Capitalism: Is it Working?

[ideologue08]

Capitalism has its merits obviously, I don't agree with the far left view that capitalism is nothing more than the rich fucking the poor anally.

[Mister Agenda]

Unfettered free capitalism was tried in the 19th century, and it led to massive monopolies,

-and much, much more....good and bad, absolutely.

Agenda, while I agree with you in the broad strokes, this whole "crony capitalism/soft fascism" thing, to me, seems to be little more than trying to distances one's self from the weaknesses of a particular system. It's okay if capitalism leads to land barons - mine labor history etc..no tool is perfect. You clearly understand what went wrong and why we need to make sure that doesn't go wrong again. That doesn't mean that capitalism is -bad mmkay-.. just that it can be used for whatever purpose the operators ingenuity can devise. If you think that leveraging your capital to capture a government is anything -other- than one of the most powerful examples of free market capitalism (why isn't the government for sale..as a product..bud?)...then you're giving the free market a short shrift. That is one hell of a business transaction. To be completely honest, sometimes, when government is bought, it isn't so much that it -can be- bought that bothers me....as the bargain basement price it went for, you know?

Should we really be surprised when some otherwise successful system breaks down or grinds against itself when taken to extremes?

You make some good points. Frankly, all I ask of people who want to impose limits on capitalism is that they think it through. There's no law that says maximum market efiiciency is the ultimate good. We're certainly allowed to value other things, but we should be careful not to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs in pursuit of them, else we wind up with no goose and no eggs. Keeping a close eye on the goose and making sure no one abuses it or feeds it too many things that are bad for it is good for all concerned except thieves. And you don't want it eating things that are valuable, making you pay too high a price for those eggs. There's a just right zone, a balance where you get the most eggs at the lowest price without hurting the goose, but it's a moving target because things change, and you can't be trusted to keep the goose there if you hate the goose...and you can't be trusted to keep the goose there if you love it for it's own sake too much.

[_xenu_]

Capitalism works. What most countries have is not capitalism, it is corporatism, where corporations have a lot of control over the government and pass laws to help themselves. Capitalism can be seen as the separation of the market from the state. In other words, the government does not pass laws that help individual corporations, and leaves the market to largely regulate itself.

That sounds a bit Liberatarian-ish for my tastes. I think government should interfere with capitalism when its in the public interest.

[littleendian]

That sounds a bit Liberatarian-ish for my tastes. I think government should interfere with capitalism when its in the public interest.

Very true, industry has every incentive to only look at the short-term gain (profit) and ignore any external costs they might bring about on e.g. the environment, so there has to be a mechanism that ensures these costs are considered.

[Something completely different]

The 'force' was, though it was still a pittance, the pay was more than workers could get in agriculture. People didn't flock to factories because back on the farm was better. They weren't dragged from their homes and forced to toil in factories. They showed up looking for work. It's a shame that they couldn't do better, but the first step up from extreme poverty is still pretty damn impoverished and desperate.

not true.

19th century society wasnt the kind of place where you could simply move from one place to another. Most of the land was still owned by nobles and landlords, who drove the people who lived on it of the land to make profit through breeding sheep.
Most famous example being the clearance of the highlands in Scotland.
The only country which avoided this was France, where the nobility had been recently made literaly headless - hence industrialisation in France took mainly place through the state, which avoided the mass poverty each other European country had, but is partialy responsible for creating the blobbed up buerocratic state owned industrial mess France suffers under today.

I agree, the process of capitalism increases efficiency whether your goals are benign, selfish, or evil. It's a system of economics, not a system of ethics. It is measured against other economic systems by how well it works. The ethics have to be supplied by the participants, just as in any other economic system.

?

Please further elaborate.
By my definition of words, a participant in tha capitalist system is a capitalist - but you stated that capitalism doesnt provide ethics - are you contradicting yourself or did I miss something?

Why by "participants"????

Since when is capitalism the central theme which defines a society????

And by that time, the wealth and security they wanted actually existed, thanks to decades of strong economic growth. The same movements in the infancy of the industrial revolution would have shut down the factories.

Not true. Wealth inequality stayed widespread well up to the 1950s
The factors contributing to the social standerds becomeing more equal are numerous - but in my opinion the most importent was neither the free market nore workers movements - but the reform of the political arena which allowed everyone to participate in it - thereby making social concerns importent for catching votes.

