1
   

A consequence of capitalism?

 
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 02:06 am
Please read a newsbit on this click

Is this a consequence of capitalism?

Is 'creation of wealth, and more wealth'..... any good to the world at large. Is greed a good attribute for becoming rich, and more rich?

We also hear about US govts move to educate children on the ills of obesity. Is america citizens and other capitalist society and their clones or their ilk falling prey to their own habits.

Where are we heading for?........ Kindly place your views.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 8,464 • Replies: 147
No top replies

 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 09:43 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;129920 wrote:
Please read a newsbit on this click

Is this a consequence of capitalism?

Is 'creation of wealth, and more wealth'..... any good to the world at large. Is greed a good attribute for becoming rich, and more rich?

We also hear about US govts move to educate children on the ills of obesity. Is america citizens and other capitalist society and their clones or their ilk falling prey to their own habits.

Where are we heading for?........ Kindly place your views.


To be honest I don't even know where to begin answering your question here since it seems so generic.

Is laziness a product of capitalism? No. To be honest, I don't see Americans as lazy at all. I am not even sure what this refers to. That they take more vacations, have more sick days, work less hours than other countries? I say there is no causal relationship between these things and capitalism.

The sick days can be looked at in so many ways. The environment the work is done in or the incentive to keep sick people away from contaminating other people to prevent wide spread sickness. This might be a proactive measure, where as other countries don't care about infecting co-workers so they take fewer sick days as a result.

Vacations. Well this is so hard to use to judge the standard by as well. It might be used as an incentive rather than an actual product derived by laziness. Think about it. If corporations are competing for quality workers, those companies that provide more incentives tend to attract more potential employees. Just look at how Microsoft treats its employees compared to other companies. Offering more vacation days per year would be one such incentive. These policies that get constructed also force workers to utilize these vacation days or forfeit them. Other countries might not even offer vacation days so they would in fact have fewer vacation days as a result.

Work hours? There are so many factors in determining work hours. This might be something as simple as company policy where other countries have far less restrictions on hours worked. Adherence to these restrictions does not make a person lazy, instead they just are not allowed to work more. This is not the case for all businesses but many do have restrictions like this. Other countries are known to have very few restrictions on work hours.

Conclusion. There are just too many factors to determine the realistic reasoning behind this so called laziness poll. I think people just want to blame something so they make these non-causality polls to try and determine who is "better". They completely ignore all the details and just go for some generalizations to come to their conclusions.

How this has anything to do with capitalism is completely beyond me, unless you are trying to suggest that capitalism is bad and are trying to promote some non-capitalist idea?
0 Replies
 
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 04:29 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;129920 wrote:
Please read a newsbit on this click

Is this a consequence of capitalism?

Is 'creation of wealth, and more wealth'..... any good to the world at large. Is greed a good attribute for becoming rich, and more rich?

We also hear about US govts move to educate children on the ills of obesity. Is america citizens and other capitalist society and their clones or their ilk falling prey to their own habits.

Where are we heading for?........ Kindly place your views.


I'm not sure I'd hang my hat on the validity of this particular survey, but I do think that it shows a very important point; that the greatest risk of a wealthy nation is that it will become wealthy. Who here thinks that there are no risks, no "downside" to having so many conveniences? Or... perhaps should we ignore the price at which all things come? Of course there's a price...

The human animal isn't at its best (most healthy, most happy, most fulfilled, introspective, intelligent, compassionate or mature) when its not challenged. Indeed, why move a muscle when it's not incumbent upon one to do so?

Some will, no doubt, thrive in other ways when their needs are met but I believe most do not. When a culture values things above people, the illusion of prestige above understanding and convenience above toil it inevitably becomes predominantly lazy and ignorant, sedentary and bitter.

But that's ok, because I don't believe we do value health, happiness, fulfillment, introspection, intelligence, compassion or maturity. For the truth of this, one need only look at the effort and resources expended on what breeds these -vs- conveniences.

... so yea; whether scientifically valid or not, it's likely an accurately-communicated sentiment.
Jackofalltrades phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 04:07 am
@Khethil,
Krumple;129985 wrote:


Conclusion. There are just too many factors to determine the realistic reasoning behind this so called laziness poll. I think people just want to blame something so they make these non-causality polls to try and determine who is "better". They completely ignore all the details and just go for some generalizations to come to their conclusions.

How this has anything to do with capitalism is completely beyond me, unless you are trying to suggest that capitalism is bad and are trying to promote some non-capitalist idea?



