|
|
Who Owns the World? The Rich Own the World.
By: Iranian-Shi'ite on: 11.06.2005 [09:17 ] (2596 reads)
|
God is dead and numbers rule. The answer to every question is not a satisfying name but some mystifying numbers, not yes or no but x billion and y percent. The richest 5% of Americans now own almost 60% of the country’s wealth, while the lower three quintiles comprising 60% of the population have 4%, .3%, and at the bottom nothing or only debt. In the shrinking middle are people who need this score and that amount of tuition to get into this school so they can make that income and live in that high-scoring zip code. Once you believe this, you’re lost like me.
|
|
(15163 bytes) [nc]
|
|
Temporary offline
by eureka on 11.06.2005 [12:05 ]
|
|
|
All the billionaires and wealthy cannot live forever; they don't even know when their number is going to be called.
Peace
|
by DevilsAdvocate on 11.06.2005 [16:50 ]
|
|
|
but has it ever crossed your mind that those we would really like to see "cross over" before they can do any more harm seem to live forever! henry kissinger is 82 and STILL going round causing mayhem. Same with the rest of the twats. None of them seem to die early of cancer or heart disease. This certainly does make me ask sometimes what God is doing. Why let bush, blair, rothschild, lizzie windsor et al carry ob forever, and yet take away those that really do seem to care early, like Princess Diana, John Lennon, JF Kennedy etc. If there's a divine plan, it sure looks comlicated! Peace.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 11.06.2005 [17:57 ]
|
|
|
According to my understanding of Islam, God will sometimes punish sinners by giving them more opportunity to sin. By doing so, they are increasing their eventual punishment in hell.
Hence, a thief will find more chances to steal, an oppressor gets more power to oppress with, a greedy billionaire gets more chances to rip off people (downsizing, outsourcing, tax breaks for the wealthy) such as Ken Lay of Enron found.
I theorize that Kissinger is allowed to live longer so that he will accumulate more sins so that he will get a worse punishment in hell. He is ALSO being allowed to live longer to allow good people to have more chances to bring him to justice. Unfortunately, good people are not doing their jobs very well here.
For example, Bush the oppressor and his soldiers were given the opportunity to attack Iraq. This will increase their sins and worsen their torment in the after-life.
Meanwhile, the faithfull now have the opportunity to gain more virtue by fighting the U.S. occupation and hence increase their reward in heaven.
That's the way I see it.
It makes sense to me.
|
by DevilsAdvocate on 11.06.2005 [18:09 ]
|
|
|
That is a very interesting, logical, answer that could account for the "anomoly".
I have never read the Quran (excuse spelling), but I have read "The Prophet" by Kahlil Gibran" (which I thought was beautiful and aligned with the higher principles of Christianity in a way), and have been told that the teachings of Islam parallel those of Christianity.... in which case, where does forgiveness come in?
I don't believe in my heart that God is vengeful... He is after all the Creator of Everything and I don't believe for one second He suffers the emotional constraints (like revenge or pride) of the average Human.
So why increase the suffering of innocents just so the suffering of the perpetrators can be increased.
By the way, this is a serious question and not aimed at belittling what I think is a brilliant reply by your good self.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 11.06.2005 [19:53 ]
|
|
|
I must first preface my answer by saying strenuously that this is only my opinion. I'm not saying that what follows is what God really thinks. The reason I'm being cautious in my answer is because I believe that relating a falsehood about God is itself a sin.
First, why should the innocent suffer at all?
Consider the following two scenerios:
1. A starving man in Ethopia
2. A rich man in Manhatten
On the day of judgment, the rich man is asked, "why didn't you give more in charity to the poor?"
The rich man, who must answer honestly, says in reply, "I was greedy and could not make myself part with any of my wealth."
The Ethopian is asked why he did not give more in charity and he says with all honesty, " I had nothing to give."
The starved Ethopian is off the hook. He is not marked for stinginess and avarice and hoarding of wealth. The Manhatten banker is not let off the hook. He had wealth to give.
So, from the perspective of this world, it seemed that the rich man had it good and the poor man had it bad. But reality was the reverse of what it ostensibly seemed. The rich man had a burden which he dropped, a test which he failed.
Now, consider another example:
When Muslims get sick, we are thankfull for the sickness because we believe that it is burning away our sins.