It is a blind assertion to state that the early movements would have shut down the factories. Are you an expert in creating accurate alternative history models???? Remember - the most importent concern of the earliest workers rights movements werent even wages nore the right to form unions - but the basic right to vote - which was only given to people who owned land.

If you think I am against workers movements, or for miserable working conditions, you are misunderstanding me. I'm merely being realistic. In an environment where extreme poverty is the norm, you can't magically skip the part of development where pay is low and conditions are poor. You CAN shorten that part with investment from already-developed countries and you CAN mitigate violation of rights with good laws, transparency and economic incentives. I'm not for sweat shops, but the way to get rid of them isn't to close them down and put their employees out of work. It's to make them obsolete as fast as possible, and that takes more effort than being picky about where you buy your t-shirts.

Wrong, our economic system depends on sweatshops and cheap labor - which is why companies in Bangladesh and China have an interest in the politics of labor there. It is the bigger profit that counts in economics and not social change. Proof of which can be seen all throughout the third world: It was Reagan and Tatcher who proposed the idea that through economic liberties will come social liberties - and see today - the same countries which opened to the free market then are still not offering social liberties.
Some of which, such as China are even moving away from the sweatshop lable and participating in the free market by producing products they developed themselves - do in the end: capitalism does not bring democracy - if anything it brings stability to regimes since it legitemises them as trading partners and gives them a chance to legitemise themselves amongst their own people by producing wealth.

Given how the government then had its cheeks spread for the land barons, I would say it was a better example of soft fascism. The government in the 19th century apparently saw its role as giving away land and other special privileges to the companies headed by those most adept at bribery. Not so different from today. Libertarians tend not to be big fans of consumerism or corporatism or crony capitalism; all of which are detrimental to a free market. As long as politicians are in a position to grant corporations special favors, corporations will find a way to get away with influencing the tax code and having a hand in writing the regulations that govern them to the detriment of their less well-connected competitors.

The biggest magnates werent barons, but successfull people who managed to create a buisness through enterprneurship. After gaining their wealth the goverments disinterest for social disorder greatly benefited them since equal rights for workers werent given. Non of them were nobles. Other than that, I do not see evidence of the goverment doing any other favores to early industrial magnates and giants other than towards the arms industry. The east India company was actualy even nationalised and so were several companies in imperial Russia.
General goverment policie then was one of non goverment intervention - which is also what caused the great Irish and Indian famines.

I always wondered what that word meant:

Corporatism, also known as corporativism has more than one meaning. It may refer to political, or social organization that involves association of the people of society into corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests.[1] Corporatism is theoretically based upon the interpretation of a community as an organic body

Are you seriously suggesting that the 19th century and verious other societies of tooday live with a medieval social structure?

I find this idea of a goverment which is seperated from a nations economics will somehow create allout wealth to be very similar to marxism in a way: In that it is a prophecy which cannot be proven to be succesfull when applied.
Other than that, it seems to simply be the same kind of word which communists would use when confronted with the horrors of the eastern block, only that you will use it for when confronted with the negatives of capitalism: "Oh but that isnt real capitalism"

[Mister Agenda]

not true.

19th century society wasnt the kind of place where you could simply move from one place to another. Most of the land was still owned by nobles and landlords, who drove the people who lived on it of the land to make profit through breeding sheep.
Most famous example being the clearance of the highlands in Scotland.
The only country which avoided this was France, where the nobility had been recently made literaly headless - hence industrialisation in France took mainly place through the state, which avoided the mass poverty each other European country had, but is partialy responsible for creating the blobbed up buerocratic state owned industrial mess France suffers under today.

My apologies. I confess I had the USA too much in mind in my thinking.

?

Please further elaborate.
By my definition of words, a participant in tha capitalist system is a capitalist - but you stated that capitalism doesnt provide ethics - are you contradicting yourself or did I miss something?

Workers participate in capitalist systems, as well, selling their labor, knowledge, and services. I'm not getting what this has to do with economic systems not providing ethics. Ethical systems provide ethics.

Why by "participants"????

I don't understand the question.

Since when is capitalism the central theme which defines a society????

