The A World Beyond Capitalism 2005, An Annual International Multiracial Alliance Building Peace Conference Is Accepting Proposals, everyone...
Jenta
Multiracial Alliance Building Peace Conference Is Accepting Proposals...
..and Online Registration is now available if you plan to table and
participate in
the International Grassroots Exhibition:
http://www.lfhniivaaaa.info/awbcgrassrootsofpeace
The Mission Statement:
A World Beyond Capitalism (AWBC) 2005 invites activists to come to
Portland, Oregon in August 2005 and engage in a weekend of educational
discussion and visionary dialogue.
We believe in the need to reflect and imagine the future of the world
beyond capitalism. We will emphasize the need for multi-lingual, long-term
strategy through open dialogue and bridging political theory with
practice.
By building on the increasing number of conferences worldwide in which
people from diverse backgrounds, races and cultures discuss subjects
regarding world peace, we hope to build solidarity among diverse
organizing communities.
Over 1000 participants from Canada, Kenya, Mexico, Ghana, Germany, the
U.S. and
all over the world will come together in harmony in Portland, Oregon in
August 2005 to share ideas regarding new visions, changing the world, the
cooperative movement, intentional communities and much, much more. Come
and be a part of this tremendous occasion. Activist, Punks, Minority and
Marginalized
Communities from Alternative medicine healers and activists, Intentional
communities, Permaculture Homes, co-ops, independent publishing
communities, progressive activist groups and other equality seeking groups
are invited to volunteer, table, or just fellowship, network and learn
with every one from all over the world. There will also be a performance
of live, multicultural musicians and a theatrical debut prior to the
conference. August 26-28, 2005, Portland State University,
Portland, Oregon. Not only is this a conference, but it is a
multi-lingual, multi-racial alliance building experience. This conference
will create alliances in a manner which transcends the boundaries of the
English Language, Race, Class, Gender, Age, Ability, Sexual Orientation
and Endless Theory.
In addition, The Grassroots Exhibition enables non-government and
non-corporate people and groups of many different types the chance to come
together in solidarity. The Grassroots Exhibition gives everyone the
opportunity to share information and items with people outside of their
usual circle of friends, yet still amongst those who desire to see a world
that is beyond forced corporate dependence and capitalism. Below are a few
of the different groups that you can look forward to seeing at the
Grassroots Exhibition:
(Listed in Alphabetical order)
Activist groups
Alternative media, small press and zine writers and creators
Alternative medicine activists and practictioners
All underrepresented, marginalized and minority groups
Co-ops and members of co-ops
Cohousing Groups
Collectives and members of collectives
Do-it-yourself (DIY) and independent musicians
FreeSkool, (Free School) free education supporters and groups
Independent creators and artisans of handmade art and items
Independent distributors
Independent film, documentary and theatre creators, dancers and
supporters
Independent music and independent non-music audio items
Independent press librarians, zine librarians and activist librarians
Indigenous and Native tribes
Intentional communities and non-corporate, community and family owned farm
groups and farm workers
Mail-Art and international mail networks
Non-corporate, low power FM radio station creators and operators
Non-pharmaceutical, homeopathic, holistic and energywork groups
Online information and online discussion group creators and operators
Opensource Technology Activist or user
Punk Music and Art
Rainbow Gathering groups Selfschool and
homeschool supporters, teachers and students
Translation and handicapable access related services And many more groups
which are related to these groups.
Online Registration is now available if you plan to participate in the
International Grassroots Exhibition:
http://www.lfhniivaaaa.info/aw苑cgrassrootsofpeace
Location:
Portland State University Smith Ballroom Portland, Oregon 97208
Portland OR
Contact:
AWBC International Multiracial Alliance Building Peace Conference
Organizers. We are accepting proposals until August 10th, 2005 and we
greatly encourage people of all races, social classes and educational
backgrounds to submit a proposal. You may present workshops in your
native language as we will have translators. Volunteers needed
continuously.
Thank You,
Love And Solidarity Worldwide,
Volunteers for the AWBC 2005
http://www.CommonUnityPeaceCon苯erence.org
or
http://www.awbc.lfhniivaaaa.in苯o
Thanks all.
Jim Spriggs
>
> Greetings. A World Beyond Capitalism 2005,
Given the intimate ties between capitalism and the military, some of us
[*] think that the only way capitalism will be ended (if at all) is by
war being waged against it. Those of us who are either pacifists or who
think that such a war cannot be won are troubled by this. You?
[* One at least.]
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
Me?[1] I think that it's silly to claim that there are "intimate ties"
between capitalism and the military. There have been plenty of
non-capitalist nations which have been agressively militaristic - the
Soviet Union springs to mind as the most obvious example.
[1] The question addresses all readers of the group.
Mark
--
http://www.GoogleFun.info - fun and games with Google!
"Work came and made us free"
Gordon Hudson
news:42BA15F3...@ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid...
Whats wrong with capitalism?
What do you mean by capitalism?
(I find a lot of people ho are anti big business and describe themselves as
anti capitalist but they are not against small and medium sized business,
which is nonsensical if they are truly anti capitalist).
J Barry Galbraith
news:42ba777b$0$38044$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
><snip>
>What do you mean by capitalism?
>
>(I find a lot of people ho are anti big business and describe themselves
as
>anti capitalist but they are not against small and medium sized business,
>which is nonsensical if they are truly anti capitalist).
<snip>
Good point. There is a huge difference between being anti globalisation and
anti-capitalist.
Jim Spriggs
>
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:53:12 +0000 (UTC), Jim Spriggs put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>
> Me?[1] ...
>
> [1] The question addresses all readers of the group.
My intention was to address the op (from whom we may never hear again)
but it's always nice to hear from anybody and _especially_ nice to hear
from you.
Jim Spriggs
>
> "Jim Spriggs" <jim.s...@ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:42BA15F3...@ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid...
> > Jenta wrote:
> >>
> >> Greetings. A World Beyond Capitalism 2005,
> >
> > Given the intimate ties between capitalism and the military, some of us
> > [*] think that the only way capitalism will be ended (if at all) is by
> > war being waged against it. Those of us who are either pacifists or who
> > think that such a war cannot be won are troubled by this. You?
> >
> > [* One at least.]
>
> Whats wrong with capitalism?
It is the chief means by which the rich get richer at the expense of the
poor getting poorer.
> What do you mean by capitalism?
This is an extract from a dictionary definition:
"... the dominance of private owners of capital and of production for
profit."
Jim Spriggs
>
> .... There have been plenty of
> non-capitalist nations which have been agressively militaristic - the
> Soviet Union springs to mind as the most obvious example.
The Soviet Union was never as aggressive as the United States of
America. And had it wanted so to be, it couldn't have afforded it.
kevin donnelly
Spriggs <jim.s...@ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid> writes
"Interest is the mechanism by means of which wealth is transferred from
the poor who must borrow to the rich who have money to lend" (Prof.
Khurshid Ahmad aka Mr Islamic Economics). viz. also Ansar Finance, a
Manchester-based group of mostly young and mostly Muslim people
committed to interest-free loans. Usury/riba came to be prohibited
because it was socially destructive.
Capitalism loves the military because it involves social and
physical destruction. Weapons are expensive, and either are used or
become obsolete thus needing to be replaced. Check out the UK Trident
programme, hideously expensive and totally useless, and especially so in
the so-called war on terror. Nevertheless the arms industry is
extremely profitable, so that's OK. Is it?
KD
--
Kevin Donnelly
Wythenshawe Prompt Organiser
http://copsewood.net/mailman/listinfo/prompt
Website www.kevdon.demon.co.uk
Gordon Hudson
news:e1KmQaFG...@kevdon.demon.co.uk...
The person who owns your local corenr shop is capitalist.
Do you want him out of business as well?
