100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: QUESTION | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Wed 05/30/12 10:45 AM
|
|
It is somewhat strange to me that working class people, that is people who work for bosses would defend capitalism. It is defending exploitation. Your silly. Not being silly. When I was 10 years younger than you I worked for a Guy. I was doing all the work and he was getting part of the monies for that work so I decided to go out on my own and Increased my income by 35% for doing the same amount of work. Simple really.....Not at all Silly Billy 
You have failed to make your case against capitalism. That you had resources, and property rights means you had the ability to use that capital to work independently. Your example was an example in favor of capitalism, not against it. That is why your assertions are silly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These are not the same things you are comparing, and because independent entrepreneurship exists does not make working for a wage bad, or exploitation. You have failed to make your case against capitalism. That you had resources, and property rights means you had the ability to use that capital to work independently. Your example was an example in favor of capitalism, not against it. That is why your assertions are silly. For starters I never said working for a wage was bad. I find it strange that a working man would defend Capitalists. I simply put my case of working for myself as opposed to someone making money off my back. I do not do Debt or Slavery
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 05/30/12 10:59 AM
|
|
These are not the same things you are comparing, and because independent entrepreneurship exists does not make working for a wage bad, or exploitation.
Working for a wage is not exploitation until it involves taking advantage of desperate people and paying them the absolute lowest wage possible. PAY PEOPLE WHAT THEY ARE WORTH. Then call that capitalism. Until people are paid what they are worth and treated more fairly, capitalism is used to exploit people. If you can't pay people a living wage, then do the work yourself. Why do you think a lot of companies are outsourcing work to third world countries? Cheap labor.... more profit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These are not the same things you are comparing, and because independent entrepreneurship exists does not make working for a wage bad, or exploitation.
Working for a wage is not exploitation until it involves taking advantage of desperate people and paying them the absolute lowest wage possible. PAY PEOPLE WHAT THEY ARE WORTH. Then call that capitalism. Until people are paid what they are worth and treated more fairly, capitalism is used to exploit people. If you can't pay people a living wage, then do the work yourself. Why do you think a lot of companies are outsourcing work to third world countries? Cheap labor.... more profit. If people are paid a decent livable wage there is nothing wrong with that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These are not the same things you are comparing, and because independent entrepreneurship exists does not make working for a wage bad, or exploitation.
Working for a wage is not exploitation until it involves taking advantage of desperate people and paying them the absolute lowest wage possible. PAY PEOPLE WHAT THEY ARE WORTH. Then call that capitalism. Until people are paid what they are worth and treated more fairly, capitalism is used to exploit people. If you can't pay people a living wage, then do the work yourself. Why do you think a lot of companies are outsourcing work to third world countries? Cheap labor.... more profit. If people are paid a decent livable wage there is nothing wrong with that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capitalism, an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production. How does this stop democracy? Because we are a capitalist society I can go out and start my own business if I wish. Lots of people do that who are not rich. Also I want to say that the USA is a republic not a democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is somewhat strange to me that working class people, that is people who work for bosses would defend capitalism. It is defending exploitation. Your silly. Sorry but people who work under a boss are not working class. I have a boss but I am part of the Professional upper middle class. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is somewhat strange to me that working class people, that is people who work for bosses would defend capitalism. It is defending exploitation. Your silly. Sorry but people who work under a boss are not working class. I have a boss but I am part of the Professional upper middle class. So you don't work? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of hungry people in the world 925 million hungry people in 2010 
Capitalism/Corporatism/Fascism/ Makes no difference what you call it. Makes no difference to millions. We are in The 21st Century Does the world produce enough food to feed everyone? The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day according to the most recent estimate that we could find. The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food. Thanks for making the Case for Laissez Faire! 
Most of those poor countries don't have capitalism ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is somewhat strange to me that working class people, that is people who work for bosses would defend capitalism. It is defending exploitation. Your silly. Sorry but people who work under a boss are not working class. I have a boss but I am part of the Professional upper middle class. So you don't work?
Having a job and being part of the working class is different. Please say you have enough education to know the difference. I assumed everyone here did. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of hungry people in the world 925 million hungry people in 2010
Capitalism/Corporatism/Fascism/ Makes no difference what you call it. Makes no difference to millions. We are in The 21st Century Does the world produce enough food to feed everyone? The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day according to the most recent estimate that we could find. The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food. Thanks for making the Case for Laissez Faire!
Most of those poor countries don't have capitalism ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's easy to sit on you bum and moan on internet fora. Your voter turnout figures are poor, so get out and vote! If you're unsatisfied-do something! Write to your representatives and express your concerns. Unlike East Germany, you can vote, so do it! Form parties or nominate independant candidates. You have the gift of democracy and change comes from you, no-one else. Become politically active instead of wasting time bitching on a dating site. Make your minority concerns those of the majority. 
If that's your attitude, you deserve what you get. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Wed 05/30/12 03:02 PM
|
|
My Example is more akin to a Workers Co-operative Just because they are pooling capital does not make it something other than capitalism. They are making use of resources, and property rights to create a service, or product without government control.