I don't know. I don't recall claiming that capitalism is the central theme which defines a society. I've claimed that it's an effective system for maximizing economic growth, and I would modify that with the caveat that this is in comparison to other systems we've tried. It's easy to imagine technological advancements that could replace it with something more efficient. It's harder to imagine a better economic method with current technology, because if I could I'd be backing that horse. And I don't think capitalism is a marvelous system some genius came up with, I think it's what happens when people have a convenient medium of exchange and a certain amount of freedom to exchange goods and services and invest in future productivity. It's what happens when central planning goes below a certain level. It's like science in that it can help you get what you value, but it can't legitimately tell you what to value.

Not true. Wealth inequality stayed widespread well up to the 1950s

Wealth inequality isn't the same as lack of wealth. If my income goes up 10% and my boss's income has gone up 90%, I am not less wealthy than before. I'm not saying that extreme wealth inequality is fair, just that it doesn't mean poor people's standards of living aren't improving.

The factors contributing to the social standerds becomeing more equal are numerous - but in my opinion the most importent was neither the free market nore workers movements - but the reform of the political arena which allowed everyone to participate in it - thereby making social concerns importent for catching votes.

I tend to agree. It helps to have a lot of wealth in your country when you're ready to do that, though.

It is a blind assertion to state that the early movements would have shut down the factories. Are you an expert in creating accurate alternative history models???? Remember - the most importent concern of the earliest workers rights movements werent even wages nore the right to form unions - but the basic right to vote - which was only given to people who owned land.

Cheap labor is a major part of what drove industrialization, just as it is today in developing countries. In combination with stable politics it attracts investment. Cheap labor and rule of law is far more likely to kickstart a poor nation's economy than rich natural resources, to the point I consider particularly precious resources like oil, gems, and gold to be an economic curse for an undeveloped economy, as they encourage economic reliance on the resources rather than on the people.

I agree that the right to vote couldn't come too soon, and it's shameful that it didn't; but historically, only more power makes the powerful share theirs. And capitalism played a role in workers having more power. A peasant can always be replaced by the next peasant over from a feudal lord's point of view; but skilled workers can wreck you by not showing up for work because it can take months or years to train their replacements. Violence was done to force them to work, but it couldn't overcome their will and power in the long run. It could have happened differently, the people have more power than they often think they do, and rulers are always riding a tiger they hope won't realize it's a tiger.

Wrong, our economic system depends on sweatshops and cheap labor - which is why companies in Bangladesh and China have an interest in the politics of labor there. It is the bigger profit that counts in economics and not social change. Proof of which can be seen all throughout the third world: It was Reagan and Tatcher who proposed the idea that through economic liberties will come social liberties - and see today - the same countries which opened to the free market then are still not offering social liberties.

If it weren't for technological advances I see coming, I would project that Western economies will slow down as developing countries advance their economies, making cheap labor less cheap. Africa is the last source of millions of people who will work cheap because they don't yet have the skills to command better wages. Because of its nature of maximizing market efficiencies, a much smaller difference between the economic activity level of countries is coming...if they can manage to make the transition before cheap labor becomes obsolete.

Some of which, such as China are even moving away from the sweatshop lable and participating in the free market by producing products they developed themselves - do in the end: capitalism does not bring democracy - if anything it brings stability to regimes since it legitemises them as trading partners and gives them a chance to legitemise themselves amongst their own people by producing wealth.

Yes, as the country develops, sweat shops become obsolete for the very reasons you outline. As I said before, China's government is wise in implementing capitalism slowly, not only does it smooth out the transition, it allows them to retain their power longer. It won't remain at it's current level indefinitely, although I don't expect China to become an open democratic republic similar to Western ones in my lifetime...with or without capitalism. I don't mind that we disagree, history will tell, eventually. China is certainly likely to remain severely authoritarian longer than Pinochet's Chile after he enacted market reforms.

The biggest magnates werent barons, but successfull people who managed to create a buisness through enterprneurship.

Sorry, I was using a USA-centric expression. Not actual barons, but 'tycoons'. A certain breed in America before the turn of the previous century were often referred to as 'robber barons'. I regret any confusion.

After gaining their wealth the goverments disinterest for social disorder greatly benefited them since equal rights for workers werent given. Non of them were nobles. Other than that, I do not see evidence of the goverment doing any other favores to early industrial magnates and giants other than towards the arms industry. The east India company was actualy even nationalised and so were several companies in imperial Russia.

