It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 04:08 PM
For the last two centuries at least, technology is always used for waging war before it gets into the hands of the people.

War is a very capitalist thing....beat em up, take their lunch money.

Like film, beta video, vhs, dvd and now other media, the same old # is sold to us over and over again.

Gps was exclusively used by the military when I was a soldier once.

a reply to: Not Authorized

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 04:18 PM
a reply to: Not Authorized

Thanks for a substantive response.

However, it's difficult to feel respected and called a religious fanatic at the same time.

The Biblical text and my RELATIONSHIP with Yeshua the Christ have proven true repeatedly over my 60+ years. I have less than no reason to change my perspective at this point.

I find your assertions about "reality" to be greatly lacking in congruence with what I have observed and experienced.

Yes, Christians are to be good stewards of the planet, animals, plants etc.

Nevertheless, THE KING IS COMING AGAIN . . . lots of things will change.

Evidently, families having their own vineyards; their own orchards, will not change on that score. Evidently, that's important to God Almighty.

I've persistently found it worthwhile to do things HIS way and to ascribe to His priorities as best I can, with His help.

The blather that socialist/communist countries inherently afford freedom or even tolerate it, much less support it or enhance it is a huge contradiction in terms.

By definition THE STATE IS ALL IN ALL in such systems.


is beyond . . . mystifying.

Mystifying to absurdity, actually.

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 04:21 PM
I have read a lot of the responses here and I am shocked at the depth of ignorance relative to what constitutes the definition of a free market...starting with the OP...

OP, a free market did not, cannot, will not, give birth to oligarchy. A monopoly could be formed...and a lot of people would think this would be bad...

Without ever asking why a monopoly might exist...

Bottom line, the government gets involved and offers protection to a select few by passing laws and enforcing those laws at the end of a gun, essentially blocking growth and competition...

If we are going to keep the current monetary system and, as a human race, continue to covet shiny metal as a worthwhile method of exchange, then people who think like the OP and most of the other members commenting on this thread need to get the # off the planet.

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 04:24 PM
a reply to: onequestion

Capitalism represents the natural order of humanity and I never thought I'd come to that belief. It's there in the earliest traces of our cultures and civilisations - inevitable. It was okay swapping and bartering in small communities, but as we grow in number and complexity we create systems of tokens and exchange values to get by.

In recent history we've had major figures try and make different systems work and they've all been catastrophic. Pol Pot thought that going back to an agrarian system would fix life's problems. He forced hundreds of thousands back to the fields and killed the rest to make it work. Stalin had a bastardised conception of communism and that one was a mess too. Post-Stalin Soviet Russia was dirt poor for most. Socialist economies have been autocratic and generated more poor people than our current screwed-up system of capitalism.

If there's a system that involves less government oversight, more equality of wealth and less damage to the only known outpost of ecological diversity in the hasn't had its day in the sun yet.

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 04:31 PM
a reply to: OrphanApology

A truly free market isn't possible because the criteria for it to actually be met require an all-knowing utopian society where there no to low barriers to entry into the market exist, where perfect information about every product, its price and more are available, and where all are equal within the market itself (perfect competition). This is what I learned in multiple courses as a business graduate and through direct corporate experience. While one can state that the reason why it is not possible is because of regulations (which I'm sure you will state), that is bull pucky. The reason why those regulations were imposed in the first place was because of free market failures. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the FTC were created because monopolies were forming that reduced all competition in their respective industries down to zero competitionand the consumers paid the price. Just about every regulation on the books within business law was crafted because what had existed prior failed to protect both people in their right to life and as consumers. They are there for a reason and even Adam Smith, the father of "laissez-faire", agreed with such a thing

Commerce and manufactures can seldom flourish long in any state which does not enjoy a regular administration of justice, in which the people do not feel themselves secure in the possession of their property, in which the faith of contracts is not supported by law, and in which the authority of the state is not supposed to be regularly employed in enforcing the payment of debts from all those who are able to pay. Commerce and manufactures, in short, can seldom flourish in any state in which there is not a certain degree of confidence in the justice of government. Adam Smith, the Wealth of Nations, Book V

If you want to discuss how these regulations and the agencies created to enforce those regulations have turned into abysmal failures, I'm all for that and would agree. Furthermore, if your motivations for stating that we've not had a free market system at all is because we went ahead and, like idiots, ignored Smith's thoughts on corporations and allowed rampant incorporation, then I would agree with that as well.

