Who drinks Satrbucks?

[phinkasaurus]

Here's why you should not:

INFORMATION ABOUT STARBUCKS: THE WORLD’S FAVORITE COFFEE COMPANY

The coffee industry is one based on the super-exploitation of Third World farmers, many of whom live in dire poverty, at the mercy of the weather and a fluctuating market, whilst speculators and corporate heads make obscene profits.

In such an industry it takes a special type of scumbag to stand out: the multinational coffee retail chain Starbucks is just such a scumbag.

In a coffee-producing country such as Tanzania, a coffee growing farmer can earn as little as $15 a year.

Making matters worse, there has been a huge drop in the wholesale price of coffee resulting in massive losses for farmers. For example, there has been a loss of 35% of the market value for East Timor's coffee and wages for Mexican coffee plantation workers have halved.

Coffee, however, is a very profitable commodity, with sales of $18 billion a year. Large corporations are making a killing on the back of Third World farmers. Nestle, for example, made $1 billion from its beverage operations in 2000.

Starbucks is no exception: it has been growing richer. In the first quarter of 2001, Starbucks increased its profits by 40%. In stark contrast to the poverty of those who actually grow the coffee, Starbucks chief and founder Howard Shultz paid himself $2.1 million in 2000.

The US-based Organic Consumers Association (OCA) points out that the $3 people in the United States pay for a latte at Starbucks is equivalent to the daily wage of a Central American coffee picker.

But the Starbucks story is more than just gross profits via super-exploitation. Since the original Starbucks store was taken over by Howard Shultz in 1987, it has spread rapidly across the world. It now has more than 3,300 stores in over 18 countries, leading some to dub it the “McDonald's of coffee”.

As it has grown rapidly Starbucks has also become the focus of many protests and campaigns.

In the United States, the OCA has targeted Starbucks for refusing to ensure their products do not contain recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) and other genetically engineered ingredients.
The controversial rBGH is banned in every industrialized country except the United States. In the US, however, it is injected into 10% of the nation's dairy cows, despite numerous concerns about the safety of its use. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) admitting that its use in cows may lead to increased amounts of pus and bacteria.

There are also concerns about the possible link between rBGH and cancer of the colon. A study into this link was submitted to the FDA but not published because, in their words, it would “irreparably harm” Monsanto, the hormone's giant manufacturer.

It is from this source that most Starbucks outlets in the US get their milk. Thousands of Starbucks cafes and retail outlets are serving lattes, mochas, bottled coffee drinks and ice cream containing milk derived from dairies using this dangerous drug.

As well as the rBGH controversy, Starbucks is also using genetically engineered ingredients in its baked goods, chocolate and the soymilk it uses to make coffee drinks. GE soy lecithin and other soy derivatives, GE corn sweeteners, and GE cooking oil are all used by Starbucks.

Despite its obvious lack of concern for people around the world, whether super-exploited Third World farmers or First World customers whose health it endangers with unlabelled genetically engineered products, Starbucks is not invulnerable to mass campaigns run against it.

Activists scored a big victory in April 2000 when Starbucks announced it would purchase and sell one million pounds of Fair Trade coffee.

Fair Trade coffee is coffee grown by Third World farmers in co-operatives and sold at a reasonable, non-exploitative price. This announcement was the culmination of a mass campaign that included an open letter signed by 84 organizations and 29 national demonstrations. Starbucks even went so far as to make Fair Trade coffee its “Coffee of the Day”.

Though pleased at this victory, which has greatly boosted the fortunes of Fair Trade coffee, activists in the US are not resting on their laurels.

They point to the token way Starbucks has used Fair Trade coffee, with it amounting to a tiny percentage of the overall amount of coffee it purchases. Activists are now demanding that Starbucks buys much larger quantities of Fair Trade coffee and that it is made “coffee of the day” every week.

The basic lesson is, if you want a scumbag to listen, you've got to fight. If you want more than concessions, you've got to keep fighting.

For more info: http://www.organicconsumers.org/starbucks/coffback.htm#4

GENERAL INFO ON COFFEE PRODUCTION:
Labor
… Coffee is produced on both large plantations and by small farmers. The majority of the world¹s coffee, however, is still grown by family farmers.
… Conditions for workers on large plantations vary, but most are paid sweatshop wages and toil under severe working conditions. A recent study in Guatemala showed that over half of plantation workers were not receiving the legal minimum wage and as a result many were forced to bring their children to the fields in order to make ends meet. Paying a living wage can prevent child labor and increase access to medical care and education for the families of coffee workers.
… In many countries adequate labor laws exist but are not properly enforced. Coffee workers have routinely been denied their right to organize and form unions to protect their rights.
The Environment
… Coffee farming originally developed in Africa under diverse shade trees that provided habitat for wildlife such as birds, butterflies, insects, and other animals. Farmers have traditionally used sustainable growing methods including composting coffee pulp, rotating crops, and avoiding inputs of chemical pesticides and fertilizers. Coffee is also commonly grown with plants such as banana and nut trees to provide food security and additional income.
… As with most other crops, modern farming methods aimed solely at increasing yields have destroyed the benign effects of coffee production on the environment. In recent decades Œsun cultivation¹ has replaced shade grown coffee and has been aggressively promoted by groups like The World Bank and USAID (US Agency for International Development).
… Industrial Œsun cultivated¹ coffee farming has not only increased the use of costly chemical inputs, but has also destroyed wildlife habitats, increased soil erosion, accelerated deforestation of rainforests, polluted water supplies, and driven many small farmers off the land.
… Billions of birds that make their summer home in the US each will fly south in the colder months, many finding refuge in the diverse ecosystems of shade grown coffee farms. A US Fish and Wildlife Service survey has shown decreases of up to 3 percent in the number of birds migrating between North and Central/South America over the past two decades, precisely the same time period during which shade grown coffee has been declining.

FAIR TRADE COFFEE INFO:
… Many coffee farmers receive prices for their harvest that can be less than the costs of production, forcing them into a cycle of poverty and debt. They are often forced to sell to middlemen who pay them half the market price, generally between 30-50¢ per pound. Fair trade coffee sells for a minimum of $1.26 per pound. This money goes directly to coffee farmers, not to predatory middlemen.
… Fair Trade farmers are also insured access to credit at the beginning of the harvest season so they can support themselves during the "lean months" between harvests.
… A typical Fair Trade farmer cultivates less than 3 hectares (7 acres) of coffee and harvests 1,000-3,000 pounds of unroasted coffee a year
… More than 500,000 farmers around the world produce and sell more than 170 million pounds of coffee each year through the Fair Trade network. Over 100 fair trade coffee brands are sold worldwide in approximately 35,000 retail outlets (7,000 in the US).
… About 85% of Fair Trade Certified coffee is shade grown and organic as small farmers have never had the money to purchase chemicals.
… The first fair trade coffee label was started in 1998 in Holland under the name Max Havelaar and has since been followed by many others. In 1997, Fair Trade labelers formed an international umbrella group called Fair Trade Labeling Organizations (FLO) International, which defines the criteria for each product certified under the Fair Trade system, including coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, honey, bananas and orange juice.
… There are now over 50 importers and roasters in the US the largest being Equal Exchange (www.equalexchange.org) who imported 1.6 million pounds of coffee last year.
… Unfortunately the supply of fair trade far outstrips the demand. Of the 170 million pounds of fair trade coffee produced globally only 35 million pounds are sold on the fair trade market. Coffee companies need to aggressively promote fair trade coffee.
For more info: http://www.consciouschoice.com/cc1706/fairenough1706.html

No Small Drip
Starbucks has reeled off 12 straight years of increased sales, topping $4 billion in 2003. The world’s biggest coffee retailer purchases one percent of all coffee on the globe, but less than one percent of that is fair-trade. To the company’s credit, that’s more than a million pounds of fair-trade beans annually and fully 10 percent of all the beans certified last year by TransFair. But fair-trade organizations, including the San Francisco-based Global Exchange, contend Starbucks should be buying at least five times that amount.
Starbucks has just completed a two-year pilot program to encourage vendors to be socially responsible. It “scores” potential suppliers on 10 factors related to environment and labor. Rice at TransFair says the self-regulating, social responsibility index is heavy on environment (not a bad thing) but leaves open fair-trade questions.
For his part, Katzeff admits the million-plus pounds of Starbucks fair-trade coffee is no small drip, but he said he feels the specialty coffee giant gets equal credit for doing one percent fair-trade coffee to Thanksgiving Coffee’s 100-percent commitment. In fact, some might contend Starbucks’ aggressive marketing campaign calls even more attention to its social responsibility to walk its talk.
“We roast and sell 200,000 pounds of fair-trade coffee each year,” says Katzeff. “Our revenues are about $4 million. Starbucks does billions. Does it seem right they only do five to 10 times more fair-trade coffee than our company?”
It’s “a form of greenwashing,” says Katzeff, “because Starbucks makes most of its billions in annual global sales on non-fair trade coffee.” Katzeff is an equal-opportunity activist. He said TransFair could play a more significant role by demanding “that Starbucks and Green Mountain [which did 9 percent fair-trade coffee at last count] continue increasing their market share with each year.”

ALTERNATIVE:
http://www.chicagohomeless.org/coffee/coffee.htm
SUPPORT HOMELESS AND FAIR TRADE

anyone know any more alternatives?

[ASsman]

First off, Americans are addicted to coffee .. literally. It is a drug. "Alternatives" yah make your own, or go to some small coffee shop, or move to France.
And I drink my Starbucks coffee while I drive my H2 to Wal-Mart.

[EN[i]GMA]

Here's why you should not:

INFORMATION ABOUT STARBUCKS: THE WORLD’S FAVORITE COFFEE COMPANY

The coffee industry is one based on the super-exploitation of Third World farmers, many of whom live in dire poverty, at the mercy of the weather and a fluctuating market, whilst speculators and corporate heads make obscene profits.

In such an industry it takes a special type of scumbag to stand out: the multinational coffee retail chain Starbucks is just such a scumbag.

In a coffee-producing country such as Tanzania, a coffee growing farmer can earn as little as $15 a year.

Making matters worse, there has been a huge drop in the wholesale price of coffee resulting in massive losses for farmers. For example, there has been a loss of 35% of the market value for East Timor's coffee and wages for Mexican coffee plantation workers have halved.

Coffee, however, is a very profitable commodity, with sales of $18 billion a year. Large corporations are making a killing on the back of Third World farmers. Nestle, for example, made $1 billion from its beverage operations in 2000.

Starbucks is no exception: it has been growing richer. In the first quarter of 2001, Starbucks increased its profits by 40%. In stark contrast to the poverty of those who actually grow the coffee, Starbucks chief and founder Howard Shultz paid himself $2.1 million in 2000.

The US-based Organic Consumers Association (OCA) points out that the $3 people in the United States pay for a latte at Starbucks is equivalent to the daily wage of a Central American coffee picker.

But the Starbucks story is more than just gross profits via super-exploitation. Since the original Starbucks store was taken over by Howard Shultz in 1987, it has spread rapidly across the world. It now has more than 3,300 stores in over 18 countries, leading some to dub it the “McDonald's of coffee”.

As it has grown rapidly Starbucks has also become the focus of many protests and campaigns.

In the United States, the OCA has targeted Starbucks for refusing to ensure their products do not contain recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) and other genetically engineered ingredients.
The controversial rBGH is banned in every industrialized country except the United States. In the US, however, it is injected into 10% of the nation's dairy cows, despite numerous concerns about the safety of its use. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) admitting that its use in cows may lead to increased amounts of pus and bacteria.

There are also concerns about the possible link between rBGH and cancer of the colon. A study into this link was submitted to the FDA but not published because, in their words, it would “irreparably harm” Monsanto, the hormone's giant manufacturer.

It is from this source that most Starbucks outlets in the US get their milk. Thousands of Starbucks cafes and retail outlets are serving lattes, mochas, bottled coffee drinks and ice cream containing milk derived from dairies using this dangerous drug.

As well as the rBGH controversy, Starbucks is also using genetically engineered ingredients in its baked goods, chocolate and the soymilk it uses to make coffee drinks. GE soy lecithin and other soy derivatives, GE corn sweeteners, and GE cooking oil are all used by Starbucks.

Despite its obvious lack of concern for people around the world, whether super-exploited Third World farmers or First World customers whose health it endangers with unlabelled genetically engineered products, Starbucks is not invulnerable to mass campaigns run against it.

Activists scored a big victory in April 2000 when Starbucks announced it would purchase and sell one million pounds of Fair Trade coffee.

Fair Trade coffee is coffee grown by Third World farmers in co-operatives and sold at a reasonable, non-exploitative price. This announcement was the culmination of a mass campaign that included an open letter signed by 84 organizations and 29 national demonstrations. Starbucks even went so far as to make Fair Trade coffee its “Coffee of the Day”.

Though pleased at this victory, which has greatly boosted the fortunes of Fair Trade coffee, activists in the US are not resting on their laurels.

They point to the token way Starbucks has used Fair Trade coffee, with it amounting to a tiny percentage of the overall amount of coffee it purchases. Activists are now demanding that Starbucks buys much larger quantities of Fair Trade coffee and that it is made “coffee of the day” every week.

The basic lesson is, if you want a scumbag to listen, you've got to fight. If you want more than concessions, you've got to keep fighting.

