It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Capitalism doesn't and IS NOT working, it's destructive and creatives poor social incentives

page: 24
52
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677


Selling our souls? Yep..or rather, we prostitute ourselves in exchange for pay. Makes sense to work hard, do what is needed and prostitute ourselves to the highest bidder. No? LOL


Hell, we can always start a farming commune and work 18 hours per day to be free, one safety tip, don't drink the coolaid.




posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Yes. I am not sure if others mention this, but Senator Elizabeth Warren has a few good ideas in her new book, A Fighting Chance, and Thomas Picketty's new book, Capital in the 21st-Century, is also well-said. They propose a system that I call "Robin Hood economics." Yup, take from the rich, give to the poor. Or, you could also call it "reverse" Communism. Instead of the rich using a command economy to control and dominate the poor, how about the poor use it to control the rich? Yeah, it has never been done that way in all of recorded history...perhaps, just perhaps, we might be able to save the world...

I also wrote my own economic pamphlet regarding this. Of course, it is simply a concise version of what Elizabeth Warren and Thomas Picketty have said. We also need a maximum wage. Here's a well-written article by someone else:

theweek.com/article/index/260267/why-we-need-a-maximum-wage
edit on 13-6-2014 by WhatWeNeedToday because: added the title of the books



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I could call myself the Queen of England, that wouldn't make it true.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero


so basically then when you say $10/hr an hour would be better than it has been since 1955 you are being disingenuous ...... as you are clearly stating right here in the very same post your purchasing power even a decade ago was well over double what it is today (i dont believe that either but yes it was much much higher)

again im not saying raise it to $20/hr because i know thats not possible right now (at least in many places) all im saying is at least concede that wanting more than what minimum wage is today (or even $10/hr though that would be much better than it is now) isnt people asking for more than their fair share..... because people who worked those exact jobs in the past in essence got paid more and as you have agreed the labor didnt magically become any more or less important
edit on 13-6-2014 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

1. As I said wayyyyy back up the thread, you arguably could point to Mondragon as an example where socialist companies are out-competing others. Mondragon's profit in 2012 was 4 billion euros. The problem with pointing to Mondragon as a socialist company is that in many Mondragon companies, wage workers outnumber worker-owners.

2. A 100% unambiguously socialist corporation would fail in a capitalist society. It is not designed to succeed. A socialist corporation would produce more expensive products with only small differences in quality because a socialist corporation would not be using the labor of Southeast Asian debt slaves.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Russia has been described as state capitalist by other leftists since Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy. The Sino-Soviet split was fueled in part by those accusations.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: freakwars

Well, I choose to accept a communist nation's defining themselves as communist. It's logical, self evident in definitions and it's plain as day. Some have actually stated China isn't communist, but this is the first time I've heard it suggested Soviet Russia wasn't communist. I can chalk up another first I never thought I'd see.

There are learned men and scholars who are in a position in society to actually work toward redefining these things..but none of us are among that class, and I'll not take the assumption that I am.

The Soviet Union was run and entirely controlled by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Just as China is today controlled by the Chinese Communist Party or CCP. China's political leader is also the head of the CCP. It's how a communist nation works as opposed to a Democracy or Constitutional Monarchy or Representative Republic nation.

As such, I'll certainly use the definitions for Socialism, Communism and Capitalism which are internationally recognized and understood for a common meaning. In terms of "State Capitalism"??


an economic system in which private capitalism is modified by a varying degree of government ownership and control
Merriam-Webster

That would suggest a system where private ownership and capital was the base to THEN be modified to various degrees. That is the functional and operational OPPOSITE of a Communist nation like the U.S.S.R. or modern day People's Republic of China. Private ownership or ability to HAVE capital is at the direction and dictate of the state, and can be modified or removed entirely at the whim of the state. Hence, the pure structure and idea behind top down control of a Communist model.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: sirhumperdink



In 1960, the nominal minimum wage was $1.00, but that is equal to nearly $8.00 in today's dollars. In fact, the real minimum wage peaked in 1968 at $10.74 an hour (2013 dollars). Since then, the purchasing power of the minimum wage has slowly fallen over time.


The real minimum wage falls

In any discussion about today's minimum wage you have to factor in after taxes. In the 60s you would not get a "refund" of taxes you did not pay as you can now. There was no redistribution of wealth plan using taxes as the vehicle. Therefore remarks of "the minimum wage should be $20/hr or even $15/hr are totally bogus, except, perhaps, in certain localities where the cost of living is particularly high.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
[IMO]

I think what we are seeing here is a classic attempt to simply take failure and say the failings were not the genuine article. Classic "re-defining" to mask the real ongoing agendas by claiming it doesn't really exist.

