Then why not just sell the better card at an intermediate price (or the lower price). If they can afford to sell a great card at a lower price, why even bother with designing a second one?
A more important bottleneck to computing speed is machine architecture (the topology of the I/O, memory, cpu, etc.). It doesn't matter much if your code can be easily parallelized to 128 processors, if all 128 of them are blocked waiting for data on the same bus. 2-4 processors is probably the upper limit of the "shared memory bus architecture", not of the serial computation paradigm. Once we move to an architecture with more than one memory bus (like NUMA), then it would time to worry about the issues you raise.
Hes such a whitehat he can pay my bandwidth bill for me.
Who's going to pay for your bandwidth when the real worm gets out of hand? Better a pre-emptive strike from a beneficial source with minor inconveniences than a serious problem from a malicious source which would cause even more traffic problems.
Except that Tesla also thought we should 'beam' electrical power through the air by generating masive RF fields;
Actually, this way not have been the case:
http://www.amasci.com/tesla/tmistk.html
This postulates that Tesla was trying to use earth/ground as a transmission line which concurs with everything I have read on the subject. Sounds somewhat plausible (even from an electrical engineering standpoint).
As a result you simply cannot take out the grid like this in any European country unless the country has grown complacent and has stopped updating the models to account for change in power usage patterns.
Which is exactly the case here. Nothing wrong with our models (speaking as an electrical engineer); everything to do with complacency and politics.
Since military power is realized through wars, I think the extreme cases are what matter. Nazi Germany and Soviet Union are considered to be two of hte top militaries in the last 100 years, yet they lacked capital.
They had capital, just not the same organization of capital we had. Capital is essentially a synonym for "resource", "wealth" or "means of production". Nazi Germany had incredible means of production and resources. They also had better military strategies which is the main reason they had such a distinct initial advantage. The allies thought they were still fighting "trench wars", while the germans were using aviation and technological advances to their advantage.
It is the actual, economic/dictionary definition. If I am wrong, then the whole world is wrong.
By that definition, even monarchy, feudalism, and merchantilism are forms of capitalism--which they are not!
No, the lords/dukes/monarchs owned all resources in such systems. The people were merely permitted to work the land as long as they paid a share to the feudal lord. These are closer to socialism than capitalism in that all control is centralized.
Free markets are a core principle of capitalism.
No it is a separate principle. We currently have a capitalist system, but non-free markets since they are heavily government regulated.
Similarly, your simplistic definition of socialism is misleading to a large extent. For instance, a core principle of socialism is egalitarianism, especially the creation of a classless society. Classless society is far more important to socialism than market/central-authority.
You are referring to the philosophical/political goals of the socialist movement, not the economic organization which is what we were discussing.
There is no free market SYSTEM. Free market is a principle, like democracy, or freedom or whatever.
Democracy is a political system. The free market is a resource allocation and distribution system (ie. provides means for resources to be allocated and moved around). Individual freedom is a principle (and the core principle behind free markets+capitalism).
Your "or whatever" statement is exactly the problem precise definitions rectify. If two parties don't precisely define their terms, then they can't be said to really understand on what they agree or disagree. For simplicity I am using the standard definitions of all economic and political terms, but for some reason you seem adament on changing them.
For instance, if you claim to support free markets but (say) not capitalism, then what party would you vote for?
Capitalism is necessary precondition for a free market (as we are using the term). The converse is not true (a free market is not a necessary condition for capitalism) so your statement does not make sense.
My objections are with capitalism. I don't care about free market in and of itself, although I don't support market-based systems.
So you don't support the principle that people should be able to own things?
Actually that's what USA has been doing. It has been breaking down all the barriers, eliminating nationally owned resources, etc. So it is doing exactly what you mean.
Well, in any great social change there is a period of instability. We'll see how it turns out.
I just love how capitalists (or free-market supporters) love taking credit for all the science. In case you haven't figured it out, humans have been developing technologies and furthering science for ages. Private R&D labs are irrelevant. Many of the key discoveries and developments have nothing to do with profit motives (eg. Newton's works, Einstein's work, cures for many diseases, astrophysics, etc).
