Ethical Capitalism
Normandy
Joan had determined that Richard practices ethical capitalism. I do not
know how she has done given the distances between them. What is the
definition of Ethical Capitalism?
No objection should ever be made to Capitalism but passing it off as
humanitarian work is. in my view, ridiculous.
Richard may be just trolling when he speaks of hiding assets to defy your
creditors and if he is that surely is not Ethical Capitalism.
The Oxford English Dictionary, which gives the first English use of the word
Capitalism in 1854. says "The condition of possessing capital; the position
of a capitalist; a system which favours the existence of capitalists."
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary says: "capitalism (1877) : an
economic system characterised by private or corporate ownership of capital
goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by
prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly
by competition in a free market".
It seems that Richard is just pulling our leg to get discussion going. he
runs a business as a true capitalist. In making his living he speaks of
helping people obtain houses. He does this for a profit that in the nature
of the capitalist system. Good on him.
A fair days work for a fair day's pay, true capitalism
Sinclair
Baba Mung
Many fortunes have been made and continue to be made because there are
people who must accept whatever return sorely needed work may bring them
regardless of the fairness of the price set upon their labour by an
employer. How to define the process by which those in possession of capital
grow that capital by way of enterprises which pay less than a fair day's
wage for a fair day's work? A form of capitalism it must be. And since
it does happen, there is a sense in which it can correctly be described as
"true". As true as any other form of capitalism. Perhaps this is where
the distinction between the "ethical" and the "unethical" begins to come
into its own?
There are, of course, other ways in which capital can be turned to bad use
or to good use. Besides those enterprises which put capital to use in the
tradition of the sweatshop, there are those which aim to make profits from
trading in potentially harmful artefacts or substances with little real
concern for their end use. Opium traders of the past and and of the present,
rogue arms traders, etc. Then again there are the individuals and groups
who pervert the intended working of democracy to foment the fear of war and
war itself with an eye on the profits that may be made from their handiwork.
I'd say these last mentioned forms are examples of the unethical. But there
are also those cases in which capital is turned to obviously good use as in
the case of those financial institutions which eschew the arms trade but do
support the fair trade movement. I'd say that was an ethical form of
capitalism.
Baba
" <aab...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:45fa2b1c$0$25950$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
Normandy
"Baba Mung" <baba...@redyonder.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de news:
0dxKh.155548$HO5.1...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> Many fortunes have been made and continue to be made because there are
> people who must accept whatever return sorely needed work may bring them
> regardless of the fairness of the price set upon their labour by an
> employer. How to define the process by which those in possession of
> capital grow that capital by way of enterprises which pay less than a
> fair day's wage for a fair day's work? A form of capitalism it must be.
> And since it does happen, there is a sense in which it can correctly be
> described as "true". As true as any other form of capitalism. Perhaps
> this is where the distinction between the "ethical" and the "unethical"
> begins to come into its own?
>
> There are, of course, other ways in which capital can be turned to bad use
> or to good use. Besides those enterprises which put capital to use in the
> tradition of the sweatshop, there are those which aim to make profits from
> trading in potentially harmful artefacts or substances with little real
> concern for their end use. Opium traders of the past and and of the
> present, rogue arms traders, etc. Then again there are the individuals
> and groups who pervert the intended working of democracy to foment the
> fear of war and war itself with an eye on the profits that may be made
> from their handiwork. I'd say these last mentioned forms are examples of
> the unethical. But there are also those cases in which capital is turned
> to obviously good use as in the case of those financial institutions which
> eschew the arms trade but do support the fair trade movement. I'd say that
> was an ethical form of capitalism.
>
>
> Baba
>
trade industry grew out of a movement that began in Europe about 40 years
ago and was largely initiated by churches hoping to provide relief to
refugees and other poor communities by selling their handicrafts. This has
led to many abuses in developing nations such as child labour and
environmental un-friendly practices. An exception is coffee. The Fair Trade
label was born in the Netherlands in 1989 under the brand name Max Havelaar,
taken from the title of a 19th-century novel about oppressed Javanese coffee
plantation workers.
