We all read about free trade, but do we truly understand its real world effects? So many of our possessions, from the clothes we wear to the foods we eat, come to us as imports. Is free trade the solution to high prices, or is the real cost more than we bargained for?
Have you anything against gifts?
Suppose somebody wants to send you money for nothing..or wheat..or tv sets..or energy..
That’s the worst scenario (on your opinion) resulting from free trade: the “sum of all your fears” is that, the affluence of imported goods will depress/destroy national production.
Now, suppose somebody in the world invented the way of producing X good from air..lets say energy or an anti-AIDS vaccine. Would you oppose such a gift because that would imperil national energy or pharma industry?
You all miss the main point: trade is not a matter of competitiveness is a matter of liberty..and only in a second instance it is a matter of competitiveness but not because of protectionism /nationalism/employment but of conservation of the global environment.
You might be right on your fears: affluence of imported goods may destroy national industry producing that good. But, is it the end of the story?
Do you remember when indoor lights were produced with kerosene?, or candles? What happened to those industries? Do you remember when VHS threat film industry?
Technology has brought more demolition or recreation of industries than any trade.
Please note that technology is a feature of liberty because creativity only prospers in free spaces.
It is a quality of modern personal identity to be exclusive owner of all personal potentials. Without the liberty to choose we are not free because, or you can not freely invent or you can not freely choose.
Fears of general collapse of the economy because of foreign trade are totally unfounded.
Factors of production liberated to new uses provides for new industries or old ones to benefit of their availability.
And in terms of environmental efficiency, reallocation of resources takes place, and the most efficient industry (national or not) uses them. Besides, imports may come from national industries abroad..such processes (de-industrialization) are symptoms of other macroeconomic diseases (labor rigidities, legal frames, workers attitude, financial structures, entrepreneurial spirit..).
Foreign trade distributes all over the world pressures put on nature by production.
Men in this country fought and died for the right to not be treated like a mindless minion to do the bidding of the rich master. They fought for decent working conditions. They fought for the right to be treated with respect. They fought to be individuals who were free to earn wages that could support their families.
And what has it gotten us now?
A sneer of contempt at labour unions and a trading of one replaceable workforce with another. We fought for those rights and we won - only to be turned away to the lowest bidder. I.e., those who care little for worker health and safety.
Free-trade does little to respect the rights of the invidual. Nor does it respect the principles upon which this country is founded. If it is morally and ethically wrong to enslave men (which will, for all intensive purpose, mean all people), this does not end at the border. If it it is morally and ethically wrong to beat a human being, this doesn't end at the Atlantic ocean. If it is wrong to kill another based upon their religious beliefs, why should we support trade with a country that not only condones, but takes part in this practise?
What our fathers fought for generations ago has been spit upon by the same descendants of those who fought against them. They fought against the rights of the working man then, and they have continued onto fresh ground where labour unions have yet to form to protect themselves from the onslaught of unfair labour practices that are currently endured. The average Chinese worker works over 60 hours and is paid very little for this. They work in unsafe conditions. They work in physically uncomfortable and compromising positions. All so we, the U.S. consumer can buy our products cheaply.. while still making outrageous profits for the companies.
How is this in keeping with the ideals of freedom and justice for all? For equality? How does this fit nicely into the pretend world we live in? It doesn't. Not really.
If free-trade were fair trade, we would not be seeing the dollar lose ground, stocks plummeting, nor the national debt quadrupled, nor would we face such a large trade deficit.
Look what free trade has gotten us so far, a sinking economy, low wages, poison food, toys and dog food, poor quality products and bad tech support.
Naumadd and I agree. Currently the USA has a mixed market economy - which is to blame for the failure we are currently experiencing. The only conditions needed for a free market economy are individual rights - life, liberty, happiness. As long as we don't initiate force upon each others life, liberty, and happiness - then we can be as free to market however we want between each other - this is the idea of 'voluntary mutual consent'.
This free market is not some mystical idea - this is an idea based upon reason - any other form of market economy always requires some form of initiation of force by the government or some group or mob of people - without the consent of the individual. This is one reason free market capitalism is the only reasonable market economy and the one that allows the most freedom, most liberty, and most happiness.
