Yep.. I agree... in fact, let me add another counter-argument for the other poster. This post is aimed at the previous poster and not you...
There are many other issues at play too. For example, politicians LIE. I live in Canada and it has one of the least corrupt governments in the planet (I would say it is near the top 15%). Yet, I haven't seen an election where key policians don't resort to outright lies and fabrications. It could range from "little things" like manipulating statistics to "big things" like claiming not to cut services yet doing it. As long as this keeps happening, you cannot expect the population--regardless of whether they vote or not--to be fully responsible for the politicans that are elected.
Just because you can vote means absolutely nothing with all this going on.
I'm not familiar with the different OS out there (like xBSD). But what about device support? Does FreeBSD have wide support for devices (like sound cards, Wi-Fi devices, etc).
Um sorry who are the Idiots that moded this crap Insightful, it's not Insightful it's moronic, competent management DO NOT PAY SCAM ARTIST's...
Actually that's how most businesses operate! They carry out actions that minimize risks. A classic example is the Y2K computer problem a few years ago. There were a lot of businesses that actually carried out Y2K audits, trainings, upgrades, etc even though Y2K was hardly a concern for them (ie. businesses where the rollover has no impact on the business, or systems that don't even deal with dates). The reason many companies paid a lot of money to consultants, etc for the Y2K issue is to avoid LIABILITY and NEGLIGENCE. It is in the interest of a company to spend a few hundread thousand to avoid future lawsuits relating to Y2K. If a problem did show up in the future, they can at least say "We did everything we can. We checked all our systems. So it was not as if we were negligent. We are not responsible."
That's how the world works. It wouldn't suprise me if a 100 or so Linux customers actually signed on to the SCO deal--not because they believe SCO to be correct, but rather to avoid liability in the future.
Why does SuSE do this? Is to minimize the # of people d/ling their software (and rather get them to pay)? Most people (including me) don't have high speed and therefore I won't be trying SuSE any time soon...
This is the ideal point for Mandrake to seriously attack the consumer market. With Red Hat out of the picture, I think Mandrake can easily fill the gap. If Mandrake doesn't rebound in the near future, they are gone IMO...
The reason it doesn't happen is because the VAST MAJORITY of consumers do NOT have high-speed. Distributing online just doesn't work right now (just like selling heavy content online doesn't work because very few have the bandwidth to d/l the stuff).
Having said this, businesses (at least large enterprises) have access to high-speed so the model can work for them.
It's pretty hard to sell low-end consumers on a product they can get for free.
This argument is moot. The VAST majority of the consumers (I'm not talking about geeks here, who are a minority) do not download software. This is especially true with Linux distros which are several CDs. Often, they don't have access to high-speed connections, don't have CD-burners (or aren't familiar with burning CD-ROMs. eg. some have no idea what an ISO file is or how to burn a bootable ISO) and so forth. Also, do not forget that most of these people need printed documentation (how many newbies can actually install without looking at some sort of quick guide? Do they even know how to boot off a CD-ROM?).
Even though Linux is free, I do not think consumers will ever get it for free (unless high-speed becomes a standard, which likely won't be the case for 10+ years). I think there WILL be a retail channel that will exist. My feeling is Mandrake is probably best suited to take over. Don't get me wrong: Linux will still be cheaper but I don't think people will get it for free.
Agree wholeheartedly. I started a small Linux-based services company (still in the early stages and doing badly:( ), and one thing that I can attest to is that Red Hat mainly cares about large enterprises. Everything they do is geared towards them. As an example, Red Hat has no partnership programs. In addition, Red Hat's boxed sets cost more than SuSE or Mandrake. Since I am gearing my business towards small and medium businesses (SME, aka SMB), none of this helps. For example, SMEs often don't have high speed connection (can'd d/l) and have to rely on boxed sets.
Yes, the politicians are voted in. But money plays a HUGE role in all this. What money does, among other things, is enable you to carry out actions that you otherwise wouldn't be able to. For example, advertising and other mass "brainwashing" campaigns. I hate to say it but humans fall for that kind of stuff. After all, how can you possibly explain how Americans fought a war in Iraq without any evidence, or how most Americans don't even know they invaded Panama, or they were behind the brutal regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala? The answer lies in information and brainwashing techniques... If politicians or governments didn't carry out these activities then what you are saying will be true: people voting should be responsible.
