So this is why I'll be voting Conservative

[Argus]

That's some pretty twisted logic.

Especially when you consider that the workers are capitalists too, selling their labour to the highest bidder.

[PrimeNumber]

Especially when you consider that the workers are capitalists too, selling their labour to the highest bidder.

I'd hardly say the highest bidder. Many workers sell their labour for whatever they can get in many parts of the world. Including some parts of Canada.

[Evening Star]

Especially when you consider that the workers are capitalists too, selling their labour to the highest bidder.

Oxford fwiw:

capitalist: a person who uses their wealth to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism.

Someone who sells his or her labour (to the highest bidder or otherwise) is not a capitalist.

[drummindiver]

I'd hardly say the highest bidder. Many workers sell their labour for whatever they can get in many parts of the world. Including some parts of Canada.

..which would be the highest bidder.

[Argus]

I'd hardly say the highest bidder. Many workers sell their labour for whatever they can get in many parts of the world. Including some parts of Canada.

It depends on the demand, and the demand is influenced by how much effort the worker has put into education and skill improvement. He will always go to whoever pays him the most.

[Argus]

Oxford fwiw:

Someone who sells his or her labour (to the highest bidder or otherwise) is not a capitalist.

A Capitalist is anyone who has capital and uses it for profit. And that capital includes wealth, resources, property or labour.

[PrimeNumber]

..which would be the highest bidder.

Well when you look at it as "they work for whoever will hire them." It's not like there is a lot of choice. You make it seem like most labour workers have thousands of options available to them all over the world regardless of any barriers.

Edited September 12, 2015 by PrimeNumber

[PrimeNumber]

It depends on the demand, and the demand is influenced by how much effort the worker has put into education and skill improvement. He will always go to whoever pays him the most.

It's not always about pay. Benefits, location, current money situation, convenience and families have huge impacts on where people can and are willing to work.

I've turned down higher paying jobs in Ontario simply because I don't want to live in Ontario.

Edited September 12, 2015 by PrimeNumber

[PrimeNumber]

A Capitalist is anyone who has capital and uses it for profit. And that capital includes wealth, resources, property or labour.

I don't think you'll find a dictionary on earth that defines capitalism that way.

Edited September 12, 2015 by PrimeNumber

[Argus]

Well when you look at it as "they work for whoever will hire them." It's not like there is a lot of choice. You make it seem like most labour workers have thousands of options available to them all over the world regardless of any barriers.

Everyone who is employed is supplying labour. That includes engineers, architects and lawyers. And yes, for the most part, people do have a choice. Even a labourer or other tradesman can choose which company to apply to, and can move from one job to another as he hears of better opportunities. I certainly did.

[Argus]

I don't think you'll find a dictionary on earth that defines capitalism that way.

My definition comes from economics texts, not dictionaries.

[drummindiver]

Well when you look at it as "they work for whoever will hire them." It's not like there is a lot of choice. You make it seem like most labour workers have thousands of options available to them all over the world regardless of any barriers.

I don't mean it to seem that way.

If there is only one choice, then it's supply and demand.

Again, they will be paid what market value dictates.

[drummindiver]

It's not always about pay. Benefits, location, current money situation, convenience and families have huge impacts on where people can and are willing to work.

I've turned down higher paying jobs in Ontario simply because I don't want to live in Ontario.

Right. You are going to sell your services to the highest bidder. To you, there are value added to area, benefits etc.

As you so rightly say, it's not always about pay. It is however always about what is worth the most to the individual.

[SpankyMcFarland]

FPTP gives rise to highly distorted results when more than two parties are involved and one of them is regionally based. We saw that with the BQ and again in the recent UK election where the SNP reaped huge numbers of seats compared to UKIP. In my constituency, any vote for the Greens or NDP is effectively a vote for Harper. The great thing about coalitions is that they often represent a true majority of voters, something we no longer see in Canada with one party rule. It's messier but it is more representative, which is kind of the whole idea of elections.

[WIP]

Before capitalism, the world was 99% poor as dirt. Everyone in the world, including the absolute most destitute, are far better off with capitalism. The wealthiest nations are also the ones that trade most with the US. If the US leaves you alone, you are probably one of the worst places to live on earth.