If you are against capitalism you are against all free enterprise,
including Joseph of Nazareth's work as as a carpenter....
Jim Spriggs
> > In message <42BAE181...@ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid>, Jim
> > Spriggs <jim.s...@ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid> writes
> >>
> >>"... the dominance of private owners of capital and of production for
> >>profit."
>
> The person who owns your local corenr shop is a capitalist.
> Do you want him out of business as well?
If the word "dominance" is significant in the bit that I quoted, then
the person who owns your local corner shop isn't a capitalist.
Gordon Hudson
What happens if peple like his shop and he opens a second one?
Surely thats how all multiu national companies have started.
Look at M&S or Dixons or McDonalds.....
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>Gordon Hudson wrote:
If "dominance" is part of your definition of capitalism, then it isn't
the one that most capitalists would use.
Mark
--
http://www.GoogleFun.info - fun and games with Google!
"Lose yourself in the music, the moment, you own it, you better
never let it go"
Jim Spriggs
>
> If "dominance" is part of your definition of capitalism, then it isn't
> the one that most capitalists would use.
One wouldn't expect people to agree with a definition of themselves that
had a negative connotation.
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
No, but it's reasonable to try and agree on a definition before
discusing something. After all, I'm sure you'd object to a definition
of socialism which included "class envy".
Mark
--
http://www.FridayFun.net - jokes, lyrics and ringtones!
"I'm gonna be there tomorrow"
Quasin
> Jim Spriggs put finger to keyboard and typed:
>
>
>>Gordon Hudson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Jim Spriggs writes
>>
>>>>>"... the dominance of private owners of capital and of production for
>>>>>profit."
>>
>>>The person who owns your local corenr shop is a capitalist.
>>>Do you want him out of business as well?
>>
>>If the word "dominance" is significant in the bit that I quoted, then
>>the person who owns your local corner shop isn't a capitalist.
>
>
> If "dominance" is part of your definition of capitalism, then it isn't
> the one that most capitalists would use.
>
But isn't dominance, historically, a recurring problem if capitalism
is allowed without some controls?
Some business owners are glad to stay small, but others want a
monopoly position, too often at "any cost" including abusing laws,
employees, and governments.
Then follows the raising of prices when monopoly is reached (lowering
of wages if it is a hiring monopoly), and efforts to prevent
competitors from getting into the same business.
The desire for dominance is a human characteristic, not specific to
capitalism only. But it has to be recognized when discussing
capitalism (or any other system) or we won't be talking about reality.
Quasin
kevin donnelly
<gor...@usenet2.hostroute.co.uk> writes
Wow: mere assertion, followed by rhetoric then a non sequitur.
Let's see. I characterise capitalism as a monster, insatiable at one
end, and incontinent at the other. Dog eats dog, until the last dog
dies because there are no more dogs to eat. After my 44 years of paid
employment, all the companies I ever worked for no longer exist, even
the buildings have gone.
Of our block of 11 council-owned shops, only three are
privately-owned businesses; the chip shop, the chemist and the hardware
shop - all the others are chains. The butcher, long empty, closed not
long after Tesco opened not far away. We used to have a post office,
but not any more, though we do have a brand new betting shop and a
well-patronised St Vincent de Paul charity shop, which replaced the
bakery/confectioners.
The one-time FE college is now a housing estate of an intended 350
units, the high school playing field is now half what it was but we have
Matalan, JJB and Wickes. The access roads remain as they were, but
gridlock is frequent. The splendid Wythenshawe hospital, a mile from my
home, is being privatised bit by bit, via PFI/PPP. Anyone needing
emergency treatment at rush hour will need an air ambulance. The
delayed and now approved Metro tramway is due to share some of the road
space. Wythenshawe park was saved from development by stern local
resistance once senior citizens remembered the Simon bequest and forced
the council into granting access to the covenant. Eddie Shah (remember
him?) wanted to turn the park into a golf course, secret plans to build
a huge basketball centre in the middle of Fir Coppice, rumoured then
denied, came to light when a neighbour was invited to tender for part of
the work. There was even a plan to sell the council-owned freeholds to
raise cash for the city without the freeholders knowing about it. That
was confirmed for me when I rang the town hall about my own freehold and
an unwary employee admitted the story. That was before I gained access
to the internet and learned much more about capitalism's global assault
on democracy.
It is an anachronism to present Joseph of Nazareth as a
capitalist. It is not clear if he was still alive when Jesus preached
the Nazareth sermon of Luke 4, but some at least of his hearers would
know of the Essenes and their Jubilee document now called 11Q
Melchizedek 3 11, with its references to prophecies like Isaiah 61, and
words for freedom/release like the Greek 'aphesis' and the Hebrew
'deror'. The celebrated Liberty Bell has some of these words of hope
engraved on it, which is an indicator of the nature of the struggle.
When the Epistle of James asks its own rhetorical question, Is
it not the rich who oppress you? My answer is, not 'arf they do!
(Expletives deleted).
Jim Spriggs
>
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:48:44 +0000 (UTC), Jim Spriggs put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
> >Mark Goodge wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> If "dominance" is part of your definition of capitalism, then it isn't
> >> the one that most capitalists would use.
> >
> >One wouldn't expect people to agree with a definition of themselves that
> >had a negative connotation.
>
> No, but it's reasonable to try and agree on a definition before
> discusing something. After all, I'm sure you'd object to a definition
> of socialism which included "class envy".
I've known socialists who were envious of class, maybe some of them were
motivated to be socialists by that envy.
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
Indeed. But that's not the same as saying that socialism is about
class envy by definition. There may well be people who are socialists
because they genuinely want the best for everyone and are convinced
that socialism will achieve this
I've known capitalists who wanted to dominate their world. They may
well have been motivated to choose capitalism as a useful tool for
their desires. But that doesn't mean that capitalism is about
dominance by definition. Many people are capitalists because they are
convinced that capitalism is inherently the fairest system.
Mark
--
http://www.OrangeHedgehog.com - RSS feeds and Google Adsense tools
"The sky was made for us tonight"
Paul Dean
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> I've known capitalists who wanted to dominate their world. They may
> well have been motivated to choose capitalism as a useful tool for
> their desires. But that doesn't mean that capitalism is about
> dominance by definition. Many people are capitalists because they are
> convinced that capitalism is inherently the fairest system.
Capitalism originally meant the use of capital to succeed, rather than
"free enterprise" is it means today. Those without capital, in
capitalism, would not succeed i.e. capital is the dominant factor when
determining who makes money in a capitalist system. These days with easy
credit, everyone with a good credit rating can have capital if they want,
so perhaps we should talk about creditism instead of capitalism.
William
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>Indeed. But that's not the same as saying that socialism is about
>class envy by definition. There may well be people who are socialists
>because they genuinely want the best for everyone and are convinced
>that socialism will achieve this
>
>I've known capitalists who wanted to dominate their world. They may
>well have been motivated to choose capitalism as a useful tool for
>their desires. But that doesn't mean that capitalism is about
>dominance by definition. Many people are capitalists because they are
>convinced that capitalism is inherently the fairest system.
And many would say that it recognises the nature of man as described
in the bible and, with the appropriate checks and balances, is the
best system to deal with it.
William
kevin donnelly
<ke...@kevdon.demon.co.uk> writes
'freehold' and 'freeholds' when I should have written 'leasehold' and
'leaseholds'. Sorry about that, but the betting shop is thriving, and
in my local newsagents yesterday, a hopeful customer bought a fistful of
scratch cards. At one time the existence of large-scale gambling was
seen by church leaders as a public denial of the Christian doctrine of
the Providence of God: has that gone too?
Jenta
Yes, I can understand your feelings.
On our conference update list, a news article was recently posted about
the fact that Microsoft's Blogging Software Now Censors The Words
"democracy," "capitalism," "liberty" or "human rights."