In America we had great tracts of land that the government gave to railroad tycoons who greased the wheels of congress sufficiently. History would have been kinder if workers' rights were provided sooner.

General goverment policie then was one of non goverment intervention - which is also what caused the great Irish and Indian famines.

That policy seemed to be entirely at the whim of those willing to pay politicians for special privileges. I can't speak to India, but factors in the Irish famine included Catholics having been prevented by the government from owning land until the late 1700s, and Catholics were most of the population. Ireland was a conquered country with a landlord tenant system where most of the landlords didn't even live in Ireland, and this set up the preconditions for disaster. I hate to say it, but England's attitude toward the Irish during the famine smacks more of malice than of laissez faire market beliefs that might have been beneficial if they had been acted on before there was a famine instead of being used to justify halting government relief. Their actions are consistent with a significant faction of the English government wanting as many Irish as possible dead, or at lest a pervasive malevolent incompetence. Given British involvment in India, I wonder if they contributed similarly to the famine there. At any rate, I'm not against government intervention in principle, particularly during a disaster. I'm for anticipating possible unintended consequences of government acton or inaction.

I always wondered what that word meant:

Corporatism, also known as corporativism has more than one meaning. It may refer to political, or social organization that involves association of the people of society into corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests.[1] Corporatism is theoretically based upon the interpretation of a community as an organic body

Are you seriously suggesting that the 19th century and verious other societies of tooday live with a medieval social structure?

No, I am not. Wikipedia isn't always our friend in normal conversation. Corporatism also refers to the control of government by large special interest groups, such a large corporations and powerful lobbies.

I find this idea of a goverment which is seperated from a nations economics will somehow create allout wealth to be very similar to marxism in a way: In that it is a prophecy which cannot be proven to be succesfull when applied.

I find that idea curious, too. Capitalism as it is usually conceived can't exist without rule of law and some degree of political stability. I wouldn't build cell towers in a country with no legal infrastructure to ensure that I can collect the charges for my services, for instance. There's a balance: N. Korea is actively hostile to capitalism, I wouldn't want to invest there. Somalia doesn't have the legal structure or stability, too risky. Botswana: just right.

Other than that, it seems to simply be the same kind of word which communists would use when confronted with the horrors of the eastern block, only that you will use it for when confronted with the negatives of capitalism: "Oh but that isnt real capitalism"

If you catch me saying 'that isn't real capitalism', please correct me. I might point out that blame for evil usually belongs to the crafter rather than the tool. I haven't been mentioning one of the most important aspects of capitalism: incentive. It's effective at efficient allocation of resources because it rewards those who do it well. Governments and charities are in a unique position to tap that quality in a variety of ways by offering incentives for coming up with solutions to achieve desired goals one might not ordinarily think of as captialistic, such as hiring a firm to figure out the most effective way to distribute mosquito nets in Mali within a certain budget, with a substantial reward if the method is truly effective. You just have to be careful to know for sure what you're actually incentivizing and have a good way to measure success. That firm will bust its hump trying to figure out how to get mosquito nets to villagers in Mali.

[Creed of Heresy]

Personally I prefer social democracy-based capitalism over absolute free-market capitalism. I hold a lot of libertarian ideas when it comes to the marketplace but there's always a note of government involvement in them. I don't think the government should ever step in to side with one corporation or another, but I DO think the government should ensure that the free market is tempered with certain restrictions and regulations. I don't want the government telling me I can't buy something but I DO want the government to make sure that I am being told what risks might be involved with what I am buying. Informed consent/responsibility is all-important to me.

[Minimalist]

I know we have at least member from Portugal so I figured to put this here.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/16759-...to-despair

Ruinous Policies Plunge Portugal into Despair

[Something completely different]

not true.

19th century society wasnt the kind of place where you could simply move from one place to another. Most of the land was still owned by nobles and landlords, who drove the people who lived on it of the land to make profit through breeding sheep.
Most famous example being the clearance of the highlands in Scotland.
The only country which avoided this was France, where the nobility had been recently made literaly headless - hence industrialisation in France took mainly place through the state, which avoided the mass poverty each other European country had, but is partialy responsible for creating the blobbed up buerocratic state owned industrial mess France suffers under today.