You are quite right in your assessment.

The attribute of laziness is kind of a miskewed characterization of the survey. I also think it is purely for headlines capturing, - a kind of PR job.

However, the factors they are considering are relevent to the issue, i thought. But you have also critically pointed out various circumstances which may mislead the result of the survey. It is therefore necessary to emphasise that it being a international survey, they may have set criteria's which are common to all those 25 or so countries. Ofcourse the variants may be many lik efor instance culture itself.

Culture wise, the Americans were known to be very hard working people. It would be worthy to consider how industrial output has reduced in the production stage itslef, and not factoring the market side economic scenario like demand, costings, quality etc. The rate of production going down due to leaves, vacations, etc can be sufficient parameters to deduce a reduction rate, at the least, if not laziness, which admittedly is an attempt to stretch the result out of context.

In a mass sacle multi variant, some amount of generalisation is a natural extrapolation, and thus can be distorted.

Now, coming to the larger issue of capitalism, it is my hunch that capitalism is not all that honky dory as it is made out to be. This is not a result of some great research or opinions of economist, so pardon me if i am proved wrong.

My inference is that Capitalism is not all that bad, consider
ing that it has survived so long. But it is certainly not the ideal situation where we over 700 billionaires among almost a 7 billion human beings.

A multi-billionaire like Bill Gates have realised, thanks and praise to his parents and wife, that being rich is no solution, in a world where millions are suffering due to hunger and disease. His kind of philanthropy is indicative the need to prioritise the needs of the masses not merely for the abstarct sense of compassion but for the overall good of the economy. This sham of adopting children from Malawi, or donating filthy funds from some Foundations and take tax benefits is not going to help the state of affairs.

On the environmental front, America, and Americans though the richest nation, are the worst polluters. Affecting the entire earthly atmosphere, and sucking out natural resources of other economies. All this in the name of living the American dream.

My question is, is not the American dream essentially an elite capitalists dream. A dream at what costs?


Khethil;130116 wrote:
I'm not sure I'd hang my hat on the validity of this particular survey, but I do think that it shows a very important point; that the greatest risk of a wealthy nation is that it will become wealthy. Who here thinks that there are no risks, no "downside" to having so many conveniences? Or... perhaps should we ignore the price at which all things come? Of course there's a price...

The human animal isn't at its best (most healthy, most happy, most fulfilled, introspective, intelligent, compassionate or mature) when its not challenged. Indeed, why move a muscle when it's not incumbent upon one to do so?

Some will, no doubt, thrive in other ways when their needs are met but I believe most do not. When a culture values things above people, the illusion of prestige above understanding and convenience above toil it inevitably becomes predominantly lazy and ignorant, sedentary and bitter.

But that's ok, because I don't believe we do value health, happiness, fulfillment, introspection, intelligence, compassion or maturity. For the truth of this, one need only look at the effort and resources expended on what breeds these -vs- conveniences.

... so yea; whether scientifically valid or not, it's likely an accurately-communicated sentiment.


Thanks. But i differ with you when you say 'thats ok'. Why should it be okay?
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 11:02 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;130224 wrote:
Thanks. But i differ with you when you say 'thats ok'. Why should it be okay?


Hmm.... when I say it's ok - in this context - it's more to say "it's compatible with the aforementioned condition/statement" and comes with a touch of dissatisfied sarcasm.
RDRDRD1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 11:49 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
I think 18th century Capitalism has about exhausted its utility. It was predicated on conditions that have fallen into decline or exhaustion. The old economic models and theories are becoming steadily less relevant. Capitalism isn't discredited nor has it lost its purpose. It simply needs to adapt just as societies are struggling to adapt to our rapidly changing world.

It's hard to tell what remains of the "American dream." It's even harder to discern what the term means to Americans today.
0 Replies
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 07:29 am
@Khethil,
Khethil;130292 wrote:
Hmm.... when I say it's ok - in this context - it's more to say "it's compatible with the aforementioned condition/statement" and comes with a touch of dissatisfied sarcasm.


Oh! sorry, i may have misread or misunderstood your OK. Thanks for the clarification.

---------- Post added 02-21-2010 at 07:48 PM ----------

RDRDRD1;130310 wrote:
I think 18th century Capitalism has about exhausted its utility. It was predicated on conditions that have fallen into decline or exhaustion. The old economic models and theories are becoming steadily less relevant. Capitalism isn't discredited nor has it lost its purpose. It simply needs to adapt just as societies are struggling to adapt to our rapidly changing world.

