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.


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

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 07:28 PM

originally posted by: amfirst1
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.

No Capitalism will not allow competition since a group of people will always corner the market in the end and corrupt the free market centralizing part of the market/power and then continue to corrupt the system until all are enslaved. Just look at debt based banking in symbiosis with the government where people are in fact paying taxes to pay rent on money that they even create out of thin air thru FED. The ultimate Capitalistic Ponzi Scheme ever created. So the top owners are in fact feeding on every souls production on this planet thru the monetary system.
edit on 8-6-2014 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 07:37 PM
a reply to: Not Authorized

I like your ideas and you might be interested in the thread I did on Anarchism as it truly was vs. popular modern perceptions. It's morphed away from anything resembling the original alternative to existing systems that it was when it started, but it's not so far off the original path that it wouldn't come back, too.

The basis on anarchy wasn't lawlessness. Not by a long shot. It was about an "Occupy" style of leaderless leadership or a rotating leadership that changes as desired by all and directly engages the community in decision making, not just how to react to what has been decided for them. Very interesting stuff.. (Anarchism - History and Origins)

The problem I see is the same as Proudhon and Bakunin's ideas encountered when good intentions met Karl Marx. Anarchism was rolled into a willing partner to the Russian Revolution and Communism..which is certainly not Anarchism either.

The core problem tho? These systems. on the surface, do one of two things about human nature. They either consider it generally good, and enough so to plan and depend on for things to work....or they consider the masses needy of iron control, as communism uses to address the problem. Either tends to fail for the extremes each take.

Capitalism screwed us economically, as the checks and balances which once existed by the open market were checked away by courts, regulations, bad loophole laws and good old fashioned UN-checked greed. In terms of the allowance for human nature though? It doesn't assume the best, and won't use an iron designed anyway.

So, with Capitalism failing lately? It at least has the means programmed into the system itself, to be self correcting if people start caring enough to bother trying, IMO. Apathy is our biggest enemy and the leaders best friend.

A change of systems won't solve that, I fear.
edit on 6/8/2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 08:04 PM
a reply to: BO XIAN

Hi Bo,

Again, what part of I do not believe anything in your belief structure did you not understand? That includes your alleged eschatology. I see it as a fable, designed by the Vatican Inc to enrich them and keep them in power at your expense. Yeah, the oligarchy scripted it that way, but failed on the implementation.

The good news is that many nations have thrown off the burden of the Vatican in history. Our nation was one of them. It is time to do it right this time, by foreclosing on the entire operation and return all the "Vatican's" wealth to the people worldwide.

This is borderline harassment. I've extended an olive branch to you, logically wanting to discuss our problems, checking religion at the door. Yet you repeatedly claim an invisible sky God named Jesus, will return to the Earth. Not only that, the only way to solve the problems posters have presented is by him, and not your capacity for rational thought. Really? What other solutions have you thought of? None? This passes for logical thought for you?

Besides, what proof do you have Jesus ever existed? In the words of Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Why would I consider anything you say? It would be foolish for me to do so. You offer me nothing but more lies. Start offering substance.

I am not your typical "unbeliever". You better check my posting history back a few years ago.
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: Lol. Evil tablet was being evil

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 08:41 PM
a reply to: Not Authorized

Cheers . . . enjoy your thread.

I understand that you insist, are essentially DEMANDING that I conform my sensibilities and postings to your constructions on reality.

Can't do that.
edit on 8/6/2014 by BO XIAN because: correction

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 09:13 PM
a reply to: LittleByLittle

No you can regulate for that, we have a monopolies commission that makes sure that a corporate entity can not gain monopoly of a market.

We have had a socialist capitalist society for over 50 years and it can work as most of Europe has shown. (Until the failed Euro experiment)

The problem for us in the UK was that Maggie removed the financial police that used to police the banks and then legislation after legislation was dropped which allowed banks to run free.

So put police back into banks which they have to pay for, heavy regulation on the financial sector and you could see a return to sensible banking.

Link to Article

The Iron Lady was convinced she was rebuilding England’s economy, while in reality it was only getting richer from London’s outlaw banks. Throughout the world, the damage wrought by this financialized economy has been immense. By “liberating” national money from the constraints of taxing authorities, the Middle East stopped much of its projects for industrial development. After 1990 the Soviet bloc was deindustrialized to become an oil, gas and mining economy. And for Britain, trillions of dollars in global tax revenues that could have been used for industrial and social development were routed though London, where the UK has lived off the fees from this free-for-all. So despite Mrs. Thatcher’s admiration for Milton Friedman, famous for claiming that There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, she made Britain’s economy all about obtaining a free lunch – eaten by the world’s financial managers who flocked to its shores.

