Globalization

[lindagarrette]

My statement wasn't very clear. I do take a stand on the issue. My preference would be for a world based on the socialist philosophy similar to how Gene Roddenberry invisioned the Federation of planets, or better yet, John Lennon's Imagine. What I was trying to say was that the combination of technology and our social structure has brought us to the situation of inequality that iexists, now, right or wrong. As tribal beings, we are pretty much ddestined to ride out the pattern where the strong will victimize the weak. Capitalism, and it's broader interpretation, globalism (globalization) are excellent examples.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

What I was trying to say was that the combination of technology and our social structure has brought us to the situation of inequality that iexists, now, right or wrong. As tribal beings, we are pretty much ddestined to ride out the pattern where the strong will victimize the weak.

 

Linda, kudos for such an open display of your opinions. I wish we could see more of that at Hypography!

 

If we are destined, as you say, to "ride out" the pattern - what do you suggest will follow? Are there any ways to avoid having to ride the capitalist globalization wave?

[lindagarrette]

The humanist philosophy, so called, is on track although it is rejected for being antii-religious. None of the pupouar "isms" can work in practice because of an individual's need for status in the eyes of peers. The company we keep defines our status in terms of wealth, looks, athletic ability, heredity, intelligence, charisma, and whatever other ideals we aspire to.

 

How can you be a capitalist unless you optimize profit at the expense of others? How can you be a socialist without depriving the gifted or their rewards? How can any society ignore the benefits of heredity in exchange for equlaity? Where, in any context is there a level playing field?

 

Roger Ellman, author The Origin and Its Meaning ( On the Origin of the Universe and Its Mechanics, The Mechanism and Origin of Intelligence, And the Implications for the Individual and Society) offers suggestions on how to achieve "social love" on a mass scale. I've quoted him previously. http://www.the-origin.org.

[geko]

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

As tribal beings, we are pretty much ddestined to ride out the pattern where the strong will victimize the weak.

 

Maybe it's just me, but in my experience the weak victimise the strong, rather than being the other way around. Maybe not in the hunter-gatherer days, but today.

 

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

Capitalism, and it's broader interpretation, globalism (globalization) are excellent examples.

 

Capitalism = the strong victimising the weak?

 

Is it not a case of the creative receiving value for giving benefit to the masses?

 

This also gives me pause for the following statement.

 

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

How can you be a capitalist unless you optimize profit at the expense of others?

 

I truly dont understand the idea of capitalists receiving profit at the 'expense' of others. In capitalism you do not receive profit at the expense of others, you receive it by giving benefit. Capitalism is built on the idea of trade, not force.

[lindagarrette]

You must be thinking of the "trickle down" effect. Trade certainly facilitates capitalism but not fairly. Otherwise there would not be such a gigantic gap between the rich and the poor. Not much sharing goes on between the strong and the weak. What would be the motivation? Dominance by the strong is a fact of evolution.

[geko]

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

Trade certainly facilitates capitalism but not fairly. Otherwise there would not be such a gigantic gap between the rich and the poor.

 

i.e. there wouldnt be such a gigantic gap between the rich and the poor if capitalism didnt have trade as its main means of existence, and instead had a fairer means of exchange.

 

Would that be a legitimate rearrangment of your statements?

 

 

By definition capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. A free enterprise as it were.

 

Capitalism is also synonymous with business. What does a business do? A business produces, distributes and exchanges. What do they produce, distribute and exchange? Value. What do they receive? Money (most often).

 

Who gives money for this value? People. Why do they give money, pay, for this value? Because they decide that what they're going to get for the money is of more value than the money itself.

 

Apart from MS (...im beginning to get personal experience with this and dont like the situation lol ), i defy you to highlight the coersion in this. Please tell how trade (and especially this type of trade) is unfair.

 

Further more, the act of coersing in this system is self-destructive. People will not give for what they dont want in the long-term.... the business, is then bust.

 

And, lest we forget, myriad of people spend money they dont have of things they dont need.

 

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

Not much sharing goes on between the strong and the weak. What would be the motivation?

 

Strong and weak how? If in a monetary aspect you do mean 'share', not give, yes? Plenty of sharing goes on. The worlds economy (and much of it's progress) is built entirely on such actions. That is, if sharing is used as a term to describe equalling.

 

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

Dominance by the strong is a fact of evolution.

 

I have little confidence in arguing when evolution is used as a reason to explain phenomena, but numbers equal strength and scarcity equals weakness in most cases i think. In which case who are the strong and who are the weak?

[Tim_Lou]

what about the handicaped, retarded, seniors...etc?

 

" there wouldnt be such a gigantic gap between the rich and the poor if capitalism didnt have trade as its main means of existence, and instead had a fairer means of exchange"

 

they can only do a little and have nothing to exchange, are they gonna die out or what?

 

and a fair price without regulation is impossible. consider having a monopoly dominating the food market, and he raises the price to extreme high, are you not going to buy it? do the poor have enough money to buy them? or should thy live without food?

 

so, everyone will stop buying the food and the companies is done? well, if i have plenty of money, i will probably buy it.... thus, the poor just die out...

 

and after sometime, the price stablizes, but the many of the poors are dead already!