You can read that below:
http://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/3c-aworldbeyondcapitalism/2005-06/msg00002.html
Even if you are not interested in the conference, do you really want a
world where multinational corporations censor even your most basic words?
No matter who you are, thank you for working for a better world, and for
understanding that we must work together to create a better world,
Love And Solidarity Worldwide,
Jenta,
Volunteer for the AWBC 2005
Gareth McCaughan
> On our conference update list, a news article was recently posted about
> the fact that Microsoft's Blogging Software Now Censors The Words
> "democracy," "capitalism," "liberty" or "human rights."
That's a half-truth at best.
Microsoft's service *in China* prohibits those terms *in Chinese*,
a condition presumably imposed on them by the Chinese government
in exchange for not having the service completely blocked by the
"Great Firewall of China".
It's odious; they clearly (I think) shouldn't have done it; it's
cooperating with a disgracefully oppressive regime. But it's *not*
honest to say simply "Microsoft's blogging software censors these
words", because anyone reading that who doesn't already know the
story will take it to mean that *anyone* using MS's software will
be unable to use those words, which is simply not true.
> Even if you are not interested in the conference, do you really want a
> world where multinational corporations censor even your most basic words?
Again, this is a highly tendentious way of describing what MS
have done. They will not censor "your" words unless your government
is already doing so. Again, that doesn't make it right, but the
point is that you are trying to make this an argument against
those Big Bad Multinational Corporations, whereas in fact the
impetus came from, and I think the bulk of the blame rests on,
a Big Bad National Government.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Jim Spriggs
>
> .... These days with easy
> credit, everyone with a good credit rating can have capital if they want,
> so perhaps we should talk about creditism instead of capitalism.
Credit is the bane of poor people. Credit, that is, in the way it is
usually understood: credit managed by capitalists. There is something
to be said for micro credit.
Jim Spriggs
>
> .... Many people are capitalists because they are
> convinced that capitalism is inherently the fairest system.
Then they need to explain why capitalism helps a few to get rich at the
expense of many getting poor.
Jim Spriggs
>
> ... it recognises the nature of man ...
The problem is, not to recognize the nature of man, but to change it.
Robert Marshall
> "Jenta" wrote:
>
>> On our conference update list, a news article was recently posted
>> about the fact that Microsoft's Blogging Software Now Censors The
>> Words "democracy," "capitalism," "liberty" or "human rights."
>
> That's a half-truth at best.
>
> Microsoft's service *in China* prohibits those terms *in Chinese*,
> a condition presumably imposed on them by the Chinese government
> in exchange for not having the service completely blocked by the
> "Great Firewall of China".
And - as far as I remember it - they only censor those words in the
titles of weblog entries - it's ok for them to appear in the body of
the text.
Robert
--
He is our homeliest home and endless dwelling - Julian of Norwich
Jim Spriggs
> point is that you are trying to make this an argument against
> those Big Bad Multinational Corporations, whereas in fact the
> impetus came from, and I think the bulk of the blame rests on,
> a Big Bad National Government.
The BBMCs shouldn't cooperate so willingly with the BBNGs. (And vice
versa.)
Tony Gillam
> Bog-eyed on Saturday morning, and re-reading this, I see I
> wrote 'freehold' and 'freeholds' when I should have written
> 'leasehold' and 'leaseholds'. Sorry about that, but the betting shop
> is thriving, and in my local newsagents yesterday, a hopeful customer
> bought a fistful of scratch cards. At one time the existence of
> large-scale gambling was seen by church leaders as a public denial of
> the Christian doctrine of the Providence of God: has that gone too?
>
society's materialist world-view. Notwithsatnding the observation in today's
Times that celebs generally pass on the gem that money buys neither
happiness nor contentment.
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.bookourvilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria
Nick Milton
<tony....@NOSPAMineone.net> wrote:
>celebs generally pass on the gem that money buys neither
>happiness nor contentment.
Indeed, but it does make misery and discontentment easier to live with
Quasin
How do you propose to do that? Other than by encounters with God,
which it seems cannot be forced.
Jim Spriggs
My remark was an allusion to this:
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways;
the point is to change it."
Marx, Theses on Feuerbach.
Anyway, the nature of man has been changed quite a lot by man: consider
the growth of cities, medicine, agriculture, etc, etc.
Jim Spriggs
>
> ...
> Times that celebs generally pass on the gem that money buys neither
> happiness nor contentment.
That money doesn't buy happiness, contentment and a whole lot of other
things is not an obscure truth that only celebrities know. It can, on
the other hand, buy shelter, food, health care, education and a whole
lot of other things, so don't knock it.
Gordon Hudson
Following your advice I have decided to close my business and make all staff
redundant on Monday
thus taking the moral high ground.
Gordon Hudson
news:la0rb1h3297v989dm...@4ax.com...
I have won he lottery twice, and i have only ever bought two tickets many
years apart.
£10 each time mind you....
Gareth McCaughan
Ah, Mr Marx, how nice to have you with us.
Gareth McCaughan
I agree. (And said so.)
Simon Robinson
>>Times that celebs generally pass on the gem that money buys neither
>>happiness nor contentment.
Jim Spriggs wrote:
> That money doesn't buy happiness, contentment and a whole lot of other
> things is not an obscure truth that only celebrities know. It can, on
> the other hand, buy shelter, food, health care, education and a whole
> lot of other things, so don't knock it.
Yep, and most obviously, for many people, it can buy material security -
the knowledge that you can get through the next week or month without
worrying about basic needs (to some extent Jim's point). To that extent,
and provided you don't make the mistake of adjusting your perception of
your needs to match your income (a very common mistake), a certain level
of money can remove one very important source of unhappiness.
Tony Gillam
Don't worry. I'll not be refusing any largesse that comes my way. ;-)
Mark Goodge
typed:
>Jim,
>
>Yes, I can understand your feelings.
>
>On our conference update list, a news article was recently posted about
>the fact that Microsoft's Blogging Software Now Censors The Words
>"democracy," "capitalism," "liberty" or "human rights."
>
>You can read that below:
>
>http://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/3c-aworldbeyondcapitalism/2005-06/msg00002.html
As Gareth has alrady pointed out, that's a half-truth at best. And, of
course, the censoring is being done at the behest of an
anti-capitalist government. It isn't capitalists who want the
censorship, it's the anti-capitalists. All that the capitalists
(represented by Microsoft, in this case) are doing is bowing to the
power of repressive anti-capitalist government.
>Even if you are not interested in the conference, do you really want a
>world where multinational corporations censor even your most basic words?
I don't want a world where multinational corporations give in to
anti-capitalist censorship, no. I want to see people free to proclaim
capitalist sentiments without fear of government repression.
Mark
--
http://www.OrangeHedgehog.com - RSS feeds and Google Adsense tools
"There's just too much that time cannot erase"
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
I can't explain that, because that's not what capitalism does.
Mark
--
http://www.GoogleFun.info - fun and games with Google!
"I need someone to hide under, should the sky fall on my car"
William
It helps to start from a correct analysis, which socialism [Marxism]
seems to have failed at. And as far as I know Christianity teaches
that the nature of man can be changed only by regeneration through
Christ and not through political or economical processes. In the
absence of Christianity achieving this regeneration in society,
however, we have to be pragmatic until it does and find the best means
available that accommodates man's nature
William
William
Then why, over the years, are the poor in capitalist countries
generally better off than the poor in socialist countries?
William
Gareth McCaughan
> As Gareth has alrady pointed out, that's a half-truth at best. And, of
> course, the censoring is being done at the behest of an
> anti-capitalist government.
It's not clear that the Chinese government is really
anti-capitalist, whatever its rhetoric may say.