Starbucks likely has done far more than the Fair Trade movement to improve
the lot of coffee growers in the 25 countries from which it buy its beans.
Fair Trade certification, intended to raise the living standards of coffee
farmers in Nicaragua and elsewhere, has grown into a complex bureaucracy and
an industry in itself. Starbucks, the long-time Enemy No. 1 of the Fair
Trade crusaders, agreed to purchase a limited amount of Fair Trade certified
coffee days before a planned protest in 2000. The company bought 10 million
pounds in 2005. In 2003 Dunkin' Donuts agreed to make all of its espresso
drinks certified. Nestle, one of the biggest coffee companies on Earth,
launched a Fair Trade line in October 2005; the same month, McDonald's
agreed to test Fair Trade in 658 outlets. High-end specialty coffees are the
fastest growing sector of the industry, and Fair Trade is the fastest
growing specialty coffee; demand for it has ballooned by around 70 percent
annually for the last five years.
A growing number of coffee roasters say the Fair Trade movement has lost its
way. Critics from the left are more vocal and more angry by half than any
grop from the right; they point to unhappy farmers, duped consumers, an
entrenched Fair Trade bureaucracy, and a grassroots campaign gone corporate.
Sinclair
Baba Mung
"Normandy" <aab...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:45faa81e$0$5094$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
> from which it buy its beans. Fair Trade certification, intended to raise
> the living standards of coffee farmers in Nicaragua and elsewhere, has
> grown into a complex bureaucracy and an industry in itself. Starbucks, the
> long-time Enemy No. 1 of the Fair Trade crusaders, agreed to purchase a
> limited amount of Fair Trade certified coffee days before a planned
> protest in 2000. The company bought 10 million pounds in 2005. In 2003
> Dunkin' Donuts agreed to make all of its espresso drinks certified.
> Nestle, one of the biggest coffee companies on Earth, launched a Fair
> Trade line in October 2005; the same month, McDonald's agreed to test Fair
> Trade in 658 outlets. High-end specialty coffees are the fastest growing
> sector of the industry, and Fair Trade is the fastest growing specialty
> coffee; demand for it has ballooned by around 70 percent annually for the
> last five years.
> A growing number of coffee roasters say the Fair Trade movement has lost
> its way. Critics from the left are more vocal and more angry by half than
> any grop from the right; they point to unhappy farmers, duped consumers,
> an entrenched Fair Trade bureaucracy, and a grassroots campaign gone
> corporate.
>
>
>
> Sinclair
>
>
It is true that Starbucks agreed to buy fair trade beans but only after
extremely energetic campaigning to force it to do so. In the event however
Starbuck and others like Proctor and Gamble have come to source only a small
proportion of their coffee from fair trade farmers. Put under pressure, they
have in effect bought themselves fig leaves; and, in the process, began the
perversion of the free trade movement from well- intentioned grass-roots
campaign into another big business marketing tool. The big corporations
readily boast a commitment to "free trade" but are less forthcoming about
the amounts of coffee they buy from free trade sources and the prices they
pay.
If they were the beneficient trading partners they pretend to be the big
corporations would not be faced with constant entreaties to better the deals
they make with third world farmers. Backed by Oxfam and other genuinely
humanitarian organisations, the Ethiopian government has been trying to get
Starbucks to accept a licensing agreement which will mean Ethiopia will be
entitled to brand name its coffee exports and so get into a better position
to negotiate a truly fair deal for the very great number of Ethiopians who
depend on coffee for living.
An Independent Online report published late last year noted that at a
Starbucks outlet in London the cheapest cup of espresso costs more than
twice as much as a worker in Ethiopia can expect to earn in a day. Doesn't
sound like a fair days pay for a fair days work does it?
http://prospect.org/print/V12/12/massing-m.html
http://moots.wordpress.com/2006/11/01/make-a-fair-trade-starbucks/
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article1932728.ece
Baba
Normandy
Is Starbucks or any other Western company responsible for wages or the cost
of living in Ethiopia?
