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 has failed, let's consider other options

page: 11
20
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: tmeister182




soon as fiat currency replaced gold standard we were doomed


It will still end up hoarded in few hands




posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I do not believe that capitalism is a complete failure. We NEED the incentive of a better life at all levels and the incentive for change and growth to move us. However, I do feel that we need to establish some borders on wealth, some caps on accumulation of equity, and also that we should look into how we concentrate wealth in certain areas of our society. Some of my ideas are way too "-ist" to ever fly, but I like to think they make sense. Here's one example: NO MORE GAJILLION DOLLAR ATHLETES. No matter who you are, no matter what you play, you DO NOT deserve the money that current pros are getting. Nor do the owners deserve all of the profits either. If I had my way, we would cap ALL positions in ALL pro sports at a "reasonable" level--say 3 or 4 million a year, and then all that extra money that the game brings in (after the owners also get a "reasonable" capped cut, of course) would go back to the City or region that hosts the team, with a portion set aside to the League in which the team plays every year so that there is a "Bonus Fund" which would give extra money to the players and managers, etc. when a team wins a title and which would MOST IMPORTANTLY also give a straight bonus to the City hosting the team. That money would go to roads, schools, bridges, infrastructure. That way when the team wins, the City wins. You could point to a hospital or bridge and say "The 2015 World Series Champion Team" built that for us." I know it's crazy, but I think it would be far more beneficial than giving billions to billionaires or paying ridiculous salaries to athletes who just blow or lose it all anyway. That's just one area where I would apply the "Cap and Reward" system...
edit on 3-3-2015 by jaffo because: Spelling error.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: 35Foxtrot

There is Alan Watts speech on Youtube called Money, Guilt and The Machine, where he speaks of the ancient guilt that if you don't work you have no right to eat.

Free markets, capitalism, monetary currency systems, what ever it's called they all exert a form of control that borders on religion.

If all people had access to technology and resources there would be no servitude, no subservience.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cyruay
Free markets, capitalism, monetary currency systems, what ever it's called they all exert a form of control that borders on religion.

If all people had access to technology and resources there would be no servitude, no subservience.


Sort of, in most cases its technology and unchecked population growth that oppresses the masses and empowers the "Owners of Capital". Those wielding such tech, can quickly use it to VERY effectively further indentured servitude among the masses.

Here is something to think about, remember when cell phones were actually fun?

I do, the phone was a huge and needed to be carried in a bag, BUT my boss NEVER called me on it, after typical work hours and certainly never to ask me to do more work while I was at home. Compare that to today, when a cell phone in your pocket can spontaneously generate more work to be done outside of the office, simply because someone higher up than you had a random thought.

Take another example, the former Common Lands that used to be populated by English peasants, which those peasants used to grow food and make their own clothes and tools. In the time of Adam Smith, the 18th century, peasants could labor to make their own shoes out of leather in about one day, BUT people like Adam Smith proposed that these peasants could be coerced into taking factory jobs that would require 3 days of labor to buy commercially produced shoes.

So if you are an "Owner of Capital", how do you get people whom don't need to buy shoes, to start buying shoes?

Its simple, you change the laws so they can no longer get what they need to make shoes from the land, coercing them to take factory jobs, so as to pay for manufactured shoes. I guess those peasants were "free" to choose to not take those factory jobs, but at the same time had no other legal means to make or acquire shoes.

History actually shows the true outcome when low-wage/low-skilled labor becomes scarce in the larger market.

Before 1990, 40% of teenagers had part-time jobs while in school. This is a relevant statistic because today only 20% of teenagers in school, have part-time jobs. Teens at one time, made up a sizable portion of the workforce and changes in employment practices favoring "low-skill/low-wage illegal immigrant labor" has decimated the "first job" prospects of America youth today. These currently jobless teens would fill a sizable portion of the initial loss of "low-skill/low-wage illegal immigrant labor" almost instantaneously. Now whether they do a good job or not, should not be a part of this debate. The fact is these teens are a huge source of untapped low-skill/low-wage labor in the USA.

