.../\...

Your central basis for this is wrong, but otherwise you are largely correct.

Capitalism does not require a wealth divide, only the impetus for the movement of capital and labor. I think your lapse in logic on this is assuming wealth, which by its nature necessitates poverty.

You make the statement that not everyone can be wealthy, which is entirely correct. You are also correct in your comment about inflation, however that would only occur if everyone became instantly (or nearly instantly) wealthy.

However, inflation rates will adjust and allow for the poor to slowly begin earning at higher levels. As the lower income levels close the gap within society, the bundle of goods priced by the CPI will also rise in price.

When the lower levels finally converge with the upper levels, you have an economy where there is no wealthy and there is no poor by present standards. However, upon comparison to the past, everyone is wealthy.

I find the problem with modern capitalism, is the inherent lack of transparency and honesty in democracy. The growing trend towards globalisation and trade blocks is generally good, but without any sort of 'real' enforcement for fair trade, or to block the emergence of large monopolies, the basic idea of free market economics is endangered. (I'm drawing a distinction between free market economics, where we expect some government interference to disrupt monopolies, etc., and complete laissez faire capitalism, which is 'no holds barred'.)

Communistic societies fail in the simplest sense, in that they don't reward harder work. Rather, you are expected to work as hard as you can, and get back just what you need. This kills incentive, and the dynamic kind of ingenuity inherent in Capitalist systems.

In order to curtail the excesses of Capitalism, it needs to be restrained by healthy transparent democracies that serve the interest of the people, rather than large multinationals. Where is the fairness in capital flight moving to a country where the people have no voice, and work at substantially lower wages?

The idea that world peace can be obtained through prosperity via free trade capitalism, only works if all states involved actually have a real say into how that trade is conducted.

However, upon comparison to the past, everyone is wealthy.

Tell that to someone who lives on the streets.

Tell that to someone who lives on the streets.
I person who lives on the streets now a days is much better off than somebody who lived on the streets in the 30's.

I person who lives on the streets now a days is much better off than somebody who lived on the streets in the 30's.

Is the pavement softer now then?

Actually, there were probably more programmes for the homeless at the end of the 30s than there are now, being as it was such a problem.

"snip"

Capitalism is not a bad system of itself. It just needs to work within a fairer society and be more meritocratic.
The analysis of there having to be rich and poor should also include many of the poverty stricken countries, take your pick from South America, Africa and Asia. There you will encounter many of the losers of the wonderful capitalist ethos. The fact is, that as an international political/economic philosophy, capitalism falls flat on it's face. Too many of the worlds population suffer under capitalism.

At least in Stalinist Russia (which admittedly wasn't communist), at least everyone who wanted to work, could, Even the rights of women were equal to men

What about the Communes in outback Australia, Israel and some place sin Europe?

Unequal wealth distribution is a nesseacary function of capitalism... Capitalism is not a bad system of itself. It just needs to work within a fairer society and be more meritocratic.

I suppose the titular Problem With Contemporary Capitalism is that capitalism is unfair? I would say that capitalism is not supposed to be fair. In the first place, the basic tenet of capitalism is that a wage-earner should not be paid the full value of his labor, so that the remaining value can be re-invested as capital by the capitalist. That's not fair -- it's exploitation.

In order to force most people to abide this exploitation, capitalism requires unequal distribution of wealth and unequal opportunities. It requires a world that is based on classes and hierarchies and a polarization between the haves and have-nots, the brains and the muscle, the core and the periphery, the developed and the "developing" world.

If capitalism is innately unjust, then meritocracy shouldn't be your goal because in that case "meritocracy" is just a word used to perfume rotten vegetables. If we were to abolish all forms of class and hierarchy and all the platitudes we use to justify them, then we might make a fairer society.

Tell that to someone who lives on the streets.

I was addressing his point that there must be a wealth divide. I stated that, were everyone to live at roughly the same income, not everyone would be wealthy by present levels, but they would be wealthy compared to the past.

In other words, the economy wouldn't implode if nobody lived in the gutter.

The analysis of there having to be rich and poor should also include many of the poverty stricken countries, take your pick from South America, Africa and Asia. There you will encounter many of the losers of the wonderful capitalist ethos. The fact is, that as an international political/economic philosophy, capitalism falls flat on it's face. Too many of the worlds population suffer under capitalism.

At least in Stalinist Russia (which admittedly wasn't communist), at least everyone who wanted to work, could, Even the rights of women were equal to men

so the overseas jobs that capitalism provides in poor countries... could those people make their own jobs?

Rather than ripping on capitalism/capitalists for offering low-wage jobs, why not give them at least some credit for offering jobs in the first place where otherwise there might be none.