When I get a fever, for instance, I thank God for the temperature because I believe that I am getting my sins burned off while in this life; and that is less intense of a heat then getting my sins burned off in the fires of hell. (I'll talk about my opinion of hell later.)
Now, back to the story of the Ethopian, because that parable is not yet finished.
The suffering of the innocent Ethopian man creates an opportunity for good people to increase their virtue by jihad to feed him and help him.
In other words, there are three things to consider about the innocent who suffer:
1. Those who suffer are relieved of the burdens of some responsibillities that the fortunate are assigned.
2. Those who suffer can use their faith to take advantage of their suffering to burn away their sins (by keeping faith during the suffering and trusting God's wisdom like Job did.)
3. Those who suffer create an opportunity for others to jihad towards virtue.
To illustrate the third point with two examples,
1 A starving man in Ethopia creates an opportunity to jihad to feed him.
2. An oppressor in Iraq creates an opportunity to jihad to free Iraq.
Those who jihad towards these things gain virtue for themselves in the hereafter. Meanwhile, those who suffer patiently with faith also benefit for the hereafter.
Please let me know if there are some points above that I need to clarify.
Again, I repeat that the above are just my opinions and they help me make sense of the world.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 11.06.2005 [20:02 ]
|
|
|
I've mentioned Heaven and Hell so many times that perhaps I should say a few things about them.
In my opinion, all who die might go to the same dimension and plane of existence. However, some hate that place and some love that place.
To illustrate, consider a math class. Some students love the subject while some students hate the subject.
Or consider two people who listen to a sermon. One person is bored out of his skull, while the other person is enraptured and in bliss.
I theorize that a religious life prepares the soul such that when one enters the hereafter, it appears as a place of bliss.
The person who squandered his life on trivialities does not prepare his soul; and so when he enters into the hereafter, he must go through a long and miserable transition period. That is what we call hell.
Of course, some people are never able to make the mental transition and so they remain in Hell (that state of mind) forever.
So, I think that heaven and hell may be the same place, but perceived differently.
Those who spent their lives in preperation will perceive the after-life blissfully. Those who wasted their lives in trivial pursuits and idle pleasures will perceive the after life as a horrible place.
Again, I'm not trying to pass that off as truth because if I'm wrong then I've said a lie. I'm just saying that is my interpreation of the scriptures.
|
by DevilsAdvocate on 11.06.2005 [20:17 ]
|
|
|
I am not going to reply in full just yet.... it's late and I have had one beer too many.... just to say thanks for taking the time and I'll be back tomorrow :-)
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 11.06.2005 [20:18 ]
|
|
|
I just thought of this so I came back to jot it down:
In addition to the three possible reasons for increased suffering of the innocents that I mentioned above, another reason may be that the suffering of innocents gives cause for the non-suffering to ask the question, "why must there be suffering?"
That answer may, at first glance, seem like a weak answer. But consider this: Sidartha began his journey towards Buddha enlightenment by seeing the suffering of those outside the walls of his palace.
Suffering has the benefit, paradoxically, of raising the question of suffering which in turn raises the question of being, which then leads to potential enlightenment.
That is what I think the story of Job is about.
|
by ilia25 on 12.06.2005 [00:19 ]
|
|
|
"According to my understanding of Islam, God will sometimes punish sinners by giving them more opportunity to sin. By doing so, they are increasing their eventual punishment in hell."
|
by ilia25 on 12.06.2005 [01:23 ]
|
|
|
The only way to drag people out of poverty is to give them an opportunity to work and enjoy the fruits of their labor. The free market does exactly that by making any exploitation impossible.
Exploitation means that profits are extracted from worker backs. But the free market creates competition for the cheap labor, driving the worker salaries up until there is virtually no profits to extract. And by that time, the cheap labor becomes a middle class.
It happened in Japan, South Korea to Taiwan in the past decades, now it is happenig in China.
If you look at the banace sheets of most big corporations you'll see that they have very small profits (often losses). Vitually all their earnings go to operating expences (i.e. employee salaries), or used to expand the business (i.e. to create more jobs).
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 12.06.2005 [01:38 ]
|
|
|
Quran 22:14
And the unbelievers plotted and God too planned, and God is the best of planners.
Quran 8:30
When those who do not believe were plotting against you to imprison you or to kill you or to expel you, they planned and God planned; but God is the Best of Planners.
