[phlanx]

Are you aware of the fact that the poverty line that is being discussed in that article is anyone who earns less than $10,830 (for an individual)? Compare that to poverty in any other country in the world... where poverty means earning less than $2 per MONTH (like Obama's half-brother in Kenya). Are you really going to compare someone earning $10,000 per year to someone earning $24 per year? Are we supposed to buy that nonesense?

Elliot

Elliot now you are spouting total nonsense as usual

Your argument bends the stat just a little too much for me

It is down to the way that poverty is seen in your own country, it is also what you class as poverty

Surely the worst off in the best country is going to better off than the worst of the worst

Take India, they have their fair share of billionaires and millionaires, and yet the difference between rich and poor here is incredible

So for me it is the difference between those that have and those do not

Captilism requires a spread of riches but social unrest, even civil war can be born out of a spread that is too long

By its on nature, even the poorest person in the country contributes towards capitilsm by simply spending is only penny in a shop

SO by propping up the poorest and setting a standard of which below is not permitted, you will contribite towards the money pot

It is also the social responsibility of a country to ensure all its people have a minimum stadard of living

[Catsmine]

It is also the social responsibility of a country to ensure all its people have a minimum stadard of living

Is "social responsibility" mandated by law in your country? Here it's the political football of the neo-feudalist "Democrats" without any standing in the courts.

[phlanx]

Social responsibility in my eyes is more of a humantarian decree, rather than any political

My idea is to help my fellow man, politicians would create a chart for this!

I find it incredible that such a simple thing as providing a roof over the homeless is not achievable

I also appreciate that there can be many reasons of self destruction that have placed that person without a home, but simply by caring and providing a small space, dorm etc that can shelter him from the cold is what I see as social responsibility

Now providing him with a TV and xbox that is a political point of view

[galveston]

Obviously, EVERY system exploits the worker to some degree.

Under capitalism, the worker has more options than under the other systems. If he is smart enough, or gets the right breaks, he can rise to become a capitalist. Under which other system is that true?

The REAL answer does not lie in government mandates or political action.

Let me share a true story with you.

I once worked for a small business that had about 25 employees. I was in charge of the tool room, designed, built, and maintained dies for the stamping operations.

Every month that there was no lost time accident, every employee got $25 cash.

Every Christmas each employee got a turkey or ham and a bonus.

Every year, each employee got a profit sharing bonus. The last year I was there, mine was $2,400 before taxes.

We had no contract, so why did we get these perks?

The parterners had a moral standard that they operated by. They did what they did because they believed it was best for ALL involved.

They were Christians. It is impossible to find a belief that fosters moral standards as high as Christianity does.

The reason that a CEO can make millions annually, and keep his employees at or near poverty level is that he is not a moral person.

Outside forces will never compel him to treat the employees right. He will find a way to circumvent regulations.

Only when he is actually a moral person will he do what is right.

That is true of politicians also. An immoral person makes a poor leader.

[inthebox]

Social responsibility in my eyes is more of a humantarian decree, rather than any political

My idea is to help my fellow man, politicians would create a chart for this!

I find it incredible that such a simple thing as providing a roof over the homeless is not achievable

I also appreciate that there can be many reasons of self destruction that have placed that person without a home, but simply by caring and providing a small space, dorm etc that can shelter him from the cold is what I see as social responsibility

Now providing him with a tv and xbox that is a political point of view

Is "social responsibility" a code word for having the state or government do what you, the individual, should be doing?

What I am saying is do I, when I see someone on the side of the road asking for food, wait for the government to "tax the rich" so that money can be then diluted down to help this poor starving individual before they die? [ of course not ] Is that what you want? Is that why some people here bring up Bill Gates and his wealth? They expect the "rich" to take care of the poor, or the government to take of the poor, so you, the individual, don't have to [act].

I'll tell you what, on this Thanksgiving day and every day, feed someone! Give that person food. Do it in front of your children so they will learn to be generous. Don't wait for the government or someone else to do it. You the invidual do it - act for social justice as you do it. Don't tell me the government is to do it.

The Salvation Army: Home
God's Pantry Food Bank
American Red Cross



G&P

[phlanx]

Missed the point PJ

If the system worked that everybody who was hungry was fed through nothing more than handouts then great

If the system worked that relied on government handouts then great

Truth is neither do, people today go hungry even though both sides of the argument are working on it

As regard Bill Gates, he deserves every penny he has, I would still slap him for all the hours I have lost in my life fixing his product :)

So don't get confused between someone who is a humanitarian and a commie!

There are more than two levels in life, and seems to me that neither are effective separate so cooperation between the two is the way forward

[paraclete]

Obviously, EVERY system exploits the worker to some degree.

Under capitalism, the worker has more options than under the other systems. If he is smart enough, or gets the right breaks, he can rise to become a capitalist. Under which other system is that true?

So you think the object of a person working is so, with opportunity, he can become a capitalist. What a dull idea. A worker works so as to meet certain needs because this is the system which society has made available. If a person can organise others to join in an activity to their mutual benefit he will do so, but the idea that one person should own the means of production and exploits the others TO SOME DEGREE and to his own benefit is an idea that is tolerated because the workers lack power. It is immoral that it should be a desirable objective

[paraclete]

Is that why some people here bring up Bill Gates and his wealth? They expect the "rich" to take care of the poor, or the government to take of the poor, so you, the individual, don't have to [act].