I've said it before, I'll say it again:

The only truly just and fair and pure government there could be is if A: humankind were to suddenly become inheritely good, or B: in an autocracy/monarchy. One person with complete power - as long as that one person is incredibly good and benevolent and understanding.

So even in the most likely type of government for that situation to happen, you'd still have to wait for the right leader to come along. Of course that government and status is incredibly unstable and wouldn't last very long, but that's my point. A few decades of ruling under the perfect leader, or a few centuries of ruling under shitty leaders - many of which do nothing to help you personally.

If only we were ants...

so the overseas jobs that capitalism provides in poor countries... could those people make their own jobs?

Rather than ripping on capitalism/capitalists for offering low-wage jobs, why not give them at least some credit for offering jobs in the first place where otherwise there might be none.

Because it's still exploitation. They're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. If they could pay them -nothing-, they would, and not get one less second of sleep over it.

They're heartless, greedy bastards, and no reward of any kind should be given to that sort of person.

However, upon comparison to the past, everyone is wealthy.

Tell that to someone who lives on the streets.Tell that to someone who lives on the streets.

You have very obiviously taken this statement out of context. VO2 was NOT saying that this is the current status. He (making a guess here) pointed out a situation where the population as a whole was neither rich nor poor compared to each other, but when compared as a whole to the whole of an earlier time was wealthy. Since this was a potential and projected situation, what has it to do with someone on the street now? Even if this balanced socitiy were to come into exsistance in, say, 10 years, the man on the street today wouyld still be on the street today. You can't change the past, but you can compare to it.

I suppose the titular Problem With Contemporary Capitalism is that capitalism is unfair? I would say that capitalism is not supposed to be fair. In the first place, the basic tenet of capitalism is that a wage-earner should not be paid the full value of his labor, so that the remaining value can be re-invested as capital by the capitalist. That's not fair -- it's exploitation.

The problem with this arguement is that diffrent people have diffrent definitions of what "fair" is. If I go out and consider my time to do job 'A' to be fairly compensated at $10 an hour (pulling numbers out of the air; don't go off on min wages and such) and you feel that to do the same job you require $12 an hour, is it fair to you that I am willing to work for less, all other things being equal? When it comes to getting paid, fair is only what you and the person who is willing to employ you can agree upon as fair. If noone will hire you for want you want to earn, then most likely you are pricing yourself too high, for I doubt that EVERYONE is that cheep, or you are not looking hard enough (even that phrase is subject to individual interpertation).

When dealing with such terms as "fair" who's definitions take precidence? Personally as long as force and fraud are not used, then what ever is agreed upon between two people is fair.

Because it's still exploitation. They're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. If they could pay them -nothing-, they would, and not get one less second of sleep over it.

They're heartless, greedy bastards, and no reward of any kind should be given to that sort of person.

Considering I happen to own a business, I take offense to the idea that all capitalists are greedy heartless bastards. What you're saying is, that by risking all my hard earned money and taking a risk at private enterprise, I'm somehow contributing to the lack of fairness in the economy.

Time to take a reality pill.

I'll use my business as an example. My family started a moving company 2 years ago. I invested $5000 for a 10% share of the ownership and potential dividends of the company. Now, it's not like owning a moving company was my lifelong dream, but, having worked in the industry at various levels, I knew I was good at it, and it was worth the risk.

Now, I employ 10 to 30 people on average throughout the year, depending on the time of the year (not including office staff.) Currently, I haven't collected a paycheck in several months, so that I can be sure that my employees go home with something. That's me being heartless and greedy for you. We are currently struggling to pay our bills, so that the people on my payroll still have a job this winter.

So, since I invested my $5000, the net worth of that money has increased significantly, but it's all tied into the company. I was taking home more money when I was working for another company. However, I'm taking that risk with the idea that one day, I'll be collecting dividends on my investment, or that I can sell my 10% later on. There's always a good chance that I will lose everything.

I have to pay my employees competitive wages, or else they will work for someone else. I pay them to stay at home during the winter, so that when spring comes and I need these guys, they will stay loyal. Having been a mover myself, I know what quality is when I see it, and I invest in that, including investing in people's driver training and upgrading their skills.

I'm taking the risk, so that maybe I can make a return on my efforts.

Now let's assume I lived in a communistic society. There would be no private moving companies. You move when the government tells you to move. The job you have depends on what some bureaucrat figures you're good at. Odds are, if you're a mover, your on the bottom of the list. All movers get paid the same wage, just enough to live on. There's no incentive to work harder. There's no incentive to please the customer (unless it's somebody further in the hierarchy of skills, someone of importance.) Quality suffers, ingenuity suffers, society suffers. Why work harder when the next guy gets paid the same and can't do as good a job as you can? Where's the reward for my effort? Communism has determined that I'm not good enough for anything other than manual labour, or worse yet, that all the other good jobs are taken, and this is what I'm left with.