> It isn't capitalists who want the
> censorship, it's the anti-capitalists. All that the capitalists
> (represented by Microsoft, in this case) are doing is bowing to the
> power of repressive anti-capitalist government.
It could be argued -- though I don't think I'd readily
be convinced -- that what MS is doing is best characterized
as acting in whatever way will make the most money, even
if that means cooperating with odious governments, and that
that's a characteristically capitalist mode of behaviour.
Gareth McCaughan
> Yep, and most obviously, for many people, it can buy material security -
> the knowledge that you can get through the next week or month without
> worrying about basic needs (to some extent Jim's point). To that
> extent, and provided you don't make the mistake of adjusting your
> perception of your needs to match your income (a very common mistake),
> a certain level of money can remove one very important source of
> unhappiness.
I'm not sure it's correct to call that a *mistake*. It seems
to be quite fundamental to how our brains work, and not doing it
may be almost as hard as not adjusting your perception of the
colour of a piece of fabric to match the ambient lighting.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> As Gareth has alrady pointed out, that's a half-truth at best. And, of
>> course, the censoring is being done at the behest of an
>> anti-capitalist government.
>
>It's not clear that the Chinese government is really
>anti-capitalist, whatever its rhetoric may say.
I'd say that China's problem, in this context, is that it knows that
capitalism works, and wants to make use of that, but doesn't want to
admit it - or to have other people pointing it out.
>> It isn't capitalists who want the
>> censorship, it's the anti-capitalists. All that the capitalists
>> (represented by Microsoft, in this case) are doing is bowing to the
>> power of repressive anti-capitalist government.
>
>It could be argued -- though I don't think I'd readily
>be convinced -- that what MS is doing is best characterized
>as acting in whatever way will make the most money, even
>if that means cooperating with odious governments, and that
>that's a characteristically capitalist mode of behaviour.
It could more easily be argued that it's a characteristically
Microsoft mode of behaviour :-)
Mark
--
http://www.FridayFun.net - jokes, lyrics and ringtones!
"Wouldn't you love somebody to love?"
Nick Milton
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Jim Spriggs wrote:
>
>> William wrote:
>>>
>>> ... it recognises the nature of man ...
>>
>> The problem is, not to recognize the nature of man, but to change it.
>
>Ah, Mr Marx, how nice to have you with us.
And how are your brothers?
kevin donnelly
It was not my advice that you should close your business, but it
is my view that the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof, and
that our claims to ownership of property should be exercised under his
sovereignty.
I have few problems with individual traders and small
partnerships. Larger enterprises should be co-operative in structure;
all should work for the common good. Crime is the oldest form of
private enterprise, and Cain (builder of cities) its first
manifestation. His murder of his brother Abel fits well with his denial
of any responsibility for his brother's welfare. That's capitalism for
you. My father, a joiner, told me that there aren't any good gaffers,
though some are better than others.
KD
--
Kevin Donnelly
Wythenshawe Prompt Organiser
http://copsewood.net/mailman/listinfo/prompt
Website www.kevdon.demon.co.uk
Paul Dean
<jim.s...@ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid> wrote:
I agree.
William
<ke...@kevdon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Gordon Hudsonwrites
>
>>Following your advice I have decided to close my business and
>>make all staff redundant on Monday thus taking the moral high
>>ground.
>
>It was not my advice that you should close your business, but it
>is my view that the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof, and
>that our claims to ownership of property should be exercised under his
>sovereignty. I have few problems with individual traders and small
>partnerships. Larger enterprises should be co-operative in structure;
>all should work for the common good.
So keeping all the profits for yourselves is more for the common good
that letting the rest of the world have a share in them?
>Crime is the oldest form of private enterprise,
It's also the oldest form of co-operative enterprise.
>and Cain (builder of cities) its first manifestation.
He was a farmer. And he built a few houses for his family.
>His murder of his brother Abel fits well with his denial
>of any responsibility for his brother's welfare.
Farmers are like that. Just listen to the Archers.
>That's capitalism for you.
How much capital did he have?
>My father, a joiner, told me that there aren't any good gaffers,
>though some are better than others.
Perhaps there is something about joiners that they tend to make
sweeping generalizations.
William
Quasin
> Jim Spriggs wrote:
>
>> Paul Dean wrote:
>>
>>> ... These days with easy
>>> credit, everyone with a good credit rating can have capital if they
>>> want, so perhaps we should talk about creditism instead of capitalism.
>>
>> Credit is the bane of poor people. Credit, that is, in the way it is
>> usually understood: credit managed by capitalists. There is something
>> to be said for micro credit.
>
> I agree.
>
(In USA, anyway) if you don't have and use credit cards regularly, you
have "bad credit rating" which causes your house and car insurance
rates to increase significantly, may prevent you from getting a
mortgage if you want to move or refinance, and may prevent you being
hired for a job - even one that has nothing to do with handling money.
Creditism indeed. To opt out of using credit means being penalized in
every way the economic system can get to you.
Quasin
kevin donnelly
<tie...@mail.clara.fl.com> writes
>On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:29:16 +0100, kevin donnelly
><ke...@kevdon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Gordon Hudsonwrites
>>
>>>Following your advice I have decided to close my business and
>>>make all staff redundant on Monday thus taking the moral high
>>>ground.
>>
>>It was not my advice that you should close your business, but it
>>is my view that the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof, and
>>that our claims to ownership of property should be exercised under his
>>sovereignty. I have few problems with individual traders and small
>>partnerships. Larger enterprises should be co-operative in structure;
>>all should work for the common good.
>
>So keeping all the profits for yourselves is more for the common good
>that letting the rest of the world have a share in them?
co-operative society suggests imagination and compassion.
>
>>Crime is the oldest form of private enterprise,
>
>It's also the oldest form of co-operative enterprise.
>
>>and Cain (builder of cities) its first manifestation.
>
>He was a farmer. And he built a few houses for his family.
>
>>His murder of his brother Abel fits well with his denial
>>of any responsibility for his brother's welfare.
>
>Farmers are like that. Just listen to the Archers.
>
>>That's capitalism for you.
>
>How much capital did he have?
cold-eyed assertion of private rights (Tawney) which is exactly what
Cain did.
>
>>My father, a joiner, told me that there aren't any good gaffers,
>>though some are better than others.
>
>Perhaps there is something about joiners that they tend to make
>sweeping generalizations.
worked, but was never able afford to build one for himself and his
family. Hence his remark about gaffers, a sweeping generalisation which
I share, based on experience like his. To repeat, capitalism is about
the cold-eyed assertion of private rights, according to R.H. Tawney.
His book, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism is still worth reading.
Socialism as "Zeal to pursue the common good..." is worth reading too,
for those six words are the opening of the 1611 Bible Translators'
Preface to the reader.
KD
>
>William
Jim Spriggs
>
> Perhaps there is something about joiners that they tend to make
> sweeping generalizations.
_All_ joiners do it.
--
I don't know who you are Sir, or where you come from,
but you've done me a power of good.
Kendall K. Down
Quasin <liz_b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (In USA, anyway) if you don't have and use credit cards regularly, you
> have "bad credit rating" which causes your house and car insurance
> rates to increase significantly, may prevent you from getting a
> mortgage if you want to move or refinance, and may prevent you being
> hired for a job - even one that has nothing to do with handling money.
Ridiculous, of course, but I don't see what the problem is. I have half a
dozen credit cards, including one with about 20,000 ukp credit limit
(because of the tours!), but we *always* keep our spending within our
financial capability and pay off the credit card when the bill arrives.
Cards are more convenient than plastic.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premiere archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
Paul Dean
wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:29:16 +0100, kevin donnelly
> <ke...@kevdon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Crime is the oldest form of private enterprise,
>
> It's also the oldest form of co-operative enterprise.