We see "Proclamations" by pseudo-scholars defending and deflecting to keep all eyes off the ball.

All without any genuine links to genuine verified quotes from Grampaw Marx.

Of course these pseudo-intellectuals are using classic Saul Alinsky. And doing pretty good until exposed that is.

[/IMO]




one often used Alinsky "rule"...
"Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat"


So let's use another Alinsky rule as a rebuttal ...
"Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules"


OK Communists, make your case all over again now.

Show us the real Meat & Potatoes.




edit on Jun-13-2014 by xuenchen because:




posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: freakwars
a reply to: Semicollegiate

1. As I said wayyyyy back up the thread, you arguably could point to Mondragon as an example where socialist companies are out-competing others. Mondragon's profit in 2012 was 4 billion euros. The problem with pointing to Mondragon as a socialist company is that in many Mondragon companies, wage workers outnumber worker-owners.


Mondragon has the appearence of true socialist spirit, and is the seventh-largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country.
en.wikipedia.org...



the Basques enjoyed a great deal of self-government until the French Revolution, that affected their Northern communities, and the civil wars named Carlist Wars, occurred in the Southern territories when they supported heir apparent Carlos and his descendants—to the cry of "God, Fatherland, King". In both North and South regions the Basques were defeated and their Charters abolished.

Since then, despite the current limited self-governing status of the Basque Autonomous Community and Navarre as settled by the Spanish Constitution, a significant part of Basque society is still attempting higher degrees of self-empowerment (see Basque nationalism), sometimes by acts of violence.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Basque Diaspora


Large numbers of Basque have left the Basque Country for other parts of the world in different historical periods, often for economic or political reasons. Historically the Basque were often employed in sheepherding and ranching, maritime fisheries and merchants around the world

en.wikipedia.org...

The Basque diaspora would be a great resource considering the company principles.


The willingness to ensure fair social transformation with other peoples by being involved in an expansion process that helps towards their economic and social reconstruction and with the construction of a freer, fairer and more caring Basque society.

www.mondragon-corporation.com...

The Mondragon uses socialistic cultural techniques like a military barracks uses communism. The Mondragon Corporation is a tribute to the enduring, independent, and patriotic Basque People, not socialism.

If the National Socialist German Workers Party is not socialist and the United Soviet Socialist Republics is not socialist, and the Mondragon Corporation is not socialist; because it has managers (not socialist according to Noam Chomsky) and non-worker owner employees, then what is socialist?

Socialism sucks blood.





2. A 100% unambiguously socialist corporation would fail in a capitalist society. It is not designed to succeed. A socialist corporation would produce more expensive products with only small differences in quality because a socialist corporation would not be using the labor of Southeast Asian debt slaves.


Please explain why the workers, and only the workers, owning all the stock and capital in a company, is not socialism.


edit on 13-6-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

startlingly ironic
second line

edit on 13-6-2014 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: sirhumperdink

FYI: You do not need a 2nd line.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000
Anybody that has to spend millions of dollars to get into public office is not a representative of the people. PERIOD. Your POTUS and Governor havent to spend that kind of money is NOT in the interest of the people. At smaller local levels the cost may not be that eccentric, but I'd love you to introduce me to those few folks you know currently holding public office in your state at both local and state levels. I would LOVE to tell them how voting is a fools game and their measly say is not going to sway the bigger people and the higher ups that can trump their little say. Just don't be offended when their face cracks and you have to admit voting is just a tracking game to keep track of people's possible extremist views.

Citizen United is a smokescreen. It holding up has nothing to do with the fact this is a two party country and both sides are on the same side. From ultraconservative Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats to the Bleeding Heart Dem Liberals and their Tea Bagging Repubs. Organized labor is DYING. They are on the take too. The entire situation is A WHOLE NIGHTMARE and one court case didn't leave everybody with nice candy canes as trinkets. The fact is corporations have corrupted every facet of government that has decision making power and #ed the entire country up without vaseline.

Electorial colleges have had the final say in the past, where a candidate with the popular vote DID NOT WIN. But again, people DO NOT CHOOSE THEIR PRESIDENT. Big money does via corporate lobby. POTUSES who are elected by such a policy pick the future electorial college candidates. Nowhere in that equation does Joe the Plumber get a vote.