There are certain inherent standards that should be debated and set.
Such as minimum: environmental, human rights, wage, access to non free market capital, and litigation for abuses in product liability and such.
If we do not consider the above, then we cause rapid shifts that our manufacturing industries cannot compete with.
If we are not willing to set basic standards, and apply a scale of compliance and duties for non-compliance, then we are encouraging and subsidizing non compliance.
We are then encouraging the worst, and discouraging the best. The worst must then win. Dollar flows will move toward the cheapest producer, and those that cannot move downward, because of laws and restrictions in their country are doomed to failure, layoffs and bankruptcy.
Totally free trade must cause dollars to flow at increasing rates to the low cost producer.
If we are to support "free" trade we need some kind of balanced conditions at a foundation or base level, on the items listed above.
If we choose not to do so, then we should create similar conditions in the United States to do business, and somewhat balance the playing field.
Such as:
1). Create a sovereign wealth fund to invest in U.S. industries to balance similar programs in other countries.
2). We should eliminate litigation against manufacturers or cap awards. Create a federal panel of judges to hear complaints and a set package of awards for legitimate claims. Create a 10 year package of environmental rules that will not change, and create a federal environmental board that makes citing decisions that are not subject to legal appeal or lawsuits. Put excellent knowledgeable people on these non partisan boards like we do with the federal reserve. They should be appointed and remain and not be political like current cabinet related posts. Rotate members in and out over time.
3). In order for companies to qualify for being part of this plan, they would have to agree to conditions such as executive compensation limits, green environmental standards, workers bill or rights and agree to provide stock to employees as part of their pay.
Companies who do not wish to participate are of course free to continue in a free market way.
By the way, I am a free market capitalist, with an MBA. However the world has changed and we need to adapt in order to suceed.
I would like to see some discussions of big ideas, to move us forward for the next 10 years. A 10 year plan.
It must also include scenarios for us to be energy independent within 10 years.
Energy:
Tax oil imports (not domestic oil) $1.00 per barrel when the price rises above $75.00 for every dollar above $75.00. Half of the revenue should go to the treasury to reduce the deficit and half to alternative energy subsidy or research.
This will create a counterforce to Oil producers and investors "speculators".
Sell new drilling rights, and raise the per barrel share to the government on existing contracts when they renew. Create a counter force to opec with the oil consuming and importing countries OCIC. We have shown OPEC that the importing nations can or will shut down oil imports by raising interest rates and cutting demand.
Respectfully submitted.
Bryan Smith
If "free trade" is restricted, it's not free trade, is it? There is much evidence and consistent argument to conclude that the bulk of the problems in the marketplace are caused - not prevented - by government involvement. I'm quite certain what the marketplace needs is fewer restrictions on trade rather than more.
Of course, a truly free marketplace requires that human beings deal with one another equitably with respect and reasonableness. That is a desirable ideal albeit a non-existent one in most places.
All in all, the U.S. already restricts free trade .. and that's the problem. It's rather ironic and sad in a country which extols the virtues of individual rights and liberties.
The problem with free trade is that it isn't free at all. It's free only in the sense that a corporation(s) is free to completely take advantage of, and rape, not only human resources but natural.
The United states doesn't extol the virtue of the individual - it extols the equality of all individuals. The inalienable rights that we have should not be trampled upon simply because one small group has power over the other by monetary means.. and can wield this power to effectively harm a very large group of individuals.
Men fought and died to bring about the Fair Labour Act.. to not be treated as a disposable human being to be used at the expense of another in order to make the profit margin larger for that person or company. Men died for the right to not have to work 80 hours just GET their paychecks.
That wasn't free trade. It was unrestricted trade, but I would hardly call it free.
Free trade is, in the simplest of terms, the greedy man's excuse. We have seen the effects of free-trade. We've seen what's it led to. All one has to do is to look at the past to tell you why free trade pretty much stinks. Free trade is free only if you're the one top.. the one with gold and the one with the gun. Then you're free to do whatever you want. And as history shows us - that's exactly what happens.
