I added everyone's stuff with mine and this was my reply:
"Here, lets move to the West Africa and work in a Gold Mine, I promise we'll benefit from it.”
First, moving from America to a 3ed world country to work in a Gold Mine relates nothing to capitalist opportunity, But since you brought the subject up. Socialism became popular in Africa after the 1960s. Imperial powers ruling Africa where all capitalists. Socialism swept the area because Africans saw it as being consistent with their strong tradition of family and community. The new ruling regimes where usually either inept, or completely corrupt. Take Zimbabwe for example. For a while it had high economic growth. Then Mugabe came along and seized all white farms and redistributed them among the black population. This killed off 60% of the wildlife, raised the unemployment to 60%, and created an inflation rate of 66,212.3%. (For those who don’t understand… That is fucking HUGE.)
Now lets look at Diamond mining in Botswana. 1/3 of Botswana's GDP comes from Diamond mining. Botswana was once one of the poorest countries in the world, it is now a "middle income" nation. It currently has the highest economic growth rate in the world. How has this happened? Botswana is a very free market country. There is little government regulation.
”The regulation of business is why you didn't work in a Slaughter house when you were 10 years old, unlike those of the "third world"
”Please, for the sake of my sanity, at very least look up the stages of population transition so when you groan on from your privileged perspective you aren't at least using racially biased categorizations of development. “
Child labor laws where introduced not out of humanitarian compassion, but because children would work for lower pay and were therefore taking all the jobs from adults. Why pay a grown man to slaughter a cow if a 10 year old will do it for a fraction of the price? Its similar to the illegal immigration stuff that is going on today.
Second, it is crucial to review the "evolution of population transition" in the context of governmental interference. A primary reason people were forced into corporate serfdom prior to regulatory control / labor laws was because of a lack of cheap housing, adequate food supply, etc Not business exploitation. This does not speak to the fact that many children ended up in such jobs because there were more jobs than there were people with the advent of the industrial 'revolution'.
Given the same rights as every other human being, and with parental supervision, is there really anything inherently bad about a 10 year old working in a slaughter house? Not to knock on slaughter house workers, but you really are not going to find many people with an education level above that of a 10 year old working in a chicken factory. I worked on a farm at the age of 10. God forbid the average American kid do something besides get off his lazy video game playing ass…
Kids as young as 10 can surely contribute their labors in some tasks in ways that would help them come to grips with the relationship between work and reward. Of course not every 10 year old lives on a farm. But I’ve been 10, and I wasn’t helpless.
“you ignorant piece of shit.”
You really think your going to convince anyone by spewing worthless ad hominem attacks? Well let me introduce you to the world of actually DEBATE.
”You should take your own advice.
It seams like your the kind of guy who bases their political ideals off youtube videos... NAU? You worthless piece of shit...”
No, I’m the guy who reads books, quite a few of them. I have also written them before. In fact I’m writing one on war Economics, ill show you later. But If you think im just some close minded capitalist, think again. I Read, studied, and believed, Marx and Lenin at the age of 15. I’ve since become wiser. And once again, the only thing worthless are your ad hominem attacks. And yes, NAU… You want to tell me it isn’t being made? I’ve got a copy of the legislation!
”You're right we don't have free trade, but if we did you could count on Exxon becoming Standard Oil, Bell would reform, GE and Microsoft would further monopolize, who knows maybe Viacom could become what MGM was...”
Bell was only a monopoly because of federal regulations that guaranteed its development. See 'de jure monopoly' or Corporatism cannot exist without governmental support of the corporations (especially with the rights of a 'Person'). Microsoft's monopoly similarly exists in part because of government mandates and support for MS based operating systems.
Its really all about competition. As you correctly pointed out, we do not have free trade. What we have is "corporatism". Government in collusion with corporations. These super monopolies don’t fall from the sky. They are created with the help of government through the use of lobbying for regulations and laws to promote the company while keeping out the competition.
So what do those concepts have to do with being able to freely cross clothing to Mexico without paying tariffs and going through some special permit process? It would seem that managed trade would lead to certain customs brokers privileges that would lead to imbalances similar to that caused with Standard Oil and Bell.
”Free trade isn't some kind of fantasy playground where anyone can become king, it's an anarchistic jungle of corporatism and unchecked patron-clientism.”
"anarchist corporatism"? Is that anything like a "Constitutional Anarchy" form of government? The terms contradict each other, showing that you dont have a clue what they mean. As I said, "corporatism" is when the corporations are in collusion with the government. How does one arrive at this system? It happens when you have a system of government with too much power.
You have to understand this relationship between the corporations and the more socialist style governments. The people in power are not angels. What type of person becomes a politician? The most ambitious and egocentric among us. The type of person who becomes a senator is the same type of person who becomes a CEO. And these people are in bed with each other all the time.
