‘Derision of West misguided’

[Dagless]

The point of the current system is that everyone who wants the necessities of life will have them;

I'm sure the people starving to death will be glad of the news.

this is happening as you look at the quality of life and how much it increases (and has increased at the onset of capitalism!) over time. Nothing can make the world fixed in one go. It can take hundreds of years and the issue is vastly complicated.

There are 2 responses to this:

1) Quality of life was increasing in Germany under Hitler. Does that mean Nazism and Fascism are good?
2) Longevity is increasing due to science and technology. You cannot say capitalism by itself has increased longevity, and longevity also cannot automatically mean quality of life is better.

Even if what you had written held water there are countries where the onset of capitalism made things far worse (the USSR is a great example). You can't pick and choose. If it is a good and successful thing then it should be good for everyone, not the select few.

Because you respond with vague comments like 'that doesn't sound like a great system to me' and then you cite how the top tier of the income bracket is less than the other tiers so I am forced to ask how you would want it. You're not going to get a system where everyone has equal wealth; that's called communism and it leads to problems. Rich is always going to be marginal, poverty has to be marginal (as it is in Western countires) but the bulk has to be well off and that IS happening. The point of the system, as I mentioned before, is to have even the losers of the country to not be so bad off and a lot of the times they aren't.

Nobody said they wanted everyone to have equal wealth (although I don't see this as a strictly bad idea), but everyone should not have to worry about food, etc. as mentioned earlier.

First, there is no obligation for rich people to give away their wealth and forcing them to do so arguably leads to economic problems.

Does tax lead to economic problems?

Second, rich people who don't give away money do not cause any problems; the problems are already there they just don't do anything about it.

Forcing people to give away money causes problems but letting them give it away doesn't? In addition are you going somewhere with this because it doesn't seem to help either side of the argument.

Third, even if every rich person felt like giving away money away around the world, corrupt governments tend to kill the effort. For example Mugabe of Zimbabwe used to take donated food and give it to people who would vote for him. The problem isn't just in the hands of Greedy rich guys.

I don't see what any of this has to do with our current topic but I'll keep reading...

Fourth, yes, my argument depends on describing the current system and how much better it is than everywhere else. I think appealing to how the system works better than its competitors is a powerful argument considering the point of politics and economics (macro anyway) is practical application. Anyone can criticize capitalism and democracy strictly on armchair arguments but the strength of a system is only demonstrated when its put it in use and nothing has topped the current system so far.

Once again, other than describing the current system and saying its easy to criticise you haven't actually proven anything. Let me make it easier for you - try writing this down on a piece of paper in front of you. This is what you need to reply with:

1) Capitalism is the best thing for its citizens (based on the absolute of being both good and successful) because... <insert logical reason>
2) Democracy is the best things for its citizens (based on the absolute of being both good and successful) because.... <insert logical reason>

To save more pointless posts, my response will pick on whether food, water, light, heat, shelter, can be provided to everyone, and if they are provided to everyone. This is without going into the exploitation opportunities capitalism provides. These reasons alone are enough to question if it is good and if it can be successful (not compared to other countries but if its successful for its own citizens).

The quality of life is increasing, people are getting richer and are able to have more stuff (one of the merits of capitalism) and that's a sign of being good & successful. Your cancer analogy is just begging the question.

People as a whole aren't getting richer, the rich are getting richer and the gap is widening. That's not a sign of goodness or success.

there's never Not going to be any corruption or abuse of human rights in a country.

What a fantastic argument. I think dictators should use this as their defence in court. "Your honour I know what I did was wrong but hey there's never NOT going to be any corruption or abuse of human rights. I was just making up the percentages". Oh well that's ok then.

 

[Lynx]

I'm sure the people starving to death will be glad of the news.



There are 2 responses to this:

1) Quality of life was increasing in Germany under Hitler. Does that mean Nazism and Fascism are good?
2) Longevity is increasing due to science and technology. You cannot say capitalism by itself has increased longevity, and longevity also cannot automatically mean quality of life is better.

1) How is killing a portion of your population increasing quality of life?
2) Quality of life increases as goods and services increase in production for the people living in a given state; capitalist countries tend to produce the most stuff for the most people (including technology that helps people live) and that increases quality of life. Also, capitalism creates the economic incentive for said technologies to produce at such a high rate through competition. I highly doubt you'd have Quad core processors without free market competition.