It's the rare person who is not adversely affected by power. It's the rare person who is not affected by greed. It is the infection that is the bane of not only absolute free trade, but absolute communism, absolute socialism, and nearly any other form of society.
And it's why restrictions are needed.
Well, the problem with advancing absolutely "free trade" is that most human beings, sadly, do not think or deal consistently in absolutes. If they did, at least in a civilization, free trade would of course be the only rational method of man dealing with man. Unfortunately, some take "free trade" to mean rape whatever and whomever you can before the next guy gets advantage. Their form of "free trade" ignores the absolute of cause and effect, the absolutes of consequence, not simply to others, but primarily to themselves for their barbaric actions. Its undeniable truth that harm to another brings harm to oneself, directly or indirectly, but harm nonetheless. A betrayal of other life is a betrayal of your own .. and vice versa. Their "free trade" is mere continuance of the barbarism of the wild rather than the rational free trade of an authentic "civilization".
Because much of humanity pretends to civilization and because I believe reason to be superior to unreason, rationality superior to irrationality, I support the principles of absolute free trade. Unfortunately, much of humanity only pretends to civilization thus making absolute free trade unlikely .. for the moment. When the bulk of humanity genuinely values civilization rather than pretending to do so, absolute free trade will continue to be the ideal and will perhaps finally be likely in actual practice.
..knowing what kind of world we live in, and by your own reasoning, why would you vote "No" for restrictions on trade?
WHY would you say that free trade Now - in this life, in this day, in this year - is something we should promote? You've just contradicted yourself. This is pretty much what you're saying: Yes free trade is good, but only if in an ideal world that doesn't exist.. so therefore we must remove restrictions on trade so that free trade may flourish in the world that is not ideal.
Free trade will never work the way it's supposed to. Just like communism will never work. As much as they look great on paper, these things will never work. Well, at least with such a large population they would never work.
You seem to argue that the THEORY of communism and free trade (I will be calling it free market) are mirrors of each other, that they both may never obtian their "absolutes".
However, you seem to be overlooking a fundamental tool that you yourself mentioned. Yes, greed is existent in all humans, their is nobody that is without it. This is what fuels free market, what allows it to thrive. Corporations will oppose each other, businesses will fight, this will all cause our economy to grow. It's a finicial form of Darwinism (social Darwinism). Communism on the other hand, argues for the individuals in power willingly dispersing their power by dissolving the gonvernment, going against what is found in all humans, greed.
You argue that the "top dog" to stay "top dog", but that is never so. Granted that they may not be severly lowered in status, but they will not remain on top. The greed that others feel will cause them to strive to become "top dog", to push away the current leader. An example? Ford, Chrysler, GM.. all companies that failed to meet the demands of the consumers, and have (or at least will) died out. Honda, Suzuki, Mitsubishi.. all of these are now competeing against one another. So, yes, there is a "top dog", a "leader", but they will not stay it forever.
Furthermore, to argue against this idea by thinking that individuals cannot "pull themselves up by their boot straps" is absurd. Another example? President Obama.
Free market is a civilized Darwinism, where those who can compete and should compete thrive. It allows for self corrections, and ensures proportionate power to all competing.
Proportionate power? No. That's the what's wrong with that. It's exactly Not proportionate. I do not know what the exact combination is. If I knew what the exact political equation for governing society was do you not think I would say it? I would be jumping up and down with a typed up manifesto that kids read 60 years down the road (or at least we could hope. 100 would be better!) would read and it later gain vast acceptance; but I don't have such thing.
All I know is that
capitalism
does
not
work.
When has it ever? And we go backward everytime capitalism rules for a long period of time because we further and further unbalances. the approximation is too far undone. War is eternal in capitalism because it will always be the man on top and the man with the gold who says "MY values are better than your. I am more."
