independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Thu 17th Oct 2019 8:16am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Hot Dogs recalled, Breakfast burritos recalled. Why Capitalism is so bad.
« Previous topic  Next topic »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 06/16/19 10:26am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Hot Dogs recalled, Breakfast burritos recalled. Why Capitalism is so bad.

Rocks in burritos, metal shards in hot dogs? Thank God we have government. A good reason to fully support regulations and government that works. Imagine your kid biting into a rock or metal?

Without government corporations would kill us all, which they do any way. Remember when the cigarette CEO's all lied about addictive nature of them? I've seen it, cigs are worse than heroin.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 06/16/19 10:27am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/246000-pounds-breakfast-burritos-recalled-customers-find-small/story?id=63743725&cid=clicksource_4380645_null_headlines_hed

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 06/16/19 3:38pm

KoolEaze

avatar

OK but socialist countries have badly inspected food and food scandals and cigerettes, too.

" I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?"




http://kooleasehvac.com/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 06/16/19 3:43pm

KoolEaze

avatar

Then again, I agree with you because without regulations, companies feel free to add dangerous ingredients to food products that have long been banned in countries that are not socialist but that have good , functioning regulations.

I think it is too unrealistic to just say that everybody is free to boycott such products. Most citizens are not even aware of some of the dangers that those additives cause in the long run.

Even some foods or brands that are available in both the US and Europe are different when it comes to ingredients, even though the product is pretty much the same ( fast food, McDonald´s , Doritos, Coca Cola, Kellogg´s cereal and so on).

So yes, regulations can be a good thing.

" I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?"




http://kooleasehvac.com/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 06/16/19 5:27pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

in a soclilist nation there would be no recalls because there would be no food.

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 06/16/19 10:49pm

IanRG

2freaky4church1 said:

Rocks in burritos, metal shards in hot dogs? Thank God we have government. A good reason to fully support regulations and government that works. Imagine your kid biting into a rock or metal?

Without government corporations would kill us all, which they do any way. Remember when the cigarette CEO's all lied about addictive nature of them? I've seen it, cigs are worse than heroin.

.

There is not and never can be a pure capitalist system any more that pure communist system or virtually every other ideological "ism" system. As an anarchist you should oppose government regulations imposed from above in favour of self government: In such a system a food maker need only provide consent to following advisory guidelines on food safety. Without regulation, they may not consent to this imposition.

.

Within what system were the burritos and hot dogs recalled? My guess is this occurred in the USA or another western broadly capitalist system with heirachical enforced regulations by government?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 06/17/19 7:42am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Note how Only avoids the main point of the story.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 06/17/19 9:04am

benni

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

in a soclilist nation there would be no recalls because there would be no food.

Doesn’t socialism mean that the government will own and run everything?

Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.


Hasn’t socialism been discredited by the collapse of Communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe?

Socialists have been among the harshest critics of authoritarian Communist states. Just because their bureaucratic elites called them “socialist” did not make it so; they also called their regimes “democratic.” Democratic socialists always opposed the ruling party-states of those societies, just as we oppose the ruling classes of capitalist societies. We applaud the democratic revolutions that have transformed the former Communist bloc. However, the improvement of people’s lives requires real democracy without ethnic rivalries and/or new forms of authoritarianism. Democratic socialists will continue to play a key role in that struggle throughout the world.

Moreover, the fall of Communism should not blind us to injustices at home. We cannot allow all radicalism to be dismissed as “Communist.” That suppression of dissent and diversity undermines America’s ability to live up to its promise of equality of opportunity, not to mention the freedoms of speech and assembly.


Private corporations seem to be a permanent fixture in the US, so why work towards socialism?

In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control. The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment. Public pressure can also have a critical role to play in the struggle to hold corporations accountable. Most of all, socialists look to unions to make private business more accountable.


Won’t socialism be impractical because people will lose their incentive to work?

We don’t agree with the capitalist assumption that starvation or greed are the only reasons people work. People enjoy their work if it is meaningful and enhances their lives. They work out of a sense of responsibility to their community and society. Although a long-term goal of socialism is to eliminate all but the most enjoyable kinds of labor, we recognize that unappealing jobs will long remain. These tasks would be spread among as many people as possible rather than distributed on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, or gender, as they are under capitalism. And this undesirable work should be among the best, not the least, rewarded work within the economy. For now, the burden should be placed on the employer to make work desirable by raising wages, offering benefits and improving the work environment. In short, we believe that a combination of social, economic, and moral incentives will motivate people to work.


Why are there no models of democratic socialism?