Guess what: every scientific advancement has been funded by someone (either the researcher himself, or a third party). Every bit of funding came from someone's pocket. In feudal times and the renaissance it came from monarchies who wanted great achievements and art they could enjoy or hold over their . In industrial times a great deal was funded by industrialists. Universities which paid educators (like Newton) were funded by private interests (though not necessarily businesses or industrialists).
Sure there are exceptions, I'm not so naive to think that all science was pursued and funded by private interests seeking to further their own ends. Galileo might have been such an example. But the general rule is: scientific progress was funded by someones elses money. I don't see how it can be any other way; equipment is and was expensive and
England was one of the richest country 50 years ago. Canada was rich 50 years ago too. Japan was an Imperial power, that was unmatched by any Asian country 50 years ago. Your examples are just plain wrong. These countries were already at or near the top of the world 50 years ago (even 100 years ago). Even USA was wealthy 50 or 100 years ago (although not like now).
Your conclusions are flawed. 50 years ago we were well past the industrial revolution. 300 years ago we were just starting it and we were just as poor as any other third world country (by todays standards).
Well, like I said, your "experiments" in South America are doing well alright
My experiments? Don't confuse enacting free market capitalism with attempted control of foreign markets. The former is what I suggest, the latter is what is happening in south africa (if you are to be believed).
In any case, you are missing one of my arguments that capitalism mortgages the future for the present.
I already answered it: private enterprises do not incur debt else they would fail; debt as seen in federal deficits are incurred by governments and are a result of government spending. Please cite some corporate or private business budgets that demonstrate a continuous deficit.
If by "mortgaging the future" you mean consumption of non-renewable resources (such that consumption removes the possibility of future use), then yes free enterprise does consume such resources. Guess what though: so will any other economic system. Nothing to do with capitalism.
I'm glad you were able to divine the intentions of all freenet users. I'm sure most of the users feel this way, but not all of them.
I was speaking of the goals of the freenet project. Whether users wish to use this technology for ill, then it is their decision but the benign users should not be punished.
If the people running freenet believed the government, corps, or whoever makes up the man were in favor of freedom and privacy, there would be no reason to run freenet. Freenet is subversive to it's core. Freenet is definitely a conspiracy.
Well then this just gets silly. Any action which runs contrary to the goals of any group is subversive to its goals and thus is conspiratorial. Open source is subversive to closed source software. Independent music labels are subservise to the RIAA cartel. Specialist certifications are subversive to university educations. Freenet is subversive to invasion of privacy. If this is really your intended meaning, then the "conspiratorial" and "subversive" nature of freenet is not all that sinister.
Please look up the definition of conspiracy as you are misusing it. People running freenet nodes do so to promote and protect freedom, not necessarily to pursue evil/unlawful ends (which would make it an actual conspiracy). That freenet can be used for "evil"/illegal purposes does not automatically offset this.
Except for the fact that freenet nodes do not and *cannot* what data they are storing. Thus they cannot enforce any restrictions on what goes on their computer, and they achieve "common carrier" status. The telephone company is not liable if it routes terrorist phone calls is it?
Just to clarify, I'm talking about capitalism as a system (I think you are only referring to free markets).
The actual definitions:
capitalism: an economic system based on private ownership of capital
Thus a capitalist system is one where resources can be privately owned by individuals, groups, etc. The converse is socialism where all resources are publically owned (typically by the state).
The free market is any market that is regulation-free (ie. no controls implemented by the government).
Objections should be directed where they are justified.
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.
If they have truly been "running" the economy, then this is the reason it is in shambles. You cannot "run" an economy as the former Soviet Union demonstrated. You must let it run (ie. make it a free market, not a planned economy since that is an intractable problem).
Personally, I would actually attribute a great deal of the economic troubles to the political upheaval. Perceived political instability == less investor confidence == economic downturn.