On a related point, regardless of who wins, the winner will always grant special rights to people donated the most money to his/her campaign. Make no mistake about it. This is why wealthy individuals, unions and corporations donate a lot of money to parties (no, they are not doing it because they are charitable--in particular, for-profit bodies like corporations are certainly not charitable). Once somone is elected, they grant ACCESS to their close confidants, party donors, etc. What this means is that whoever that donated to the party or the person will have greater ACCESS. Will this translate into a benefit for the donor? In most cases, yes.
For all these reasons (and many more), countries like USA are really plutocracies--not democracy! If you don't think so, just look around. Study countries and see what happens. Americans (or Canadians or French or whatever) feel proud that they are running a "democracy" but this is no different than in a developing country. There is little difference...
Corporations operate within the rules set before them. It is up to us to set the rules appropriately. It is naive to design a system based on optimistic assumptions or altriusm.
Corporations are the biggest influencers of government policy (especially international policies). The vast majority of NGO spending is from large corporations. The free trade agreements are literally written by corporations, with governments acting as proxies. The disagreement between Canada vs USA is nothing compared to the damage done to poor, weak countries who cannot stand up for themselves. Maybe the corporations don't deserve the full blame but at least they should be viewed as opportunists taking advantage of the exploitable situation.
My point is economic progress has a side effect: higher standards of living. This will virtually eliminate such human rights violations.
I think this is the main point that seperates us. You actually believe that economic progress will result in better human rights. Needless to say, I don't believe that to be true. The evidence seems to support me more than you. Let's see... Singapore, the most free-market oriented and wealthy country in South-East Asia yet totalitarian... Saudi Arabia/Qatar/Oman/etc are some of the richest countries on the planet. Yet they abuse people more than many poor countries... Mexico. Pretty decent compared to other Latin American countries. Its human rights situation hasn't improved in the last 10 years even though it has progressed. Are you going to wait 100 years? And so on...
I think you fail to note how humans progress (from a social viewpoint). Nothing comes free; people have to fight for everything! Even in USA, people had to fight to get unions, worker rights, women's rights, etc!!! One of USA's closest friends, Saudi Arabia, is very rich (people there basically get free education and stuff) but they don't have many human rights. This just debunks your view that wealth results in improved human rights situation.
Having said that, I guess there is SOME effect of prosperity (although, some sociologists will tell you that humans started practicing mass slavery right after they became prosperous (circa 200-0BCE Egypt)). My point is that the economic prosperity is so negligible or that the harm done is far greater that it is not worth it...
I used to think such things also (economists, philosophers, etc. are idiots). I then became less ignorant which quickly remedied my superiority complex.
I think you just became dumber by following that path;) Anyway, I LOVE philosophy so I'm not quite like you... my lack of respect is only for economists (and to some extent politicians and senior executives)....I actually took some economics courses in university so it's not like as if I'm ignorant. The reason I hate them is because economics is supposed to be a social science. Economics is supposed to study ways to improve human society. I don't feel that modern economics does that. Economists do not think outside the box. Instead of asking 'what is best for society?' they keep asking 'GIVERN CAPITALISM, what is best for society?'. I can never forgive them for that. I hope you are not an economist;)
The companies are not trampling *your* rights, so those statements from that perspective are invalid.
I am not concerned with humanity! I am talking about the whole world. Why? Because *I* care about it. If some guy gets exploited 1000 kilometers from here, it doesn't affect me at all--but I care! Similarly, if some animal I have never heard of becomes extinct, it doesn't impact me--but I care!
National debt has nothing to do with free market and private property/capitalism
I'm getting too tired of typing so I'm going to cut it off rather abruptly. For now, I'll say that you are right to a large extent. Pure capitalism calls for small government (only to protect the property owners, who incidentally are the w
Still don't see your point... ok let's say the first industrialists were capitalists (I'm assuming you are correct on that). So what? As I said, ANYONE can be an industrialist. You need to look no further than the Communists (say Soviet Union). They basically managed to convert their agarian society into an industrial society. In fact that is the main accomplishment in USSR. So what is your point?