Even if what you had written held water there are countries where the onset of capitalism made things far worse (the USSR is a great example). You can't pick and choose. If it is a good and successful thing then it should be good for everyone, not the select few.

The USSR was a communist country that went bankrupt and literally fell apart. Its acceptance of capitalism is making it better again. It's a BRIC country.

Nobody said they wanted everyone to have equal wealth (although I don't see this as a strictly bad idea), but everyone should not have to worry about food, etc. as mentioned earlier.

agreed, and i think western countries are making the most progress in this regard for their citizens!

Does tax lead to economic problems?

I believe the question is 'how much tax?'

Forcing people to give away money causes problems but letting them give it away doesn't? In addition are you going somewhere with this because it doesn't seem to help either side of the argument.

One of the perceived arguments with high taxation is that it hinders entrepreneurship. Therefore, instead of high tax rates, if rich people were to give willingly then that adverse affect would not occur. And this is in response to your criticism of the system as creating problems elsewhere..

I don't see what any of this has to do with our current topic but I'll keep reading...

read above

Once again, other than describing the current system and saying its easy to criticise you haven't actually proven anything. Let me make it easier for you - try writing this down on a piece of paper in front of you. This is what you need to reply with:

1) Capitalism is the best thing for its citizens (based on the absolute of being both good and successful) because... <insert logical reason>
2) Democracy is the best things for its citizens (based on the absolute of being both good and successful) because.... <insert logical reason>

If the system works better than any other system in practice in terms of economic success and success in human rights, as you have failed to contradict, and if you cannot think of an alternative to capitalism that would actually confer the same advantages to states that have adopted it and reaped its benefits, then I don't understand what more you want. There are more human rights in Western countries than there are anywhere else; there is more financial success in western countries than anywhere else; you cannot think of a system that compete on these levels better than what the West is doing; therefore, you have no argument beyond armchair criticisms. Though, there are definitely problems in the system and they will hopefully be worked out as they have been over the past century.

To save more pointless posts, my response will pick on whether food, water, light, heat, shelter, can be provided to everyone, and if they are provided to everyone. This is without going into the exploitation opportunities capitalism provides. These reasons alone are enough to question if it is good and if it can be successful (not compared to other countries but if its successful for its own citizens).

I think most people are happy with the liberties they enjoy in the West and the financial opportunities available to them. The immigration alone speaks to that but if you have an idea for a new political system that can do all that the West can do & better then by all means explain away.

People as a whole aren't getting richer, the rich are getting richer and the gap is widening. That's not a sign of goodness or success.

http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=26#M_3

What a fantastic argument. I think dictators should use this as their defence in court. "Your honour I know what I did was wrong but hey there's never NOT going to be any corruption or abuse of human rights. I was just making up the percentages". Oh well that's ok then.

It's absolutely true that human rights abuse occurs. Though, I don't think this undermines the argument when it's done to such a small group of people by such a small amount of countries? I mean, I in no way take the position that everything is perfect in the West; there are lots of problems and things go wrong, but this doesn't change the fact that it's still better than everywhere else..

 

[جوري]

2) Quality of life increases as goods and services increase in production for the people living in a given state; capitalist countries tend to produce the most stuff for the most people (including technology that helps people live) and that increases quality of life. Also, capitalism creates the economic incentive for said technologies to produce at such a high rate through competition. I highly doubt you'd have Quad core processors without free market competition.
..

1- Is that why the only 'Good Samaritans' left on the streets of your capitalist world are homeless who are stabbed and left to bleed to death while the rest walk by, and 90% of your products are made in China?

 

[Dagless]

1) How is killing a portion of your population increasing quality of life?
2) Quality of life increases as goods and services increase in production for the people living in a given state; capitalist countries tend to produce the most stuff for the most people (including technology that helps people live) and that increases quality of life. Also, capitalism creates the economic incentive for said technologies to produce at such a high rate through competition. I highly doubt you'd have Quad core processors without free market competition.

1) How are people starving to death increasing quality of life? As your opinion states; "someone's going to end up with less", therefore the Jews were the losers. However, for everyone else, the quality of life vastly improved. So does that describe a good and successful system in your eyes?
2) That's not true. Competition can exist without capitalism; don't you remember the cold war? Technology is also pushed forward because of need. If a society spends money on science and technology they will get the benefits. This is not a serious argument for capitalism.