The neoconservatives plotted and planned to turn Iraq into a pro-Zionist state and to take its oil. But God also plotted; and now the U.S. is trapped in a quagmire and Iraq is on its way to being an Islamic republic allied to Iran.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 12.06.2005 [01:40 ]
|
|
|
Capitalism steals the labor of people.
It puts them into sweat shops while shareholders and CEOs play gulf and make as much as a hundred workers.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 12.06.2005 [01:43 ]
|
|
|
Imperialism that slaughters people of poorer countries and steals their resources and then drives them into poverty, famine, and pestilence.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 12.06.2005 [01:44 ]
|
|
|
.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 12.06.2005 [01:52 ]
|
|
|
Ezekiel 14:7 to 14-10
And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD HAVE DECEIVED that prophet
Thessalonians 2:11
. . . for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."
Matthew 11:25-26
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hid these things from the wise and prudent . . . .
John 12:37 to 12:40
Therefore they could not believe because that Esaias said again, He has blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts.
Isaiah 63:17
O Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear?
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 12.06.2005 [01:58 ]
|
|
|
.
|
by DevilsAdvocate on 12.06.2005 [17:45 ]
|
|
|
Your points make sense. It seems suffering is an unavoidable side effect of living. What a bummer!
Anyway, I hope God IS compassionate, and I hope NONE of the children affected bt this war have suffered in the slightest.
Thanks again.
|
by DevilsAdvocate on 12.06.2005 [17:52 ]
|
|
|
I forgot to mention.... what planet are you from?
"Rising oil prices boost BP profit
"Significant investment" has also helped profits, BP says
Increased world oil prices have helped boost BP's profits over the past three months, the firm has said.
BP said replacement cost net profit for the first three months of the year was $5.49bn (£2.87bn), up 29% on the same period a year ago.
Excluding non-operating items such as gains from asset sales, of $535m, the "industry-standard" result was $4.96bn.
BP chief executive Lord Browne said "higher oil prices have generated substantial additional cash flow".
At the close of trade in London BP shares were up 0.7% or 4p to 543 pence.
'Strong global demand'
Lord Browne added: "This strong start in 2005 reflects the results of our significant investment programme over the past few years and improvements in underlying performance."
The world's second-largest oil company by market capitalisation said overall profit for the period, including the value of stocks in its tanks and pipelines, was $6.6bn, up from $4.9bn in the first quarter of 2004."
It doesn't look to me like this company fits your perception of small profits...... "If you look at the banace sheets of most big corporations you'll see that they have very small profits (often losses).
|
by ilia25 on 12.06.2005 [21:25 ]
|
|
|
"It doesn't look to me like this company fits your perception of small profits......"
That because you don't quite understand that when you use the words like "small", you have to compare TWO numbers. More, you have to compare right numbers.
$16 billions BP made in profits last year is a big number only if you compare it to your monthly welfare check. But it is very small if you compare it to BP annual revenue, which was $352 billions.
To make it simple for you: BP has spent 95.5% of its revenue for paying employee salaries and creating new jobs. Only 4.5% were available as dividends to the shareholders (and I'm not sure how much of that was actually paid).
Not to mention that last year was not at all typical for oil business, there were years when oil companies incurred losses.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 12.06.2005 [22:31 ]
|
|
|
The average salary of an Usan is about $37 thousand a year.
But let's say that the average salary is $50,000 a year.
100,000 workers making $50,000 a year comes out to $5 billion a year.
300,000 workers making $50,000 a year make about $15 billion a year.
That means that the shareholders of BP made much more than the salaries of 300,000 average U.S. workers.
Yes, BP did get a huge profit and it's quite obvious that the average wokers and customers got shafted. That's yet another example of capitalist exploitation.
Everywhere I look around, I see more and more examples of how horrible capitalism is for the world, especially for the environment.
|
by 431bv on 13.06.2005 [00:25 ]
|
|
|
ilia25 wrote "Your God is a sneaky bastard :)"
I understand you have only joking but unfortunately you have come up to the wrong conclusion. Allah does not sneaky in any way. His signs are very clear. You have Quran to read, and Muhammad (peace be upon him) saying and way of life. Both are authentic proof the existance of Allah.
