Anology to understand the Global Ecomony

Some people that got stranded on an island, and I think it was 6 or 7 were Asians and there was one American and as soon as they were on the island they had to divide up the jobs. And one Asian was given the job of fishing, the other one was hunting, one of them got the job of gathering fire wood. So they all had jobs, and the American was assigned the job of eating. And so at the end of the day, they would all gather around and prepare this feast and the American would sit there and eat it. But he would´nt eat it all, he´d just leave enough crumbs so he could give to the 6 Asians so they could go on and repeat it again tomorrow, spend all day preparing a meal for the American to eat. Now, the way modern economists would look at it, they would say “Well, this American is vital to the whole island economy. Without him nobody would have to fish, nobody would have to hunt, nobody would have to gather fire wood. He is creating all this employment on the island”. But the reality is, every Asian on that island, his lot in life would be dramatically improved if they kicked the American off the island because now they would have a lot more to eat or maybe they wouldn´t have to spend all day hunting and fishing and they can lay on the beach a little bit.

-By Peter Schiff

Add a European to the island and the American gets a real job, he works as bodyguard for the European who does nothing but leech.

>>2
Oooooooh, I heard that!

If you add a Mexican to the island, he's just take the American's job, and he'll do it cheaper.

>>4
BAM!

The two Russians spend 75% of their time drunk, fighting, and cheating each other, and the other 25% fucking with everybody else 'cause they used to matter.

The American enslaves a bunch of niggers and makes them work but they escape and start stealing all his shit so the American agrees to give them a portion of the food the asians and mexicans get for him and in return he makes some spears, bows and arrows and lets them use it on the asians/mexicans if they decide to go on strike.

The island natives show up and demand the right to eat food like they always did before everyone else showed up uninvited.  This is obviously refused, so they compromise with the right to drink and gamble without paying tax.

They problem with this analogy (well one of them) is that the "American" isn't providing the jobs he's providing the demand. Since he isn't exchanging anything in return it is communism. All you've shown is why communism benefits the few elite. To make it the current global economy the American would be supplying fishing poles or providing the place to fish or teaching them how to fish. Which expertise and technology are two of America's greatest exports (really the only ones). Shit its not like other countries just give us shit for free. This analogy on a global scale is more like Colonialism. Which is not the situation in reality is it?

That analogy lacks the part where the American compensates the gooks for their services. Singapore, Korea, China & co. don't give away their stuff for free like in your nice little story there.

The Muslim on the island declares the island to be a holy site of Islam and threatens to kill everybody if they don't leave the island. The American tries to take out the Muslim first, but is stopped by the European. Then a boat arrives with more Muslims and they kill the American and European and force the other Asians to convert.

>>11
Fix'd

The Jew and Muslim live on the same part of the Island till the Jew complains "baww Germany is picking on me" so the rest of the world kick the Muslim of the shared stretch of land even though he helped defend the Jew against the German. The Jew then tells the rest of the people on the Island lies about the Muslim till everyone is against him. Now the Jew can enjoy his stolen land and if anyone questions their right to the Muslims land they will be imprisoned and branded a Nazi.

Everyone expects the Muslim to be cool with this.

*replace Muslim with Arab since the war isn't related to religion in anyway

>>12
This is what liberals actually believe.

>>11
I'm not Liberal or Conservative, due to not living in a world were everything is black and white.
both parties are equally retarded. Please don't brand me as either.

>>14
>everything is black and white.
If you believe everything is a blurry day dream and so never bother defining things rationally then you are a liberal.

>>15
cool story bro
i guess ignorance is bliss
Enjoy living in your Good Vs Evil world.

>>15
yeah by that logic there are only 2 groups. Hippies and Stormfags

>>15
You're right black and white exist but they are defined by different underling shades and hues. A homosexual may be gay but that's not his only defining quality. Being a Conservative doesn't mean a person can't have liberal thoughts. People aren't so one tracked as they'd like you to believe.

>>14
I said that was what liberals actually believe, not that you are a liberal.

Do I smell ethical relativists in here?
>>16
Well thanks.  You enjoy living in your world, where apparently there is no good or evil.  What do you use?  Lawyers?
>>17
Good and evil can be attributed to individual actions and thoughts, and only to people, or groups of people after a summing up of their individual thoughts and actions. 
>>18
Shades and hues? 

We all believe we seek what is good and shun that which is evil.  Sometimes we succeed, and sometimes we fuck it up because we're ignorant, stupid, or most often, misinformed.  It doesn't change the fact that something is either good, evil, or irrelevant.  There is no gray. If I must let one die to save two, it's a bitch, but it's good.  The problems can become complex, but ultimately, when each factor is measured against  core values shared by all humans, a clear answer can be reached.  We could argue all day about what those core values are; that's where most of the confusion lies, but when they are agreed upon the determination of black, white, or irrelevant is simple.