If you proclaim the individual and give him individual rights as the only route to freedom, then I say Capitalism doesn't allow this. As an individual, I have just as much value as any other individual if we say that this is "Freedom" (what we want to attain the most of.. according to this mumbo jumbo crap). Ford and GM could meet the demands of their customers if they actually played by free market rules. But capitalism will always eat itself to a point where the rules are meaningless by the very nature of capitalisms rules. That beeing: the top dog with the sharpest teeth (all the better to rip throats with, my dear). Ford and GM couldn't compete with a) the undervalued individuality of foreign workers (or is could possibly be the overvalued individuality in domestic workers and they were also manipulated by the overstepping, decidedly unfreemarket interference of certain other industries. Because the point is to have power over EVERYTHING else. And even the power schemes within these multi-billion dollar industries create problems because as an individual, my worth and value being equal with everyone else (the surest guaranteer of freedom) can never be equal to the supposed value of the top dog - even if they use foreign labor to increase that value gap.
There's nothing.. nothing that I have observed that says capitalism is sustainable, or even should be what is thought as desirable for more than an social-evolutionary pause. It may be necessary for something, but we haven't broken out of "capitalism is the best" loop yet. There IS a better system because capitalism fails to answer how to attend to that problem.
And until more people realize that If individual rights are key and that capitalism actually misplaces trust to that by ignoring the common trait that is greed, capitalism will continue and the top dogs will always be having their throats ripped out and the pack of wolves will devour the deer in the battle to become the top wolf. the man with gold and the gun.
Capitalism if very uncivilized and isn't leading into the kind of evolution that humans Could be capable of. If we traced the love of knowledge with our efforts instead of love of power, then it might happen that we elvove in a way that you will no longer be able to champion the continual process fo the young blood laying out the bones of the pack leaders.
But if you continue championing this process.. well you'll always be wanting freedom. In trade and in everything else and that evolution you spoke of is nonexistent. Capitalism will always give greed the food it needs to flourish - it says the value of one is not equal.. one is never equal to one.
Now, I had never said that there was some mysterious equation that allowed for power and say to become proportionate, but that simply by its nature it is proportionate. Think about it, company A is nearly infinitesimally larger than company B, who should have more say, who should have more votes, and by their nature, who clearly holds more power?
"War is eternal in capitalism because it will always be the man on top and the man with the gold who says "MY values are better than your. I am more." "
OF COURSE THE WAR IS ETERNAL! There is nothing wrong with this. What is it that you are arguing for? Communism? Socialism? Utilitarianism? Where is the motivation? Sure, everybody is given their own equal slice of the pie, and everybody is happy with that, but did they earn it? Why should a janitor be paid the same as a doctor? Or an engineer? Or the President? Did they earn it? Did they show that they worked for it, were willing to get dirty for it, actually strived for this reward that has now been taken from them? NO!
Your argument is flawed in so many ways! Yes, the "big, savage, brutish wolves" are "ripping out the throats of the poor defenseless puppies". Though it may sound wrong (probably due to most of the rather excessive descriptions and imagery), this is right. Humor me here, and say that for arguments sake there is a Heaven and Hell (I don't know your beliefs, but I am using this for sheer argument). So, Heaven is what I am given for being good, for working at leaving sin. Naturally then I await time in Hell for sinning and performing vices. Is it fair that if I am a pimp who chooses to murder, steal, prostitute women, lie, cheat.. etc, that I am given Heaven? What do I say to an untouchable, or a friar, or a Rabbi..etc. when I see them in Heaven. "Sorry, I know that you worked for this, but now it is seen as wrong to keep it from me."?
Free market is not fun, it is not clean, it is not "hold your hands while you cross the street". Free market takes the cream of the crop, as it is the only way for them to rise. Tell me, would it be fair to the man who has a medical degree from Harvard Med, graduated top of his class with honors, etc. to apply for a job at his local clinic only to be turned down by a state schooled bottom class individual? Course not. Now, say that the individual was accepted. Is it fair for him to be paid, receive the reward for his work, the same amount as the bottom classed individual? Hmmm.. Where is the fairness in that? I'll answer it for you, there is none.
