Capitalism and terrorism

[fli]

I'm thinking about Capitalism in the World.

In the United States, we have a mixed Capitalism, meaning that the government does interact with businesses (or interference, depending how you see it) to prevent child labor, create minimum wages, create antitrust laws, taxation to fund public programs, etc.

But the world economy, it is not a mixed capitalism, but an almost pure capitalist society. Even Socialist economies such as Taiwan, have to compete in a Capitalist economy in the world.

This means that businesses almost have complete free will to do whatever what they want in the world, especially in countries that doesn't have laws similar to the ones here in the US, where people are desperate. Unlike the US mixed economic system, there isn't ways to prevent child labor, encomienda slavery, environmental abuses, etc-- a whole bunch of ill stuff that doesn't happen too frequently in the United States. But rest of the world: Indian children sold by their parents to the silk industry. Cambodian people competing each other like dogs for food while they work sweat houses. In Brazil according to the San Jose Mercury News, it has been discovered that the US coffee market has obtained "slavery coffee" from Brazilians who are trapped in an encomienda-slavery type of system.

Today, I read an interesting link on Yahoo! News from USA Today: Group honors curricula that explore 9/11's 'root causes'.

It is about a teacher who tries his best to explain one cause of terrorism as economic distribution of wealth.

He divided his class up accordingly to world populations, and gave them cookies to share, accordingly to the proportion of each country's economic situation:

"In one of Peterson's lessons, students stand, arranged by population, on a huge world map. Peterson hands out cookies according to gross national products: The 16 students in Asia each get one cookie, and the three in Africa split half a cookie among them. In North America, one student enjoys eight cookies."

Perhaps one root of terrorism is the resentment brought by economic status. Although there isn't a simple answer to terrorism, this could be one of them. And thinking about it, I would be quite a bit resentful if one person got 8 cookies while I have to split a half of a half cookie with everyone else.

Perhaps we could lesson terrorism by creating mixed world capitalism, one that has rules-- and perhaps continental taxation. Create world environment protection laws. World child labor protection laws. Etc...

I'm not saying to make everyone equal in a Socialist sense, but perhaps by making the Capitalist world economy into a mixed-Capitalist world economy could lesson so many problems.

[BeFell]

Child labor is wrong and I don't condone it but if you start regulating the world economy and telling companies that they have to pay the cheap labor in other countries more they will not see the benefit in going overseas then the people in the poor countrys making meager wages will make no wages. So I ask you is something better than nothing? There is no other choice companies are in it to make money not provide charity.

[fli]

At 9/17/04 02:38 AM, BeFell wrote: Child labor is wrong and I don't condone it but if you start regulating the world economy and telling companies that they have to pay the cheap labor in other countries more they will not see the benefit in going overseas then the people in the poor countrys making meager wages will make no wages. So I ask you is something better than nothing? There is no other choice companies are in it to make money not provide charity.

There will always be compition for the consumer. I don't believe regulating the world economy would make people stop what they're doing simply because as long there's people buying, money will flow here and there.

It would be a big US economic place.

We're pretty sucessful here in the US, economic wise. We have children in schools, not working in oil fields, etc.

[mark-w]

for a charitarian, to give up some of his possesion is easy. but when it comes to a company, or a country, to give up its profit is quite impossible. whoever gets less cookies should complain nobody---- that's just the rule of game.
our world is working quite well under the "American rule". if you want to antecede your opponents, obey the rule.

[BeFell]

At 9/17/04 02:58 AM, spanishfli wrote: There will always be compition for the consumer. I don't believe regulating the world economy would make people stop what they're doing simply because as long there's people buying, money will flow here and there.

With a regulated world economy companies would lose their motivation to locate in third world countries and money would cease to flow there.

[fli]

Coffee nut, the easiest way: don't go to NG.

[RedSkunk]

At 9/17/04 11:23 AM, BeFell wrote: With a regulated world economy companies would lose their motivation to locate in third world countries and money would cease to flow there.