It's hard to tell what remains of the "American dream." It's even harder to discern what the term means to Americans today.


Thanks RD, you have aptly described the conditions. The economic models, in governemental sense, is what is mostly discussed or preached.

Capital is vital, no doubt. Question is whether Capitalism is vital?
The model of capitalism so followed by America has received a blow by the recent occurrences in the banking and financial world. This affected the worlds confidence in such models.

Two ways to look at it: One from the point of view of the state, the other is from the point of view of the citizen.

1) As a consequence of the recent global recession, the role of the state in giving giving greater freedom to normal banks, investment banks, hedge funds; share market play with stocks in the form of futures trade; 'creative accounting', and creative auditing; this ingenious concept called 'leveraging' along with profit booking in personal credit financing for housing as an example; and the consequence of 'fast loans' or 'Ready cash offers' to unreliable unsecured loanees, have all brought to light what an unregulated financial system controlled by a few powerful individuals in the form of boards or trusts, can do with the everyday life of common citizens, - primarily being consumers and employees both.

The state had to pay the prize for this bungling by way of bailout packages to private parties whose policies and business was never controlled by the public. The coffers of a war weary exchequer could be severly strained. How far the governement of USAmerica is in debt can only be known after a scrutiny by some independent professionals.

2) From the citizens point of view, retrenchement and job loss are surely going to affect the sentiments of the public. Consumer confidence has gone down. The shameful reliance on energy guzzling activities like air travel, super market shopping, ownership of two cars, two bungalows, two phones, swimming pools, travel and tourings, succumbing to brands and fashions are the distressing signs of a consumeristic society not driven by wants but by luxuries. Over and above this spoilt habits of a rich nation, the citizens in the last decade was mesmerised by the credit card system which gave the competing citizenry a magic plastic card which solved all financial problem in a jiffy. The burden of interest was hidden in the niity gritties of the small font sized terms and conditions which anyway no average person can understand unless one has studied law and happens to be good at it.

A culture where bill boards and TV advertisments screamed and said that 'Buy More, Live More', was expected as living the American Dream made and deceived the American buyer who was adviced by all experts incluidng politicians, that spending is better than saving, what can be expected of such an economic model.

Therefore, i guess, that laziness although not a good euphemism, is metaphorically appropriate to the kind of living which was proposed by the economic experts of a captialist order. A nation run of credits was bound to be trapped in its own debt.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 09:24 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
As an ideology it has to be self destructive, by its nature, and we are now reaping the consequences of the failings of capitalism. To escape the wrath of its victims, certain advocates of its ideology are trying to revalue or reinterpret its ability.

It requires that most awful of human intentions, constant growth. Fine if we had developed space ships to find a new world, a new America to exploit but we ain't. We are steadily outgrowing our own ability to sustain ourselves let alone continue to grow. Capitalism has not the ability to control its desire , it is dying, it then depends on if we are intelligent enough to reject it , if we are then to survive.
0 Replies
 
RDRDRD1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 03:47 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Xris has identified the Achilles' Heel of industrialized, Western capitalism - growth. For three centuries growth has been the spine of our economic model - growth in production, growth in consumption, growth in profits, growth in the number of consumers.

Today, for the first time in mankind's history, we've run into a wall where growth has delivered severely diminished returns in the most advantaged nations. Developing nations and the emerging economic giants can still anticipate the traditional bounty from growth but the developed world of the democracies of Europe, North America and Asia have in many respects exhausted the benefits of growth.

When we look at the overall situation it becomes obvious that growth no longer serves mankind very well and could, in fact, be our downfall. We have exceeded our planet's ecological carrying capacity. For about two decades we've been taking more than the earth can actually provide. This is clear from species extinctions, notably the collapse of fisheries. It is also evident in the spreading problem of desertification in regions where we have farmed soil past exhaustion. The most telling and critical problem is freshwater.

When the world hit its first population crisis we came up with the "Green Revolution" as the fix. We simply ramped up agricultural production. Some nations, such as India, that had traditional food shortage problems were transformed into food exporters. But, in doing this, we were oblivious to the costly and dangerous side effects. This agriculture bounty was a conjuring act dependent on the use of massive and steadily increasing amounts of fertilizer and, even worse, massive quantities of freshwater.