How much did Lady Thatcher come to understand about a financial sector of which she never deliberately favored? She never expressed regret about how her policies paved the way for New Labour to take the next giant step in empowering the City of London’s financial complex that has un-policed the banks to catalyze one financial crash after the next, hollowing out Britain’s economy in the process

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 09:20 PM
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Just remember, the government giveth and the government taketh away. I always wonder about people who want to give government that much power in their lives for a bit of "peace".

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 09:34 PM
a reply to: mclarenmp4

You think it is only monopolies. when in fact it can be oligopolies and sometimes a whole sector that because of greed, follows an upwards spiral of profit and cost to their costumers and makes sure to gain the highest monetary gain, to not let anyone into the sector, creating bubbles of speculation by keeping supply low. The free market is a myth that do only really exist in theory, since in the real word everybody is not all knowing and all capable of producing everything.

If capitalism really worked and free market existed it would in fact create a equilibrium where all people had the same salary for effort since they would choose to do what gave them the highest monetary gain/for effort and in the end all the fluctuations would balance out to equilibrium.

The whole we can make a perfect capitalism if not corrupt politicians is a nice theory but in practice you always get in the end corrupt politicians who are legally bribed one way or another to do things.
edit on 8-6-2014 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 09:40 PM
Usually, when people are criticizing Capitalism, it is because they are agitating for socialism or some form of communism. As the old saying goes, socialism works until they run out of other people's money. We have a mixed economy, and elements of Keynesianism are part of that. When people say capitalism doesn't work, how would they know, since we don't really have a totally Capitalist society, and free enterprise is in decline because of bureaucratic government regulations and corporate takeovers.

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 09:47 PM
How much of the money that they take from you do you allow them to ? Oh that's right you elect them so they can take as much as they want or need to .You allow them to give you the freedom they want or think you need to .Without us people believing that we need them ,which we don't ,we play their game while they keep changing the rules to suit them and not us .Too bad that we have to do that eh? a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 09:56 PM
Well everyone has their opinion and a picture is worth a thousand words. When searching the pics of the terrible state of affairs for Venezuela I also came across these:

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 09:58 PM
It just says that they can manipulate which ever system they want .capitalism is not a bad thing .socialism is not a bad thing either .I do believe the first system that came across on the Mayflower was communism .Either of the systems will work and can do a good job for the people .But I think that unless the people are controlling their own money ,all the systems will be taken over . a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 10:01 PM
a reply to: BO XIAN

No, I'm demanding you allow for my right of freedom of religion too. Not everyone is Christian, and not everyone subscribes to your reality of a heaven, hell, or a man named Jesus. I believe myself to be my Creator, with numerous parallel existences created, one for every choice made by every conscious being. Reality to me is what my own grey matter tells me it is. Or is it what my grey matter tells it to be? :-) What did the double slit experiment tell us? In my mind, the jury is still out on the answer to that question.

Cogeto ergo sum. I think, therefore I am.

Legal reference:
Articles 18, and 19 to be specific.

This is my world too, and we face some very difficult challenges if a want to keep it that way. Did you not have a plan B if that whole Jesus coming back thing does not work out? If so, what is it?

That was another olive branch by the way, asking to offer substance. What can you do as a follower of the teachings of your Jesus, to contribute to the bettering of humanity?
edit on 8-6-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-6-2014 by Not Authorized because: Edit for internal consistency

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

edit on 8-6-2014 by Not Authorized because: I hate tablets sometimes

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 10:16 PM
I'm no economic expert, but IMHO, you guys have missed the two big problems with the system here.
1) Allowing Corporations the status as humans with the right to lobby.
2) Residual income.
If you remove these two things, capitalism might work.

The first ruins the system in that it allows the mega money of corporations to have more political say than their smaller competition, and the public in general. That is why the taxes are so askew. Corporations are actually behind high taxes on the middle class and small business. They like that the small competitors are being taxed over 50% while they pay 0% due to their tax shelters. Its a way to make “mom and pop” start-ups unsuccessful as businesses as it drives their overhead through the roof. It also forces the wages of employees lower, makes benefits a privilege, and allows for fewer jobs. All these things benefit them as they then don't have to pay as much for labor, don't have to provide good benefits, and there is a large pool of competent labor (willing to bust their butts for nothing out of fear of unemployment) out there for them to take advantage of when they wish.