Just to clarify, I'm talking about capitalism as a system (I think you are only referring to free markets). I'm not a big fan of free markets but markets have to be part of some system. Just talking about free markets really doesn't mean much (it's like talking about freedom of speech when the courts are corrupt. For instance, the vast majority of countries grant freedom of speech to their citizens (usually due to the constitution or some law). Yet, one hardly has freedom of speech in these countries). Europe (say the Scandenavian(sp?) countries) practice free market while USA does the same thing. However, Europe is more socialist (their policies are anti-capitalist eg. subsidies for weaker sectors, helping the poor, medicare, etc). I think it is better to concentrate on capitalism rather than free market.
It has in developed nations. What evidence do you have that it doesn't?
The VAST majority of the world practices capitalism. Granted, the market isn't as open as in USA but the point is that it hasn't worked in the majority of the countries. The classic example is South America. USA has been basically running their economy for the last 15 years and it is worse now than ever. They followed the US neo-liberal economic vision yet ended up worse off. South America is a total write-off even though it was the one region that accepted the US plans without any reservations.
The reason Europe and North America have done well has little to do with capitalism. It has to do with all sorts of other reasons (including technological innovation, greater scientific research, better management of countries, military power, racism/colonialism, resources, etc). I know I can't prove what I'm saying. The only thing I can say is to come back to me in 15 years:) and we'll see who is right. To prove my point, watch what China will do. It will not be capitalistic yet it will be a dominant country. I think it will basically play hardball like USA does (USA, in case you are familiar, preaches one thing but does another).
hmm... what does industrialization have to do with capitalism? Communism, fascism, dictatorships, etc were all very good industrialists too. In fact, Nazi Germany was one of the top industrialists of all time. If they survived longer (I'm not saying this is good at all), they certainly could have developed a very inudstrial nation.
I don't think Capitalism would collapse, not in America anyway. It's too much a part of the American identity. I could certainly see a strong nationalist movement, though.
Perhaps it will be one of the last countries where capitalism will collapse (kind of like how Britain is one of the last countries that maintained monarchy). If USA switches to nationalism, it could easy become fascist (since most Americans are conservative). At that point, I wonder if capitalism will matter at all.
If it gets this far, take it to the UN as such treatment is certainly a human rights violation. Even if the women themselves could not do so, there are many, many others who would gladly do it on their behalf.
UN does not enforce anything. It is a "voluntary" organization. The only time they act is when it is a grave danger to humanity (even then, they can only impose economic sanctions, which accomplishes nothing).
I'm not trying to bash the UN since I like it very much. However, it should be noted that it doesn't enforce any of its treaties. I would guess that at least 100 countries are breaking 1 treaty each day.
Environmental harm: undoubtedly. But the damage is distributed across the globe instead of centralized in industrial nations. This makes it easier for the natural earth cycles to re-absorb. Additionally, these countries were going to jump into industrialization eventually anyway. Better to do it with our more advanced, cleaner technologies, than to start from scratch with coal burning and repeat all of our mistakes.
These countries' environmental regulations are FAR weaker than in developed countries. You can get away with a LOT more in those countries. In addition, free trade agreements put trade above the environment. I can't remmeber off the top of my head but there were a few cases (I think it was some Carribean country) where a corporation actually sued the govt and won. The environmental regulations were stronger than what the free trade agreement allowed, so it had to be struck down.
Harm to workers: they treat their workers worse than here, but undoubtedly the work is to their advantage otherwise they would not be doing it.
You are missing the whole point. You can walk into some parts of Africa, and start practicing SLAVERY. Yes, that's right; it still happens. Does that make it righteous?
Ultimately, it is unclear whether outsourcing actually increases the gap between rich and poor, and unless you are a brilliant economist and post a detailed breakdown, I don't think you can assert this point with any appreciable degree of confidence.
Given that I consider most economists to be a bunch of fools (the equivalent to modern day alchemists), I doubt I can come up with any eonomic evidence. You can't prove the counterpoint either. Therefore, this point will be nothing more than an argument at this point in time.