Even the most strident capitalists have something to lose in the marketplace. I hate banks as much as the next guy, but they provide funds which I can use to fail or suceed in life.

Capitalism is far from perfect, but it's the system that best rewards someone for their efforts. With some democratic oversight, people generally fair much better than any communistic society thus far.

Considering I happen to own a business, I take offense to the idea that all capitalists are greedy heartless bastards. What you're saying is, that by risking all my hard earned money and taking a risk at private enterprise, I'm somehow contributing to the lack of fairness in the economy.

Time to take a reality pill.

I'll use my business as an example. My family started a moving company 2 years ago. I invested $5000 for a 10% share of the ownership and potential dividends of the company. Now, it's not like owning a moving company was my lifelong dream, but, having worked in the industry at various levels, I knew I was good at it, and it was worth the risk.

Now, I employ 10 to 30 people on average throughout the year, depending on the time of the year (not including office staff.) Currently, I haven't collected a paycheck in several months, so that I can be sure that my employees go home with something. That's me being heartless and greedy for you. We are currently struggling to pay our bills, so that the people on my payroll still have a job this winter.

So, since I invested my $5000, the net worth of that money has increased significantly, but it's all tied into the company. I was taking home more money when I was working for another company. However, I'm taking that risk with the idea that one day, I'll be collecting dividends on my investment, or that I can sell my 10% later on. There's always a good chance that I will lose everything.

I have to pay my employees competitive wages, or else they will work for someone else. I pay them to stay at home during the winter, so that when spring comes and I need these guys, they will stay loyal. Having been a mover myself, I know what quality is when I see it, and I invest in that, including investing in people's driver training and upgrading their skills.

I'm taking the risk, so that maybe I can make a return on my efforts.

Now let's assume I lived in a communistic society. There would be no private moving companies. You move when the government tells you to move. The job you have depends on what some bureaucrat figures you're good at. Odds are, if you're a mover, your on the bottom of the list. All movers get paid the same wage, just enough to live on. There's no incentive to work harder. There's no incentive to please the customer (unless it's somebody further in the hierarchy of skills, someone of importance.) Quality suffers, ingenuity suffers, society suffers. Why work harder when the next guy gets paid the same and can't do as good a job as you can? Where's the reward for my effort? Communism has determined that I'm not good enough for anything other than manual labour, or worse yet, that all the other good jobs are taken, and this is what I'm left with.

Even the most strident capitalists have something to lose in the marketplace. I hate banks as much as the next guy, but they provide funds which I can use to fail or suceed in life.

Capitalism is far from perfect, but it's the system that best rewards someone for their efforts. With some democratic oversight, people generally fair much better than any communistic society thus far.


You didn't understand what I said at all, and after realizing this, I stopped at around the first paragraph.

I'm talking about outsourcing. You own your own business - good for you. Do you have people in other countries slaving over you while you pay them shit for doing hard work just so you can save a few bucks an hour compared to what you'd have to pay an American? I doubt it.

The problem with this arguement is that diffrent people have diffrent definitions of what "fair" is.

Exactly, in my opinion, a capitalistic system can only be unfair through government legislation and perpetuation.

But I take a rather retroactive definition of fair, as compared to most people.

Okay, I see your point. (Sorry for the rant.)

However, even large corporations are responsible to their shareholders. Plus they have to meet the demands of the marketplace for competitive pricing. Let's take a look at Wal-Mart for example. Since they are such a large and powerful company, by keeping their price as low as possible for the consumer, they dictate to their suppliers what their price is. Suddenly, suppliers of all those wonderful products have to cut costs, in a major way, or possibly see their shareholders pulling out their investment in their companies.

So, in that sense, I don't blame some of these companies for outsourcing. It reduces their costs, and liberates their operating expenses. Would you invest in a company with bigger profit margins, or one that is just making ends meet?

The problem here, in my mind, is not the greed of capitalists, but that we are trading with countries with no democratic oversight, and where the standard of living costs much less. The tradeoff for us is, cheaper products. So, we are able to buy more with our dollar, because the price of goods is lower.

The lunacy of all this, is that there is no real enforcement for working standards and fair trade. So any jobs created through capitalism as of late, tend to be low paying. So, we could have a world where lots of people have low paying jobs, but the cost of goods is cheaper or live in a world where some people have well paying jobs, (and people in other parts of the world have no jobs) and everything costs much more.