There are many ways to learn Islam, and especially in this century, with the advent of internet, eg. Quran available on line complete with its recitation, anytime anywhere. So if you (or others) at one time being ask, "don't you know about islam?". What would your answer? Kissinger and the like, they know very well about Islam and Muhammad (peace be upon him), but decide not to concede of its truth, due to their greed and wordly gain. They are arrogant in true sense. They place themselves their home in hell.
|
by ilia25 on 13.06.2005 [03:01 ]
|
|
|
"Yes, BP did get a huge profit and it's quite obvious that the average wokers and customers got shafted."
You can get almost as good profit from your bank account! If you really believe that 5% return on your investment is a clear sign of vicious exploitation, you do need to have your head examined.
|
by ilia25 on 13.06.2005 [03:10 ]
|
|
|
"Kissinger and the like, they know very well about Islam and Muhammad (peace be upon him), but decide not to concede of its truth."
Yeah, they sure did a great job concealing the truth concidering the fact that "Quran available on line complete with its recitation, anytime anywhere."
I really don't want to hurt anyone religious feelings, but you cannot blame Kissunger for the fact that a book, which has been freely available to anyone has not become a block buster.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 13.06.2005 [04:32 ]
|
|
|
"Since when 5%/year is considered a "huge profit"?"
Since it's 5% of $352 billion.
"You can get almost as good profit from your bank account!"
No. I can not get $16 billion profit from my bank account.
"you cannot blame Kissunger for the fact that a book, which has been freely available to anyone has not become a block buster."
That's not what he's blaming Kiss-unger for. He's blaming Kiss-unger for not accepting what's in the book.
Kiss-unger, LOL, that's great ilia25. Thank you very much! I'll be using that quite a bit from now on.
|
by ilia25 on 13.06.2005 [07:07 ]
|
|
|
{"Since when 5%/year is considered a "huge profit"?"
Since it's 5% of $352 billion.}
And had it occurred to you that there might be another side to it? Like a "huge profit" being divided among millions of shareholders? Or tens of millions dare I suggest, because there is hardly a pension fund that doesn't hold BP shares?
The point here is that exploitation means that your profits are huge comparing to your business expenses. Like when you pay workers $1000 and sell the products of their labor for $5000, putting the 400% profit in your pocket. And there is nothing like this about BP or any other big corporation.
And I'm not sure what was so amusing about my spelling mistake? Is it the fact that they put "u" and "i" side by side on the keyboard fills your heart with joy? Life looks so simple sometimes :)
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 13.06.2005 [11:06 ]
|
|
|
Just looking at the percentages is silly.
If given the choice between 1% of a trillion dollars, or 100% of a thousand dollars, who in their right minds would take the latter choice just because 100% is greater than 1%? To say that BP's profits were small because they were only a percentage of the revenue is a spurious argument.
I think we all know that there are a handfull of shareholders that get the lion's share of the profit. They do very little and make huge sums off of the labor of others. If you work hard all year and then see a shareholder make ten times as much as you while he did very little, you're going to feel cheated. That's just obvious.
And yes, you're spelling mistake is humerous. Not because it says anything about you, but because it just sounds funny on its own. If one hates another and then hear's the other's name pronounced awkwardly, then it is human nature to enjoy that mispronounciation. I don't disdain the simple joys of life.
|
by USAn on 13.06.2005 [15:00 ]
|
|
|
Your remark, quoted below:
"Exploitation means that profits are extracted from worker backs. But the free market creates competition for the cheap labor, driving the worker salaries up until there is virtually no profits to extract...."
...is the most preposterous statement I have read in a long time - In Econ 101 you should have learned that increased competetion for a commodity always drives prices down!
Wages in your so-called free-markey always only go DOWN under the conditions of "competetion for cheap labor" - the reason is simple - the employer always is in a superior bargaining position - he has the resources to bide his time while worker is pitted against worker in a race to the bottom - they cannot afford to wait since there is always a more desperate worker to take the job for less so they don't end up on the street and starving.
Ilia25, you must be a rich kid who never had to sell your labor not to understand this.
You only need to read some Charles Dickens or the recent history of mass impoverishment in Latin America (and the ongoing declining real wages in the US) under your neoliberal "free markets" to see this is the case - I am frustrated that I even have to explain this!