In your fantasy land of "evil capitalists", they already have all the money, and thus all the power anyway. They already own all of the physical assets of the company, they already own all of the means of production. What further power over workers could they possibly gain?
I WISH capitalism was a fantasy for then reality would be even better. Unfortunately it isn't:( The workers will lose power because all the worker rights gained over the last 100 years are being lost. The places that these corporations are moving to have almost no worker rights. It took us 70+ years to implement minimum wages and mandatory holidays, not to mention elimination of child labour. The countries these companies are moving to grant none of these rights. I, as a worker, loses the benefit. It's almost as if we have to restart again. I consider this to be a loss!
If the past 200 or so years of capitalism has shown us anything, it is that free competition benefits us all. Weak arguments against the "evils" of capitalism do not outweigh the evidence.
The benefits of capitalism are an illusion. All you capitalism supporters don't realize one thing. THe only reason capitalism has done so well in the past is because it has MORTGAGED THE FUTURE for the present. It must make you happy to see practically every country, including USA, end up with massive debts;) One day you'll realize that you have been living a lie...
It is harder to organize worker movements nowadays for two reasons. The countries where these movements need to be organized are less liberal than Europe 60 years ago. Most of the poor countries are very ruthless (more so than how Europe was 100 years ago).
The other reason is that free trade ensures that these companies can keep moving. If workers in say India try gaining more rights, coroporations will move to say Malaysia. And then to Africa and so on. I'm not saying that all industries can move easily (the workers have to be able to do the job, resources must be present, etc). Nevertheless I think it will be tough...
We used this program to create our brochures with limited success. I think I was using 0.9 (some beta or development version or something--can't remember). It crashed quite often...dragging text boxes and the like wasn't very good...
Having said all this, this is the best program AFAIK that supports CMYK output (on Linux). I hope they fixed the bugs. It is pretty good for your typical stuff. It can output PDF and EPS (unfortunately no PS, which some printers required--converting screws up).
Thanks to the deverlopers. Hoepfully it'll be improved to the point where it can be used by a typical user.
The sad thing is that I graduated too late. I missed the tech boom by an year or two. I basically ended up without a job since I graduated...and I didn't even benefit at all:(... I knew I should have gone into social science or philosophy--at least my heart will be in the right place then:(:(:(
I think USA is going to go into deflation and not get out of it (hence resulting in the collapse of capitalism). I hate to say it but I can't see what will stop USA from becoming the next Japan. In case you are not familiar, Japan has been in a recession for like 10 years! Their interest rates have been close to 0% for 10 years!!! Same thing might happen in USA if things don't pick up. Once that happens, the government (err, rather the Central Bank) will not be able to control the economy with the monetary policy (ie. by setting interest rates, printing money, etc).
However, there is work in the US that cannot or will not be outsourced: face-to-face time, collaborative efforts, or innovative ideas. No one knows and manipulates american culture and politics better than americans.
The problem is that there are too few cases like that. Sure there are jobs that will never be out-sourced, for whatever reason. But how many such jobs are there?
Care to explain how free trade results in better human rights?
The vast majority of the countries practice some form of free market capitalism, yet they are some of the worst on the planet. The capitalist think-tank Cato institute claims that Singapore is the more free (as in trade) country in the world. Can anyone really say it is the most free? Or has the best human rights? I don't thinks so!
Attempting to improve the poor countries via corporations is one of the stupidest things ever. It will never work. Why? Because the corporations only care about one thing: money! They don't care about the welfare of anyone. There might be a short term benefit in those countries but those people iwll always be held as slaves by the corporations.
You are seriously delusional if you think that these foreign corporations are in these countries to improve the countries. If anything, these countries are being sold out to the foreigners. Some of these countries don't even own their water supplies...
I think you have democracy and plutocracy mixed up... I know all you Americans like to pretend you live in a democracy, but plutocracy is where it's at...
Slashdot Mirror
Yep.. I agree... in fact, let me add another counter-argument for the other poster. This post is aimed at the previous poster and not you...
There are many other issues at play too. For example, politicians LIE. I live in Canada and it has one of the least corrupt governments in the planet (I would say it is near the top 15%). Yet, I haven't seen an election where key policians don't resort to outright lies and fabrications. It could range from "little things" like manipulating statistics to "big things" like claiming not to cut services yet doing it. As long as this keeps happening, you cannot expect the population--regardless of whether they vote or not--to be fully responsible for the politicans that are elected.
