Industrialization made the world more wealthy than ever before

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 67
Topic's author
#31
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Bottom line without the implicit threat of police violence to enforce your ownership no one would choose to die of exposure rather than live in the property in question. Removal of that threat would largely solve the problem I think.
#32
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
If me renting a house to a family in exchange for money is denying people the right to shelter then is the grocery store down the road denying people the right to food by selling it to them in exchange for money? Would removing the threat of police action for robbing of grocery stores solve the problem of hunger?
#33
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
is the grocery store down the road denying people the right to food by selling it to them in exchange for money
yes, specifically poor people.

 Would removing the threat of police action for robbing of grocery stores solve the problem of hunger?
In capitalism the biggest incentive for robbing a grocery store is money.
 but regardless the answer to your question is no.
Topic's author
#34
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
is the grocery store down the road denying people the right to food by selling it to them in exchange for money
yes, specifically poor people.
Well stated 
Topic's author
#35
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If me renting a house to a family in exchange for money is denying people the right to shelter then is the grocery store down the road denying people the right to food by selling it to them in exchange for money? Would removing the threat of police action for robbing of grocery stores solve the problem of hunger?
When a grocery refuses food to those who cannot afford it that is precisely what is happening. Removing the threat of police violence (and the locks from the dumpsters) would certainly make it safer for the poor to reclaim the discarded food.
Topic's author
#36
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If me renting a house to a family in exchange for money is denying people the right to shelter
That depends. What would you do if the they could not or refused to pay? They still would need shelter. If your answer is that you would initiate eviction proceedings then yes that is what you are doing. In that case you would be engaged in extortion not offering shelter.
#37
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
What would you do if the they could not or refused to pay?
If I was unable to secure a rental income then I would be unable to pay the mortgage and the property would go into foreclosure, transferring ownership of the property to the company that helped me finance the purchase. I would think that would be rather obvious.

You still haven't really answeredy question about what kind of policy you are suggesting. You are saying you would abolish the practice of renting properties, that indirectly implies encouraging universal ownership of residences among other things, but you don't say a word as to how that would or should be done.

Imagine...

Scenario A: someone says "Hunger is a serious problem. Everyone should have food so that hunger becomes less of a problem!" I am left forced to respond "that's cool, dude" because such is the only kind of answer a dead-end proclamation like that allows. Frankly it's just lame and unhelpful.

Scenario B: someone says "Hunger is a serious problem and we can help relieve that problem with various programs such as food drives or food stamps" then I could respond with support of their ideas or by proposing something else such as farming subsidies to reduce the price of food production. Much more interesting and useful than sitting around sniffing our own farts at least.

The society in scenario A will tend to be much more stagnant and boring.
Topic's author
#38
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
There is nothing we can do under the current system. The very fact that the bank would foreclose on you and the family would lose their home regardless of what you want IS the problem. I'm not sure what to do short of bloody bloody revolution which I do not actually want to see in my lifetime. I would propose a system where the purpose of a bank is to help people keep their homes not take them away or better yet no banks at all but that is NOT our current system. Our current system is one of systematic oppression in the name of profit. 
Topic's author
#39
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
You could give everything you own to the poor without ever helping in their plight. Rather than helping them you would only be joining them.
#40
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin

If someone says "Hunger is a serious problem. Everyone should have food so that hunger becomes less of a problem!" I am left forced to respond "that's cool, dude" because such is the only kind of answer a dead-end proclamation like that allows. Frankly it's just lame and unhelpful.
There is nothing we can do under the current system. The very fact that the bank would foreclose on you and the family would lose their home regardless of what you want IS the problem.
That's cool, dude.
#41
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
industrialization played a huge role but the working conditions were horrible.

what made the world wealty was the British Agricultural revolution which paved the way for people to change from farming to work in the cities

19th century industrialization didnt change the wealth of anyone. IT made a few rich people but everyone stayed the same. IT was when the WORKING CONDITIONS under Henry Ford improved. That was when the middle class developed
Topic's author
#42
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That was when the middle class developed
There is no "middle class". Only the working class and the owning class.
industrialization played a huge role but the working conditions were horrible.
For many they still are. Industrialization made the world wealthy not egalitarian.
#43
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
There is no "middle class". Only the working class and the owning class.
hard disagree, there are millionaires who are "workers" at massive corporations while the "owners" of a business makes less money

For many they still are. Industrialization made the world wealthy not egalitarian.
massive corporations dont care
Topic's author
#44
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
hard disagree, there are millionaires who are "workers" at massive corporations while the "owners" of a business makes less money
Citation needed
massive corporations dont care
Incorrect. All corperations care about the same thing. It just isn't people, it's profit. 