Sinclair
>
>
Bobbie
Bobbie...
Baba Mung
Western institutions such as the World Trade Organisation, the World Bank,
and the IMF, play a significant part in determining the conditions under
which many people live in Africa and elsewhere - and so also in their turn
do do many Western or multinational corporations.
Baba
Baba Mung
"Bobbie" <sauc...@snm.net> wrote in message
news:55vt1vF...@mid.individual.net...
You are welcome, Bobbie.
Baba
Baba Mung
Oxfam recently accused Starbucks of being behind a decision by the US patent
bureau to rule against the Ethiopian government's application to trademark
its most famous coffee names: Sidamo, Harar and Yirgacheffe.
Ethiopia applied to trademark its most famous coffee names with a view to
enabling its farmers to negotiate a greater share of the retail price. But
in August last year, the US Patent and Trademark Office ruled in favor of an
appeal by the National Coffee Association (NCA), which represents US coffee
roasters, including Starbucks and Proctor and Gamble, against the trademark
application.
Baba
Normandy
>
> Oxfam recently accused Starbucks of being behind a decision by the US
> patent bureau to rule against the Ethiopian government's application to
> trademark its most famous coffee names: Sidamo, Harar and Yirgacheffe.
> Ethiopia applied to trademark its most famous coffee names with a view to
> enabling its farmers to negotiate a greater share of the retail price.
> But in August last year, the US Patent and Trademark Office ruled in favor
> of an appeal by the National Coffee Association (NCA), which represents US
> coffee roasters, including Starbucks and Proctor and Gamble, against the
> trademark application.
>
> Baba
>
>
rasing the Red flag yet and hopefully never
Sinclair
Baba Mung
Happy the burglar who can persuade the nightwatchman to look the other way.
Baba
Normandy
>>>
>> The company is protecting its business and its shareholders. We are not
>> rasing the Red flag yet and hopefully never
>>
>> Sinclair
>
> Happy the burglar who can persuade the nightwatchman to look the other
> way.
>
> Baba
Sinclair
>
>
Baba Mung
You seek to deflect attention from the indefensible. Socialism or socialists
don't come into it. Starbucks and the like are the burglars. The third
world's farmers are the burgled. And the trademarks that are being denied in
the case mentioned would serve as burglar bars if they were allowed.
Baba
Gordon H
I don't personally know any burglars, so I bow to your experience.
--
Gordon H
(Remove invalid to email)
Gordon H
Ha ha ha! I must read more carefully! They are *defiantly*
burglars?
"Look 'ere mate, I'm a burglar, and I don't care wot you fink, see"?
Baba Mung
"Gordon H" <Gor...@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:Hr5Rk8Pp...@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid...
LOL! Does it follow that Tories prefer a less forthright style of thieving?
Banking perhaps.
Baba
Bobbie
you part it.....bound to make a difference....
Bobbie....;-)
Normandy
>
> LOL! Does it follow that Tories prefer a less forthright style of
> thieving? Banking perhaps.
>
> Baba
Your recommending that people buy reproduction painting from China steals
from the copywriter owners. The Indian drug industry steals from the drug
developers.
Want more third world theft examples?
Gordon H
Bobbie
I was speaking metaphorically of course......even though in this
instance he really did change sides....The man is as big a prat as
Blair. Although somehow I don't see him in a sketch with Catherine Tate.
That was something else. The whole evening was fantastic. I laughed so
much.
It is such a gut wrenching occasion though, some of the visits made were
just so terrible to imagine. let alone see. All those poor people with
nothing... Breaks my heart I can tell you. but somehow the comedy,
instead of being out of place seems to make it that much more
pitiable...I hope they make tons and tons of money......
Bobbie...
Baba Mung
>
>>
>> LOL! Does it follow that Tories prefer a less forthright style of
>> thieving? Banking perhaps.