Second, here is a modern example of a company with a big contract to fill and absolutely no "will" to increase wages to attract experience personnel, nor the desire to train inexperienced ones ON the job. Instead they put out a story on the web bellyaching:

bridgemi.com...

The reason this happens is because these "owners of capital" believe there is an endless supply of applicants willing to underbid their labor. To a certain extent this is true, currently, but this particular employer, noted in the article below, has gone WELL BELOW what even the bottom of the employee market will accept, per hour, but somehow despite having "no takers", the employer/owner is still delusional about their "real" hiring options. And even worse, is that this company actually had a contract at the time, which needed to be fulfilled. That means that had revenue coming in to beef up staff, yet they still chose to drag their feet. Makes me wonder if they eventually lost the contract due to non-performance

Tech is NOT the "average persons" friend, it steals jobs and gives those on top more power to micromanage. Wages increase for the "non-land owning classes", when overall populations drops, by either restricting immigration or induced by natural disasters/wars. There are MANY historical precedents proving this correct.
edit on 3-3-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Capitalism allows YOU to do whatever you'd like with your life. If YOU chose to be lazy and to not figure it out and go where opportunities abound, it's not a broken system that's blame, but your own flawed thought process and your crutch of self-victimization.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: ketsuko




Capitalism is at its heart freedom. THe freedom to make choices about what to do with your goods and services and the wealth you accrue as a result.


Sorry that is just tripe. You dont think there was any such thing as freedom before capitalism. You think you are free in a capitalist economomy.. Try going somewhere without money and see how free you are..

Purp..


Yes, Capitalism is freedom but only economically. You can have financial freedom, but then again be tied in every other aspect.

It's not easy to define capitalism, but I'd say, capitalism is about making money out of capital. It'd be like, you put some guy to work, pay less to the guy than what he actually produced with his 8 hours job, and then sell the good he left you in the market, for the right price. In the end, all you did was, you invested X money, and afterwards you got 2X money. Where did this extra value came from? well, from the worker's wage.
That's capitalism, then you have a lot of problems in today's world, that are not necesarilly linked to this form of production. Usury is a major one.
For example, money being a good itself, this is at the heart of capitalism, but it could very well exists beyond capitalism. Debt and interest rates existed before capitalims, the bible banned usury, the charge of any sort of interest. What this is, simply out, is money reproducing itself, money gaining value over time. This makes no sense at all. Only men can produce value.


The biggest problem IMO, is social darwinism. The notion that people should look after themselves only, and those who are most fitted, have the right to piss over everyone else, since that's how nature intended things to be. The fittest survive, and the weak, well... they have to sleep in the streets, and search trash cans for food. Oh, but it's all good, cause that's mother nature's law.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnnyjoe1979
What the world needs are robots. Robots that take up 75% of all jobs. Free food, free clothing and free housing, all made by robots that don't get a dollar for it, nor their investors. The rich should join and form a group to produce all the robots. Those without jobs should get reeducated in either sciences, entertainment or the army to make the world a safer place for everyone.

What would be in it for the rich? A more stable society, happier people, eternal gratitude in the form of yearly celebrations and maybe receiving deluxe versions of what robots create up to several generations.




I welcome our SkyNet overlords...



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: payta




The notion that people should look after themselves only, and those who are most fitted, have the right to piss over everyone else


Out standing post



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 04:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Borisbanger

We could all try hippie communes I herd they were ravishing back in the day.


I have nothing against people who want to go off on their own and live that way. More power to them if they can make it work, but there must be a reason why this fad doesn't become a popular thing with communes springing up all over.


Yep the reason is they actually HAVE TO WORK. You have to build your own house. You have to plant your own seeds. You have to do lots of actually hard work in order to survive.

Not very attractive when you have uncle sugar just handing you stuff and you can sit an watch Oprah all day long.

Of course the draw back of uncle sugar is that he OWNS you and everything you have.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Sorry not had time to read the entire thread but has anyone mentioned the Resource Based Economy yet?