The problem isn't that Capitalists are acting unfair, the problem is that Liberal Democracies are letting them get away with it. Free Trade should only occur between liberal democracies, and only if all parties agree to actual free trade, and that it is enforcable.

The problem with this arguement is that diffrent people have diffrent definitions of what "fair" is.... When it comes to getting paid, fair is only what you and the person who is willing to employ you can agree upon as fair.... [A]s long as force and fraud are not used, then what ever is agreed upon between two people is fair.
My point is that capitalist wage exploitation employs both force and fraud. Capitalism originated in coercion and violence, and history continues to repeat itself today in the "developing" world. First, in England, they fenced the commons and displaced the farmers, creating hordes of unemployed laborers without means. This was the first proletariat. Where before the farmer owned his labor and sold his crop, now he owned nothing, not even his labor -- he had to sell it to the capitalist who owned the factory or the capitalist who owned the land. So that's the force: if you're a farmer, he owns the land. If you're an brewer, he owns the brewery. If you're a poet, he owns the publishing house. You can choose which capitalist to sell your labor to, but it's already assumed that you have to sell it. When you find that your labor, rather being something free and spontaneous and part of who you are, has become instead a commodity which must be sold, then you are alienated from your labor, you are proletariat, you are not free. The land, the factories, the refineries, the printing presses, these are all the means of production which we proletariat do not own. Merely by not owning we are coerced to sell our labor, alienated from our labor, so that the capitalist can profit from it.

The fraud is that the capitalist always pays, by definition, must pay, the worker less than what his labor is worth. What is the value of a product? That depends on supply and demand, of course, but market fluctuations notwithstanding, there is something that's objective, not subject to the market or anybody's opinion. Objectively, the basis for value is labor -- how much labor did it cost to produce, from mining the iron ore to refining it to stamping it into a widget? Speaking broadly, the more hours of labor it took to produce it, the more it's worth. Isn't that objective? How much is the labor itself worth? That doesn't matter, because wages are always less -- the wages paid for labor are always less than the value labor creates. Where else does profit come from? The sticker price of the product is identical to its value (its labor value) -- otherwise the consumer is getting ripped off. Profit is the difference between the value created by labor and the wages paid to labor. A capitalist doesn't profit off his customers, who get a fair exchange, he profits off his workers, who don't. And that profit is the basis of capitalism, because it is reinvested, buying more capital and more labor. Thus the tendency of profit is to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands, thus the fraud of wage exploitation creates the force of poverty which compels workers to accept the fraud.

Exactly, in my opinion, a capitalistic system can only be unfair through government legislation and perpetuation.
You know, I've never gotten in a political discussion with a Libertarian before, but I always wanted to ask them about this point, this old Libertarian mantra that capitalism would be perfect without government. Don't you recognize that a capitalist system can't function without government? I mean, I don't want to go into all the things govt. does that capitalism couldn't do without, but would you rather do business in a country like Chad, which effectively has no government, or the USA, "high taxes" and all? Or, if you concede that government should do some things in order to benefit the capitalist (things like enforcing contracts, sanctifying private property and protecting it with arms, building infrastructure with taxpayer dollars, maintaining a currency, forcing down barriers to trade in the third world, deposing socialist governments, bailing out big companies, providing disaster relief, corporate welfare, &c.)... if you concede that government should do these things for the capitalist, then why do make such a fuss when it throws a scrap, a crumb (and in the USA it's always a crumb, for crissakes), to the poor?

My view of the End of capitalism

I think the growing rich-poor divide is part of a common cycle where the divide grows to a 1900 level of things before disaster causes the cycle to reset itself this is however getting to be a longer and longer cycle as technology advances which will one day cause the problem of where the divide just keeps on going and going

but technology is also causing a major problem to this cycle as with the mechanizing of industry and such unemployment is growing and if unchecked will cause endless turmoil the developed world won't suffer as bad in this as long as are industries maintain and increase skilled but the unskilled labour nations will have see there industries collapse

so you could say "as long as we increase are skilled labour and create an economy for it all we be dandy in are part of the world" well no actually the growth in skilled labour markets isn't keeping up with mechanization (not that you could have an entire workforce of skilled labour even at current levels)

which leads to a problem "just how does a nation survive this" well the now mechanized industry will be enormously profitable unfortunately this wealth will be slipping into the pockets of every fat cat so naturally the now starving poor will rise up and hopefully be able to create an economy were the all can be provided for.

So, in that sense, I don't blame some of these companies for outsourcing. It reduces their costs, and liberates their operating expenses. Would you invest in a company with bigger profit margins, or one that is just making ends meet?