>>
>> Baba
>
> Your recommending that people buy reproduction painting from China steals
> from the copywriter owners.
I recommended no such thing, bit now that you mention it..certainly seems a
good idea with respect to works the trading of which can make no difference
to long deceased originators.
Baba
Baba Mung
The way I see it Indian pharmaceutical enterprises offer the less well- off
of the world a way of combatting deadly diseases such as HIV/Aids denied
them by their first world counterparts. In some circumstances doing the job
has to be more important than reaping a profit from doing so.
Baba
Geno2341
first place?
"Normandy" <aab...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:45fbcad1$0$5069$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
Normandy
So you agree with theft of patens and intellectual property.
Sinclair
>
>
Normandy
There are two ways to buy a painting one with copywriter and one without.
Under your reasoning since the man who built the house you live is dead
anyone has a right to move in.
Sinclair
Baba Mung
I disagree with profiteering at the expense of the sick and the poor. So
long as pharmaceutical corporations make huge profits out of drugs which can
be produced and sold much more cheaply than they claim, then I am quite
happy to see the drugs being copied and retailed at more affordable prices
to those who need them.
Patenting is nowadays itself being used as a means of expropriating peoples
of their resources as surely as was gunboat, sword, and cannon in earlier
times. In saying this I have in mind particularly the case of traditional
medicinal plants and the so-called TRIPS agreements. As you will know, the
TRIPS agreements being touted around the world by first world governments
enable individual or corporate interests to claim 'ownership' traditional
medicinal plants and seeds and the long-held indigenous knowledge of native
peoples on such matters as the use of vegetable derivatives in health and
agriculture.
In 1995, the US patent examiners granted a patent on the wound-healing
properties of turmeric. Two Indian nationals living in the US appealed the
granting and in an historical ruling the patent was revoked because of
irrefutable evidence that turmeric had been used as a healing agent for
centuries in India. Nonetheless by 2005 there were over 35,000 patents on
medicines derived from plants originating in the Indian sub-continent.
In my view the claims of any single person or group to invention or
discovery or ownership of medicinal plants, seeds, or other life forms
should not be entertained in the same way as are claims to mechanical
invention.
As for reproductions of art works, I see no fault in copies of original
works of art being made and sold so long as they are not deliberately passed
off as the original work itself. Invest in original works of art if you
will. Why prevent others from sharing in appreciation of the merits of such
art works so far as they can be copied and sold at an affordable price?
Baba
Normandy
Truly screw up socialist views. I have invest heavily in art for my children
and if someone has copies of that art they have stolen the right from my
children and the patrimony I have worked for. The copyrights on the
painting belong to my son and daughter it is outright piracy to deny them
what I have given them. Under the law you could be prosecuted for copyright
infringement. Next you will tell us that you can also steal other
intellectual property if you cannot afford the original. It is a crime.
Theft of intellectual property in the Us alone exceeds $30 Billion a year.
The biggest selling Indian knock off drug is Viagra really need to help the
poor of this world.
I am amazed that you so approve of theft and try to justify criminal acts.
Do you own any knock offs?
Sinclair
Gordon H
>
>"Normandy" <aab...@wanadoo.fr> wrote
My close friend's son-in-law is a drug-pusher (as he sardonically refers
to himself), who works as a rep for a very large and powerful
pharmaceutical company.
The extravagance of the company is something I find hard to stomach, he
has become temperamental and demanding about the car he is provided
with, and chose a large Mercedes last time.
He has an inflated salary, judging by his life style, their holiday last
year was a three week safari tour in Namibia. The company also have
all kinds of perqs for the sales staff, weekend 'bonding exercises' and
the like.
It is a very immoral industry, which rips off the health services and
profits from the sick.
The justification they give for expensive drugs is the D & R costs, but
the end products they produce still have some very unpleasant side
effects.
Baba Mung
"Gordon H" <Gor...@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
Yes, I think we are at one in our view of such things.