Whilst we have money or barter in any form there will always be Hunger - Poverty - War

We need to become civilized
edit on 4/3/15 by UKMinarchist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKMinarchist
Sorry not had time to read the entire thread but has anyone mentioned the Resource Based Economy yet?



Whilst we have money or barter in any form there will always be Hunger - Poverty - War

We need to become civilized


I agree that this IS (an RBE) actually a working solution to MUCH of the worlds woes.

Money is pointless, as it is totally fake and made up, and it doesn't address the fact that there IS more than enough to go around, as long as we knock those billionaires/millionaires down a peg or few million.

People should work because they want to, not because they have to.

It is possible to attain such a social movement in that direction as automation becomes more and more integrated in our lives - thus freeing a majority from the mundane occupations.

I feel the ultimate hurdle to see that reality is the plethora of egos on the planet. It isn't hard to show a person their ego, but it isn't easy when international institutions such as governments and their militaries weld a dominant force over so many.

Religion obviously doesn't help much either.

Here's to trying!



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Blaming a trade medium for the state of the economy makes about as much sense as blaming a drill for poorly setting a nail.

2nd.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
It seems as though in every system known financial distribution isn't done evenly for every single citizen including all social workers.

Every system is perfect on paper, however in practice, some find loopholes and get ahead. How do we deal with these types of people?



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: payta




he biggest problem IMO, is social darwinism. The notion that people should look after themselves only, and those who are most fitted, have the right to piss over everyone else, since that's how nature intended things to be. The fittest survive, and the weak, well... they have to sleep in the streets, and search trash cans for food. Oh, but it's all good, cause that's mother nature's law.


I dont think mother nature works on competition. Look closely as nature and you ill see if works on the opposite. Cooperation. There is far more cooperation in nature than competition.

LIfe looks after life and we could learn a lot from mother nature..

Purp..



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I mentioned The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project and it's Natural Law Resource Based Economy proposal in the Stan Schatt AMA.

While Schatt replied in a optimistic manner, capitalism has been around as long has it has because it's a economic bully and it's economic hitmen thwart any rising alternative to capitalism.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Work will no longer be about laboring for income to pay for gas, electrical bills, rent, and mortgage, it'll be about collaboration and problem solving.

Also with money out of the way, technology unimpeded will make computers and transportation require much less maintenance.

Technology is not the enemy.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: payta




he biggest problem IMO, is social darwinism. The notion that people should look after themselves only, and those who are most fitted, have the right to piss over everyone else, since that's how nature intended things to be. The fittest survive, and the weak, well... they have to sleep in the streets, and search trash cans for food. Oh, but it's all good, cause that's mother nature's law.


I dont think mother nature works on competition. Look closely as nature and you ill see if works on the opposite. Cooperation. There is far more cooperation in nature than competition.

LIfe looks after life and we could learn a lot from mother nature..

Purp..


Are you serious? More cooperation than competition???

What natural world are you looking at?



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: payta




he biggest problem IMO, is social darwinism. The notion that people should look after themselves only, and those who are most fitted, have the right to piss over everyone else, since that's how nature intended things to be. The fittest survive, and the weak, well... they have to sleep in the streets, and search trash cans for food. Oh, but it's all good, cause that's mother nature's law.


I dont think mother nature works on competition. Look closely as nature and you ill see if works on the opposite. Cooperation. There is far more cooperation in nature than competition.

LIfe looks after life and we could learn a lot from mother nature..

Purp..


I'd have to disagree. If you look at nature, organisms have to fight for territory, as well as basic resources in order to ensure their own survival. Nature has always favored creatures who were more successful in terms of natural selection. The whole point of evolution was to end up breeding superior creatures who could live inside their habitats more comfortably. Organisms who could not keep up, end up dying out over time. It's the way it was intended to happen.