The solution to this, and the reason for of the broad miiddle classes in the industrialized nations is of course Organized Labor - Ther is an almost perfect coorelation between a nation's living standard and the percentage union membership. even when Organized Labor is only 25-30% or so of the workforce, there is a dramatic spillover effect - for example; the ONLY reason Toyota, Nissan or BMW pay good wages at their nonunion plants in the southern/midwestern US is because UAW has enough of the auto industry orgainzed so as to control the prevailing wages in the industry. The same is probably true in Japan.
The US worker, to the extent he can still earn a living wage, and a 40 hour work week (well some workers anyway) it is because the legacy of orgainzed labor. With labor orgainzation down to only 9% of private industry, you should fully expect the US to look like Colombia or at very best, 1980's Argentina, within 2 tp 3 decades.
|
by DevilsAdvocate on 13.06.2005 [17:29 ]
|
|
|
Iranian (you;re not actually Iranian, are you?) sorry to digress from your input re God and the purpose of suffering (which is a far more intelligent debate than filthy lucre) but I have to reply to the capitalism bit.
I grew up in Britain under Labour in the 60's / 70's and was appalled by the willingness of the Unions to disrupt just about everything. When Britain ended up on a 3 day working week, that was the last straw for many. We were producing total crap ( look at Leyland "cars"!!) and expecting a film star lifestyle from the efforts. Employers couldn't breathe without being stymied by industrial action (strikes).
When Thatcher came along promising reward for effort, it appealed to many, unsurprisingly. We could all be shareholders in our own efforts.... super communism!
What happened was we were tricked into buying shares in industries we already owned as taxpayers!! Then, the shares went up by, say, 50% and everybody sold to make a quick (small) profit. 50% of a hundred pound investment is not actually that much! The big boys at the top then bought the shares (that we already owned) at a seemingly inflated price and went on to control national interest resources, such as water, energy and transportation. How can a few people own the oil that God gave the British people? Thye can't.... but they do.
What I'm trying to say is that while capitalism looks attractive at first, in the long run it benefits only those that already have clout, and gives them more clout. The rest of us end up dependant on a few individuals for lifes essentials, such as water. This cannot be a good thing, and when we see the bastion of the ordinary man, Labour, pursuing the same policies as the capitalists, it's time to take back the Country for the people.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 13.06.2005 [18:25 ]
|
|
|
USAn:
Upton Sinclair's book, "The Jungle" is also a good commentary on Capitalism. Try to find the uncensored edition, which has the full 36 chapters, instead of the one that is usually published that has only the 31 chapters.
DevilsAdvocate: I was born in Tehran. Most of my ancestors on both my parents' sides go back to Isfahan as far back as we can remember. I'm not in Iran now; but I'm going to go back. I'm going to grow old and die there; and my children will be born there. I guess that makes me Iranian.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 13.06.2005 [18:46 ]
|
|
|
My mistake. We don't go back to Isfahan as far back as we can remember. We only go back to Isfahan for some generations. Before that we were Qajars from Mozanderon, in Northern Iran. Some of the Qajars went to Isfahan in Central Iran. That's the line that I come from.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 13.06.2005 [19:00 ]
|
|
|
I think that the author of the article above is also Iranian. The name, "Said Shirazi," is very much an Iranian name. It is pronounced, Saa-eed Sheerazee. It means, Said from Shiraz, or Said similar to Shiraz. Shiraz is a city South of Isfahan. It is where the poets Hawfiz and Saadi came from.
|
by ilia25 on 13.06.2005 [19:34 ]
|
|
|
It is about what constitute exploitation.
"Just looking at the percentages is silly. If given the choice between 1% of a trillion dollars, or 100% of a thousand dollars.."
In other words, you keep insisting that the BP size is enough proof that it exports it's workers? You sure love to look like an idiot.
"I think we all know that there are a handful of shareholders that get the lion's share of the profit."
No you don't, otherwise you'd provide some proof.
"They do very little and make huge sums off of the labor of others."
Actually, they do the most important job: the decide which projects will provide most benefits to the society and which will be a waste of time and resources. And pay with their money if they make a mistake.
USAn:
"increased competetion for a commodity always drives prices down!"
Yeah, and rivers flow upward, everybody knows that.
"while worker is pitted against worker in a race to the bottom - they cannot afford to wait since there is always a more desperate worker to take the job for less so they don't end up on the street and starving."