Just because you can vote means absolutely nothing with all this going on.
KoalaBear33
I'm not familiar with the different OS out there (like xBSD). But what about device support? Does FreeBSD have wide support for devices (like sound cards, Wi-Fi devices, etc).
KoalaBear33
Um sorry who are the Idiots that moded this crap Insightful, it's not Insightful it's moronic, competent management DO NOT PAY SCAM ARTIST's...
Actually that's how most businesses operate! They carry out actions that minimize risks. A classic example is the Y2K computer problem a few years ago. There were a lot of businesses that actually carried out Y2K audits, trainings, upgrades, etc even though Y2K was hardly a concern for them (ie. businesses where the rollover has no impact on the business, or systems that don't even deal with dates). The reason many companies paid a lot of money to consultants, etc for the Y2K issue is to avoid LIABILITY and NEGLIGENCE. It is in the interest of a company to spend a few hundread thousand to avoid future lawsuits relating to Y2K. If a problem did show up in the future, they can at least say "We did everything we can. We checked all our systems. So it was not as if we were negligent. We are not responsible."
That's how the world works. It wouldn't suprise me if a 100 or so Linux customers actually signed on to the SCO deal--not because they believe SCO to be correct, but rather to avoid liability in the future.
KoalaBear33
Why does SuSE do this? Is to minimize the # of people d/ling their software (and rather get them to pay)? Most people (including me) don't have high speed and therefore I won't be trying SuSE any time soon...
KoalaBear33
This is the ideal point for Mandrake to seriously attack the consumer market. With Red Hat out of the picture, I think Mandrake can easily fill the gap. If Mandrake doesn't rebound in the near future, they are gone IMO...
KoalaBear33
The reason it doesn't happen is because the VAST MAJORITY of consumers do NOT have high-speed. Distributing online just doesn't work right now (just like selling heavy content online doesn't work because very few have the bandwidth to d/l the stuff).
Having said this, businesses (at least large enterprises) have access to high-speed so the model can work for them.
KoalaBear33
It's pretty hard to sell low-end consumers on a product they can get for free.
This argument is moot. The VAST majority of the consumers (I'm not talking about geeks here, who are a minority) do not download software. This is especially true with Linux distros which are several CDs. Often, they don't have access to high-speed connections, don't have CD-burners (or aren't familiar with burning CD-ROMs. eg. some have no idea what an ISO file is or how to burn a bootable ISO) and so forth. Also, do not forget that most of these people need printed documentation (how many newbies can actually install without looking at some sort of quick guide? Do they even know how to boot off a CD-ROM?).
Even though Linux is free, I do not think consumers will ever get it for free (unless high-speed becomes a standard, which likely won't be the case for 10+ years). I think there WILL be a retail channel that will exist. My feeling is Mandrake is probably best suited to take over. Don't get me wrong: Linux will still be cheaper but I don't think people will get it for free.
KoalaBear33
Agree wholeheartedly. I started a small Linux-based services company (still in the early stages and doing badly :( ), and one thing that I can attest to is that Red Hat mainly cares about large enterprises. Everything they do is geared towards them. As an example, Red Hat has no partnership programs. In addition, Red Hat's boxed sets cost more than SuSE or Mandrake. Since I am gearing my business towards small and medium businesses (SME, aka SMB), none of this helps. For example, SMEs often don't have high speed connection (can'd d/l) and have to rely on boxed sets.
KoalaBear33
There is one thing you are overlooking... money.
Yes, the politicians are voted in. But money plays a HUGE role in all this. What money does, among other things, is enable you to carry out actions that you otherwise wouldn't be able to. For example, advertising and other mass "brainwashing" campaigns. I hate to say it but humans fall for that kind of stuff. After all, how can you possibly explain how Americans fought a war in Iraq without any evidence, or how most Americans don't even know they invaded Panama, or they were behind the brutal regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala? The answer lies in information and brainwashing techniques... If politicians or governments didn't carry out these activities then what you are saying will be true: people voting should be responsible.