For more info: http://www.organicconsumers.org/starbucks/coffback.htm#4

GENERAL INFO ON COFFEE PRODUCTION:
Labor
… Coffee is produced on both large plantations and by small farmers. The majority of the world¹s coffee, however, is still grown by family farmers.
… Conditions for workers on large plantations vary, but most are paid sweatshop wages and toil under severe working conditions. A recent study in Guatemala showed that over half of plantation workers were not receiving the legal minimum wage and as a result many were forced to bring their children to the fields in order to make ends meet. Paying a living wage can prevent child labor and increase access to medical care and education for the families of coffee workers.
… In many countries adequate labor laws exist but are not properly enforced. Coffee workers have routinely been denied their right to organize and form unions to protect their rights.
The Environment
… Coffee farming originally developed in Africa under diverse shade trees that provided habitat for wildlife such as birds, butterflies, insects, and other animals. Farmers have traditionally used sustainable growing methods including composting coffee pulp, rotating crops, and avoiding inputs of chemical pesticides and fertilizers. Coffee is also commonly grown with plants such as banana and nut trees to provide food security and additional income.
… As with most other crops, modern farming methods aimed solely at increasing yields have destroyed the benign effects of coffee production on the environment. In recent decades Œsun cultivation¹ has replaced shade grown coffee and has been aggressively promoted by groups like The World Bank and USAID (US Agency for International Development).
… Industrial Œsun cultivated¹ coffee farming has not only increased the use of costly chemical inputs, but has also destroyed wildlife habitats, increased soil erosion, accelerated deforestation of rainforests, polluted water supplies, and driven many small farmers off the land.
… Billions of birds that make their summer home in the US each will fly south in the colder months, many finding refuge in the diverse ecosystems of shade grown coffee farms. A US Fish and Wildlife Service survey has shown decreases of up to 3 percent in the number of birds migrating between North and Central/South America over the past two decades, precisely the same time period during which shade grown coffee has been declining.

FAIR TRADE COFFEE INFO:
… Many coffee farmers receive prices for their harvest that can be less than the costs of production, forcing them into a cycle of poverty and debt. They are often forced to sell to middlemen who pay them half the market price, generally between 30-50¢ per pound. Fair trade coffee sells for a minimum of $1.26 per pound. This money goes directly to coffee farmers, not to predatory middlemen.
… Fair Trade farmers are also insured access to credit at the beginning of the harvest season so they can support themselves during the "lean months" between harvests.
… A typical Fair Trade farmer cultivates less than 3 hectares (7 acres) of coffee and harvests 1,000-3,000 pounds of unroasted coffee a year
… More than 500,000 farmers around the world produce and sell more than 170 million pounds of coffee each year through the Fair Trade network. Over 100 fair trade coffee brands are sold worldwide in approximately 35,000 retail outlets (7,000 in the US).
… About 85% of Fair Trade Certified coffee is shade grown and organic as small farmers have never had the money to purchase chemicals.
… The first fair trade coffee label was started in 1998 in Holland under the name Max Havelaar and has since been followed by many others. In 1997, Fair Trade labelers formed an international umbrella group called Fair Trade Labeling Organizations (FLO) International, which defines the criteria for each product certified under the Fair Trade system, including coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, honey, bananas and orange juice.
… There are now over 50 importers and roasters in the US the largest being Equal Exchange (www.equalexchange.org) who imported 1.6 million pounds of coffee last year.
… Unfortunately the supply of fair trade far outstrips the demand. Of the 170 million pounds of fair trade coffee produced globally only 35 million pounds are sold on the fair trade market. Coffee companies need to aggressively promote fair trade coffee.
For more info: http://www.consciouschoice.com/cc1706/fairenough1706.html

No Small Drip
Starbucks has reeled off 12 straight years of increased sales, topping $4 billion in 2003. The world’s biggest coffee retailer purchases one percent of all coffee on the globe, but less than one percent of that is fair-trade. To the company’s credit, that’s more than a million pounds of fair-trade beans annually and fully 10 percent of all the beans certified last year by TransFair. But fair-trade organizations, including the San Francisco-based Global Exchange, contend Starbucks should be buying at least five times that amount.
Starbucks has just completed a two-year pilot program to encourage vendors to be socially responsible. It “scores” potential suppliers on 10 factors related to environment and labor. Rice at TransFair says the self-regulating, social responsibility index is heavy on environment (not a bad thing) but leaves open fair-trade questions.
For his part, Katzeff admits the million-plus pounds of Starbucks fair-trade coffee is no small drip, but he said he feels the specialty coffee giant gets equal credit for doing one percent fair-trade coffee to Thanksgiving Coffee’s 100-percent commitment. In fact, some might contend Starbucks’ aggressive marketing campaign calls even more attention to its social responsibility to walk its talk.
“We roast and sell 200,000 pounds of fair-trade coffee each year,” says Katzeff. “Our revenues are about $4 million. Starbucks does billions. Does it seem right they only do five to 10 times more fair-trade coffee than our company?”
It’s “a form of greenwashing,” says Katzeff, “because Starbucks makes most of its billions in annual global sales on non-fair trade coffee.” Katzeff is an equal-opportunity activist. He said TransFair could play a more significant role by demanding “that Starbucks and Green Mountain [which did 9 percent fair-trade coffee at last count] continue increasing their market share with each year.”

ALTERNATIVE:
http://www.chicagohomeless.org/coffee/coffee.htm
SUPPORT HOMELESS AND FAIR TRADE

anyone know any more alternatives?


First let me point out how great capitalism is in that you get to post this message and purchase the coffee you want.

Bravo.

Now let me state that:

Paying people little money is better than paying them no money, though socialist often fail to grasp this concept.

If you pay them more, the price will go up, causing fewer people to buy coffee, causing profits to do gown.

What can be done is what you're doing, boycotting, though cutting into the profits of the company will in no way help the wages of these poor, only hurt them, but good luck anyway, it's your freedom.

And on a similair note, just to be fair:

That Taco Bell Boycott
by Daniel D'Amico



[Posted October 4, 2004]



The Jesuit Volunteer Corps (JVC) has joined up with the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) to launch a nationwide boycott of Yum Brands Inc. Yum Brands is the owner of many successful fast food chains including; Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut, A&W Root Beer, and Taco Bell. TacoBell is where CIW seems to have their beef with Yum Brands. Taco Bell is the largest purchaser of tomatoes from farms in Immokalee South Florida. These farms utilize local migrant laborers to harvest different crops of vegetables including, cucumbers, watermelon, and tomatoes.



Most of the migrant laborers are not legal citizens and do not fall within the confines of minimum wage requirements and typical employment regulations. They receive per bushel wages rather than hourly or salaried compensation. For each bushel picked a migrant worker receives an average of 45 - 50 cents.



These wage rates have outraged the likes of human rights activists and anti corporate individuals alike. The boycott on Taco Bell was announced in 2001 for "its refusal to meet with farmworkers and discuss its role, as a major buyer of Florida tomatoes, in perpetuating farmworker poverty."



This boycott is not focused around lobbying efforts to seek government mandated wages. It is a group of activist individuals voicing their opposition to allegedly morally unacceptable practices of a company. At first glance the typical anti-statist may be prone to wish the JVC and CIW groups good luck with their cause and call it a day.


This effort has more implications than just the noncoercive actions of free individuals. It is an attack on capitalism and an attempt to impose moral connotations to simple purchasing actions of consumption goods. The question arises, how should today’s libertarian or free market supporter side on this issue? Should he support or condemn these boycott efforts? The answer falls in the latter. An understanding of basic economic principles exposes these efforts as rabble rousing anti-capitalism at its worst.



The link between CIW and the JVC has served most effectively for CIW in attracting young college students to their cause, coincidently the same market demographic focused on by Taco Bell marketers. So far Notre Dame, UT Austin, UCLA, and GrandValleyState are among the colleges which have agreed to "boot the bell" from their campuses. Students at these universities have raised enough qualms with their administration to have the on-campus Taco Bell locations closed and a number of students refrain from buying Taco Bell products even off campus. CIW thinks that by informing college students of the practices of Immokalee farm owners they can rally support for their boycott and diminish the demand for Taco Bell’s products.



At first glance CIW is right; staging a boycott against Taco Bell will certainly diminish the demand for their products and could seriously hurt Taco Bell’s profits. Why does CIW want to decrease the demands and profits of Taco Bell? How is this helpful for the Immokalee migrant workers? CIW expects the boycott to put pressure on Taco Bell to pay more for its tomatoes and thus more for migrant laborers. But this would not be a sustainable market scenario. Prices are not set by arbitrary moral standards, but rather by available levels of supply and demand in the market.



Free market advocates attribute the drive of technological advancement, the intensity of market prices, and the availability of goods and services to the power of consumer demand. It is this demand that influences the prices of finalized goods and services on store shelves and the prices of their factor inputs earlier in the production process. The market price of migrant labor results from the market price of tomatoes which further stems from the market price of finished tacos.



When directed in the appropriate direction, consumer demand can make or break a single firm or an entire industry. This is why companies spend millions of dollars on marketing and advertising campaigns. While anti-corporate activists such as CIW point out high marketing expenses as injustice, a more enlightened analysis calls for CIW to thank the marketing efforts of Taco Bell as they wouldn’t have their jobs without it. Activists from the Jesuit Volunteer Corps speaking at Loyola University New Orleansdrew attention to the imbalance of Taco Bells 50 million dollar marketing expense but their reluctance to pay higher wages.



The value of a chalupa is not imputed through the sweat equity of the Immokalee migrant workers. When the typical college kid is watching his favorite episode of The Simpson’s and a Taco Bell commercial comes on, he does not pause and reflect on the condition of the plighted migrant laborer; rather he sees a funny Chihuahua that speaks Spanish, standing next to a greasy bundle of cheesy goodness, and his stomach growls accordingly.



Sure the tomatoes in Taco Bell may be delicious but it is not their quality that drives Taco Bell’s profits but rather that silly Chihuahua and commercials like it. That explains why marketing efforts receive higher pay rates than tomato pickers. When the taco eater gets to the drive through window he wants the lowest price for the largest amount of food he can get. The choice between a taco and a hamburger does not carry with it a moral imperative no matter what the JVC may wish you to believe.



Staging a boycott against Taco Bell does not change the guided self interest of taco eating teenagers. In the short run it has the exact opposite effect of its intended purpose. Boycotting Taco Bell lowers the demand for tacos, which in turn lowers the demand for the inputs required to make them, which in turn lowers the prices for wages paid to migrant workers needed to pick tomatoes.



A more effective method of raising the wages of Immokalee migrant workers would be to stage the exact opposite activist campaign. If college students were to buy more tacos and ask for extra tomatoes on those tacos the demand curve would be moved in the appropriate direction, raising migrant workers wages. But this realization seems farsighted from the anti-capitalists.



The Jesuit Volunteer Corps seems to be burning the migrant workers match at both ends. We’ve seen how the boycott would have a lessening effect on the migrant workers’ wage rates, what we have yet to mention is that the JVC regularly encourages college students to gain the cultural experience of being a migrant worker. While lowering the demand for their goods and services, JVC kids travel to south Florida and work along side the migrant workers, in effect challenging them for the very jobs they are trying to spread a message of value for. This action raises the supply of labor and reaffirms the low pay scale.



Boycotts are an integral part of the free market economy. They provide for the expression of consumer preferences over the products and services that get produced. A boycott is an attempt to rid the market of the inferiority represented by a particular firm. Every individual has the right to buy that which he values and avoid buying that which he does not. It is this relationship that maintains the satisfaction of felt uneasiness and creates wealth in a capitalist economy. Frederic Bastiat (1848) spoke about what is seen and what is unseen. Without this understanding a boycott could be more destructive than productive.



In the Taco Bell example, the proposed purpose of the boycott is to raise the wages of workers used to produce the inputs of its products. This action will achieve the opposite effects as guided by the two forces of lessened demand and an increased labor supply. The only way the boycott could continue and achieve its intended results would be the condition of an existing competitor. Calling for a shift of consumer spending from one company to another is a drastically different statement from "boycott Taco Bell!" Stopping the market transactions of mutually benefiting exchange in the name of moral obligations does not produce anything of lasting value to assist in capital accumulation or increasing standards of living.



The CIW and JVC have mobilized thousands of activists to take action against Taco Bell, inhibiting market interaction. All the while CIW members face day to day strife paying high rates for housing, supplies, food, and clothing. If these thousands of people were buying, selling, and trading products and services with the Immokalee workers rather than stomping their feet in protest, how much more effective would they have been at raising migrant workers’ living standards?



CIW has also begun to teach communalistic practices to the workers. They have organized worker co-ops in which individuals provide tools, supplies, food and clothing at cost levels for one another. They place value on people rather than profit and imply a depravity towards profit. While guided by noble intention these practices do not seem sustainable for the conditions of a dynamic resource environment. The only way to create conditions of lasting wealth and improving standards of living is through capitalism and mutually benefiting exchange.



--------



Daniel D'Amico is a graduate student at George Mason University. Post comments on the blog.

[ASsman]

Dirty Mexicans. They should be happy with what they have.
Especially all those Wal-Mart bitches "wahh, we are women we get paid less".. SHUTUP! Be happy you aren't houswives on welfare.

Boycott (n)
Violent Uprising (y)

Sad the Canadians aren't a 3rd world country.. they might have more "American" jobs.

Oh and Satrbucks...

[Ali]

First off, Americans are addicted to coffee .. literally. It is a drug. "Alternatives" yah make your own, or go to some small coffee shop, or move to France.There's a Starbuck$ in Paris now. But no Burger King. Dunno if anybody goes there, I don't...

I guess that makes me some kind of a saint, right?

[Whois]

Did you say Satyrbucks?

Oh...my bad.