 

 

its just like in evolution, many species had went extinct due to the inability to adapt....

but we are humans, we dont wanna see people dying on the streets and corpses all over the places....

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: geko

I have little confidence in arguing when evolution is used as a reason to explain phenomena, but numbers equal strength and scarcity equals weakness in most cases i think. In which case who are the strong and who are the weak?

Strength in numbers is an evolutionary advantage, so you may want to reconsider your stance. I don't really understand how strength in numbers, ie; a flock of birds, a hornets nest, etc, can be compared to scarcity. Scarcity of what? Resources? When a pod of whales circles a school of fish does one whale eat 90% of the food and leave the other 10% for the rest? I don't think so,... I think this is a human attribute.

 

When 1% controls 90% of the resources, the majority are the weak. I realize that the masses need leadership, and leaders should be rewarded for their abilities, but not the way some of our captains of industry are currenty doing.

 

No one person is worth $1,000,000,000.00 or pounds or whatever,.... when the people working for that person are working as hard and long and still living in poverty. Yes,... working "smart" is important,... not that important.

 

I think the strength in numbers you are referring to is numbers of dollars.

[geko]

No no, scarcity of numbers. As in, strength is in numbers and weaknesses is in lack of - in many cases. This also doesnt contradict my statement about the weak victimising the strong, as in that i was referring to the act of 'ganging up' on a minority.

[geko]

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

what about the handicaped, retarded, seniors...etc?... they can only do a little and have nothing to exchange, are they gonna die out or what?

 

The belief in the valid nature of this argument comes from the conditioning of a nanny-state in my opinion. But i do accept that the mentally ill and seriously old need help, i certainly wouldn't kick the prop away from these people, or condone it for that matter.

 

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

and a fair price without regulation is impossible.

 

There is regulation. It's competition.

 

 

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

consider having a monopoly dominating the food market, so, everyone will stop buying the food and the companies is done? well, if i have plenty of money, i will probably buy it.... thus, the poor just die out...

 

Would you continuously pay a higher premium for a product that you could get cheaper else where just because you had the money to do it? Of course, ive done this myself through laziness, but in principle and the long-term i would pursue the opposite.

 

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

...and after sometime, the price stablizes, but the many of the poors are dead already!

 

This sounds like a consequence of extended periods of over-pricing. This happens rarely (in fact i cant even think of an example - please supply). In the example of the food market that you give the only reason why such a thing would happen i can see is if BB decided to curb the population and its growth by 'gestapo' means, "starve them to fewer numbers" or something would be the mission objective i would say.

 

Furthermore, pointing to 1 example of this behaviour and policy among the many millions that are the opposite is hardly reason enough to condemn a system.

[Tim_Lou]

"There is regulation. It's competition."

 

yes, thats the problem, when monopoly appears, there is no competition!

first, companies compete with each other. they compete and lower the price to an extreme low level. whoever has the more money, whoever gets to survive... as time passes on, the only 1 left would be the monopoly. (whenever new company comes up, the monopoly just does the same thing and kill it)

 

 

"Would you continuously pay a higher premium for a product that you could get cheaper else where just because you had the money to do it? Of course, ive done this myself through laziness, but in principle and the long-term i would pursue the opposite. "

 

the problem is that the ONLY food available is the high price food. its either buy or die.

 

and yes, this happens rarely because the government would steps in and throw a bunch of food in the food market and lower the price.

 

other possible examples are gas price, clothing, oil industry, steel.....

remember in history class, the standard oil company, dominating the oil industry, they can raise their oil price to whatever level they want, thus many other companies fail except those who have connecting to the company. which created trusties.

 

and some acts are passed to regulate these.

hmm, whatever shaman antitrust act???

sounds like it...: )

[Tormod]

This all reminds me of John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath".

[lindagarrette]

In many ways, our social structure forces us to go against our instincts in many ways. For instance saving infants with birth defects and keeping people alive to reproduce who would otherwise have been abandoned, hinders the steady trend toward survival of the fittest. Very short term thinking.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

keeping people alive to reproduce who would otherwise have been abandoned, hinders the steady trend toward survival of the fittest. Very short term thinking.

Yes, imagine the disastor of someone as physically handicapped as Stephen Hawking reproducing much less just being kept alive?

 

Not that I disagree with the basis of your point. I just wonder about who draws the line, where and why.

[Tim_Lou]

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

In many ways, our social structure forces us to go against our instincts in many ways. For instance saving infants with birth defects and keeping people alive to reproduce who would otherwise have been abandoned, hinders the steady trend toward survival of the fittest. Very short term thinking.

 

yeah, freethink is right....

 

how are people considered as "physically handicapped", a nail being deformed? missing a finger? missing an arm? missing both hands???

 

come on, we are not PERFECT. and no body is.

[Uncle Martin]

Stephen Hawking was quite able until the onset of his disease,.... which did not occur until well after he was very accomplished. And Tim,.... You are allowed to say that you are not perfect, or anyone else for that matter,..... but please leave me out of that !!! It does not apply to me.

[IrishEyes]

Ok, so we're basically back to who gets to draw the line in the sand again, right?

Some animals are more equal than others?

Not surprising that Hawking is mentioned and Mozart is not though.