On a related point, regardless of who wins, the winner will always grant special rights to people donated the most money to his/her campaign. Make no mistake about it. This is why wealthy individuals, unions and corporations donate a lot of money to parties (no, they are not doing it because they are charitable--in particular, for-profit bodies like corporations are certainly not charitable). Once somone is elected, they grant ACCESS to their close confidants, party donors, etc. What this means is that whoever that donated to the party or the person will have greater ACCESS. Will this translate into a benefit for the donor? In most cases, yes.
For all these reasons (and many more), countries like USA are really plutocracies--not democracy! If you don't think so, just look around. Study countries and see what happens. Americans (or Canadians or French or whatever) feel proud that they are running a "democracy" but this is no different than in a developing country. There is little difference...
KoalaBear33
Corporations operate within the rules set before them. It is up to us to set the rules appropriately. It is naive to design a system based on optimistic assumptions or altriusm.
;) Anyway, I LOVE philosophy so I'm not quite like you... my lack of respect is only for economists (and to some extent politicians and senior executives)....I actually took some economics courses in university so it's not like as if I'm ignorant. The reason I hate them is because economics is supposed to be a social science. Economics is supposed to study ways to improve human society. I don't feel that modern economics does that. Economists do not think outside the box. Instead of asking 'what is best for society?' they keep asking 'GIVERN CAPITALISM, what is best for society?'. I can never forgive them for that. I hope you are not an economist ;)
Corporations are the biggest influencers of government policy (especially international policies). The vast majority of NGO spending is from large corporations. The free trade agreements are literally written by corporations, with governments acting as proxies. The disagreement between Canada vs USA is nothing compared to the damage done to poor, weak countries who cannot stand up for themselves. Maybe the corporations don't deserve the full blame but at least they should be viewed as opportunists taking advantage of the exploitable situation.
My point is economic progress has a side effect: higher standards of living. This will virtually eliminate such human rights violations.
I think this is the main point that seperates us. You actually believe that economic progress will result in better human rights. Needless to say, I don't believe that to be true. The evidence seems to support me more than you. Let's see... Singapore, the most free-market oriented and wealthy country in South-East Asia yet totalitarian... Saudi Arabia/Qatar/Oman/etc are some of the richest countries on the planet. Yet they abuse people more than many poor countries... Mexico. Pretty decent compared to other Latin American countries. Its human rights situation hasn't improved in the last 10 years even though it has progressed. Are you going to wait 100 years? And so on...
I think you fail to note how humans progress (from a social viewpoint). Nothing comes free; people have to fight for everything! Even in USA, people had to fight to get unions, worker rights, women's rights, etc!!! One of USA's closest friends, Saudi Arabia, is very rich (people there basically get free education and stuff) but they don't have many human rights. This just debunks your view that wealth results in improved human rights situation.
Having said that, I guess there is SOME effect of prosperity (although, some sociologists will tell you that humans started practicing mass slavery right after they became prosperous (circa 200-0BCE Egypt)). My point is that the economic prosperity is so negligible or that the harm done is far greater that it is not worth it...
I used to think such things also (economists, philosophers, etc. are idiots). I then became less ignorant which quickly remedied my superiority complex.
I think you just became dumber by following that path
The companies are not trampling *your* rights, so those statements from that perspective are invalid.
I am not concerned with humanity! I am talking about the whole world. Why? Because *I* care about it. If some guy gets exploited 1000 kilometers from here, it doesn't affect me at all--but I care! Similarly, if some animal I have never heard of becomes extinct, it doesn't impact me--but I care!
National debt has nothing to do with free market and private property/capitalism
I'm getting too tired of typing so I'm going to cut it off rather abruptly. For now, I'll say that you are right to a large extent. Pure capitalism calls for small government (only to protect the property owners, who incidentally are the w
Still don't see your point... ok let's say the first industrialists were capitalists (I'm assuming you are correct on that). So what? As I said, ANYONE can be an industrialist. You need to look no further than the Communists (say Soviet Union). They basically managed to convert their agarian society into an industrial society. In fact that is the main accomplishment in USSR. So what is your point?