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,
Both driven by private funding in R&D labs which went on to produce viable products.
better management of countries,
Many argue that countries with less "management" actually do better.
military power,
Can't run a military without capital. Can't get capital without a powerful economy. Can't get a powerful, stable economy without capitalism. Note that I did say stable.
racism/colonialism,
Colonialism has something to do with some countries' progress. Not all. I don't see how racism enters into this except perhaps through slavery. Is this what you meant?
resources, etc
Yes, the west has an abundance of resources which has helped its economic dominance. It does not explain it all though. Resources mean nothing without the means to use them.
My point was that the first industrialists were criticized in precisely the way you are criticizing capitalists and for exactly the same reasons.
You said that trying to improve poor countries via institutions whos only focus is money is stupid. I provide many counter examples in the propaganda against industrialists whos focus was the same: money.
England, Canada, the US, Japan, etc. all got where they were thanks to private enterprise and their focus on the bottom line. We were just as poor as these poor countries are now. It took us hundreds of years to get where we are. With our help, it could take these poor countries as little as 20. All thanks to the "almighty buck".
The problem is that they aren't telling them NOT to, and are in fact aiding and abbeting by making it profitable to treat the employees this way.
To be perfectly honest, it seems like a case of ignorance on the executive end. It would seem rather obvious to them that the employees should not be beaten; so obvious that the possibility wouldn't even cross their minds.
Again, you're probably right, but is it unreasonable to expect American companies to refuse to do business with a company that allows it's forement to rape their employees at gunpoint? Perhaps I'm living in fantasy land here, but I really don't see that as being an unreasonable expectation.
Getting somewhat philosophical here, but it is my observation that it is unreasonable to expect anything from anyone. Particularly if it's something that seems obvious or rational.
The other problem is evidence. Law enforcement has no jurisdiction other countries so we can gather no admissible evidence with which we could keep these companies in line.
We as consumers can demand it, but gathering sufficient mass to effect a company change is unlikely due to mass ignorance (most of whom seem to wish to remain so). Economic progress will eventually sort these matters out as it did in nearly every other developed nation, so all is not lost.
I don't imply anything, I directly state that by doing business with these companies, and thereby making their behavior profitable, we condone it.
Companies show no favour to any one method. As long as revenue is increased or costs are cut, it's good. Companies are not like children in that we are training them to behave in a certain way. Companies do not really learn. So "condoning" an action is not as detrimental to the future of a company as it can be for the development of a child. The damage lasts only for as long as that particular method remains the most profitable of which the company is aware.
In socio-economic dialogue there is the concept of "externalities", which are consequences which affect others more than it affects the perpetrator. In the absence of environmental laws, dumping toxic waste in a nearby residential neighbourhood is an example of an externality. All positive effects go to the company since they have a cheap nearby dumping ground and all negative effects are suffered by the local residents. The purpose of environmental and other such protection laws are to internalize externalities, ie. move the costs back to the perpetrator thus encouraging the right decisions. Thus, we fine dangerous dumping, etc.
*Enforcing* human rights in your factories has positive externalities, but no internal positive impact on the bottom line (indeed, active enforcement of such policies has direct a negative impact). Thus executives see no point (ignoring for the moment whether it even occurred to them that this is necessary).
The further problem with externalities in other countries are jurisdiction. Globalization has allowed economic and trade mobility, but since local governments like their tight control over their territories, legal mobility hasn't increased. Corporations are now ephemeral entities crossing state and country lines and theoretically above any one country's laws. Thus is the difficulty.
Since legal mobility isn't likely to come about, we are reduced to economic pressures. I boycott and encourage others to do so on such important matters, but I am not deluded as to the likelihood of success in my efforts. I am comforted by the fact that people are not totally brainless and will realize, just as our forefathers did, that they do not need to take such abuse.
As for the rest of your comment, try this on for size: "Here's a multimillion dollar manufacturing contract, one of the conditions you must agree to is to treat your employees humanely."
That would be great if it worked. Unfortunately, as the saying goes, people don't know what they've got till it's gone. If you give them a few
what does industrialization have to do with capitalism?
The first industrialists were capitalists. These same arguments were spouted back then with the same moral outrage you display. This position is still wrong, as it was back then.
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.
I'm sure this is the case. I believe there was/is a similar dispute between Canada and the US. However, all this does is highlight a problem area which needs to be addressed. 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. (Most) people don't think that way, so such a system will naturally fail.