My apologies. I confess I had the USA too much in mind in my thinking.

?

Please further elaborate.
By my definition of words, a participant in tha capitalist system is a capitalist - but you stated that capitalism doesnt provide ethics - are you contradicting yourself or did I miss something?

Workers participate in capitalist systems, as well, selling their labor, knowledge, and services. I'm not getting what this has to do with economic systems not providing ethics. Ethical systems provide ethics.

Why by "participants"????

I don't understand the question.

Since when is capitalism the central theme which defines a society????

I don't know. I don't recall claiming that capitalism is the central theme which defines a society. I've claimed that it's an effective system for maximizing economic growth, and I would modify that with the caveat that this is in comparison to other systems we've tried. It's easy to imagine technological advancements that could replace it with something more efficient. It's harder to imagine a better economic method with current technology, because if I could I'd be backing that horse. And I don't think capitalism is a marvelous system some genius came up with, I think it's what happens when people have a convenient medium of exchange and a certain amount of freedom to exchange goods and services and invest in future productivity. It's what happens when central planning goes below a certain level. It's like science in that it can help you get what you value, but it can't legitimately tell you what to value.

Not true. Wealth inequality stayed widespread well up to the 1950s

Wealth inequality isn't the same as lack of wealth. If my income goes up 10% and my boss's income has gone up 90%, I am not less wealthy than before. I'm not saying that extreme wealth inequality is fair, just that it doesn't mean poor people's standards of living aren't improving.

The factors contributing to the social standerds becomeing more equal are numerous - but in my opinion the most importent was neither the free market nore workers movements - but the reform of the political arena which allowed everyone to participate in it - thereby making social concerns importent for catching votes.

I tend to agree. It helps to have a lot of wealth in your country when you're ready to do that, though.

It is a blind assertion to state that the early movements would have shut down the factories. Are you an expert in creating accurate alternative history models???? Remember - the most importent concern of the earliest workers rights movements werent even wages nore the right to form unions - but the basic right to vote - which was only given to people who owned land.

Cheap labor is a major part of what drove industrialization, just as it is today in developing countries. In combination with stable politics it attracts investment. Cheap labor and rule of law is far more likely to kickstart a poor nation's economy than rich natural resources, to the point I consider particularly precious resources like oil, gems, and gold to be an economic curse for an undeveloped economy, as they encourage economic reliance on the resources rather than on the people.

I agree that the right to vote couldn't come too soon, and it's shameful that it didn't; but historically, only more power makes the powerful share theirs. And capitalism played a role in workers having more power. A peasant can always be replaced by the next peasant over from a feudal lord's point of view; but skilled workers can wreck you by not showing up for work because it can take months or years to train their replacements. Violence was done to force them to work, but it couldn't overcome their will and power in the long run. It could have happened differently, the people have more power than they often think they do, and rulers are always riding a tiger they hope won't realize it's a tiger.

Wrong, our economic system depends on sweatshops and cheap labor - which is why companies in Bangladesh and China have an interest in the politics of labor there. It is the bigger profit that counts in economics and not social change. Proof of which can be seen all throughout the third world: It was Reagan and Tatcher who proposed the idea that through economic liberties will come social liberties - and see today - the same countries which opened to the free market then are still not offering social liberties.

If it weren't for technological advances I see coming, I would project that Western economies will slow down as developing countries advance their economies, making cheap labor less cheap. Africa is the last source of millions of people who will work cheap because they don't yet have the skills to command better wages. Because of its nature of maximizing market efficiencies, a much smaller difference between the economic activity level of countries is coming...if they can manage to make the transition before cheap labor becomes obsolete.

Some of which, such as China are even moving away from the sweatshop lable and participating in the free market by producing products they developed themselves - do in the end: capitalism does not bring democracy - if anything it brings stability to regimes since it legitemises them as trading partners and gives them a chance to legitemise themselves amongst their own people by producing wealth.

Yes, as the country develops, sweat shops become obsolete for the very reasons you outline. As I said before, China's government is wise in implementing capitalism slowly, not only does it smooth out the transition, it allows them to retain their power longer. It won't remain at it's current level indefinitely, although I don't expect China to become an open democratic republic similar to Western ones in my lifetime...with or without capitalism. I don't mind that we disagree, history will tell, eventually. China is certainly likely to remain severely authoritarian longer than Pinochet's Chile after he enacted market reforms.