But hey, your fantasy world of the America that never was does make me laugh.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ArchPlayer

With respect, we'll pretty much disagree on every level for the points here.

I do vote, and have for most elections since I turned 18. I've missed a few..but sure not since 2000. That one and every since. It wasn't until 2012 though, that I came to really understand the nuts and bolts for how it truly functions. Not just Uncle Goober showing up on General Election day to choose from those chosen for us much much earlier, but how THEY got chosen and just how damned easy THAT stage of it is ...and within the RIGHT of every citizen... to be a direct participant in.

That part you don't hear much about and I'll bet there are 1 out of 10 that could explain in any detail how the caucus system works in a function 'once you walk in the door, what happens next, next, and next...to the end', and they are structured with a format to know in advance.

There absolutely are areas of the system where the will of the people matter IF that will is concentrated by activity and shown. However, those who run this system have been wildly successful in two things. I tip my hat to them too...because it's been almost complete.

#1. Insuring people honestly believe voting day in November is THE date or even one of the more important dates, to focus on. It isn't and it never has been. THAT is part of the problem.

#2. That voting is a waste of time.

Oh yeah.. voting works alright, and the parties both know that. The party Faithful absolutely show up, and you can bet that with confidence. They show up knowing it's generally only the other side they need to worry about. The average non-political people "know" it's not worth much to bother...and don't even get in the way to be a pain in the butt.

We make their life as easy as we can, by doing nothing at all. We do it consistently, too. 40-55% every election on avg.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 12:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: sirhumperdink



so basically then when you say $10/hr an hour would be better than it has been since 1955 you are being disingenuous ...... as you are clearly stating right here in the very same post your purchasing power even a decade ago was well over double what it is today (i dont believe that either but yes it was much much higher)


I do not think you understand. In 1996 minimum was 4.75, the purchasing power of 1955 minimum wage in 1996 dollars was between 6 to 7 dollars, much better. If we raise minimum to 10 dollars an hour today it would be equal to over 7.5 1996 dollars.

You are basing you view on emotion and I'm basing mine on factual data.

So you are saying that everything is 2 times the cost today than it was in 2004? 50% yes double, no.


asking for more than their fair share..... because people who worked those exact jobs in the past in essence got paid more and as you have agreed the labor didnt magically become any more or less important


They didn't get paid more, it has been about the same the last 60 years. The only reason I suggest 10 dollars per hour is because Obama ha really messed things up and people do need relief, but cost should not be so high and minimum should be around 7 to 8 dollars.

You and others keep saying fair share, just what is that? Think of " what is a job worth?", what happen to that concept? So you get hired to flip burgers, you have no skill so within a day or two I teach you how to do it. How much should that job's starting pay be?



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

thats what you said
you said your purchasing power now is half what it was and inflation has not increased that much in that time frame so what you are saying is cost of living doubled
again i didnt think that was right either but its right there in your post



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: sirhumperdink
a reply to: Xtrozero

thats what you said
you said your purchasing power now is half what it was and inflation has not increased that much in that time frame so what you are saying is cost of living doubled
again i didnt think that was right either but its right there in your post


If you are going to quote me then quote me. I said that I have about 40% less spending power. That was an assumption, I did not have my accountant run numbers, but for your sake I did research and did run the numbers for you that I provided to you in my last post, which you seem to totally ignore.

Please provide numbers to suggest that 10 dollars an hour would not be the highest minimum wage in history based on buying power since 1955. Time for you to crunch the numbers this time or we can just call it.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

It's arguably socialist because it's only owned by workers. It's arguably not because not all the workers in the company are worker-owners.

I have no idea what you're talking about with the whole Basque thing.

As I told you previously, Socialism is a system with four characteristics 1. common ownership of the means of production in the sense that it's owned by an association of producers; 2. "from each according to his ability, and to each according to his labor-power"; 3. "the distribution of products" is not yet equal; 4. The proletariat controls the state.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: tmeister182
As long as there is greed no system will work in the short or long run.


I agree 100% and until the incentives to be greedy are eliminated and there is
some kind of sensible reward system that does not empower a minority we will
forever be enslaved by our fear and our own self interests!



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Give 'Automation Socialism a try.

The arguments and premises resulting from them are coherent and NOT insensible from direct observations.

I like it and conceptually this could replace this truly socio-pathic inevitable outcome.

Libertarians don't believe in society, otherwise this would have some appeal but when you break it down, it allows for POOR socio-paths to claim they always wanted to be poor.




top topics



 
52
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join