[beastiegirrl101]

I love starbucks...sorry Micah

But I do go to the occational ma an pa coffee houses

[Whois]

There's a Starbuck$ in Paris now. But no Burger King. Dunno if anybody goes there, I don't...


WHAT?! No Royal with cheese?!?!

(Yeah, I know...)

[Qdrop]

There's a Starbuck$ in Paris now. But no Burger King. Dunno if anybody goes there, I don't...

I guess that makes me some kind of a saint, right?

were you born in France?
how do you know english so well with all of it subtleties?


and Enigma: please don't QUOTE ENTIRE FUCKING 2 PAGE PASSAGES, PLEASE!!

[phinkasaurus]

hey enigma
in true communism, no body gets paid.
i know, no money? what the fuck?!?!?!
it's possible though.

and by boycotting a horrible company, i get feel i am making a difference with out really doing anything.[/sarcasm]
it's almost as easy as accepting this whole world as right and defending it.

and thanks to capitalism i can type on a message baord? what the fuck does that mean?

assman, i agree. (y) to armed resistance.

all: please note i corrected my misspeliing of starbucks.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2004/10/298881.jpg

[GreenEarthAl]

In economics class, paying workers sweatshop wage actually helps that worker. And paying them more would lead to higher priced products. In practice, what typically happens is:

1. High paying Union job stops off in Mexico on it's way to southeast Asia.
2. Item price of product produced remains the same.
3. Cost of building a new plant in southeast asia, quickly pays for itself, all of the savings are gravy and reported on the corporation's 10Q or quarterly. Profitability goes up, share price goes up, boardmembers and shareholders sit around on their ass talking about how lazy the people that are killing themselves in their offshore manufacturing jobs must be.
4. Corporation buys out the competitor that tried to keep the high paying jobs in one of the more industrialized nations with more workers rights.
5. Expand the plant in China and send it more jobs.
6. You now can afford to shop at Wal-Mart and only Wal-Mart.

(this is the free market bestowing SO MANY choices on you. Choices out the wazooo!)

[EN[i]GMA]

were you born in France?
how do you know english so well with all of it subtleties?


and Enigma: please don't QUOTE ENTIRE FUCKING 2 PAGE PASSAGES, PLEASE!!

Oops.

[EN[i]GMA]

hey enigma
in true communism, no body gets paid.
i know, no money? what the fuck?!?!?!
it's possible though.

and by boycotting a horrible company, i get feel i am making a difference with out really doing anything.[/sarcasm]
it's almost as easy as accepting this whole world as right and defending it.

and thanks to capitalism i can type on a message baord? what the fuck does that mean?

assman, i agree. (y) to armed resistance.

all: please note i corrected my misspeliing of starbucks.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2004/10/298881.jpg

You have a computer.

[phinkasaurus]

yes I do.
so do you.
i also have several root canals I cannot afford to have done.
maybe I sell my computer? maybe I put my self at at even greater disadvantage in the job market? maybe i can be homeless too?

[EN[i]GMA]

In economics class, paying workers sweatshop wage actually helps that worker. And paying them more would lead to higher priced products. In practice, what typically happens is:

1. High paying Union job stops off in Mexico on it's way to southeast Asia.
2. Item price of product produced remains the same.
3. Cost of building a new plant in southeast asia, quickly pays for itself, all of the savings are gravy and reported on the corporation's 10Q or quarterly. Profitability goes up, share price goes up, boardmembers and shareholders sit around on their ass talking about how lazy the people that are killing themselves in their offshore manufacturing jobs must be.
4. Corporation buys out the competitor that tried to keep the high paying jobs in one of the more industrialized nations with more workers rights.
5. Expand the plant in China and send it more jobs.
6. You now can afford to shop at Wal-Mart and only Wal-Mart.

(this is the free market bestowing SO MANY choices on you. Choices out the wazooo!)


7. 20 years down the line, that part of China is industrialized, the company is making large profits, the workers are being payed more money and are able to buy products and food from the store down the (PAVED!) road.

And there are literally dozens of companies in any given field. Buy from one of them.

[GreenEarthAl]

I'm sorry but that's a fairy tale. It's told to your conservatives because it is the path to viewing our hyper-capitalism as altruistic. The unfortunate truth is that there is no plan to have the rising tide lift all boats. There are nations the world over, starting at the Maquilladoras on the Mexican border, where they have been waiting their 20 years and then some for the exploitation to finally "pay off". That day isn't coming. Wait 20 more years or two hundred more years, the plan is to keep creating the conditions to pay out lower wages.


As to there being dozens of companies in any industry... whatever. There is a wave of consildation and it goes in one direction with very few exceptions. As an entrepreneur there is almost no access to the marketplace unless you are already in the marketplace.

[EN[i]GMA]

I'm sorry but that's a fairy tale. It's told to your conservatives because it is the path to viewing our hyper-capitalism as altruistic. The unfortunate truth is that there is no plan to have the rising tide lift all boats. There are nations the world over, starting at the Maquilladoras on the Mexican border, where they have been waiting their 20 years and then some for the exploitation to finally "pay off". That day isn't coming. Wait 20 more years or two hundred more years, the plan is to keep creating the conditions to pay out lower wages.


As to there being dozens of companies in any industry... whatever. There is a wave of consildation and it goes in one direction with very few exceptions. As an entrepreneur there is almost no access to the marketplace unless you are already in the marketplace.

It's the truth. It's what happens when economies are allowed to develop. It's what happend here in the United States and in Europes and it's what's occuring in China right now. As China moves towards capitalism it moves up in the world. It's soon going to be an economic power to rival the U.S.

Capitalism is always evolving and always evolving for the better. Even if some practitioners don't want it to change, they can't prevent it.

In 20 years, when China moves to capitalism and they are ushering in a new era of prosperity, you'll see what I mean.

This isn't a fluke either. It happens whenever the free-market is allowed to progress and doesn't happen when the government intervenes.

[Monsieur Decuts]

Green Mountain Coffee is Shite.

Sorry but not much compares to a peppermint mocha from the bucks.

I can't help it if big brother does a good job.

[phinkasaurus]

the u.s. has been a progressing capitalist country for over 200 years. the u.s. currently has gobs of unemployed and homeless, the highest amount of unisured people in "industrialised world" and has contributed directly to the devestating trade agreements harming both it's population and the poplulations of the thrird world and south america.

how long does it take?

[Monsieur Decuts]

GMA']It's the truth. It's what happens when economies are allowed to develop. It's what happend here in the United States and in Europes and it's what's occuring in China right now. As China moves towards capitalism it moves up in the world. It's soon going to be an economic power to rival the U.S.

Capitalism is always evolving and always evolving for the better. Even if some practitioners don't want it to change, they can't prevent it.

In 20 years, when China moves to capitalism and they are ushering in a new era of prosperity, you'll see what I mean.

This isn't a fluke either. It happens whenever the free-market is allowed to progress and doesn't happen when the government intervenes.


Moves to capitalism...you mean keeps on raping the world's copywrites so as to seal off their market from the actual companies...yet still shipping out tons of crap. China will never play fairly...

[valvano]

i prefer my caffeine carbonated!

[100% ILL]

If only McDonalds and Starbucks would merge into a huge conglomerate. Perhaps they could have a McDonald'/Starbucks store inside every Wal-Mart! then I could get tasty food and an unbeatable beverage at the same place for one low price! All while shopping for ALL of my houshould needs under one roof!!! Capitalism is your one stop for happiness. (y)

[EN[i]GMA]

the u.s. has been a progressing capitalist country for over 200 years. the u.s. currently has gobs of unemployed and homeless, the highest amount of unisured people in "industrialised world" and has contributed directly to the devestating trade agreements harming both it's population and the poplulations of the thrird world and south america.

how long does it take?

"gobs"?

5% unemployment isn't bad, in fact, it's lower than most all of Europe. It isn't great, but it isn't bad either. It's really impressive how low it is given America's repressive economic laws.

Homeless? Perhaps they should they should get jobs.

Free trade agreements restricting or regulating trade are oxymorons.

More uninsured is a problem. But out health care system is far better than anyone elses. Health insurance exists for the poor and none will be denied care should they show up to the hospital.

Our society is great, nowhere near perfect, but great. Pointing out flaws is valuable, and even more valuable is proposing solutions, but saying socialism is the answer when the problems that exist aren't great and could be easily solved helps very little.

I maintain that a move towards capitalism would end thees problems while you maintiain socialism would achieve these goals. Who is right?

[EN[i]GMA]

Moves to capitalism...you mean keeps on raping the world's copywrites so as to seal off their market from the actual companies...yet still shipping out tons of crap. China will never play fairly...

In a socialistic society, copyrights wouldn't even exist. You can't blame China for infringing on copyrights if you don't support a government sanctioned copyright system.

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']Homeless? Perhaps they should they should get jobs.
yes, because that's why their homeless. they have tried to get jobs. or they have not tried to get homes. or they have not tried to deal with their mental illnesses. or they have not tried to better themselves like everyone else in this capitalistic society.
isn't your flippant answer a bit insensitive? have you ever been homeless? my family was for a whole year. my parents worked several jobs each, luckily our church had a homeless shelter we could live in while my parents tried to "get jobs" from their two jobs a peice.
see having a job is not the end all in capitalism, too succeed to you have to make your neighbor fail. so accumlate more than me enigma, you'll be asuccess amongst your peers.



GMA']Who is right?
according to you and capitalism, whomever has the most money.

[D_Raay]

The economic stability of American capitalism and, with it, the vast fortunes accumulated by its ruling elite in the course of the speculative boom on Wall Street became dependent, or, one might say, addicted, to depressed wage levels in the United States and the continuing supply from overseas of cheap raw materials (especially oil) and low-cost labor. The staggering enrichment of America’s ruling elite during the last decade and the horrifying destitution of Latin America, Africa, Asia and the former USSR are interdependent phenomena. If a mathematician were to study the relationship between wealth accumulation in the United States and the social consequences of low commodity prices and the super-exploitation of labor overseas, he might be able to calculate how many millions of premature poverty-induced deaths were collectively required in Africa, Asia, Eurasia and Latin America in order to harvest a new Wall Street billionaire.

The American ruling elite is hardly unaware of the relationship between its own wealth and the exploitation and plundering of the great mass of the world’s population. This relationship has created the objective basis for a social constituency for imperialist barbarism among a noisy, stupid, and arrogant milieu of nouveau riche spawned by the speculative boom of the 1980s and 1990s. It is this corrupt social element that dominates the mass media and imparts to the airwaves and press their distinctly egotistical, self-absorbed and generally reactionary characteristics. The brazen glorification of American militarism within the mass media reflects the correspondence of this stratum’s self-interest with the geo-political ambitions of American imperialism. And so, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, who epitomizes the outlook of the pro-imperialist nouveau riche, writes without the slightest sense of embarrassment, “I have no problem with a war for oil.”

[DroppinScience]

Thanks for confirming why I don't like coming here anymore guys. :(

[EN[i]GMA]

yes, because that's why their homeless. they have tried to get jobs. or they have not tried to get homes. or they have not tried to deal with their mental illnesses. or they have not tried to better themselves like everyone else in this capitalistic society.
isn't your flippant answer a bit insensitive? have you ever been homeless? my family was for a whole year. my parents worked several jobs each, luckily our church had a homeless shelter we could live in while my parents tried to "get jobs" from their two jobs a peice.
see having a job is not the end all in capitalism, too succeed to you have to make your neighbor fail. so accumlate more than me enigma, you'll be asuccess amongst your peers.

That's just false. Capitalism is not a no-sum game. Both you and your neighbor can succeed. In fact, everyone can succeed. There is no artificial barrier as you maintiain, only your own efforts.

And it's good that your parents got jobs but for many homeless, they just choose not to. They are able to live by begging and simply do not wish to work, for whatever reason.

Often times it's mental illness and they should get help, but when someone is mentally ill and unwilling to cooperate, it's hard to do anything about it.



according to you and capitalism, whomever has the most money.

According to you, it's the bueruacrat who does nothing for society.

[Whois]

Thanks for confirming why I don't like coming here anymore guys. :(

:D (y)

[EN[i]GMA]

The economic stability of American capitalism and, with it, the vast fortunes accumulated by its ruling elite in the course of the speculative boom on Wall Street became dependent, or, one might say, addicted, to depressed wage levels in the United States and the continuing supply from overseas of cheap raw materials (especially oil) and low-cost labor. The staggering enrichment of America’s ruling elite during the last decade and the horrifying destitution of Latin America, Africa, Asia and the former USSR are interdependent phenomena. If a mathematician were to study the relationship between wealth accumulation in the United States and the social consequences of low commodity prices and the super-exploitation of labor overseas, he might be able to calculate how many millions of premature poverty-induced deaths were collectively required in Africa, Asia, Eurasia and Latin America in order to harvest a new Wall Street billionaire.

The American ruling elite is hardly unaware of the relationship between its own wealth and the exploitation and plundering of the great mass of the world’s population. This relationship has created the objective basis for a social constituency for imperialist barbarism among a noisy, stupid, and arrogant milieu of nouveau riche spawned by the speculative boom of the 1980s and 1990s. It is this corrupt social element that dominates the mass media and imparts to the airwaves and press their distinctly egotistical, self-absorbed and generally reactionary characteristics. The brazen glorification of American militarism within the mass media reflects the correspondence of this stratum’s self-interest with the geo-political ambitions of American imperialism. And so, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, who epitomizes the outlook of the pro-imperialist nouveau riche, writes without the slightest sense of embarrassment, “I have no problem with a war for oil.”