Furthermore, you claim that the evolution of knowledge is not present under capitalism, that "If we traced the love of knowledge with our efforts instead of love of power, then it might happen that we evolve in a way that you will no longer be able to champion the continual process fo the young blood laying out the bones of the pack leaders". But wait, many of our most gifted philosophers, artists, engineers are all products of capitalism. Da Vinci, Raphael, Aristotle, Niccolo Machiavelli, Michelangelo, Dante, Shakespeare, Hess, Joyce, just to name a few. You say that this is not the only evolution, but it is. What you proclaim is a regression. It will only draw us back.
Your argument is a perpetual motion machine. The water causes the wheel to turn which pushes water through the pump, which falls on the wheel causing it to turn. A "A is true because B is true. B is true because C is true. C is true because A is true".
And tell me.. where does the cream come from? Do you throw out the milk as useless because it isn't cream? Where does the cream get it's worth? Without the milk could there be any cream?
The milk is as valuable as the cream because without the milk there could be no cream.
Furthermore, you're assuming I'm saying people should be paid equally. When did I ever say that. Come to think of it, I never said anything about puppies, either, yet you appear to attribute that to me. Not surprising coming from a fascist?
And why do I call you fascist?
Because you think that because an entity is bigger if can force others to its will. Should I see if I can get you a swastika to fly next to your name? You shouldn't be insulted by this.. you embrace war. You think it fine. You embrace the power of one over the other and abusing this for the simple reason that IT CAN. You are fascist.
There can be no evolution in such a system. And has there been? Show me! Show me how there has been forward progression! Ohhh but I assume evolution will be a progression towards better things. Maybe that's my folly in using that word.
Show me the progression fascism has made. You support it. Show me how it has worked. What is different in society since it was recorded? Tell me, for I have seen nothing! I see the same blossoming and destruction that has always occurred because there have yet to be the realization that war, capitalism, and the man on top with the gold and the gun Will Not Work. Simply because we have progressed with technology means nothing.. and actually we've been burning fossil fuels and haven't progressed.. which doesn't particularly amaze me.
Also tell me how a janitor has not earned the same right to health care as a doctor. Or has not earned the right to eat well. Assuming the hours are just as long. Tell me why you think toilets should not be cleaned, and if they should be.. who should clean them? How is this less important than an accountant? Mark, again, I have never said equal pay is appropriate nor is necessary to being fair. Those are your own assumptions (thanks again, by the way, for making it appear as if I have said that there are puppies being eaten.. thanks for twisting my words. I appreciate that). How is collecting garbarge less important than doctoring? How is stocking produce less important? Do toilets clean themselves? Does garbarge collect itself and deposit itself in a manner that doesn't have a negative impact on everyone? Do you grow your own food? Actually you should, but if you don't, where do you get it? Do you think these things stock themselves? You seem to think that only those people who went to harvard are capable, important, and necessary to society. Society consists of everyone. Do you then claim to have no need for those you consider to be on the bottom? Despite the fact that without one, the other cannot exist to be on top? Do you then claim that the worth or value of the bottom is less than that of the top? Are the telephone operators worth less? Ambulance drivers? Who is worth more when it takes the whole to make society function? Who deserves more respect? Who deserves less? Does your mail carrier deserve less? How about crane operators? Welders? Sewers (people who sew, lol)? Hotel clerks? Dishwashers?
You've said I give you a circular argument.. you are wrong.
I feel that your argument speaks for itself. You have resorted to insulting the debater, rather than providing a reasonable rebuttal. It's funny really. Oh, and the "puppies" part is what is commonly called an "exaggeration". You see, I had "exaggerated" your rather "passionate" and "vivid" imagery to show just how horribly misplaced it was in an argument that relies on facts. Don't worry if you don't catch on right away, I'll hold your hand and walk you through it. Now, here's the kicker, I am not only insulting you, but ALSO your argument. Do you see how that works?
Now, let's move on to what has already been covered by me, evolution . For argument's sake we will say that the theory of free market came about with the book "The Wealth of Nations" (Adam Smith, in case you didn't know that). And, we'll also say that this is when capitalism had also risen (even though it was present in the most early theories) at the same time. Are you arguing that we have not evolved? That capitalism and free market have presented our form of thought and social relations to diminish? Hmmmm.. that doesn't seem to be the case (I'll also through in the paradoxical argument of "capitalism has prevented thought from expanding, so we expanded our thought to fix this problem with socialism and communism).
