The problem of Capitalism

You're not very good at explaining things because you still haven't shown what makes the comparison invalid.

"Human being is human being." Is that also your attempt at discussing "adult issues?"

Again, you're not making any meaningful distinctions. People historically have (and still do) own both land and human beings. They're both resources; they both have inherent variable as resource. I've just provided two ways they can be compared. You've provided zero to the contrary.

This is probably a difficult conversion for you. Perhaps you should be leaving it to the adults who can reason more effectively.

 

Uh, of course I have.

Land is in no way comparable to a human being, as I’ve repeatedly shown. Trying to compare the two is invalid, as I have repeatedly shown. Sorry.

 

No, you haven't.

I'm not sure what you've shown. Then only thing you've done was repeat the same sentences in a similar manner of what a child would do.

Land is a resource; people are also resources. Explain why this comparison is inaccurate. I still have yet to hear an "adult" resource.

 

Are you in favor of slavery?

 

No. Then again, one does not need to be in order to be able to analyze the cost-benefit analysis of it.

 

It is rather ironic, to say the least, that there are people who use a computer and the Internet to complain about Capitalism as they are enjoying a can of Coke and a bag of Cheetos in their safe home.

Even more so as the engagement in exchange of ideas is the exact same thing as Free Trade.

 

There are no benefits of slavery, It is absolutely disastrous for the economy and if you claim it is good, you are actually making a case for slavery which means you should be pro-slavery.

Capitalism and slavery are direct opposites.

 

Adverse benefits would be accurate. The second largest economy in the world still has forced labour. It also happens to be where my ancestors are from and one can argue that we benefit from that labor.

I've never made any case for slavery.

 

What benefit?

 

A few individual slave-owners may indeed benefit from slavery, but claiming slavery is "good for the economy" is both economically ignorant and economically illiterate.

First of all, keeping people captivated and forcing them to work for you means that these people are not doing what they would have done if they were not slaves. Additionally, working for free means you have no incentives to a good job; you will only as little it takes for you not to be beaten up by your master.

Furthermore, it is impossible to compete with free labour which means that industries driven with slave labour remain stagnant. Moreover, this also means that it is impossible to know if what this industry is producing is actually demanded to the rate that it is produced since there are no price signal mechanisms.

And if slavery is indeed beneficial for the economy, how come the South was poorer than the North?

If you are claiming it is beneficial, you are very obviously making a pretty good case for it.

I could add more depth to this analysis, but this thread is not really about slavery and I do not want to ruin the ongoing discussion about Affirmative Action as I have already made way too many off topic-posts in here.

 

The claim is that the first world, whether directly or indirectly, benefits from slavery, in a modern-day sense.

All of this might be true, but there are trade-offs to everything. Slavery is no exception. Most slavery exist today not as a byproduct of free-market competition, but as an alternative to sub-optimal circumstances. Although slavery has existed for thousands of years, economic and social forces have enabled its resurgence in the past few decades by preying on people's vulnerability.

I don't know if the South was poorer; simply significantly less industrious. Most economic output in the past was produced by agriculture. Today that is no longer the case. I don't think people agree that most slave owners were poor.

That's is a false false dichotomy. Saying that there are ways we benefit (either directly or indirectly) is not the same as saying "why we need slaves."

 

No, that is an absolutely bogus claim. During the Civil War, this was actually what the slave owners said too - "But, without slaves, who would pick the cotton?"

It has no basis in reality whatsoever.

I would say it is.

 

It's not a bogus claim. Developed nations benefit (in many ways, indirectly) from modern-day slavery merely by using comparative advantage to trade with other nations, thus reducing their opportunity cost.

You can say it, but it's fallacious reasoning. Pointing out how a system operates is not an endorsement of that system.

 

repeatedly have.

Except I’ve clearly shown why the 2 aren’t comparable.

people are not resources. Labor is a resource.

Repeatedly shown why it’s invalid.

 

not.

"Human being is human being." Not exactly clear, but at least you've tried.

People are most definitely resources. There is an entire industry related to it, called "Human Resource Management."

You've probably heard of it (or maybe not, if you don't work).

Not yet. I'm sure you'll get to that.

 

1) I didn't say commenting was directly promoting a specific ideology. Rather it's a subtle form of same. "Comment" means opinion, and opinion has no place in education. Public school teachers ought have 'no opinion' on any social issues - religion, sex, or politics - even when directly asked. Plenty of ways to obfuscate and redirect those questions.

2) Yes, public schools are now failing their mandate, in a return to bias via the promotion of a single ideology. It's an outrage against the tax payer, and against progress.

3) I wouldn't know, I'm not a Conservative. I'm a life-long opposer of ANY form of ideology bias in public schools. Religion included.

4) So what? Failing to teach kids that hugs are bomb has lead to lots of not-hugging. IOW, not a school's problem. How an individual responds to society is the family's concern. And how a family chooses to address that stuff is none of a school's business.

5) No idea. I'm an atheist and a non-conservative. I'm opposed to ALL bias in public education.

6) I understand very well. Evidenced by my insistence that education is the key to escaping poverty. You may have noticed that's one of my refrains, these last 100 pages? I'm not the one who wants to replace academics with propaganda and participation trophies.

 

Look, ABW, many many thousands of deeply traumatised and oppressed people have managed to make good, once given the incredible opportunities in the First World. Those with vastly more excuse than the average American for 'staying poor', yet they didn't. They were never going to let a bad history turn into a bad future. That's what determined people do, as long as they're still breathing.

It's even more revealing of First World apathy and self-indulgence, when you consider that none of the suffering and oppressions experienced by refugees is self-inflicted. These are people who never indulged personal failure (addiction, crime, obesity, overspending, etc etc), but simply had the misfortune to live in times and places of deep unrest.

 

It was me, but that's not exactly what I said.

 

We both know they'd be the first to implode if they ever had to actually live the life they're advocating for. Of course, they imagine that life would look just like their current life but with more freebies. The reality of what they're wishing for would look nothing like that .. and we already know they hate that reality, since they refuse to live it now.

 

Have

That you can’t grasp the difference between a person and land is evidence you have no business in this discussion.

They are not. Labor is.

Which doesn’t change anything I pointed out. People are not resources. Labor is.

already have

 

I fixed that for you.

There is a difference between land and animals. Are you saying that someone cannot own animals? Obviously, if you apply this logic to humans you will see how faulty your logic is (using the word logic loosely, in your case).

You're not pointing out anything. You're just repeating yourself without explain why the rational behind your conclusions.

If people are not resources, then human resource managers appear to be managing nothing. Are you sure you're the adult in this conversation? You don't seem to understand how the world works very well...

If that's what you want to believe.

 

Neither did I, but it IS what crank claims [eg, he claims all people can 'choose' to avoid living in poverty].

I was disputing this proposition from crank.

You jumped in with your post #2375, and asked:

"which people can govern, if none can make rational choices?"

Notice how you introduced "governance" into the question of individuals' freedom (or not) to make rational choices.

I pointed out to you in my post #2390 that this was a non sequitur, which you appeared to accept in your post #2391; with your words "Wow, it's not equivalent at all".

Indeed, governance only requires that SOME people can make rational choices, hopefully enough individuals are rational enough for the specific governance task required of each elected individual....

Now, can you relate the "freedom (or not) to make rational choices", to your question re "violence"?
[

 

It sounds like you are saying that only some people can make rational choices.

 

Owning animals and owning humans. They're not at all alike. In any way.

 

I said, for the thousandth time, that First Worlders are free to escape poverty. I have never said 'all people'.