Obviously it's the goal of the capitalists to obtain capital. And it's the goal of every other capitalist to gain capital as well.

You say capitalism destroyed these places, but yet, they were failures before globalisation arrived and will be resounding successes when capitalism is allowed to run it's course.

You judge after the fact while others try to look into the future.

Tell me what we should do, if you have the answers. Tell me what a Bangledeshi sugar harvester should be payed. Tell me what amount of money is "right" for a CEO to make. Tell me what's exploitive and what's fair. Plan this economy out for me.

Oh wait, that's a ludicrous demand.

Tell me how to make a pencil instead. Just a pencil. Just one single pencil. If you can do it, we'll put you in charge of pencil production in the new government.

And again with the mercantilist charges. Wars for imperialism and oil are not capitalist, they are mercantilist. A capitalist would buy his goods and oil at the market rate, not murder and plunder for it. He who does that is a common criminal, not an economist.

[valvano]

i like my sugar with coffee and cream

:p

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']According to you, it's the bueruacrat who does nothing for society.

not in the world i am fighting for.
read ParEcon, link in my sig.

there are no fat lazy beuracrats in a true communist society, friend. we are all in this together.


and how can we both succeed and be rich and well off in a capitalist society when the nature of the game is surplus profit. theo only way to accre surplus prfit? trim your expenses. which means someone, somewhere down your pruduction line gets paid less money for their labor then you make off their labor. that is exploitation. i pay you $0.12 for a day's worth of shoe making, then I sell the 25 pairs you sewed for $50 a pair. So the shoew maker created $125.00 worth of product (minus the materials provided him/her) and got paid $0.12. That's a discrepancy of $124.88. that is exploitation.

and yes, we can play the consumers, but one can only consume what is available. the "choice" is much like the u.s. elections, a facade.

[EN[i]GMA]

not in the world i am fighting for.
read ParEcon, link in my sig.

there are no fat lazy beuracrats in a true communist society, friend. we are all in this together.


and how can we both succeed and be rich and well off in a capitalist society when the nature of the game is surplus profit. theo only way to accre surplus prfit? trim your expenses. which means someone, somewhere down your pruduction line gets paid less money for their labor then you make off their labor. that is exploitation. i pay you $0.12 for a day's worth of shoe making, then I sell the 25 pairs you sewed for $50 a pair. So the shoew maker created $125.00 worth of product (minus the materials provided him/her) and got paid $0.12. That's a discrepancy of $124.88. that is exploitation.

and yes, we can play the consumers, but one can only consume what is available. the "choice" is much like the u.s. elections, a facade.


And if you just pocket that money, it won't be long before another shoe company offers shoes with equal appeal for less money, making less of a profit.

And it won't be long before you pay your workers more due to increased profits and the need for increased productivity. If you pay your workers more in regards to your profits, both you and the worker benefit.

And don't even bullshit me about choice. You clearly don't know what choice is or what would happen to it in your "utopia". The first thing socialism does away with is choice. Choice in your doctor, choice in your clothes, choice in your food and choice in your job.

Slavery is freedom though, right? As long as you pretend it is, right?

And tell me this, why will government officials been any more magnanimous than CEOs? Aren't they all power hungry bastards cut from the same cloth?

[EN[i]GMA]

ParEcon is a joke.

When has collective ownership of the means of production every suceeded? How does the floor janitor know what the company should do? How is the widget assembler more important than the CEO?

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']ParEcon is a joke.
did you read it?

GMA']When has collective ownership of the means of production every suceeded? How does the floor janitor know what the company should do? How is the widget assembler more important than the CEO?

no I guess you didn't read it.
first off, the book is put out by a coolectively owned publishing house. secondly their are collectively owned co-ops throughout the entire world. and thirdly, in a co-op no one is more important than anyone else. and the janitor would know what the company should do because the janitor would be involved in decision making processes. read the book before you call it a joke. thanks.

[STANKY808]

GMA']ParEcon is a joke.

When has collective ownership of the means of production every suceeded? How does the floor janitor know what the company should do? How is the widget assembler more important than the CEO?


They are trying this right now in Argentina -

"...overwhelmed by debt and the countrys economic chaos, the Brukman brothers left their high-end suit factory in Buenos Aires and never returned. They also left more than 100 employees awaiting back pay.

In the streets, Argentines were protesting economic measures imposed by then-President Fernando de la Ra (1998-2001), who declared a state of emergency, then resigned amid a political and economic crisis. Jacobo, Enrique and Carlos Brukman had suspended their workers regular wages, which ranged from US$300 to $500 a month, and were paying just a few dollars a week.

When payday came on Dec. 18, the owners "told us we were crazy if we thought they were going to bring back the money theyd moved out of the country just to pay us," said, 48, a 10-year employee who was a representative of the workers at the six-story plant. Then the owners walked out. "We didnt know what was going to happen, but when the state of emergency was lifted, we hung out a banner that said, Factory taken over," Martnez said.

More than 50 factories whose owners have declared bankruptcy or shutdowns have been taken over by employees anxious to keep their jobs. When employees take over a plant, they usually form a cooperative and ask the government to expropriate the building and equipment. The government then rents them the infrastructure. More than 5,000 workers are estimated to be working at such plants.

The National Movement of Recovered Companies (MNER), which represents about half the countrys worker-controlled factories, encourages the creation of cooperatives and is calling for laws that would give such businesses a legal framework. Worker-managed plants include bakeries, printing companies, chicken producers, meat packers and manufacturers of tractors, ceramics, plastics, metalwork and textiles. About 30 are located in the Buenos Aires metropolitan area."

That was from 2002, if you google Argentine workers, you will find a wealth of information. I also found this more recent piece...

"Worker-run factories like Brukman have continued to operate successfully in Argentina since the 2001 economic collapse caused many businesses to go bankrupt. At a recent national seminar sponsored by the National Movement for Recuperated Businesses (MNER), coordinator Jose Abelli estimated that newly recuperated businesses are putting 15,000 workers to work. Some of them, like Brukman, seek eventual state ownership, while others want to remain independent cooperatives..."

You put way to much stock into the CEO knows best sort of thinking. I think most people have worked in places where the management types really don't have a clue of the day to day operations of their business. There is something called the "Peter Principle" which explains this.

Anyway, I think it is too early to say it won't work. And what's wrong with trying?

[EN[i]GMA]

They are trying this right now in Argentina -

"...overwhelmed by debt and the countrys economic chaos, the Brukman brothers left their high-end suit factory in Buenos Aires and never returned. They also left more than 100 employees awaiting back pay.

In the streets, Argentines were protesting economic measures imposed by then-President Fernando de la Ra (1998-2001), who declared a state of emergency, then resigned amid a political and economic crisis. Jacobo, Enrique and Carlos Brukman had suspended their workers regular wages, which ranged from US$300 to $500 a month, and were paying just a few dollars a week.

When payday came on Dec. 18, the owners "told us we were crazy if we thought they were going to bring back the money theyd moved out of the country just to pay us," said, 48, a 10-year employee who was a representative of the workers at the six-story plant. Then the owners walked out. "We didnt know what was going to happen, but when the state of emergency was lifted, we hung out a banner that said, Factory taken over," Martnez said.

More than 50 factories whose owners have declared bankruptcy or shutdowns have been taken over by employees anxious to keep their jobs. When employees take over a plant, they usually form a cooperative and ask the government to expropriate the building and equipment. The government then rents them the infrastructure. More than 5,000 workers are estimated to be working at such plants.

The National Movement of Recovered Companies (MNER), which represents about half the countrys worker-controlled factories, encourages the creation of cooperatives and is calling for laws that would give such businesses a legal framework. Worker-managed plants include bakeries, printing companies, chicken producers, meat packers and manufacturers of tractors, ceramics, plastics, metalwork and textiles. About 30 are located in the Buenos Aires metropolitan area."

That was from 2002, if you google Argentine workers, you will find a wealth of information. I also found this more recent piece...

"Worker-run factories like Brukman have continued to operate successfully in Argentina since the 2001 economic collapse caused many businesses to go bankrupt. At a recent national seminar sponsored by the National Movement for Recuperated Businesses (MNER), coordinator Jose Abelli estimated that newly recuperated businesses are putting 15,000 workers to work. Some of them, like Brukman, seek eventual state ownership, while others want to remain independent cooperatives..."

You put way to much stock into the CEO knows best sort of thinking. I think most people have worked in places where the management types really don't have a clue of the day to day operations of their business. There is something called the "Peter Principle" which explains this.

Anyway, I think it is too early to say it won't work. And what's wrong with trying?


Very interesting.

I don't see anything wrong with trying, in fact, if someone were so inclined, they could start up a similiar outfit in a capitalist country.

The problem it would have, I would think, is the tyranny of democracy. Majority rules does not always define what is best, even in something like a cooperative. I would be pleasantly surprised if these co-ops could suceed.

[EN[i]GMA]

Why didn't I read it?

I dunno, the slighty biased pictures assualting me at every page, the factual errors regarding capitalisms effect on society, the cultish feel of their pro-collectivisation verbiage, the irreality of their dreams, all of that and the fact that all collectivism is the same thing:

Big ideas with little practical thought.

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']Why didn't I read it?

I dunno, the slighty biased pictures assualting me at every page, the factual errors regarding capitalisms effect on society, the cultish feel of their pro-collectivisation verbiage, the irreality of their dreams, all of that and the fact that all collectivism is the same thing:

Big ideas with little practical thought.

the book is actually very practical and down to earth. it's a study of econmics, and as such is very dry.
What pictures? the copy I have has no pictures in it.

are you deflecting?

[EN[i]GMA]

the book is actually very practical and down to earth. it's a study of econmics, and as such is very dry.
What pictures? the copy I have has no pictures in it.

are you deflecting?

I was reffering to the ParEcon vs. Capitalism thing in the link.

I present to a you challenge, tell me how to make a pencil.

This really is going somewhere.

[GreenEarthAl]

ENiGMA, Maybe you've gone a little overboard with this "free market capitalism heals all" and "every socialist wants evil" schitch. I'm glad you're read some congruent books, but just because you read a dozen books in a row that all say the same thing, doesn't make those books right or applicable in practice. The whole Personal Responsibility doctrine that you're all kinds of on for now has very little to do with the lives of real and actual people. Your whole new heirarchy of mind capital and lauding of investor class is kinda heartbreaking. Your dismissal of anything that doesn't fit your golden image of capitalism as mercantalism is awful convenients and reminds me of your whole kick about deism and how anything impure wasn't true deism because if it was real deism it would be great by definition. If you start with a definition of capitalism as "A great and beneficial economic system where the market regulates the free exchange of goods and services for the benefit of all mankind" then, sure, it will make it hard to present an argument for any alternative, but it also paints you into an unreality bubble.

[EN[i]GMA]

ENiGMA, Maybe you've gone a little overboard with this "free market capitalism heals all" and "every socialist wants evil" schitch. I'm glad you're read some congruent books, but just because you read a dozen books in a row that all say the same thing, doesn't make those books right or applicable in practice. The whole Personal Responsibility doctrine that you're all kinds of on for now has very little to do with the lives of real and actual people. Your whole new heirarchy of mind capital and lauding of investor class is kinda heartbreaking. Your dismissal of anything that doesn't fit your golden image of capitalism as mercantalism is awful convenients and reminds me of your whole kick about deism and how anything impure wasn't true deism because if it was real deism it would be great by definition. If you start with a definition of capitalism as "A great and beneficial economic system where the market regulates the free exchange of goods and services for the benefit of all mankind" then, sure, it will make it hard to present an argument for any alternative, but it also paints you into an unreality bubble.

Hmm.

I do get that the feeling that I'm proselytizing a lot but I'm sure you know the feeling that you're just right.

I would say it's rather arrogent but yet, unavoidable.

I don't really take ideas half-heartedly. I plan on reading absolutely anything I can on a given topic including some of the books you've recomended.

The problem is, if not lessaiz-faire capitalism, than what? Libertarianism, much like communism, provides a nice intellectual hidey hole where you can just throw your Titans (Ludwig von Mises, Murray N. Rothbard, Fredriech Hayek and on the other side, Marx, Engels, Chomsky, Zinn) at any dissenter and say "See, look how right I am and how big my penis is" without actually having to think.

I want to read all the works by all of these people and come up with something I agree with intellectually, and it isn't easy.

I must say, leftism is a lot more fun to read, as Austrian economics articles and so dense and verbose they seem like almost a chore.

But I find that I nor anyone can discredit what the great liberatarian thinkers have said.

I mean, what's a system that makes sense? And capitalism, in some degree seems to be it.

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']I mean, what's a system that makes sense? And capitalism, in some degree seems to be it.

to me capitalism makes sense in the way that "me first" and "I am stronger and therefore right" makes sense.

rather, what truly makes sense to me, is the thought that by helping my fellow humans, we can all bring humanity forward together, leaving no one out of it.

and a pencil? sure, I have never made a pencil, if that's what you want to know. Could I make one? maybe. I know how to carve wood, and I know how to use tools. do I have the means, like the machinery needed to put a hole of that diameter through a piece of wood and the machinery needed to refine graphite to that form? no of course not. i understand that in an organized group, like a society, people have certain tasks that they complete to make the society run smoothly. Does that mean I can't learn how to make a pencil? nope.

please tell me where you were going with this.

[ASsman]

Greed.
It's human nature.