So, please, because I seem to be missing your nonexistent point, what is wrong with capitalism? Because people have to work? Because it is only the motivated that succeed? No, I suppose that you won't announce your harbored hatred of work, and will say something along the lines of "Workers aren't paid enough" or "The conditions they are placed in are horrible", but you must remember that this is not "The Jungle", Upton Sinclair. Let's look at a quote of one of the most successful capitalist ever, shall we?
"There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." - Henry Ford
Now, did he just say "the best wages possible"? That doesn't sound to bad, it actually sounds rather good. Oh well, I'm sure you'll find a way to sway and strew it to help your cause for "the everyday worker". But maybe then you should look at some other quotes by prominent industrialists, or is your mind that closed? So, bringing this back around, I guess I don't see what you are arguing against.
On to economics. Now, I'll play it safe and explain some common and basic principles to you real quick (though I am sure that you not only know them, but probably wrote the book on them). You see, a factor that often influences output for a firm is called "productivity". How "productive" is the worker? Now, I know how crazy this sounds, but a happy worker is more "productive" than a sad one (and believe it or not, industries know this!). But, then the problem arises of how to make workers happy? By providing benefits? By paying descent wages? By giving paid vacations, lunch and coffee breaks? No, a large company would never EVER do that.. Wait, now that I think about it, capitalists DO engage in these wacky ideas. And you think ya know the world, huh?
But of course, you shouldn't take my word for it, I'm a fascist (I guess that "capitalists" and "fascists" are now interchangeable. Kinda like "Socialists" and "ignorant and hypocritical"). Everybody has a function in society I am not arguing against that, I don't even know how you generated that opinion that I suppose I hold now. However, I am arguing for reward, payment. Which should be payed more? The one who did more or less work?
"Also tell me how a janitor has not earned the same right to health care as a doctor. Or has not earned the right to eat well."
He has every right to health as I do, but that does not mean that it should be socialized. You can argue that you have the right to food, but if you were stranded on an island, would the universe conform to this right of yours? Perphaps the janitor shouldn't be driving a motorcycle, sky diving, or skiing (I am trying to once more "exaggerate" so that the fallacy of your argument can be understood), if he cannot afford the repercussions. Need does not equate to right, but that might be a bit over your head right now.
"(thanks again, by the way, for making it appear as if I have said that there are puppies being eaten.. thanks for twisting my words. I appreciate that)."
I appreciate the swastika comment. Attacking things that you don't agree with, arguing with passion and not reason, very "fascist" of you.
"OF COURSE THE WAR IS ETERNAL! There is nothing wrong with this." -ckidwell7098
What did you think fascism was? If you say there is nothing wrong with war and imply that it is, in fact, necessary, you are fascist.
AGAIN: You should not be insulted by this.
AGAIN: You should not be insulted by this.
And if you are, that is your own fault for being insulted by the very thing you are.
"Free market is not fun, it is not clean, it is not "hold your hands while you cross the street". Free market takes the cream of the crop, as it is the only way for them to rise." -ckidwell7098
AGAIN: where does the cream come from? Do you throw out the milk as useless because it isn't cream? Where does the cream get it's worth? Without the milk could there be any cream?
If you are missing supposedly nonexistent points it's because you refuse to answer the questions I asked you. Then you might be able to figure it out.
So where is Henry Ford? OHHH. That's right. He's dead. And what's happening with the auto-industry?
So tell me, where are those billions of industrial jobs we've lost? How do you answer to that with your great "industrialist" quotes?
You DO realize, don't you, that the actual shituation we're facing occurred because of the loss of the industrial base? Because there is MORE PROFIT at the expense of others in moving factories to places where human rights are inconsequential, workers have no rights (or they are not enforced), where environmental laws are less to non-existent, and to where the so-called reward is not one that CEO'S or stock-holders produced, but the collective rewards of thousands? You DO realize that billions of jobs here, in our country, were lost because of precisely what I'm talking about? You DO realize that this most of what goes on in global politics is EXACTLY what I'm talking about? And you think it necessary and fine (and then get insulted when someone tells you have fascist views.. odd). You know, it's funny.. I label you something based on your ideology and you say this is me insulting you and attacking you. You call me ignorant and, what was it? hypocritical? for no reason other than you're pissed off that I name what you believe in. BASED ON your own words.