The use of excessive amounts of fertilizer backfired in soil exhaustion. To irrigate we found it necessary to go beyond precipitation and surface water into our groundwater, the aquifers. The problem is that you can pump as much water as quickly as technology permits out of the aquifers but only nature can refill them. The "recharge" rate tends to be a small fraction of the quantity pumped out. If you have one litre of surface precipitation finding its way down into the aquifer for every ten litres you pump out the eventual outcome is obvious. Yet if you have an agricultural industry utterly dependent on a source of water that cannot sustain your irrigation needs the day of reckoning is simply a matter of time.

Note that I have ommitted from these comments any mention of the impacts of global warming to quell the sceptics. That said, even the most strident climate change denier cannot dispute the enormous impacts of droughts and floods, particularly in Asia and Africa.

The World Water Council has become capitalism's response to the freshwater crisis but it really amounts to a service industry to collect and distribute water on a market basis. It begins as a service industry that quickly mutates into a commodities industry. Neat trick but one that has already sparked quite violent social upheaval.
0 Replies
 
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 04:28 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Well put gentlemen; to bend on infinite growth within a finite construct - materially - is suicide to us all.
RDRDRD1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 06:43 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
When I was born the earth's population had just peaked two billion, double what it had been barely 150-years earlier. Today we stand at 6.7-billion heading, we're told, to a possible 9-billion this century.

In terms of potential consumers, capitalism ought to be poised to reap enormous bounty except we're going to be hard pressed trying to keep that many people alive much less transform them into model consumers.

It is estimated that, to bring the people of India and China to a North American standard of living, would take an additional two and a half Earths. So in the sense of 18th Century capitalism we have indeed hit a wall. At some point resources will go from being market commodities allocated according to traditional trade systems into a new trade/allocation structure.

We're witnessing today the advancement of the notion of "commons." These are resources that clearly belong to no one and, hence, to everyone. The planet's atmosphere is one, the oceans another. If the oceans belong to all (save of course for coastal, territorial waters), how shall we allocate the declining and already inadequate fish stocks? In much of the poorer world, fish is the dominant or sole source of protein.

Then there's the atmosphere. A breakthrough in atmospheric research occured last year when two separate teams worked out the carbon-carrying capacity of the atmosphere. Both came to fairly consistent findings on how much additional carbon the atmosphere can handle before reaching the dreaded 2-degree C warming. They've worked it out on the basis of tonnage.

The approach of the Third World has been to say the atmosphere is a commons to which all humans have an equal right. Their approach to the West has been to say, "Look you've already burned up half the atmosphere's allowable carbon carrying capacity. We'll spot you that. However we expect equality over the remaining half." How does one argue against that except to say "I'll do to your atmosphere whatever I damn well like."

The forces of capitalism ought to recognize that it's entirely to their benefit for the West to decarbonize our economies and our societies. By shifting from fossil fuels to alternate, non-carbon energy, they'll be buying their way out of one of the major constraints they're facing.

I expect corporatism is in for a rough ride this century. We have given away far too much to corporatism these past decades, even relinquishing key aspects of our sovereignty through global trade agreements. The free flow of capital and the lowering of sovereign trade regulation has not reaped the rewards promised at the outset because there was never any quid pro quo obligation imposed on capitalism.

My guess is that we're about to see democracy clash with capitalism. In the early Cold War years we were indoctrinated to see democracy and capitalism as inseparable. Yet the past two decades have destroyed that myth. Capitalism actually finds that command economies, oligarchic or totalitarian rule, can be more suitable than messy, unpredictable and turbulent democracy with its annoying labour, taxes and environmental regulation.

Strange times are upon us. Logic and order at times seem to have been stood on their heads. We're facing showdowns - environmental, resource, trade, even military. The growing demands for change and overhaul are already too strong to be denied. If only we had better minds at work in our legislatures.
Jackofalltrades phil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 09:58 am
@RDRDRD1,
RDRDRD1;130867 wrote:

In terms of potential consumers, capitalism ought to be poised to reap enormous bounty except we're going to be hard pressed trying to keep that many people alive much less transform them into model consumers.


Gandhi had said that there is enough on Earth to satisfy the needs of the people but not enough to satisfy the greed.

Capitalism gives rise to more capital. It is based on speculation, demand, monopoly, and means and value of production. This is all understandable although not scientifically appropriate procedure or system of production. The problem, according to me lies when 'more capital' in the form of profits and speculative value creates a false impression that economy is doing good. More capital or more income only results in more consumption. Which, i think was not envisaged in the the so called classical capitalism.