Capitalism is the prime example of that happening within Humans. The hard working, and smartest people take the higher paying jobs, as well as the seats of power. They collect all of the capital and wealth, and leave the rest of the people fumbling over crumbs. At it's roots it promotes survival of the fittest. Companies who are incapable of making worthwhile goods or services are doomed to fail. Companies who do not make enough money are doomed to fail. People who are not educated or skilled enough end up being tossed aside for people who have those qualities. It's a system that favors the strongest, smartest, and most capable.

So there is most definitely competition rather than cooperation. Inside of a capitalist system at least. Something such as socialism would be considered more cooperative.

We humans SHOULD live our lives cooperatively. We have the technology, intelligence, logistics, and manpower to make sure every human being on this planet can live their lives without worrying about our collective survival, ever. We could easily make sure everyone has a warm meal, a roof over their heads, proper medical care, clean drinking water, and so on as soon as tomorrow. Yet we're not doing that. And I think it's utterly ridiculous. We humans have the capability of being the saviors and caretakers of this planet. Instead, all we do is take advantage of each other and destroy our planet in the name of profit and greed. It just goes to show humans are still stuck inside of their old primal default settings of survival. The name of the game is acquisition and consumption. Those who have the most, produce the most, and consume the most have the better chance of long term survival, it's as simple as that.



edit on 5-3-2015 by Honcho because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 02:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: payta




he biggest problem IMO, is social darwinism. The notion that people should look after themselves only, and those who are most fitted, have the right to piss over everyone else, since that's how nature intended things to be. The fittest survive, and the weak, well... they have to sleep in the streets, and search trash cans for food. Oh, but it's all good, cause that's mother nature's law.


I dont think mother nature works on competition. Look closely as nature and you ill see if works on the opposite. Cooperation. There is far more cooperation in nature than competition.

LIfe looks after life and we could learn a lot from mother nature..

Purp..


I was talking about social darwinism itself, not actually giving my opinion on the matter. That's a whole other topic to get into. But let me just say, that I think, there's as much competition as cooperation in nature. To see nature only as a competitive environment is a choice, nothing more. You can see how ecosystems live in harmony and cooperatively.

Either way, thing is we DON'T have to follow nature's law, whatever it may be, we can create and live in any way we choose to. If we want to live killing one another, then we could create a whole system that allows that to happen, and we can also create a world where we help one another and choose to cooperate. We can be whatever we want to be, and live the way we choose to, no law has been imposed on us.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Honcho

We humans SHOULD live our lives cooperatively. We have the technology, intelligence, logistics, and manpower to make sure every human being on this planet can live their lives without worrying about our collective survival, ever. We could easily make sure everyone has a warm meal, a roof over their heads, proper medical care, clean drinking water, and so on as soon as tomorrow. Yet we're not doing that. And I think it's utterly ridiculous. We humans have the capability of being the saviors and caretakers of this planet. Instead, all we do is take advantage of each other and destroy our planet in the name of profit and greed. It just goes to show humans are still stuck inside of their old primal default settings of survival. The name of the game is acquisition and consumption. Those who have the most, produce the most, and consume the most have the better chance of long term survival, it's as simple as that.



This.

That's exactly how I feel about the world.


You know what I'm always telling people, imagine if aliens came to earth, and they saw us, what would they think of us. We could talk to them and tell them, how we build submarines and explored the depths of sea, how we managed to land on the moon, how cool our 3D TV's are, how we are constantly sending satellites and probes into outer space, how much we nkow of physics, how much we know of biology, we could show them our biggest hospitals, and our most advanced labs.
But what would they make of us, when they ask us, "Wow, that's pretty neat, but how come there's people who don't have anything to eat? how come people are dying from diseases, you have already found a cure for? what about land, you have the whole planet, and people have to work 40 years to pay for a house(the lucky ones)?"

That's exactly what's wrong with the world, we managed to create super tasty treats, and have all kind of foods, but there's people who aren't even getting water, or plain bread. How advanced are we? what have we done with our time on this planet? We have achieved nothing really.
As you said, it's utter ridiculous to think how we could solve all of this by tomorrow, maybe sooner, but we just don't care.




top topics



 
20
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join