If you recind your statements, and say that war is not fine.. that it is not necessary.. if you say that this eternal process and all that propagate it is NOT a direction we should want to direct ourselves toward, then I would not say you are fascist.. because then you wouldn't be. If you believe in fascist ideas and truths is it an attack to say you are fascist? No. It isn't.
"Reason" your way out this one. Or.. could it possibly be that you, like so many others, rationalize and just Call it reason?
You know, it's funny.. I label you something based on your ideology and you say this is me insulting you and attacking you. You call me ignorant and, what was it? hypocritical? for no reason other than you're pissed off that I name what you believe in. BASED ON your own words.
If you recind your statements, and say that war is not fine.. that it is not necessary.. if you say that this eternal process and all that propagate it is NOT a direction we should want to direct ourselves toward, then I would not say you are fascist.. because then you wouldn't be. If you believe in fascist ideas and truths is it an attack to say you are fascist? No. It isn't.
Also, try answering alllllll these questions instead of ONE.
My point is that CAPITALISM DOESN'T WORK. Look around you. Do you see it working? I asked you to show me when it has EVER sustained itself without eating itself based on the own rules it set up. You ignored my request and instead insult me in the process; The very thing you accuse me of doing to you. Though, I hardly need to repeat myself.. you should not be insulted because I rightly call you fascist.
You should have loved Adolf Hitler.. he was the man on top with the gold and the gun. He had the majority. They were strongest. According to what you Say you believe in - this shouldn't be a problem for you. What may be a problem is killing Jewish people for no better reason than they're Jewish.. but that can't really concern you, for you believe in Power of One above the Value and Worth of One. And that is the point of what I am arguing against. That was proportionate power and justified for the Germany was strongest. It was the cream of the crop.. And you see nothing wrong with throwing out the milk for not being the cream. You see nothing wrong with allowing the milk to settle, skimming it, and dumping the rest. So tell me again how you're not fascist?
Does not work. Look at California and how much debt its in. Big governments do not work. They charge too much overhead to do the job.
where does the cream come from? Do you throw out the milk as useless because it isn't cream? Where does the cream get it's worth? Without the milk could there be any cream?
I am a culinary student. Cream gets its worth because you can do more with it. It can do practically anything and everything the milk can and more. As for throwing out the milk. This is stupid satire and does not work. The milk has its place too. Just like the janitor (the milk) has his place of scrubbing the doctor 's (the cream) poop out of the toilet.
So where is Henry Ford? OHHH. That's right. He's dead. And what's happening with the auto-industry?
It has turned socialist and communist, and failed.
"You DO realize, don't you, that the actual shituation we're facing occurred because of the loss of the industrial base? Because there is MORE PROFIT at the expense of others"
I argue that its because capitalism has been destroyed and replaced with socialism. Where the socialists have demanded more pay than their work is worth (more profit at others expense) and lower costs (greed) than is possible or reasonable.
"You DO realize that billions of jobs here, in our country, were lost because of precisely what I'm talking about?"
You DO realize that the us only has millions of people don't you?
"You DO realize that this most of what goes on in global politics is EXACTLY what I'm talking about? And you think it necessary and fine"
I agree that some form of war is necessary. Nature is designed around it. All systems that continue and work is designed around war.
The war of gravity between bodies in space. The war for mates in nature. The war for money in capitalism. Nothing that holds the hand of everything around it and sings kumbiah lasts.
"Reason" your way out this one. Or.. could it possibly be that you, like so many others, rationalize and just Call it reason?"
Funny. I was gong to accuse your Ilk of the same.
"My point is that CAPITALISM DOESN'T WORK. Look around you. Do you see it working?"