G&P

Why I brought up Bill Gates is not to suggest that the government take care of the poor but the reality is if society won't do it they have a responsibility to do it. I remarked on the fact that his wealth was greater than 45% of the population. This is an undesirable outcome of capitalism, that one individual should be able to amass such wealth in a few years when there are individuals in the society who live in poverty, whether that is relative poverty or not. A further undesirable aspect of capitalism is that a person like Madoff could be able to embezzle such wealth without detection or that corporate crooks should be able to vote themselves large salaries for doing nothing more than manipulating a market using the wealth of other capitalists.

[galveston]

So you think the object of a person working is so, with opportunity, he can become a capitalist. What a dull idea. A worker works so as to meet certain needs because this is the system which society has made available. If a person can organise others to join in an activity to their mutual benefit he will do so, but the idea that one person should own the means of production and exploits the others TO SOME DEGREE and to his own benefit is an idea that is tolerated because the workers lack power. It is immoral that it should be a desirable objective

Surely you do not deliberately miss my point.

Capitalism does not have an impenetrable ceiling. What other political system can you point out that is the same?

Capitalism DOES need to be tempered with a good moral code.

Is that clearer?

[excon]

Capitalism DOES need to be tempered with a good moral code.

Hello gal:

I agree... But, in case not everybody has one of those, we need STRONG regulation to back it up.

excon

[paraclete]

Surely you do not deliberately miss my point.

Capitalism does not have an impenetrable ceiling. What other political system can you point out that is the same?

Capitalism DOES need to be tempered with a good moral code.

Is that clearer?

This is the second time you have eluded to capitalism being a political system. I was under the impression that the system is democracy, a system which proports to give all citizens a voice in government, and the regulation of capitalism. What voice does capitalism give the workers, the ability to invest in the means of production? Capitalism is not synomous with democracy, capitalism even exists in a communist state. The way capitalism is kept in check is with strong government which enforces a moral and an ethical code of conduct

[galveston]

This is the second time you have eluded to capitalism being a political system. I was under the impression that the system is democracy, a system which proports to give all citizens a voice in government, and the regulation of capitalism. What voice does capitalism give the workers, the ability to invest in the means of production? Capitalism is not synomous with democracy, capitalism even exists in a communist state. The way capitalism is kept in check is with strong government which enforces a moral and an ethical code of conduct

I must have missed that post where I called capitalism a political system. I am well aware that it is an economic system.

But we have yet to see how well Communism and capitalism will get along together in the long run.

Every totalitarian system CONTROLS all aspects of life. It is hard for me to see how there can be any room for capitalism in the aspect of everyone being able to be (piotentially) upardly mobile when a dictatorship makes all the decisions.

The USSR, N. Korea and Cuba are clearly failures at improving the lives of their citizens.
I am told that China is eperimenting with capitalism, but I supect that all the capitalists are all part of the government. (We seem to be headed in that direction too.)

I ask you again, what would you recommend in place of capitalism? What do you think would work better?

[paraclete]

Capitalism does not have an impenetrable ceiling. What other political system can you point out that is the same?

You apparently have a poor memory and you didn't even read the quote I provided

[paraclete]

Every totalitarian system CONTROLS all aspects of life. It is hard for me to see how there can be any room for capitalism in the aspect of everyone being able to be (piotentially) upwardly mobile when a dictatorship makes all the decisions.

We will see whether China is able to successfully wed Capitalism to communism. We all know communism isn't the answer, but I think you over estimate the process of decision making in China and the many Chinese millionaires would disagree with you that capitalism and communism cannot travel together, you see it is really a matter of how adept capitalists are at compromise

[excon]

We will see whether China is able to successfully wed Capitalism to communism.

Hello again, clete:

They've done quite well, thank you very much... As opposed to the Soviets, though, the Chinese have a long history of capitalism. So, I think it's less a blend of capitalism with communism, but rather a blend of capitalism with authoritarianism.

excon

[phlanx]

Hello again, clete:

They've done quite well, thank you very much... As opposed to the Soviets, though, the Chinese have a long history of capitalism. So, I think it's less a blend of capitalism with communism, but rather a blend of capitalism with authoritarianism.

excon

I agree, with the Fridge Freezer Theology of China now slowly on its way to be a superpower with no need to support its people like Russia had to, the marriage will be a total success

At present I cannot see another country with the means or power to take over the manufacturing of goods for the world, and with their one baby policy about to take effect

China is well placed in a generation to be the "Player"

[tomder55]

I think it's less a blend of capitalism with communism, but rather a blend of capitalism with authoritarianism.

As if there is a difference. Communism has as Orwell predicted been very content frozen in the dictatorship of the proletariat;as long as there is a ruling elite maintaining control. In the long run capitalism will not succeed in China because capitalism needs a consumer based economy ;and the authoritarians cannot allow that to happen.

[paraclete]

As if there is a difference. Communism has as Orwell predicted been very content frozen in the dictatorship of the proletariat;as long as there is a ruling elite maintaining control. In the long run capitalism will not succeed in China because capitalism needs a consumer based economy ;and the authoritarians cannot allow that to happen.

Ruling elite maintaining control now that sounds like another place I know where the anointed leader appoints his cronies to the positions of authority, is this China,is this North Korea, no, it is another place

[tomder55]

Dare I say that is why so many of Obama appointees are Mao admirers .

[NeedKarma]

dare I say that is why so many of Obama appointees are Mao admirers .

No one has said that. You just want to make that neo-con talking point link - He'S A CommUNIST!! 11!1111