Which is an indication that *that* definition of poor is relative to how rich or prosperous others in the society are - in theory I live on the poverty line, but in practice I live in more health comfort and plenty than a prince would have 200 years ago.This simply isn't true. Even the poorest of people often spend large portions of their wages on entertainment, relaxation, and what 'luxuries' are available to them, whether that means a cellphone, a stereo-system, or just the occasional bottle. ....
That's a short stint for a couple of jobs. I spent at least a year and a half at that job, maybe two. In my defense though it was all incoming calls of people seeking the service, I never took part in the aggressive outgoing sales aspect. It was decided in my interview I didn't have the attitude for that sort of thing, which I took as a compliment.That is good. I think I worked about a month total in that area. It is not a pleasant job. Do you own a business? Ever owned one?
Health and comfort is certainly a possibility, but plenty I severely doubt. Less you have a staff and grounds which they tend. Still, you're not wrong, all things are indeed relative. But again, it's somewhat intellectually dishonest to suggest that the general advancement of the state of human affairs as a result of knowledge and technology, and the 'new world order' as we're discussing it, are somehow mutually exclusive.Which is an indication that *that* definition of poor is relative to how rich or prosperous others in the society are - in theory I live on the poverty line, but in practice I live in more health comfort and plenty than a prince would have 200 years ago.
Glad its not just me that has noticed that.That said, I think your penchant for identifying with massive multinationals as a private artist/vendor of art is somewhat misguided.
Not sure what this means....But again, it's somewhat intellectually dishonest to suggest that the general advancement of the state of human affairs as a result of knowledge and technology, and the 'new world order' as we're discussing it, are somehow mutually exclusive.
and what effect has the reduction of poverty and the rising of wages in China had on the United States Economy?
Isn't it interesting that as China begins to achieve a reasonable middle-class and starts to offer somewhat more reasonable wages, America experiences increasing financial uncertainty, rising prices, and a great deal of anti-China sentiment is tossed around by its politicians. Seems pretty indicative.
There are markets within impoverished communities corporations are all too happy to exploit. Coca-Cola is an old pro at appealing to these. That said, corporations obviously don't need to consider supplying the impoverished in order to remain profitable. The impoverished are more profitably utilized as part of the supply-chain, in the form of cheap labor in the gathering of materials/assembling of products.
If people have more money, they don't feel the need to work like dogs for pennies. If no one's working like dogs for pennies, and everyone's getting a fair shake, than either prices go up or profits shrink. The product may also sell less if prices go up, shrinking the profit margin even further. Big business greatly benefits from paying people pennies to work like dogs. Remember slavery? That travesty on which America's great wealth was built? You understand why slaves were kept, yes? Why they weren't paid wages/allowed to own property and the like? Because it was extremely profitable to do so. If it were otherwise, those people brought against their will would have been paid and allowed to purchase property, as 'If people have more money, they buy more things... if they buy more things companies make more profits.'. The financial success of slavery is a direct contradiction of the assertion that it's more profitable, and thus more desirable from a corporate perspective, to uplift rather than to exploit.
http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae7_2_2.pdfSlavery is demonstrated to have survived in the antebellum South, not because of the market,but because political forces pre-vented the typical decay and destruction of slavery experienced elsewhere
if you backtrack a little in the thread, you'll see we're discussing the usage as believed to be intended by politicians who've employed the term, not the perception that the term represents a literal plot for world domination by Satanists/whatever.Not sure what this means.
Are you saying that NWO does not mean the plot to utterly control the world as it is usually meant, but is the basic improvement in living conditions and the spread of technological advancement and consumer culture and prosperity that is saturating the world at this moment in time?
It would be intellectually dishonest to take the term NWO as it is used in popular CT culture and change it's meaning from its intended use.
and we're discussing the former. That's why when I've used the term in my recent posts, it includes the disclaimer 'as we're discussing it', or something similar.It is correct that there are two uses of the term, one by politicians describing the economic/political state of the world and one by CT's describing a sinister plot to control their lives.
Quite well I found through expertly employed narration and positively stunning visuals, as well as an entrancing and extremely effective soundtrack. It's certainly heavily condensed, and a lot of fans of the book complained the series was too fast-paced, but I personally thought it was an absolutely fantastic miniseries. Mrs. Rackham, as played by Amanda Hale, was the highlight for me... her performance was incredible and heartbreaking. I cried like a baby when she starts getting into her dream of the 'healing convent'.(and they've made a series of The Crimson Petal and The White? I loved that book, mainly for the incredible writing. I suppose the plot would compelling enough as television, but how do they get across the brilliance of the writing?)
if you backtrack a little in the thread, you'll see we're discussing the usage as believed to be intended by politicians who've employed the term, not the perception that the term represents a literal plot for world domination by Satanists/whatever.....
Human advancement undoubtedly influences the modern economic and political paradigm, but it can't be said that human advancement is a result of the modern economic and political paradigm. Thus, to say 'the world is a generally better place than it was 200 years ago' as a defense of the modern economic and political paradigm doesn't really compute. Yes, advancements in technology and general understanding have improved the world by leaps and bounds, and will continue to do so. A highly corrupt financial and political system that increasingly fortifies the corporate profit-motive as the ultimate rule to the point where governments are willing or manipulated into protecting corporate profit over their own citizens isn't a requirement of that.Well I guess I'm still confused then as to why you say this.
"...But again, it's somewhat intellectually dishonest to suggest that the general advancement of the state of human affairs as a result of knowledge and technology, and the 'new world order' as we're discussing it, are somehow mutually exclusive."
I sort of thought no-one was doing that. The new political/economic state of things naturally encompasses human advancement.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others, is it?Such assumptions. You assume the people working for pennies aren't getting a "fair shake"- Fair is a value judgement. You assume the employees of Foxconn are "slaves" working for pennies when they do not feel the same way. Such is your privileged North American perspective I guess.
Oh boy...? I think that would be true of most all workplaces that aren't literal slave-pits. Joblessness in the face of financial woes is after all a major motivator where suicide is concerned.And the suicide rate for Foxcomm employees is less than that for the rest of China or even for the US.
Which is exactly why it's odd that a majority of the employees there feel they're fairly compensated, while at the same time a majority of employees there feel the wage they're paid doesn't meet their basic needs. It's a strange contrast that is indeed indicative of a cultural divide, in which the sense of entitlement is dwarfed rather than inflated. I wager many people of the first world, as you suggest with your sports star comparison, would say they aren't fairly compensated, even when their basic needs are more than met.TBH, I doubt that many folks anywhere feel that they are 'fairly compensated' for their work. Even millionaire ball players demand more money.
It's an entirely apt question given the nature of the poll.Lousy wording of a poll question.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others, is it?
It's true, my perspective is from privilege. Privilege that the typical Foxconn employee does indeed lack, and will almost certainly never have access too. That's sort of my point.
The system I'm railing against is new and still emerging. You can call it capitalist, but you can't call it Capitalism. I know the argument you're again trying to suck me into. Not biting.The point is this economic system which you rail against as "highly corrupt" has lifted more people out of poverty, facilitated more advancements technology and general understanding than all other systems combined.