I believe the question is 'how much tax?'
One of the perceived arguments with high taxation is that it hinders entrepreneurship. Therefore, instead of high tax rates, if rich people were to give willingly then that adverse affect would not occur. And this is in response to your criticism of the system as creating problems elsewhere..

I believe you are now just trying to confuse the topic.
I responded to your initial statement. Trying to change it by saying it depends on how much tax or describing the ins and outs of taxation is irrelevant.

If the system works better than any other system in practice in terms of economic success and success in human rights, as you have failed to contradict, and if you cannot think of an alternative to capitalism that would actually confer the same advantages to states that have adopted it and reaped its benefits, then I don't understand what more you want. There are more human rights in Western countries than there are anywhere else; there is more financial success in western countries than anywhere else; you cannot think of a system that compete on these levels better than what the West is doing; therefore, you have no argument beyond armchair criticisms. Though, there are definitely problems in the system and they will hopefully be worked out as they have been over the past century.

You're doing the same as you always do and describing the system. Just accept you don't have an argument. We aren't talking about if its better or worse than things in existence. The topic has been stated too many times to repeat. The system has big holes which can be seen by anyone. I have given you the simplest examples to refute without going into employment, exploitation or education. You still have not given a reasonable argument.
Saying something is absolutely good and successful because it is the only thing which exists or the best of a bad bunch is just ridiculous.

It's absolutely true that human rights abuse occurs. Though, I don't think this undermines the argument when it's done to such a small group of people by such a small amount of countries? I mean, I in no way take the position that everything is perfect in the West; there are lots of problems and things go wrong, but this doesn't change the fact that it's still better than everywhere else..

It's not a small group of people though. The majority of the world is terrorised and forced to follow the will of the few due to nothing more than military superiority.

I look forward to yet another definition of capitalism or perhaps a more detailed description of taxation this time? Why not branch out and describe how the internal combustion engine works?

 

[Lynx]

1) How are people starving to death increasing quality of life? As your opinion states; "someone's going to end up with less", therefore the Jews were the losers. However, for everyone else, the quality of life vastly improved. So does that describe a good and successful system in your eyes?

Are you just arguing for the sake of argument? When my government goes downtown and destroys every shop owned by a Jew or a Muslim or a Christian and then proceeds to execute them, I will say you're not guilty of a false analogy. Anyway, yes, I think when the vast majority, even the poor, are richer than everywhere less then the system is experiencing success.

2) That's not true. Competition can exist without capitalism; don't you remember the cold war? Technology is also pushed forward because of need. If a society spends money on science and technology they will get the benefits. This is not a serious argument for capitalism.

Oh dear, what about the Cold war? the fact that the USSR was competing with USA in an arms and technological race? Of course you're going to get technological improvements but the competition of the free market sky rockets productivity and the creation of goods for the demand of the consumers. DO you honestly think USSR would have funded so much money in their research if they weren't competing with USA for 50 years? And I am guessing you are referring to the USSR if not you can clarify what you meant by the cold war reference.

I believe you are now just trying to confuse the topic.
I responded to your initial statement. Trying to change it by saying it depends on how much tax or describing the ins and outs of taxation is irrelevant.

I am not confusing anything. You asked if tax creates problems and it does; the prudent policy maker has to figure out how much to tax so it's not that simple as 'tax everyone and the poor will be saved'.

You're doing the same as you always do and describing the system. Just accept you don't have an argument. We aren't talking about if its better or worse than things in existence. The topic has been stated too many times to repeat. The system has big holes which can be seen by anyone. I have given you the simplest examples to refute without going into employment, exploitation or education. You still have not given a reasonable argument.
Saying something is absolutely good and successful because it is the only thing which exists or the best of a bad bunch is just ridiculous.

Oh, but I am talking about whether it's worse or better than everything else in existence. Critiquing the system for holes is all fine and dandy but I have never argued that what we have here is perfect; I've only argued that it's better than everywhere else and it is continuously succeeding. This is entirely an argument based on what is in practice & what can be put into practice. I don't see the point in arguing that it's imperfect; like you say, the holes are obvious and they're being worked on. This doesn't require any argument to show. If your position is that it has problems then I agree, it has problems but what's the point of discussing this if you can't offer an alternative? I do think it's getting better and research can show that; however, if this is the argument you want to pursue then I have nothing to add any further and we can agree to disagree.