I doubt that. If one group commits a crime against another group it
wouldn't have been considered a crime, so we must restrict ourselves to a
group committing a crime within a larger group. Probably crime originally
would have been contravention of group policies in nomadic tribes. Hence
being a nomadic tribe to protect against outsiders would have been an
older enterprise than group crime. Not that it makes a jot of difference
to the discussion, of course.
In this debate, the capitalists clearly have a propaganda-fueled
definition of capitalism and socialists are missing obvious truths about
human nature. There is surely another way whereby the abuse of capital
can be prevented while not falling into socialist traps.
Paul Dean
I think in the UK that only happens if you've never had one and also don't
have other forms of repayment. But, thinking about it, if credit is bad
for you, is a refusal of credit being penalised? Perhaps it's a blessing,
although an unpalatable one.
Jonathan Wheeler
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:29:16 +0100, kevin donnelly
> <ke...@kevdon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
(much text snipped)
> >My father, a joiner, told me that there aren't any good gaffers,
> >though some are better than others.
>
> Perhaps there is something about joiners that they tend to make
> sweeping generalizations.
Cue the comment about "Carpenter from Nazareth seeks joiners"
--
Jonathan Wheeler
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Quasin
> Quasin wrote:
>
>> (In USA, anyway) if you don't have and use credit cards regularly,
>> you have "bad credit rating" which causes your house and car
>> insurance rates to increase significantly, may prevent you from
>> getting a mortgage if you want to move or refinance, and may prevent
>> you being hired for a job - even one that has nothing to do with
>> handling money.
>>
>> Creditism indeed. To opt out of using credit means being penalized
>> in every way the economic system can get to you.
>
> I think in the UK that only happens if you've never had one and also
> don't have other forms of repayment. But, thinking about it, if credit
> is bad for you, is a refusal of credit being penalised? Perhaps it's a
> blessing, although an unpalatable one.
>
If not having and using credit (common among poor people and elderly
who are proud of always paying cash instead of buying on time) results
in just not having credit, no big deal.
The new issue is using lack of credit to prevent renting or buying a
house or getting a job, and doubling the cost of insurance on the car.
It's new here - last year or so. The practice may not have hopped the
pond yet. Just wait. :)
Quasin
William
<paul_nos...@deancentral.net> wrote:
>William <tie...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote:
>> kevin donnelly <ke...@kevdon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Crime is the oldest form of private enterprise,
>>
>> It's also the oldest form of co-operative enterprise.
>
>I doubt that. If one group commits a crime against another group it
>wouldn't have been considered a crime, so we must restrict ourselves to a
>group committing a crime within a larger group. Probably crime originally
>would have been contravention of group policies in nomadic tribes.
The poster went back a lot further than that. He said Cain was the
first capitalist and his crime was the oldest crime. He was wrong.
Cain's parents commited the oldest crime and they did it as a
co-operative and shared the gains bwtween themselves in true socialist
fashion
>Hence
>being a nomadic tribe to protect against outsiders would have been an
>older enterprise than group crime. Not that it makes a jot of difference
>to the discussion, of course.
>
>In this debate, the capitalists clearly have a propaganda-fueled
>definition of capitalism and socialists are missing obvious truths about
>human nature. There is surely another way whereby the abuse of capital
>can be prevented while not falling into socialist traps.
I've already said that capitalism with the appropriate checks and
balances appears to be the best system to accomodate man's nature.
William
William
<ke...@kevdon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> William<tie...@mail.clara.fl.com> writes
>
>>So keeping all the profits for yourselves is more for the common good
>>that letting the rest of the world have a share in them?
>
>I didn't say or imply that, but to treat the world a one vast
>co-operative society suggests imagination and compassion.
So what do the members of co-operatives do with their profits (ie,
assets/capital surplus to production needs)?
>>>Crime is the oldest form of private enterprise,
>>
>>It's also the oldest form of co-operative enterprise.
>
>Nope - Cain acted alone - at least in my copy of scripture.
But he didn't commit the first crime. His parents did. And they
committed it jointly according to the principles of the co-operative
and shared the proceeds between themselves.
>>>and Cain (builder of cities) its first manifestation.
>>
>>He was a farmer. And he built a few houses for his family.
>>
>>>His murder of his brother Abel fits well with his denial
>>>of any responsibility for his brother's welfare.
>>
>>Farmers are like that. Just listen to the Archers.
>
>Never listen to them - you mean they murder each other?
Grace Archer was killed in order to try and scupper the launch of ITV
>>>That's capitalism for you.
>>
>>How much capital did he have?
>
>You're into anachronisms again. Capitalism's characteristic is the
>cold-eyed assertion of private rights (Tawney) which is exactly what
>Cain did.
And so did his father before him. And so does pretty well everyone on
the planet. It's known as self preservation.
>>>My father, a joiner, told me that there aren't any good gaffers,
>>>though some are better than others.
>>
>>Perhaps there is something about joiners that they tend to make
>>sweeping generalizations.
>
>I could show you many houses in South Manchester on which my father
>worked, but was never able afford to build one for himself and his
>family.
Are you saying that anyone who works on building anything should be
able to afford one for them self? Aeroplanes, ships, railway engines,
bridges?
>Hence his remark about gaffers, a sweeping generalisation which
>I share, based on experience like his.
What is not being able to afford to buy something you had a (small)
part in building got to do with good or bad gaffers?
>To repeat, capitalism is about
>the cold-eyed assertion of private rights, according to R.H. Tawney.
>His book, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism is still worth reading.
Please explain what "cold-eyed" means.
>Socialism as "Zeal to pursue the common good..." is worth reading too,
>for those six words are the opening of the 1611 Bible Translators'
>Preface to the reader.
The 1611 Bible Translators had never heard of socialism
William
William
wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, William wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:29:16 +0100, kevin donnelly
>> <ke...@kevdon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>(much text snipped)
>
>> >My father, a joiner, told me that there aren't any good gaffers,
>> >though some are better than others.
>>
>> Perhaps there is something about joiners that they tend to make
>> sweeping generalizations.
>
>Cue the comment about "Carpenter from Nazareth seeks joiners"
But wouldn't they just see him as another gaffer?
William
Gareth McCaughan
> Ridiculous, of course, but I don't see what the problem is. I have half a
> dozen credit cards, including one with about 20,000 ukp credit limit
> (because of the tours!), but we *always* keep our spending within our
> financial capability and pay off the credit card when the bill arrives.
The problem is that some people don't use credit cards at all,
perhaps preferring debit cards, and that rather than seeing
this as evidence of financial responsibility (avoiding unncessary
debt) the credit rating organizations see it as lack of evidence
of financial responsibility, and they have a presumption of
irresponsibility.
This is a problem for anyone who prefers to avoid credit
cards. The fact that you are happy to use a credit card
and use it responsibly is neither here nor there.
> Cards are more convenient than plastic.
What do you mean by "cards" and "plastic" respectively?
In this sort of context I've almost always seen them used
as synonyms.
Paul Dean
wrote:
> The poster went back a lot further than that. He said Cain was the
> first capitalist and his crime was the oldest crime. He was wrong.
> Cain's parents commited the oldest crime and they did it as a
> co-operative and shared the gains bwtween themselves in true socialist
> fashion
OK, I see what you mean. I'm not sure it meets my definitions of 'crime',
though.
>> In this debate, the capitalists clearly have a propaganda-fueled
>> definition of capitalism and socialists are missing obvious truths about
>> human nature. There is surely another way whereby the abuse of capital
>> can be prevented while not falling into socialist traps.
>
> I've already said that capitalism with the appropriate checks and
> balances appears to be the best system to accomodate man's nature.
It's a pity that appropriate checks and balances are very far from being
anywhere in sight.
