Perhaps you would prefer these workers in India to have no jobs at all? We both know why they're being paid less, and why if they weren't able to be paid less, there wouldn't be a fraction of the economic and employment opportunities in India. Over time, these workers are able to send their children to get an education that earns them higher paying jobs, and so on, raising their incomes over time. The reason we don't see a Marxist alternative that lifts people out of poverty faster is because there isn't one.

http://blog.euromonitor.com/2010/03/emerging-focus-rising-middle-class-in-emerging-markets.html

I'm not talking about some kind of extreme application of capitalism, I'm talking about the one applied by countries around the world. Even then, capitalism does not imply no regulation or oversight, read the bit that's labelled "Role of government", note the bit on competition laws, and standards of service in industries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

I would argue there were two reasons Australia got through the GFC mostly unscathed. Firstly, our Four Pillars policy which stopped the big 4 banks from merging and prevented the kind of excessive competitive pressure that arguably forced many banks in the US into risky securitised mortgages in the US in the first place. Secondly, because of a surplus of investment opportunities and a deficit of savings domestically, banks weren't put into a position where they had to invest funds abroad, such as disastrously how Iceland's banks did. The second was arguably luck, but the first is the kind of policy that fits squarely under the government's role in even a literal interpretation of capitalism.
>> ^Asmo:

>> ^RedSky:
You're confusing capitalism with a failure of regulation and general bad policy.
Yes, a large number of developed countries have seen middle class income stagnate, but many emerging economies with balanced policies have seen millions of people rise out of poverty into the middle class.
Capitalism doesn't force anyone to spend beyond beyond their means, bad policy which encourages easy credit and an overconsumption culture does. An imbalance in wage growth between the middle and upper class obviously also plays into this and can be addressed with effective policy changes.
I'm not going to even get into how hawkish foreign policy is far removed from anything we're talking about here.
I did look at the GFC, and I addressed it as a failure of regulation. Again, as I said to TheFreak, if you want to dispute that, instead of asking rhetorical questions, argue against my view that effectively regulation could have prevented the GFC.

re: emerging economies, which ones? India where US companies send US jobs that only cost them cents on the dollar?
You blame a culture of over consumption but that is exactly what capitalism creates and encourages. More consumption = more profits. You blame lack of oversight, but oversight is a socialist notion. Regulation is an inherently socialist policy. You regulate to protect those that cannot protect themselves, for the greater good. A failure of regulation is a capitalist victory.
edit: that is not to say that socialism is superior but there needs to be a tempered road between economic ideologies. Australia has a stronger regulation system on it's banking sector and we managed to ride out the GFC significantly better because we didn't have to bail our banks out (rather, our 'bailouts' were economic stimulus directly back to the people in the form of a one of cash payment and a number of infrastructure projects). Banks still make money, investors still get returns, far less average joes get screwed over.

>> ^RedSky:

You're confusing capitalism with a failure of regulation and general bad policy.
Yes, a large number of developed countries have seen middle class income stagnate, but many emerging economies with balanced policies have seen millions of people rise out of poverty into the middle class.
Capitalism doesn't force anyone to spend beyond beyond their means, bad policy which encourages easy credit and an overconsumption culture does. An imbalance in wage growth between the middle and upper class obviously also plays into this and can be addressed with effective policy changes.
I'm not going to even get into how hawkish foreign policy is far removed from anything we're talking about here.
I did look at the GFC, and I addressed it as a failure of regulation. Again, as I said to TheFreak, if you want to dispute that, instead of asking rhetorical questions, argue against my view that effectively regulation could have prevented the GFC.


re: emerging economies, which ones? India where US companies send US jobs that only cost them cents on the dollar?

You blame a culture of over consumption but that is exactly what capitalism creates and encourages. More consumption = more profits. You blame lack of oversight, but oversight is a socialist notion. Regulation is an inherently socialist policy. You regulate to protect those that cannot protect themselves, for the greater good. A failure of regulation is a capitalist victory.

edit: that is not to say that socialism is superior but there needs to be a tempered road between economic ideologies. Australia has a stronger regulation system on it's banking sector and we managed to ride out the GFC significantly better because we didn't have to bail our banks out (rather, our 'bailouts' were economic stimulus directly back to the people in the form of a one of cash payment and a number of infrastructure projects). Banks still make money, investors still get returns, far less average joes get screwed over.

You're confusing capitalism with a failure of regulation and general bad policy.

Yes, a large number of developed countries have seen middle class income stagnate, but many emerging economies with balanced policies have seen millions of people rise out of poverty into the middle class.

Capitalism doesn't force anyone to spend beyond beyond their means, bad policy which encourages easy credit and an overconsumption culture does. An imbalance in wage growth between the middle and upper class obviously also plays into this and can be addressed with effective policy changes.

I'm not going to even get into how hawkish foreign policy is far removed from anything we're talking about here.

I did look at the GFC, and I addressed it as a failure of regulation. Again, as I said to TheFreak, if you want to dispute that, instead of asking rhetorical questions, argue against my view that effectively regulation could have prevented the GFC.>> ^Asmo:

He's saying what everyone, even if they won't admit it to themselves, knows to be true.
Go around the US atm and ask factory workers what they think of Wall St and big business. Or disposessed house owners. Or the waitress that has been getting the same level of pay for the last 10 years.
Capitalism creates a product for the masses to consume. When there is no more money left in the masses pockets, there is no consumption ergo capitalism falls in a screaming heap.
Look at the trends of our disposable lifestyle. It is unsustainable and yet business understands that if their product only lasts half as long, they'll sell twice as much. Look at the US wars in the Middle East where the cost in resources and US soldiers far outweighs the negligible returns in a secure source of oil (so a few cents can be saved at the bowsers) and apparent safety from terrorists. Look at the Gulf where corner cutting to save what probably amounts to tens of thousands of dollars is costing a corporation billions (and they don't seem to be that fazed) and a country potentially far more. Look at the GFC and ask yourself "Who was responsible and were they punished?"
In the mad dash to make a buck, how many disasters have occurred? Not having a clear solution is not a good reason not to go looking for one.

Gee, they don't even attack regular poverty? Just "extreme poverty"? So I guess that means they only attack it in 3rd World countries, because no one in America lives in a landfill or drinks water with fecal contaminants. Why don't they fight war, greed, pollution, overconsumption? I think my head will explode if I think about this too much.

That CNN clip is mindboggling. Cognitive dissonance much?

I don't always agree with adbusters, but I do think that it will take some kind of shock therapy to get the overconsumptive world out of the growth mindset.

Gee who should I listen to in regards to science and Nature? Sir David Attenborough or quantumushroom?

You must watch too much TV if you believe the graph being displayed in this clip looks like it belongs in a pharmaceutical commercial. It makes me sad to see that you believe that by becoming interested in the Environment and Nature it will lead us all to living in mud huts.

The irony of your comment is, because of western overconsumption many poor people around the world do live in mudhuts even while they manufacture that keyboard your clacking on.