I'd like to see a much greater direct participation of the state in
pharmaceutical research, development, and use. Private enterprise captalism
has never been able to meet the needs of the great majority of people and
never will do so. Under the Tories we were constantly being asked to
believe that private enterprise was efficient and publicly-owned enterprise
wasteful. But the waste, not least of human life, that follows in some
fields from putting profits before people (for that is what large-scale
private enterprise almost always necessarily does) should not be
countenanced .
Baba
Normandy
You would like to see the State in everything. Why have capitalist nation
advanced so much further the socialists ones?
Why does private enterprise produce the goods and services that people want?
Sinclair
>
>
Gordon H
>
>Truly screw up socialist views. I have invest heavily in art for my children
>and if someone has copies of that art they have stolen the right from my
>children and the patrimony I have worked for. The copyrights on the
>painting belong to my son and daughter it is outright piracy to deny them
>what I have given them. Under the law you could be prosecuted for copyright
>infringement. Next you will tell us that you can also steal other
>intellectual property if you cannot afford the original. It is a crime.
>
works of art rather than their intellectual value.
Do you choose them for their artistic merit or for their potential for
capital gain? Do you buy the work of emergent artists or that of
conventional establishment portrait painters?
Come on, tell us what they are, there are people here with the ability
to appreciate art, as has been demonstrated.
Please don't treat us all as though we are philistines!
I have a modest collection of prints but I bought them because I liked
them, and guess what, they are worth more than when I bought them!
If you want friendly discussion, let's discuss the paintings we enjoy.
I have a few of Sir William Russell Flint, no great intellectual
content, but I think his "Plymouth Dockyard" is an excellent piece of
work.
DittyDu...@webtv.net
I think of women; how they are paid less than men for the same work; but
they have no recourse, no way to find out what they don't know, and no
one to be an advocate or a mentor, for the most part.
They are just taken for granted as worth less;, and because of that,
they are less employable, so they accept less. They are just glad to
have a job at all.
Seems like the ones who do succeed to an upper level do not extend a
helping hand to the ones left behind, either.
Women will not vote as a bloc. But if they would, they could make a big
impact on society. A woman such as Carey Nation hacked her way in. She
couldn't do it in this day and age. Of course her message was clear.
A woman in this day and age who has a message that is clear needs to try
to define it. Too much, today is done with smoke and mirrors.
Or is it that the public can't read and understand? Or is it that no
one can agree with anyone else? Not likely that many would go for a
woman leader , even over a male puppet figurehead. Not a statesman
showing yet.
In the meantime, the men will argue over what IS a fair day's wage for a
fair day's work?.
Ho hum
Baba Mung
*I'd like to see much more public ownership of resources and infrastructure
and a surer focus on the public good in general than presently obtains. That
is what I would like to see.
>Why have capitalist nation advanced so much further the socialists ones?
*I don't believe they have. Industrially developed societies which have
managed to attain to, and retain, a significant degree of public ownership
and control in key areas like health, energy, transport, and education are
better off for it. Your distinction between "capitalist nation" and
"socialists" is unhelpfully simplistic.
> Why does private enterprise produce the goods and services that people
> want?
>
*It may produce goods and services that some people want and can afford to
pay for; but it has shown itself incapable of providing the goods and
services really needed by the growing number of people who cannot afford to
pay for them.
> Sinclair
Normandy
Would you like me to sing the International now?
Arise ye workers from your slumbers
Arise ye prisoners of want
For reason in revolt now thunders
And at last ends the age of cant.
Away with all your superstitions
Servile masses arise, arise
We'll change henceforth the old tradition
And spurn the dust to win the prize.
Refrain:
So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites the human race.
Sick is it not?
"The government that governs least governs best" attributed to John Adams,
Thomas Jefferson, or Thomas Paine.
Let us hear the excuses for the failure of your wonderful USSR. A nation
that collapsed from within
Sinclair
>
>
>
>
Gordon H
replied in detail, I wouldn't have time for anyone else's!
And I don't care what Elsie thinks...