Although no country has fully instituted democratic socialism, the socialist parties and labor movements of other countries have won many victories for their people. We can learn from the comprehensive welfare state maintained by the Swedes, from Canada’s national health care system, France’s nationwide childcare program, and Nicaragua’s literacy programs. Lastly, we can learn from efforts initiated right here in the US, such as the community health centers created by the government in the 1960s. They provided high quality family care, with community involvement in decision-making.


But hasn’t the European Social Democratic experiment failed?

Many northern European countries enjoy tremendous prosperity and relative economic equality thanks to the policies pursued by social democratic parties. These nations used their relative wealth to insure a high standard of living for their citizens—high wages, health care and subsidized education. Most importantly, social democratic parties supported strong labor movements that became central players in economic decision-making. But with the globalization of capitalism, the old social democratic model becomes ever harder to maintain. Stiff competition from low-wage labor markets in developing countries and the constant fear that industry will move to avoid taxes and strong labor regulations has diminished (but not eliminated) the ability of nations to launch ambitious economic reform on their own. Social democratic reform must now happen at the international level. Multinational corporations must be brought under democratic controls, and workers’ organizing efforts must reach across borders.

Now, more than ever, socialism is an international movement. As socialists have always known, the welfare of working people in Finland or California depends largely on standards in Italy or Indonesia. As a result, we must work towards reforms that can withstand the power of multinationals and global banks, and we must fight for a world order that is not controlled by bankers and bosses.


Aren’t you a party that’s in competition with the Democratic Party for votes and support?

No, we are not a separate party. Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party. We work with those movements to strengthen the party’s left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The process and structure of American elections seriously hurts third party efforts. Winner-take-all elections instead of proportional representation, rigorous party qualification requirements that vary from state to state, a presidential instead of a parliamentary system, and the two-party monopoly on political power have doomed third party efforts. We hope that at some point in the future, in coalition with our allies, an alternative national party will be viable. For now, we will continue to support progressives who have a real chance at winning elections, which usually means left-wing Democrats.


If I am going to devote time to politics, why shouldn’t I focus on something more immediate?

Although capitalism will be with us for a long time, reforms we win now—raising the minimum wage, securing a national health plan, and demanding passage of right-to-strike legislation—can bring us closer to socialism. Many democratic socialists actively work in the single-issue organizations that advocate for those reforms. We are visible in the reproductive freedom movement, the fight for student aid, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender organizations, anti-racist groups, and the labor movement.

It is precisely our socialist vision that informs and inspires our day-to-day activism for social justice. As socialists we bring a sense of the interdependence of all struggles for justice. No single-issue organization can truly challenge the capitalist system or adequately secure its particular demands. In fact, unless we are all collectively working to win a world without oppression, each fight for reforms will be disconnected, maybe even self-defeating.


What can young people do to move the US towards socialism?

Since the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s, young people have played a critical role in American politics. They have been a tremendous force for both political and cultural change in this country: in limiting the US’s options in the war in Vietnam, in forcing corporations to divest from the racist South African regime, in reforming universities, and in bringing issues of sexual orientation and gender discrimination to public attention. Though none of these struggles were fought by young people alone, they all featured youth as leaders in multi-generational progressive coalitions. Young people are needed in today’s struggles as well: for universal health care and stronger unions, against welfare cuts and predatory multinational corporations.

Schools, colleges and universities are important to American political culture. They are the places where ideas are formulated and policy discussed and developed. Being an active part of that discussion is a critical job for young socialists. We have to work hard to change people’s misconceptions about socialism, to broaden political debate, and to overcome many students’ lack of interest in engaging in political action. Off-campus, too, in our daily cultural lives, young people can be turning the tide against racism, sexism and homophobia, as well as the conservative myth of the virtue of “free” markets.


If so many people misunderstand socialism, why continue to use the word?

First, we call ourselves socialists because we are proud of what we are. Second, no matter what we call ourselves, conservatives will use it against us. Anti-socialism has been repeatedly used to attack reforms that shift power to working class people and away from corporate capital. In 1993, national health insurance was attacked as “socialized medicine” and defeated. Liberals are routinely denounced as socialists in order to discredit reform. Until we face, and beat, the stigma attached to the “S word,” politics in America will continue to be stifled and our options limited. We also call ourselves socialists because we are proud of the traditions upon which we are based, of the heritage of the Socialist Party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, and of other struggles for change that have made America more democratic and just. Finally, we call ourselves socialists to remind everyone that we have a vision of a better world.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 06/17/19 1:55pm

IanRG

2freaky4church1 said:

Note how Only avoids the main point of the story.