Jonathan Wheeler
I understand that as working alongside rather than working under. See
also Matthew 11 vv 28-30
Kendall K. Down
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> The problem is that some people don't use credit cards at all,
> perhaps preferring debit cards, and that rather than seeing
> this as evidence of financial responsibility (avoiding unncessary
> debt) the credit rating organizations see it as lack of evidence
> of financial responsibility, and they have a presumption of
> irresponsibility.
I know that the credit rating organisations are being silly, but it is
equally silly not to use a credit card. The convenience is very great.
> > Cards are more convenient than plastic.
> What do you mean by "cards" and "plastic" respectively?
> In this sort of context I've almost always seen them used
> as synonyms.
Er - my mistake. I should, of course, have said "cash" instead of "plastic".
kevin donnelly
<paul_nos...@deancentral.net> writes
June) reviewing capitalism. He is a former IMF official turned academic
economist, whose line was similar to his Victoria University of
Manchester lecture a few years ago, where he admitted that the Seattle
protesters against globalisation had a valid point to make in that the
benefits of capitalism had yet to reach the many.
They still haven't of course, but he remains optimistic. On
unpayable Third World debt, he said that the only solution was
cancellation.
That may sound encouraging, but it reminded me of Oscar Wilde's
view "The best among the poor are never grateful. Why should they be
grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table? They
should be seated at the board, and are beginning to know it". (The Soul
of Man under Socialism).
Gareth McCaughan
> In message <87r7emk...@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>
> Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> The problem is that some people don't use credit cards at all,
>> perhaps preferring debit cards, and that rather than seeing
>> this as evidence of financial responsibility (avoiding unncessary
>> debt) the credit rating organizations see it as lack of evidence
>> of financial responsibility, and they have a presumption of
>> irresponsibility.
>
> I know that the credit rating organisations are being silly, but it is
> equally silly not to use a credit card. The convenience is very great.
I can think of only two gains in convenience that I might
receive if I were to switch from using a debit card to
using a credit card. Firstly, I would be able to buy things
on credit. I don't want that convenience. Secondly, I would
benefit (AIUI) from certain provisions of the Consumer Credit
Act, which I think apply to credit card purchases but not
to debit card ones.
Is there some other difference in convenience that you have
in mind?
Simon Robinson
> I know that the credit rating organisations are being silly, but it is
> equally silly not to use a credit card. The convenience is very great.
What convenience do you get from a credit card that you don't equally
get from a debit card?
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>Kendall K. Down wrote:
Well, just because you don't want to use a particular convenience
doesn't mean it isn't a convenience :-) However, the usually quoted
advantages of credit cards over debit cards are:
1. Credit. If paid off in full each time, it's free credit, as well.
And if you're the type of person who is sufficiently disciplined to
not need credit cards because you never buy on credit, then this is
actually more of a benefit to you than it is to someone who needs
credit :-)
2. Protection. As you've already said, you get a lot more legal
protection when buying on a credit card than a debit card. This can be
a significant benefit if there is any risk that you might not get what
you paid for.
3. Ubiquity. Credit cards are more widely accepted than debit cards
(not by as big a gap as used to be the case, but still true by a
significant margin).
4. Promotional benefits. Many credit cards offer some form of points
scheme, cashback or other reward system, whereas debit cards usually
don't. If you're a regular user of plastic currency, then this can be
quite significant in the long term.
Mark
--
http://www.GoogleFun.info - fun and games with Google!
"I know I can be afraid but I'm alive"
William
I would have thought that our own society has pretty successfully got
the balance. It can always be improved but capitalism has a reasonable
free rein but the poor are pretty well protected. I know of no
socialist state where the poor are better off than the poor in our
system.
William
Dave Shield
>> I know that the credit rating organisations are being silly, but it is
>> equally silly not to use a credit card. The convenience is very great.
However for some people, I'm sure that not having a credit card
is a very responsible position. It takes a certain level of self
discipline to get the best use out of a credit card without being
stung, and if someone knows that they don't have that discipline,
it's sensible for them to avoid the temptation.
(Not to imply that this is the only reason to avoid them, of course)
Simon Robinson wrote:
> What convenience do you get from a credit card that you don't equally
> get from a debit card?
Financial support for my chosen charities.
It may not be particularly significant, but it's a "free" ongoing
donation that (AFAIK) is not available with debit cards.
Dave
Simon Robinson
>>What convenience do you get from a credit card that you don't equally
>>get from a debit card?
Dave Shield wrote:
> Financial support for my chosen charities.
> It may not be particularly significant, but it's a "free" ongoing
> donation that (AFAIK) is not available with debit cards.
Agreed those are benefits. It's worth pointing out the hidden costs
though. As an example, at my company the issue came up as to whether we
should allow American Express payments for our products. Initially we
didn't because the commission Amex take is considerably greater than for
the cards we do support, but eventually we were forced to add them
because of complaints from customers who *only* use Amex (because of the
benefits Amex gives them). We looked into taking Amex but charging a
surcharge for doing so, but the contract that we would have to sign with
them forbids sellers from doing that. (This is in the USA, I don't know
how widespread the practice is amongst other credit card companies or in
the UK)
Credit card companies obviously have to get their money from somewhere.
Obviously a lot will come from people who get into debt. I suspect a
significant amount also comes from people who intend to pay in full
before the interest cuts in, but who don't have the discipline or
organizational ability to always do so and therefore keep getting hit
with an odd month's interest. Partly it comes from scraping the costs
off the people you are buying from and (IMO) the card companies using
their powerful market positions to force those suppliers to bear the
costs of those benefits you gain. I actually have one card [1] that
allows direct debit payments of the full amount owed each month, so with
no need to do anything, you automatically never pay interest. It's
impossible to be sure but it seems very plausible that's only possible
because the people you buy goods from using the card are virtually
forced to pick up the bill.
I don't deny that, from the POV of the ultimate customer of the goods,
or the charities that get a small %, there is some good happening, but I
think there's some very dubious ethics along the way, at least for some
credit card companies (and if there are any that are more ethical in
their dealings with businesses, it'd be very hard to find out).
[1] which I no longer use, partly because of my concerns about the
ethics of the impact on the businesses I'd be buying from. I keep the
card only because there's a large credit allowance on it, which could
come in handy if I'm ever in a position where I need to 'borrow' a large
amount of money for just a month or so, which in my case isn't that
implausible.
Kendall K. Down
Simon Robinson <lIfYouWan...@UseMyWebsite.com> wrote:
> What convenience do you get from a credit card that you don't equally
> get from a debit card?
Up to 56 days of interest.
Kendall K. Down
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I can think of only two gains in convenience that I might
> receive if I were to switch from using a debit card to
> using a credit card. Firstly, I would be able to buy things
> on credit. I don't want that convenience.
If you mean buying something that has to be paid off over several months, I
agree with you. If you mean buying something for which you do not currently
have the money in the cheque account, then I disagree with you. I might want
to purchase something that exceeds the amount I have in my cheque account
but which is covered by the money in a savings account.
> Is there some other difference in convenience that you have
> in mind?
The fact that I can buy something now but keep the money in my savings
account where it earns interest until such time as the bill is presented. I
don't ask the credit card companies to do that, but seeing as they do, I
might as well take advantage of it.
Paul Dean
wrote:
Confining your argument to the poor of a rich state is like confining
yourself to lower-status members of the aristocracy and saying, "but even
low status people are better off in a monarchy". Unchecked capitalism is
most damaging on an international scale where the abundance or lack of
capital is most keenly and fatally felt. When the capitalism system is
not only unchecked but expressly designed in favour of the rich, then it
doesn't even bear thinking about.
Actually, thinking about it, capital is exactly a system designed to
favour the rich, as the presence of capital leads to greater profits. If
you want to say that capitalism spreads the wealth around, then you're
talking about a modern off-shoot of capitalism within a particular state
that should be called something else. If you want to see real,
old-fashioned, capitalism at work look at it internationally.
