51–60 of 81 posts
People who think it's bad to want the world economy to grow probably haven't stopped to think about what economic growth consists of. Economic growth isn't just fat Americans buying bigger SUVs. It's also people in poor countries increasing their standard of living, and advances in medical care.
You know, I wasn't actually thinking about doing any shopping today. But if Anonymous and Occupy have gotten on the bandwagon, I think I may just have to stop by my local Wal-Mart and take advantage of some of those deals.
Yeah, that's the spirit. Head on over and contribute to the problem [1][2][3]
1. http://robertreich.org/post/36219730368
2. http://www.thenation.com/blog/171389/worker-group-alleges-wa...
3. http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/support-...
I buy nothing about 95% of the days in a year. I don't get why this is supposed to make such a difference?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His point is that one of the main avenues for the poor to leave poverty is through capitalistic action. If you are arguing for the restriction of that behavior, you are arguing for the restriction of opportunities to leave behind poverty. As pathetic as it is to see people camping out at Wal-mart to buy products they do not particularly need (indeed, many of them would be better off if they saved the money that they…
"If you are arguing for the restriction of that behavior, you are arguing for the restriction of opportunities to leave behind poverty." That doesn't follow. Laissez-faire capitalism does not necessarily lead to greater class mobility. The idea that one must abandon "restriction" of capitalism to offer the greatest benefit to any individual is ridiculous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A culture can stop being capitalistic and consumer-driven without becoming a fear driven dictatorship. Do you have an empirical example of this?
I'm not an expert on alternative economies (sorry) but I can name a capitalist consumer-driven society that is controlled by fear of their government.
You don't have to be an expert, but you did assert that is was possible. That usually implies some level of empirical evidence.
> but I can name a capitalist consumer-driven society that is controlled by fear of their government.
So can I, but luckily correlation doesn't imply causation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was an ad hominem response to the question of can we continue using resources at an ever increasing rate. That includes asking if the world can afford to bring the poor up to western living standards. They are ugly questions but it doesn't make sense to burry our heads in the sand about them.
I don't think anyone is burying their heads over this. The answer is "maybe not", but the followup is that there is absolutely no moral compass on which is would be even remotely acceptable to take even the smallest step to prevent the global poor to become as rich as we are.
The argument -- as far as I have witnessed it -- is not about preventing the poor from becoming rich. The argument is should richer people need to suffer to effect the enrichment of the poor. Acting to prevent is not the same thing as not acting to effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If you are arguing for the restriction of that behavior, you are arguing for the restriction of opportunities to leave behind poverty." That doesn't follow. Laissez-faire capitalism does not necessarily lead to greater class mobility. The idea that one must abandon "restriction" of capitalism to offer the greatest benefit to any individual is ridiculous.
We are talking about different things. I am not talking about class mobility. I am talking about the wealth of nations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The site specifically says we have to challenge the idea "that the economy must always keep growing."
We should question the idea of "growth" especially if its leaving a net negative on other aspects of humanity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His point is that one of the main avenues for the poor to leave poverty is through capitalistic action. If you are arguing for the restriction of that behavior, you are arguing for the restriction of opportunities to leave behind poverty. As pathetic as it is to see people camping out at Wal-mart to buy products they do not particularly need (indeed, many of them would be better off if they saved the money that they…
"If you are arguing for the restriction of that behavior, you are arguing for the restriction of opportunities to leave behind poverty." That doesn't follow. Laissez-faire capitalism does not necessarily lead to greater class mobility. The idea that one must abandon "restriction" of capitalism to offer the greatest benefit to any individual is ridiculous.
1: At least many of them