It's not a small group of people though. The majority of the world is terrorised and forced to follow the will of the few due to nothing more than military superiority.

This is way too broad and unspecific to respond to and I can't see how it has anything to do with what was discussed earlier.

I look forward to yet another definition of capitalism or perhaps a more detailed description of taxation this time? Why not branch out and describe how the internal combustion engine works?

Only if you ask me to


Lily:

1- Is that why the only 'Good Samaritans' left on the streets of your capitalist world are homeless who are stabbed and left to bleed to death while the rest walk by, and 90% of your products are made in China?

I am not psychologist enough to answer the first question; but isn't this something humans naturally tend to do? Bystander effect? Anyway, I don't think this is a product of capitalism or democracy so I can't see the relevance! I am sure there's plenty written on the topic in the journals for you to read up on.

What's wrong with having things made in China? Comparative advantage!

 

[جوري]

I am not psychologist enough to answer the first question; but isn't this something humans naturally tend to do? Bystander effect? Anyway, I don't think this is a product of capitalism or democracy so I can't see the relevance! I am sure there's plenty written on the topic in the journals for you to read up on.

I find it at odds to be 'human' and then neglect a fellow human.. yes that is a product of your capitalist world.. if you have no money you have no worth unfortunately-- do correct me if I am wrong with something worth while!

What's wrong with having things made in China? Comparative advantage!

I was commenting on your statement:

said technologies to produce at such a high rate through competition

if other folks are creating your products for you, then you can't really claim that there is competition, you've substituted quantity for quality.. let me know how that translates in your dictionary when something like this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23485723/

happens..

I mean it is nice and dandy if you want your kids to die a slow death from lead tainted toys..'toys are a luxury item' .. but what about life and or limb saving treatment?

I find nothing wrong with china, they are hard working, but they have no moral compass (godless).. the west is pretty much that way too were it not for liability, but they have managed to erase that liability factor when it comes to Muslims.. too bad they are not an impressive majority in the population for this level of negligence to be common place and comparable to China.

all the best

 

[Dagless]

Are you just arguing for the sake of argument?

Are you?

When my government goes downtown and destroys every shop owned by a Jew or a Muslim or a Christian and then proceeds to execute them, I will say you're not guilty of a false analogy. Anyway, yes, I think when the vast majority, even the poor, are richer than everywhere less then the system is experiencing success.

Germany was in relation to good and successful.

Oh dear, what about the Cold war? the fact that the USSR was competing with USA in an arms and technological race? Of course you're going to get technological improvements but the competition of the free market sky rockets productivity and the creation of goods for the demand of the consumers. DO you honestly think USSR would have funded so much money in their research if they weren't competing with USA for 50 years? And I am guessing you are referring to the USSR if not you can clarify what you meant by the cold war reference.

Yes, hence what I said was "Competition can exist without capitalism", which is something you've just confirmed. I don't know if they would have funded money into research or not, that's not the point. The point is they did not embrace capitalism and yet were still at the top.

Oh, but I am talking about whether it's worse or better than everything else in existence. Critiquing the system for holes is all fine and dandy but I have never argued that what we have here is perfect; I've only argued that it's better than everywhere else and it is continuously succeeding. This is entirely an argument based on what is in practice & what can be put into practice. I don't see the point in arguing that it's imperfect; like you say, the holes are obvious and they're being worked on. This doesn't require any argument to show. If your position is that it has problems then I agree, it has problems but what's the point of discussing this if you can't offer an alternative? I do think it's getting better and research can show that; however, if this is the argument you want to pursue then I have nothing to add any further and we can agree to disagree.

GOOD
SUCCESSFUL

 

[Lynx]

I find it at odds to be 'human' and then neglect a fellow human.. yes that is a product of your capitalist world.. if you have no money you have no worth unfortunately-- do correct me if I am wrong with something worth while!

This is a psychological phenomenon and I doubt your hypothesis about it being related to having money or not.

I was commenting on your statement:


if other folks are creating your products for you, then you can't really claim that there is competition, you've substituted quantity for quality.. let me know how that translates in your dictionary when something like this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23485723/

happens..

What does this have to do with competition?

I mean it is nice and dandy if you want your kids to die a slow death from lead tainted toys..'toys are a luxury item' .. but what about life and or limb saving treatment?

