- 31 Mar 2009 10:45
#1854184
Why wouldn't it count if that's what you do for a living?
1. The corporation that stays will probably go out of business because their competitor will leave and offer better prices. People will loose their jobs anyways and you will be hurting yourself, the workers, and your stock holders.
2. If you leave your workers in America will loose their jobs, sure. But you will be helping other poor countries. You will be helping your stock holders, you will be able to provide Americans with cheaper goods; thus they can save more money and build capital. You can't build capital without saving, that's why I don't consider America as a capitalist country.
You think someone will just sit their and yell I'm drowning if they know how to swim? I don't think so. Companies leave because of unions, taxes, and etc.
The first option is more of an immoral decision because you hurt everyone including yourself.
The USSR wasn't communist?
Agree to disagree
Well, you believe money is the root to all evil and I believe money is the root to all good.
What would be best for your self-interest? It would be in your self-interest to have (or attempt) a peaceful revolution because if the violent one fails then you will go to jail. Also you could risk hurting your movement; people won't want to associate with terrorist and so on.
Under your definition the USSR would be a capitalist country, and they certainly were not.
How you build capital is through savings, period. That's why savings is in my definition.
I don't care about your definition of capitalism. To have capitalism you need savings, property rights, production, and exchange.
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:Gains through the stock market or other forms of money manipulation don't count.
Why wouldn't it count if that's what you do for a living?
TheGoatman1 wrote:So would laying off workers in America and then moving factories to "free trade zones" where workers make less than 2 dollars a day constitute an immoral act under your guidelines? How about billion dollar corporations paying less than a "living wage"? The things clearly cause harm to others.
1. The corporation that stays will probably go out of business because their competitor will leave and offer better prices. People will loose their jobs anyways and you will be hurting yourself, the workers, and your stock holders.
2. If you leave your workers in America will loose their jobs, sure. But you will be helping other poor countries. You will be helping your stock holders, you will be able to provide Americans with cheaper goods; thus they can save more money and build capital. You can't build capital without saving, that's why I don't consider America as a capitalist country.
You think someone will just sit their and yell I'm drowning if they know how to swim? I don't think so. Companies leave because of unions, taxes, and etc.
The first option is more of an immoral decision because you hurt everyone including yourself.
Ademir wrote:I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I was simply trying to say that you can't say things have happened under communism if communism never existed.
The USSR wasn't communist?
Ademir wrote:It's well known that Marxists and capitalists have different definitions of value
Agree to disagree
Ademir wrote:I agree, I just think private property is the most harmful institution known to man.
Well, you believe money is the root to all evil and I believe money is the root to all good.
and that usually immoral acts such as killing are justified if it's to get rid of private property. There isn't a whole lot of difference between classical liberalism and ethical socialism besides the issue of property. Note, that this has nothing to do with my Marxism - I would support violent revolution even if I thought it was immoral, and so will every other worker, because it is in their interest to do so.
What would be best for your self-interest? It would be in your self-interest to have (or attempt) a peaceful revolution because if the violent one fails then you will go to jail. Also you could risk hurting your movement; people won't want to associate with terrorist and so on.
No you don't, you just need certain relations of production.
Under your definition the USSR would be a capitalist country, and they certainly were not.
How you build capital is through savings, period. That's why savings is in my definition.
I don't care about your definition of capitalism. To have capitalism you need savings, property rights, production, and exchange.
Last edited by liberty on 31 Mar 2009 16:09, edited 8 times in total.
“War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings.”
—Ludwig von Mises
—Ludwig von Mises