Richest 2% hold half of world's assets

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
anyway, capitatlism is part of the state, the state is part of capitalism. that's why i cant oppose the state but support capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't confuse capitalism with mercantilism.

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, I'm still not see the connection. I don't see how where the money I spend on random stuff I own goes to is relavant to whether or not working class people in the U.S. have the opportunity to start their own business? What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure he's saying that your purchasing of goods made overseas furthers unfair trade agreements which serve to drive down wages in the US. Obviously by driving down wages you are taking away possibilities--such as saving up to open their business--from the working class.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am saying that talking about class/exploitation delineated by geography is totaly false in the modern economy given the ease of trans national capital flows.

I am undecided on the issue. I think it is good that Caps invest in manufacturing in poorer countries but I would like to see more of their profits transfered back into the local market via higher wages so that workers were then able to take there wages/savings and invest into serving the local market. As is stands Caps are carefull to pay enough to "trap" the labour into having to work in sweat shops etc on a subsistence wage. In my view this is short termism.

By releasing a bit more of the wealth created by adding value in poor as feck land and then selling the product of that labour in rich as feck land back to the labour providers, caps could develop new consumers and markets much faster.

Remember that $10 invested in PAF land will probably have a much higher ROI than $10 invested in RAF land.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry I'm not intentionally trying to be obtuse here. The scenerio that my arguments were referring to dealt with the claim the working class people in the U.S. today, making whatever wages they make right now, were trapped in their current situation indefinately and never could have the opportunity to start their own business and have a chance to pull themselves out of the working class. Ok I get the whole ease of capital flow part, but I don't see how that makes it impossible for a working class person living in our coutry unable to move up.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My question for you is why do you care?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because it matters

[/ QUOTE ]
It matters? If you're not a shareholder it's none of your business.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have a vested interest in America in general.

[/ QUOTE ]
Vested interest? What does that mean? Other than, "I want to tell other people what to do"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Would you just stop it, that's not what it means, you're just being dogmatic and obtuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, you're the one being dogmatic and obtuse. When you make a claim (e.g. I have a "vested interest" in your activities) the burden of proof is on YOU to prove this. Those who are skeptical do not have to meet any burden of proof. By refusing to demonstrate why you actually do have a legitimate interest, and just insisting that you *do* have one, you are being (gasp) dogmatic and obtuse. That's practically the textbook example of dogma: Just do it because I say so.

[ QUOTE ]
That's just a non sequitur, so what? You're saying that I should be coerced just because no one is stopping me from forming my own corporation?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm saying you *are not* coerced because you made the decision to invest in a corporation. The corporation is not taking your money against your will.



[ QUOTE ]
This argument still doesn't matter. All stocks in the US are counted the same way. It's an institutional problem not a problem of individual choice in stock purchasing.

[/ QUOTE ]

All cars come with tires. I already have tires. No car dealer I know will sell me a car without tires. Am I (illegitimately) coerced to buy tires? Is this an "institutional problem"?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They voluntarily agree to the conditions. They are free to divest their investment.

[/ QUOTE ]
So what? this is non sequitur to your whole coercion argument. Besides, any telco, company, corporation or person is free to divest their investment. That argument contradicts your entire perspective. If a telco doesn't like the regulation, they are free to sell their business.

[/ QUOTE ]

This ignores the legitimacy of the person imposing the regulation.

I own a boat. I rent out rooms on the boat for tourism crusies.

Let's say that I have decided as part of my business plan, that there is no smoking on the boat. Anyone who wants to take a leisure cruise would be advised to find a different cruise line.

Now, let's say I sell shares in the boat. Investors are, as part of their investment, entitled to free cruises. But they are still subject to the rules (which they were informed of before investing).

Now, let's say someone else, who doesn't own the boat, makes that decision for me. I am, of course, free to sell my boat and engage in a different business.

Do you see the difference in these scenarios?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you don't like the rules a corporation is set up with, you can choose to invest somewhere else.

[/ QUOTE ] Not if I want to invest in the USA.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not someone else's obligation to provide you with investment opportunities you find agreeable. I want to invest in a company headquartered on main street, and I also want to invest in a company that makes cheese graters. Unfortunately, no company making cheese graters happens to be headquartered on main street. Therefore, I am being coerced.