Now if they were forced to pool capital by the government, then the government told them how to use it, that would be socialism. Bushi, your definition of capitalism is probably what it used to be and a much purer idea. But the word has come to be used and it has come to represent globalization and corporatism. They have begun to call corporatism and global take over capitalism because it sounded better. Sort of like the decision to call the people in Iraq who were resisting our Invasion of their country "insurgents" instead of "the resistance." The term "resistance" made it sound like we were the bad guys invading Iraq. So they changed the word. So it is with the new meaning of the word "capitalism." When corporations use that term they are trying to gain support and hide the fact that they are profiteers. Hence, the term "capitalism" that you are defending so nicely, becomes a dirty word as people see the results of global corporatism. So go tell the corporations to stop using that word to describe their global take over and profiteering. So, does the misuse of a term change its meaning? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's easy to sit on you bum and moan on internet fora. Your voter turnout figures are poor, so get out and vote! If you're unsatisfied-do something! Write to your representatives and express your concerns. Unlike East Germany, you can vote, so do it! Form parties or nominate independant candidates. You have the gift of democracy and change comes from you, no-one else. Become politically active instead of wasting time bitching on a dating site. Make your minority concerns those of the majority.
If that's your attitude, you deserve what you get. Just because you are compelled to vote
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My Example is more akin to a Workers Co-operative Just because they are pooling capital does not make it something other than capitalism. They are making use of resources, and property rights to create a service, or product without government control.
Now if they were forced to pool capital by the government, then the government told them how to use it, that would be socialism. Bushi, your definition of capitalism is probably what it used to be and a much purer idea. But the word has come to be used and it has come to represent globalization and corporatism. They have begun to call corporatism and global take over capitalism because it sounded better. Sort of like the decision to call the people in Iraq who were resisting our Invasion of their country "insurgents" instead of "the resistance." The term "resistance" made it sound like we were the bad guys invading Iraq. So they changed the word. So it is with the new meaning of the word "capitalism." When corporations use that term they are trying to gain support and hide the fact that they are profiteers. Hence, the term "capitalism" that you are defending so nicely, becomes a dirty word as people see the results of global corporatism. So go tell the corporations to stop using that word to describe their global take over and profiteering. So, does the misuse of a term change its meaning? Eventually it does, yes. (God did not create language, people did. )
As meanings and use of words change over time, dictionaries are rewritten to reflect that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's easy to sit on you bum and moan on internet fora. Your voter turnout figures are poor, so get out and vote! If you're unsatisfied-do something! Write to your representatives and express your concerns. Unlike East Germany, you can vote, so do it! Form parties or nominate independant candidates. You have the gift of democracy and change comes from you, no-one else. Become politically active instead of wasting time bitching on a dating site. Make your minority concerns those of the majority.
If that's your attitude, you deserve what you get. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, does the misuse of a term change its meaning?
Eventually it does, yes.
(God did not create language, people did. )
As meanings and use of words change over time, dictionaries are rewritten to reflect that. Persiflage. Clearly, you missed my point. Must I be obvious? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's easy to sit on you bum and moan on internet fora. Your voter turnout figures are poor, so get out and vote! If you're unsatisfied-do something! Write to your representatives and express your concerns. Unlike East Germany, you can vote, so do it! Form parties or nominate independant candidates. You have the gift of democracy and change comes from you, no-one else. Become politically active instead of wasting time bitching on a dating site. Make your minority concerns those of the majority. If your vote really changed anything they would take it away.All you do by voting is to give your consent to be governed.
If that's your attitude, you deserve what you get. Deserve has nothing to do with it.
What does then? You, moaning and bitching on a dating site without actually doing even the most simple of tasks to change things? Here is not the place to voice your opinion if you're dissatisfied. Tell it to those who represent your electorate, encourage others to do it, and do it repeatedly. If you don't and one day you do wake up in a fascist state (which I doubt), as you lot continue to exaggerate upon, whose fault is it? Really? Apathy is a tool for creating hegemony by those so inclined. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Sat 06/02/12 03:29 AM
|
|
Just because you are compelled to vote
Yes we are. Your puerile response aside, do you have the slightest notion why that is so? It is to prevent lobby groups having undue influence at elections owing to an apathetic populace. Sound familiar? When our constitution was drafted (1901), elements of the US, French and UK constitutions were employed to create the hybrid that we live under. Perceived flaws in the above were omitted in favour of remedies-compulsory voting being one of the aforementioned. This prevented undue power being placed in the hands of the highly influential wealthy class (the Pastoralists) as it was then, as well as religious groups etc. The aim was an egalitarian and secular state, and we have largely achieved said aims. It's not perfect, but it's better than most. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just because you are compelled to vote
Yes we are. Your puerile response aside, do you have the slightest notion why that is so? It is to prevent lobby groups having undue influence at elections owing to an apathetic populace. Sound familiar? When our constitution was drafted (1901), elements of the US, French and UK constitutions were employed to create the hybrid that we live under. Perceived flaws in both were omitted in favour of remedies-compulsory voting being one of the aforementioned. This prevented undue power being placed in the hands of the highly influential wealthy class (the Pastoralists) as it was then, as well as religious groups etc. The aim was an egalitarian and secular state, and we have largely achieved said aims. It's not perfect, but it's better than most. Why don't you start a new Thread on that and educate the Americans on here as to how to elect Ron Paul for instance.....
'It's Not the People Who Vote that Count; It's the People Who Count the Votes'
It's the modern way man 
|
|
|
|
|