The exclusive privileges of corporations, statutes of apprenticeship, and all those laws which restrain, in particular employments, the competition to a smaller number than might otherwise go into them, have the same tendency, though in a less degree. They are a sort of enlarged monopolies, and may frequently, for ages together, and in whole classes of employments, keep up the market price of particular commodities above the natural price, and maintain both the wages of the labour and the profits of the stock employed about them somewhat above their natural rate. Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book I

We did far worse than allowing for rampant incorporation. We also granted corporations unlimited life, instead of a limited term, combined with limited liability against the shareholders of a corporation to protect them from any injustices that the corporation might incur upon humankind. We failed horrifically in that and allowed for the proliferation of essentially immortal psychopaths to rule our markets as those "enlarged monopolies".

Additionally, we routinely engage our business leaders in meetings with politicians in group functions. That is something else that would've made Smith pop his eyeballs out in disbelief as he stated that, while it would be inconsistent with liberty to bar such functions, government should absolutely not facilitate such a thing--let alone act as host.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book I

We definitely blew that one.

The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it. Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book I

As we have failed here. Smith, in the passage before this quote, also states that "merchants and master manufacturers are, in this order, the two classes of people who commonly employ the largest capitals, and who by their wealth draw to themselves the greatest share of the public consideration", which essentially acknowledges the fact that we and our governments lean towards their expertise in their fields as evidenced by their wealth, including the examination of what is occurring within it. That is as true today as it was when Smith penned that statement. What we have allowed over the years, however, has been the proliferation of regulation and legislation of a sort that has been authored by those within the markets.

We allow them to take seats in the very agencies that are meant to enforce regulations previously found necessary because they "know the industry". They proliferate within both lobby and agency, often bouncing back and forth between the two or even become our political representatives themselves because of this rationale. It's a gross mistake.

If the above is what you mean about our not having a "free market" and the issues within it, I would agree. If you're arguing, however, that all regulation, including contract law, is without merit, then I'd suggest looking again at the cause for many good laws that are on the books.

Online copy of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations:

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 04:34 PM
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Good points rabbit.

I am under the belief that all of our economic systems have failed. Likewise, to fix our problems and return humanity and our planet to prosperity, a system of abundance needs to be developed and considered. We need to take the best of liberty, human rights, former economic systems like Tally Sticks, environment concerns and issues, socialism, capitalism, and yes, communism, and create a new system. One whose focus and "mission statement" is to ultimately benefit life and liberty.

Or, TL
R simply show much better stewardship to ourselves as sentient beings, and life that shares our world with us.

Economic systems are tools, not a way of life. Nor should they be governments, or, act as government agencies. Any monetary system within the United States, must be designed in pursuance to Article 6, US Constitution. Our government should be issuing currency that benefits all, itself.

When I talk abundance, I talk "free" food, water, healthcare, higher education, etc. IE, basic needs are covered. We were rumored at one point in our history to have streets paved with gold.

I for one, would like to see a possibility that becomes reality.

IE, basics covered via abundance. Frills, not substance for living, is what you would spend your "money" on. Think frills as in cruise trips to Saturn's rings.

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 04:48 PM
a reply to: onequestion

I say the "system" to go back to is Capitalism.

Many confuse the meaning with Corporatism and Corporate Capitalism

Capitalism depends on 'free market' competition and that only exists on limited small scales today.

Corporations merge and grow with the sole purpose to destroy competition. It leads to the capture and control of markets with corporations that are "too big to fail".

Marx predicted this (with a hidden purpose IMO). He claimed Corporations would grow bigger and more powerful until they were more powerful than the governments that were supposed to be regulating them. At that point, Marx said corporations would no longer belong to one country and would become "Global" by roaming the earth in search of the cheapest labor and other resources, and the richest markets. That's exactly what's happening today IMO.

IMO, Marx was hired to come up with the master banking plan disguised as an ideal social program.

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 04:53 PM
a reply to: Not Authorized

Isn't this exactly what communism was trying or claimed to be trying?


Everyone has work, a home, food, a car. Of course, the home was a #ty apt in a housing complex, the food was extremely basic (no imported fruits, for instance)..and the cars were hideous vehicles made from cardboard-like materials....but the PRINCIPLE was there.

And it failed miserably.

Because of human nature. The human nature of the VAST populace which has needs and urges, who don't want a fricking cardboard car since they learned that "in the West" people can actually have a Ferrari! Not only that, "in the West", people don't need to line up for three hours for a Banana or a Lemon. DESIRES. DREAMS. HUMAN NATURE.