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?
My point is economic progress has a side effect: higher standards of living. This will virtually eliminate such human rights violations. Of course poor working conditions are horrible, but we need an effective means of addressing the issue. I maintain that economic progress is the most effective mechanism of change. The alternative is force (typically military action). One or the other. Choose.
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.
I used to think such things also (economists, philosophers, etc. are idiots). I then became less ignorant which quickly remedied my superiority complex. I suggest you try the same. Blatantly stating you know nothing of economics does not entitle you to any sort of authoritative position on the subject.
You can't prove the counterpoint either. Therefore, this point will be nothing more than an argument at this point in time.
We'll just have to wait and see.
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!
The companies are not trampling *your* rights, so those statements from that perspective are invalid. They apply only to those working under harsh conditions. Well guess what, developed nations started in the same boat and fought for those rights. Why would you expect to be any different for other countries?
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
That's just silly. National debt has nothing to do with free market and private property/capitalism. Debt results from government spending. The free market (ideally) has nothing to do with the government. If you have a problem with debt, go talk to your representative and tell them to cut down on government intervention (ie. "programs to help"). Better yet, tell them to keep their grubby hands out of all economic matters and stick to their original purpose: protecting the rights of its citizens.
But lets look at a more common situation, such as the ever-popular Nike factory in Vietnam. The women who work there are forced to work long hours while being mentally, physically, and sexually abused, at gunpoint!
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.
I doubt very much that the CEOs or managers are telling the foreman of these factories to behave in such a manner. Likely, this sort of treatement is common to all women in said country and so it seems silly to believe that this behaviour would suddenly disappear once an American company sets foot in the land.
You imply that setting foot there would be condoning this behaviour. Not true. Instead, why not look at it as an invasion of values because as living standards increase, so will working conditions; eventually they will reach the levels in developed nations. Any other method of enforcing the citizen's human rights involves military action, and I'd rather avoid losing thousands of lives, wouldn't you?
The one remaining choice of not setting foot in these countries at all, leaves them in abject poverty, and does not improve the social conditions whatsoever. One could argue that this is the most acceptable solution: either these countries enact and enforce human rights, or they do not benefit from economic prosperity. But one could also argue that undoing it from within is the *more* humane route, as people in power rarely like being pushed around and might simply let the people suffer rather than give in (read: Cuba).
Do ya suppose that the additional $4k went to money heaven? That cash didn't just evaporate, it's just not with the same person anymore. Now the car company has the additional $4k, with which it builds more cars, pays salaries, and subcontracts parts.
Actually, the government takes it, ie. import taxes. That was the point of his post.
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.
Convenient how you left out the implications of "and so on...". Alow me to complete them for you:
And so on until there are no more countries with such poor standards of living. Thus, the problem of world poverty and exploitation is solved.
Wow, that actually sounds pretty good. Sign me up.
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.
Allow me to rephrase your words to demonstrate a point:
Attempting to improve the U.S. via industrialization is one of the stupidest things ever. It will never work. Why? Because the industrialists only care about one thing: money! They don't care about the welfare of anyone.
Now open your eyes and take a look around at our prospering, wealthy nations. Seems to have turned out pretty well.
It is instead a mechanism being used by various powerful groups to further their economic goals.
Welcome to capitalism and the free market. What did you think economics and industry was about?
So to put it simply, everyone can get all hot and sweaty about "globalization", but what we currently have is not globalization. It is instead, simply a mechanism which detrimental to one group of people to the benefit of another.
Call it what you will, but his points remain unchallenged. He has demonstrated that "globabalization", in his terms, benefits us all. You have merely disagreed with his use of term and not countered any of his points, though you take the liberty of disagreeing with him in this comment. Try addressing his argument next time.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why not just sell the better card at an intermediate price (or the lower price). If they can afford to sell a great card at a lower price, why even bother with designing a second one?
A more important bottleneck to computing speed is machine architecture (the topology of the I/O, memory, cpu, etc.). It doesn't matter much if your code can be easily parallelized to 128 processors, if all 128 of them are blocked waiting for data on the same bus. 2-4 processors is probably the upper limit of the "shared memory bus architecture", not of the serial computation paradigm. Once we move to an architecture with more than one memory bus (like NUMA), then it would time to worry about the issues you raise.