Interesting. I'm looking for an example of capitalism working and have noticed that there has not really been too much example of capitalism anywhere. I just keep finding socialism failing.
Maybe you could provide some examples of capitalism failing where socialism succeeded?
fascism -
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
c. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Now, that you are aware of the proper term for a fascist, I think that we can continue. (Notice the "stringent socioeconomic controls" part. Sounds like more like Socialism than Free Market. Are you just an in-the-closet fascist?)
I don't remember Hitler every really having any gold.. just a gun, but that might infringe on your, once more passionate argument. Now, yes the war is eternal, but because it is a constant progression. Couldn't you argue that the war for knowledge is eternal? The war for happiness? It is a label, a way of categorizing a constant strife and struggle that will never end. Is it a war? Could be called one. Is it progress? It could be called that too.
Now, on to my "cream of the crop". Never once did I say "dispose of the milk down the gutter, for it is not needed now that we have the only important part, the cream!" (there's that tricky exaggeration again). The milk is there, and it is very much cherished. Now, I'm sure the "highest wages possible" part of my quote was overlooked by you (I'm assuming selective reading), but that sounds like the "milk" being cherished. So, in an attempt to resurrect my metaphor from the fiery bowels of your inability to connect dots and continue past literal meanings, I will once again restate it. Free market allows the cream of the crop to rise. Now, that means (I know that it can be tricky to see this) that Free Market allows various entrepreneurs to create businesses and companies that workers can then go and work for. If the business is successful, then the owner, founder, president, CEO, workers, janitors, laborers, security guards, all employees are that much successful. To sum it up, the "cream" (remember, not literal cream, but rather the founders of various businesses) can rise (entrepreneurs can invest and found companies as they see fit). Never once is the "milk" thrown out, as that is what the cream (again, not literal cream) depends on. They (the workers) may not be getting the multi million dollar checks that the CEOs are getting, but they also didn't found the company, they didn't play the risk of investment. So, is the milk thrown out, no. Does it just stay there and work forever? No, it continues to produce more cream (I might do you some good to read about the man who founded Dirt Devil). I hope that settled some questions.
I rather like this line. Truly one of your more rational moments.
"So where is Henry Ford? OHHH. That's right. He's dead. And what's happening with the auto-industry?"
GASP! You say that Henry Ford (born in 1863) is DEAD! Surely he must have been wrong on EVERYTHING or God would have granted him immortality! As for the auto-industry.. why are they going under? Because they produce inferior goods? Because nobody wishes to buy their products? What would you like to occur, that we say "Keep doing what doesn't work, we need these people paid."? (I wonder how we will pay them if the company makes a large ZERO income..) Now, knowing that you cannot dive deeper, I'll help get my point across. During Henry Ford's actually time, they were a GREAT company. They were advanced, pay well, and produced fine products. However, they have declined now, faulty running and production has caused this.
("So tell me, where are those billions of industrial jobs we've lost?"
There are only 300 million people in the US. Billions? The more like thousands of jobs are now with companies that met consumer demands.)
Oh, and here is a fun fact for ya. The United Kingdom has 18.2% of its labor force in industry. 80% is found in services. Yes, industry is big, but it is not the main component.. kinda like the US (even though the number for the US is actually even smaller than that).
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html
I know, I know, I'm using those little cheating things called "facts" again, but I just can't help it. As I hoped would become evident, Free Market not only works, it thrives. It allows those to succeed to do so, and that does not benefit solely them, but everyone. Get off your high horse, Upton Sinclair, Karl Marx. I understand that you are passionate about your point of view, but that doesn't make it right. I hope that I have answered all of your questions, and if not, please place them all on the first paragraph of your response, so I can see them and address them sooner. If anything, it is Socialism and Communism that don't work. Try reading up on your own philosophies (I suggest "Utopia", "Communist Manifesto", and "The Jungle" for starters. Try looking at them with a critical eye, not just a mind accepting all that is thrown at it.), I have certainly read up on mine (as well as your's).
"A system of government marked by centralization of authority..stringent socioeconomic controls.." Hmmm.. Perhaps it is you who is the fascist.