Everyone should have most things for free. Correct. A roof over your head, food, medical care.
Obviously, today this won't work even remotely..and even "in the future" I think this would pose a lot problems.

EXAMPLE...Who is baking the bread which is given for free to everyone?
What is his incentive? Why would he bake? Would he not maybe say: "WTF I am getting up 3:30am each morning to bake bread so others get them for free?" Obviously he doesn't even have the incentive to bake them for his own profit to sell them (HUMAN NATURE, again). See where this is going...? If such a system would ever work, then maybe in some hundreds, if not thousands of years because it would require that man overcomes all those things like greed etc. to work "towards the good for everyone"...but we are EONS away from this to happen.

TLDR: We are species of primitivelings where most what we do is because of greed, egotism etc...and capitalism takes advantage of that respective it may the the direct RESULT of our primitive nature.
edit on 6/8/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 05:18 PM
It's pretty obvious how it worked.

There were the rich overseers of production and then the rest of the people.

Not really all that different from the current situation other than the terminology used to describe it.

a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 05:47 PM
a reply to: OrphanApology


posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 05:50 PM

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 06:12 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

Even if we all started from scratch with equal materials and knowledge, as long as there is people banding together to screw other people over then your "free market" will be corrupted and fall into a controlled power pyramid where a segment of the people will rule the other and movement between layers will blocked by people on the higher layers.

If you want equal material wealth or wealth based on merit/effort then you cannot allow the power pyramid to control people since it creates feudalism. Because let face it the extreme wealthy rule with the politicians today and the promises Obama say on tv are just a bedtime story that will never be implemented while a Nazi-like forth rich similar to 1984 is implemented. Now days who you know and wealth is more important than your true knowledge and capability to produce/understand.

I have made my own observations in the workplace and noticed that even on the same position the illusion of work you do and demanding much is more important to the monetary gain you get than working your ass of and producing much. There is a reason you make more money by changing workplace all the time.

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 06:18 PM
a reply to: BO XIAN

See, this is what I mean. You disregarded my statements of fact in order to promote your religion. You did not bother to consider the content as true.

I do not believe you when you say "your king comes". I go further. I recognize this as an indoctrination attempt. Namely forcing anyone who does not believe in your Jesus, to get them to classifly themselves a lower species of human without human rights on Earth. You call them unbelievers.

The only conclusion I can reach is that you are trying to force your religious views on me, and detract from the thread.

If you want to start a thread, on discussing possible end time scenarios surrounding your religion and this subject, that's fine. I'll be more than happy to enlighten the masses with my ex fundamental Christian knowledge. Starting with Deuteronomy 18, Revelation absurdities, and false prophet material.

Also, you also missed the point I said ultimately, that at a fundamental level of reality, I am the Creator. Please, respect my religious rights and freedom. I am respecting yours. I am not telling you not to be a Christian. I am telling you to be a much better one. Your belief system charges man with Earth's stewardship, not just towards each other, but the animals too.

So, lets focus on stewardship of this planet in lieu of a Jesus like being ever coming here, and check the religion at the door when discussing issues we face together as a species. You may believe your sins are covered by a man named Yeshua, but that does not absolve you of your duties as a steward, starting from the Garden of Eden. Quite frankly, Christian stewardship in this area leaves much to be desired.

We have serious economic issues this nation, and by extension, world. We are allegedly capitalists. What are your tangible solutions to this problem? Do you recognize the problems? And no, mythical men from the sky is not the answer. In the order of fairness, I won't say aliens will come to fix it all either.

That would simply be showing mutual respect.

With warm regards.
edit on 8-6-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 06:21 PM
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Can you give me an example on a class less communistic country that did not have an implemented power pyramid system both politically and economically?

Cuba is a bit on the socialistic side but it is not classless, China had their party and Russia had Ukraine as the place where the important "some people are more equal then others" could have fun as tourists.

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 06:24 PM

originally posted by: OrphanApology
a reply to: onequestion

We're not in a system of capitalism. We never have been. EVER.

Traditional capitalism is a system of private ownership where owners try and use free market to make profit(in other words, no government control/ownership).

The current system we are in is in no way capitalism. Corporatism definitely.

But lets just call corporations what they really are...which are appendages of the government that exist only because of laws that disrupt private ownership and the forces of the free market.

There is no "private" ownership anywhere in the world. There is no "free-market" maybe Bitcoin as being a close contender.

