but why do you say greedy when I explained to you they must go off shore to please greedy consumers? Why blame capitalists for consumer behavior???? Do you have any idea???? - - - Updated - - - more illiteracy of course. China exports more to Europe than the USA. Isn't learning fun??
I assume you get it now?? - - - Updated - - - we are free to buy made in America and only made in America but when the Japanese brought over the first Datsun we jumped all over it to get away from the thug union junk
Leopold II acquired Congo Free State as a private citizen, organized a private holding company for his profit-seeking endeavors, amassed a personal fortune in the process. He was a capitalist. Oh and and was responsible for 10 million deaths.
The EU has over 500 million people, while the U.S.A has over 300 million people. Yet, the EU, and the U.S.A have imports from China at similar rates. Proving that America is disproportionately more likely to import. But, not all imports are from outsourced jobs though.
Somehow, you believe a king and a capitalist are mutually exclusive. A king just answers for what type of government he rules over. A capitalist just answers for what type of economic principles a person adopts. Remember the Congo Free State was privately owned by an individual. Look up Leopold II of Belgium. He owned the Congo Free State, not the Belgian Kingdom (at least not until they took it from him).
yes like black and white are mutually exclusive. A king rules by devine right , a capitalist does not rule he merely trades freely based on price and quality with other free people. Now I'll bet you understand??
I'd laugh out loud, but I know you're dead serious. So, I guess here we go: It is fine to say that Black and White can be mutually exclusive because they're both colors. A king and a capitalist, however, is neither both governmental forms nor both economic forms. IOW, one is about a government form, the other economic, so they are not mutually exclusive. Besides, the Congo Free State was owned by Leopoldo II and he acquired it as a private citizen.
they are mutually exclusive. If a king interferes with capitalism by say genocide then you no longer have capitalism. if a king encourages capitalism then you might say he is a capitalist king who abdicated economic power except in so far as he uses it to protect capitalism.
Why isn't this same consideration given to other economic systems? Socialism, for example, is about the social ownership of the means of production, not starvation and genocide. Yet, one of the arguments against it is that it has killed or starved millions. That's one of the reasons why I created this thread; to mirror the same arguments against capitalism. Anyway, your points concerning Leopold II are invalid. The monarchy did not interfere with his capitalism. It did not kill him in his pursuit of profit. It did not interfere with what he, as a private owner, did for trade (at least for a long time). He was free to...capitalize; to privately own, to produce for profit, to trade freely. He just happened to kill millions in the process. Oh and a capitalist and a murderer aren't mutually exclusive either.
But since it always results in genocide, starvation, or increasing poverty( if it is mixed with capitalism) it is only logical to associate socialism with genocide and en masse starvation. What on earth would make any human being hitch his wagon to the greatest source of evil in human history?
It's obvious you have double standards for judging economic systems. I've been more than fair listening to your pov and I believe my arguments are reasonable. I'll still engage, but I can't take you seriously anymore until you can make some reasonable concessions.
All of these command/control economic systems look fine on paper. The problem is that it takes a strong human to command them. And history is full of the tragic consequences of that.
China's a Communist country that allows some capitalism in its economy. It isn't Fascist. It isn't a recently used to be liberal country that adopted capitalism, either, as someone claimed in Post 46.
Bhopal. Profit was put before all safety controls http://www.bhopal.net/what-happened-in-bhopal/ And this one in Australia in May 2016. If this young man had been working for a wage it's highly doubtful Australian Workplace Safety Law would have allowed the work practice-his family certainly wouldn't have had to fund raise to bury him. Modern capitalism as currently practiced threw him on the unemployed scrap heap and he paid with his life. http://www.news.com.au/finance/work...e/news-story/5db56cad4e3a0adcd0b44d35304a45ed
Where were the gov inspectors ?? Proper regulation is essential and part of good governance. What happened is tragic but was accidental. It was claimed that safety systems didn't work but that may not be the case. The gov of India may have been complicite.
The safety systems were inadequate for the plant and what was there wasn't repaired or maintained: as I said profit was put before people. It wasn't an accident it was negligence. When the gas escaped and people started arriving at the hospital in their thousands, the plant wouldn't even tell the doctors what they were really dealing with so they didn't have a hope in hell of treating it. The plant told them it was something else.
you are probably right but so what? Capitalism, on balance, makes it possible for the planet to support 7 billion people. If we switched to socialism probably 4 billion would slowly starve to death.
If there was wrongdoing the company will be punished (and they were). If the Indian gov had owned the plant would the safety systems have been functional and would there have been punishment ?? The fact that inspections were not done suggests not. This cannot be blamed on responsible capitalism which includes a requirement for safety regulations.
Any more than Chernobyl can be blamed on Socialism. At least under capitalism there is competition so consumers can buy else where to punish the company and serve notice on other companies that they must be careful.
Yes. Union Carbide paid the victims $470 million in 1989, but there were so very many victims-3500 died and 200,000 were injured, so the compensation didn't go far: 90% received less than US $500 for lifelong injuries. It was small change to Union Carbide. Here's a quote from the New York Times dated Feb 15 1989 " The settlement will have only a small financial impact on Carbide." I suppose small change is enough punishment to pay for killing and maiming dirt poor brown people. The site is still contaminated, still hasn't been cleaned up and is still causing health problems. Here's a quote from a traditional Indian medical practitioner: "In contaminated areas, we still get a lot of babies with birth defects. In our clinic we see many cases of brain damage, learning disabilities, behavioural disabilities, extremely painful menstruation in third generation girls, too many women with polycystic ovarian disease. Because there is no system, and people dont get expensive diagnosis done, it is underreported, says Sarangi. The Indian government didn't own the plant, so your "what if?" is irrelevant. My reading suggests inspections were done, safety standard breaches were noted and the plant always maintained it was going to mend the breaches, but didn't do so. Please bear in mind India was a dirt poor country and plants like the one at Bhopal were their ticket out of poverty- it is easy to exploit desperation. This is thread about death by capitalism, it does not distinguish between "responsible" and "irresponsible" capitalism, though I will do so: Bhopal was caused by irresponsible capitalism, but capitalism all the same.
