Originally Posted by david_z

Now, I am not a capitalist, but even I think you may need a refresher course in what constitutes "free market capitalism". This definition is 100% straw man.

Originally Posted by Donutz

It's not a straw man. It's reductio ad absurdum, which is a legitimate debating tactic. The implication by some of the ppl in this thread is: Less rules, good. More rules, bad. So let's take it to the ultimate, and look at a place where there are no rules. Someone cheats you, you shoot them. Someone competes with you, you shoot them. You want to make baby formula with cadmium in it, no problem. Just make sure no-one knows where you live. Etc. No recycling policy, no sustainability issues, drill baby drill wherever you want, no taxes on success, no limits on monopolies, hell I could keep riffing off the republican cliches all day.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't want to do business there.

Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze

Strawman, but yes. But opportunity is not the same thing as ability. They have the ability to increase their standard of living, which is what is really the issue. Becoming a billionaire isn't required to increase your standard of living.

Ask yourself this: do the poor in this country have the ability to provide themselves a better quality of life than the most wealthy Sumerian people of thousands of years ago? What about the working but not poor class of 150 years ago? They obviously have means to substantially better technologies, medicines and luxuries than even moderately wealthy people of years past and yet they are proportionately poorer as compared to the richest people in society.

I'll ask you this, too. If the poorest people in this country 100 years from now were able to provide themselves with the same means of living as those who make $50,000 today living in a small, midwestern community but were proportionally poorer by a factor of 50% than the poorest people, would poverty be an "issue".

Originally Posted by david_z

I'm familiar with these (and others) I just wanted to know which ones you want me to respond to.

The sensationalism of Sinclair's novel (i.e., not a documentary) is contradicted by the lack of any substantial complaints registered to any of the various inspection agencies responsible for overseeing meatpacking at the turn of the 20th century, as well as testimony offered for several congressional hearings.


Regarding child labor and the 8-hour workday, the orthodox justification goes something like this: Long working hours & child labor, although objectively bad compared to today's conditions, represented an improvement over prevailing working conditions in that era (echo similar arguments today, to the sustenance farmer who is barely feeding his family in rural China who takes an offer to work for $1/day making Nike shoes).

I'm going to meet you halfway and say that this is probably as much pipe-dream/rationalization as it is based on factual history.

However, it is not accurate to suggest, as you have, that either of these arose under anything even remotely resembling a "free market". For example, when corporations hired Pinkerton guards, agents provocateurs, and strike-busters to abuse laborers exercising their right to assemble in petition for better working conditions, when these same corporations encouraged their cities (Chicago, a prime example) to build federal armories to safeguard against future Labor organizing/protests (in Chi-town I believe this was a direct response to the Haymarket Riots), is all evidence of a decidedly unfree market, one where Capital rigs the game in its favor, enlists the government to help where it cannot win on its own, etc.

Originally Posted by snowjeeper

So there's enough wealth for everyone to become a billionaire? Where would all this wealth come from? Billionaires don't arrive at that state from a vacuum (besides being born into a rich family) - they gain that wealth through the pyramid of society that supports them.