I find nothing wrong with china, they are hard working, but they have no moral compass (godless).. the west is pretty much that way too were it not for liability, but they have managed to erase that liability factor when it comes to Muslims.. too bad they are not an impressive majority in the population for this level of negligence to be common place and comparable to China.

all the best

I don't know where you live but over here the government can't kill people for having troublesome religious beliefs like the Chinese government does. Muslims enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

 

[Lynx]

Are you?



Germany was in relation to good and successful.

No it wasn't because people were being shipped off to concentration camps. You need human rights to be good & money to be successful.

Yes, hence what I said was "Competition can exist without capitalism", which is something you've just confirmed. I don't know if they would have funded money into research or not, that's not the point. The point is they did not embrace capitalism and yet were still at the top.

And then they failed which shows their system does not lead to success and only ends in failure whereas capitalist systems don't.

And of course competition exists, that's a natural byproduct of scarcity. The point of what I was saying is that capitalism uses competition for the benefit of everyone.

GOOD
SUCCESSFUL

my summary: a system S is successful & good if and only if it is better than its competitors and no new system S2 can be thought of to replace S where 'replace' means to procure at least the same benefits as S without as much disadvantages as S.

 

[Argamemnon]

Westerners are obsessed with competition, they see everything in life as a brutal competition and worship power and money. Those who are weak are to be bombed and invaded and have no right to complain. They believe there is no good or wrong, only the powerful and the weak.

 

[Lynx]

Westerners are obsessed with competition, they see everything in life as a brutal competition and worship power and money. Those who are weak are to be bombed and invaded and have no right to complain. They believe there is no good or wrong, only the powerful and the weak.

Nah, I don't think so.

 

[جوري]

This is a psychological phenomenon and I doubt your hypothesis about it being related to having money or not.

It isn't a hypothesis, it is a fact, simulate death on the streets somewhere in the middle east and then in the west and let's compare how fast folks will get to your aid.. unfortunately the respond time here is assessed solely based on your capitalistic system.. there is no regard to human life outside of worldly value!

What does this have to do with competition?

Where does competition lie if foreign labor is doing your work for you?

I don't know where you live but over here the government can't kill people for having troublesome religious beliefs like the Chinese government does. Muslims enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

Really is that why they are held without trial at gitmo and downtown Manhattan? :lol:

you tickle me and you are nothing if not persistent on standards that simply don't exist.. and won't exist even if you close your eyes really hard and concentrate!

all the best

 

[Dagless]

No it wasn't because people were being shipped off to concentration camps.

That was the point. Quality of life was better under the Nazi's and it is better under capitalism. It doesn't mean either is good.

You need human rights to be good & money to be successful.

No, that's your opinion. There is no evidence for this.

And then they failed which shows their system does not lead to success and only ends in failure whereas capitalist systems don't.

Both statements here are wrong. They failed? Cuba seems to be doing ok. Capitalist systems don't fail? Erm... The Roman Empire anyone?

And of course competition exists, that's a natural byproduct of scarcity. The point of what I was saying is that capitalism uses competition for the benefit of everyone.

That doesn't make it good.

my summary: a system S is successful & good if and only if it is better than its competitors and no new system S2 can be thought of to replace S where 'replace' means to procure at least the same benefits as S without as much disadvantages as S.

This is your own definition. Most people would say a system is good and successful for its people if all its people benefit, are happy, and there are no losers. A system with holes, and flaws, open to exploitation of its own people cannot be completely good or completely successful.

 

[Lynx]

That was the point. Quality of life was better under the Nazi's and it is better under capitalism. It doesn't mean either is good.

No, the quality of life wasn't good under the Nazis. When the government is creating concentration camps and sending its citizens there the quality of life can't be said to be good. Nazi Germany is a really poor example.

No, that's your opinion. There is no evidence for this.

Yeah, 'success' and 'good' are not objective terms; they're value judgments. I am defining these words in light of the OP. If you have a different critiera for good and successful that's fine.

Both statements here are wrong. They failed? Cuba seems to be doing ok. Capitalist systems don't fail? Erm... The Roman Empire anyone?

I didn't say Cuba failed I said the USSR failed. Anyway, Cuba is experiencing growth as it's coming out of socialism. There's more private industry and trade with capitalist countries (i.e., adopting free market policies) than before and there's growth resulting from that. They also have a huge underground economy which I am guessing results from a restrictive market. Nevertheless, Cuba is still really poor and it's nothing compared to the Western countries. Moreover, they have tons of human rights abuse which makes it hard to say Cuba is 'doing okay'. Also, consider why China, supposedly a socialist state, has essentially turned its market free.