Hes such a whitehat he can pay my bandwidth bill for me.
Who's going to pay for your bandwidth when the real worm gets out of hand? Better a pre-emptive strike from a beneficial source with minor inconveniences than a serious problem from a malicious source which would cause even more traffic problems.
The real face of capitalism would have all fraudsters go to jail. This is really the face of hypocrisy and friendly back scratching.
Except that Tesla also thought we should 'beam' electrical power through the air by generating masive RF fields;
Actually, this way not have been the case:
http://www.amasci.com/tesla/tmistk.html
This postulates that Tesla was trying to use earth/ground as a transmission line which concurs with everything I have read on the subject. Sounds somewhat plausible (even from an electrical engineering standpoint).
As a result you simply cannot take out the grid like this in any European country unless the country has grown complacent and has stopped updating the models to account for change in power usage patterns.
Which is exactly the case here. Nothing wrong with our models (speaking as an electrical engineer); everything to do with complacency and politics.
Machines are brittle and expensive to repair and maintain. So:
1. Not all industries will find them economical
2. There will be huge growth in industries to repair machine failures
All this ignores the highly dubious assumption that machines/computers as we have been building them *CAN* achieve human intelligence levels.
Sorry, forgot this part...
Since military power is realized through wars, I think the extreme cases are what matter. Nazi Germany and Soviet Union are considered to be two of hte top militaries in the last 100 years, yet they lacked capital.
They had capital, just not the same organization of capital we had. Capital is essentially a synonym for "resource", "wealth" or "means of production". Nazi Germany had incredible means of production and resources. They also had better military strategies which is the main reason they had such a distinct initial advantage. The allies thought they were still fighting "trench wars", while the germans were using aviation and technological advances to their advantage.
You are relyin on a simplistic defintion.
It is the actual, economic/dictionary definition. If I am wrong, then the whole world is wrong.
By that definition, even monarchy, feudalism, and merchantilism are forms of capitalism--which they are not!
No, the lords/dukes/monarchs owned all resources in such systems. The people were merely permitted to work the land as long as they paid a share to the feudal lord. These are closer to socialism than capitalism in that all control is centralized.
Free markets are a core principle of capitalism.
No it is a separate principle. We currently have a capitalist system, but non-free markets since they are heavily government regulated.
Similarly, your simplistic definition of socialism is misleading to a large extent. For instance, a core principle of socialism is egalitarianism, especially the creation of a classless society. Classless society is far more important to socialism than market/central-authority.
You are referring to the philosophical/political goals of the socialist movement, not the economic organization which is what we were discussing.
There is no free market SYSTEM. Free market is a principle, like democracy, or freedom or whatever.
Democracy is a political system. The free market is a resource allocation and distribution system (ie. provides means for resources to be allocated and moved around). Individual freedom is a principle (and the core principle behind free markets+capitalism).
Your "or whatever" statement is exactly the problem precise definitions rectify. If two parties don't precisely define their terms, then they can't be said to really understand on what they agree or disagree. For simplicity I am using the standard definitions of all economic and political terms, but for some reason you seem adament on changing them.
For instance, if you claim to support free markets but (say) not capitalism, then what party would you vote for?
Capitalism is necessary precondition for a free market (as we are using the term). The converse is not true (a free market is not a necessary condition for capitalism) so your statement does not make sense.
My objections are with capitalism. I don't care about free market in and of itself, although I don't support market-based systems.
So you don't support the principle that people should be able to own things?
Actually that's what USA has been doing. It has been breaking down all the barriers, eliminating nationally owned resources, etc. So it is doing exactly what you mean.
Well, in any great social change there is a period of instability. We'll see how it turns out.
I just love how capitalists (or free-market supporters) love taking credit for all the science. In case you haven't figured it out, humans have been developing technologies and furthering science for ages. Private R&D labs are irrelevant. Many of the key discoveries and developments have nothing to do with profit motives (eg. Newton's works, Einstein's work, cures for many diseases, astrophysics, etc).