[EN[i]GMA]

to me capitalism makes sense in the way that "me first" and "I am stronger and therefore right" makes sense.

rather, what truly makes sense to me, is the thought that by helping my fellow humans, we can all bring humanity forward together, leaving no one out of it.

and a pencil? sure, I have never made a pencil, if that's what you want to know. Could I make one? maybe. I know how to carve wood, and I know how to use tools. do I have the means, like the machinery needed to put a hole of that diameter through a piece of wood and the machinery needed to refine graphite to that form? no of course not. i understand that in an organized group, like a society, people have certain tasks that they complete to make the society run smoothly. Does that mean I can't learn how to make a pencil? nope.

please tell me where you were going with this.

I'm going to demonstrate the "invisible hand" Adam Smith talked about and show you how foolish it is to think that some government official/s can make a pencil.

I, Pencil


My Family Tree as told to Leonard E. Read



I am a lead pencil—the ordinary wooden pencil familiar to all boys and girls and adults who can read and write.


Writing is both my vocation and my avocation; that's all I do.


You may wonder why I should write a genealogy. Well, to begin with, my story is interesting. And, next, I am a mystery—more so than a tree or a sunset or even a flash of lightning. But, sadly, I am taken for granted by those who use me, as if I were a mere incident and without background. This supercilious attitude relegates me to the level of the commonplace. This is a species of the grievous error in which mankind cannot too long persist without peril. For, the wise G. K. Chesterton observed, "We are perishing for want of wonder, not for want of wonders."


I, Pencil, simple though I appear to be, merit your wonder and awe, a claim I shall attempt to prove. In fact, if you can understand me—no, that's too much to ask of anyone—if you can become aware of the miraculousness which I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing. I have a profound lesson to teach. And I can teach this lesson better than can an automobile or an airplane or a mechanical dishwasher because—well, because I am seemingly so simple.


Simple? Yet, not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me. This sounds fantastic, doesn't it? Especially when it is realized that there are about one and one-half billion of my kind produced in the U.S.A. each year.


Pick me up and look me over. What do you see? Not much meets the eye—there's some wood, lacquer, the printed labeling, graphite lead, a bit of metal, and an eraser.


Innumerable Antecedents



Just as you cannot trace your family tree back very far, so is it impossible for me to name and explain all my antecedents. But I would like to suggest enough of them to impress upon you the richness and complexity of my background.

My family tree begins with what in fact is a tree, a cedar of straight grain that grows in Northern California and Oregon. Now contemplate all the saws and trucks and rope and the countless other gear used in harvesting and carting the cedar logs to the railroad siding. Think of all the persons and the numberless skills that went into their fabrication: the mining of ore, the making of steel and its refinement into saws, axes, motors; the growing of hemp and bringing it through all the stages to heavy and strong rope; the logging camps with their beds and mess halls, the cookery and the raising of all the foods. Why, untold thousands of persons had a hand in every cup of coffee the loggers drink!


The logs are shipped to a mill in San Leandro, California. Can you imagine the individuals who make flat cars and rails and railroad engines and who construct and install the communication systems incidental thereto? These legions are among my antecedents.


Consider the millwork in San Leandro. The cedar logs are cut into small, pencil-length slats less than one-fourth of an inch in thickness. These are kiln dried and then tinted for the same reason women put rouge on their faces. People prefer that I look pretty, not a pallid white. The slats are waxed and kiln dried again. How many skills went into the making of the tint and the kilns, into supplying the heat, the light and power, the belts, motors, and all the other things a mill requires? Sweepers in the mill among my ancestors? Yes, and included are the men who poured the concrete for the dam of a Pacific Gas & Electric Company hydroplant which supplies the mill's power!


Don't overlook the ancestors present and distant who have a hand in transporting sixty carloads of slats across the nation.


Once in the pencil factory—$4,000,000 in machinery and building, all capital accumulated by thrifty and saving parents of mine—each slat is given eight grooves by a complex machine, after which another machine lays leads in every other slat, applies glue, and places another slat atop—a lead sandwich, so to speak. Seven brothers and I are mechanically carved from this "wood-clinched" sandwich.


My "lead" itself—it contains no lead at all—is complex. The graphite is mined in Ceylon. Consider these miners and those who make their many tools and the makers of the paper sacks in which the graphite is shipped and those who make the string that ties the sacks and those who put them aboard ships and those who make the ships. Even the lighthouse keepers along the way assisted in my birth—and the harbor pilots.


The graphite is mixed with clay from Mississippi in which ammonium hydroxide is used in the refining process. Then wetting agents are added such as sulfonated tallow—animal fats chemically reacted with sulfuric acid. After passing through numerous machines, the mixture finally appears as endless extrusions—as from a sausage grinder-cut to size, dried, and baked for several hours at 1,850 degrees Fahrenheit. To increase their strength and smoothness the leads are then treated with a hot mixture which includes candelilla wax from Mexico, paraffin wax, and hydrogenated natural fats.


My cedar receives six coats of lacquer. Do you know all the ingredients of lacquer? Who would think that the growers of castor beans and the refiners of castor oil are a part of it? They are. Why, even the processes by which the lacquer is made a beautiful yellow involve the skills of more persons than one can enumerate!

Observe the labeling. That's a film formed by applying heat to carbon black mixed with resins. How do you make resins and what, pray, is carbon black?


My bit of metal—the ferrule—is brass. Think of all the persons who mine zinc and copper and those who have the skills to make shiny sheet brass from these products of nature. Those black rings on my ferrule are black nickel. What is black nickel and how is it applied? The complete story of why the center of my ferrule has no black nickel on it would take pages to explain.


Then there's my crowning glory, inelegantly referred to in the trade as "the plug," the part man uses to erase the errors he makes with me. An ingredient called "factice" is what does the erasing. It is a rubber-like product made by reacting rape-seed oil from the Dutch East Indies with sulfur chloride. Rubber, contrary to the common notion, is only for binding purposes. Then, too, there are numerous vulcanizing and accelerating agents. The pumice comes from Italy; and the pigment which gives "the plug" its color is cadmium sulfide.

No One Knows



Does anyone wish to challenge my earlier assertion that no single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me?


Actually, millions of human beings have had a hand in my creation, no one of whom even knows more than a very few of the others. Now, you may say that I go too far in relating the picker of a coffee berry in far off Brazil and food growers elsewhere to my creation; that this is an extreme position. I shall stand by my claim. There isn't a single person in all these millions, including the president of the pencil company, who contributes more than a tiny, infinitesimal bit of know-how. From the standpoint of know-how the only difference between the miner of graphite in Ceylon and the logger in Oregon is in the type of know-how. Neither the miner nor the logger can be dispensed with, any more than can the chemist at the factory or the worker in the oil field—paraffin being a by-product of petroleum.

Here is an astounding fact: Neither the worker in the oil field nor the chemist nor the digger of graphite or clay nor any who mans or makes the ships or trains or trucks nor the one who runs the machine that does the knurling on my bit of metal nor the president of the company performs his singular task because he wants me. Each one wants me less, perhaps, than does a child in the first grade. Indeed, there are some among this vast multitude who never saw a pencil nor would they know how to use one. Their motivation is other than me. Perhaps it is something like this: Each of these millions sees that he can thus exchange his tiny know-how for the goods and services he needs or wants. I may or may not be among these items.


No Master Mind



There is a fact still more astounding: the absence of a master mind, of anyone dictating or forcibly directing these countless actions which bring me into being. No trace of such a person can be found. Instead, we find the Invisible Hand at work. This is the mystery to which I earlier referred.


It has been said that "only God can make a tree." Why do we agree with this? Isn't it because we realize that we ourselves could not make one? Indeed, can we even describe a tree? We cannot, except in superficial terms. We can say, for instance, that a certain molecular configuration manifests itself as a tree. But what mind is there among men that could even record, let alone direct, the constant changes in molecules that transpire in the life span of a tree? Such a feat is utterly unthinkable!


I, Pencil, am a complex combination of miracles: a tree, zinc, copper, graphite, and so on. But to these miracles which manifest themselves in Nature an even more extraordinary miracle has been added: the configuration of creative human energies—millions of tiny know-hows configurating naturally and spontaneously in response to human necessity and desire and in the absence of any human master-minding! Since only God can make a tree, I insist that only God could make me. Man can no more direct these millions of know-hows to bring me into being than he can put molecules together to create a tree.

The above is what I meant when writing, "If you can become aware of the miraculousness which I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing." For, if one is aware that these know-hows will naturally, yes, automatically, arrange themselves into creative and productive patterns in response to human necessity and demand—that is, in the absence of governmental or any other coercive masterminding—then one will possess an absolutely essential ingredient for freedom: a faith in free people. Freedom is impossible without this faith.

Once government has had a monopoly of a creative activity such, for instance, as the delivery of the mails, most individuals will believe that the mails could not be efficiently delivered by men acting freely. And here is the reason: Each one acknowledges that he himself doesn't know how to do all the things incident to mail delivery. He also recognizes that no other individual could do it. These assumptions are correct. No individual possesses enough know-how to perform a nation's mail delivery any more than any individual possesses enough know-how to make a pencil. Now, in the absence of faith in free people—in the unawareness that millions of tiny know-hows would naturally and miraculously form and cooperate to satisfy this necessity—the individual cannot help but reach the erroneous conclusion that mail can be delivered only by governmental "master-minding."


Testimony Galore


If I, Pencil, were the only item that could offer testimony on what men and women can accomplish when free to try, then those with little faith would have a fair case. However, there is testimony galore; it's all about us and on every hand. Mail delivery is exceedingly simple when compared, for instance, to the making of an automobile or a calculating machine or a grain combine or a milling machine or to tens of thousands of other things. Delivery? Why, in this area where men have been left free to try, they deliver the human voice around the world in less than one second; they deliver an event visually and in motion to any person's home when it is happening; they deliver 150 passengers from Seattle to Baltimore in less than four hours; they deliver gas from Texas to one's range or furnace in New York at unbelievably low rates and without subsidy; they deliver each four pounds of oil from the Persian Gulf to our Eastern Seaboard—halfway around the world—for less money than the government charges for delivering a one-ounce letter across the street!


The lesson I have to teach is this: Leave all creative energies uninhibited. Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society's legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand. This faith will be confirmed. I, Pencil, seemingly simple though I am, offer the miracle of my creation as testimony that this is a practical faith, as practical as the sun, the rain, a cedar tree, the good earth.




End article.


Though none can tell you how to make a pencil, how much wood to buy, how to carve it, how many to make and what it should cost, you can go to the store and buy a pencil very cheaply.

Now apply this to an economy and it absolutly blows your mind.

This also shows what government intrusion into the market does. Setting the price of zinc effects the price of every single thing in the economy, from the pencil's to everyone who uses a pencil.

Can I explain how the invisible hand of capitalism works so well? No I can't. And neither can anyone else, nor can the human mind, I venture to say.

[EN[i]GMA]

to me capitalism makes sense in the way that "me first" and "I am stronger and therefore right" makes sense.

rather, what truly makes sense to me, is the thought that by helping my fellow humans, we can all bring humanity forward together, leaving no one out of it.

and a pencil? sure, I have never made a pencil, if that's what you want to know. Could I make one? maybe. I know how to carve wood, and I know how to use tools. do I have the means, like the machinery needed to put a hole of that diameter through a piece of wood and the machinery needed to refine graphite to that form? no of course not. i understand that in an organized group, like a society, people have certain tasks that they complete to make the society run smoothly. Does that mean I can't learn how to make a pencil? nope.

please tell me where you were going with this.

That isn't what capitalism does. People don't move up in capitalism by being confrontational pricks, they do it by being better. It isn't a matter of strength, but of skill. You don't get ahead by being stronger, the initiation of force has no place in capitalism or in society, you get ahead by being better, or smarter, or even, God forbid, luckier.

What you're saying is, to move into utopia, all we have to do is move into utopia? That's circular logic. Yes, what you described would be great, but it isn't practical or even, to some, desirable.

[Schmeltz]

GreenEarthAl is right, Enigma. You're just another ideologue speaking in terms of ideal, abstract concepts largely detached from actual reality. Your platitudes about the free market and the "invisible hand" of capitalism are no different from diehard Communist rhetoric about revolution and collective ownership. Is it really an absolute, universal truth that the smarter, more skilled, better people in a capitalist society always (and deservedly) constitute that society's most privileged class? No, so sorry, it isn't; capitalism is just as prone to self-defeating practices like theft, graft, corruption, nepotism, and all the rest of it as Communism was. That's why Communism failed and why the absolute type of laissez-faire economics you preach will simply never come to pass: people are people and their actions are bounded by much more than flowery principles.

Nobody has to deliberately set out to foil the theories of the great Libertarian thinkers; being mere theories, they will forever be doomed to human malpractice once they're attempted in actual, real settings.

[ASsman]

"OK here's your tree, merry Christmas to all and to all shut the hell up" - Guess..

[EN[i]GMA]

GreenEarthAl is right, Enigma. You're just another ideologue speaking in terms of ideal, abstract concepts largely detached from actual reality. Your platitudes about the free market and the "invisible hand" of capitalism are no different from diehard Communist rhetoric about revolution and collective ownership. Is it really an absolute, universal truth that the smarter, more skilled, better people in a capitalist society always (and deservedly) constitute that society's most privileged class? No, so sorry, it isn't; capitalism is just as prone to self-defeating practices like theft, graft, corruption, nepotism, and all the rest of it as Communism was. That's why Communism failed and why the absolute type of laissez-faire economics you preach will simply never come to pass: people are people and their actions are bounded by much more than flowery principles.

Nobody has to deliberately set out to foil the theories of the great Libertarian thinkers; being mere theories, they will forever be doomed to human malpractice once they're attempted in actual, real settings.