.

This is the problem of being true to your ideology first. Only is just deflecting by avoiding the issue to state his ideology is better than another ideology.

.

I have much more respect fro your position where you, as an avowed anarchist, are being counter-ideological by arguing for government enforced regulations instead of self-governing consent to agreed guidelines.

.

In this I note that you have avoided that, rather than this being proof of why Capitalism is so bad, these regulations - the batch controls, the use by dates, the enforced requirement for product recalls and. I presume, some penalties and increased scrutiny by the regulators - are being enforced against the manufacturer within a broadly Capitalist system. It is an example of the regulations working within a broadly capitalist system.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 06/17/19 2:13pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Note how Only avoids the main point of the story.

No I didn't... these few cases are the rare exception. Also a company doesn't want to sell bad products. They want to sell what they can at a given price point.


And you may have missed the point I made... if there is no profit to be made then there would be almost no reason make anything "New" or "Improved."

Like anything the profit motivation drives improvements. That is non-existent in a command system.


No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 06/17/19 6:10pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

2freaky4church1 said:

Note how Only avoids the main point of the story.

No I didn't... these few cases are the rare exception. Also a company doesn't want to sell bad products. They want to sell what they can at a given price point.


And you may have missed the point I made... if there is no profit to be made then there would be almost no reason make anything "New" or "Improved."

Like anything the profit motivation drives improvements. That is non-existent in a command system.


.

And that is the problem. Without regulations they would not see it as a bad product, they would see it as a price point product where the consumer has chosen to buy a substandard product - It prevents the mentality that this is OK because if they wanted a lower chance of rocks or being out of date etc, they should just pay more.

.

Your spin to deflect this to profit motive shows you are missing the point. The point is the all too common history of events like this has forced governments to impose regulations. That POST the imposition of these regulations, the occurances are only now rare says nothing about why they were introduced and why they are still needed today to keep events like this as rare. Too often a weakening in a regulation or companies finding a way around a regulation has shown that the profit motive also seeks to find ways to lower costs and too often this has seen increases in events like this. It is a myth that the profit motive guarantees product safety.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 06/17/19 6:21pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

who is opposed to regulations?

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 06/17/19 6:29pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

who is opposed to regulations?

.

If you are not opposed to regulations and you say you got the point of the thread, why the spin that profit motives makes these events rare and businesses would never seek to sell bad, ie substandard products at a low price points?

.

The unfettered motivation to cut costs to increase profits has repeatedly created events like these. This is why you need these regulations.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 06/17/19 7:03pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

IanRG said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

who is opposed to regulations?

.

If you are not opposed to regulations and you say you got the point of the thread, why the spin that profit motives makes these events rare and businesses would never seek to sell bad, ie substandard products at a low price points?

.

The unfettered motivation to cut costs to increase profits has repeatedly created events like these. This is why you need these regulations.

the point of the topic is capitalism is bad and that the government should run stuff...

2freaky4church1 thinks he supports socialism (spoiler he doesn't)

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 06/17/19 7:18pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

IanRG said:

.

If you are not opposed to regulations and you say you got the point of the thread, why the spin that profit motives makes these events rare and businesses would never seek to sell bad, ie substandard products at a low price points?

.

The unfettered motivation to cut costs to increase profits has repeatedly created events like these. This is why you need these regulations.

the point of the topic is capitalism is bad and that the government should run stuff...

2freaky4church1 thinks he supports socialism (spoiler he doesn't)

.

No, that is not the topic: You should read the first post in which Freaky said "A good reason to fully support regulations and government that works."

.

It is a perverse interpretation to say supporting regulations and arguing for a working government means you think the government should run stuff. Regulations on private businesses are only required if the government is not running all the stuff.

.

I think Freaky has missed the point that the regulations worked within a broadly capitalist system, but that is nothing compared to you spinning that the profit motive abrogates the need for regulations. It does not - the profit motive often encourages cost cutting to the point that regulations are required to prevent this very type of thing from happening - even Adam Smith recognised this.

[Edited 6/17/19 19:19pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 06/17/19 8:39pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

IanRG said:



OnlyNDaUsa said:




IanRG said:



.


If you are not opposed to regulations and you say you got the point of the thread, why the spin that profit motives makes these events rare and businesses would never seek to sell bad, ie substandard products at a low price points?


.


The unfettered motivation to cut costs to increase profits has repeatedly created events like these. This is why you need these regulations.




the point of the topic is capitalism is bad and that the government should run stuff...