Guess what: every scientific advancement has been funded by someone (either the researcher himself, or a third party). Every bit of funding came from someone's pocket. In feudal times and the renaissance it came from monarchies who wanted great achievements and art they could enjoy or hold over their . In industrial times a great deal was funded by industrialists. Universities which paid educators (like Newton) were funded by private interests (though not necessarily businesses or industrialists).
Sure there are exceptions, I'm not so naive to think that all science was pursued and funded by private interests seeking to further their own ends. Galileo might have been such an example. But the general rule is: scientific progress was funded by someones elses money. I don't see how it can be any other way; equipment is and was expensive and
England was one of the richest country 50 years ago. Canada was rich 50 years ago too. Japan was an Imperial power, that was unmatched by any Asian country 50 years ago. Your examples are just plain wrong. These countries were already at or near the top of the world 50 years ago (even 100 years ago). Even USA was wealthy 50 or 100 years ago (although not like now).
Your conclusions are flawed. 50 years ago we were well past the industrial revolution. 300 years ago we were just starting it and we were just as poor as any other third world country (by todays standards).
Well, like I said, your "experiments" in South America are doing well alright
My experiments? Don't confuse enacting free market capitalism with attempted control of foreign markets. The former is what I suggest, the latter is what is happening in south africa (if you are to be believed).
In any case, you are missing one of my arguments that capitalism mortgages the future for the present.
I already answered it: private enterprises do not incur debt else they would fail; debt as seen in federal deficits are incurred by governments and are a result of government spending. Please cite some corporate or private business budgets that demonstrate a continuous deficit.
If by "mortgaging the future" you mean consumption of non-renewable resources (such that consumption removes the possibility of future use), then yes free enterprise does consume such resources. Guess what though: so will any other economic system. Nothing to do with capitalism.
I'm glad you were able to divine the intentions of all freenet users. I'm sure most of the users feel this way, but not all of them.
I was speaking of the goals of the freenet project. Whether users wish to use this technology for ill, then it is their decision but the benign users should not be punished.
If the people running freenet believed the government, corps, or whoever makes up the man were in favor of freedom and privacy, there would be no reason to run freenet. Freenet is subversive to it's core. Freenet is definitely a conspiracy.
Well then this just gets silly. Any action which runs contrary to the goals of any group is subversive to its goals and thus is conspiratorial. Open source is subversive to closed source software. Independent music labels are subservise to the RIAA cartel. Specialist certifications are subversive to university educations. Freenet is subversive to invasion of privacy. If this is really your intended meaning, then the "conspiratorial" and "subversive" nature of freenet is not all that sinister.
Please look up the definition of conspiracy as you are misusing it. People running freenet nodes do so to promote and protect freedom, not necessarily to pursue evil/unlawful ends (which would make it an actual conspiracy). That freenet can be used for "evil"/illegal purposes does not automatically offset this.
Except for the fact that freenet nodes do not and *cannot* what data they are storing. Thus they cannot enforce any restrictions on what goes on their computer, and they achieve "common carrier" status. The telephone company is not liable if it routes terrorist phone calls is it?
Since all stored data is encrypted and only partial, how exactly are they going to extract this information?
Just to clarify, I'm talking about capitalism as a system (I think you are only referring to free markets).
The actual definitions:
capitalism: an economic system based on private ownership of capital
Thus a capitalist system is one where resources can be privately owned by individuals, groups, etc. The converse is socialism where all resources are publically owned (typically by the state).
The free market is any market that is regulation-free (ie. no controls implemented by the government).
Objections should be directed where they are justified.
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.
If they have truly been "running" the economy, then this is the reason it is in shambles. You cannot "run" an economy as the former Soviet Union demonstrated. You must let it run (ie. make it a free market, not a planned economy since that is an intractable problem).
Personally, I would actually attribute a great deal of the economic troubles to the political upheaval. Perceived political instability == less investor confidence == economic downturn.