They were and are practiced around the world. The United States, pre-Progressive movement, Hong Kong, Switzerland, New Zealand and other countries are largely or exclusively lessaiz-faire. They are all resoundingly successsful.

It's only logical to assume that if they were more capitalistic they would be more successful. Hardly an adventure into theory.

Instead of this bickering though, propose something else.

What, oh master of pragmatic thought, could be this ideal system, bereft of freemarket and communistic flaws? Would say that a somewhat free market is better than an unfree market? How about a mostly free market better than a somewhat free market? How about a completely free market better than a mostly free market? Tell me what should be done. I'm dying to know.

[Schmeltz]

Well that's the point, Enigma: there is no such thing as an ideal system, so sorry, which is why your hypotheticals mean absolutely shit all. If you really want to know what should be done, I would say that people should simply do their best to live peacably and cooperatively with each other, to the mutual advantage of all. Unfortunately this is impossible so long as people allow greed to dominate their thinking and actions, but given that greed is the foundation of your own brand of ideology, I hardly expect you to even consider the notion.

By the by, there are plenty of countries who are not in any way exclusively laissez-faire - Canada, Norway, Britain, etc - who are equally as resoundingly successful as the examples you listed, so your hypothetical syllogism doesn't follow. Good effort, though.

[SobaViolence]

enigma, you are full of such foul, pugnant shit that i weep for you and all of your kind. I don't know what it'll take to ingrain some humanity and humility into your peebrains, but we are not all equal, we don't start on the same level and capital/ entrepreneurial success is not everyone's life goal.

you're a dillusional prick. have a good life. when some CEO takes all your lifesavings, moves your job to South/SouthEast Asia and your landlord kicks your ass to the curb, i hope you remember the greatness of capitalism. because it is this heartless way of thinking that is ruining our planet.

enjoy the trillion dollar debt/deficit, and tell your children that the capitalist system works :rolleyes:

[D_Raay]

WOW^

Well, I have to agree. Such devotion and faith in a system that would sooner stab him in the back as to accept said devotion.

[EN[i]GMA]

Well that's the point, Enigma: there is no such thing as an ideal system, so sorry, which is why your hypotheticals mean absolutely shit all. If you really want to know what should be done, I would say that people should simply do their best to live peacably and cooperatively with each other, to the mutual advantage of all. Unfortunately this is impossible so long as people allow greed to dominate their thinking and actions, but given that greed is the foundation of your own brand of ideology, I hardly expect you to even consider the notion.

By the by, there are plenty of countries who are not in any way exclusively laissez-faire - Canada, Norway, Britain, etc - who are equally as resoundingly successful as the examples you listed, so your hypothetical syllogism doesn't follow. Good effort, though.

O.K., we can agree there is no perfect system but you don't actually propose anything. Just that people live "peacably and cooperitively" and you want greed done away with. How do you go about this?

I don't have any problem with criticism to my beliefs, I just wish it would constructive.

[EN[i]GMA]

enigma, you are full of such foul, pugnant shit that i weep for you and all of your kind. I don't know what it'll take to ingrain some humanity and humility into your peebrains, but we are not all equal, we don't start on the same level and capital/ entrepreneurial success is not everyone's life goal.

you're a dillusional prick. have a good life. when some CEO takes all your lifesavings, moves your job to South/SouthEast Asia and your landlord kicks your ass to the curb, i hope you remember the greatness of capitalism. because it is this heartless way of thinking that is ruining our planet.

enjoy the trillion dollar debt/deficit, and tell your children that the capitalist system works :rolleyes:

*cough*

Tell me what system isn't "heartless" Soba. Tell me which system is above human frailties? Socialism? You think electing your leaders works? Look at Bush. Isn't that enough of an indictment of democracy? But no, you hate communsim, you hate socialism, you hate capitalism, you hate democracy, what DO you like?

And write me off as an arrogent prick if you will, but I would honestly like your input.

And the national debt, once again, has nothing to do with capitalism as it's caused by government spending. If anything, it's a black mark against state socialism. But don't let that stop you.

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']That isn't what capitalism does. People don't move up in capitalism by being confrontational pricks, they do it by being better. It isn't a matter of strength, but of skill. You don't get ahead by being stronger, the initiation of force has no place in capitalism or in society, you get ahead by being better, or smarter, or even, God forbid, luckier.
i disagree with this, enigma.

the skills that get people ahead in a capitalist society are shrewd business practices, the ability to sepreate emotional thought from cold calculating decisions, the belief in profits and growth as the main goal of any enterprise, and a unending desire to accumalate more capital (the more one gets, the more one is successful). If you don't see this, I don't know how to tell you more plainly.
Look around you, which companies are more successful? the ruthless emotionless corparations that put no human face to the dollars they reap. The bottom line is the bottom line. Greed is the primary motivation for all decisions, be it personal greed or company greed (which in turn is rooted in a personal greed).

these skills and "morals" are upheld and celebrated, think: Bill Gates, Rockefeller, Starbucks, Sam Walton, McDonalds, Trump (before he was a joke), etc etc. These skills and "morals" do not encourage a cooperative society. they encourage an antogonistic society.

my "utopia" as you quickly write it off is not unknowable or unattanable. it starts in people realizing the ways we as humans enteract and striving to make those enteractions positive and good for the ENTIRE PLANET, thereby helping out ourselves (selfish enlightenment?). this began several times thoughout the world during human history, but failed due to not enough people thinking in this selfless manner. aka, humanity was ready yet.

This is a fundamental shift in the thoughts of humans, I know this. I don't expect it to be now or easy. but it has to happen. or we all will ruin this planet and then ourselves. and when it does happen, I think things like capitalism and greed and corruption will simply go away, or more truthfully be minuscule exeptions to the rule.
And so this is why I fight and argue and protest. to encourage this shift in thought. as soon as possible.

EN[i]GMA: if the "free market" (doesn't exist anywhere) and capitalism don't encourage greed and corruption, what ideals do they promote?

(and EN[i]GMA, thanks for keeping our dialogue civil)

[Whois]

"OK here's your tree, merry Christmas to all and to all shut the hell up" - Guess..

Peter Griffin - Family Guy

[SobaViolence]

GMA']*cough*

Tell me what system isn't "heartless" Soba. Tell me which system is above human frailties? Socialism? You think electing your leaders works? Look at Bush. Isn't that enough of an indictment of democracy? But no, you hate communsim, you hate socialism, you hate capitalism, you hate democracy, what DO you like?

And write me off as an arrogent prick if you will, but I would honestly like your input.

And the national debt, once again, has nothing to do with capitalism as it's caused by government spending. If anything, it's a black mark against state socialism. But don't let that stop you.


tell you what system isn't heartless? well, that's hard because the system never chages, only what we call it and how it stays in control changes. 'Does that mean we live in a feudal society?' YES. The fact that you believe capitalism is the best system angers me, since you just said every system has its negatives. Socialism works, because it seems Sweden is getting along just fine. Any system can work, but we have to work against the base, vulgar and disgusting trends that arise when you let a few people tell the majority how to live.

I believe in regionalism. the most power should be at the municipal level. It should an upside down pyramid. POWER TO THE PEOPLE. to hell with some ridiculous notion that a centralized, power-tripping, power-thirsty governing body can tell the rest of the country what's what.

Ottawa doesn't know what's going on in Halifax, Victoria, Iqualuit and Winnipeg. Let alone the small communities in between. Same in the USA. Washington (which doesn't know shit to begin with) can't accurately know what different communities want. I would even argue States have a hard time doing such.

so abolish the far-reaching, out-of-touch feds and let democracy be direct, true and neighboorly. Money is nothing, only those who depend on it to stay in power give it meaning and transmit that worth to the people at all costs. Why does some paper cost more than other paper? because the system they've convinced us is neccessary is complete bullshit and isn't worth any real fuss.

fuck nation-states. fuck corporations. fuck accumulated wealth. I don't have any ill-will towards you, but your narrow views piss me off.

[phinkasaurus]

I believe in regionalism. the most power should be at the municipal level. It should an upside down pyramid. POWER TO THE PEOPLE. to hell with some ridiculous notion that a centralized, power-tripping, power-thirsty governing body can tell the rest of the country what's what.
...
so abolish the far-reaching, out-of-touch feds and let democracy be direct, true and neighboorly. Money is nothing, only those who depend on it to stay in power give it meaning and transmit that worth to the people at all costs. Why does some paper cost more than other paper? because the system they've convinced us is neccessary is complete bullshit and isn't worth any real fuss.

fuck nation-states. fuck corporations. fuck accumulated wealth...

PARticpatory ECONomy (http://www.parecon.org)

[catatonic]

I'll never drink at Starbucks, however with some restaurants like McDonald's and Taco Bell I rationalize going by saying that the workers wouldn't make anything if they didn't work for McDonald's and there's absolutely nothing I can do to stop McDonald's from making virtually exactly the same profits and not sharing them with the poor. However as I've mentioned earlier I try not to eat meat too much; never more than the palm of my hand worth of meat in a day, and hopefully less than that and not from these restaurants.

Carl's Jr's ads are the worst I think because they have all these big burgers that pollute the environment intensely in their production and lead to health problems, and then they have the audacity to say you don't deserve your job unless you eat one of those burgers. I'll boycott Carl's Jr. for at least a year and probably 5 years because of it.

[phinkasaurus]

...there's absolutely nothing I can do to stop McDonald's from making virtually exactly the same profits and not sharing them with the poor.

yes, you can not spend your money there and encourage others to do the same. small steps.

[catatonic]

OK I will try. I should be able to do that.

[ASsman]

No one is arguing about the same thing. I don't think we are arguing that (or should be) Capitalism in it of itself is evil, but obviously it creates all of the shit everyone on here is bitching about.

Then again you started going off that sweatshop wages (which usually comes with conditions) somehow helps 3rd world countries. Which personally pissed me off, but that's just me.

And boycotting obviously doesn't work on a smaller scale... it starts off trying to bring awareness to itself. A few dirty hippies aren't going to stop multi-million corporations from killing little puppies, but bringing awareness is a begining.

[EN[i]GMA]

i disagree with this, enigma.

the skills that get people ahead in a capitalist society are shrewd business practices, the ability to sepreate emotional thought from cold calculating decisions, the belief in profits and growth as the main goal of any enterprise, and a unending desire to accumalate more capital (the more one gets, the more one is successful). If you don't see this, I don't know how to tell you more plainly.
Look around you, which companies are more successful? the ruthless emotionless corparations that put no human face to the dollars they reap. The bottom line is the bottom line. Greed is the primary motivation for all decisions, be it personal greed or company greed (which in turn is rooted in a personal greed).

these skills and "morals" are upheld and celebrated, think: Bill Gates, Rockefeller, Starbucks, Sam Walton, McDonalds, Trump (before he was a joke), etc etc. These skills and "morals" do not encourage a cooperative society. they encourage an antogonistic society.

my "utopia" as you quickly write it off is not unknowable or unattanable. it starts in people realizing the ways we as humans enteract and striving to make those enteractions positive and good for the ENTIRE PLANET, thereby helping out ourselves (selfish enlightenment?). this began several times thoughout the world during human history, but failed due to not enough people thinking in this selfless manner. aka, humanity was ready yet.

This is a fundamental shift in the thoughts of humans, I know this. I don't expect it to be now or easy. but it has to happen. or we all will ruin this planet and then ourselves. and when it does happen, I think things like capitalism and greed and corruption will simply go away, or more truthfully be minuscule exeptions to the rule.
And so this is why I fight and argue and protest. to encourage this shift in thought. as soon as possible.

EN[i]GMA: if the "free market" (doesn't exist anywhere) and capitalism don't encourage greed and corruption, what ideals do they promote?

(and EN[i]GMA, thanks for keeping our dialogue civil)


Oh I'm not stating that business isn't heartless, merely that to assume other systems to be less heartless, simply because they claim to be so is foolish.

Do want to debate the practices of any company/person you've listed?

I know for a fact that I can defend Gates and Rockerfeller, and likely Sam Walton.

How do they encourage antagonism? Competition, yes, but these people, for the most part, are not immoral, merely effective.

So every decision I make is to be made for the good of everyone? That's impossible. First, I would have to behave selflessly, at all times, which is utterly impossible. Second, I would have to know what decision is best, for everyone, for every decision I make. Third, I would have to want to make these decisions regardless of my personal beliefs or opinions.

Yes, if everyone did what was best for everyone, the world would be great, but even the slightest deviation from this leads to failure.

The problems you list aren't "the system" they are the problems of the practitioners of the system. If everyone behaved the way you described in your utopia, capitalism would run flawlessly.

So is your gripe with the system or human nature?

Capitalism promotes competition. The greedy are often good competitors but they also move the world we live in.

I have no problem keeping debates civil. It's just words on a screen, no need to get pissed off at people.

[EN[i]GMA]

No one is arguing about the same thing. I don't think we are arguing that (or should be) Capitalism in it of itself is evil, but obviously it creates all of the shit everyone on here is bitching about.

Then again you started going off that sweatshop wages (which usually comes with conditions) somehow helps 3rd world countries. Which personally pissed me off, but that's just me.

And boycotting obviously doesn't work on a smaller scale... it starts off trying to bring awareness to itself. A few dirty hippies aren't going to stop multi-million corporations from killing little puppies, but bringing awareness is a begining.

In a few days I plan on reading a book on why some countries are rich and some countries are poor.