Well thanks for reviving this thread....I guess! But, whoever I was debating with at the time, this obviously went way off the topic of the upcoming election. So, I'll just say that your narrative above is the typical historical and cultural revisionism that has been a part of European thinking at least since Thomas Hobbes started writing about economics and human nature. This line of thinking, that began as a dismal complete dismissal of the lower classes and people in new lands regarded as "savages," has more politically correct packaging today, which pretends to be non-racist and actually concerned about the lower classes, but it's the same bullshit once the flowery rhetoric is removed.

A real, unvarnished, rational look at how we live from the beginning of hunting/gathering through settled farming...the rise of hierarchies and feudal despots to industrial capitalism and to modern financial capitalism...which has given financial institutions the governing power over monetary, banking and trade policy, has hardly represented a steady rise in human wellbeing. A better case can be made that the exact opposite has occurred: take away a few bells and whistles and the lives of most people have hardly improved in the past two centuries, and are declining rapidly today....which is why so many people are becoming so greedy, desperate and irrational....and end up becoming conservative supporters, thinking they will get a share of the pie I suppose.

And in those countries without property rights, the way it worked was you killed and died for what you needed, you life average expectancy was about 30-40 years (assuming you survived childbirth), and most of it spent hungry and in pain. If you were a woman, you were probably considered property, or at least treated that way.

Total Hobbesian bs! From the beginning of the first enclosure acts to their modern forms in Africa, Latin America and Asia, the millions forced off the land into overcrowded, dirty cities to work as slave labour for industry, are presented as somehow improving their lives. I took this bullshit apart back when factory fires and a collapse that killed 1000 in Bangladesh were in the news. The way we measure economic worth through GDP, it looks like someone who used to grow most of their own food has improved their lives when they take that sweatshop job and have to buy substandard food from a market, because GDP doesn't apply any economic value to public lands or common ancestral lands, where people were growing for their own needs and selling off surplus for any gain.

Edited September 13, 2015 by WIP

[hitops]

Well thanks for reviving this thread....I guess! But, whoever I was debating with at the time, this obviously went way off the topic of the upcoming election. So, I'll just say that your narrative above is the typical historical and cultural revisionism that has been a part of European thinking at least since Thomas Hobbes started writing about economics and human nature. This line of thinking, that began as a dismal complete dismissal of the lower classes and people in new lands regarded as "savages," has more politically correct packaging today, which pretends to be non-racist and actually concerned about the lower classes, but it's the same bullshit once the flowery rhetoric is removed.

A real, unvarnished, rational look at how we live from the beginning of hunting/gathering through settled farming...the rise of hierarchies and feudal despots to industrial capitalism and to modern financial capitalism...which has given financial institutions the governing power over monetary, banking and trade policy, has hardly represented a steady rise in human wellbeing. A better case can be made that the exact opposite has occurred: take away a few bells and whistles and the lives of most people have hardly improved in the past two centuries, and are declining rapidly today....which is why so many people are becoming so greedy, desperate and irrational....and end up becoming conservative supporters, thinking they will get a share of the pie I suppose.

Well nobody said anything about savages, but I guess you need to throw that in in order to demonize whoever you want to demonize. And none of that rise contradicts the plain fact that human lives are far better today. You don't need any bells and whistles, you just need to look the basics like health, life expectancy, infant and maternal mortality, literacy etc. All vastly better in modern times.

You romanticism of past time ignores the fact that life was far harder, and filled with far more tragedy, with far fewer choices in life. Where you started was where you ended up, which was poverty for all but a few.

Total Hobbesian bs! From the beginning of the first enclosure acts to their modern forms in Africa, Latin America and Asia, the millions forced off the land into overcrowded, dirty cities to work as slave labour for industry, are presented as somehow improving their lives. I took this bullshit apart back when factory fires and a collapse that killed 1000 in Bangladesh were in the news. The way we measure economic worth through GDP, it looks like someone who used to grow most of their own food has improved their lives when they take that sweatshop job and have to buy substandard food from a market, because GDP doesn't apply any economic value to public lands or common ancestral lands, where people were growing for their own needs and selling off surplus for any gain.

Again you ignore, willfully no doubt, the alternatives. They are not better. They are far worse, and Bangladesh which you believe argues for your point, is actually the ultimate example against it. Just check incomes and life expectancy for a start. It's not even close, the current situation is far superior.

But why would we want any silly bells and whistles like lifespans increasing or fewer new babies dying, right?

Edited September 15, 2015 by hitops