I don't know why you're citing the Roman Empire as a capitalist state; what they practiced is vastly different from what is practiced now. First, they had tons of slaves which ruins the labor market needed for capitalism (this is why Lincoln freed the slaves: because it's not economically viable). Second, they did not have the production capacity needed for a successful capitalist economy. Third, Adam Smith wrote the book on the topic 1776 much after the Romans came and went and this book gives the more polished blue print on how to run a free market.

That doesn't make it good.

Okay.

This is your own definition. Most people would say a system is good and successful for its people if all its people benefit, are happy, and there are no losers. A system with holes, and flaws, open to exploitation of its own people cannot be completely good or completely successful.

I think most people would define good and successful as how I've defined it. Not only have I not claimed the system practiced in the west to be 'completely good' or 'completely successful', I've repeatedly pointed out that it isn't. Anyway, good and successful are subjective terms and I see that your definition of good and successful are different from mine and so I don't see any point in continuing the argument when our fundamental definitions differ. We have to agree to disagree I guess. FYI the system you describe is impossible since scarcity exists; if we had infinite of everything you'd have what you want and there would be no need for any economic system at all. Good luck.

 

[Lynx]

It isn't a hypothesis, it is a fact, simulate death on the streets somewhere in the middle east and then in the west and let's compare how fast folks will get to your aid.. unfortunately the respond time here is assessed solely based on your capitalistic system.. there is no regard to human life outside of worldly value!

first of all you're reaping the benefits of this horrific capitalist system. second of all, fact according to what study?

Where does competition lie if foreign labor is doing your work for you?

imagine you run a business. you can either hire someone for 20/hour or 5/hour from china. which do you think creates more profit? Now you might say, well I will hire from my home town just for the heck of it so i will choose to pay 20/hour. But guess what? some company down the street that is competing in your market decides to hire from China and sell his product for less...you just got lost. That's an outline of the relationship between competition and foreign labor (grossly oversimplified ).

Really is that why they are held without trial at gitmo and downtown Manhattan? :lol:

What?! All muslims are locked up in downtown manhattan?! However did you find access to a PC?!!

 

[جوري]

first of all you're reaping the benefits of this horrific capitalist system. second of all, fact according to what study?

Pls. do tell of the benefits when I spent the majority of my life and up to now buried in books and debt, only to pay half of my salary to uncle sam which will ultimately be funneled to the cockroach zionist state or to fund some illegal war.. plus deal with people who are better fitted as anatomical gifts than productive human beings? and with everyone just waiting for the moment you have one lapse in judgment so they can milk you for all you've got?

imagine you run a business. you can either hire someone for 20/hour or 5/hour from china. which do you think creates more profit? Now you might say, well I will hire from my home town just for the heck of it so i will choose to pay 20/hour. But guess what? some company down the street that is competing in your market decides to hire from China and sell his product for less...you just got lost. That's an outline of the relationship between competition and foreign labor (grossly oversimplified ).

This isn't news.. other countries suffer from this.. even those not capitalistic..

here is a craft that goes back to the Fatimid empire that has been made into a joke by the china market.. can I blame the big cheeses who just want to make money? In fact I blame the consumer.. but that derails from the original topic..

What?! All muslims are locked up in downtown manhattan?! However did you find access to a PC?!!

Where did I say 'All' Muslims are locked up? maybe pretty soon we'll all have to wear some scarlet letter type object to identity ourselves.. but this is certainly the reality for many a Muslims in the west!

all the best

 

[Lynx]

Pls. do tell of the benefits when I spent the majority of my life and up to now buried in books and debt, only to pay half of my salary to uncle sam which will ultimately be funneled to the cockroach zionist state or to fund some illegal war.. plus deal with people who are better fitted as anatomical gifts than productive human beings? and with everyone just waiting for the moment you have one lapse in judgment so they can milk you for all you've got?

Are you honestly telling me that your life is so miserable you can't think of a single benefit? Seriously? You live in New York, you make enough to have almost half your income taxed so I find that hard to believe. I am sure there are people who would kill to have had the chance to go to school as much as you have, even at the cost of student debt & dealing with annoying people. Do you sometimes go without food or can you afford food everyday? Do you live in a gutter or do you have a warm bed to sleep in every night? I think you're being a tad ungrateful. But of course I have no idea how you live. For all I know you sleep in a hospital in the janitor's closet because we all know how bad those student debts get! Maybe you should go somewhere else where it's more capitalistic (not taxing you).