Consumerism has evolved into conspicous consumerism or what can be refrrred as status-driven consumerism, where the actual demand does not exits but is created by false propaganda and false promise of ones life getting a face lift by purchasing certain products or brands.

This kind of marketing and sales strategy of corporates, proposed by many marketing gurus, who have become fulltime consultants and authors, paid in thousands dollars maybe 10s of thousands on hourly basis, today have taken the American buyer or consumer for a ride.

So, i am a bit surprised by this model consumer theory. Gullible consumers are moulded in such a fashion where even Heaven is sold. (Moon is being mapped to sell plots on its surface). Now, the company ( i don't know under whose authority) which is selling it, may have their own definition of an model consumer. It could mean, in short, the super rich, the egoistic, the status buying, speculative, profit oriented individual.





RDRDRD1;130867 wrote:

We're witnessing today the advancement of the notion of "commons." These are resources that clearly belong to no one and, hence, to everyone. The planet's atmosphere is one, the oceans another. If the oceans belong to all (save of course for coastal, territorial waters), how shall we allocate the declining and already inadequate fish stocks? In much of the poorer world, fish is the dominant or sole source of protein.



The theory of the commons was advanced in 1970s. You are right on the environmental concerns. Markets are dictating what production limits should be, where the resources are almost free, the cost of the loss of natural resources like fish is not accounted at all.



RDRDRD1;130867 wrote:

The forces of capitalism ought to recognize that it's entirely to their benefit for the West to decarbonize our economies and our societies. By shifting from fossil fuels to alternate, non-carbon energy, they'll be buying their way out of one of the major constraints they're facing.

I expect corporatism is in for a rough ride this century. We have given away far too much to corporatism these past decades, even relinquishing key aspects of our sovereignty through global trade agreements. The free flow of capital and the lowering of sovereign trade regulation has not reaped the rewards promised at the outset because there was never any quid pro quo obligation imposed on capitalism.

My guess is that we're about to see democracy clash with capitalism. In the early Cold War years we were indoctrinated to see democracy and capitalism as inseparable. Yet the past two decades have destroyed that myth. Capitalism actually finds that command economies, oligarchic or totalitarian rule, can be more suitable than messy, unpredictable and turbulent democracy with its annoying labour, taxes and environmental regulation.

Strange times are upon us. Logic and order at times seem to have been stood on their heads. We're facing showdowns - environmental, resource, trade, even military. The growing demands for change and overhaul are already too strong to be denied. If only we had better minds at work in our legislatures.



Very thoughtful observations. Thanks for sharing it.
0 Replies
 
RDRDRD1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 11:34 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
I was quite pleased when Angela Merkel's climate advisory board, the WBGU, presented a climate change policy position based on the "commons" principle. The Germans concluded the only way to solve the climate dilemma was through a budgeting approach. This entailed calculating the remaining safe carbon capacity of the atmosphere and allocating that among nations on a strictly per capita basis.

While this policy seems equitable and scientifically sound the implications of it are enormous. My fellow North Americans are, by far, the world's worst carbon emitters on a per capita basis. A scheme that budgeted emissions and tied them to per capita quotas would require both Canada and the United States to begin slashing emissions today with the objective of total decarbonizing within two decades. That would be a seismic shock to our capitalist/corporatist economies. However if the Germans are correct, and I suspect they are, the consequences of not taking such radical action could be vastly worse.

The curse of the climate change issue, as I see it, is what I call the "last and least" hurdle. There is but one group of nations that can said to be the "last and least" impacted by the ravages of climate change. These also happen to be most of the major carbon emitters. This, of course, is the industrialized West.

We may be fueling the bonfire of climate change but the impacts are going to be felt first and by far hardest in the weaker and most vulnerable nations on other continents safely "out of sight, out of mind." My own Canada is but one of three countries that may actually be able to remain fairly advantaged this century.

We can point to the flooding and droughts hammering distant parts of the world but how do we persuade our own people to take some responsibility for these outcomes?

There are some, including the British MoD and the Pentagon, who have concluded that the danger isn't so much climate change itself as it is war sparked by climate change. In the history of mankind, no tribe, no people has gone extinct without first raiding its neighbours.
Jackofalltrades phil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 12:18 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Okay, lets veer the topic towards climate change, and the attitude of capitalist nations. Although to be fair, one can also add a reference to the attitude of communist nations too.

Firstly, to take your last point, it is the nature of the job of MODs, and Pentagon to analyze the factors and actors of war. So that scenario of war may be legitimately created, and one cannot logically rule that out.