>>17
No one gives a shit about your motives. All that matters is that you voted for Obongo and that makes you commie piece of shit whether you like it or not.

>>20
You say ethical relativism like Christians say the term Atheist. I don't intend to get in a pissing match. So let me just say I would let hitler and stalin die to save one Martin Luther king Jr. Sometimes two for one isn't a bad deal either but I guess that determination is all relative too.

>>22
I do indeed.  I'm an atheist ethical absolutist.  So let's look at your hypothetical.  The end game is death for somebody.  That's pretty absolute.  Since you chose Hitler/Stalin vs. King you clearly believe in a pretty standard interpretation of good and evil.  Nothing interesting there.  So how did you make that determination?  You added up the actions of the men that were good(white), the actions that were evil(black), subtracted, and viola: White wins(so to speak).  No gray, just complexity that blurs into gray when the judge is incapable, for whatever reason, of fully appreciating all of the factors.  And it gets tough.  That's why most religions and old people discourage our tendency to be judgmental.  Philosophers and anthropologists have been trying to puzzle this one out since they first noticed cultural differences in ethics/morals(I will use them interchangeably here), but it's been the lawyers who really  seized on the concept and have polluted many minds with it.  But it just doesn't figure, 'cause once cultural differences are factored out you find a consistent and universal ideal that demands that life and happiness are to be cultivated, and death and suffering avoided.

There's a group of around half a dozen natives on an island.
They spend their time fishing and relaxing on the beach, talking about how their situation can be viewed as a metaphor of the global economy. Then, on a dark day, ships as large as mountains arrive at the beach. From those ships, strange men sporting large neckbeards emerge. They travel around the island on strange beasts and use their thunder-sticks to overpower the natives. Then they start preaching and whining about liberals and conservatives and ethics until the natives can't stand it anymore and kill themselves. The end.

>>21
Obama is a communist? What is this, 1953? Did McCarthyism just become revived again all of a sudden? Get back to your time machine, you delusional old man.

>>25
Yes, actually.  Bongo Bongo Boy the Kenyan illegal alien is as Red as a baboon's ass.

Tell me, have he and his buddies Alinsky and Ayers ever claimed to be anything else?

Have you ever read anything any of them ever wrote?

Oh.  Also, McCarthy was right, and he was ridiculed by Reds in the newsmedia and hounded to his grave for exposing them and speaking the truth.

>>23
There is one key flaw to that theory it's that everyone would take the same deal I would. There are people who would easily take stalin/hitler or both instead of King. I would never discount good or evil but those are just words for a persons perception of values. I don't believe your perception of good or evil is anything like mine and at the core they could be similar or different but that's all coincidence. You could look at the difference of hobbes and locke, is it better to be safe and ruled or endangered and free. Both of these men were certain they were right. Their ideas of good and evil were different. Happiness and suffering are biological effects which are just base instincts devoid of good or evil. What causes these reactions are for the individual to decide. I'm not an ethical nihilist by any means I simply believe an individual chooses what can be classified as good and what can be classified as evil and to what degrees of evil and what degrees of good. As a side note of little relevance I have to say although its doubtable that we'll reach an agreement. I have to say this conversation is very much enjoyable especially when compared to most or the threads on 4chan.

>>16
>>17
>>18
I didn't say that I believe everything is black and white, I was arguing in favor of rationalism.

When faced with the problem of defining an extremely complex universe with a limited fallible mind some people do indeed develop a "black and white" mentality by over-simplifying the factors they use in their hypothesis, but this is no better than assuming that the grey blurs you see are actually grey areas since it may just be that you are out of focus. Furthermore "black and white" hypothesises are not necessarily wrong and even if they are not 100% accurate this doesn't mean they are inefficient, the same applies to "grey area" hypothesises aswell I suppose.

>>20
I am an avid believer in the premise "the ends justify the means".

>>22
That doesn't make the original situation grey, in the original situation the 3 people could have been any 3 people and so they were equal in all respects.

>>23
John Mill discovered the answer, there are universal morals and their outcome depends on situational factors. Slavery was ok in ancient Rome because it was inevitable, not because morality is relative, by freeing slaves you only create more jobs that will be filled by slave labor or working existing slaves even harder, you would do more good becoming a christian to promote serfdom as an alternative to slavery and spread basic morals like the sanctity of life or becoming a bourgeoisie capitalist to advance technology so one day slavery won't be the natural state of things.

>>7
^*African Americans

>>1

Ridiculous analogy.  Do they honestly expect the American to work?