So what your saying is that of course the big companies will outsource and pay the workers of third world countries pittance, because they can. And the only reason they would ever stop is if the government of a liberal democracy stoped them. Not because they knew it was wrong.

That's my one major gripe with capitalism - there's no equality of opportunity. I don't care that some are rich and some are poor, it's just most of the rich were born rich and most of the poor were born poor. Of course there's many examples of poor people becoming rich, and rich people becoming poor - but the point is these should not be seen as special cases - in a fair society, a person born poor has an equal chance of succeeding in life as a rich person. I really don't see how people claim capitalism is completely meritocratic when statistics clearly show that you're far more likely to become rich if you're born rich - do they think that all people born into a poor family are somehow genetically inferiour?

That's why you need some socialist programs to balance out the inequality of opportunity which capitalism in it's purest form leads to. Free education, free health care etc. Capitalism has good and bad points. Socialism has good and bad points. The only debate in my eyes is which type of mix is the best.

So what your saying is that of course the big companies will outsource and pay the workers of third world countries pittance, because they can. And the only reason they would ever stop is if the government of a liberal democracy stoped them. Not because they knew it was wrong.

How many people download software from the internet illegally, even though they know that it's wrong? It's because they can get away with it.

What I'm saying is that outsourcing is not inherently wrong, nor is capitalism, but that our governments have validated their exploitation of poorer countries. If it's wrong, then why is it not illegal?

If a large corporation in the states outsourced some of it's work to another company in the states, in order to cut costs, would that be immoral? I don't believe so, it makes good fiscal sense. Now, if you have the opportunity to drastically reduce your costs, and it's perfectly legal, than why wouldn't you? Most people don't bother to question where their goods come from when they look at the price tag. Corporations aren't much different. Democracies have an obligation to enforce fair trading & labour practices. Citizens of western democracies make this choice through their elected representatives and the purchases that they make. If you don't like auto manufacturing jobs disapearing, then buy a car made in your home country, don't complain about the fact that someone is willing to do the job for less.

Also, a 'pittance' is relative. If you were paying an employee $10 an hour here, but the average pay in another country is .25 cents per hour, $1 an hour is like making $40 here.

The dangerous game that Capitalists are playing, is that by sending jobs overseas, they risk the possibility of their consumer base shrinking.

How many people download software from the internet illegally, even though they know that it's wrong? It's because they can get away with it.

What I'm saying is that outsourcing is not inherently wrong, nor is capitalism, but that our governments have validated their exploitation of poorer countries. If it's wrong, then why is it not illegal?

If a large corporation in the states outsourced some of it's work to another company in the states, in order to cut costs, would that be immoral? I don't believe so, it makes good fiscal sense. Now, if you have the opportunity to drastically reduce your costs, and it's perfectly legal, than why wouldn't you? Most people don't bother to question where their goods come from when they look at the price tag. Corporations aren't much different. Democracies have an obligation to enforce fair trading & labour practices. Citizens of western democracies make this choice through their elected representatives and the purchases that they make. If you don't like auto manufacturing jobs disapearing, then buy a car made in your home country, don't complain about the fact that someone is willing to do the job for less.

Also, a 'pittance' is relative. If you were paying an employee $10 an hour here, but the average pay in another country is .25 cents per hour, $1 an hour is like making $40 here.

The dangerous game that Capitalists are playing, is that by sending jobs overseas, they risk the possibility of their consumer base shrinking.

Firstly, things can be immoral without being illegal (abortion may be one example although that is not universally agreed upon) and secondly, are you essientially saying that corperations are morally justified to do anything they want to increase their profits as long as it is legal?

Firstly, things can be immoral without being illegal (abortion may be one example although that is not universally agreed upon) and secondly, are you essientially saying that corperations are morally justified to do anything they want to increase their profits as long as it is legal?

No, I'm saying that democracies are responsible to restrain the excesses of Capitalism. Corporations are driven by the needs to create profit, whether that is by reducing costs or increasing prices. They are ruled by market forces, as much as consumers are. They are responsible to their shareholders.

When people sit down for bacon and eggs in the morning, most people don't take 2 seconds to think about the living conditions of the hens that lay those eggs. They also don't think about how much someone was paid to stitch their clothing either. Consumers reward the behaviour of corportaions by purchasing their products. There are products out there that are 'Made in America' and people can eat free range chickens - but they don't. And they can elect officials who will put a stop to outsourcing, but they don't.

So it's a little hypocritical to blame corportions for doing the same thing.

Americans complain about outsourcing being immoral, but the countries to which they are being outsourced aren't complaining. So who say's it's immoral? It's up to democratic countries to say what is ethical, and what is not.