This isn't news.. other countries suffer from this.. even those not capitalistic..

Well the guy in the video seemed alright. The Chinese lanterns weren't impacting his sales or so the video said. Anyway, the market demands Chinese products only if the consumers get more benefits from the Chinese product than the Egyptian one (for example). consumers have every right to buy whatever the heck they want to buy and if sellers and merchants can't keep up then they will be eliminated and the superior product will take over; this is how progress is made.

here is a craft that goes back to the Fatimid empire that has been made into a joke by the china market.. can I blame the big cheeses who just want to make money? In fact I blame the consumer.. but that derails from the original topic..

Your quite right, you can't blame people for wanting to make money but similarly, you can't blame people for wanting a bargain! Miracle of markets!

Where did I say 'All' Muslims are locked up? maybe pretty soon we'll all have to wear some scarlet letter type object to identity ourselves.. but this is certainly the reality for many a Muslims in the west!

all the best

Well there must be a significant number of Muslims, numbering in the millions perhaps or at least more than a 100,000 that have been arbitrarily locked up for you to disagree that Muslims enjoy the same rights as non-Muslims. I know many Muslims and none of them are being locked up or threatened to be locked up or anything like that. Perhaps you've been locked up before? Or some close family or relatives of yours have been locked up? I live in Canada so maybe it's an American thing to lock up Muslims so maybe that's why I haven't heard of thousands of Muslims being held downtown Manhattan? Enlighten me please. I am being sarcastic btw, you're obviously exaggerating the problem; we both know 99% of Muslims are free to live their lives and practice how they want to practice.

 

[جوري]

Are you honestly telling me that your life is so miserable you can't think of a single benefit? Seriously? You live in New York, you make enough to have almost half your income taxed so I find that hard to believe. I am sure there are people who would kill to have had the chance to go to school as much as you have, even at the cost of student debt & dealing with annoying people. Do you sometimes go without food or can you afford food everyday? Do you live in a gutter or do you have a warm bed to sleep in every night? I think you're being a tad ungrateful. But of course I have no idea how you live. For all I know you sleep in a hospital in the janitor's closet because we all know how bad those student debts get! Maybe you should go somewhere else where it's more capitalistic (not taxing you).

I am sure there are plenty who would trade their life with me, I am just not sure how long they can sustain it?.. some folks always want from the end without any effort.. there were days when I was sick and had insurance, there were days when I went without food, yes because I was charged to the max and didn't want my parents or family to be burdened anymore than they were...much of my sickness I treated myself until one day I had an anaphylactic shock from a left over antibiotic I was treating myself with, and you want to know what my bell came out to? meanwhile I have people come in every monday or thursday because they know exactly how to abuse the system and get a free meal.. Janitor's closet sometimes are a place to get some shut eye, try going 34 hours without and then get a beating from your preceptor's there after because they are having a bad day..and sitting for a series of four 9 hour exams, where if your grade is anything less than stellar then you get the pit of interviews at malignant hospitals, if at all. yeah, it is possible to be a doctor in the U.S and out of a job and in debt!
of course you'd close with that famous statement with 'go somewhere else' as if you were sustaining my existence and education? well I'd gladly go to an Islamic country if indeed they were Islamic and any better!

Well the guy in the video seemed alright. The Chinese lanterns weren't impacting his sales or so the video said. Anyway, the market demands Chinese products only if the consumers get more benefits from the Chinese product than the Egyptian one (for example). consumers have every right to buy whatever the heck they want to buy and if sellers and merchants can't keep up then they will be eliminated and the superior product will take over; this is how progress is made.

no progress is made by buying junk and putting hard working individuals out of work because you feel it better to save a couple of bucks.. and don't get me wrong, I am very impressed with the chinese work ethics but that is as far as it goes!

Well there must be a significant number of Muslims, numbering in the millions perhaps or at least more than a 100,000 that have been arbitrarily locked up for you to disagree that Muslims enjoy the same rights as non-Muslims. I know many Muslims and none of them are being locked up or threatened to be locked up or anything like that. Perhaps you've been locked up before? Or some close family or relatives of yours have been locked up? I live in Canada so maybe it's an American thing to lock up Muslims so maybe that's why I haven't heard of thousands of Muslims being held downtown Manhattan? Enlighten me please. I am being sarcastic btw, you're obviously exaggerating the problem; we both know 99% of Muslims are free to live their lives and practice how they want to practice.