Residual income is another problem. It's rampant, and the rich have decided that its the “way to go” with investing all their money. Making money off money, and producing nothing in return (and creating no jobs). That's why they have lobbied it to have the lowest taxation of any income (15%). That extra percent that we give them just for being rich, has to come from somewhere, whether it be forcing the treasury to turn on the printing presses (driving up inflation), exploiting someone for their resources, robbing the middle class blind, etc... Residual income is what drives our economy to be “debt based”, and forces us to eternally have to grow. There is a reason why Usury is outlawed in several religions, as stated above it is a type of economic warfare. As the rich love to get something for nothing, they have driven this to such abuse that its killing us. We do nothing but produce labor, and get no where ourselves, to give them their extra residual income percentage. As they control the corporations money they have lobbied all the laws to support it. If you look at the majority of the richest people on the planet, they have made their money off money, and produced nothing in return. This creates no jobs, drives up inflation, and is the driving force behind resource exploitation. All the things people are complaining about in this thread.

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 10:25 PM
a reply to: the2ofusr1
Right you are about the early settlers trying out a communistic society....

Here's some food for thought on that

William Bradford was the governor of Plymouth Colony for over 30 years and kept a journal that was eventually published two hundred years after his death: Of Plymouth Plantation. In his journal Bradford talked about the problems associated with living in a communist society:
“The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince, the vanity of that conceit of Plato & others ancients, applauded by some of later times; that ye taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community... was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort... The strong, or man of parts, had no more division of victuals & cloths, than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter ye other could; this was thought unjust... As for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes & etc. they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon ye point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in ye like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off ye mutual respect that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to ye course it self. I answer, seeing all men to have this corruption in them. God in His wisdom saw another course fiter for them.”

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 10:33 PM
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Thank you rabbit. I always find myself liking your posts too. :-)

There are many problems. Much has to do with the legal system. But, that is an entirely different thread.

I am thinking a new State run municipal bank exchanging a credit based crypto currency linked to existing gold and silver certificates is a good start. Maximum transparency for all financial transactions to corporations, including our government, means bribery goes out the window. It also would be constitutional, and the healing process can begin.

I simply think we can learn from all systems. Why let history repeat?

The currency system is the Achilles heal.
edit on 8-6-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 10:36 PM
a reply to: onequestion

I agree but that is what the masters want.
Step 1: present carrot
Step 2: make poor bunny believe he can get carrot, if he just busts his tail a little harder
Step 3: remove carrot and give crumbs of stale bread
Slave created...we are at step 3.

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 10:39 PM
a reply to: onequestion

Capitalism is like fire. It can keep you warm or burn you to death. In the brief instances where the people were able to regulate it to some degree,ie a fairer taxation system, the standard of living went up and it worked for a larger mass of people. Right now its only working for a very small percentage of the population, and its currently designed to do only that. If we can regain some degree of control by a larger percentage of the population than just ONE percent (actually its much less than one percent) things could improve.

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 10:45 PM
a reply to: StoutBroux

Well Germany are socialist and they have a very good balance of Capitalism and Socialism working for them very well. Norway where wages are 3 times higher than the average UK worker are very socialist and have a national oil company which allows them to have an oil fund which they use for times in financial crisis, Norway didn't feel the financial troubles from the failed capitalism experiment in 2008 until now and kept all their social programs running because of that fund and it continues to grow.
Using Venezuela as the beacon for Socialism is not the best example, seeing as it was capitalism that raped the countries resources is not the best my friend.

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 10:51 PM
Now it seems that despite the ills of the first settlers that would have been a challenge in itself grew and developed .Today most of the populace work hard and supply fat cats weather bankers ,politicians with greater service then in the past .Oh and what is that statistic that says something about ever american being over $ 30,000.00 in debt . Do the math .After 30 years of communism they had how much debt ? All things being equal ,it would be interesting to consider .Of course they didn't have fiat currency .. How many trillions of dollars ?? The US at present is not in a very good situation if they cant keep the scam going . I fear for the US . a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 10:59 PM
a reply to: StoutBroux

maybe i should put up a picture of sweden and a picture of detroit
.....nah that would be disingenuous and not really prove anything other than detroit being a hellhole and sweden doing well

but i love the logic socialism failed here here and here therefor it is fundamentally flawed
do you have any idea how complex economics becomes on a global scale or how many variables account for the effects you see? but no lets ignore all the foreign manipulation of the currency and just say it failed so it sucks...... its like shotting a deer in the face and then pointing at it and saying "look deer suck its not working properly after being shot in the face!"

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in