Paul Dean
<lIfYouWan...@UseMyWebsite.com> wrote:
> I actually have one card [1] that allows direct debit payments of the
> full amount owed each month, so with no need to do anything, you
> automatically never pay interest.
<snip>
As far as I know, all credit cards have that option. There's no way I'd
have a credit card that didn't, simply because I have too many things to
do to worry about paying bills on time. The credit card companies make
most[2] of their money from the 2-3% levy on all goods bought, which they
receive from the seller, although some years ago I did read the statistic
that the average outstanding unpaid balance was £1000. I'd vote someone
in to get usury declared illegal.
[2] I'd guess.
> [1] which I no longer use, partly because of my concerns about the
> ethics of the impact on the businesses I'd be buying from.
Companies pick up the tab for your other credit cards too. If you have a
business accepting credit cards, you must know that...? In fact it's not
the company of course, but their customers who have to pay a bit extra
across the board. It must have added 2-3% on inflation over a period of
time, but now has no real effect other than as a tax which goes to a
private company to maintain a convenient method of payment for goods and
services.
If you're strict, I think it's probably immoral to scrape the 1% cash
bonus (or reward point or whatever) from using your credit card because
everyone pays for it through increased prices regardless of whether they
are able to get or use a credit card.
kevin donnelly
<paul_nos...@deancentral.net> writes
>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:55:44 +0200, Simon Robinson <lIfYouWantToE
>mai...@UseMyWebsite.com> wrote:
>
>> I actually have one card [1] that allows direct debit payments of the
>>full amount owed each month, so with no need to do anything, you
>>automatically never pay interest.
><snip>
>
>As far as I know, all credit cards have that option. There's no way I'd
>have a credit card that didn't, simply because I have too many things to
>do to worry about paying bills on time. The credit card companies make
>most[2] of their money from the 2-3% levy on all goods bought, which
>they receive from the seller, although some years ago I did read the
>statistic that the average outstanding unpaid balance was £1000. I'd
>vote someone in to get usury declared illegal.
>
>[2] I'd guess.
>
lawyers. I think Tawney's Religion and the Rise of Capitalism has some
examples from English history when ecclesiastical courts tried to
control usury. Few church leaders seem to have taken a stand. Peter
Selby, Bishop of Worcester is one strong exception in his book Grace and
Mortgage. John Atherton, former Dean of Manchester, told me in
conversation that capitalism in its present form is the least bad of the
options available. On the other hand, Archbishop William Temple in 1942
thought it improper for any private person or corporation to issue
credit. Listening to him in the audience at the Royal Albert Hall was an
18 year old schoolboy, David Jenkins, later Bishop of Durham. Temple's
excellent little book, Christianity and Social Order is still worth a
read.
Gareth McCaughan
[Ken:]
>>> I know that the credit rating organisations are being silly, but it is
>>> equally silly not to use a credit card. The convenience is very great.
[me:]
>> I can think of only two gains in convenience that I might
>> receive if I were to switch from using a debit card to
>> using a credit card.
...
>> Is there some other difference in convenience that you have
>> in mind?
>
> Well, just because you don't want to use a particular convenience
> doesn't mean it isn't a convenience :-)
Of course. I was just observing that I don't see much gain
in convenience that I would get from switching to a credit
card. If I'm right in that, then I am not "silly not to use
a credit card", contrary to Ken's statement.
[various things with which I don't disagree SNIPPED]
> 3. Ubiquity. Credit cards are more widely accepted than debit cards
> (not by as big a gap as used to be the case, but still true by a
> significant margin).
I don't think I have ever bought anything where my debit
card was not welcome and a credit card would have been.
Jim Spriggs
>
> I would have thought that our own society has pretty successfully got
> the balance. It can always be improved but capitalism has a reasonable
> free rein but the poor are pretty well protected.
What is your experience of poor people?
> I know of no
> socialist state where the poor are better off than the poor in our
> system.
>
> William
--
I don't know who you are Sir, or where you come from,
but you've done me a power of good.
Kendall K. Down
Simon Robinson <lIfYouWan...@UseMyWebsite.com> wrote:
> Agreed those are benefits. It's worth pointing out the hidden costs
> though. As an example, at my company the issue came up as to whether we
> should allow American Express payments for our products. Initially we
> didn't because the commission Amex take is considerably greater than for
> the cards we do support
Yes; I use my American Express card in big places like Sainsburys because it
returns 1%. I use my Sainsbury's Visa card elsewhere because it returns .5%
and doesn't charge the supplier any extra.
Yes, it is the supplier who pays and though that is regrettable, they have
to offset against that the number of customers who wouldn't buy from them if
they didn't take credit cards.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> 3. Ubiquity. Credit cards are more widely accepted than debit cards
>> (not by as big a gap as used to be the case, but still true by a
>> significant margin).
>
>I don't think I have ever bought anything where my debit
>card was not welcome and a credit card would have been.
Actually, one very common example in the UK is one that you probably
don't have any use for either: Buying petrol at unattended petrol
pumps with card readers. These invariably take credit cards only, not
debit cards.
Mark
--
http://photos.markshouse.net - see my world!
"Viens vivre un Amour Suprême"
Kendall K. Down
Dave Shield <D.T.S...@csc.liv.ac.uk> wrote:
> However for some people, I'm sure that not having a credit card
> is a very responsible position.
Yes, that is doubtless true.
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>William wrote:
>
>>
>> I would have thought that our own society has pretty successfully got
>> the balance. It can always be improved but capitalism has a reasonable
>> free rein but the poor are pretty well protected.
>
>What is your experience of poor people?
Depends what you mean by "poor". I've been at the lowest end of the
scale in the UK (unemployed and on benefits), and, while not exactly
pleasant at all, it wasn't life-threatening. There are people who fall
below this level, but that's due to a number of reasons which include
personal choice as well as failures in the welfare system that cannot
be blamed on capitalism.
On the other hand, I have seen poor people in other countries that
really are poor - that is, they are in danger of dying as a result of
their poverty. And my observation is that such people are generally
found in countries which do not have a free-market economy operating
within a framework of law and equality.
Mark
--
http://photos.markshouse.net - see my world!
"I'm so tired of acting tough"
Gareth McCaughan
[me:]
>> I don't think I have ever bought anything where my debit
>> card was not welcome and a credit card would have been.
[Mark:]
> Actually, one very common example in the UK is one that you probably
> don't have any use for either: Buying petrol at unattended petrol
> pumps with card readers. These invariably take credit cards only, not
> debit cards.
Gosh! (You're right that I don't have a use for it.) But
let me clarify. You're not just saying that they won't
take Switch and Solo cards, but that they won't take
*Visa* cards either if they're debit rather than credit
cards? That seems pretty extraordinary.
Gareth McCaughan
> Yes, it is the supplier who pays and though that is regrettable, they have
> to offset against that the number of customers who wouldn't buy from them if
> they didn't take credit cards.
Which is why almost everywhere takes credit cards.
But if you consider the system as a whole, it's
pretty much a clear loss for the sellers. It's
a bit like Sunday trading, where once one shop
is open on Sunday all its competitors have to be
too, but the net result once they're all opening
on Sunday isn't much of an increase in sales.
Their customers benefit[1], but the shops don't.
And then, of course, the shops are less profitable,
so they put up their prices, so it's not so clear
that the customers benefit after all.
[1] Assuming for the sake of argument, and I think
also in line with both your and my actual
belief, that being able to shop on a Sunday
is a genuine benefit.
Simon Robinson
> Actually, one very common example in the UK is one that you probably
> don't have any use for either: Buying petrol at unattended petrol
> pumps with card readers. These invariably take credit cards only, not
> debit cards.