However, for the immediate, it is reasonable to think of how a capitalist would think in a miserly manner when confronted with a situation where by taking an action he or she may be lose a lot or risk a lot. they would exactly think like the Bush administration attitude was towards climate agreement. No doubt, by taking a pro-agreement strategy the Bush's were pushed out, as the non-capitalist, employees, consumers and proletariat clearly saw a lose-lose situation without an agreement, and voted a American of mixed origins to power.

It was a magical moment even for the American right who by way of J Mccain - the Republican candidate admitted with grace the great historic moment with the smooth and cool transition of power (superpower) for the first time to an Afro American coloured man of the industrialised North. The Americans are revolutionary thinkers, and therfore many historic moments do occur in that continent.

The emphasis of the Democrats to walk along with the rest of the world in the climate change issue as against teh confrontational attitude adopted by teh Republicans perhaps turned the tide towards them as many conservationists, academics, scientists and the student communities who traditionally may have been happy with
GOP politics realised that science cannot be politically disregarded in the post modern new century.

It was only the politics of capitalists which made them to deny the politics of climate change. One should not be surprised by such an attitude because as they say 'there is lot at stake'. The course of action for climate change economy to take place involves lots of money, investments in technology, rejigging productions, tightening expenditure and compliance to regulation and codes.

Until now the capitalist/industrialist had a field day where every policy framed was favouring the motive of profits. Now with climate change movement, all that was to go for toss. The capitalist has to now think of the 'commons', the surrounding populations, carbon emissions/output, energy saving instead of consumption and such actions which hitherto was never in the board room meetings.

The capitalist is now more worried about how the movement is going to affect consumer sentiments. An informed and discerning customer is a danger to the bottomline of any company selling consumer products. The question they ask now is what happens to capital?

A legitimate concern for a start.
0 Replies
 
RDRDRD1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 12:42 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
A bit off topic but I find it amazing how quick we are to catagorize Obama as African-American. Yes he had an African father but his mother was a white American and he was raised in a thoroughly white household by his grandparents. The only thing that renders him particularly African-American is skin colour but you could easily make the case that he's far more white-American than black.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 01:12 pm
@RDRDRD1,
RDRDRD1;131079 wrote:
A bit off topic but I find it amazing how quick we are to catagorize Obama as African-American. Yes he had an African father but his mother was a white American and he was raised in a thoroughly white household by his grandparents. The only thing that renders him particularly African-American is skin colour but you could easily make the case that he's far more white-American than black.
That goes for any one of mixed skin colour they are never white no matter what the proportions but in their shoes who would want to be associated with the white culture that enslaved their ancestors.
0 Replies
 
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 01:57 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;129920 wrote:
Please read a newsbit on this click

Is this a consequence of capitalism?

Is 'creation of wealth, and more wealth'..... any good to the world at large. Is greed a good attribute for becoming rich, and more rich?

We also hear about US govts move to educate children on the ills of obesity. Is america citizens and other capitalist society and their clones or their ilk falling prey to their own habits.

Where are we heading for?........ Kindly place your views.


Do you know what lead to the obesity epidemic in the US? Certainly it's to a degree geography and culture. But for the first 180 years of it's existence, citizens of the American republic were malnourished. In the 40'es activists proposed government programs to relieve that, such as school lunch programs. In the 60 years since we had an obesity epidemic.
It was a government intervention, propelled by social activism, that caused this. Not the free market or capitalism.
It's like that on every issue. All faults can in some way be explained by abandoning capitalism.
0 Replies
 
chad3006
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 02:28 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Capitalism may well be in its decline, but there will be those who still capitalize on the disaster that was capitalism. There are "great" opportunities in the disasters that befall the world like Iraq, New Orleans, Sri Lanka, and Haiti. But, as the resources dwindle, fewer will benefit.

EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 02:42 pm
@chad3006,
chad3006;131121 wrote:


Capitalism - economic liberalism - is in decline? It is on it's march forward all around the world!
And it was a disaster? It brought the greatest freedom, material prosperity and environmental improvements to the greatest number of people in history.
Resources are in ever greater abundance.
It seems much more like the last remnants of collectivism are kicking and screaming, and mounting their last desperate indoctrination campaigns, on their way out.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 04:02 pm
@EmperorNero,
Just keep running forward, but dont look up you may see the precipice .
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » A consequence of capitalism?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/16/2019 at 12:12:01