That is a Marxist's bullshit. The cheap labor is always in limited supply. And the free market only makes sure that this particular source of wealth will dry up quickly.
|
by ilia25 on 13.06.2005 [19:39 ]
|
|
|
.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 14.06.2005 [04:23 ]
|
|
|
" . . . you keep insisting that the BP size is enough proof that it exports it's workers?"
No, I keep insisting that Capitalism is exploitive because some people work themselves to the bone and barely survive from paycheck to paycheck while a few do very little and live like kings off of the labor of the workers. A few shareholders play golf and go out for drinks and their clubs and make exorbitant profits off the sweat and stress of the workers who work like dogs. All of the shareholder's ideas would amount to nothing if it weren't for the workers to implement them. The workers can come up with their own ideas; but the shareholders are nothing without the workers. Yet the shareholders grab the lion's share of the profit.
But that's ok. Capitalism contains its own seeds for destruction. Eventually, a tiny minority will own a huge amount of the wealth and will practically own the majority of society as serfs. That's when people will realize that they've been had by phony Capitalist propaganda that told them that Capitalism was good for them. Hopefully then they will be able to rise up and establish a fair and just socialist system.
Just a bit of common sense and logic is enough to dispell the absurdities of Capitalist falsehoods.
|
by ilia25 on 14.06.2005 [06:00 ]
|
|
|
Yes, a successful investor can make many times more than a simple worker. But that is only because the society benefits many times more form the former than from the latter.
There is nothing unfair about the society giving more recognition to the people performing more important tasks. On the contrary, a society that fails to do that becomes stagnated.
|
by ilia25 on 14.06.2005 [06:07 ]
|
|
|
Actually, there is much less inequality in America than it used to be. So stop kidding yoursef. The free market economies have been proved to provide the best living standard for everyone.
Even the poor people in US are living much better than a middle class in over-regulated economies. Iran, btw, is a good example of the latter.
|
by USAn on 14.06.2005 [13:54 ]
|
|
|
"increased competetion for a commodity always drives prices down!
Yeah, and rivers flow upward, everybody knows that."
Let me clarify: absent regulatory intervention, increased number of sellers (i.e."comptetion") relative to buyers, always drives the price of the seller's commodity down. PERIOD. This is fundamantal behavior of markets. Don't you, rich kid, see this when you play in you stock market all day? Now, there are ALWAYS many more workers selling their labor than buyers (i.e capitalists) therefore competetion - worker against worker - market relations are always antagonistic, and this ALWAYS drives the price of their labor down. QED
US poverty has increased since the 1970's - and levels of inequality are at guilded-age levels - just visit any econ. statictics site like the www.epinet.org. In my own field, (civil engineering) private-industry wages technically skilled people (survey crew, materials testing, qc/) have been declining. The typical technician started at about $7.50/hr in 1980, that is what they are starting at now - or about $4.00 in 1980 dollars. They are working harder and less well-off by every measure - I know since I deal with them every day. I am better-off myself only because I found a fed. government job.
If you would get out of your gated suburb and get on a bus to the poorer neigborhoods you would see this.
Your comparison of Iran is wrong. Most of the Iran middle class likely has access to health care, leisure time, healthy food, etc.. than the average resident of, say, the chicago south side, or west-central Mississippi. But why don't you be honest and compare a middle class USAn to say the middle class in, say, Sweden or Germany - the kings of your "overregulation".
Your, capitalist free-market extremism has already been tried once - notably in the UK and US in the 19th and early 20th century. It failed miserably, just read some Dickens (UK) or Upton Sinclair (US) (thank I.S.)
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 14.06.2005 [14:33 ]
|
|
|
The inequality in the U.S. is greater now than it was fifty years ago. A smaller percentage of people now own a greater percentage of the wealth than fifty years ago.
Capitalist countries gain much of their wealth by stealing the resources and labor of weaker countries.
Indeed, the USA owes its very existence to stealing the land of the native Americans. It used cheap labour from the black slaves and East European immigrants.
Now it exploits the labour of children working in sweat shops in poor countries.
It has used economic hitmen and coup d'tats and invasions to control the natural resources of other countries.