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,
Both driven by private funding in R&D labs which went on to produce viable products.
better management of countries,
Many argue that countries with less "management" actually do better.
military power,
Can't run a military without capital. Can't get capital without a powerful economy. Can't get a powerful, stable economy without capitalism. Note that I did say stable.
racism/colonialism,
Colonialism has something to do with some countries' progress. Not all. I don't see how racism enters into this except perhaps through slavery. Is this what you meant?
resources, etc
Yes, the west has an abundance of resources which has helped its economic dominance. It does not explain it all though. Resources mean nothing without the means to use them.
My point was that the first industrialists were criticized in precisely the way you are criticizing capitalists and for exactly the same reasons.
You said that trying to improve poor countries via institutions whos only focus is money is stupid. I provide many counter examples in the propaganda against industrialists whos focus was the same: money.
England, Canada, the US, Japan, etc. all got where they were thanks to private enterprise and their focus on the bottom line. We were just as poor as these poor countries are now. It took us hundreds of years to get where we are. With our help, it could take these poor countries as little as 20. All thanks to the "almighty buck".
The problem is that they aren't telling them NOT to, and are in fact aiding and abbeting by making it profitable to treat the employees this way.
To be perfectly honest, it seems like a case of ignorance on the executive end. It would seem rather obvious to them that the employees should not be beaten; so obvious that the possibility wouldn't even cross their minds.
Again, you're probably right, but is it unreasonable to expect American companies to refuse to do business with a company that allows it's forement to rape their employees at gunpoint? Perhaps I'm living in fantasy land here, but I really don't see that as being an unreasonable expectation.
Getting somewhat philosophical here, but it is my observation that it is unreasonable to expect anything from anyone. Particularly if it's something that seems obvious or rational.
The other problem is evidence. Law enforcement has no jurisdiction other countries so we can gather no admissible evidence with which we could keep these companies in line.
We as consumers can demand it, but gathering sufficient mass to effect a company change is unlikely due to mass ignorance (most of whom seem to wish to remain so). Economic progress will eventually sort these matters out as it did in nearly every other developed nation, so all is not lost.
I don't imply anything, I directly state that by doing business with these companies, and thereby making their behavior profitable, we condone it.
Companies show no favour to any one method. As long as revenue is increased or costs are cut, it's good. Companies are not like children in that we are training them to behave in a certain way. Companies do not really learn. So "condoning" an action is not as detrimental to the future of a company as it can be for the development of a child. The damage lasts only for as long as that particular method remains the most profitable of which the company is aware.
In socio-economic dialogue there is the concept of "externalities", which are consequences which affect others more than it affects the perpetrator. In the absence of environmental laws, dumping toxic waste in a nearby residential neighbourhood is an example of an externality. All positive effects go to the company since they have a cheap nearby dumping ground and all negative effects are suffered by the local residents. The purpose of environmental and other such protection laws are to internalize externalities, ie. move the costs back to the perpetrator thus encouraging the right decisions. Thus, we fine dangerous dumping, etc.
*Enforcing* human rights in your factories has positive externalities, but no internal positive impact on the bottom line (indeed, active enforcement of such policies has direct a negative impact). Thus executives see no point (ignoring for the moment whether it even occurred to them that this is necessary).
The further problem with externalities in other countries are jurisdiction. Globalization has allowed economic and trade mobility, but since local governments like their tight control over their territories, legal mobility hasn't increased. Corporations are now ephemeral entities crossing state and country lines and theoretically above any one country's laws. Thus is the difficulty.
Since legal mobility isn't likely to come about, we are reduced to economic pressures. I boycott and encourage others to do so on such important matters, but I am not deluded as to the likelihood of success in my efforts. I am comforted by the fact that people are not totally brainless and will realize, just as our forefathers did, that they do not need to take such abuse.
As for the rest of your comment, try this on for size: "Here's a multimillion dollar manufacturing contract, one of the conditions you must agree to is to treat your employees humanely."
That would be great if it worked. Unfortunately, as the saying goes, people don't know what they've got till it's gone. If you give them a few
what does industrialization have to do with capitalism?
The first industrialists were capitalists. These same arguments were spouted back then with the same moral outrage you display. This position is still wrong, as it was back then.