KoalaBear33
Just to clarify, I'm talking about capitalism as a system (I think you are only referring to free markets). I'm not a big fan of free markets but markets have to be part of some system. Just talking about free markets really doesn't mean much (it's like talking about freedom of speech when the courts are corrupt. For instance, the vast majority of countries grant freedom of speech to their citizens (usually due to the constitution or some law). Yet, one hardly has freedom of speech in these countries). Europe (say the Scandenavian(sp?) countries) practice free market while USA does the same thing. However, Europe is more socialist (their policies are anti-capitalist eg. subsidies for weaker sectors, helping the poor, medicare, etc). I think it is better to concentrate on capitalism rather than free market.
:) and we'll see who is right. To prove my point, watch what China will do. It will not be capitalistic yet it will be a dominant country. I think it will basically play hardball like USA does (USA, in case you are familiar, preaches one thing but does another).
It has in developed nations. What evidence do you have that it doesn't?
The VAST majority of the world practices capitalism. Granted, the market isn't as open as in USA but the point is that it hasn't worked in the majority of the countries. The classic example is South America. USA has been basically running their economy for the last 15 years and it is worse now than ever. They followed the US neo-liberal economic vision yet ended up worse off. South America is a total write-off even though it was the one region that accepted the US plans without any reservations.
The reason Europe and North America have done well has little to do with capitalism. It has to do with all sorts of other reasons (including technological innovation, greater scientific research, better management of countries, military power, racism/colonialism, resources, etc). I know I can't prove what I'm saying. The only thing I can say is to come back to me in 15 years
KoalaBear33
hmm... what does industrialization have to do with capitalism? Communism, fascism, dictatorships, etc were all very good industrialists too. In fact, Nazi Germany was one of the top industrialists of all time. If they survived longer (I'm not saying this is good at all), they certainly could have developed a very inudstrial nation.
KoalaBear33
I don't think Capitalism would collapse, not in America anyway. It's too much a part of the American identity. I could certainly see a strong nationalist movement, though.
Perhaps it will be one of the last countries where capitalism will collapse (kind of like how Britain is one of the last countries that maintained monarchy). If USA switches to nationalism, it could easy become fascist (since most Americans are conservative). At that point, I wonder if capitalism will matter at all.
KoalaBear33
If it gets this far, take it to the UN as such treatment is certainly a human rights violation. Even if the women themselves could not do so, there are many, many others who would gladly do it on their behalf.
UN does not enforce anything. It is a "voluntary" organization. The only time they act is when it is a grave danger to humanity (even then, they can only impose economic sanctions, which accomplishes nothing).
I'm not trying to bash the UN since I like it very much. However, it should be noted that it doesn't enforce any of its treaties. I would guess that at least 100 countries are breaking 1 treaty each day.
KoalaBear33
lol that is the stupidest thing ever... so you think capitalism will eliminate poverty and exploitation?
KoalaBear33
Environmental harm: undoubtedly. But the damage is distributed across the globe instead of centralized in industrial nations. This makes it easier for the natural earth cycles to re-absorb. Additionally, these countries were going to jump into industrialization eventually anyway. Better to do it with our more advanced, cleaner technologies, than to start from scratch with coal burning and repeat all of our mistakes.
:( The workers will lose power because all the worker rights gained over the last 100 years are being lost. The places that these corporations are moving to have almost no worker rights. It took us 70+ years to implement minimum wages and mandatory holidays, not to mention elimination of child labour. The countries these companies are moving to grant none of these rights. I, as a worker, loses the benefit. It's almost as if we have to restart again. I consider this to be a loss!
;) One day you'll realize that you have been living a lie...
These countries' environmental regulations are FAR weaker than in developed countries. You can get away with a LOT more in those countries. In addition, free trade agreements put trade above the environment. I can't remmeber off the top of my head but there were a few cases (I think it was some Carribean country) where a corporation actually sued the govt and won. The environmental regulations were stronger than what the free trade agreement allowed, so it had to be struck down.
Harm to workers: they treat their workers worse than here, but undoubtedly the work is to their advantage otherwise they would not be doing it.
You are missing the whole point. You can walk into some parts of Africa, and start practicing SLAVERY. Yes, that's right; it still happens. Does that make it righteous?