The biggest magnates werent barons, but successfull people who managed to create a buisness through enterprneurship.

Sorry, I was using a USA-centric expression. Not actual barons, but 'tycoons'. A certain breed in America before the turn of the previous century were often referred to as 'robber barons'. I regret any confusion.

After gaining their wealth the goverments disinterest for social disorder greatly benefited them since equal rights for workers werent given. Non of them were nobles. Other than that, I do not see evidence of the goverment doing any other favores to early industrial magnates and giants other than towards the arms industry. The east India company was actualy even nationalised and so were several companies in imperial Russia.

In America we had great tracts of land that the government gave to railroad tycoons who greased the wheels of congress sufficiently. History would have been kinder if workers' rights were provided sooner.

General goverment policie then was one of non goverment intervention - which is also what caused the great Irish and Indian famines.

That policy seemed to be entirely at the whim of those willing to pay politicians for special privileges. I can't speak to India, but factors in the Irish famine included Catholics having been prevented by the government from owning land until the late 1700s, and Catholics were most of the population. Ireland was a conquered country with a landlord tenant system where most of the landlords didn't even live in Ireland, and this set up the preconditions for disaster. I hate to say it, but England's attitude toward the Irish during the famine smacks more of malice than of laissez faire market beliefs that might have been beneficial if they had been acted on before there was a famine instead of being used to justify halting government relief. Their actions are consistent with a significant faction of the English government wanting as many Irish as possible dead, or at lest a pervasive malevolent incompetence. Given British involvment in India, I wonder if they contributed similarly to the famine there. At any rate, I'm not against government intervention in principle, particularly during a disaster. I'm for anticipating possible unintended consequences of government acton or inaction.

I always wondered what that word meant:


Are you seriously suggesting that the 19th century and verious other societies of tooday live with a medieval social structure?

No, I am not. Wikipedia isn't always our friend in normal conversation. Corporatism also refers to the control of government by large special interest groups, such a large corporations and powerful lobbies.

I find this idea of a goverment which is seperated from a nations economics will somehow create allout wealth to be very similar to marxism in a way: In that it is a prophecy which cannot be proven to be succesfull when applied.

I find that idea curious, too. Capitalism as it is usually conceived can't exist without rule of law and some degree of political stability. I wouldn't build cell towers in a country with no legal infrastructure to ensure that I can collect the charges for my services, for instance. There's a balance: N. Korea is actively hostile to capitalism, I wouldn't want to invest there. Somalia doesn't have the legal structure or stability, too risky. Botswana: just right.

Other than that, it seems to simply be the same kind of word which communists would use when confronted with the horrors of the eastern block, only that you will use it for when confronted with the negatives of capitalism: "Oh but that isnt real capitalism"

If you catch me saying 'that isn't real capitalism', please correct me. I might point out that blame for evil usually belongs to the crafter rather than the tool. I haven't been mentioning one of the most important aspects of capitalism: incentive. It's effective at efficient allocation of resources because it rewards those who do it well. Governments and charities are in a unique position to tap that quality in a variety of ways by offering incentives for coming up with solutions to achieve desired goals one might not ordinarily think of as captialistic, such as hiring a firm to figure out the most effective way to distribute mosquito nets in Mali within a certain budget, with a substantial reward if the method is truly effective. You just have to be careful to know for sure what you're actually incentivizing and have a good way to measure success. That firm will bust its hump trying to figure out how to get mosquito nets to villagers in Mali.

This is not the "real reply"

I am merely doing this so when I come home and look at "recent posts" I am reminded to reply to you again.

[dazzn]

define working.

All an economic system should do is allocate resources to meet finite ends. promoting "equality" is immaterial.

that said, many bemoan capitalism, but value smartphones, the internet, TV, movies, etc. which wouldn't exist without a capitalist model. You think Samsung and Tim Cook make phones out of the goodness of their heart, or to make revenue and ultimately profits?

Capitalism works since it allocates resources efficiently. if there are poor, meh, there always have been poor. at least today, the poor can better themselves if they choose. tell poor commoners in 1350 if they ever had a chance to better their economic lot.