Capitalist countries are wealthy the way that mafia gangsters are wealthy. Through violence and theft.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 14.06.2005 [14:44 ]
|
|
|
The ideas of the owners of the means of production would be useless ideas if there were no workers to implement them. If given the chance, the workers could come up with some good ideas too. But the spoiled shareholders wouldn't be able to last two hours in the coal mines or more than a few days in the steel mills that the workers endure.
Yes, there is very much wrong with one person doing very little and getting paid much more than another person who works very hard. That is manifestly unfair.
As for value, don't you know that garbage collectors prevent more disease than doctors cure? If the garbage was not picked up disease would be massively rampant. So, the work of the garbage collector is more valuable than the work of the doctor. If people are paid by value of their efforts, workers should be paid more than managers and garbage collectors should be paid more than doctors.
But a society needs everyone; and everyone needs society. It makes sense for a humane and compassionate people to give according to what they can give to those who need based on what they need. But then, a person needs a human soul to understand that.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 14.06.2005 [14:51 ]
|
|
|
That's one of the things that capitalists themselves spew as one of the benefits of capitalism. It seems odd to hear a capitalist deny a fundemental maxim of their ideology now.
Of course, the maxim really works against the capitalists. Even though competition will bring prices of products down, that is only temporary. The richer competitor can afford to drive prices down lower and put the poorer competitor out of business. Then the richer competitor has the monopoly on selling that product.
Owners of the means of production can use competition to pit worker against worker and the owners of the means of production can use competition to eliminate competition on the products they sell.
Competition eventually works against the worker and against the consumer and in favor of those who are already rich.
|
by USAn on 14.06.2005 [15:03 ]
|
|
|
Yes, a successful investor can make many times more than a simple worker. But that is only because the society benefits many times more form the former than from the latter.
Actually, except for IPO's - a very small fraction of stocks bought, I don't see how investors are contributiing to society at all, much less more than workers. They are merely buying-low and selling-high vaporous entities whose value is only dictated by mass psychology of the market's participants. 98% of everything that goes on at NYSE, NASDAQ, Chicago BOT, NYMEX, etc. is just a big game! Even when the entity traded seems to be "solid", like real estate, the speculative investor is rarely the actual person putting savings, sweat and sometimes their lives (from construction accidents) into the physical improvements - they are once again, between golf games and martinis, buying low and selling high
I strongly recommend that you see the movie "Enron - The Smartest Guys in the Room" - It is playing lots of theatres, although not so much in the cultural wasteland suburban areas where most of the the petit-rich live in their McMansions. These Enron guys did not help society at all, much less proportional to the money they made or the pathetic slaps on the wrist for their crokked behavior.
It is no accident that major religions - Islam, formerly Catholicism, and Buddhism prohibit usery - the making of money with money rather than work.
As the martyr Joe Hill sung; once organized, the workers only need to fold their arms and thay can bring the economy to a halt - that would be bargaining power! And, that is why labor orgainzing is so viciously attacked by promoters of "free markets" - 150 to 200 union orgainzers are killed each year in Bush's star pupil Colombia.
|
by USAn on 14.06.2005 [15:07 ]
|
|
|
The first apragraph above should be enclosed in quotes and attributed to illa25.
|
by USAn on 14.06.2005 [15:15 ]
|
|
|
Iranian Shiite,
Excellent reply. I am trying to deal with illa25 using his own market-logic. You are keeping things simpler and to the point.
Do you think he has recieved an adequate rebuttal yet? ;)
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 14.06.2005 [15:30 ]
|
|
|
.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 14.06.2005 [15:34 ]
|
|
|
.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 14.06.2005 [15:52 ]
|
|
|
Qur'an 3:130-136
Surah Ale-'Imran (The Family of 'Imran)
O ye who believe! devour not usury doubled and multiplied; but fear Allah; that ye may (really) prosper.
he Noble Qur'an - Al-Baqarah 275-281
275. Those who eat usury will not stand on the Day of Resurrection except like the standing of a person beaten by Satan leading him to insanity.
That is because the sinful userers say: "Trading is only like usury," whereas actually, Allâh has permitted trading and forbidden usury.
So whosoever receives an admonition from his Lord and stops eating usury shall not be punished for the past; his case is for Allâh to judge; but whoever returns tousury, such are the dwellers of the Fire - they will abide therein.
276. Allâh will destroy usury and will give increase reward for deeds of charity. And Allâh likes not the disbelievers, sinners.