Check it out: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0871137607/104-7915838-1863140?v=glance

[ASsman]

Capitalism promotes competition. The greedy are often good competitors but they also move the world we live in.
Hahah, just like Gates right? Yah hes totally helping with competition.

How do they encourage antagonism? Competition, yes, but these people, for the most part, are not immoral, merely effective.

Heh, all victimless crimes?

[QUOTE='EN[i]GMA']In a few days I plan on reading a book on why some countries are rich and some countries are poor.
I can tell you why my country is poor. Then again it might conflict with your love for capitalism.


Customers who bought this book also bought

* Parliament of Whores: A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire U.S. Government by P. J. O'Rourke

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']...How do they encourage antagonism? Competition, yes, but these people, for the most part, are not immoral, merely effective.

All of them are big business tycoons that divorced the real human effects their business practices had on the world around them. If that is an ideal you like to celebrate, then I disagree with you. To me, people go before profits.


GMA']...So every decision I make is to be made for the good of everyone? That's impossible...
no it's not. it's called relaizing every decision you make effects everyone, whether you think about how it does or not. therefore, when confronted with a decision why not decide to do what is socially responsible? it's not hard. will you slip up sometimes? sure, everyone does. is that a reason to not go down this path? no. each slip up does not make the entire process a failure. ignoring the need to attempt this social change is the failure.


GMA']The problems you list aren't "the system" they are the problems of the practitioners of the system. If everyone behaved the way you described in your utopia, capitalism would run flawlessly.
So is your gripe with the system or human nature?

the root need in capitalism is growth and accumulation. at the level capitalism is at now in it's development, imperialism, this need is expressed in not only by increasing your own company's capital but by taking other companies capital, and therby rendering them non-competive (aka unemployed). how can that be done with out being selfish? my gripe is with the system of capitalism, not human nature.

GMA']Capitalism promotes competition. The greedy are often good competitors but they also move the world we live in.
capitalism encourages competition, yes? and competion has one or a few winners and the rest are losers. that can be interpreted however you want, but some examples of losers we have in the world today: homeless people, poor, uneducated, uninsured, the millions of hungry children around the world, etc, etc. I cannot support any system that allows for and creates this type of "human byproduct".

you really should read PARECON, all offending pictures aside. it's more of a free market than exists now, and it does not promote centrally planned markets at all. there is a free version online.

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']In a few days I plan on reading a book on why some countries are rich and some countries are poor.

Check it out: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0871137607/104-7915838-1863140?v=glance

same topic, check this out:
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
by Jared Diamond
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393317552/qid=1106686562/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/103-5401753-9645469

[catatonic]

Didn't mean to cheese anybody off, but I do think the workers wouldn't get paid anything if it weren't for McDonald's and Taco Bell, so even though they are the bad guys I don't see why I am if I shop there, provided I don't support more apathy.

Anyway I'm trying not to eat there. So what about vending machine food? Does that oppress?

[EN[i]GMA]

Hahah, just like Gates right? Yah hes totally helping with competition.

He did. By kicking everyone's ass and providing consumers exactly what they want.



Heh, all victimless crimes?

It does not follow.


I can tell you why my country is poor. Then again it might conflict with your love for capitalism.


Customers who bought this book also bought

* Parliament of Whores: A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire U.S. Government by P. J. O'Rourke

Hit me. I like conflict.

[EN[i]GMA]

All of them are big business tycoons that divorced the real human effects their business practices had on the world around them. If that is an ideal you like to celebrate, then I disagree with you. To me, people go before profits.

People before profits, yes, but results before ideology before that. Capitalism works. Above all else, this is essential.


no it's not. it's called relaizing every decision you make effects everyone, whether you think about how it does or not. therefore, when confronted with a decision why not decide to do what is socially responsible? it's not hard. will you slip up sometimes? sure, everyone does. is that a reason to not go down this path? no. each slip up does not make the entire process a failure. ignoring the need to attempt this social change is the failure.

Which brand of toothpaste should I buy?


the root need in capitalism is growth and accumulation. at the level capitalism is at now in it's development, imperialism, this need is expressed in not only by increasing your own company's capital but by taking other companies capital, and therby rendering them non-competive (aka unemployed). how can that be done with out being selfish? my gripe is with the system of capitalism, not human nature.

Imperialism? By that do you mean globalization? The same globalization that is currently raising standard all throughout the 3rd world?


capitalism encourages competition, yes? and competion has one or a few winners and the rest are losers. that can be interpreted however you want, but some examples of losers we have in the world today: homeless people, poor, uneducated, uninsured, the millions of hungry children around the world, etc, etc. I cannot support any system that allows for and creates this type of "human byproduct".

The rest are losers? Whose losing, Pepsi or Coke? Poor aren't the fault of capitalism, they are people who haven't been employed long enough to move up the pay scale. I have the numbers to back this up if you desire them.

Unemployed are caused by the minimum wage and the taxes put on U.S. companies by the government. If doing business in the U.S. was cheaper, it would be profitable to hire more employees.

Uninsured? Insurance is plenty cheap for most people. I really don't know why more people don't have it.

Millions of hungry? Just wait 20 years and see how much richer these places are and you'll see capitalism at work.


you really should read PARECON, all offending pictures aside. it's more of a free market than exists now, and it does not promote centrally planned markets at all. there is a free version online.

I might. I have a lot to read currently though.

[ASsman]

He did. By kicking everyone's ass and providing consumers exactly what they want.
Please say you argument ends when he stopped doing that. Also he didn't provide anything that wasn't already being provided. And now that consumers don't have ANY other viable alternative, let those bellies out, no need to continue sucking them in.

And as for my country, more due to US imperialism, not to say capitalism there hasn't harmed more than it has helped. I'll have to sit on my argument for a bit, incredibly swamped right now working out college admission and all. When I form a proper argument I'll post it.

For starters, capitalism moves totally takes over the place.. no more competetion. All local banana farms are now out of buisness, US Co. pays it's works less but guess what too bad. There aren't any more jobs for anyone else, you will have to settle for these lower paid jobs. Woops, we don't think you are all working hard enough, they leave and give everyone the shaft.

[EN[i]GMA]

Please say you argument ends when he stopped doing that. Also he didn't provide anything that wasn't already being provided. And now that consumers don't have ANY other viable alternative, let those bellies out, no need to continue sucking them in.

Linux and Macintosh.


And as for my country, more due to US imperialism, not to say capitalism there hasn't harmed more than it has helped. I'll have to sit on my argument for a bit, incredibly swamped right now working out college admission and all. When I form a proper argument I'll post it.


For starters, capitalism moves totally takes over the place.. no more competetion. All local banana farms are now out of buisness, US Co. pays it's works less but guess what too bad. There aren't any more jobs for anyone else, you will have to settle for these lower paid jobs. Woops, we don't think you are all working hard enough, they leave and give everyone the shaft.

Capitalism is always competitive in wages, prices, cost of production, etc

Monpolies do not exist under capitalism.

[Schmeltz]

Yes, capitalism is always competitive, and Communism is always egalitarian. When capitalism ceases to be competitive - why, that's not capitalism at all! Certainly no more than Communism remains Communism when a dictator refuses to step down.

[EN[i]GMA]

Yes, capitalism is always competitive, and Communism is always egalitarian. When capitalism ceases to be competitive - why, that's not capitalism at all! Certainly no more than Communism remains Communism when a dictator refuses to step down.

Show me a time when a monopoly has been formed.

[STANKY808]

GMA']

"...Imperialism? By that do you mean globalization? The same globalization that is currently raising standard all throughout the 3rd world?...

...Millions of hungry? Just wait 20 years and see how much richer these places are and you'll see capitalism at work..."


I guess this is what you mean...

"...There is something profoundly wrong with a world in which the 400 highest income earners in the United States make as much money in a year as the entire population of 20 African nations-more than 300 million people.
Global inequalities persist at staggering levels. The richest 10 percent of the world's population's income is roughly 117 times higher than the poorest 10 percent, according to calculations performed by economists at the Economics Policy Institute, using data from the International Monetary Fund. This is a huge jump from the ratio in 1980, when the income of the richest 10 percent was about 79 times higher than the poorest 10 percent.
Exclude fast-growing China from the equation, and the disparities are even more shocking. The income ratio from the richest 10 percent to the poorest 10 percent rose from 90:1 in 19S0 to 154:1 in 1999."

Yeah, those lazy poor folks will be fine in another twenty years...

[EN[i]GMA]

I guess this is what you mean...

"...There is something profoundly wrong with a world in which the 400 highest income earners in the United States make as much money in a year as the entire population of 20 African nations-more than 300 million people.
Global inequalities persist at staggering levels. The richest 10 percent of the world's population's income is roughly 117 times higher than the poorest 10 percent, according to calculations performed by economists at the Economics Policy Institute, using data from the International Monetary Fund. This is a huge jump from the ratio in 1980, when the income of the richest 10 percent was about 79 times higher than the poorest 10 percent.
Exclude fast-growing China from the equation, and the disparities are even more shocking. The income ratio from the richest 10 percent to the poorest 10 percent rose from 90:1 in 19S0 to 154:1 in 1999."

Yeah, those lazy poor folks will be fine in another twenty years...

Yawn. Who are you again? The person who has the right to tell me or anyone how much money we are allowed to make? I don't think so.

And this poor places don't have any capitalism, they have dirt. They have nothing. They need to be industrialized before anything major can occur. This takes time.

[STANKY808]

GMA']Yawn. Who are you again? The person who has the right to tell me or anyone how much money we are allowed to make? I don't think so.

And this poor places don't have any capitalism, they have dirt. They have nothing. They need to be industrialized before anything major can occur. This takes time.


Hold on a second sparky you made a reference to the idea of things getting better in the next twenty years in the developing world. In reply to that I pointed to an article that shows in fact the world is diverging when it comes to wealth distribution. It says nothing about determining "how much is enough" for an individual.

Are you stating that countries such as Malaysia, Philipines (and others) are not "capitalist"? Then what are they?

And as for sitting on dirt, that's all that was left for some countries after the capitalist multi-nationals took most of the natural resources.

So basically you are pulling a bait and switch. You state "wait for twenty years" for the world's poor to be lifted out of poverty and the when you are called on it, you add some provision (they need to industrialize) and move the goal posts.

Out of interest, do you travel much outside of the developed world?

[EN[i]GMA]

Hold on a second sparky you made a reference to the idea of things getting better in the next twenty years in the developing world. In reply to that I pointed to an article that shows in fact the world is diverging when it comes to wealth distribution. It says nothing about determining "how much is enough" for an individual.

Are you stating that countries such as Malaysia, Philipines (and others) are not "capitalist"? Then what are they?

And as for sitting on dirt, that's all that was left for some countries after the capitalist multi-nationals took most of the natural resources.

So basically you are pulling a bait and switch. You state "wait for twenty years" for the world's poor to be lifted out of poverty and the when you are called on it, you add some provision (they need to industrialize) and move the goal posts.

Out of interest, do you travel much outside of the developed world?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/27/opinion/27brooks.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%2 0Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fDavid%20Brooks

By David Brooks, NY Times Syndicated Columnist

I hate to be the bearer of good news, because only pessimists are regarded as intellectually serious, but we're in the 11th month of the most prosperous year in human history. Last week, the World Bank released a report showing that global growth "accelerated sharply" this year to a rate of about 4 percent.

Best of all, the poorer nations are leading the way. Some rich countries, like the U.S. and Japan, are doing well, but the developing world is leading this economic surge. Developing countries are seeing their economies expand by 6.1 percent this year - an unprecedented rate - and, even if you take China, India and Russia out of the equation, developing world growth is still around 5 percent. As even the cautious folks at the World Bank note, all developing regions are growing faster this decade than they did in the 1980's and 90's.

This is having a wonderful effect on world poverty, because when regions grow, that growth is shared up and down the income ladder. In its report, the World Bank notes that economic growth is producing a "spectacular" decline in poverty in East and South Asia. In 1990, there were roughly 472 million people in the East Asia and Pacific region living on less than $1 a day. By 2001, there were 271 million living in extreme poverty, and by 2015, at current projections, there will only be 19 million people living under those conditions.

Less dramatic declines in extreme poverty have been noted around the developing world, with the vital exception of sub-Saharan Africa. It now seems quite possible that we will meet the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals, which were set a few years ago: the number of people living in extreme poverty will be cut in half by the year 2015. As Martin Wolf of The Financial Times wrote in his recent book, "Why Globalization Works": "Never before have so many people - or so large a proportion of the world's population - enjoyed such large rises in their standard of living."

As other research confirms, these rapid improvements at the bottom of the income ladder are contributing to and correlating with declines in illiteracy, child labor rates and fertility rates. The growth in the world's poorer regions also supports the argument that we are seeing a drop in global inequality.

Economists have been arguing furiously about whether inequality is increasing or decreasing. But it now seems likely that while inequality has grown within particular nations, it is shrinking among individuals worldwide. The Catalan economist Xavier Sala-i-Martin looked at eight measures of global inequality and found they told the same story: after remaining constant during the 70's, inequality among individuals has since declined.

What explains all this good news? The short answer is this thing we call globalization. Over the past decades, many nations have undertaken structural reforms to lower trade barriers, shore up property rights and free economic activity. International trade is surging. The poor nations that opened themselves up to trade, investment and those evil multinational corporations saw the sharpest poverty declines. Write this on your forehead: Free trade reduces world suffering.

Of course, all the news is not good. Plagued by bad governments and AIDS, sub-Saharan Africa has not joined in the benefits of globalization. Big budget deficits in the U.S. and elsewhere threaten stable growth. High oil prices are a problem. Trade produces losers as well as winners, especially among less-skilled workers in the developed world.