[/ QUOTE ]
According this argument, you suffer absolouly no coercion in any trasaction you make in these United States and should stop bitching about the state and take your business elsewhere. The differences are only semantic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Again, you are ignoring the source of the regulation. That is the difference. It's not semantic.

[ QUOTE ]
More empty rhetoric...According to your standards they can divest their investment and move some place else. Like freedom ship .

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have to move in order to sell my investment in company A and invest in company B. I don't have to move in order to end my relationship with grocery store C and start a relationship with grocery store D. In fact, I can own shares in BOTH A and B and I can shop at BOTH C and D and all while owning a single piece of property. Or no property! I might just be renting. Try again.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anyway, capitatlism is part of the state, the state is part of capitalism. that's why i cant oppose the state but support capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't confuse capitalism with mercantilism.

[/ QUOTE ]

so where has capitalism ever existed then?

capitalism is a system in which owners of capital buy labor power from those who don't own capital. which is exactly what we have now.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anyway, capitatlism is part of the state, the state is part of capitalism. that's why i cant oppose the state but support capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't confuse capitalism with mercantilism.

[/ QUOTE ]

so where has capitalism ever existed then?

capitalism is a system in which owners of capital buy labor power from those who don't own capital. which is exactly what we have now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make no mistake, "we"(I assume you mean USA?) do not have a capitalist system right now. It's mercantilism, there's a difference because right now there is heavy state intervention in the "free" market. Education, health care, etc.

As for "when has capitalism ever existed", I have no good answer to this, perhaps never in its truest form. Just like socialists say that USSR wasn't real communism.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
anyway, capitatlism is part of the state, the state is part of capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
How so?

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anyway, capitatlism is part of the state, the state is part of capitalism. that's why i cant oppose the state but support capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't confuse capitalism with mercantilism.

[/ QUOTE ]

so where has capitalism ever existed then?

capitalism is a system in which owners of capital buy labor power from those who don't own capital. which is exactly what we have now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make no mistake, "we"(I assume you mean USA?) do not have a capitalist system right now. It's mercantilism, there's a difference because right now there is heavy state intervention in the "free" market. Education, health care, etc.

As for "when has capitalism ever existed", I have no good answer to this, perhaps never in its truest form. Just like socialists say that USSR wasn't real communism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then capitalism only exists in theory, and ancap is [censored] either way. I see no reason to believe you could have a "capitalist" system, i.e. where people sell their labor on the market without the state existing alongside it.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]

Make no mistake, "we"(I assume you mean USA?) do not have a capitalist system right now. It's mercantilism, there's a difference because right now there is heavy state intervention in the "free" market. Education, health care, etc.


As for "when has capitalism ever existed", I have no good answer to this, perhaps never in its truest form. Just like socialists say that USSR wasn't real communism.

[/ QUOTE ] Mercantilism is the purest capitalism you can get. You can come up with some kind of imaginary model or theory of a different capitalism if you want, but, failing some laissez-faire extremest becoming a dictator somewhere, you never are going to have a system in which a tiny minority controls most of the power and wealth and doesn't use that power and wealth to their advantage (especially utopian seeing that the system you are describing encourages and rewards greed and selfishness).

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anyway, capitatlism is part of the state, the state is part of capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
How so?

[/ QUOTE ]

The state and capitalists are constantly interacting to screw everyone else. Both are based on hierarchy and power. For example, the state subsidizes business and works to destroy up and coming competitors, through not only subsidies but regulations that keep others out of the market. Capitalist companies have tons of lobbyists to try to bribe the state into giving them favoritism.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anyway, capitatlism is part of the state, the state is part of capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
How so?

[/ QUOTE ]

The state and capitalists are constantly interacting to screw everyone else. Both are based on hierarchy and power. For example, the state subsidizes business and works to destroy up and coming competitors, through not only subsidies but regulations that keep others out of the market. Capitalist companies have tons of lobbyists to try to bribe the state into giving them favoritism.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow. This is paranoid on so many levels.