(correction: when you say capitalism, I believe you are referring to capitalism and the free market)
It has in developed nations. What evidence do you have that it doesn't?
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.
:( 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!
I'm sure this is the case. I believe there was/is a similar dispute between Canada and the US. However, all this does is highlight a problem area which needs to be addressed. 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. (Most) people don't think that way, so such a system will naturally fail.
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?
My point is economic progress has a side effect: higher standards of living. This will virtually eliminate such human rights violations. Of course poor working conditions are horrible, but we need an effective means of addressing the issue. I maintain that economic progress is the most effective mechanism of change. The alternative is force (typically military action). One or the other. Choose.
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.
I used to think such things also (economists, philosophers, etc. are idiots). I then became less ignorant which quickly remedied my superiority complex. I suggest you try the same. Blatantly stating you know nothing of economics does not entitle you to any sort of authoritative position on the subject.
You can't prove the counterpoint either. Therefore, this point will be nothing more than an argument at this point in time.
We'll just have to wait and see.
I WISH capitalism was a fantasy for then reality would be even better. Unfortunately it isn't
The companies are not trampling *your* rights, so those statements from that perspective are invalid. They apply only to those working under harsh conditions. Well guess what, developed nations started in the same boat and fought for those rights. Why would you expect to be any different for other countries?
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
That's just silly. National debt has nothing to do with free market and private property/capitalism. Debt results from government spending. The free market (ideally) has nothing to do with the government. If you have a problem with debt, go talk to your representative and tell them to cut down on government intervention (ie. "programs to help"). Better yet, tell them to keep their grubby hands out of all economic matters and stick to their original purpose: protecting the rights of its citizens.
But lets look at a more common situation, such as the ever-popular Nike factory in Vietnam. The women who work there are forced to work long hours while being mentally, physically, and sexually abused, at gunpoint!
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.
I doubt very much that the CEOs or managers are telling the foreman of these factories to behave in such a manner. Likely, this sort of treatement is common to all women in said country and so it seems silly to believe that this behaviour would suddenly disappear once an American company sets foot in the land.
You imply that setting foot there would be condoning this behaviour. Not true. Instead, why not look at it as an invasion of values because as living standards increase, so will working conditions; eventually they will reach the levels in developed nations. Any other method of enforcing the citizen's human rights involves military action, and I'd rather avoid losing thousands of lives, wouldn't you?
The one remaining choice of not setting foot in these countries at all, leaves them in abject poverty, and does not improve the social conditions whatsoever. One could argue that this is the most acceptable solution: either these countries enact and enforce human rights, or they do not benefit from economic prosperity. But one could also argue that undoing it from within is the *more* humane route, as people in power rarely like being pushed around and might simply let the people suffer rather than give in (read: Cuba).
Do ya suppose that the additional $4k went to money heaven? That cash didn't just evaporate, it's just not with the same person anymore. Now the car company has the additional $4k, with which it builds more cars, pays salaries, and subcontracts parts.
Actually, the government takes it, ie. import taxes. That was the point of his post.
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.
Convenient how you left out the implications of "and so on...". Alow me to complete them for you:
And so on until there are no more countries with such poor standards of living. Thus, the problem of world poverty and exploitation is solved.
Wow, that actually sounds pretty good. Sign me up.
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.
Allow me to rephrase your words to demonstrate a point:
Attempting to improve the U.S. via industrialization is one of the stupidest things ever. It will never work. Why? Because the industrialists only care about one thing: money! They don't care about the welfare of anyone.
Now open your eyes and take a look around at our prospering, wealthy nations. Seems to have turned out pretty well.
It is instead a mechanism being used by various powerful groups to further their economic goals.
Welcome to capitalism and the free market. What did you think economics and industry was about?
So to put it simply, everyone can get all hot and sweaty about "globalization", but what we currently have is not globalization. It is instead, simply a mechanism which detrimental to one group of people to the benefit of another.
Call it what you will, but his points remain unchallenged. He has demonstrated that "globabalization", in his terms, benefits us all. You have merely disagreed with his use of term and not countered any of his points, though you take the liberty of disagreeing with him in this comment. Try addressing his argument next time.