Ultimately, it is unclear whether outsourcing actually increases the gap between rich and poor, and unless you are a brilliant economist and post a detailed breakdown, I don't think you can assert this point with any appreciable degree of confidence.
Given that I consider most economists to be a bunch of fools (the equivalent to modern day alchemists), I doubt I can come up with any eonomic evidence. You can't prove the counterpoint either. Therefore, this point will be nothing more than an argument at this point in time.
In your fantasy land of "evil capitalists", they already have all the money, and thus all the power anyway. They already own all of the physical assets of the company, they already own all of the means of production. What further power over workers could they possibly gain?
I WISH capitalism was a fantasy for then reality would be even better. Unfortunately it isn't
If the past 200 or so years of capitalism has shown us anything, it is that free competition benefits us all. Weak arguments against the "evils" of capitalism do not outweigh the evidence.
The benefits of capitalism are an illusion. All you capitalism supporters don't realize one thing. THe only reason capitalism has done so well in the past is because it has MORTGAGED THE FUTURE for the present. It must make you happy to see practically every country, including USA, end up with massive debts
KoalaBear33
It is harder to organize worker movements nowadays for two reasons. The countries where these movements need to be organized are less liberal than Europe 60 years ago. Most of the poor countries are very ruthless (more so than how Europe was 100 years ago).
The other reason is that free trade ensures that these companies can keep moving. If workers in say India try gaining more rights, coroporations will move to say Malaysia. And then to Africa and so on. I'm not saying that all industries can move easily (the workers have to be able to do the job, resources must be present, etc). Nevertheless I think it will be tough...
KoalaBear33
We used this program to create our brochures with limited success. I think I was using 0.9 (some beta or development version or something--can't remember). It crashed quite often...dragging text boxes and the like wasn't very good...
:(
Having said all this, this is the best program AFAIK that supports CMYK output (on Linux). I hope they fixed the bugs. It is pretty good for your typical stuff. It can output PDF and EPS (unfortunately no PS, which some printers required--converting screws up).
Thanks to the deverlopers. Hoepfully it'll be improved to the point where it can be used by a typical user.
BTW, when is GIMP going to support CMYK colour?
KoalaBear33
The sad thing is that I graduated too late. I missed the tech boom by an year or two. I basically ended up without a job since I graduated...and I didn't even benefit at all :( ... I knew I should have gone into social science or philosophy--at least my heart will be in the right place then :(:(:(
KoalaBear33
I think USA is going to go into deflation and not get out of it (hence resulting in the collapse of capitalism). I hate to say it but I can't see what will stop USA from becoming the next Japan. In case you are not familiar, Japan has been in a recession for like 10 years! Their interest rates have been close to 0% for 10 years!!! Same thing might happen in USA if things don't pick up. Once that happens, the government (err, rather the Central Bank) will not be able to control the economy with the monetary policy (ie. by setting interest rates, printing money, etc).
:(
We'll see if I'm right
KoalaBear33
However, there is work in the US that cannot or will not be outsourced: face-to-face time, collaborative efforts, or innovative ideas. No one knows and manipulates american culture and politics better than americans.
The problem is that there are too few cases like that. Sure there are jobs that will never be out-sourced, for whatever reason. But how many such jobs are there?
KoalaBear33
Care to explain how free trade results in better human rights?
The vast majority of the countries practice some form of free market capitalism, yet they are some of the worst on the planet. The capitalist think-tank Cato institute claims that Singapore is the more free (as in trade) country in the world. Can anyone really say it is the most free? Or has the best human rights? I don't thinks so!
KoalaBear33
Attempting to improve the poor countries via corporations is one of the stupidest things ever. It will never work. Why? Because the corporations only care about one thing: money! They don't care about the welfare of anyone. There might be a short term benefit in those countries but those people iwll always be held as slaves by the corporations.
:(
You are seriously delusional if you think that these foreign corporations are in these countries to improve the countries. If anything, these countries are being sold out to the foreigners. Some of these countries don't even own their water supplies...
I digress...
KoalaBear33
I think you have democracy and plutocracy mixed up... I know all you Americans like to pretend you live in a democracy, but plutocracy is where it's at...
KoalaBear33