277. Truly those who believe, and do deeds of righteousness, and perform prayers, and give charity, they will have their reward with their Lord. On them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
278. O you who believe! Be afraid of Allâh and give up what remains due to you from usury from now onward, if you are really believers.
279. And if you do not do it, then take a notice of war from Allâh and His Messenger but if you repent, you shall have your capital sums. Deal not unjustly by asking more than your capital sums, and you shall not be dealt with unjustly by receiving less than your capital sums.
280. And if the debtor is in a hard time, then grant him time till it is easy for him to repay, but if you remit it by way of charity, that is better for you if you did but know.
281. And be afraid of the Day when you shall be brought back to Allâh. Then every person shall be paid what he earned, and they shall not be dealt with unjustly.
Hadith
Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith #2828,
Narrated byAbuHurayrah:
Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said, "On the night when I was taken up to Heaven I came upon people whose bellies were like houses and contained snakes which could be seen from outside their bellies. I asked Gabriel who they were and he told me that they were people who had practised usury." Ahmad and Ibn Majah transmitted it.
Sunan of Abu-Dawood,
Hadith #3327,
Narrated byAbdullah ibn Mas'ud
"The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) cursed the one who accepted usury, the one who paid it, the witness to it, and the one who recorded it."
Sunan of Abu-Dawood,
Hadith #3325,
Narrated byAbuHurayrah
"The Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
A time is certainly coming to mankind when only the receiver of usury will remain, and if he does not receive it, some of its vapour will reach him."
Al-Tirmidhi,
Hadith #2829,
Narrated byAli ibn AbuTalib:
Ali heard Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) curse those who took usury, those who paid it, those who recorded it, and those who refused to give charity.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 14.06.2005 [16:01 ]
|
|
|
The above hadith are Sunnis hadith; but I'm open to Sunnis hadith also.
|
by USAn on 14.06.2005 [16:09 ]
|
|
|
I normally leave my typos or misspellings alone (Enron guys were "crokked") but this one needs correction:
I wrote: "...levels of inequality are at guilded-age levels" It should be "gilded age"! The age of "guilds" (middle-age/Renaissance craftsmen) were not so bad compared to "gilded" (mening coated with gold) age capitalism.
English, either spoken or written, is a strange language. I am amazed non-native speakers write so well with it on this site, and native speakers (USAns) often write so poorly.
|
by ilia25 on 14.06.2005 [18:59 ]
|
|
|
"Let me clarify: absent regulatory intervention, increased number of sellers (i.e."comptetion") relative to buyers"
Let me clarify: you really need to go and look up in the dictionary what the word "competition" means.
I'm talking about employers competing for a cheap labor. The latter is a source of additional profit. As long as there is supply of the cheap labor, more and more businesses will try to use it, until there is no more of it is left on the market.
Big news for you: as long as there is more than one buyer on the market, they compete too.
Iranian:
"The task of the workers is much more important."
If you don't mind my asking, who the hell are you to decide which job is more important for the society? In a free market it is people who decide how badly they need one's services, and it is people who reward him/her accordingly.
"The richer competitor can afford to drive prices down lower and put the poorer competitor out of business. Then the richer competitor has the monopoly on selling that product."
Let me tell you again — you are living in the past century. It is known for centuries that monopolies kill the free market. That is why in every developed country they are outlawed since 100 years ago.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 14.06.2005 [20:50 ]
|
|
|
"As long as there is supply of the cheap labor, more and more businesses will try to use it, until there is no more of it is left on the market."
That just not what happens in the real world. In the real world, owners of production pit workers against each other and drive pricess down. They sometimes also conspire to keep a pool of unemployed in society to take advantage of.
" . . . .who the hell are you to decide which job is more important for the society?"
You're the one who started saying that the decision makers were making more important decisions, so the question is more aptly pointed towards you. The difference is that I backed up my claim with some arguments.
Developed countries have outlawed monopolies, yet they still exist in myriad forms.
Talking to you is like talking to a child. One needs extreme paitence to point out all of your naive little fallacies and fantasies in excuciating detail; and then you still don't get it, and we have to come back to explain more of what normal people would have already understood. Your education really failled you. Now you're here wasting our time with your very silly arguments.
|
|
RSS feed for articles and news