Edit 9:07 cst:

Also capitalism does promote proper behavior because it promotes mutual best interest. The trade of self-interests is the only type of business that works in the long run. When government starts being used as a tool to violently steal from one group and give to another, all morality is out the window. Those systems are also not based on private ownership but rather government ownership(as is the case in the United States. No individual "owns" anything)

Again, there has never been a truly capitalistic system. It is the same as anarchy, which again has never existed.

That is all.

This is completely wrong.

People are not owned, not do they work as slaves.

People do not pay rent to lords for a piece of land.

And people do not own the factories where they work.

People sell their labour for wages paid by people who own the land and equipment.

Capitalism is where those with capital control the mode of production. This phrase is crucial, because society is materialistic, and social power is dominated by those who control the production of things.

We are clearly in the age of capitalism. Stating that this is "corporatism" or "oligarchy" is wholly ignorant of the social system itself, and is a mere attempt to blame the capitalists who made the most of the system by following the means of capitalist accumulation.

Our world is dominated by financial capitalism, which differentiates the world into extreme disparity. This disparity between the rich minority and the poor majority has always led to leftist uprisings in the end, because the laws of motion point in that direction. Now the scale has changed, from nation to the world. There's no external force that will crush the global uprising, and over-consumption and economic growth will only expedite the process.

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 06:24 PM
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Find a way, or we all are dead already. It is that simple. The next great extinction event may have already started, and it has a lot to do with our economic models and how being ecologically sound, is not profitable.

Life depending on the Pacific Ocean is dying. You depend on the Pacific Ocean. Scientists are reporting species are falling to breed. 1% of normal birthrates will not sustain life on this planet. Do the math.

If you want to continue our way of life, time to think of new solutions. Snooze button is no longer an option.

By the way, I would have no problem making plenty of bread, if all my other requirements for life were met. Would you? Actual realizations of said goal, would make the world a much different place. Never having to worry about a roof over my head, food, education, etc. Just for baking bread for others, the same bread I too am supplied with? Where do I sign up?

The problem is the implementation and subsequent corruption. Not the idea itself. The idea has always been twisted or warred upon by the oligarchy when action is made to truly implement.

All wars are bankers wars. 1933 Germany holds a secret. Use the internet.

edit on 8-6-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-6-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-6-2014 by Not Authorized because: Edits were for internal consistency. I posted to fast.

edit on 8-6-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 06:31 PM

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Can you give me an example on a class less communistic country that did not have an implemented power pyramid system both politically and economically?

Cuba is a bit on the socialistic side but it is not classless, China had their party and Russia had Ukraine as the place where the important "some people are more equal then others" could have fun as tourists.

Maybe your perception of "class" is wrong.

Communism's doctrine of a classless society really only implies having a single class. In every other social paradigm, there has always been two fundamental classes: those who own the means of production, and those who do not. Under the doctrine of communism, all people own the means of production.

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 06:40 PM
And let me guess u believe socialism where a few determine the rules for the majority is not an oligarchy? I rest my case.

Capitalism will allow competition and different variables which effects the outcome, so power is not centralize. Socialism power is centralize for a few, there is no competition. A small group of autocrats will write the laws. And u best believe they will be exempt and bring their family and friends in the fold to benefit from the laws.
edit on 8-6-2014 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 07:08 PM
a reply to: Not Authorized

It is more or less impossible to significantly discuss any topic in very many words WITHOUT one's cosmology etc. being evident.

I understand that you evidently want to do it from your perspective while excluding mine.

I agreed about stewardship.

I do not have nor do I believe there are ANY significant solutions at this point in the END TIMES SCRIPT.

The basic outline has been building for at least several hundred years in some respects and millenia in others. No man-made system, strategy etc. is going to stop its playing out as scripted.

The NWO folks are well entrenched and have more than sufficient money and more than sufficient power to go a long ways toward the overt establishment of the predicted tyrannical global government and one world religion that mushes monopolistic pseudo-capitalism into being married to communism as the tyrannical structure managing the serfs and slaves.

Nothing will stop that.

This era will end with a dramatic crescendo object lesson in the FRUIT, THE HARVEST of man going his own way apart from his Creator.

Nothing will stop that.

The ONLY route to any functional and lasting utopia is to do things God's way.

That will be obvious in due course.

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 07:19 PM
a reply to: Vovin

Yes in theory communism do not allow for the power pyramid. But what about in practice.

Give me an example of implemented communism in human history where people own everything and power is distributed equally thru the people where the power pyramid do not exist? Representative control by a political elite is still the power pyramid.
edit on 8-6-2014 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in