But especially around Thanksgiving, it's worth appreciating some of the things that have gone right, and not just sweeping reports like the one from the World Bank under the rug.

It's worth reminding ourselves that the key task ahead is spreading the benefits of globalization to Africa and the Middle East. It's worth noting this perhaps not too surprising phenomenon: As free trade improves the lives of people in poor countries, it is viewed with suspicion by more people in rich countries.

Just once, I'd like to see someone like Bono or Bruce Springsteen stand up at a concert and speak the truth to his fan base: that the world is complicated and there are no free lunches. But if you really want to reduce world poverty, you should be cheering on those guys in pinstripe suits at the free-trade negotiations and those investors jetting around the world. Thanks, in part, to them, we are making progress against poverty. Thanks, in part, to them, more people around the world have something to be thankful for.


End article.


This trend will continue. That's really all I think I need to say.

[ASsman]

Linux and Macintosh.
Realistically speaking....
Mac's are hardly as affordable as PC's, on top of that who want's to use a Mac? It's pretty much a PC with different OS, which is just odd. People don't want Mac, Mac isn't compatible with everything. On the other hand Windows has made the market it's bitch, you wan't to make money.. well you better make programs native to Windows. It's the difference between buying import or buying American, hell it's just cheaper (in my fairy land analogy) more parts, everyone can work on it, and the damn seat isn't on the other side of the road. It just happens that Microsoft is able to control what side the seat is more comftorable in.
Heh, you wait until M$ starts developing it's own CPU architecture, you wan't windows OS.. well you better have a M$ CPU.

Don't even get me started on Linux.

Monpolies do not exist under capitalism.
Yah, in fairy land.

Again, are we talking about the real world here? Or ideal situations.

[EN[i]GMA]

Realistically speaking....
Mac's are hardly as affordable as PC's, on top of that who want's to use a Mac? It's pretty much a PC with different OS, which is just odd. People don't want Mac, Mac isn't compatible with everything. On the other hand Windows has made the market it's bitch, you wan't to make money.. well you better make programs native to Windows. It's the difference between buying import or buying American, hell it's just cheaper (in my fairy land analogy) more parts, everyone can work on it, and the damn seat isn't on the other side of the road. It just happens that Microsoft is able to control what side the seat is more comftorable in.
Heh, you wait until M$ starts developing it's own CPU architecture, you wan't windows OS.. well you better have a M$ CPU.

Don't even get me started on Linux.

So you're just going to bitch. Sounds good.


Yah, in fairy land.

Again, are we talking about the real world here? Or ideal situations.

Name for me one monopoly capitalism has created.

[ASsman]

(y)

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']So you're just going to bitch. Sounds good.



Name for me one monopoly capitalism has created.

Ma Bell.

the gov't had to break up that monopoly.

[Qdrop]

Realistically speaking....
Mac's are hardly as affordable as PC's, on top of that who want's to use a Mac? It's pretty much a PC with different OS, which is just odd. People don't want Mac, Mac isn't compatible with everything.


umm.....i use macs exclusively....with little or no real-world problem.
i interact with all of my PC based co-workers and customers with limited networking/software problems....and all are fixable.

i find MAC's and OSX superiour to any PC i have used in my travels....

and you have it backwards: MAC OSX (and most previous OS for mac) are compatible with all PC formated files and networks.

PC cannot read jack squat of mac files or programs.

Apple goes to great lengths to work with the PC world...while companies like microsoft go to great length to exclude macs in most cases.
(it's getting better though.......Itunes, mactopia...)

[Qdrop]

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
by Jared Diamond


GREAT book..
phink: he has a new book coming out that documents the fall of histories greatest empires....and the reasons behind them.....

[EN[i]GMA]

Ma Bell.

the gov't had to break up that monopoly.

As in AT&T?

[phinkasaurus]

Qdrop: Collapse (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670033375/ref=bxgy_cc_text_a/103-5401753-9645469)

EN[i]GMA: Tom's Natural Toothpaste (http://www.tomsofmaine.com/toms/product.asp?dept%5Fid=400&pf%5Fid=TP%2DGEL%2DAGW)

vonniedp: i do boycott GAP as well. along with all their sister companies, Old Navy, Banana Repuclic and GAP kids. I also try to buy most of my clothes from thrift stores, thereby supporting the local market and often times a charity or cause of some sort. (and I save a considerable amount of $$!)

catatonic: nobodies cheesed off. shopping at fast food places gives the company money, who in turn pays their employees. but bringing down the company, through boycotts and creating awareness, I believe does more good in the long run.

[EN[i]GMA]

Qdrop: Collapse (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670033375/ref=bxgy_cc_text_a/103-5401753-9645469)

EN[i]GMA: Tom's Natural Toothpaste (http://www.tomsofmaine.com/toms/product.asp?dept%5Fid=400&pf%5Fid=TP%2DGEL%2DAGW)

vonniedp: i do boycott GAP as well. along with all their sister companies, Old Navy, Banana Repuclic and GAP kids. I also try to buy most of my clothes from thrift stores, thereby supporting the local market and often times a charity or cause of some sort. (and I save a considerable amount of $$!)

catatonic: nobodies cheesed off. shopping at fast food places gives the company money, who in turn pays their employees. but bringing down the company, through boycotts and creating awareness, I believe does more good in the long run.


Dammit. The Crest in my bathroom has doomed society!

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']As in AT&T?
yes, AT&T.
SOURCE (http://www.investopedia.com/articles/04/040704.asp)

The American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation (AT&T), set up in 1885, was the first company to offer long-distance phone services across the U.S. In the meantime, Alexander Graham Bell (who had a patent on the telephone until 1894), created a company with his financiers, called American Bell Telephone (changed from the previous names of Bell Telephone Company and National Bell Telephone Company). For some time after Bell's patent expired, American Bell managed to ward off competition through price-fixing and aggressive mergers with competitors.

By December 1899, AT&T bought American Bell and grew as it acquired stock in other companies providing telephone services. Eventually, it became the nation's primary telephone service provider, and it proposed to establish itself as a monopoly--the proposal was agreed upon by the government in 1913 through the Kingsbury Commitment.

Over the years, AT&T (a.k.a. "Ma Bell") enjoyed almost complete monopoly over long-distance telephone services, while also controlling 22 local telephone service providers across the country. And while there was competition, the size and influence of AT&T essentially made the company a monopoly through and through.

Long-distance competition was introduced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by 1975, ending Ma Bell's monopoly in that area. Meanwhile, a 1974 antitrust lawsuit brought forth by the Department of Justice was finally settled in 1982, forcing Ma Bell to completely break up her monopoly and divest of her local telephone service providers. The local providers were reorganized into seven independent, regional, Bell-operating companies, commonly known as "Baby Bells."

MORE INFO
SOURCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Telephone_and_Telegraph_Company)

The telephone market was very competitive in the early 20th century. During this period, AT&T officials spread rumors that the company was not doing well; this caused nervous investors to sell stock in companies contracted to AT&T. AT&T would then buy the stock in these companies cheaply, and soon established itself nationwide as the primary provider of telephone service. In 1907 AT&T president Theodore Vail proposed that a formal monopoly would be more efficient. The federal government accepted this principle, initially in the Kingsbury Commitment of 1913.

For most of the 20th century, AT&T subsidiary AT&T Long Lines thus enjoyed a near-total monopoly on long distance telephone service in the United States. AT&T also controlled 22 Bell Operating Companies which provided local telephone service to most of the United States. While there were many "independent telephone companies," General Telephone being the most significant, the Bell System was far larger than all the others, and widely considered a monopoly itself.

During the early 1920s, AT&T bought Lee De Forest's patents on the "audion", the first triode vacuum tube, which let them enter the radio business. Thanks to the pressures of World War I, AT&T and RCA owned all useful patents on vacuum tubes. RCA staked a position in wireless communication; AT&T pursued the use of tubes in telephone amplifiers. Some patent allies and partners in RCA were angered when the two companies' research on tubes began to overlap; there were many patent disputes.

follow source links for more on the story.
I suppose you think the break up was a bad thing?

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']Dammit. The Crest in my bathroom has doomed society!

at least you know...

good luck with your new found knowledge.

and not jsut Tom's is good paste. there are quite a few options.

[100% ILL]

and not jsut Tom's is good paste. there are quite a few options.


Were you by any chance born in the back of a VW bus?

[EN[i]GMA]

yes, AT&T.
SOURCE (http://www.investopedia.com/articles/04/040704.asp)

The American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation (AT&T), set up in 1885, was the first company to offer long-distance phone services across the U.S. In the meantime, Alexander Graham Bell (who had a patent on the telephone until 1894), created a company with his financiers, called American Bell Telephone (changed from the previous names of Bell Telephone Company and National Bell Telephone Company). For some time after Bell's patent expired, American Bell managed to ward off competition through price-fixing and aggressive mergers with competitors.

By December 1899, AT&T bought American Bell and grew as it acquired stock in other companies providing telephone services. Eventually, it became the nation's primary telephone service provider, and it proposed to establish itself as a monopoly--the proposal was agreed upon by the government in 1913 through the Kingsbury Commitment.

Over the years, AT&T (a.k.a. "Ma Bell") enjoyed almost complete monopoly over long-distance telephone services, while also controlling 22 local telephone service providers across the country. And while there was competition, the size and influence of AT&T essentially made the company a monopoly through and through.

Long-distance competition was introduced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by 1975, ending Ma Bell's monopoly in that area. Meanwhile, a 1974 antitrust lawsuit brought forth by the Department of Justice was finally settled in 1982, forcing Ma Bell to completely break up her monopoly and divest of her local telephone service providers. The local providers were reorganized into seven independent, regional, Bell-operating companies, commonly known as "Baby Bells."

MORE INFO
SOURCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Telephone_and_Telegraph_Company)

The telephone market was very competitive in the early 20th century. During this period, AT&T officials spread rumors that the company was not doing well; this caused nervous investors to sell stock in companies contracted to AT&T. AT&T would then buy the stock in these companies cheaply, and soon established itself nationwide as the primary provider of telephone service. In 1907 AT&T president Theodore Vail proposed that a formal monopoly would be more efficient. The federal government accepted this principle, initially in the Kingsbury Commitment of 1913.

For most of the 20th century, AT&T subsidiary AT&T Long Lines thus enjoyed a near-total monopoly on long distance telephone service in the United States. AT&T also controlled 22 Bell Operating Companies which provided local telephone service to most of the United States. While there were many "independent telephone companies," General Telephone being the most significant, the Bell System was far larger than all the others, and widely considered a monopoly itself.

During the early 1920s, AT&T bought Lee De Forest's patents on the "audion", the first triode vacuum tube, which let them enter the radio business. Thanks to the pressures of World War I, AT&T and RCA owned all useful patents on vacuum tubes. RCA staked a position in wireless communication; AT&T pursued the use of tubes in telephone amplifiers. Some patent allies and partners in RCA were angered when the two companies' research on tubes began to overlap; there were many patent disputes.

follow source links for more on the story.
I suppose you think the break up was a bad thing?


It was created by the government:

Eventually, it became the nation's primary telephone service provider, and it proposed to establish itself as a monopoly--the proposal was agreed upon by the government in 1913 through the Kingsbury Commitment.

That disqualifies is from being created by capitalism since it was Uncle Sam that made them what they were. Left to market forces they wouldn't have had that success but government cartels and price fixing schemes allow them to beat down competitors not through competition but underhanded government politicking.

Also, AT&T created the phone system of the United States and never decreased production while increasing prices (As is required by the term monopoly).

And the fact that monopoly needs to be qualified with "near" means they weren't really a monopoly at all. Government is the only real monopoly and is the only organization with the power to create one.

So yes, AT&T was a near monopoly but it advanced telophone techonologies when it could have easily kept things the same way and exploited the people. The reason they didn't is because they weren't a monopoly. Not being immune to competition, they had to play the game and price competitively and offer new service.

[phinkasaurus]

Were you by any chance born in the back of a VW bus?

no, i was born in a hospital in Davao City, Phillipines.
thanks for the guess though.
were you born from a virgin in a stable?

[ASsman]

I'm glad SBC makes my DSL price/quality competitive.

[Marlene]

i'm guilty....but, i try to buy the coffee of the day if it is fair trade. if i'm jonesing for coffee i go there b/c of the soymilk. i know i shouldn't.

not that i'm a frequent coffee drinker (and rarer still caffeinated), but i've taken to buying the fair trade / shade grown coffee beans available at whole foods. newman's own even started a free trade coffee line. there's peace coffee and another brand i buy which has a red? bird on it with a green background.

btw - i used to work at DOJ - Antitrust.....the bell breakup predates my tenure there, but i worked there while they were taking on microsoft....interesting time, too bad their efforts weren't successful. i talked to a lot of old timers while i worked there and obviously during repug administrations their budget is always slashed and there's not much activity.

[catatonic]

An activist told me that most local restaurants are fair trade, so now I have no excuse to shop at McDonald's, Taco Bell, or any big restaurant unless I'm trying to talk to a woman or something like that.

[steve-onpoint]

caffeine is bad for the intestines...

try apple juice with a tablespoon each of the following: psyllium husk, hydrated bentonite, aloe vera juice, and liquid chlorophyll. shake it/stir it well. drink it quickly before it thickens. do this for at least twelve days straight and you'll be amazed at what your body evacuates. word up.

[drobertson420]

Don't Drink the Coffee, But their Ice-Cream is the Bomb!!! ;)