I am not exaggerating the problem, I am aghast that it happens at all, one person illegally imprisoned without trial is bad enough whether in Manhattan or Gitmo-- you seem to be under the impression that if it doesn't concern you and your next of kin personally that, there isn't a problem. Or is happening in isolation and won't impact the whole.. you are in fact very wrong.. it is just a matter of time.. depends on how tight or widely spaced this country comes with the next usama tape or bombing in some city street and I am pretty sure after the Gaza fiasco that they are working on something as we speak!

all the best

 

[Dagless]

No, the quality of life wasn't good under the Nazis. When the government is creating concentration camps and sending its citizens there the quality of life can't be said to be good. Nazi Germany is a really poor example.

I think its a great example. The Jews were a minority group, just as the poor are now. In your own words, the majority were happy.

Yeah, 'success' and 'good' are not objective terms; they're value judgments. I am defining these words in light of the OP. If you have a different critiera for good and successful that's fine.

Not in the context we are describing them. For something to be good for the people it should be good for all people.

I didn't say Cuba failed I said the USSR failed. Anyway, Cuba is experiencing growth as it's coming out of socialism. There's more private industry and trade with capitalist countries (i.e., adopting free market policies) than before and there's growth resulting from that. They also have a huge underground economy which I am guessing results from a restrictive market. Nevertheless, Cuba is still really poor and it's nothing compared to the Western countries. Moreover, they have tons of human rights abuse which makes it hard to say Cuba is 'doing okay'. Also, consider why China, supposedly a socialist state, has essentially turned its market free.

I said Cuba is doing ok, I did not ask for a wiki entry for Cuba. It is still in existence, and has a growing gdp - hence is doing ok.
Did I mention China? I don't recall that. How about Sweden? I hear the snow there is quite lovely.

I don't know why you're citing the Roman Empire as a capitalist state; what they practiced is vastly different from what is practiced now. First, they had tons of slaves which ruins the labor market needed for capitalism (this is why Lincoln freed the slaves: because it's not economically viable). Second, they did not have the production capacity needed for a successful capitalist economy. Third, Adam Smith wrote the book on the topic 1776 much after the Romans came and went and this book gives the more polished blue print on how to run a free market.

The Roman Empire was run on capitalist principles. We are not discussing slavery or what they had or did not have. They were classed as an early capitalist market. The end.

Okay.

Finally you agree. That's it, no need to go on. You've accepted that doesn't make it good.

We have to agree to disagree I guess. FYI the system you describe is impossible since scarcity exists; if we had infinite of everything you'd have what you want and there would be no need for any economic system at all. Good luck.

You don't need infinite everything to have the basic necessities for life. Any western country could eradicate poverty if they wished.

 

[Lynx]

I think its a great example. The Jews were a minority group, just as the poor are now. In your own words, the majority were happy.

Go look into why people are poor and then go look into why Hitler sent Jews to concentration camps then re-read all my posts and tell me if you still think it's a 'great' example.

Not in the context we are describing them. For something to be good for the people it should be good for all people.

When you say 'good for everyone' the implications are vast. I do think the system we have is good for everyone; people can practice what religion they want, people are enjoying an unparalleled growth in economy. Even the poor are well off and have lots of opportunities. This is what I cal good but your definition of good is somethign else and like I said, it's subjective and there's no point in arguing over it. You can think what you want but you'll still be living in a Western country

I said Cuba is doing ok, I did not ask for a wiki entry for Cuba. It is still in existence, and has a growing gdp - hence is doing ok.
Did I mention China? I don't recall that. How about Sweden? I hear the snow there is quite lovely.

You don't know what you're talking about at all.

The Roman Empire was run on capitalist principles. We are not discussing slavery or what they had or did not have. They were classed as an early capitalist market. The end.

You don't know what you're talking about at all.

Finally you agree. That's it, no need to go on. You've accepted that doesn't make it good.

Yes, I've accepted that we have different definitions of successful and good and arguing about it is pointless.

You don't need infinite everything to have the basic necessities for life. Any western country could eradicate poverty if they wished.

You don't know what you're talking about at all.