How many petrol stations are affected by that? I've bought petrol fairly
widely in the country, but the only pumps with card readers that I've
ever come across are at Tesco's, Welwyn Garden City and at ASDA,
Lancaster. Both of those have allowed me to use my debit card.
FWIW I do remember ~7-8 years ago when I had a switch debit card, that
was often not accepted at shops, but the debit cards I've had since then
have not caused problems.
Tony Gillam
Europe as well following the advent of Maestro.
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.bookourvilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria
Jim Spriggs
>
> [1] Assuming for the sake of argument, and I think
> also in line with both your and my actual
> belief, that being able to shop on a Sunday
> is a genuine benefit.
To be weighed against that, if it is a benefit, is the disadvantage
caused to the shop workers. The benefit to me of being able to shop on
Sunday is one so small that I have never availed myself of it. Is it
proper that shop workers should suffer for such a small benefit to
others?
William
>William wrote:
>
>> I would have thought that our own society has pretty successfully got
>> the balance. It can always be improved but capitalism has a reasonable
>> free rein but the poor are pretty well protected.
>
>What is your experience of poor people?
I have been one. And I currently know plenty. What an odd question;
perhaps you don't come across many in your life.
William
William
<paul_nos...@deancentral.net> wrote:
>William <tie...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote:
>
>> I would have thought that our own society has pretty successfully got
>> the balance. It can always be improved but capitalism has a reasonable
>> free rein but the poor are pretty well protected. I know of no
>> socialist state where the poor are better off than the poor in our
>> system.
>
>Confining your argument to the poor of a rich state is like confining
>yourself to lower-status members of the aristocracy and saying, "but even
>low status people are better off in a monarchy". Unchecked capitalism is
>most damaging on an international scale where the abundance or lack of
>capital is most keenly and fatally felt. When the capitalism system is
>not only unchecked but expressly designed in favour of the rich, then it
>doesn't even bear thinking about.
But I have specifically excluded unchecked capitalism. The question
is, which system best accomodates human nature and human needs. Is it
socialism, or capitalism with appropriate checks and balances?
>Actually, thinking about it, capital is exactly a system designed to
>favour the rich, as the presence of capital leads to greater profits.
What would you suggest as an alternative to profit (of any kind) to
fund new manufacturing projects, research and development?
>If
>you want to say that capitalism spreads the wealth around, then you're
>talking about a modern off-shoot of capitalism within a particular state
>that should be called something else. If you want to see real,
>old-fashioned, capitalism at work look at it internationally.
Some examples please. And compare them to the alternatives.
William
Gareth McCaughan
> Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>
>>
>> [1] Assuming for the sake of argument, and I think
>> also in line with both your and my actual
>> belief, that being able to shop on a Sunday
>> is a genuine benefit.
>
> To be weighed against that, if it is a benefit, is the disadvantage
> caused to the shop workers. The benefit to me of being able to shop on
> Sunday is one so small that I have never availed myself of it. Is it
> proper that shop workers should suffer for such a small benefit to
> others?
That was pretty much my point.
Paul Dean
wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 19:31:40 +0200, "Paul Dean"
> <paul_nos...@deancentral.net> wrote:
>
>> William <tie...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I would have thought that our own society has pretty successfully got
>>> the balance. It can always be improved but capitalism has a reasonable
>>> free rein but the poor are pretty well protected. I know of no
>>> socialist state where the poor are better off than the poor in our
>>> system.
>>
>> Confining your argument to the poor of a rich state is like confining
>> yourself to lower-status members of the aristocracy and saying, "but
>> even
>> low status people are better off in a monarchy". Unchecked capitalism
>> is
>> most damaging on an international scale where the abundance or lack of
>> capital is most keenly and fatally felt. When the capitalism system is
>> not only unchecked but expressly designed in favour of the rich, then it
>> doesn't even bear thinking about.
>
> But I have specifically excluded unchecked capitalism. The question
> is, which system best accomodates human nature and human needs. Is it
> socialism, or capitalism with appropriate checks and balances?
You claimed that our society had the right checks and balances, but that
is only true if you ignore the effects it has on other societies (if it's
right to call interdependent societies 'other ones').
>> Actually, thinking about it, capital is exactly a system designed to
>> favour the rich, as the presence of capital leads to greater profits.
>
> What would you suggest as an alternative to profit (of any kind) to
> fund new manufacturing projects, research and development?
I've said nothing against profit, have I? Don't just argue with what you
imagine my mind to be about a thing you assume we have defined the same
way.
>> If
>> you want to say that capitalism spreads the wealth around, then you're
>> talking about a modern off-shoot of capitalism within a particular state
>> that should be called something else. If you want to see real,
>> old-fashioned, capitalism at work look at it internationally.
>
> Some examples please. And compare them to the alternatives.
Examples of the international domination of capital are too over-arching
to bother - if you go and study some historical economics and still don't
see it then I'd give up.
The alternatives are better checks and balances. The fact that they have
never existed is not a sufficient reason to not bother with them.
Kendall K. Down
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> [1] Assuming for the sake of argument, and I think
> also in line with both your and my actual
> belief, that being able to shop on a Sunday
> is a genuine benefit.
Certainly being able to shop on Sunday is a convenience for someone who
keeps the Sabbath. However we managed, at the cost of slight inconvenience,
before Sunday shopping came along and, on the whole, I would prefer to see a
weekly day of rest, even if it is the wrong one.
Kendall K. Down
Jim Spriggs <jim.s...@ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid> wrote:
> Is it
> proper that shop workers should suffer for such a small benefit to
> others?
I wouldn't call double time "suffering".
Gareth McCaughan
> In message <42C57F0B...@ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid>
> Jim Spriggs <jim.s...@ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Is it
>> proper that shop workers should suffer for such a small benefit to
>> others?
>
> I wouldn't call double time "suffering".
I would call *having* to work extra hours suffering,
even if there were extra pay for it. As I understand it,
in principle that's never supposed to happen; but in
practice I'm sure it does. (Even if no employers require
their workers to work on Sundays, I'm sure there are
lots of little shops where the owner has to choose between
opening on Sundays and going out of business.)
Gareth McCaughan
>> I can think of only two gains in convenience that I might
>> receive if I were to switch from using a debit card to
>> using a credit card. Firstly, I would be able to buy things
>> on credit. I don't want that convenience.
>
> If you mean buying something that has to be paid off over several months, I
> agree with you. If you mean buying something for which you do not currently
> have the money in the cheque account, then I disagree with you. I might want
> to purchase something that exceeds the amount I have in my cheque account
> but which is covered by the money in a savings account.
Granted. I have always tended to keep quite a bit of money
in my current account, just to be on the safe side :-), and
now I have an offset mortgage so in some sense it's earning
the same rate of interest as I'd otherwise be paying on the
mortgage, which is more than any account I've ever seen pays.
(Less than you'd get on wisely chosen stock market investments,
at least in good times, but it's not easy to choose wisely
and I have ethical qualms about stock market speculation.)
> The fact that I can buy something now but keep the money in my savings
> account where it earns interest until such time as the bill is presented. I
> don't ask the credit card companies to do that, but seeing as they do, I
> might as well take advantage of it.
I don't see how that's a difference in *convenience*, though
it's certainly an advantage -- albeit a small one, unless
the limit on your credit card is rather large and you use
all of it.
Kendall K. Down
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I would call *having* to work extra hours suffering,
> even if there were extra pay for it. As I understand it,
> in principle that's never supposed to happen; but in
> practice I'm sure it does. (Even if no employers require
> their workers to work on Sundays, I'm sure there are
> lots of little shops where the owner has to choose between
> opening on Sundays and going out of business.)
Very true, which is why I am opposed to Sunday opening, despite its
convenience for me personally.