You must also understand that politicans DO NOT write the legislation. Drafting a Bill is a very complex thing, and I doubt more than a hand full of congress even knows where to begin. So who writes these bills? They have staff members who are trained just to do this. But most of the time, bills are written by special interest groups, PACs, or corporate lobbyists.
Take Net Neutrality for instance. Who do you think will be writing the Net Neutrality legislation? Most likely, a corporate lawyer from Comcast.
”If you want to sell shit to then open up an Ebay account.”
Is this a joke? Try opening a Ebay account to sell… Seriously, where in the world do you think everything you have comes from? Do you use your cell phone and think it works because you dialed the number? Ever think stop and think about the network, the phones lines, the satellite, and how all of it combines? Do you think you’re entitled to all the benefits of a system that sparked every new-world advancement? Yet you hate the very people that created it.
"As far as your "petrol dollar" goes you couldn't find a better case of unchecked business interests determining politics.
At the end of WWII Roosevelt made the strategic point of buddying up with Saudi Arabia before the British could after seeing SoCal's success in becoming Armico. Find me a more cost efficient fuel and I'll give you a Strong Currency, but until then "There Will Be Blood.""
Once again… You are using my argument. But it goes deeper than that. If think we are in the Middle East solely because of oil then you are sadly mistaken.
Although it probably does have an influence it isn’t the main demand. The unique thing about oil is the demand for oil is inelastic which means when the price of oil goes up, the demand doesn’t fall much, mostly due to the fact that everyone drives and no one is really going to give up driving. The gross revenue oil producers receive is Quantity x Price. So if the oil producer pumps out 6million barrels of oil the price of oil will be $50 a barrel and thus he has made 300 million dollars. BUT! If he cuts production to 4million barrels the price will rise to $90 dollars a barrel, earning him 360 million. Therefore oil producer makes more when he produces less. That is if he is alone, but the problem is he has competition. And no oil producing country is big enough to be price makers, they are all price takers. And if you are a price taker the best thing you can do is produce and much oil as possible because you have no control over the price. But if oil companies all get together and agree to limit production they can jack up the price of oil and make more money. Why? Because the demand for oil is inelastic. That is what Opec is, a cartel to get oil-producing counties to limit production thus raising prices. So Bush invaded Iraq to limit production and raise oil prices to line the pockets of his oil buddies?
Maybe an extra bonus. But is just another example of government intervention in markets. The main reason we are in the Middle East is that the fate of the dollar is tied to oil. Now everyone knows that the U.S runs two big deficits… A trade deficit and a budget deficit. Normally trade deficits work themselves out, when a country like the US runs a trade deficit, it pays for it with inflation. Our currency falls. Another country sees the good exchange rate and buys a bunch of American goods. Thus canceling out the deficit and restoring the dollar. And we are back to square one.
But… that’s not happening. And the reason it is not happening is because everyone still wants dollars, and the reason is oil. That is because the big oil producing nations only trade in dollars. So if a country wants oil… Which can be shortened to “If a country”. Then you had to or have to have plenty of dollars around. This means that despite two huge deficits the U.S is running, the dollar is still prized for its ability to get oil. (Believe it or not but this is the short explanation)
Budget deficit also add to inflation because budget deficits have the same effect as printing money. Because when a government runs a deficit it issues a bond. And this bond pays back more than what the bondholder put in. That payback comes from taxes or just printing money(IE lowering the interest rates) But when the bond expires there will be more money floating around than there were before. Causing more inflation. The main reasons for the budget deficits are the 3 main welfare programs.
Medicare/caid - $673 Billion
Social Secutiy - $586 Billion
Income Security(Welfare checks) - $367 Billion
Defense - $ 527 Billion
Everything else - $661 Billion
As Ron Paul has said… We are living beyond our means.
Now… Right before the Iraq invasion, Iraq switched from selling oil in dollars to selling oil in euro. If oil producing countries follow that trend then the effect would destroy the dollar’s special traits and put it on an level playing field with other currencies. Once this happens the true value would be shown. This will completely destroy the dollar and we will see the kind of hyperinflation the Germans had after WW1. So at this moment, the life of the petrol dollar is the life of the States. How do we fix this? Well we can’t stay in Iraq forever because even that is adding to the deficit now. So we have to drastically cut spending. And when I say cut spending, I mean drastically cut government. If you still are putting up a fight after this I will explain why.
Good luck.
Maybe you should have one of your socialist teachers at that community collage of yours help you out with your rebuttal.
Edit:
Speaking of Opec...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/feb/20/oil.globaleconomy?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