#45
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@secularmerlin
no, you are wrong and speaking like an ill-informed socialist.

There are owners of even massive corporations who thoroughly and passionately love the good/service they provide and put huge effort into it. If it was just about profit, they'd cut their losses and not hold the risk of running such a massive corporation in the first place and instead just be a shareholder in someone else's business, spreading their funds thin. The actual leaders of corporations don't always only care about profit at all, otherwise all markets would lack 'niche' aspects.
Topic's author
#46
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@RationalMadman
Perhaps some individuals care. Corperations do not. A corperate entity is an organization and the function of the organization is profit. Perhaps the owners care and perhaps they make an effort to serve their customers but they won't serve them for free.
Topic's author
#47
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@RationalMadman
There are owners of even massive corporations who thoroughly and passionately love the good/service they provide and put huge effort into it.
Do you think the owners of the big tobacco companies are passionate about and love the good/service they provide and put huge effort into it? I rather think they do. Swell bunch of fellows.
#48
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@secularmerlin
Actually firstly yes I do, even the corrupt ones who denied the health effects for so long. 

If they didn't, they'd have instead helped the research to get out just as they switched whatever legal recreational thing they provided (a switch to coffee from tobacco seems very viable).

That said, you intentionally went for tobacco to avoid all the more useful industries.
#49
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@secularmerlin
A corporate entity isn't an entity. Individuals make it up including the founders of the company. The only difference is that LLCs have more direct interaction and codependency between those that invest in it and those that run it. Corporations have a board of directors and then a group of shareholders on the side. The board of directors are elected by the stockholders and generally have long-term profit as the main goal, as you said. The shareholders have say in the company and can use their investment of money and often will either have short-term profit in mind or perhaps a new design or way of going about the product in mind with how they use their influence.

The board of directors can even cut out the apex CEO from the corporation if they perform badly enough, the shareholders merely can influence whenever the CEO holds a vote on something and asks the major shareholders to give input.
Topic's author
#50
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@RationalMadman
A corporate entity isn't an entity. Individuals make it up including the founders of the company. The only difference is that LLCs have more direct interaction and codependency between those that invest in it and those that run it. Corporations have a board of directors and then a group of shareholders on the side. The board of directors are elected by the stockholders and generally have long-term profit as the main goal, as you said. The shareholders have say in the company and can use their investment of money and often will either have short-term profit in mind or perhaps a new design or way of going about the product in mind with how they use their influence.

The board of directors can even cut out the apex CEO from the corporation if they perform badly enough, the shareholders merely can influence whenever the CEO holds a vote on something and asks the major shareholders to give input.
This is the system which exploits essential front line workers. The CEO is not just incentivized to make profit a priority over people but if he is not efficient enough at exploitation of resources (including people) then he can actually be removed and someone more willing/able to exploit resources will be installed in his place.
That said, you intentionally went for tobacco to avoid all the more useful industries.
Not the industry the corporations. Perhaps without the capitalist state some people would still want to use tobacco products and perhaps would be passionate enough about it to keep up production (the industry) but I doubt they would feel the need to lie to the public in order to continue providing their products if their lifestyle and future prosperity wasn't tied to unsustainable infinite growth (the corperations).
#51
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
professors in college can make more than small business owners
Topic's author
#52
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
professors in college can make more than small business owners
Theoretically. I'm not sure what your point is though. 
#53
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
you cant just divide the economy into workers and owners
Topic's author
#54
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You cant just divide the economy into workers and owners
I didn't. It is just the way things are. Some people sell their labor and some people own things that generate profits (generally through the efforts of those who sell their labor). The amount of profits generated is immaterial. Ownership of the means of production is not the production. Whether a small business owner or a CEO you can only turn a profit by exploiting the workers. 
#55
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,073
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
A Zedku for Doc.


So stuff moves relentlessly forwards.

And us blobs of fragile organic goo.

Make a noise for a while.

Owner.

Worker.

Professor.

Blah de blah de blah.


#56
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@zedvictor4
you are a professional poet
#57
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
no, you CAN pay your workers fair and turn a profit
#58
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,073
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Thanks Doc.
#59
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,073
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Hierarchy is how things naturally work.

"Exploiting the workers".....Is a plea to the emotions.

Without hierarchy, nothing would get done.

Why doesn't everyone start up their own business?
Topic's author
#60
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
Without hierarchy, nothing would get done.
Bald assertion 

I do not know this and even if it is true it doesn't mean there is not value in promoting social programs over profit. Do not let the impossible perfect prevent the possibility of improving.

All moral arguments are pleas to emotion. I value humans on a gut level and would now like to plead with you to feel the same.