I disagree with this premise. Capitalism allows money and opportunity to flow freely, without regard for the country or region. The poor regions of the world today can largely be explained by each region's issues, like: Lack of natural resources (odd decision to move or stay in a desert, for example) Incredibly flawed leadership (see dictators who keep all of the money while their population starves and remains ignorant) Some religious predilections against growing money (see some sects of Islam, where growth has been stunted by a religious prohibition on credit) Capitalism seems to offer even these folks the best opportunity of making some money, other than simple handouts from people that don't suffer from the above three conditions.
I noticed a typo in my previous post which may have caused some confusion, but I was never accusing capitalism of ignoring countries politically. I meant, and I think you agree, that capitalism, for the most part, leaves behind regions that are not profitable (for whatever reason, including lack of natural resources, corrupt/greedy/ignorant leadership, and religious/cultural beliefs). I don't want to get too deep into a tangent, but I believe you can add that the direction of capitalism can be partially guided by those in power. By imposing their will and financial power, they can guide the market to focus on, for example, fossil fuels, and in large part cause the market to circumvent alternatives. Anyways... Would strict capitalism explain infastructure in states like the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Alaska? What about portions of states like the marshes of Louisiana or the desert in Arizona? Even beyond infastructure, which mainly does have to do with capitalism, does strict capitalism explain enforcement of non-capitalistic US ideals in areas that are very sparsely populated within the US? I think that strict capitalism would leave power vaccuums within even the contiguous US. On a larger scale, I think strict capitalism explains why a large portion of the African continent is impoverished. There is no financial incentive to improve the quality of life in Africa, or even if there is the possibility of financial gain, the initial startup cost is astronomical. Strict capitalism is a very selfish philosophy - all investment is based only on what benefits he who invests. I am not arguing that we need to invest in Africa and build it up; that is not realistic. I think my main point is that when considering costs, you have to consider social costs as well as financial ones. Allowing power vaccuums within the US would allow ignorance to fester in the same way that power vaccuums around the world do today. In a way, I think that explains "ghettos" in the US.
correct, in the sense that there is not enough capitalism and too many warlords and corrupt governments and dumb darkies. here is some reading material by a not-dumb darkie: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/06/wage.html
Aren't warlords and corrupt governments products of capitalism? Or are you talking about democratic capitalism? Not sure what you mean by dumb darkies. If a business has employees whose production value is near the wages they make, it wouldn't seem to be a very effective business. I would be very reluctant to start a business if the margin of profit was so small.
Leaving behind regions that are not profitabls makes the world more efficient & better off... That is not capitalism. It happens, but it happens because of taking away capitalistic freedoms. Infrastructure is one of the main roles of the government, and doesn't mainly have to do with capitalism. What non-capitalistic US ideals are you talking about? Yes capitalism creates power vacuums, but I'd rather it be spread out amongst businesses than in the hands of politicians. Africa is impoverished because of its residents. Many companies have successful operations out of Africa, but have to hire Americans & others to work there because they cannot get good African workers for the most part. The incentive is there for them to improve themselves & capitalism has provided it, but they are too backwards to work towards it. Selfishness is not a bad thing. In fact, that is what is so good about capitalism, it doesn't try to ignore humans' deepest basic instinct - it is a system that works with it. To demonstrate how selfishness can benefit others, look at how many companies have charities they donate to & etc, they can do that because it benefits them, not just makes them feel better about themselves, but economically because it makes them look better & they can sell more products thus making more money.
You like to blame a lot of stuff on capitalism. Warlords are a product of false capitalism that exists because of restrictions on the market, and corrupt governments are the product of a failure of government.
Africa's problem is that they have become literally welfare countries. More aid flows into Africa than any other place on earth. It creates a situation where the leadership is not concerned with correcting internal problems; rather their main focus is finding ways to get a bigger chunk of the aid. It is basically what has happened to America with it's welfare system, but on a much larger scale: created a class of people who feel entitled to the handouts that they get, which gives them no motivation to look to themselves to go get it. These countries are loaded with wealth: Gold, Diamonds, Oil, etc... The problem is that if they started doing things to improve the quality of their people's lives, then the tap of cash from the West gets turned off.
Right. I am not arguing totally against capitalism. But I think you have to look at more than just financial gains, something that strict capitalism isn't able to do. That's why the US isn't strictly capitalistic. Corruption that comes in hand with capitalism then. Exactly my point. You guys are arguing against minimum wage almost solely in terms of capitalism, though it is obvious the US runs on more than just capitalism. You are criticizing the numbers the government has come up with, as if they pulled them out of their bums. Have you researched what a fair minimum wage should be? I guess you are just assuming the government chose an inappropriate number? Right. Capitalism represents man's true nature and communism represents a more godly ideal, which is why it fails. (I think it is ironic that people hate commies so much. Of course, maybe commies are atheistic, which would mean that I guess I am thinking more of socialism.) I think companies donate to charaties because of the tax breaks, which is less capitalism and more of "the other US ideals" that I referred to earlier. I think you're fooling yourself if donation is strictly a capitalistic function. Thank you for thoughful debate. Such a thing is at a premium.
So our intervention is likely a problem for the betterment of Africa. I can see that. I guess our intervention is kind of condescending, in the way that Africa is unable to take care of itself. But at the same time, there are things that Africa has that we want, and maybe keeping them ignorant gets us lots of stuff.
I'm not advocating strict capitalism. I said that I don't mind a minimum wage so long as it is low enough to not negatively affect the economy. I believe that $7.25 is too high. No, corruption is a human trait that comes with politics, regardless of the system. $7.25/hour is a lot of money for many jobs that simply don't deserve that much. We've already done our own research here to show how someone could live off of the current minimum wage. If they can get by, it's plenty fair. I didn't say strictly, and also there are a lot of things companies do besides donate to charities which don't have any tax breaks associated with them, such as sponsoring breast cancer awareness or whatever else.