That's the most inept, backwards and hairbrained reasoning I've ever seen.

[fli]

At 9/17/04 11:23 AM, BeFell wrote:

At 9/17/04 02:58 AM, spanishfli wrote: There will always be compition for the consumer. I don't believe regulating the world economy would make people stop what they're doing simply because as long there's people buying, money will flow here and there.

With a regulated world economy companies would lose their motivation to locate in third world countries and money would cease to flow there.

But there are things that can't be got in the US-- only in third world countries. Africa, diamonds are nearly exlusive over there. Latin America, lots of fruits and vegetables come from there so that US citizens have even out of season fruit and veggies year round. Let's not forget the florist industry. Roses are imported from Latin America.

World economy companies will not lose motivation to locate in third world countires-- they will lose the motivation to exploit things and resources. Not every thing can be made in the US.

And it would be fair, and give chances to other people who don't even have clean drinking water, much less public education and more food.

Although I see world taxation would be a little bit more difficult, at least we should try to promote clean business practices, instead of exploitation ala American Industrial Revolution...

[BeFell]

At 9/17/04 03:32 PM, spanishfli wrote: But there are things that can't be got in the US-- only in third world countries. Africa, diamonds are nearly exlusive over there. Latin America, lots of fruits and vegetables come from there so that US citizens have even out of season fruit and veggies year round. Let's not forget the florist industry. Roses are imported from Latin America.

World economy companies will not lose motivation to locate in third world countires-- they will lose the motivation to exploit things and resources. Not every thing can be made in the US.

And it would be fair, and give chances to other people who don't even have clean drinking water, much less public education and more food.

You're right, they would still have natural resources to sell but manufacturing is the important thing and if they were to demand fair wages for those in third world countries then corporations would not see the cost benefit of relocating to those countries. It would be easier to have Americans make things to sell to Americans.

Although I see world taxation would be a little bit more difficult, at least we should try to promote clean business practices, instead of exploitation ala American Industrial Revolution...

Have you ever heard of the Boston Tea Party? Americans don't like being taxed by foriegners.

[fli]

At 9/17/04 04:40 PM, BeFell wrote:
Have you ever heard of the Boston Tea Party? Americans don't like being taxed by foriegners.

I am not talking about having the world tax the US-- I'm saying to have the whole entire world being taxed, all countries participating.

[BeFell]

At 9/17/04 04:57 PM, spanishfli wrote:

At 9/17/04 04:40 PM, BeFell wrote:
Have you ever heard of the Boston Tea Party? Americans don't like being taxed by foriegners.

I am not talking about having the world tax the US-- I'm saying to have the whole entire world being taxed, all countries participating.

Same principle it will piss people off. Who are the tax dollars going to go to anyways?

[Demosthenez]

Ahh, the gloriously retarted UN I bet. That would be a tax I would resent more than the United States taking 80% of my income in taxes. I do not want to support some global organization with a third world country man leading it that thinks he can tell the world what to do. God, the UN is fucked up.

Heads up, Kofi Annan told some BBC news organization that the war in Iraq is illegal. Like anyone gives a shit what he says anyway.

[fli]

At 9/17/04 05:02 PM, BeFell wrote:
Same principle it will piss people off. Who are the tax dollars going to go to anyways?

Ideally, it would go directly to social service programs of the government, to be used for the people to fund necessary thing such as water purification, environmental clean up programs, holistic programs, etc.

And by doing so, it would improv the living standard through out the world.

Ultimately, terrorism is more costly to the United States which takes stock in money and human lives. And if you observe the allegory of what Afganistan did to the World Trade Centers, it was not only an attack on the US, but a symbolic attack of our Capitalist economy. If we could reduce the anti American sentiment by distributing wealth more equally through out the world, or just enough to keep countries not always in a state of making ends meet, then this idea could be something worthwhile to invest.