2freaky4church1 thinks he supports socialism (spoiler he doesn't)



.


No, that is not the topic: You should read the first post in which Freaky said "A good reason to fully support regulations and government that works."


.


It is a perverse interpretation to say supporting regulations and arguing for a working government means you think the government should run stuff. Regulations on private businesses are only required if the government is not running all the stuff.


.


I think Freaky has missed the point that the regulations worked within a broadly capitalist system, but that is nothing compared to you spinning that the profit motive abrogates the need for regulations. It does not - the profit motive often encourages cost cutting to the point that regulations are required to prevent this very type of thing from happening - even Adam Smith recognised this.

[Edited 6/17/19 19:19pm]



Well said. I’m glad you have the patience to lecture him cause I just roll my eyes and move on.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 06/18/19 1:26pm

deebee

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Rocks in burritos, metal shards in hot dogs? Thank God we have government. A good reason to fully support regulations and government that works. Imagine your kid biting into a rock or metal?

Without government corporations would kill us all, which they do any way. Remember when the cigarette CEO's all lied about addictive nature of them? I've seen it, cigs are worse than heroin.

There's certainly a benefit to the kind of regulation that constrains the worst excesses of capitalism, but it's a mistake to see government as naturally given to the role of our protector - or even as an a force opposed to capital. That's just the Friedmanite argument inverted.

In reality, we all know even from what we see that the state is hugely influenced to do the bidding of capital, and to clean up the mess capitalism, with all its crisis tendencies, routinely makes. Vivek Chibber does a good job of explaining the mechanisms that underlie that in the first 40 mins or so of this clip.

There's more to the story, of course. The state does have some degree of genuine autonomy that can be harnessed democratically in ways capital doesn't sanction, on behalf of us schmucks. But the problem is that it's highly circumscribed - as recent, systematic attempts to kill stone dead any attempt to stray even an inch from the sanctioned 'extreme centre' of Blairite/Clintonite neoliberalism that has prevailed in recent decades, and institute policies that would have been quite unremarkable in the decades after WWII, have shown.

"Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 06/18/19 3:38pm

IanRG

deebee said:

2freaky4church1 said:

Rocks in burritos, metal shards in hot dogs? Thank God we have government. A good reason to fully support regulations and government that works. Imagine your kid biting into a rock or metal?

Without government corporations would kill us all, which they do any way. Remember when the cigarette CEO's all lied about addictive nature of them? I've seen it, cigs are worse than heroin.

There's certainly a benefit to the kind of regulation that constrains the worst excesses of capitalism, but it's a mistake to see government as naturally given to the role of our protector - or even as an a force opposed to capital. That's just the Friedmanite argument inverted.

In reality, we all know even from what we see that the state is hugely influenced to do the bidding of capital, and to clean up the mess capitalism, with all its crisis tendencies, routinely makes. Vivek Chibber does a good job of explaining the mechanisms that underlie that in the first 40 mins or so of this clip.

There's more to the story, of course. The state does have some degree of genuine autonomy that can be harnessed democratically in ways capital doesn't sanction, on behalf of us schmucks. But the problem is that it's highly circumscribed - as recent, systematic attempts to kill stone dead any attempt to stray even an inch from the sanctioned 'extreme centre' of Blairite/Clintonite neoliberalism that has prevailed in recent decades, and institute policies that would have been quite unremarkable in the decades after WWII, have shown.

.

'Extreme centre' - The problem of extremists is that they look at things through the propganda of their extremist perspective. This term was popularised in the far left media and is used no differently and no less erroneously from how Only uses the term 'socialism'. Your country is very different from when this term was created to explain away the Blair period - It has moved away from the 'centre' in so many different extreme directions. In 2019 the centre is only extremely different from the extremes because of the move away from the centre left and centre right to causes. This is why the UK is in such a mess today - not the Labour party's shift to the centre left under Blair. It is not only Blair's hair style that separates him from BoJo etc.

.

Food safety and supply regulations are NOT constraints on the worst excesses of capitalism - they are only meant to ensure food safety and supply. Such regulations/procedures/standards/rules are required regardless of the political system.

.

In this the government or the regulatory authority is the protector - the rules are to protect, they do protect, they were introduced to protect. Food supply and safety is one of the key roles of any government in any system. There is nothing in this that means that lack of food safety and supply is one of the worst excesses of capitalism alone. The one thing Only got right is that this could happen in a broadly socialist country (or any 'ism' country) and does.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Hot Dogs recalled, Breakfast burritos recalled. Why Capitalism is so bad.